[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 52 (Tuesday, March 21, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H3352-H3398]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY ACT OF 1995

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 117 and rule 
XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 4.

                              {time}  1604


                     in the committee of the whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 4) to restore the American family, reduce illegitimacy, control 
welfare spending, and reduce welfare dependence, with Mr. Linder in the 
chair.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having 
been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer] and the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Gibbons] will each be recognized for 1 
hour; the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling], the gentleman 
from Missouri [Mr. Clay], the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Roberts], and 
the gentleman from Texas [Mr. de la Garza] will each be recognized for 
45 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer].
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the Republican welfare revolution is at hand. Today 
begins the demise of the failed welfare state that has entrapped the 
Nation's needy for too long. Today we begin to replace that disaster in 
social engineering with a reform plan that brings hope to the poor of 
this Nation and relief to the Nation's taxpayers. Working Americans who 
carry the load will get relief.
  Government has spent $5.3 trillion on welfare since the war on 
poverty began, the most expensive war in the history of this country, 
and the Census Bureau tells us we have lost the war. The bill we bring 
to the floor today constitutes the broadest overhaul of welfare ever 
proposed. The status quo welfare state is unacceptable.
  Today we have the chance to move beyond the rhetoric of previous 
years of endless campaign promises to end welfare as we know it. Today 
there must be no doubt. The rhetoric is stopping, the solution is 
beginning.
  Our bill is constructed on three principles which strike at the very 
foundations of the Nation's failed welfare state. The three principles 
are personal responsibility, work, and returning power over welfare to 
our States and communities where the needy can be helped the most in 
the most efficient way.
  The first and most fundamental principle captured by the title of our 
bill is personal responsibility, the character trait that build this 
country.
  The current welfare system destroys families and undermines the work 
ethic. It traps people in a hopeless cycle of dependency. Our bill 
replaces this destructive welfare system with a new system based on 
work and strong families.
  Virtually every section of the bill requires more personal 
responsibility. Recipients are required to work for their benefits. 
Drug addicts and alcoholics are no longer rewarded with cash payments 
that are often spent on their habit. Aliens who were allowed into the 
country because they promised to be self-supporting are held to their 
promise; fathers who do not live with their children are expected to 
pay child support or suffer severe consequences; and welfare can no 
longer be a way of life. After 5 years no more cash benefits will be 
provided.
  This bill will reverse the decades-long Federal policy of rewarding 
unacceptable and self-destructive behavior. We will no longer reward 
for doing the wrong thing.
  The second underlying principle of our bill flows naturally from the 
first. Able-bodied adults on welfare must work for their benefits. Here 
it appears that the Democrats have surrendered completely to Republican 
philosophy. On work we are all Republicans now, but it was not always 
so.
  During the welfare debate of 1987 and 1988, Democrats perpetuated a 
system in which able-bodied adults could stay on welfare year after 
year after year without doing anything. Now the Clinton administration 
and Democrats in the House are finally claiming they want mandatory 
work too, but the substitutes they will offer later do not require 
serious work.
  That is not surprising. Conflict among Democrats on the basic issue 
of work was one of the reasons they did nothing on welfare reform in 
the last Congress. Another was the fact that it took the President 
almost 2 years to write a welfare bill, which he then let die without 
so much as a minute of debate in the House or the Senate.
  If the Democrats were serious about welfare reform, they would have 
taken action last year when they had the chance. To the Democrats, 
welfare reform is not a policy objective, it is a political platform. 
It is an empty promise, it is a campaign device that is put on hold 
once they get elected.
  House Republicans signed a Contract With America that promised we 
would provide a vote on the House floor on true welfare reform, and we 
are now fulfilling that promise within less than 80 days. We are proud 
to move forward to change America's failed welfare system.
  The third principle which forms the foundation of our bill is our 
commitment to shrink the Federal Government by returning power and 
flexibility to the States and communities where the needy can be helped 
the most. My own mayor in Houston, TX, a Democrat, talked to me several 
weeks ago and said you can cut the amount of Federal money coming to 
Houston by 25 percent, but give me the flexibility without the Federal 
regulations and I will do more with 25 percent less.
  Some say, however, that only those in their ivory
   towers in Washington care enough to help the needy and aid the poor; 
the only caring people in all of government throughout the United 
States are only here right in Washington. That is what they say. They 
say you cannot trust the States. These people seem to think that the 
Governors are still standing in the schoolhouse doors not letting 
people in. But rather it is the Democrats in Washington who are 
standing in the doors of our Nation's ghettos and not letting people 
out.

  The current regulatory morass is shown on the chart standing next to 
me. It shows that the welfare system Republicans inherited consists of 
at least 336 programs in 8 domains of welfare policy. The Federal 
Government expects to spend $125 billion on these programs this year. 
Here it is, proof of the ridiculous tangle of overlapping bureaucratic 
programs that have been thrust upon the Nation since the beginning of 
the war on poverty, and the worst part is that the American taxpayers, 
working Americans are paying the bill.
  But these 336 programs are only the tip of the iceberg. Imagine how 
many regulations had to be written to implement these 336 programs. 
Just let me show you. These are the regulations from just 2 of the 336 
programs. They are standing right next to me here on the desk. They 
weigh 62.4 pounds. I guess I could probably lift them, but it would be 
easier with a fork truck.
  I can think of no more fitting symbol of the failed welfare state 
than these pounds of Federal regulations. It is time to remove the 
Federal middleman from the welfare system. We can cut these unnecessary 
regulations, eliminate Federal bureaucrats and give our States and 
communities the freedom they need to help their fellow citizens. Our 
bill will end 40 of the biggest and fastest growing programs and 
replace them with 5 block grants. By ending counterproductive 
overlapping and redundant programs, we will win half of the battle. We 
are proud, though, that we have hit upon a much better approach to 
helping the poor than this top-heavy Federal system.
  Our new approach recognizes that the action on welfare reform today 
is in the States already. While Washington twiddled its thumbs for the 
last several years, States all over the country were engaging in actual 
welfare reform.
  The laboratories of democracy are in the States, not Washington, DC. 
Block grants will bring the decisions closer to the people affected by 
them, they will give Governors more responsibility and 
[[Page H3353]] resources to design and run their own programs.

                              {time}  1615

  And once we have given the State this flexibility and eliminated the 
need for them to beg Washington for permission to operate outside the 
stack of rules in that pile on the desk, the reforms they have 
implemented thus far will be dramatically expanded and spread to every 
State.
  Mr. Chairman, welfare today has left a sad mark on the American 
success story. It has created a world in which children have no dreams 
for tomorrow and grownups have abandoned their hopes for today.
  The time has come to replace this failed system with a new system 
that uplifts our Nation's poor, a new system that turns the social 
safety net from a trap into a trampoline, a new system that rewards 
work, personal responsibility in families, a new system that lifts a 
load off of working, tax-paying Americans. It represents a historic 
shift long overdue.
  Mr. Chairman, I submit the following correspondence for the Record.
                                  Committee on Ways and Means,

                                   Washington, DC, March 21, 1995.
     Hon. William F. Goodling,
     Chairman, Committee on Economic and Educational 
         Opportunities, Rayburn House Office Building, House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Goodling: I am writing to congratulate you 
     for your leadership in bringing H.R. 4, the Personal 
     Responsibility Act, to the floor for a historic vote this 
     week. This achievement could not have occurred without the 
     close working relationships developed between the Members and 
     staffs of our two committees. Thank you for the outstanding 
     cooperation we have enjoyed in developing this landmark 
     legislation.
       I would also like to clarify certain jurisdictional issues 
     surrounding this unprecedented effort, and to acknowledge 
     your recent correspondence. On March 8, the Committee on Ways 
     and Means favorably reported H.R. 1157 as its portion of 
     welfare reform legislation. The Committee on Economic and 
     Educational Opportunities favorably reported H.R. 999 on 
     February 23. A leadership working group then combined these 
     provisions, along with those of the Committee on Agriculture 
     and others interested in welfare reform, into H.R. 1214. The 
     text of H.R. 1214 will be considered as the base text for 
     floor consideration of H.R. 4.
       As you know, Republicans have been working diligently to 
     combine social programs with similar or identical purposes 
     into block grants. The procedure has been to identify all the 
     programs with a similar purpose, end the spending authority 
     for all but one of the programs with a similar purpose, and 
     fund the resulting block grant at roughly the level of 
     funding for all the constituent programs combined. 
     Unfortunately, this common sense approach is not easily 
     accomplished within the existing committee structure.
       I want to thank you for agreeing to have the Committee on 
     Ways and Means consolidate certain child protection 
     provisions into a Child Protection Block Grant in Title II of 
     H.R. 1157. In addition, H.R. 1157 contains provisions 
     authorizing the transfer of funds from the temporary 
     assistance block grant to food and nutrition programs and the 
     child care block grant. It also contains a technical 
     correction to ERISA Title I, concerning child support 
     enforcement. Thank you for not objecting to the inclusion of 
     this provision, and for bringing an additional technical 
     correction to my attention. I understand that in order to 
     expedite Floor consideration of this legislation, your 
     Committee will not be marking up H.R. 1157.
       Similarly, H.R. 999, as reported by the Committee on 
     Economic and Educational Opportunities, contains provisions 
     that fall within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways 
     and Means. Specifically, H.R. 999 ends the at-risk child care 
     and the AFDC and Transitional child care programs for 
     consolidation into a Child Care Block Grant. H.R. 999 
     includes mandatory work requirements relating to the JOBS 
     program. These provisions were later harmonized with similar 
     provisions from H.R. 1157 in the leadership bill, H.R. 1214. 
     H.R. 999 also includes provisions authorizing the transfer of 
     child care and family and school nutrition block grant funds 
     to the temporary assistance, child protection, and Title XX 
     block grants.
       Because of our prior consultations and to expedite 
     consideration of this legislation on the Floor, the Committee 
     on Ways and Means will not mark up H.R. 999. However, the 
     forbearance in this case should not be considered as a 
     permanent waiver of this Committee's jursidcition over these 
     provisions, and it should not preclude the Committee from 
     legislating in this area in the future should the need arise.
       Thank you again for your leadership and cooperation on this 
     landmark legislation. With warm regards,
           Sincerely,
                                                      Bill Archer,
     Chairman.
                                                                    ____

                                             Committee on Economic


                                and Educational Opportunities,

                                   Washington, DC, March 17, 1995.
     Hon. Bill Archer,
     Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means, Longworth House Office 
         Building, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: This is to alert you to a provision in 
     H.R. 1214, the Personal Responsibility Act of 1995, as 
     reported by the Committee on Ways and Means which is in need 
     of correction and involves an amendment to Title I of ERISA.
       As contained in section 711 of the bill, subtitle H--
     Medical Support, the provision in question amends section 609 
     of Title I of ERISA to add a judgement, decree, or order 
     issued by an ``administrative adjudication'' to the criteria 
     required for such an order to be considered a ``qualified 
     medical child support order.''
       The term ``administrative adjudication'' is not defined in 
     the bill or under current law. However, the intent appears to 
     be to expand the definition to encompass orders issued 
     through an administrative process established under state 
     law.
       Although our committee has no objection at this time to the 
     inclusion in H.R. 1214 of this amendment to ERISA Title I, 
     over which the Committee on Economic and Educational 
     Opportunities has exclusive jurisdiction, it is our opinion 
     that the technical flaw should be corrected before the bill 
     is considered in the House. In this regard, I have referred 
     the following technical correction to the House Legislative 
     Counsel for inclusion in the final bill--ERISA section 609 
     (a)(2)(B)(ii)(II), as added by section 771(q)(3) of H.R. 
     1214, should be amended to read ``(II) is issued through an 
     administrative process established under state law and has 
     the force and effect of law under applicable state law.''
       This is also to inform you that the Committee on Economic 
     and Educational Opportunities will request that its members 
     be appointed as the exclusive conferees on section 771, 
     inasmuch as there are other technical changes to ERISA 
     section 609 that will be necessary to remove current 
     ambiguities to this section of ERISA Title I over which our 
     Committee's exclusive jurisdiction has never been disputed.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Bill Goodling,
     Chairman.
                                                                    ____

                                  Committee on Ways and Means,

                                   Washington, DC, March 21, 1995.
     Hon. Floyd D. Spence,
     Chairman, Committee on National Security, Rayburn House 
         Office Building, U.S. House of Representatives, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Spence: Thank you for writing me regarding 
     committee consideration of H.R. 4, the Personal 
     Responsibility Act. In response to your letter, I would like 
     to clarify certain jurisdictional issues surrounding this 
     unprecedented effort.
       On March 8, the Committee on Ways and Means favorably 
     reported H.R. 1157 as its portion of welfare reform 
     legislation. The Committee on Economic and Educational 
     Opportunities favorably reported H.R. 999 on February 23. A 
     leadership working group then combined these provisions, 
     along with those of the Committee on Agriculture and others 
     interested in welfare reform, into H.R. 1214. The text of 
     H.R. 1214 will be considered as the base text for floor 
     consideration of H.R. 4.
       As you noted, during its consideration of the child support 
     enforcement title of H.R. 1157, the Committee on Ways and 
     Means included a provision dealing with enforcement of the 
     child support obligations of members of the Armed Forces 
     falling within the jurisdiction of the Committee on National 
     Security. I want to thank you for waiving your committee's 
     jurisdictional prerogatives in this instance to expedite 
     Floor consideration of this legislation, and I understand 
     that you are reserving your Committee's jurisdictional 
     prerogatives for future consideration of this provision.
       Thank you again for your leadership and cooperation on this 
     landmark legislation. With warm regards,
           Sincerely,
                                                      Bill Archer,
     Chairman.
                                                                    ____

                               Committee on National Security,

                                   Washington, DC, March 13, 1995.
     Hon. Bill Archer,
     Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: The Committee on Ways and Means has 
     recently ordered reported H.R. 4, a bill that would reform 
     the welfare system. During markup of the legislation, the 
     committee adopted a provision dealing with the enforcement of 
     child support obligations of members of the armed forces. 
     This provision falls within the legislative jurisdiction of 
     the Committee on National Security pursuant to House Rule 
     X(k).
       In recognition of your committee's desire to bring this 
     legislation expeditiously before the House of 
     Representatives, and with the understanding that a clause in 
     the above described provision to which this committee objects 
     has been removed from the bill, the Committee on National 
     Security will not seek a sequential referral of H.R. 4. This 
     forbearance should not, of course, be construed as a waiver 
     of this committee's jurisdiction over the provision in 
     question. This committee will seek the appointment of 
     conferees with respect to this provision during any House-
     Senate conference.
       I would appreciate your including this letter as a part of 
     the report on H.R. 4 and as part of the record during 
     consideration of the bill by the House.
       [[Page H3354]] With warm personal regards, I am
           Sincerely,
                                                  Floyd D. Spence,
     Chairman.
                                                                    ____



                                  Committee on Ways and Means,

                                   Washington, DC, March 21, 1995.
     Hon. Thomas J. Bliley, Jr.,
     Chairman, Committee on Commerce, Rayburn House Office 
         Building, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Bliley: Thank you for sharing with me your 
     recent correspondence with the Speaker regarding committee 
     consideration of H.R. 4, the Personal Responsibility Act. In 
     response to your letter, I would like to clarify certain 
     jurisdictional issues surrounding this unprecedented effort.
       On March 8, the Committee on Ways and Means favorably 
     reported H.R. 1157 as its portion of welfare reform 
     legislation. The Committee on Economic and Educational 
     Opportunities favorably reported H.R. 999 on February 23. A 
     leadership working group then combined these provisions, 
     along with those of the Committee on Agriculture and others 
     interested in welfare reform, into H.R. 1214. The text of 
     H.R. 1214 will be considered as the base text for floor 
     consideration of H.R. 4.
       As you noted, during its consideration of H.R. 1157, the 
     Committee on Ways and Means included provisions dealing with 
     the Medicaid program. I want to thank you for waiving your 
     Committee's jurisdictional prerogatives in this instance to 
     expedite Floor consideration of this legislation, and I 
     understand you are reserving your Committee's jurisdictional 
     prerogatives for future consideration of these provisions.
       Thank you again for your leadership and cooperation on this 
     landmark legislation. With warm regards,
           Sincerely,
                                                      Bill Archer,
     Chairman.
                                                                    ____

                                        Committee on Commerce,

                                   Washington, DC, March 15, 1995.
     Hon. Newt Gingrich,
     Speaker, U.S. House of Representatives, The Capitol, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Speaker: I am writing for two purposes: first, to 
     indicate that, in order to expedite Floor consideration, the 
     Committee on Commerce will waive its right to mark up both 
     H.R. 4, the Personal Responsibility Act, and H.R. 1214, the 
     Personal Responsibility Act; and second, to indicate the 
     Committee's interest in preserving its jurisdictional 
     prerogatives with respect to a House-Senate conference on 
     either of these two bills and any Senate amendments thereto.
       H.R. 4, the Personal Responsibility Act of 1995, was 
     introduced on January 4, 1995, and referred, by title, to the 
     Committee on Ways and Means, the Committee on Agriculture, 
     and the Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities, 
     as well as to other Committees. The Committee on Commerce 
     received an additional referral on two of the eight titles: 
     Title IV, Restricting Welfare to Aliens, and Title VIII, 
     Effective Date. Within the Committee, the bill was referred 
     to the Subcommittee on Health and Environment and the 
     Subcommittee on Energy and Power for those provisions which 
     fell within their respective jurisdictions.
       H.R. 1214 was introduced in the House on March 13, 1995, 
     and represents a consensus bill developed by the three 
     Committees with primary jurisdiction for consideration on the 
     House Floor in lieu of H.R. 4. In addition to the three 
     primary Committees, H.R. 1214 was also referred to the 
     Committees on Commerce, the Judiciary, National Security, and 
     Government Reform and Oversight, in each case for 
     consideration of those provisions as fall within the 
     jurisdiction of the Committee concerned.
       Staff of the Commerce Committee has carefully reviewed both 
     the text of H.R. 4 and H.R. 1214 and has worked with the 
     staff of the Committee on Ways and Means in drafting language 
     contained in H.R. 1214 as it relates to provisions within 
     this Committee's jurisdiction. Specifically, the following 
     provisions of H.R. 1214 have been identified as falling 
     squarely within the Commerce Committee's jurisdiction:


                                title i

       Section 106: Continued Application of Current Standards 
     under Medicaid Program


                                title ii

       Section 203: Continued Application of Current Standards 
     under Medicaid Program


                                title iv

       Section 401: Ineligibility of Illegal Aliens for Certain 
     Public Benefits Programs
       Section 401(a): In general: Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, any alien who is not lawfully present in 
     the U.S. shall not be eligible for any Federal means-tested 
     public benefits program.
       Section 401(b): Exception for Emergency Assistance
       Section 402: Ineligibility of Nonimmigrants for Certain 
     Public Benefits Programs
       Section 402(a): Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     any alien who is lawfully present in the United States as a 
     nonimmigrant shall not be eligible for any Federal means-
     tested public benefits program.
       Section 402(b): Emergency Assistance--emergency medical 
     care
       Section 403: Limited Eligibility of Immigrants of 5 
     Specified Federal Public Benefits Programs
       Section 403(a)(4): Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, any alien who is legally present in the U.S. shall not 
     be eligible for Medicaid.
       Section 403(b)(4): Exceptions (Emergency Assistance, 
     including emergency medical care)
       Section 403(b)(5): Transition for Current Beneficiaries
       Section 431: Definitions


                                title vi

       Section 601(d): Funding of Certain Programs for Drug 
     Addicts and Alcoholics
       Section 602(b): Establishment of Program of Block Grants 
     Regarding Children With Disabilities
       Section 1645(b)(2): Medicaid Program: For purposes of title 
     XIX, each qualifying child shall be considered to be a 
     recipient of supplemental security income benefits under this 
     title
       Section 602(c): Provisions Relating to SSI Cash Benefits 
     and SSI Service Benefits
       ``Treatment of Certain Assets and Trusts in Eligibility 
     Determinations for Children''
       Section 602(e): Temporary Eligibility For Cash Benefits For 
     Poor Disabled Children Residing in States Applying 
     Alternative Income Eligibility Standards Under Medicaid


                               Title VII

       Section 701(a)(1): State Obligation to Provide Child 
     Support Enforcement Services
       Section 702(b): Definition of Federal Medical Assistance 
     Percentage
       H.R. 4 and H.R. 1214 are an essential component of the 
     House Republican Contract with America. The Members of the 
     Commerce Committee have no desire to delay the House's 
     consideration of this important measure. Therefore, at this 
     time, I am waiving this Committee's right to take up both 
     H.R. 4 and H.R. 1214. I wish to make clear that by waiving 
     its opportunity to mark up these bills, the Committee does 
     not in any way prejudice the Commerce Committee's 
     jurisdiction with respect to H.R. 4 or H.R. 1214 or to any of 
     the legislative issues addressed therein in the future. In 
     addition, the Committee respectfully requests that if H.R. 4 
     or H.R. 1214 or any amendments thereto should be the subject 
     of a House-Senate conference, the Commerce Committee shall 
     receive an equal number of conferees as those appointed for 
     any other House Committee with respect to the provisions 
     contained in H.R. 4 or H.R. 1214, and any Senate amendments 
     thereto, which fall within this Committee's jurisdiction.
           Sincerely,
                                            Thomas J. Bliley, Jr.,
     Chairman.
                                                                    ____

                                  Committee on Ways and Means,

                                   Washington, DC, March 21, 1995.
     Hon. Henry J. Hyde,
     Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, Rayburn House Office 
         Building, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Hyde: I am writing to congratulate you for 
     your leadership in bringing H.R. 4, the Personal 
     Responsibility Act, to the floor for a historic vote this 
     week. I would also like to clarify certain jurisdictional 
     issues surrounding this unprecedented effort.
       On March 8, the Committee on Ways and Means favorably 
     reported H.R. 1157 as its portion of welfare reform 
     legislation. The Committee on Economic and Educational 
     Opportunities favorably reported H.R. 999 on February 23. A 
     leadership working group then combined these provisions, 
     along with those of the Committee on Agriculture and others 
     interested in welfare reform, into H.R. 1214. The text of 
     H.R. 1214 will be considered as the base text for floor 
     consideration of H.R. 4.
       As you know, Republicans have been working diligently to 
     combine social programs with similar or identical purposes 
     into block grants. The procedure has been to identify all the 
     programs with a similar purpose, end the spending authority 
     for all but one of the programs, and fund the resulting block 
     grant at roughly the level of funding for all the constituent 
     programs combined. Unfortunately, this common sense approach 
     is not easily accomplished within the existing committee 
     structure.
       I want to thank you for agreeing to have the Committee on 
     Ways and Means to consolidate certain child protection 
     programs under your Committee's jurisdiction into the Child 
     Protection Block Grant in Title III of H.R. 1157. I 
     understand that in order to expedite Floor consideration of 
     this legislation, your Committee will not be marking up this 
     legislation. Specifically, H.R. 1157 consolidates the missing 
     and exploited children program, grants to improve the 
     investigation and prosecution of child abuse cases, and the 
     children's advocacy centers program. In addition, you 
     requested that the Committee include in H.R. 1157 provisions 
     concerning welfare and immigration, and the treatment of 
     aliens.
       Thank you again for your leadership and cooperation on this 
     landmark legislation. With warm regards,
           Sincerely,
                                                      Bill Archer,
     Chairman.
                                                                    ____

                                  Committee on Ways and Means,

                                   Washington, DC, March 21, 1995.
     Hon. James A. Leach,
     Chairman, Committee on Banking, Rayburn House Office 
         Building, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Leach: I am writing to congratulate you for 
     your leadership in bringing H.R. 4, the Personal 
     Responsibility Act, to the floor for a historic vote this 
     [[Page H3355]] week. I would also like to clarify certain 
     jurisdictional issues surrounding this unprecedented effort.
       On March 8, the Committee on Ways and Means favorably 
     reported H.R. 1157 as its portion of welfare reform 
     legislation. The Committee on Economic and Educational 
     Opportunities favorably reported H.R. 999 on February 23. A 
     leadership working group then combined these provisions, 
     along with those of the Agriculture Committee and others 
     interested in welfare reform, into H.R. 1214. The text of 
     H.R. 1214 will be considered as the base text for floor 
     consideration of H.R. 4.
       As you know, Republicans have been working diligently to 
     combine social programs with similar or identical purposes 
     into block grants. The procedure has been to identify all the 
     programs with a similar purpose, end the spending authority 
     for all but one of the programs, and fund the resulting block 
     grant at roughly the level of funding for all the constituent 
     programs combined. Unfortunately, this common sense approach 
     is not easily accomplished within the existing committee 
     structure.
       I want to thank you for agreeing to have the Committee on 
     Ways and Means consolidate the Family Unification Program 
     under your Committee's jurisdiction into the Child Protection 
     Block Grant in Title II of H.R. 1157. I understand that in 
     order to expedite Floor consideration of this legislation, 
     your Committee will not be marking up this legislation.
       Thank you again for your leadership and cooperation on this 
     landmark legislation. With warm regards,
           Sincerely,
                                                      Bill Archer,
     Chairman.
                                                                    ____

                                  Committee on Ways and Means,

                                   Washington, DC, March 21, 1995.
     Hon. William F. Clinger, Jr.,
     Chairman, Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, 
         Rayburn House Office Building, House of Representatives, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Clinger: I am writing to thank you for your 
     assistance in bringing H.R. 4, the Personal Responsibility 
     Act, to the floor for a historic vote this week. I would also 
     like to clarify certain jurisdictional issues surrounding 
     this unprecedented effort.
       On March 8, the Committee on Ways and Means favorably 
     reported H.R. 1157 as its portion of welfare reform 
     legislation. The Committee on Economics and Educational 
     Opportunities favorably reported H.R. 999 on February 23. A 
     leadership working group then combined these provisions, 
     along with those of the Committee on Agriculture and others 
     interested in welfare reform, into H.R. 1214. The text of 
     H.R. 1214 will be considered as the base text for floor 
     consideration of H.R. 4.
       During its consideration of the child support enforcement 
     title of H.R. 1157, the Committee on Ways and Means included 
     a provision dealing with enforcement of the child support 
     obligations of members of federal employees falling within 
     the jurisdiction of the Committee on Government Reform and 
     Oversight. I understand that in order to expedite Floor 
     consideration of this legislation, your Committee will not be 
     marking up this legislation.
       Thank you again for your leadership and cooperation on this 
     landmark legislation. With warm regards,
           Sincerely,
                                                      Bill Archer,
                                                         Chairman.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from 
Tennessee [Mr. Ford], the ranking Democrat on the Welfare Subcommittee 
of the Committee on Ways and Means.
  (Mr. FORD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. FORD. Mr. Chairman, we have now brought the welfare reform bill 
to the House floor, which is the Personal Responsibility Act.
  Mr. Chairman, as we go through this bill over the next 5 hours 
tonight and as we take amendments on this bill tomorrow and maybe 
Thursday, we, as Democrats want to point out to the American people 
that what the Republicans have brought to this House floor is a bill 
that is weak on work requirements. The Republican bill does not put 
work first, and the Democrats, we have said all along, if we are going 
to reform the welfare system in this Nation, is that we must make sure 
that those who are able to work should go to work and that the State 
and the Federal Government should participate in making sure that we 
link welfare to work.
  When we look at the Republican bill, there is no requirement that any 
AFDC recipient actually go to work. States can fulfill there work 
requirements by cutting people off the welfare rolls. They can meet 
that 50-percent requirement by the year 2003, yes, you just roll them 
off, no work requirements for the first 2 years.
  Democrats are saying what we want is a self-sufficiency plan. The day 
that you enter the welfare office is that you will have to sign up in a 
self-sufficiency plan which means that the States would have a 
responsibility. We would also fund the States to make sure that they 
would have the moneys necessary to do just that. For the first 2 years, 
as I have said, under the Republican bill recipients need not work. 
There is no work requirement that would say to the States, ``You must 
place someone in the work force,'' and after 2 years under the 
Republican plan, the State only has to obtain 4-percent work 
participation; after the 2 years, only a 4-percent work participation.
  The Democrats think that Republicans ought to come together and let 
us pass a bill that would say to the able-bodied men and women on 
welfare that, ``You must work, and we are going to assist you in 
placing you in the work force.''
  And when you look at the Republicans, they have no commitment to move 
people from welfare to work. They only move you off of welfare, and 
they will place the problem and the burden on the cities and counties 
and neighborhoods throughout America. No resources are provided under 
the Republican plan to help States provide education, training, and 
there is no child care under this bill.
  Democrats offered amendments in the subcommittee and the full 
committee to say to those mothers who want to go to work that we 
guarantee a minimum child care component in the welfare reform package. 
Democrats, once again, we put people first through a self-sufficiency 
plan that will place them in the work force.
  The self-sufficiency plan would put people to work immediately, and 
those recipients would be able to go to work, and if they needed 
education, training, and child care, the Democrats wanted to provide 
that. Democrats put work first, because we do not use caseload 
reduction to fulfill the work requirement.
  And like I said earlier, Democrats want to include the private 
sector, to make sure that the private sector can help us create some of 
the jobs that will be needed in order to put people to work.
  And let us go on a little further than that. Child support 
enforcement, it was the Democrats who insisted upon the Republicans 
bringing this provision of this title to the bill to the House floor. 
We are proud of the fact that you did included 90 percent of what the 
Democrats wanted, but the other 10 percent is what the children of this 
Nation are in need of.
  Why not put the drivers's license, attach them to make it possible to 
hold up those licenses or to make sure that when you get a ticket, in 
one State and you do not pay it, is that your license will be revoked 
until that ticket is paid? We are saying the professional license, why 
not, in the child support enforcement bill.
  I commend you, I say to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Shaw] and the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer], for bringing the title to this bill 
that will address child support enforcement, but, you know, and we know 
as Democrats, that you did not go far enough.
  Or when we look at how you want to punish children. I mean, why take 
infant kids, why should we take innocent kids, infant kids to say that 
because of the behavior of your parents you will be penalized? Why 
would we say to kids who are born to welfare families in America that 
we are going to penalize kids?
  The rhetoric that the Republicans have given us in saying that we 
need to change welfare, we would agree with that, but there is no need 
of us saying that we will not link welfare to work and make work first 
in priority in a welfare package. Democrats want a welfare reform bill, 
but we want a bill that will send people to work, hopefully in the 
private sector.
  We want to make sure that the day you enter into the welfare office 
that you sign up with a plan, and that will be a self-sufficiency plan 
that will put you to work, keep you in the work force, and for you to 
provide for your children and not be mean to children, I mean, just 
plain mean to children, like 
[[Page H3356]] this Personal Responsibility Act that is before this 
House today.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, today we begin taking the final steps to revolutionize 
welfare. We are keeping our pledge to the American people to replace 
the current failed system with one that encourages personal 
responsibility, family unity, and work.
  Under our proposal dozens of programs are merged into block grants to 
provide States flexibility in meeting the cash welfare, child 
protection, child care, and nutrition needs of their residents. 
Overnight, States would have real incentives to get welfare recipients 
into work. States that are successful can save for recessions, expand 
child care, or invest in more job training. Individuals would have to 
work to keep cash welfare, food stamps and other benefits.
  Working families will stop seeing Federal tax dollars subsidize 
behavior they know is destructive: Unmarried children will not receive 
welfare checks and an apartment if they have a baby; families already 
on welfare will not get added payments for having more children they 
cannot support; and aliens will no longer be eligible for several 
welfare benefits. Welfare will be transformed into temporary help, not 
a way of life.
  Supplemental Security Income benefits are reformed to protect 
taxpayers and target help to the truly disabled. Drug addicts and 
alcoholics will no longer receive monthly disability checks because of 
their addiction. And by refocusing SSI children's benefits, we provide 
more help to severely disabled children while protecting taxpayers 
against fraud and abuse.
  Child support enforcement is strengthened to achieve better 
coordination between States, surer tracking of delinquent parents, and 
more efficient collection of support. All agree that holding absent 
fathers accountable is critical to any real welfare reform, and our 
proposal does just that.
  Under our proposal families on welfare are expected to work, just as 
taxpaying families must work to support themselves. So after a maximum 
of 2 years on welfare, and less if States choose, families must work or 
lose their welfare checks. After 5 years of cash welfare, families must 
become free of government dependence, period.
  Despite these unprecedented changes, Democrats, who won the White 
House pledging to reform welfare and then did nothing for 2 years, are 
charging that Republicans are soft on work. This charge is simply 
incorrect, for numerous reasons.
  Under the Democrat substitute offered by Congressman Deal, States are 
required to provide 2 years of education and training, not work, for 
all recipients. So States like Massachusetts that want to get welfare 
recipients into work after 2 months, not 2 years, would be barred from 
doing so. As a result, the Deal substitute would prolong, not shorten, 
families time on welfare.
  Further, under the Deal substitute, simply searching for a job 
satisfies the supposed requirement that people on welfare work first.
  Finally, because the Deal substitute allows States to count everyone 
who leaves welfare as meeting the work requirement,
 the number of people required to work by the bill is actually lowered 
by 500,000 per month. Even if a State somehow found a way to fail to 
meet this so-called requirement, no penalty would result.

  Whether these and other flaws in the Deal substitute are due to 
drafting errors, oversights, or intentional omissions, the effect is 
the same: the Deal substitute offers too little, too late on requiring 
work for those on welfare. This debate will bring that into focus for 
many of my colleagues who I know want to support real welfare reforms. 
Unfortunately, especially on work, the Deal substitute is right on 
rhetoric but wrong on substance.
  It's not hard to see which bill provides real welfare reform--the 
Personal Responsibility Act. Our plan is nothing short of a revolution 
in social policy that replaces the current failed welfare system with 
one that will better meet the needs of the poor and get millions into 
work and off welfare. That is the only way to solve the welfare mess, 
and we are here to deliver on our promise to do just that.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Levin], a member of the welfare subcommittee, the Human 
Resources Subcommittee of the Committee on Ways and Means.
  (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, you know, as I listened to the majority, 
this is, I think, very clear, Americans, the American people, want 
firmness. They do not want harshness. And you come across as harsh, 
harshly partisan, and also harsh on people and soft on work.
  And let me explain why you are soft on work. It is very simple. The 
structure of this bill and other bills requires States to meet 
participation rights. It is a certain percent the first year, a certain 
percent the second year, et cetera into the next century.
  Under the Republican bill, the States do not have to put a single 
person to work to meet participation requirements, not a single person. 
That is just the truth.
  On page 22 of the bill it says that in plain English. And why does it 
say that? Because the majority bill does not provide any money to the 
States to help them put people on welfare to work. It was in your bill 
of a year ago. What happened to it?
  You want to save money, I guess, for tax cuts for a privileged few 
instead of helping people get off of welfare into work. That is why you 
come across as soft on work, because you are, and that is why you come 
across as harsh, because you are. Firmness, yes; harshness, no.
  And a rainy day fund? The Republican Governors themselves said $1 
billion over 5 years is not enough to provide in cases of recession, in 
cases of inflation, and you just look the other way.
  Now, why tough on kids? Look, we have done a lot of work on SSI. 
There is abuse in this program for kids. Some families are gaming the 
system, but most of these families are handicapped kids, parents 
struggling to provide a decent life for their handicapped children, and 
SSI says what you do to them; 21 percent would still qualify under the 
present program.
                              {time}  1630

  And the rest of them would be at the mercy of a State bureaucracy or 
off the rolls altogether. Those are the facts. You are going to 
eliminate from the rolls 700,000 kids by the year 2000.
  Now, look, there is abuse, let us make that clear; but you are 
abusive in getting at abuse, you are harsh. You use a meat ax against 
handicapped children and their parents. And they say they do not want a 
bureaucracy, State or Federal, telling them what to do. They will 
account for the money, but they know best for their kids.
  You turn your back on kids, you are soft on work, and that is why 
your bill is not worthy of passage.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to a member of the 
committee, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Camp].
  (Mr. CAMP asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Florida for 
yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, we stand here today at the threshold of righting a 
wrong. We have the opportunity to reverse an injustice that has plagued 
this country for decades. We can, and will, fix a broker welfare system 
that has literally trapped generations of Americans in a cycle of 
dependency from which there is little chance of escape.
  We must not let this opportunity pass.
  The Committee on Ways and Means took testimony from 170 witnesses. No 
one defended the status quo.
  So we know the current system is broken, but what's wrong with it?
  First, it discourages work. Second, it fosters out-of-wedlock births. 
Third, it is anti-family. And fourth, by the Federal Government 
deciding on a one size fits all welfare system for everyone from Los 
Angeles to Boston, it is anticommunity.
  In our welfare reform package, we not only encourage work. We demand 
it from able-bodied people. Those who can work will work.
  [[Page H3357]] Unlike the Democrats whose answer to work is temporary 
subsidized employment we give people the dignity of work.
  Our package fights illegitimacy by not giving cash benefits to 
children having children. And let me preempt those who try to paint us 
as cruel or mean: Noncash benefits such as Medicare, Food Stamps and 
child care will continue, to ensure the child is cared for. But giving 
15-year-olds cash payments so they can move out of their parents' home 
and into Government apartments or trailers, is the cruelest thing you 
could do to that young parent and their baby.
  By encouraging independence and concentrating on keeping families 
together, we provide recipients dignity, opportunity, and hope. Three 
characteristics missing from the current system.
  The other side of the aisle hold tight to their belief that Federal 
bureaucrats based here in Washington are somehow more compassionate, 
and more capable of caring for the needy. To hear them tell it, our 
communities, local governments, and Governors will starve the children 
and give the money to the rich. Drop the heated and false rhetoric and 
let go of the status quo.
  Let us bring Government closer to home. The welfare needs in the 
Fourth District of Michigan are different from those in Detroit. Just 
as the needs in New York are different from those in Dallas. Let us 
give these communities the freedom and flexibility to create innovative 
new programs based on their specific needs. By cutting out the Federal 
middle-man, we can save 10 to 15 percent of administrative costs right 
off the bat.
  We're not cutting welfare benefits; and in some cases we are 
increasing them. What we are cutting is bureaucracy and that is driving 
the defenders of big Government and redtape crazy.
  By giving hope and opportunity, we again make welfare a safety net 
and a helping hand, not a life sentence to poverty.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Matsui], a member of the Subcommittee on Human 
Resources of the Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mr. MATSUI. I thank the ranking member for this time.
  You know, it is very interesting. I heard during the debate on the 
rule the gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Castle] say there is really not 
much difference between the different bills we have before us. Second, 
he also said that this is just the first step of the legislative 
process so that any imperfections or flaws could be changed as we move 
along.
  I might just have to make a couple of observations. First of all, 
there is a big difference between what the Democrats are proposing and 
what the Republicans are proposing.
  For example, on the issue of work, the Republican proposal, all they 
do is provide the same amount of resources currently existing in the 
system, they block grant it, send it to the States with very few 
restrictions or very few standards.
  Well, how are you going to get people to work? We all know that in 
order to create jobs, in order to create people in the work force, you 
have to provide job training, you have to provide education, you have 
to provide day care and even transportation, because most of these 
people on welfare do not have cars. So you have to provide them bus 
tokens.
  The Republican bill does not provide any of that.
  Nevertheless they expect within 7 years to get 50 percent of the 
American people on welfare off of welfare to jobs. We know that is not 
going to happen. In fact, the reason the Republicans are making that 
proposal without any additional resources is because in 2 or 3 weeks on 
the floor of the House of Representatives we are going to be debating a 
tax bill. That tax bill will cut taxes by $188 billion over 5 years, or 
$640 billion over 10 years.
  Bear in mind this is not going to go to the middle class. In fact, 
the top 1 percent of the taxpayers in America will get 20 percent of 
that tax cut, and those that make over $100,000 a year will get 58 
percent of that $640 billion tax cut.
  So this is not a program to move people from dependency to 
independence, from welfare to work,; this is a program basically to 
give tax cuts to the very wealthy. We knew they were going to do that 
when they took power on November 8, and they are doing it now. The 
American public should begin to realize that.
  I might just conclude by making one final observation. We have a 
safety net in America. When a child is in an abused family, we put him 
either in foster care or provide adoption services to him. The 
Republicans are going to eliminate that program and block grant it. 
Those standards to the States--and you know the reason we had to do 
this in the first place was, in 1980, 1980, the States were doing such 
a terrible job with these children that we had to take over and set 
forth national standards. In fact, standards--little things, what they 
would call additional paperwork, things like providing medical records 
for the child when the child moves from one foster care family to 
another, or maybe the child's educational records.
  That is what we are really talking about here. That is why this bill 
is mean-spirited and that is why this bill should not pass.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Louisiana [Mr. McCrery], a member of the committee.
  (Mr. McCRERY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding this 
time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Personal Responsibility Act, 
H.R. 4, but I rise particularly, Mr. Chairman, to discuss the portion 
of the bill dealing with SSI disability for children.
  This program has experienced explosive growth over the past few 
years. Since 1989, both the costs of the program and the number of 
children qualifying for the program have tripled. Why? Two things: 
First, this is the most sought after welfare program in America. The 
average monthly cash benefit of about $450 per child per month is the 
most generous cash payment in our welfare system. Second, a Supreme 
Court decision in 1989, the Zebley decision, radically liberalized the 
criteria under which children qualify for the program.
  Besides the wasteful drain of taxpayer dollars, consider the harm 
this Federal program does to too many children. In testimony before a 
Federal commission studying this program, Dr. Bill Payne, a physician 
who oversees disability decisions in Arkansas, said, ``There is no 
doubt in my mind that there are a lot of children that receive 
disability checks who are not really disabled at all.''
  Willie Lee Bell, principal of an elementary school in Lake 
Providence, LA, said students were refusing to perform academically so 
that they could qualify for disability checks. Mr. Bell told of a Lake 
Providence child who, prompted by a mother seeking SSI checks, 
fabricated a story of bizarre behavior so convincing that doctors 
committed him to a mental hospital, fearing that he was a threat to his 
family. A psychologist in another Louisiana Parish, Ray Owens, also 
said that parents were coaching children to do poorly, saying ``The 
children are being doomed to failure.''
   Mr. Chairman, this is an abused program which begs for reform. 
Thankfully, some Democrats have also recognized the need for reform. I 
want to thank Mr. Kleczka and Mrs. Lincoln, particularly, for their 
assistance in researching the problems in this program and in helping 
to craft a thoughtful response to those problems.
  The solution to the explosion in the growth of this program, Mr. 
Chairman, and to the harm it is doing to otherwise healthy children, is 
to overturn the Zebley decision, and to offer cash payments to only the 
most severely disabled children who, absent the cash assistance, would 
have to be institutionalized. For other, less severely disabled 
children, we will provide medical and nonmedical services designed to 
cope with the child's disability. These changes in SSI disability for 
children will restore integrity to this out of control Federal program, 
while providing even more helpful resources to the most severely 
disabled children in need.

[[Page H3358]]

  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland [Mr. Cardin], a member of the Subcommittee on Human Resources 
of the Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mr. CARDIN. I thank the ranking member for yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, both Democrats and Republicans want to end the welfare 
system as we know it today. Both Democrats and Republicans understand 
the need to enact new legislation.
  But there is a major difference on how the Democrats and Republicans 
want to proceed on ending our current welfare system. The Democrats 
want to require work, to get people off of welfare, to work. The 
Republicans reward States for doing nothing.
  The requirements on the States under the Republican bill states that 
they are successful if they get a person off welfare even if that 
person does not become employed, even if that person becomes a ward of 
local government. The Republican bill rewards the States.
  The Republican bill is weak on work. The Democrat bill is tough on 
work.
  Both Democrats and Republicans establish national standards the 
States must meet in order to participate. Make no mistake about it. It 
may be a block grant, but the States still have requirements they must 
meet. The Republican bill micromanages the plans of the States by 
requiring the States to meet certain tests as they relate to teenage 
moms, how the States handle family caps.
  The Democrats establish national standards on work. It requires the 
individual able-bodied person to work. It requires the States to have 
programs so that people can work.
  The Republican bill does not provide the resources to the local 
governments. Even though H.R. 5 did, there was a change made. The 
Republicans all of a sudden needed some money for a tax cut. So they 
cut the program even though they know it is needed. The Democratic bill 
provides the resources so the States can provide the programs to get 
people back to work. That is, day care, health care benefits so that 
welfare people can work. The Republican bill dumps the problems on 
local governments.
  We have a clear choice. The Republican bill gets people off of 
welfare, the Democratic bill gets people off of welfare. The Republican 
bill gets the people off welfare to nowhere; the Democratic bill gets 
people off welfare to work.
  We are going to have a chance to come together, Democrats and 
Republicans, during this debate. It is called the Deal substitute, 
sponsored by the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Deal]. It is an 
opportunity for us all to come together on a bill that is tough on 
work, gets people off of welfare but gets them to work, rather than 
becoming a ward of our local governments. I urge my colleagues to 
support the bill that will be offered by the gentleman from Georgia, 
Congressman Deal.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Jersey [Mr. Zimmer], a member of the committee.
  (Mr. ZIMMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ZIMMER. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, as we debate the Personal Responsibility Act, I hope we 
do not lose sight, in all of the rhetoric, of why we are here in the 
first place. We are not here because restructuring welfare will save 
Federal dollars, even though a bankrupt Nation cannot feed its children 
or protect its needy. We are here because welfare as we know it is an 
unmitigated failure and, if we do not uproot it, we will condemn 
literally millions of children to a life without hope and without 
access to the American dream.
                              {time}  1645

  The Personal Responsibility Act is not a perfect document. But it 
reflects the determination and courage of a new majority to address a 
critical problem that, until now, has simply not been a priority for 
Congress.
  What it proposes is very straightforward:
  It asks that people assume ownership of their own lives and not 
always expect others to pay for their mistakes.
  It asks that parents be parents and that both mothers and fathers 
take responsibility for the children they have brought into the world.
  And it asks that we, as a society, re-establish certain values that 
we agree must guide us--including both compassion and individual 
responsibility.
  What the Personal Responsibility Act does not do is perpetuate three 
mistakes that have made the current system such a disaster: First, it 
does not assume that simply pumping more money into a failed system 
will make it work.
  Second, it does not assume that patchwork efforts such as 
demonstration projects and pilot programs, which have taken the place 
of reform in the past, will add up to real reform. It proposes systemic 
reform instead.
  Third, it does not assume that Washington knows what is best for 
everyone. Rather it restores to the States the power to make decisions 
about the needs of their own people.
  No one can guarantee that welfare programs run by States will 
outperform those run by Federal bureaucrats, and that unknown is what 
has caused much of the apprehension about this bill, I think. But one 
thing I do know is that no State can mess up welfare as badly as the 
Federal Government has done. It is time to let innovation by the States 
take hold and give it a chance, and it has begun to succeed in many 
States, including my own State of New Jersey.
  There are millions of men, women, and children now receiving welfare 
in our country. Among them are countless families who are now trapped 
in a system that was supposed to help free them and countless 
individuals who have been forced to trade self-reliance and self-
respect for dependency as the price for receiving help.
  Mr. Chairman, we can do better, a lot better. We must do better, and 
that is why the Personal Responsibility Act is before us today.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia [Mr. Lewis], a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to 
this mean-spirited Republican bill. It is cruel. It is wrong. It is 
down right low down.
  The Republican welfare proposal destroys the safety net that protects 
our Nation's children, elderly, and disabled. It is an angry proposal, 
a proposal devoid of compassion, and feeling.
  Hubert Humphrey once said that ``the moral test of government is how 
that government treats those who are in the dawn of life-the children; 
those who are in twilight of life--the elderly, and those who are in 
the shadow of life--the sick, the needy, and the handicapped.''
  Mr. Chairman, this welfare proposal attacks each and every one of 
these groups. It takes money out of the pockets of the disabled. It 
takes heat from the homes of the poor. It takes food out of the mouths 
of the children.
  I am reminded of a quote by the great theologian, Martin Niemoller, 
during World War II:

       In Germany, they came fist for the Communists, and I didn't 
     speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the 
     Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they 
     came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I 
     wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, 
     and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they 
     came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up.

  Mr. Chairman, this Republican proposal certainly isn't the Holocaust. 
But I am concerned, and I must speak up.
  I urge my colleagues, open your eyes. Read the proposal. Read the 
small print. Read the Republican contract.
  They are coming for the children. They are coming for the poor. They 
are coming for the sick, the elderly, and the disabled. This is the 
Contract With America.
  I say to my colleagues--you have the ability, the capacity, the 
power--to stop this onslaught. Your voice is your vote. Vote against 
this mean-spirited proposal; raise your voice for the children, the 
poor, and the disabled.
  A famous rabbi, Rabbi Hillel, once asked, ``If I am not for myself, 
who will be for me? But if I am only for myself, what am I?''
  What am I, Mr. Chairman?
  I am for those in the dawn of life, the children. I am for those in 
the twilight of life, the elderly. I am for those in the shadow of 
life, the sick, the needy and the handicapped.
  [[Page H3359]] Yes, I am proud to be a liberal Democrat. I stand with 
the people and not for corporate interests.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 20 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to say to the gentleman on the floor, the 
gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Lewis]. There is no one in this House that 
I have had more respect for than you. But for you to come on this floor 
and compare the Republicans to the reign of the Nazis is an absolute 
outrage, and I'm surprised that anybody with your distinguished 
background would dare to do such a horrible thing.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.


                      announcement by the chairman

  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would tell the visitors in the gallery that, 
while we welcome you to enjoy these proceedings, you are not supposed 
to be involved in them, and, any more applause, and we will have to 
empty the galleries.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, I can only repeat the old truth: ``Sometimes the truth 
hurts.''
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. 
Clement].
  (Mr. CLEMENT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CLEMENT. Mr. Chairman, I believe restoring American's trust in 
government is the single greatest challenge facing this Congress. The 
American people are perilously close to losing their faith in this 
institution and its Members' ability to effectively govern.
  The American people feel we have been too consumed with preserving 
and promoting government rather than the will and liberties of the 
governed. Many have come to feel that the Washington Beltway which 
encircles this capital city has become a physical barrier to real 
change.
  One need look no further than our welfare system to find an 
illustration of the disconnect between the people and their government. 
Reforming welfare is not a revolutionary idea. Reform has been kicked 
around for more than a decade.
  I would say, Mr. Chairman, that one would be hard pressed to find 
anyone who does not support the idea of welfare reform. In fact, one 
could almost be so bold as to assert that there is unanimous support 
for welfare reform.
  Thus, the need for welfare reform is not in dispute. The issue which 
this House must resolve over the next few days is which direction do we 
head, how far do we go, and which is the best way to get there.
  Some look at welfare and see a system which penalizes marriage and 
robs individuals of their initiative, motivation, and self-esteem. They 
contend that recipients are not opposed to work and would love to work 
but the current system is too bureaucratic, too oppressive, and 
prevents recipients from working. They feel that welfare can be 
transformed and recipients can be given new life if the Federal, State, 
and local governments will only remove the obstacles to work, empower 
the people, and provide the means and tools by which recipients can 
become self-sufficient.
  But, there are an equal number who feel that the current system is 
built on the notion of getting something for nothing, that the system 
is plagued with fraud and abuse, and leaves them wondering why their 
hard-earned dollars continue to support this bureaucratic nightmare. 
They support tough measures that require recipients to do something to 
get benefits. They feel that the solution lies in turning the welfare 
programs over to the States with little or no influence by the Federal 
Government.
  The States, cities, localities, and counties which administer welfare 
programs argue that they are faced with the prospect of providing to a 
growing population while dealing with inflexible rules and regulations 
and a chronically insufficient supply of funds.
  And what do I see?--I see all these things.
  Government has failed! Something must be done.
  I believe that neither argument is entirely right or wrong and that 
on the whole these arguments all have merit. That is why I joined five 
of my colleagues in drafting a bill of our own. We sought the middle 
ground, a truly centrist position, a compromise between these diverse 
schools of thought. I believe that we have achieved our goal.
  We will bring a substitute, known as the Deal substitute, which will 
not simply reform the current system but replace it with a partnership 
of mutual responsibility.
  Our proposal is based on three fundamental principles: Work, 
individual responsibility, and State flexibility.
  The cornerstone of our plan is work. Our substitute places an 
emphasis on moving recipients into the private sector as soon as 
possible, includes real work requirements, and fulfills the pledge that 
recipients must be working. We require recipients to complete a minimum 
number of hours of work or work-related activity each week to receive 
benefits. We deny benefits to any recipient who refuses a job or 
refuses to look for a job. And in exchange, we remove all incentives 
which make welfare more attractive than work and remove the biggest 
barriers to work--health care and child care. In short, we guarantee 
recipients that if they will go to work we will provide the money and 
take all the necessary steps to ensure that recipients have a real 
opportunity to become self-sufficient.
  Our second principle, individual responsbility, is based on the 
notion of tough love. I have two beautiful daughters. Elizabeth who is 
13 and Rachel who is 11. My wife and I love our daughters dearly and 
have tried to instill good values in them. We have taught them the 
difference between right and wrong and trust they will make the right 
decisions. And we make every effort to nurture them and see that each 
receives the attention and encouragement they need. But, as every 
parent knows, no matter what you do, there comes a time when your 
children must be disciplined. Elizabeth and Rachel know that we have 
rules which must be followed, and that my wife and I have certain 
expectations of them. They also know that they will be held accountable 
if these guidelines are not adhered to.
  Our bill takes this same approach. We make every effort possible to 
ensure that each recipient has a real opportunity to return to the work 
force permanently. In return, we ensure that they are aware that there 
are specific expectations of them and that they will be held 
accountable for their actions and disciplined when necessary.
  Specifically, every recipient must sign an individualized contract 
designed to move them into the work force. Each recipient must complete 
30 hours of work and 5 hours in job search during the Work First 
Program and 35 hours of work and 5 hours of job search during Workfare. 
Minor parents will be denied public housing and must live at home with 
a parent or responsible guardian. And, States would have the option of 
implementing a family cap. If recipients fail to meet any of these 
requirements, they will have violated the agreement and the partnership 
will be terminated. We don't just stop with recipients--we also include 
strong child support enforcement provision which will require 
noncustodial parents to live up to their responsibilities.
  Our third principle reaffirms our belief that it is not the Federal 
Government but the frontline administrators of these programs which 
best know the needs in their respective States and localities. For this 
reason we give the program back to the States. But, unlike other 
proposals, we do not simply shift the burden to the States and run 
away. We believe that as it is a federally mandated program, the 
Federal Government has a responsibility to ensure that the States have 
someone to turn to for support and assistance. Our bill includes 
general criteria to guide the States in developing their work programs; 
however, beyond the broad criteria, States are given a tremendous 
amount of flexibility.
  For example, under our substitute, States would have the flexibility 
to develop programs to move individuals into work, flexibility in 
funding, the freedom to pursue innovative approaches and we consolidate 
and coordinate programs to give States more latitude.
  But we do not stop there. In addition to work, responsibility and 
State flexibility, we also eliminate the fraud and abuse in the Food 
Stamps Program, 
[[Page H3360]] make work pay, consolidate and strengthen existing child 
care and health care, making these services available to more 
individuals. We streamline and reduce the bureaucracy by allowing 
States to circumvent the burdensome waiver process. We eliminate SSI 
for drug addicts and alcoholics. We reform and revise SSI for children 
in a fair and equitable manner which eliminates the fraud and abuse, 
controls growth, and ensures due process for each and every child 
currently on the rolls, ensuring that no qualifying child loses 
benefits.
  We have a wonderful opportunity to make a real difference in the 
lives of thousands of individuals. The President, the Congress, and the 
person on the street all agree that the current system is not working.
  Mr. Chairman, in short, our substitute is a responsible, workable 
approach which maintains the Federal responsibility without simply 
shifting the burden to the States. Recipients will be required to work 
for benefits, but there is an absolute time limit for receipt of these 
benfits. Our plan provides the best opportunity for welfare recipients 
to become productive members of the work force. We provide States with 
the resources necessary to provide this opportunity without incurring 
an additional fiscal burden.
  I would remind my colleagues that the American people are watching. 
They are skeptical. Welfare reform provides a real opportunity to make 
meaningful changes and demonstrate to them that we can still govern 
effectively. We must not allow this golden opportunity to pass us by--
to do so would be a tragedy.
  I for one intend to support the only responsible welfare reform bill 
and urge my colleagues to do the same--support the Deal substitute.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington State [Mr. McDermott], a member of the Committee on Ways and 
Means.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, three times in the Gospel the story is 
told about our Lord, the children being brought to him, and the story 
is, of course, that the parents are trying to bring the kids to Christ, 
and Christ said, ``Suffer the little children to come unto me as long 
as your mother is over 18 and she's married.''
  Now, Mr. Chairman, my colleagues know that is not true, and this bill 
is the most cruel and shortsighted view in public policy I have seen in 
25 years. The first 2 years of life are the years when children develop 
what they are going to be for the rest of their life. I say,

       If you don't take care of them with Medicaid, if you don't 
     take care of them with health care and food supplements 
     during that period of time, you doom them to a life of 
     difficulties in this society.

  Mr. Chairman, many of our Republican colleagues would like us to 
believe that most welfare recipients get on welfare because they do not 
want to work, and they stay on because welfare recipients are just 
being lazy. I think it is just the opposite. I think most people get on 
welfare due to unforeseen circumstances, and those that remain do so 
not because they are lazy, but because they are not smart enough to 
know--they are smart enough to know it is not the best option for them. 
Welfare recipients know their option. They know if they work, even with 
the earned income tax credit, that just does not make it.
  Let me lay out the example:
  A young woman with three kids goes out and gets a job at a gas 
station making the minimum wage, $4.25 an hour. She works all year. She 
makes $8,500. With the earned income tax credit on top of that, of 
$3,000, she makes about $11,500. The poverty line in this country 
established by the government and accepted by all for a family of four 
in 1995 is $15,000. Now that is $3,500 more than she makes. If she 
works the whole year, she will have 75 percent of the poverty line. She 
will not have health care benefits. She will not have day care.
  Mr. Chairman, to say to her, ``Leave your kids at home, lady; go on 
out, and get a job, and don't have a chance to take your kids to the 
doctor,'' simply is not a reasonable thing to expect of anybody.
  Now this situation is not unusual. According to the Bureau of Labor 
Statistics, Mr. Chairman, 4.2 million people in this country, paid by 
the hour, earn at below the minimum wage. Furthermore, the percentage 
of working families that are poor has risen. In 1976 the percentage of 
families with children that had a parent working that was below the 
poverty line was 8 percent. In 1993, Mr. Chairman, it is up to 11 
percent.
  Now the Republican response in this bill? This bill is a bad bill as 
it sits here, responds to that situation to make welfare look so mean 
and so severe that makes working full time at 75 percent of poverty 
look like a good deal. I think that instead of making welfare tougher 
we should make welfare or work pay. That means we have to raise the 
minimum wage.
  Mr. Chairman, I would oppose the bill as it stands.

                             {time}   1700

  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas, Mr. Sam Johnson, a member of the committee.
  Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 4 
because I think after 30 years and $5 trillion, the taxpayers and 
welfare recipients deserve better. We need fundamental changes. We need 
a system that does not trap welfare recipients in an endless cycle of 
dependency.
  I cannot believe that Members can come to this floor and say this 
bill is cruel or mean-spirited. It is those who protect the current 
system that are cruel. They believe that bureaucrats administering a 
one-size program that fits all know how to run a system better than 
State and local communities.
  The bill is tough, but it is fair, and we ask those on welfare to 
work in return for benefits. We insist fathers live up to their 
responsibilities, and we quit giving cash to those who continue to have 
children while on welfare. We ask families and people to be more 
responsible, be responsible Americans. That is not cruel, that is true 
compassion.
  I also want to set the record straight on funding. Under this bill we 
increase funding, we increase funding, I want to repeat, we increase 
funding. Look at this chart. CBO baseline spending goes up over the 
next 5 years. We are increasing spending, according to CBO estimates, 
$1.2 trillion over the next 5 years, helping people escape the welfare 
trap.
  You know the difference in those two lines? Earlier estimates said we 
were going to raise spending 53 percent. You know what? We are doing 
what the American people wanted us to do, and that is reduce spending. 
We are cutting the increase to 42 percent. Goodness gracious. If you 
cannot stand a 42-percent increase in spending, if your own budget 
could stand that, I defy you to say there is something wrong with that. 
We are not taking money away from anybody. We are increasing as the 
need requires.
  This bill targets money to the most needy, gives the States the 
ability to create their own solution. This bill is fair. It is real 
reform. Talk is cheap. The Democrats have proven that.
  It is time to act. It is time to repeal and reform the welfare 
program. Vote against big government, and let us help Americans help 
themselves to have a better future.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 20 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, please do not take the chart away. Let me point out 
what is wrong with it. It does not take into consideration inflation 
that is endemic in the American economic system. It does not take into 
consideration growth in population. That chart is just useless.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
[Mr. Coyne], a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mr. COYNE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the welfare 
reform package brought to the floor today by the Republican majority.
  This mean-spirited attack on children and poor families in America 
fails every test of true welfare reform.
  The Republican bill is tough on children and weak on work. This plan 
will punish children who happen to be born into poverty. At the same 
time, this plan cuts child care funding and other programs that
 are essential if an adult on welfare is to get a job and leave the 
welfare rolls.

  Instead of fixing welfare and moving Americans from welfare to work, 
the 
[[Page H3361]] Republican bill is simply an exercise in cutting 
programs that serve children, the disabled, and families living in 
poverty.
  What can possibly be the motive for launching such a cruel attack on 
the children of America? The answer is the Republican majority will cut 
programs for the poor to provide tax cuts for the wealthy. Cuts in 
child care, school lunches, and programs for the poor will be used to 
finance tax breaks like the capital gains tax cut. We are literally 
short-changing America's children to give tax breaks to individuals 
with incomes over $100,000 a year.
  The Republican bill will punish over 15 million innocent American 
children. It would punish children who are born out-of-wedlock to a 
mother under the age of 18. It punishes any child who happens to be 
born to a family already on welfare. This bill does not guarantee that 
a child will have safe child care when their parents work. It cuts SSI 
benefits to over 680,000 disabled children. Under this bill, State 
accountability for the death of a child is limited simply to reporting 
the child's death. Finally, this bill adds to the injuries of abused 
and neglected children by cutting $2 billion from Federal programs to 
care for these children.
  Americans must ask what will happen to these children? The result, 
without a question will be an increase in the number of children who go 
to bed hungry.
  The Republican bill will increase the risk of a child in poverty 
suffering from abuse and neglect. And yes, the result will be that some 
mothers who want to give birth to a child will be pushed to consider 
ending their pregnancy.
  The Republican bill is a cruel attack on America's children but it 
also fails to provide the essential tools needed by parents who want to 
move from welfare to work. A mother who takes a minimum wage job can 
only do so if she has access to safe child care. Unfortunately, this 
bill will cut Federal funds for child care by 25 percent in the year 
2000. This means that over 400,000 fewer children will receive Federal 
child care assistance. Pennsylvania alone will lose $25.7 million in 
Federal child care assistance funding by the year 2000. That means that 
over 15,000 children in Pennsylvania will be denied Federal assistance 
for safe child care.
  The legislation will result in America's poor children being left 
home alone. Mothers who are required by the State to work will no 
longer be guaranteed child care. States that seek to provide child-care 
assistance will have to make up for Federal child care cuts by raiding 
other State programs or increasing State taxes.
  Again, the Republican bill is tough on children and weak on work. It 
allows States to push a person off the welfare rolls and then count 
that person toward meeting the Republican's so-called work requirement. 
There is no requirement for education, training, and support services 
for individuals who need help moving from welfare to a job. In fact, 
nearly $10 billion for job training programs have been cut from the 
first Republican welfare plan. Apparently these funds were needed more 
to pay for tax cuts for upper income Americans.
  Mr. Chairman, the Republican plan is not welfare reform. It is a 
cruel attack on children that fails to solve the welfare mess. I urge 
that the House reject the Republican plan.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Washington [Ms. Dunn], a member of the committee.
  Ms. DUNN of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, today we have a great opportunity, an opportunity to 
overhaul a welfare system that is currently failing millions of 
Americans, an opportunity to restructure the welfare program to work 
effectively, and, I believe, with lots of thoughtfulness, to work 
compassionately.
  Over the last few months, members of the Committee on Ways and Means 
have heard from hundreds of witnesses from President Clinton's 
Secretary of Health and Human Services to many of the mothers who live 
on welfare. Every witness, Republican, Democrat, liberal, conservative, 
every single one of them has told us that the current welfare system is 
an unmitigated disaster.
  Yet during these days as we work hard to redesign this system, I 
continue to be disappointed by the tone of the opposition's rhetoric. 
Opponents of this bill assert that the reform-minded Republicans want 
to change the welfare bill only to save money, regardless of how it 
would affect the poor.
  Make no mistake, Mr. Chairman, our changes save money, nearly $67 
billion over 5 years. But to my friends who say that these savings will 
help the poor, I ask, how much good has the $5 trillion that we have 
spent in the last 30 years on the welfare program done to solve or even 
lessen America's poverty?
  Could it be that it is not the amount of money that we are spending 
that is wrong, but rather the way in which we spend it? To the liberals 
in Congress, I salute your intentions. You, too, want to help the poor, 
those people who truly do need our help. But the welfare system you 
built is a failure.
  The welfare mothers whom I met with last weekend in my district at a 
Head Start meeting told me that the welfare system, or AFDC, is a 
negative system that pulls people down and robs them of their self-
esteem, and too often devalues them and their ability to be productive 
members of our community.
  Today we begin the process of lifting the weight of the old welfare 
system from the backs of America's poor, the reevolvement of America's 
welfare systems. We are removing the perverse incentives that encourage 
people to go on to welfare and, once they are on there, that capture 
them and keep them on an endless cycle of dependency of government.
  The status quo fosters government dependency while our proposal 
fosters personal responsibility. And it provides the hope of work and 
the promise of self-respect. We want to give people self-respect. We 
want to restore their self-esteem through the dignity of holding a job. 
We want to provide them with day-care and medical benefits that can 
help them again become productive citizens of our society.
  Mr. Chairman, we are a nation of great wealth and compassion, but we 
are neither compassionate nor wise when we spend $5 trillion over 30 
years and still allow so many Americans to remain trapped in this 
endless and hopeless cycle of poverty. It is lunacy to continue with 
the liberal welfare system that promises only the likelihood of a life 
with more crime, less education, and lifelong government dependency.
  Mr. Chairman, I have no doubt by the end of this week we will pass a 
bill that offers people a hand up and out. And to my colleagues on both 
sides of the aisle, this week we have the opportunity to truly end 
welfare as we know it.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut [Mrs. Kennelly] a member of the Subcommittee on Human 
Resources of the Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mrs. KENNELLY. Mr. Chairman, whatever we do in welfare reform, there 
are some things we should not do. And one thing we should not do is 
dismantle the nutrition programs that are working so well around the 
country.
  H.R. 4 would eliminate the School Lunch Program and other nutrition 
programs, replacing them with block grants. Proponents keep saying this 
will not make a difference.
  But if they are right, then why do the child care and child nutrition 
block grants have a 5-year change that picks up $11.8 billion? 
Something has to change, and I am afraid that it will be the whole 
point of the program--its nutritional value.
  The same goes for food stamps. This country has been blessed with 
abundant farm land. It has been said we could feed the world. With the 
suggested changes in welfare and other budget changes such as the 
elimination of more than $7 billion in fuel assistance program and more 
than $2 billion in low-income housing, food stamps become more 
important.
  Yes, we should get rid of waste and fraud. Yes, we should prosecute 
those who traffic in food stamps. But do not take food stamps away from 
those who need them.
  Changes such as eliminating benefits for children born out of wedlock 
and their mothers make food stamps more important for a healthy child. 
If people lose benefits and can't find a job, food stamps are 
important.
  Let's not risk our children's health and education by enacting a cut-
and-run nutritional block grant to replace a successful Federal 
nutritional program.
  Also, let us not get rid of national standards. In the School Lunch 
Program, the elimination of standards put 
[[Page H3362]] at risk the whole point of the program--providing 
nutritional meals.
  And I am very worried about the elimination of minimal standards in 
child welfare programs, which will be even more underfunded and 
overburdened if these block grants happen and could mean increased 
numbers of abused children.
  Minimal Federal standards have been adopted in the past because we 
believe there is a national interest in protecting children. Let us not 
forget that important point in the rush to pass welfare reform.
  I strongly suspect H.R. 4 started off in the right direction when it 
was first conceived. I am sure that there were substantive 
conversations about the need for child care, training, and work.
  But it is no surprise that those deliberations changed when it was 
realized that real welfare reform is very hard to do. It is certainly 
much easier just to send the entire problem back to the States and take 
the $64 billion in savings and use them off the top to pay for tax 
cuts.
  I am also worried about taking children off disability. Yes, there 
has been abuse, particularly in Arkansas and Louisiana, but fix the 
abuse. When I read the bill, it takes 250,000 off the rolls. There were 
not 250,000 abusers. God help the family that has a truly disabled 
child.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. English], a member of the committee.
  Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 
4, the Family Responsibility Act, and I urge my colleagues to support 
it. I urge them to vote in supporting it, to reduce dependency, to 
slash bureaucracy, to promote personal responsibility, and to 
strengthen families.
  Our legislation maintains the safety net for the poor, but in 
reforming the welfare system, it will sound the death knell for the 
failed liberal welfare state.
  Our bill is a mainstream approach, and I urge Members not to be 
deluded by the harsh, partisan, intemperate rhetoric they have heard 
here today. Our bill is tough on bureaucracy, not on kids. Our bill is 
cruel to the status quo, not the under class.
  I heard my colleague from Michigan characterize this bill as extreme. 
Perhaps in Washington it is considered extreme to give power to the 
States instead of elevating the HHS bureaucracy. But this I believe is 
a mainstream proposal. It is also a compassionate proposal.

                              {time}  1715

  The current welfare system is not compassionate and we need to stop 
measuring compassion by how many checks we cut, by how many bureaucrats 
we employ, by the size of our appropriations. Instead, we need to start 
measuring compassion by how few people are on AFDC and on welfare and 
on food stamps and by the access every child has to hope, to 
independence, and to opportunity.
  We have offered here, in my view, a tough love approach to welfare 
reform. It is a sound one. Our reform plan has a tough work requirement 
that will reintroduce many families to the dignity of work. Our bill 
stops subsidizing out-of-wedlock births. Our bill establishes real time 
limits to welfare, 2 years, and then up to 5 years, if someone stays in 
a work program. And talking to people in my district, they feel those 
time limits are fair.
  Our bill cracks down on deadbeat dads with tough new child support 
enforcement. Our bill links welfare rights to community 
responsibilities and cuts bureaucracy, consolidating a Byzantine maze 
of Federal welfare programs into four flexible block grants.
  Our legislation bars cash to unwed parents but it provides other 
services to those parents. And our bill guarantees funding to the 
States so that they will be able to provide those services.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 seconds to the gentleman from 
Tennessee [Mr. Ford].
  Mr. FORD. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Pennsylvania talked about 
the Republican bill, H.R. 4, having these tough work requirements. I 
just want to know, what page are these tough work requirements on in 
this bill? We need to see them.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Payne], a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mr. PAYNE of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, Republicans and Democrats alike 
agree that the current welfare system does not work. Instead of 
requiring work, it punishes those who go to work. And instead of 
instilling personal responsibility, it encourages dependence on the 
Government; instead of encouraging marriage and family stability, it 
penalizes two-parent families and rewards teenage pregnancies. We all 
agree that welfare must be drastically changed and that welfare should 
only offer transitional assistance leading to work and not a way of 
life.
  That is why I wish to speak on behalf of the Deal substitute to the 
Republican bill, because we, the cosponsors of the Deal substitute, are 
committed to making major changes in our Nation's welfare system.
  We support welfare reform that emphasizes work, personal 
responsibility, and family stability. The Deal substitute imposes tough 
work requirements while providing opportunities for education, 
training, child care, and health care to support working people.
  It provides States with the resources necessary for welfare reform to 
succeed without shifting costs to local governments or requiring 
unfunded mandates. And it gives States the flexibility to design and 
administer the welfare programs they need without sacrificing 
accountability to the Nation's taxpayers.
  Real welfare reform must be about replacing the welfare check with a 
paycheck. The Deal substitute's time-limited work first program is 
designed to get people into the work force as quickly as possible, 
requiring all recipients to enter into a self-sufficiency plan within 
30 days of receiving benefits.
  The Republican welfare reform bill allows recipients to receive cash 
benefits for up to 2 years before they are required to work or even to 
look for work.
  The Deal substitute provides the necessary resources for welfare 
recipients to become self-sufficient, but it also requires recipients 
to be responsible for their own actions by setting clear time limits on 
benefits. And no benefit will be paid to anyone who refuses to work, 
who refuses to look for work, or who turns down a job.
  In addition to making individuals responsible for their own welfare, 
we demand that both parents must be responsible for their children. The 
sponsors of the Deal substitute recognize that in order to reform 
welfare, States must have the flexibility to design and administer 
welfare programs tailored to their unique needs and their own 
circumstances.
  We believe that the States should not have to go through a cumbersome 
Federal waiver process in order to implement innovative ideas in their 
welfare programs. So the Deal substitute establishes the Federal model 
for the work first program.
  I believe the Deal substitute is the only welfare bill which gives 
the American people what they really want, and I urge my colleagues to 
support this bill.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Nevada [Mr. Ensign], a member of the committee.
  (Mr. ENSIGN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. Chairman, one of the most difficult tasks to perform 
in the Federal Government is to propose fundamental change to a Federal 
program. The most difficult task is actually to go about making this 
change law. A Federal program is like a huge cargo ship. As long as the 
ship is slowly laboring ahead on a set course, it may operate 
relatively well. When the time comes to change course, however, the 
size and speed of the vessel create tremendous momentum making the 
change of course difficult.
  Of course, the longer that change is delayed, the more off course the 
ship gets, requiring more significant and more difficult and painful 
changes.
  The other night on CBS, there was a welfare documentary. Dan Rather, 
who is not exactly known for his conservative thoughts, was the host of 
that documentary. And I found it very interesting.
  There was a single mom. She was in a wheelchair, making $15,000 a 
year. 
[[Page H3363]] They interviewed her. And she questioned why someone 
should be receiving welfare when she worked. She was in a wheelchair. 
She worked making $15,000 a year. Her health care was not provided for 
her, and she resented her tax dollars
 going for somebody else to be on welfare.

  The interviewed another young woman who had gotten off of welfare 
into work. And the pride that she now took of having her young children 
see her go every day into work.
  I grew up with a single mom. There were three of us at home. My 
father provided no child support when I was young. And I watched my mom 
get up every day and go to work. That is what we need in this country 
is to have children watching their parents go to work on a daily basis.
  This welfare reform bill will help ensure that people go to work.
  During that same program that Dan Rather hosted, they had two welfare 
moms on that program. And they asked them, if you knew that your 
welfare payments were going to stop in a couple years, what would you 
do? The response was immediate, both of them said, well, I would go out 
and get a job.
  We had testimony in front of the human resources subcommittee from a 
woman who counsels welfare recipients. She asks every one of her 
classes, what would you do if you knew that your welfare payments would 
end tomorrow? Every single one of them in her classes respond by 
saying, I would go get a job.
  People say that the work requirements are not tough in this bill. 
Well, I am sorry, but I think that they are. If after 5 years you can 
no longer get any kind of welfare benefits, I think that that is a 
pretty tough work requirement, because work is a lot better than going 
hungry.
  I rise in support and urge my colleagues to support H.R. 4.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Oklahoma [Mr. Brewster], who until this last election was a member of 
the Committee on Ways and Means but has to withdraw because of the 
ratio.
  (Mr. BREWSTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BREWSTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 4, the 
Personal Responsibility Act, and ask my colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle to support the Deal substitute.
  I want to commend my colleagues for developing a comprehensive 
welfare reform proposal which I believe is the only real alternative 
for replacing the welfare check with a paycheck. I am a strong advocate 
for welfare reform. Unfortunately, our current system rewards 
beneficiaries for staying on welfare.
  Welfare recipients are often penalized when they get a job because 
they often have less money than they had while on welfare.
  The Deal substitute guarantees that those who can work will work. The 
substitute ensures that a welfare recipient is better off economically 
by taking a job than by remaining on welfare.
  The substitute provides transitional assistance in health care and 
child care, and it also improves outreach efforts to ensure that both 
recipients and employers make use of the earned income tax credit.
  I would urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support the 
Deal substitute.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Kansas [Mrs. Meyers], a most important and valuable member of the 
majority in putting together this bill and one of the first advocates 
for the block grant approach.
  Mrs. MEYERS of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I am so pleased to be able to 
support this welfare reforms bill, the Personal Responsibility Act. I 
believe that welfare reform is simply the most important issue facing 
our country today. Welfare reform must be done. We all know this. And I 
would like to talk today for just a minute about the incentive nature 
of the current program.
  Within the next 5 years, if we do nothing and continue our growth 
rate as it has been, over 80 percent of minority children and 40 
percent of all children in this country will be born out of wedlock. 
Unmarried women who bear children out of wedlock before finishing high 
school are far more likely to go on welfare and stay there for at least 
8 years. That is why more than 2 years ago, I began pushing to end cash 
benefits to teenagers who have a child out of wedlock because what had 
started as a helping program had become an incentive.
  For the past 30 years our welfare system has sent a message to young 
women that the Federal Government will make it okay. If you have a 
child out of wedlock, the Government will give you $500 a month AFDC, 
$300 a month food stamps, pay all your medical bills. In many cases, 
find you a place to live and pay for it. In many cases, send you to a 
job training program or even a college, pay for your child care and 
your transportation.
  This bill is not cruel and mean spirited. What is really cruel is the 
current incentive that pulls young women into the system and holds them 
forever in this cruel trap. That is mean spirited. That is cruel to 
both young women and their children.
  We should continue our commitment to the vulnerable and the needy, 
but it is high time our Federal welfare policies reflected that goal.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland [Mr. Hoyer].
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, the current welfare system is at odds with 
the care values Americans share: work, opportunity, family, and 
responsibility.
  Too many people who hate being on welfare are trying to escape it--
with too little success.
  It is time for a fundamental change.
  Instead of strengthening families and instilling personal 
responsibility, the system penalizes two parent families, and lets too 
many absent parents who owe child support off the hook.
  Our society can not--and should not--afford a social welfare system 
without obligations.
  It is long past time to ``end welfare as we know it.''
  We need to move beyond political rhetoric, and offer a simple compact 
that provides people more opportunity in return for more 
responsibility.
  I have a few commonsense criteria which any welfare plan must meet to 
get my vote.
  It must require all able-bodied recipients to work for their 
benefits.
  It must require teenage mothers to live at home or other supervised 
setting.
  It must create a child support enforcement system with teeth so that 
deadbeat parents support their children.
  It must establish a time limit so that welfare benefits are only a 
temporary means of support.
  It must be tough on those who have defrauded the system--but not on 
innocent children.
  And it must give States flexibility to shape their welfare system to 
their needs, while upholding the important national objectives I have 
just listed.
  The Republican bill fails to meet these criteria.
  The Republican bill is weak on work.
  It only requires 4 percent participation in fiscal year 1996, far 
below the current rate established under the 1988 Family Support Act.
  It is outrageous that any new work requirement would fall below 
current law.
  The Republican bill denies benefits to children of mothers under 18.
  We must make parents--all parents--responsible for taking care of 
their own children.
  But denying children support is not the best way to do that.
  Instead, teenagers should be required to demonstrate responsibility 
by living at home and staying in school in order to receive assistance.
  The Republican bill is tougher on children than it is on the deadbeat 
dads who leave them behind.
  The Republicans waited until the last moment to put child support 
enforcement provisions in their bill--and then removed the teeth that 
can bring in more than $2.5 billion (over 10 years) for kids.
  Instead of attacking deadbeats, the Republican bill attacks children.
  It eliminates the guarantee that every child in this country has at 
least one good meal a day.
  Despite rhetoric to the contrary, the Republican bill cuts spending 
for child nutrition programs $7 billion below the 
[[Page H3364]] funding that would be provided by current law.
  Instead, kids' food money will be used for tax cuts for the rich.
  Funding for the Women, Infants and Children Program is also reduced--
and provisions requiring competitive bidding on baby formula have been 
removed.
  That decision alone will take $1 billion of food out of the mouths of 
children each year, and put the money in the pockets of big business.
  This simply defies common sense.
  No one in America could possibly argue that this is reform.
  At a time when the need for foster care, group homes, and adoption is 
likely to rise dramatically, the Republican welfare plan would cut 
Federal support for foster care and adoption by $4 billion over 5 
years.
  We can do better.
  We must do better.
  This week, Democrats will offer Nathan Deal's bill as a substitute, 
which reinforces the family values all Americans share.
  It gives people access to the skills they need, and expects work in 
return.
  It does not wage war on America's children.
  Most importantly, it is a common-sense approach, which gives back the 
dignity that comes with work, personal responsibility, and 
independence.

                              {time}  1730

  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Missouri [Mr. Talent], who has been very active in the preparation of 
H.R. 4.
  Mr. TALENT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, today we enter on an historic debate about a bill that 
will replace a failed welfare system with a system that is based on 
marriage, on family, on responsibility, and on work. I want to address 
in my remarks now, and I am sure it will come up later as well, the 
whole issue of work.
  There have been past welfare reform bills which have purported to be 
workfare bills. The 1988 bill, which was a bipartisan bill, purported 
to be a workfare bill. Everybody was going to work under the bill. Six 
years later we have less than 1 percent of the case load working.
  People need to understand what work has meant in the past to people 
who have really been defending the status quo. It has been an excuse 
for vast new expansions of the welfare state, constructing vast new 
bureaucracies, and nobody ends up working, but they will tell you that 
x percent of the case load is working.
  What they do not tell you is that they exempt up front a huge 
percentage of the case loads from the workfare requirements, so if they 
say 50 percent of the people who are working, they have already 
exempted 80 percent or 90 percent of the people from the beginning.
  The key to an honest workfare requirement, and our bill has that, is 
that it talks about percentages of the total case load. When we say 50 
percent of the welfare case load is going to be working by the 
beginning of the next century, it means 50 percent of the people are 
going to be working by the beginning of the next century, and it means 
they are going to be working. They are not going to be looking for a 
job an hour a week, they are not going to be sitting in a class that 
somebody calls education, they are going to be working. That is the 
standard that we need to measure work everywhere throughout this 
debate.
  Mr. Chairman, the substitute offered by the gentleman from Georgia 
[Mr. Deal], and I appreciate his efforts in this regard, is flawed in 
several important respects. For one thing, he defines work as job 
search, so people can be classified as working under his bill, even 
though they are not working, they are searching for a job.
  The States will presumably be given the authority to define that. 
That is part of the problem that we had in the past. He counts toward 
meeting the work participation requirements, people who normally move 
off of welfare anyway. In any given year there is like half a million 
people who will move off welfare, at least temporarily.
  My understanding of the gentleman's substitute is that it permits 
those people to be counted by the States toward meeting the 
participation requirements. They would get off welfare anyway, at least 
temporarily. If you are going to do that, you need to count the net 
increase of people who are getting off welfare because of work.
  We are going to go into this in a lot more detail in the days to 
come, Mr. Chairman. The point I want to make about work is that it has 
to be an honest work requirement, people working, people actually 
working, not looking for a job, not consuming an enormous amount of the 
taxpayers' money to be trained for some kind of vice president's job, 
but working.
  There are a number of States that are already doing that. It is very 
effective in introducing the dignity of work into those families. It is 
effective in moving those people who are almost employable off of the 
welfare rolls and into work. That is how we ought to measure the 
success of the program.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Tennessee [Mr. Ford].
  Mr. FORD. Mr. Chairman, on page 26 of the Personal Responsibility 
Act, the work activities under the Republican bill, one of the things 
the gentleman has talked about, the Deal bill, the job search, is a 
part of that bill as well.
  Members on the gentleman's side roll people off the welfare rolls but 
they go out with no job. There are absolutely no jobs at all. I need to 
just find out where it is in H.R. 4 that all these jobs will take 
place.
  Mr. TALENT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FORD. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.
  Mr. TALENT. Mr. Chairman, that is why our bill, and as the gentleman 
will recall, the gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. Hutchinson], and I wrote 
this language in the Committee on Economic and Educational 
Opportunities, that is why our bill focuses the work requirements on 
people on welfare who are closest to employability. Two-parent AFDC 
families, parents with school age children or above, those people can 
go to work.
  Mr. FORD. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, the vast majority of 
people on welfare are single mothers on welfare. The two-parent family 
component is something that the gentleman addresses, but the 
participation level at 50 percent by the year 2002 will not send anyone 
into the work force.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Neal], a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mr. NEAL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, I have served as chairman, co-chairman of a task force 
here in the House, on the Democratic side, in support of reforming the 
current welfare system. I think we can all agree today that the current 
system ill serves the taxpayer and ill serves the beneficiary.
  My experience in coming to this House is different than most of the 
Members because I served as mayor of a major city. We have all 
concluded, as Eleanor Holmes Norton has said, that the current welfare 
system is decadent. Senator Moynihan warned us 30 years ago that the 
system had to be changed. President Clinton 2 years ago suggested that 
we should end welfare as we know it, and he ought to get some credit 
for that suggestion.
  Mr. Chairman, 1 out of 3 children in America is currently born out of 
wedlock. One of my constituents, Barbara Defoe Whitehead, has done 
remarkable research in drafting those conclusions. In 1976, at the 
Democratic State convention in Massachusetts, I spoke in support of a 
workfare requirement. However, I want to say today in the well of this 
House, that it is that sage and principled conservative on the 
Republican side, the gentleman from Illinois, Henry Hyde, who said 
``there is no such thing as illegitimate children. There may well be 
some illegitimate parents.'' We should acknowledge today on the 
Democratic side that we are the ones that pushed for a strong child 
support component.
  The Republican alternative did not even speak to the issue of child 
support, and they called their bill the Personal Responsibility Act. 
What indicates more personal responsibility than supporting the 
children we bring into this world?
  [[Page H3365]] Mr. Chairman, I offered in committee a series of 
amendments that stated emphatically that those amendments had the 
support of Bill Weld and Bill Clinton. Not one of those amendments was 
passed at the Committee on Ways and Means level.
  Mr. Chairman, I am astounded today that there is no work requirement 
in the Republican bill, but there is a work requirement in the 
Democratic bill. We suggest that you have to be enrolled in a program 
of self-sufficiency from day one. Work is the ultimate personal 
responsibility.
  If we want to reverse the decadent system of welfare, we have an 
opportunity to offer a hand up and not a handout. That is what the 
Democratic proposals suggest.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to say today that the Democratic legislation 
offered by the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Deal], is a piece of 
legislation that all of us in this House ought to be able to rally 
around. Just as importantly, it seems to me at the end of the day that 
if we really want to honor personal responsibility, that we do that 
through a strong and sound work requirement. That is what our bill has 
done.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 seconds to tell the 
gentleman that was just in the well praising the Deal deal that the 
Deal substitute would wipe out the work requirements in the 
Massachusetts law. It is a law that the gentleman should be very proud 
of and that he should protect.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. 
Martini].
  Mr. MARTINI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, 30 years of ever-expanding and growing anti-poverty 
programs have not erased poverty from our midst. We have spent $5 
trillion trying to address this problem, yet the percentage of children 
living in poverty is unchanged from what it was in 1965.
  Worse, we have seen illegitimate births more than quadruple, and have 
subsidized the rise of the single-parent family in our country.
  Today nearly 30 percent of all births in our Nation are illegitimate. 
In 1992, the Federal Government alone spent $305 billion on 79 
overlapping means-tested social welfare programs, but our problems 
still persist.
  Congress and the bureaucracy in Washington continue to insist that 
they know what the poor in our communities need. For years they have 
been beholden to the ill-conceived notion that we can only consider 
ourselves a compassionate Nation if Washington prescribes solutions to 
societal problems.
  Mr. Chairman, this system has done worse than fail us. It has 
betrayed us. Something needs to change, but for years this body has 
been unwilling to address welfare reform. Finally, today, we are 
debating a genuine attempt at a significant overhaul of our societal 
safety net.
  Go home and listen to your constituents; these reforms represent the 
will of the people. No longer will the Government reward children for 
having children. No longer will we reward families for having a second 
baby when they cannot afford the first. No longer will the taxpayers 
pay to support addiction. No longer will Washington impose top-down 
solutions to problems they do not understand.
  We will put an end to the big Government attempt to address these 
problems and return to a sense of responsibility, a sense of right and 
wrong, to the American safety net.
  Mr. Chairman, I congratulate the three chairmen in the three 
committees on the fine work they have done, and this body for finally 
bringing this issue before the American people, and urge support of 
this bill.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
New Mexico [Mr. Richardson].
  (Mr. RICHARDSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chairman, welfare is the biggest hot button issue 
of the year. Let us reform welfare, not try to see who is the meanest 
or the toughest.
  Welfare has not worked. The American people want us to move 
individuals from dependency to work, they want us to cut Federal 
bureaucracy, and they want us to fight fraud in the current system. The 
Republican plan does not accomplish any of these goals, because they do 
not have the same goals most Americans have. They have washed their 
hands on the real welfare problem, and moved on to finance for the tax 
cut, finance on the backs of legal immigrants who pay taxes, abide by 
the laws, and enrich our culture.
  The Republican bill does not even try to solve the root problem of 
poverty, education, jobs, training, nutrition for kids. In fact, their 
plan does not contain strict work requirements and actually creates 
disinitiatives to work. It destroys temporary child care and 
transportation for people who want to work. The Democratic plan is 
strong on work, actually requiring proposals that enable recipients 
preparing for and engaging in work, providing resources for the 
assistance needed to become self-sufficient, such as education, 
training, child care, and transportation.
  The Democratic plan supports children, maintaining the national 
commitment of providing a safety net for kids, while requiring their 
parents to become self-sufficient, guaranteeing child care to families 
while the parents are preparing for work or working, and maintain the 
national commitment to protecting children from abuse and abandonment.

                              {time}  1745

  Mr. Chairman, this is a historic bill and a historic debate. We have 
a chance to be bipartisan on this issue. The Senate will move, also. 
The President wants welfare reform. Let us do it right instead of 
trying to be the toughest or the meanest.
  Mr. Chairman, I include the following for the Record:

                                              The White House,

                                   Washington, DC, March 20, 1995.
       Dear Mr. Leader: This week, the historic national debate we 
     have begun on welfare reform will move to the floor of the 
     House of Representatives. Welfare reform is a top priority 
     for my Administration and for Americans without regard to 
     party. I look forward to working with Republicans and 
     Democrats in both houses of Congress to enact real reform 
     that promotes work and responsibility and makes welfare what 
     it was meant to be: a second chance, not a way of life.
       In the last two years, we have put the country on the road 
     to ending welfare as we know it. In 1993, when Congress 
     passed our economic plan, we cut taxes for 15 million working 
     Americans and rewarded work over welfare. We collected a 
     record level of child support in 1993--$9 billion--and last 
     month I signed an executive order to crack down on federal 
     employees who owe child support. In two years, we have 
     granted waivers from federal rules to 25 states, so that half 
     the country is now carrying out significant welfare reform 
     experiments that promote work and responsibility instead of 
     undermining it.
       I have always sought to make welfare reform a bipartisan 
     issue. I still believe it can and must be. Unfortunately, the 
     House Republican bill in its current form does not appear to 
     offer the kind of real welfare reform that Americans in both 
     parties expect. It is too weak on moving people from welfare 
     to work, not as tough as it should be on deadbeat parents, 
     and too tough on innocent children.
       Last year, I sent Congress the most sweeping welfare reform 
     plan any administration has ever presented. It did not pass, 
     but I believe the principles and values at its core will be 
     the basis of what ultimately does pass:
       First, the central goal of welfare reform must be moving 
     people from welfare to work, where they will earn a paycheck, 
     not a welfare check. I believe we should demand and reward 
     work, not punish those who go to work. If people need child 
     care or job skills in order to go to work, we should help 
     them get it. But within two years, anyone who can work must 
     go to work.
       This is not a partisan issue: Last year, 162 of 175 House 
     Republicans co-sponsored a bill, H.R. 3500, that promoted 
     work in
      much the same way as our plan. But the current House 
     Republican bill you will consider this week fails to 
     promote work, and would actually make it harder for many 
     recipients to make it in the workplace. It cuts child care 
     for people trying to leave welfare and for working people 
     trying to stay off welfare, removes any real 
     responsibility for states to provide job placement and 
     skills, and gives states a perverse incentive to cut 
     people off whether or not they have moved into a job. When 
     people just get cut off without going to work, that's not 
     welfare reform. I urge you to pass a welfare reform bill 
     that ends welfare as we know it by moving people from 
     welfare to work.
       Second, welfare reform must make responsibility a way of 
     life. We should demand responsibility from parents who bring 
     children into the world, not let them off the hook and expect 
     taxpayers to pick up the tab for their 
     [[Page H3366]] neglect. Last year, my Administration proposed 
     the toughest child support enforcement measures ever put 
     forward. If we collected all the money that deadbeat parents 
     should pay, we could move 800,000 women and children off 
     welfare immediately.
       I am grateful to members in both parties for already 
     agreeing to include most of the tough child support measures 
     from our welfare reform plan. This week, I hope you will go 
     further, and require states to deny drivers and professional 
     licenses to parents who refuse to pay child support. We have 
     to send a clear signal: No parent in America has a right to 
     walk away from the responsibility to raise their children.
       Third, welfare reform should discourage teen pregnancy and 
     promote responsible parenting. We must discourage 
     irresponsible behavior that lands people on welfare in the 
     first place, with a national campaign against teen pregnancy 
     that lets young people know it is wrong to have a child 
     outside marriage. Nobody should get pregnant or father a 
     child who isn't prepared to raise the child, love the child, 
     and take responsibility for the child's future.
       I know members of Congress in both parties care about this 
     issue. But many aspects of the current House plan would do 
     more harm than good. Instead of refusing to help teen mothers 
     and their children, we should require them to turn their 
     lives around--to live at home with their parents, stay in 
     school, and identify the child's father. We should demand 
     responsible behavior from people on welfare, but it is wrong 
     to make small children pay the price for their parents' 
     mistakes.
       Finally, welfare reform should give states more flexibility 
     in return for more accountability. I believe we must give 
     states far more flexibility so they can do the things they 
     want to today without seeking waivers. But in its current 
     form, the House Republican bill may impede rather than 
     promote reform and flexibility. The proposal leaves states 
     vulnerable to economic recession and demographic change, 
     putting working families at risk. States will have less money 
     for child care, training, and other efforts to move people 
     from welfare to work. And there will not be any 
     accountability at the federal level for reducing fraud or 
     protecting children. We will not achieve real reform or state 
     flexibility if Congress just gives the states more burdens 
     and less money, and fails to make work and responsibility the 
     law of the land.
       While the current House plan is weak on work, it is very 
     tough on children. Cutting school lunches and getting tough 
     on disabled children and children in foster care is not my 
     idea of welfare reform. We all have a national interest in 
     promoting the well-being of our children and in putting 
     government back in line with our national line.
       I appreciate all the work that you have done on this issue, 
     and I am pleased that the country is finally engaging in this 
     important debate. In the end, I believe we can work it out 
     together, as long as we remember the values this debate is 
     really about. The dignity of work, the bond of family, and 
     the virtue of responsibility are not Republican values or 
     Democratic values. They are American values--and no child in 
     America should ever have to grow up without them.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Bill Clinton.

  Republican plan doesn't attack fraud--in fact it will dismantle many 
programs where fraud has been nonexistent--such as the Nutrition and 
School Lunch Programs.
  These programs have undisputed health and education benefits, and 
nutritious meals are served to children, who may not get another meal 
each day, at a cost of only $1 per student.
  In the last few days Republicans have been claiming they are not 
really cutting the School Lunch Program--apparently they realize how 
ludicrous their plan is and are running for cover--but this is a false 
claim: Their supposed spending ``increases'' don't take into account 
rising food costs, inflation, or increases in number of kids who need 
the program; in fact, many of the increases were written on committee 
worksheets, not in the proposed legislation.
  New State allocation formulas are flawed--they are based on number of 
meals served in a State, without regard to whether meals are served 
free to poor children.
  Also, States may divert 20 percent of its nutrition funding to other 
programs under the Republican proposal. Flexibility is a popular theme 
right now, but the Republican plan simply abandons any Federal safety 
net for innocent, hungry kids.
  Can Republicans truly say they are not dismantling the school 
program? No, but they can say they've saved billions of dollars to help 
their wealthy friends at tax time.
  For the food programs alone, 175,000 New Mexicans will become 
ineligible for assistance: State estimated to lose $5 million for 
School Lunch Program, $21 million for child and adult care food 
programs, and $45 million for food stamps.
  New Mexico also slated to lose $21 million for assistance for needy 
families, $21 million for blind and disabled children, and $5 million 
for child care costs.
  Can the Republicans truly say they have not devised a cold-hearted, 
ineffective program?
  Can Republicans deny that they are creating a long list of unfunded 
mandates? States have asked for flexibility. But clearly they have not 
asked for the additional burdens the Republican welfare plan imposes.
  Finally, lost in much of the debate over welfare reform is the fact 
that the Republican plan is financed almost entirely on the backs of 
legal immigrants.
  That's right--not undocumented workers, but legal immigrants.
  Their plan denies nearly all benefits to people who pay taxes, abide 
by the laws, enrich our culture and our economy.
  Studies show that immigrants actually create a net benefit of $28 
billion to the American economy.
  But Republicans haven't studied the real facts to know what their 
cost and block grants will create--because that's never been their 
goal.
  Don't be deceived--this entire plan is about tax relief for rich 
people, it has nothing to do with reason or ending welfare as we know 
it.
  Democrats are strong on work: Democratic proposals actually require 
that recipients prepare for and engage in work; provide resources for 
the assistance needed to become self-sufficient, such as education, 
training, child care, and transportation.
  Democrats support children: Democrats maintain the national 
commitment to providing a safety net for kids, while requiring their 
parents to become self-sufficient; guarantee child care to families 
while the parents are preparing for work or working; maintain the 
national commitment to protecting children from abuse and abandonment.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia [Mr. Collins], a member of the committee.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. I appreciate the gentleman yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, the President during his campaign ran on the platform 
of changing welfare. In fact he said, ``We're going to end welfare as 
we know it today.''
  Well, to end it does not mean you reform it. It means you change it. 
Because to reform it only just changes the shape of it and leaves the 
same substance. Is change necessary? It is long overdue and the answer 
is yes, it is.
  Why? It is because 26 percent of the families in this country are in 
some way, some shape, some form or fashion drawing some type of 
government benefit that comes under the entitlement of welfare. Twenty-
six percent of the families.
  What is the real problem with welfare, the real root of the problem? 
It is called cash. The old saying cash is the root of all evil. Cash 
has been the real problem and is the real problem in welfare.
  What is the history of cash in welfare? It goes back to the mid 
1930's. In fact it was called Aid to Dependent Children, later called 
AFDC. It was actually created in 1935 as a cash grant to enable States 
now, I want to repeat that, to enable States to aid needy children, 
children who did not have fathers at home.
  Was the AFDC program intended to be an indefinite program? No, it was 
not to last forever. The priority of it was to help children whose 
fathers were either deceased or disabled or unable to work. The program 
was supposed to sunset after the Social Security laws were changed but 
they never were sunsetted. When AFDC was created, no one ever imagined 
that a father's desertion and out-of-wedlock births would replace the 
father's death or disability as the most prevalent reason for 
triggering the need for assistance. No one ever dreamed that fathers 
would abandon children as they have.
  In order to facilitate the sunset of the AFDC program, in 1939 the 
Federal Government expanded Social Security benefits by adding 
survivors benefits. This was to help wives and children of workers who 
died at an early age.
  In 1956 the Federal Government added disability benefits to Social 
Security to try to cover those children whose fathers were unable to 
work because of some severe disability. But rather than sunset AFDC, 
the program continued to grow and has ballooned in recent years, 
because the very nature of the program has encouraged illegitimacy and 
irresponsible behavior.
  Let me give Members a few statistics. In 1940, 41 percent of children 
on AFDC, their father had died. The fathers had abandoned 30 percent of 
the children. The fathers were disabled to work for 27 percent. In 
1992, listen to 
[[Page H3367]] these figures: 1.6 percent of the children's fathers 
have died; 86 percent of children on AFDC, their fathers have abandoned 
them; and only 4.1 percent, the fathers are disabled to work.
  Mr. Chairman, the AFDC system has created a problem, a real problem. 
It has encouraged irresponsible behavior by embracing a philosophy that 
says the government will take care of a child if a father won't. H.R. 4 
stops this problem. It stops cash benefits in certain years, requires 
personal responsibility and it gives the States the flexibility, the 
very same thing that was supposed to happen in 1935 to handle the 
situation.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Alabama [Mr. Browder].
  Mr. BROWDER. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Deal substitute to the 
Personal Responsibility Act.
  This substitute bill reforms welfare by helping those who want to 
help themselves. It does not punish the poor. It will not cut school 
lunches. It will not force children off SSI without due process.
  The goals of work and responsibility are achieved by combining work 
first with time limits and requirements that recipients follow an 
individual responsibility plan. In addition, the substitute's estimated 
$10 billion in savings will be earmarked for deficit reduction.
  Mr. Chairman, I hope that after the last speech is given and the 
final vote is cast, that the Deal substitute will prevail. This plan 
will really help our fellow Americans move from welfare to work.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Holden].
  Mr. HOLDEN. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the Deal substitute 
and its provisions for greater child support enforcement.
  Members of this core group of moderates have worked hard to expand 
upon last year's mainstream forum proposal and build a consensus among 
those wishing to make meaningful and long-lasting changes to our 
current welfare system.
  As the former sheriff of Schuylkill County in my home State of 
Pennsylvania, I have firsthand knowledge of how difficult it can be to 
collect unpaid child support.
  Under the Deal substitute, all parents would be accountable to their 
children through:
  First, increased paternity establishment;
  Second, central registries of child support orders in each State;
  Third, uniform interstate enforcement procedures; and
  Fourth, punitive measures for deadbeat parents such as direct income 
withholding and State option to revoke occupation, professional, and 
driver's licenses
  We owe it to our children to have the financial support of both 
parents and to the taxpayers who fund the irresponsible behavior of 
deadbeat parents.
  I urge my colleagues to lend their support to the Deal substitute and 
real welfare reform.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Fattah].
  (Mr. FATTAH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. FATTAH. I thank the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Gibbons] the 
distinguished ranking member for his gracious decision to allow me some 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, we begin now a debate on one part of the process of 
reforming welfare in the United States of America. I would like to 
point to two reports, one by the Progressive Policy Institute, and the 
other by the Cato Institute which refer to corporate welfare in this 
country, and they talk about the direct subsidies of Federal taxpayer 
money, some $86 billion in direct subsidies to corporations, and 
another $100 billion or so in tax breaks to aid to dependent 
corporations in our country.
  I find it interesting that this Congress and the new majority would 
want to begin its assault on welfare by attacking children and families 
who are in the greatest need rather than attempting to address a more 
fair approach in terms of this issue that could have been followed if 
one would have taken the time to look at these reports. The $84 billion 
that would be affected by the actions relative to aid to families with 
dependent children and the child nutrition programs and school lunches, 
those savings could have easily occurred by scaling back some of the 
outrageous benefits that we provide as a Nation supposedly in fiscal 
crisis to corporations, multi-billion-dollar corporations each and 
every year.
  I would just ask that as we begin this debate that the Members of 
this House be mindful of the contradictions of this process today.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Foley].
  Mr. FOLEY. I thank the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Shaw], the 
chairman, for his work on this very, very important issue.
  When I go home and I read the papers over the weekend, I wonder what 
we are all doing up here because the reports are very draconian.
  The Republicans are taking food out of the children's mouths. That we 
are really just throwing people out in the streets.
  The President suggests deadbeat dads, we take their driver's license. 
They must be quaking in their boots that we are going to take their 
driver's license.
  These are people who are not paying for their children's welfare and 
they are going to be frightened about losing their driver's license? 
Take their professional license. That is a good idea, too. Now they 
will not be able to work. That is another person on welfare.
  Let's garnish their wages to the IRS. We will find ways to get after 
their money.
  Food stamps--$1.8 billion wasted on food stamps through fraud and 
abuse and we are on this floor talking about we can't reform it, we 
can't fix it. We
 are going to fix it. We are going to reform it.

  What is wrong with work? I can't believe what people are saying here. 
Not enough job training.
  I worked as a dishwasher. I cleaned toilets. My grandmother came from 
Poland. She made 28 beds a day in a Travel Lodge Motel. She cleaned 28 
toilets a day to be an American citizen. She learned to speak English. 
She was proud to be an American and proud to be in this country.
  But today, no, jobs aren't good enough. Can't take that job. Don't 
have enough training.
  I was a wrecker, an auto mechanic. I worked at a golf course. Now I 
am a proud Member of the United States Congress. No job is beneath me.
  But we are talking like unless we given them an appropriate level of 
training to seek the job that they have always dreamed of, then they 
are going to stay on welfare and we are going to spend billions and 
billions of dollars of our tax dollars on deadbeats, on people that 
don't want to work.
  I have got to tell you, this Congress has got to be serious about 
reform, not about just throwing out threats, having lunches with 
children in schools in our district, saying that the Republicans are 
going to end feeding children at school lunches, the Republicans are 
going to starve children.
  Don't believe it for a minute, America. We are not going to starve 
our children. A 4.5-percent increase per year in the Republican bill 
for school lunches increased. We are not going to starve people. We are 
going to take care of America. We are going to make it work again.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes and 40 seconds to the 
gentleman from Utah [Mr. Orton].
  (Mr. ORTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ORTON. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.
   Mr. Chairman, there are few things that more people agree upon than 
the fact that our welfare system is a failure. Today, our welfare 
system often provides people who choose not to work with a better deal 
than those who choose to take a job. I am pleased that Congress has 
committed to reform this failed system.
  However, it is not enough to say we have reformed the welfare system. 
We must reform the system so that it works. By that, I mean we must 
create 
[[Page H3368]] a system that meets what the American people consider 
the premise of welfare reform: a system based on work, that provides 
transitional assistance to those in need, and that does not harm 
innocent children.
  Many of the things I am hearing about the Personal Responsibility Act 
today sound right on target. For instance, I support State flexibility 
and allowing programs to better meet the needs of unique communities.
  In addition, I agree that we should discourage out-of-wedlock births 
and promote marriage. Finally, I wholeheartedly agree that we should 
end the cycle of dependency.
  In fact, I think the majority of the Nation would join me in 
commending these laudable goals. The unfortunate thing about the 
Personal Responsibility Act is that it does not achieve these goals.
  Instead of allowing State flexibility, the bill limits the people who 
can be served with block grant funding. These limitations directly 
contradict the stated purpose of enhancing State flexibility. I would 
like to illustrate the negative impact that restrictions in this bill 
will have on successful reform efforts currently being implemented at 
the State level.
  In Utah, we have a demonstration program that is enjoying great 
success in assisting people into the labor market. The AFDC caseload in 
one area has decreased by 33 percent in just 2 years--the best part of 
this statistic is that it represents people who are working in private 
sector jobs.
  The premise underlying the Utah program is universal participation: 
everyone works toward self-sufficiency. This program has enjoyed 
national and local support, and is exactly the kind of program you 
would expect welfare reform to be based upon. Certainly, you would 
expect that the Utah program would be allowed to continue down the same 
successful path under a reformed system.
  Yet the Utah State Department of Human Services is concerned because 
restrictive work participation definitions in the Personal 
Responsibility Act pose a threat to the program. A restrictive 
definition of participation means that a person faithfully following a 
self-sufficiency plan specifically designed to best assist them in 
entering the labor market could be considered a nonparticipant by the 
Federal Government. The Federal Government should not be creating a 
definition that prevents States, who are dealing directly with 
individuals, from determining what would best assist a person getting a 
job.
  Ironically, while the bill would not allow states to count many 
active participants toward meeting mandatory rates, people who have 
been forced to leave the system because of reaching a time limit could 
be counted toward meeting work participation rates even if they have 
never received any work-related services.
  I find it astounding that a bill can simultaneously restrict 
successful state reform efforts and offer no protection to people on 
welfare who are willing to work--it is the worst of both worlds. The 
bill guarantees that people will get kicked off the system if they meet 
a certain time limit, but it ties the States' hands in designing a 
program that would avoid this outcome for people who are willing to 
work.
  We are back to the old one-size-fits-all Federal solution, only this 
time we are prohibiting certain actions rather than mandating them. 
Congress is on one hand saying that it trusts States to make sensible 
fair choices about block grant monies and on the other than saying 
States must adhere to federal restrictions.
  I am also concerned that there is no method provided under the 
Personal Responsibility Act that allows states to contest the 
restrictions defined by the block grant if they hinder the State's 
ability to meet the purposes outlined in section 401 of the bill.
  The Utah program required 46 Federal Government waivers. I think it 
would be a tragedy if Utah had not had an opportunity to address some 
of the incredible perverse incentives in the current system. In the 
same light, I do not want to see a new Federal system created under 
which States like Utah have no means to address problems with Federal 
dictates. Conservative mandates are no better than liberal mandates.
  One thing is clear about the bill before us: a successful program in 
my district would not be able to function in the same way. This bill 
would force a State like Utah to create a parallel State bureaucracy to 
serve people that do not meet Federal definitions.
  Proponents of this bill claim that they trust states with more 
flexibility, but instead of creating a bill that allows States to 
operate varied versions of welfare reform, they have created a 
restrictive, uniform approach to welfare reform based on Federal 
assumptions. I cannot support such a restrictive and narrow view of 
reform.
                              {time}  1800

  I want to say I am concerned that the bill that we are looking at 
will not in fact allow State flexibility. I have proposed an amendment 
which would grant flexibility to States. Unfortunately that amendment 
will not be allowed to this bill.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas].
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, did you hear what I heard here today? Members of the 
loyal opposition, the new minority one after another acknowledged that 
it is time to reform welfare. That is an astonishing acknowledgment on 
the part of the minority, the loyal opposition.
  And then they proceed on top of that to attack the bold and fearless 
effort that is being made by the new majority to do something about it. 
And, in the words of many of the people on the new minority, they want 
to offer a substitute, some new refinement of welfare reform, which is 
another acknowledgment that indeed welfare systems in our country have 
to be changed.
  They attack ours as saying why denationalize welfare and allow 50 new 
bureaucracies to crop up in the 50 States. The answer is a question: 
Has the national program worked? The answer is no. They acknowledge 
that it has not worked or else they would not be offering substitutes 
or calling for a bipartisan effort now after 40 years, after 40 years 
to try to reform the system.
  The question is: Shall we do something about it now, move ahead 
boldly and fearlessly to try to change the system? The answer is yes, 
and it is agreed to by every American who thinks about the subject. And 
it is acknowledged, I repeat, by the new minority, the now new seekers 
of welfare reform whom we asked to join with us in passing meaningful 
new majority-type of welfare reform.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Pennsylvania is a clever debater, 
but his facts are wrong. I introduced a welfare reform bill last year, 
had hearings on it, ran into a filibuster of great magnitude and we 
could not make progress on it.
  We reformed the welfare program in 1988. We reformed it in the 
1960's. No one here, no one here I say to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas] defends the current system. We have all been 
trying to change it.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Brown].
  (Mr. BROWN of California asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I have followed the debate 
over the withdrawal of Federal support of poverty programs which has 
passed for a debate on welfare reform over the past few weeks with 
considerable interest. It seems to me that we have been avoiding a 
broader discussion of the deep structural problems in our society which 
the growth of welfare expenditures represents. I do not want this 
debate to end without some discussion of the real scope of these 
problems.
  The conservative Republicans seem to be proceeding from the 
assumption that the welfare system has created poverty in this country, 
and that the welfare system is the problem. If so, then it follows that 
by excluding people from the welfare system, the problem will be 
solved. Do any of us really believe this?
  The ultimate absurdity in all of this is that we all seem to be under 
the impression that by cutting the expenditures on these programs, we 
will save taxpayer dollars. This is not at all obvious to me. We are 
offering our constituents a false choice: pay for poverty programs, or 
save money and use it more productively on something else. The other 
things 
[[Page H3369]] most commonly acknowledged are: deficit reduction, tax 
cuts, and increases in defense spending.
  The real choice that we face is not whether to pay or not pay to deal 
with the problems of poverty. It is whether we will pay for positive 
programs that will move people permanently off of welfare and out of 
poverty, or whether we will pay for programs that deal only with the 
negative consequences of poverty such as crime, homelessness, and 
poorly educated children, to name a few. We are about to choose the 
latter.
  And Mr. Chairman, make no mistake, the programs to deal with the 
negative consequences of poverty already cost our taxpayers dearly and, 
I strongly believe, will cost our taxpayers even more under the 
Republican welfare reform plan. For example, if we simply throw people 
off of welfare and provide no job or safety net income, which is what 
the Republican plan would do after two years, then I think we can be 
assured that crime will rise. To deal with this we will need more 
police, more judges, more prisons, and more correctional officers.
  We will also need increased expenditures on public health to control 
dangerous communicable diseases which are associated with poverty such 
as tuberculosis (which is already on the rise in some of our cities) 
and AIDS. Non-communicable diseases such as drug addiction, alcoholism, 
and malnutrition which already cost us too much, are all likely to 
increase. In short, Mr. Chairman if you think that the crime and public 
health problems are bad now in our country, wait until we see the full 
effects of the Republican welfare reform bill.
  The current welfare system is not working, we all know that. It has 
not alleviated poverty in our country. Although there are people who 
are temporary recipients of this assistance, there are many who are 
permanently trapped below the poverty level, and who merely survive by 
making these programs a way of life. I do not know why we are 
expressing any sense of outrage over this. The old adage, ``You get 
what you pay for'' certainly applies here. We have not designed or been 
willing to pay for a suite of programs aimed at moving people from 
poverty to prosperity. We have essentially paid for maintenance, and 
that's what we have. The situation of inherited poverty that Michael 
Harrington and Robert Lampman warned of back in the early 1960s has 
been realized.

       The nation is therefore beginning the sixties with a most 
     dangerous problem: an enormous concentration of young people 
     who, if they do not receive immediate help, may well be the 
     source of a kind of hereditary poverty new to American 
     society. If this analysis is correct then the vicious circle 
     of the culture of poverty is, if anything, becoming more 
     intense, more crippling, and problematic because it is 
     increasingly associating itself with the accident or birth. 
     (Michael Harrington; p. 183: The Other America 1962)

  We cannot hope to correct this situation by falsely diagnosing the 
problem. And we cannot diminish Federal, State, or local poverty-
related expenditures until we make a commitment as a nation to have 
full employment as an economic goal and recognize its imperative as a 
social goal. It is our failure to deal with this problem that has 
resulted in the rapid growth of welfare expenditures that have occurred 
over the past decade.
  The real problem is unemployment, and the culture of despondency and 
poverty that it creates. We seem to be proceeding under the assumption 
that there are enough jobs in our economy to accommodate those who are 
now on the welfare rolls, and that those now receiving benefits will be 
equipped to accept the jobs that do exist. I doubt it. I would draw 
your attention to an example of the type of portrait that we have been 
presented with by the media of the ``True Faces of Welfare.''
  An article by this title appeared in this month's Readers Digest. We 
have all seen many like it recently. The people described in this 
article are not the type of people that engender sympathy among our 
hard-working, taxpaying constituents. In fact, I suspect that these 
descriptions of unmotivated individuals who are irresponsible parents 
and frequent participants in criminal activities make it easy for us to 
vote to cut the system that subsidizes their antisocial behavior. But I 
would like us to think carefully about these portraits from the 
perspective
 of an employer. We are being led to believe that by cutting them off, 
these people will enter the labor force. But would you hire such a 
person? Would this person, who we are judging to be an unacceptable 
recipient of public assistance, be a desirable job candidate? 
Absolutely not. Serious intervention would be required to convert these 
people from destructive to productive members of this society. It is 
far more likely that without intervention these people will turn to 
criminal means of survival rather than to jobs in the legitimate 
economy.

  These articles are also doing a serious injustice to the many poor in 
our country who continue to struggle to be productive, responsible 
citizens in the face of insurmountable odds. There are many on public 
assistance who work hard every day for wages that are simply too low to 
allow them to rise above the poverty level. We should not forget these 
people or lump them together with the unsympathetic persons described 
above. They need our help, and they should get it.
  Even if the current welfare recipients were ready and qualified to 
work are there enough jobs to accommodate them? Unfortunately, the 
Department of Labor does not collect data on the number of available 
jobs that exist. However, I decided to investigate the job availability 
in my region of California by examining as much data as are available. 
I believe that what I found for my region will mirror what exists 
throughout the country. In San Bernardino County, CA there are 64,000 
AFDC welfare families, which means that at least one adult in that 
family is unemployed or employed at such a low income level that they 
still receive some AFDC benefits. Thus, if we want to fully employ at 
least one adult from each of these families, we need to have 64,000 
vacant jobs.
  Mr. Chairman, that is a lot of jobs. Now, how many vacant jobs are 
there in San Bernardino County? The two daily newspapers in the county 
listed a combined total of 1,363 jobs in recent Sunday classified ads. 
Clearly, not all jobs openings are listed in newspapers, but the 
classified ads listed enough jobs to accommodate only 2 percent of our 
region's welfare recipients. A more precise figure comes from the State 
of California employment office, which currently has listings for 1,056 
jobs in San Bernardino County. A rule of thumb is that State employment 
offices have listings for about 20 percent of available jobs. That 
means that there might actually be 5,280 public and private sector jobs 
available in the County right now. And yet, we have a need for 64,000 
jobs if we are going to employ at least one adult from each welfare 
family.
  Obviously, if we are going to tell adults in welfare families to just 
go and get jobs, which is what the Republican welfare proposal would 
do, then we are setting up these families--and ourselves as public 
policy creators--for a real disappointment. The bottom line: without 
some kind of public commitment to create large numbers of entry-level 
jobs, we cannot have a solution to the problem of welfare dependency 
which we seek to solve.
  If we consider the bigger picture, the macroeconomic trends are even 
less comforting. The current trend in both the public and private 
sector is downsizing, and economists spend a good deal of time 
monitoring labor productivity, hoping to see it increase. What does 
this mean in human terms? Downsizing means fewer people doing more work 
(or the same amount of work). What is an increase in labor 
productivity? More units of product output for fewer units of labor 
input. This is fine if overall output rises, but if it does not, this 
simply means that fewer people are doing more work. Our population is 
not downsizing. It continues to upsize and probably will for the 
foreseeable future. Therefore, we need more jobs, not fewer.
  Mr. Chairman, I strongly believe a successful welfare reform package 
would have work as its central focus. It would cost more money in the 
short run, but save money as people move into permanent jobs. We should 
not be afraid to spend money to combat the compelling suite of social 
problems that stem from the existence of poverty. We took an oath to 
defend this nation against enemies foreign and domestic. At this time, 
I can think of no greater domestic enemy than the persistent poverty in 
our urban and rural areas.
  If there are not enough jobs in the private sector then we should 
create them in the public sector. This is not as radical as many of my 
colleagues will suggest. We justify many Federal expenditures on the 
basis that they will create jobs. There is much work to be done in this 
society. If the private sector cannot or will not pay for it, it is the 
role of Government to do so. Through programs that are focused on 
creating jobs that pay a living wage and training people to fill them 
we can transform taxtakers into taxpayers, welfare recipients into 
workers, and slums into communities.
  We must also stop pretending that the problem of illegitimate births 
is strictly a women's problem. We are going to have to stop trying to 
legislate morality and acknowledge that there are many female-headed 
households with children, and child care and health care are necessary 
support services to enable these women to work. What will we have 
accomplished if the standard of living for families actually declines 
when parents leave welfare and go back to work? Ironically, obtaining 
employment and losing public 
[[Page H3370]] child care assistance and health benefits often forces 
many working poor families back onto the welfare rolls. If our goal is 
to achieve short term Federal savings, then we will have succeeded in 
our efforts through this legislation. But if we are sincere about 
lifting families out of poverty, then let's do something that will move 
parents to work and support parents in work through real reform.
  We cannot have more people working without doing much more in the 
area of job training and education. Many of those who have become 
permanent welfare recipients are illiterate and lack the basic skills 
necessary to qualify for a decent paying job. Until they acquire these 
skills, they will remain permanently unemployed, especially since our 
economy has changed to require higher skill-levels of workers. If we 
are to finally recognize child-rearing as the important and complex job 
that it is then we can acknowledge its importance by paying women to do 
this job. However, many will require job training in this area as well, 
since many, as teenage mothers, have not acquired the necessary 
parenting skills that they need to raise children to be productive 
citizens.
  If you want to end the Federal Welfare Program, and pass this 
national problem and all of its related social ills onto the States, 
vote for this legislation. But if we want to end poverty, empower all 
of our citizens, and diminish the expenditure of funds on welfare 
programs and social damage control, we had better start over again. 
Until we are ready to acknowledge the true dimension of this problem 
and have the political will to allocate the resources to solve it, we 
will be doing nothing more than passing this problem on to future 
generations.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North 
Carolina [Mr. Ballenger].
  Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time.
  I would like to take this opportunity to address and explain two 
provisions contained in the Republican welfare reform bill, a bill 
which I fully support because it fixes our broken welfare system.
  As we are all aware, the Personal Responsibility Act rightfully 
prohibits illegal aliens from receiving aid under all federal and state 
means tested public benefits programs. The bill also bars legal 
nonimmigrants like students, tourists and businessmen from receiving 
the same benefits, with a few exceptions. One of these exceptions 
allows temporary agricultural workers to remain eligible for medical 
services provided through migrant health centers and a few other means 
tested programs. We are not explaining the eligibility of these workers 
for other benefit programs, merely allowing them to remain in the 
programs for which they are currently eligible. It is important to note 
that employers request these workers be brought into the United States, 
and the request is only granted after the employer demonstrates that 
all measures have been used to employ U.S. citizens for the vacant 
positions.
  The alien workers enter the country legally and are paid the same 
rate as a U.S. citizen would be employed in the same position.
  These workers are, again, legally here for a specific time and for a 
specific reason. It seems appropriate that these invited workers should 
be able to receive limited assistance like medical attention at a 
migrant health center.
  Let me now address the school meal provisions included in the bill. 
Although liberals consider me something of a pinch-penny, even most 
severe critics had never accused me of scheming to take food from the 
mouths of impoverished children. At least, not until recently.
  What inspired a harsh reassessment of my character, and the character 
of other House Republicans, is the proposed overhaul of food and 
nutrition programs that provide nourishment for the nation's needy 
school children.
  As a Member of the Opportunities Committee, the committee which 
worked diligently to craft the school meal reforms contained in this 
welfare reform bill, I support efforts to simplify regulations, cut red 
tape and grant States greater flexibility in operating school food and 
nutrition programs.
  Essentially, here is what these changes would mean:
  Current separate State and Federal applications, rules on eligibility 
and regulations would be replaced with a single system.
  States could allow school districts greater latitude in meeting their 
specific needs.
  Funding would be made in block grants to the States, which would 
establish their own spending and program priorities.
  The net results of these changes would be to increase--not reduce--
funding for nutrition and food programs, and to simplify (not further 
complicate) their administration.
  That, in a nutshell, is what all the fuss is about. Does that sound 
like cruel indifference?
  I do not deny--or apologize for--being frugal with the taxpayer's 
money. At the same time, I do not begrudge even one of the billions of 
dollars spent on food for hungry children. Indeed, if we are to err in 
our estimate of how much should be spent on this vital program, I would 
prefer come down on the side of generosity.
  However, much of the money we are now earmarking for nutrition is 
being consumed by a Federal supply and regulatory system that is 
needlessly complex and wasteful.
  President Clinton, among other critics, has attempted to portray this 
proposal as Republican indifference disguised as reform. That is pure 
poppycock.
  What we are attempting to do here is introduce administrative 
efficiency and fiscal sanity to a program that will nurture children 
rather than continue to feed an insatiable Federal bureaucracy. If that 
makes me a tightwad, so be it.
  Mr. GIBBONS. As we come to the close of this debate, Mr. Chairman, I 
yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Ford], the ranking 
minority member, the ranking Democrat on the Human Resources Committee 
and a member of the Ways and Means Committee.
  Mr. FORD of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to say that the gentleman from Florida 
[Mr. Shaw] and the Republicans on the Committee on Ways and Means have 
talked about this welfare reform bill as being tough love. I would have 
the gentleman from Florida know today that this is tough luck for the 
children of this country. When you look at what this bill does, it 
punishes the child until the mother is 18 years old for being born out 
of wedlock. And we must do something about children being born out of 
wedlock, but this is not an answer.
  This is what we are trying to do today to give to the wealthiest of 
this Nation, at the cost of those who cannot pay those lobbyists to 
represent them here in the halls of Congress.
  You punish children. You are weak on work and you are mean to 
children in this country for the purpose of a $600 to $700 billion tax 
cut, with 80 percent of those revenues going to the rich and wealthy of 
this Nation.
  I do not know how, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Shaw] and the 
Republicans, would have the heart to come here to say that we are going 
to be weak on work, not offer a work program that we can put people who 
are on welfare to work to make an income to provide and take care of 
their children. But instead, it is like you roll them on a conveyor 
belt and they roll off after 5 years and that is the end of it. People 
are off of welfare, they are in our cities, they will be in our 
counties, they will be in our neighborhoods, and they will be on our 
doorsteps.
  Do not be so cruel. We as Democrats want a bill. That is why we have 
embraced the Deal bill, and we think the Deal bill makes plenty of 
sense, and the Deal bill should pass this House, and we should reject 
the Republican bill that is before the House today.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland [Mr. Bartlett].
  (Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, there is an old saying that 
``if it ain't broke, don't fix it.'' Well, the American people know 
that our welfare system is broke, and they are demanding that we do 
something about it.
  In the roughly 30 years since Lyndon Johnson declared war on poverty, 
we have spent nearly $58 trillion, that is trillion with a ``T,'' on 
the war on poverty, a war we are clearly losing.
  [[Page H3371]] In 1965 we had a 7-percent illegitimacy rate. In 1990 
it increased nearly fivefold to 32 percent and it is still climbing. 
Only 11 percent of families on AFDC spent any time on a monthly basis 
getting more education, or looking for work. And fully 65 percent of 
all of the families on AFDC will be on that program for 8 years or 
longer.
  The people hurt worst with this debacle are not the taxpayers who are 
saddled with this unconscionable cost, it is the people trapped by the 
system, people who are denied the American dream of getting a better 
education, of owning a home, of having a job and the self respect and 
dignity that comes with having that job. The American people know that 
the present system is broken and they are demanding that we do 
something about it. This bill makes a good start. It deserves our 
support.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as remains.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida [Mr. Gibbons] is recognized 
for 2 minutes.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, this is an important day and an important 
piece of legislation, but this is a cruel hoax. The Republican bill is 
weak on work. It will allow the States to take a block grant, put the 
money in their pocket and pass regulations that will just drop all of 
the potential welfare recipients from their rolls. And the money that 
they save here at the Federal level will be used for a tax cut. Not a 
tax cut for people who are in need. In fact the tax cut that they 
offer, the child credit, a person working full-time, with 4 children, 
will get no tax credit if that person has $20,000 worth of income, will 
not get a penny. But if the person has $200,000 worth of income, they 
will get $2,000 in tax credit.
  This is a cruel, cruel hoax. It is not welfare reform, it is welfare 
perpetuation. It will pass the burden from those of us in Washington 
who are responsible for these things down to States who will slough off 
the responsibility to the local communities and nothing will get done.
  There will be hungry children on the streets. There will be ignorant 
children on the streets. There will be homeless families on the 
streets. And all of this in the name of welfare reform.
  Let us vote down the Republican bill, and let us adopt the Democratic 
substitute.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I yield my remaining time to myself.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida [Mr. Shaw] is recognized for 
3 minutes.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, we have heard now for over 2 hours many 
speakers from the minority side to come before this body in a desperate 
attempt to rewrite, not only rewrite history, but to rewrite the 
Republican bill. The gentleman from Florida [Mr. Gibbons] said there 
was a filibuster last year. I do not know of anyplace you can have a 
filibuster in the House of Representatives. The gentleman from Florida 
[Mr. Gibbons] filed the President's bill, that is true.
                              {time}  1815

  In the subcommittee we had one or two hearings, that is true. The 
bill never came to a markup. It was never presented to the full 
committee. We never had a hearing in the full committee. This simply 
did not happen.
  And where the filibuster occurred, I have no earthly idea. But I do 
know that the minority side has chosen not to introduce the President's 
bill this year, for some reason unknown to me. Now, the President does 
not have any bill that is before the House of Representatives, and I 
feel that the President should, because the President did advance this 
debate 2 years ago in his campaign. In fact, last summer in Florida the 
President asked me if I thought we could get welfare done last year, 
and I said, ``Only if you tell the people on the Committee on Ways and 
Means that that is exactly what you want.''
  But instead, all we found was that the whole process was stonewalled. 
We never got a bill to the full committee. We never got a bill out of 
the subcommittee, and we never got a bill to the floor. Nothing 
happened. Nothing happened the year before, the year before, the year 
before, the year before. For the last 40 years, nothing has happened. 
The Democrats have blocked and blocked and blocked anything to be done 
to change welfare as we know it today, to genuinely reform welfare.
  Now, we have heard speakers come down. One speaker compared the 
Republican bill to the Holocaust. Read the bill. You want to know where 
the work provision is? It starts on about 23 and goes on. You want to 
know where it is in the Deal bill? The Deal bill says if you are 
looking for a job, you have to get cash benefits. You know, there are 
some States that will require work in the first 2 years. You talk about 
State flexibility. The Deal bill will destroy that.
  Massachusetts has a plan where they try to put people to work during 
the first 2 years. I think Michigan either does or is working on such a 
plan, and the States should have that flexibility. The Deal bill said, 
huh uh, huh uh, you cannot do that, you cannot require them as long as 
they are looking for a job. That is making out a resume, that you have 
to give them their benefits.
  These are just some of the things that have been misstated.
  Talk about mean to children, this bill has a 40-some-percent increase 
in the funding, a 40-percent-something increase in the funding, and the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Gibbons] said something about well, what 
about inflation. Forty percent? My goodness, that is over 5 years. That 
is way above the level of inflation, the anticipation of inflation.
  I would ask the committee, read the bills. Do not listen to just the 
rhetoric, because the rhetoric is just simply wrong. Support the 
Responsibility Act. Support the Republican bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time which is dedicated to the Committee on Ways 
and Means has expired.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling] will 
be recognized for 45 minutes, and the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. 
Clay] will be recognized for 45 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling].
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 6 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, today we begin debate over one of the most important 
issues that will face this Congress, the debate over the future of the 
welfare system--or what might better be called our country's 
``despair'' system. For although the current welfare system was built, 
I believe, on compassionate intentions, it has in fact helped to create 
a system of despair for far too many people. It has become a system 
that fosters dependence on Government and rewards behaviors destructive 
to individuals, to families, and to our society. We must change if we 
are to move from a system of despair to one of hope. A former chairman 
on several occasions said ``Bill, these programs are not working the 
way we intended.'' To change we must first make the admission they are 
not working.
  A survey of the public conducted last year showed that 71 percent of 
the public believe that the current welfare system ``does more harm 
than good.'' An overwhelming majority of the public believes the system 
could be improved or has some aspects that need to be fixed. The public 
understands, and with good reason, that a system for which it is paying 
billions of dollars each year actually does more harm than good. That 
is not a matter of ``not getting your money's worth.'' That is paying 
for the wrong thing.
  And when we are talking about the welfare system, then ``paying for 
the wrong thing'' is promoting tragedy for people. Those of us who talk 
about changing the system are accused of being uncaring, of lacking 
compassion. But what is caring, what is compassionate about a system 
that fails to demand personal responsibility? And how is it that a
 ``caring'' system is by definition one run by ``one size fits all'' 
regulations and programs issued by distant bureaucrats in Washington?

  I said at the very first hearing which the Committee on Economic and 
Educational Opportunities held on welfare reform this year, I do not 
believe that there will be any quick fixes or easy answers, but neither 
can we nor should we continue down the same path of simply adding 
programs and spending more money. We need to change the direction. 
Today's welfare system destroys families and the work ethic and traps 
people in a cycle of Government dependency. We need to replace a failed 
system of despair with reforms based on the dignity of work and the 
strength 
[[Page H3372]] of families, that move solutions closer to home and 
offer hope for the future.
  During most of the past 30 years, the answer to every problem and the 
meaning of every reform provided by Congress had been to create another 
Federal program. Today we have literally hundreds of Federal programs 
intended to ``help'' people of limited incomes. Of course, each one 
requires separate regulations, separate applications, separate 
eligibility rules, separate reporting. Each one requires additional 
personnel--in Washington, at the State level, and by the people 
actually providing the services--to administer the program, to check 
the paperwork, to write and interpret the regulations. There are good 
intentions behind these programs, but much of the good intentions is 
lost in the maze of red tape and one-size-fits-all regulations. That is 
part of what we are trying to change in H.R. 4.
  Mr. Chairman, title III of H.R. 4 contains most of the legislation 
reported by the Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities. 
Title III consolidates programs in three areas: child care, school 
based nutrition programs and family nutrition programs.
  With regard to child care, the bill consolidates the Federal Child 
Care Programs into the existing child care development block grant. The 
present system of separate entitlement programs based upon the parent 
is on AFDC, has just left AFDC, or is determined to be at-risk of going 
on AFDC, has resulted in an administrative nightmare for states and 
administrators, and a maze of child care programs and eligibility rules 
for parents and children. Among others, the National Governors 
Association has urged the Congress to consolidate the Child Care 
Programs into the child care development block grant, and we have done 
so in H.R. 4.
  Under H.R. 4 the child care development block grant would be funded 
at the level that the four major child care programs received in fiscal 
year 1994. However, the bill increases by about $200 million the
 money available for actual child care services, by eliminating 
mandatory State planning set asides and limiting administrative costs.

  The school based nutrition block grant will allow States to create a 
single school food program for their schools, and allow schools to 
operate food programs under a single contract with the State. The 
school based nutrition block grant would be increased by more than 4 
percent per year, and the school lunch portion would be increased by 
exactly 4.5 percent per year.
  We have heard a lot of false information from the other side over the 
past few weeks about the School Lunch Program, and I'm afraid we will 
hear some more during this debate. Let me simply say it as clearly as I 
can: H.R. 4 does not eliminate the School Lunch Program. H.R. 4 does 
not cut spending on the School Lunch Program. It increases spending by 
4.5 percent per year.
  Every State and every area receives more money in 1996 than they get 
in 1995. Every State but five receive more money under our program in 
1996 than they do under the existing program.
  Let me give you some indications here. California gets $5 million 
more. I just pick certain States, of course. Michigan gets $3 million 
more. Missouri gets $2 million more. Indiana gets $2 million more. 
Montana, sparsely populated, gets $650,000 more. New Jersey gets $2 
million more. New York gets $5 million more. Ohio gets $2 million more. 
Rhode Island gets $250,000 Texas $2 million more, Illinois, $2.5 
million more. That is more than they would receive if the existing 
program were in effect in 1996. So every State gets more than they got 
in 1995, but the States I am mentioning, in most of the States, receive 
more than they would under the existing program. It is also above, well 
above, President Clinton's budget. I want to take a moment to point 
that out on this chart. When the President makes a show of going out 
and having lunch with some school kids, and says that somebody is 
trying to cut the School Lunch Program, well maybe he needs to check 
his own budget. H.R. 4 funds the School Lunch Program above the 
President's own budget.
  Mr. Chairman I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes.
  (Mr. CLAY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this bill.
  We must reject the cynicism, the greed and the brutality that 
inspired it, that permeates it, that drives it.
  No one would argue that the current welfare system does not need 
reform. However, in reforming the system, our actions must reflect our 
sense of fairness and our concern for those who, through no fault of 
their own, need Government assistance.
  The process for consideration of this bill in committee was deeply 
flawed. After three hurriedly called hearings with limited 
participation by expert witnesses, the committee marked up its bill 
just one day after it was introduced. No subcommittee markup was ever 
held.
  In their haste to carry out this part of the Contract With America 
within the first 100 days, the majority insults this great institution. 
In their haste to shred 60 years of social safety nets, the majority 
places millions of children and their mothers at risk.
  This bill is not about welfare reform. It is a giant money laundering 
scheme designed to write blank checks to governors while imposing no 
standards or accountability. Block grants constitute a political 
conduit for transferring Federal dollars to curry favor with State 
executives.
  The Republican welfare reform proposal promotes an extremist agenda 
that does little to ensure meaningful jobs at livable wages for those 
on welfare. An agenda that abdicates the Federal responsibility to 
protect poor children from the ravages of hunger and homelessness. An 
agenda that
 prescribes a reduced Federal role against abuse, neglect, and 
abandonment.

  At a time when studies tell us that more and better child care is 
critically needed, this bill would cut resources for child care 
programs already seriously underfunded. It would allow governors to 
transfer already precious child care funds to other programs.
  Mr. Chairman, there is no guarantee that the Appropriations Committee 
will fully fund the child care block grant. The appropriators are 
already decimating domestic programs to finance tax cuts for the rich.
  Mr. Chairman, the nutrition provisions in this bill violate all sense 
of human decency. The Republican assault on the school lunch and 
breakfast programs, which successfully promote the health and 
educational performance of more than 25 million children, is 
frightening.
  The Republican proposal to eliminate WIC and allow the State to 
develop WIC-type programs is an appalling gamble with the lives of the 
7 million women, infants, and children served by the program.
  The WIC Program is one of the most effective national social programs 
ever instituted. WIC has reduced the rate of very-low birth weight 
infants by almost 50 percent and has nearly eradicated iron-deficiency 
anemia among participants. WIC participation greatly decreases the 
incidence of premature births. WIC also saves money for the Federal 
Government.
  Mr. Chairman, the Contract with America should have made it illegal 
to utter the words welfare and reform in the same sentence. In most 
cases, politicians who use the phrase neither believe in the 
fundamental concept of welfare nor the meaning of reform. What is 
happening in the
 name of welfare reform borders on criminality.

  Welfare dependency can only be reduced by providing education, 
training, adequate child care services, and most importantly, by 
providing stable jobs that pay a living wage.
  Mr. Chairman, today's minimum wage is not a living wage. Later in the 
proceedings, I will offer an amendment to increase the minimum wage to 
$5.15 an hour. My amendment will restore the purchasing power of 
millions of working families. If we really want to end welfare as we 
know it, we should keep working families out of poverty by paying an 
adequate wage.
  Finally, Mr. Chairman, in recent days our Republican colleagues have 
admitted that they expect savings from this bill to finance tax cuts 
for the rich. The goal of welfare reform should be about one thing, and 
one thing only; and that is to have the most humane 
[[Page H3373]] and effective welfare system possible. Let us begin 
today with an honest debate, not rhetoric. Let us show compassion, not 
vengeance. Let efficiency be our means, not our end.
  This bill is a bad bill and should be defeated.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Florida [Mr. Weldon].
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for 
yielding time to me.
  It is, to me, a tremendous opportunity to be able to be here to take 
part in what I think will prove to be a very historic event in the 
history of our Nation. For 40 years we have had more and more spending 
on these programs, and what we have been getting is more poverty, more 
illigitimacy, and more social problems in our Nation.
  Bill Clinton ran on a lot of promises in 1992, and one of them was 
that he was going to end welfare as we know it, and he did not. It has 
just continued.
  Indeed, in 1993, the Census Bureau reported that poverty in America 
had reached an all-time high under Bill Clinton. Indeed, at the end of 
the first year of the Clinton administration there were 39.9 million 
poor persons, the highest since 1962. The number had been going up ever 
since Ronald Reagan left office. Indeed, it was only during the Reagan 
years that those numbers came down.
  And now, for the first time in 40 years, the Republican Party is in 
control of this Congress and implementing policies that will, indeed, 
attempt to end welfare as we know it.

                              {time}  1830

  And the reason why we need to implement these changes, particularly 
the changes in this particular welfare bill, is because it is more 
compassionate. Indeed, the American people have been very compassionate 
and very patient, but they want change and they want real change that 
will end the cycle of poverty and despair.
  The gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. J.C. Watts], a member of our class, 
was quoted as saying,

       We can no longer measure compassion by how many people are 
     on welfare. We need to measure compassion by how many people 
     are not on welfare, because we have helped them climb the 
     ladder to success.

  Today in this Congress we are beginning that change, and I thank the 
gentleman again.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Puerto Rico [Mr. Romero-Barcelo].
  Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, today the majority in this House is ravaging a series 
of sensible programs that have served well the needs of the Nation. 
Programs that have assisted many in need, particularly disadvantaged 
children and mothers at risk, are under attack.
  In an effort to score political points with the very popular notion 
of welfare reform, Republicans have refused to discuss sensible 
approaches to real reform. Of course we need to reform many areas of 
the existing welfare system; but there is no need to wage war against 
current programs that work well, such as school nutrition programs and 
the Special Supplemental Food Program for Women, Infants, and Children 
[WIC]. These two programs have a proven positive track record.
  To compound the unnecessary assault on these programs, the majority 
has lashed out against two constituencies that have no political clout 
in Washington because they do not vote: that is, poor children and 
legal immigrants.
  Republicans, touting the banner of savings, are slashing programs and 
directing large amounts of the so called savings not for deficit 
reduction, but for special tax breaks for wealthy individuals and 
corporations.
  You want savings? You want to reduce the deficit? Then have some 
courage and take aim at the greatest of all welfare programs--corporate 
welfare.
  Various Washington think tanks, both liberal and conservatives ones, 
as well as the media have identified billions and billions of dollars 
in tax giveaways and special provisions for rich corporations and 
special interests. Why has this Congress opted to protect these 
interests instead of investing in people, in education, in health, in 
affordable housing, in decent meals for low income students?
  Why are the regular folks in America, our middle class, taking a back 
seat to the interests of a very select powerful group that defends 
corporate welfare at all cost?
  In my own district, Congress condones giving over $3 billion per year 
in special tax breaks to multinationals while at the same time it 
deprives millions of U.S. citizens from participating in programs that 
can assist in improving their quality of life. I call this the Reverse 
Robin Hood policy, whereby the Federal Government takes away from the 
elderly, the children, the handicapped and the middle class, in order 
to give to the rich. There are plenty of Federal policies that 
illustrate this point. Take a look at section 936 of the Internal 
Revenue Code, look at some agricultural and mining subsidies.
  In section 936 you will find a program that has cost taxpayers over 
$40 billion in 20 years, the primary beneficiary being foreign and 
American pharmaceutical firms with hundreds of millions of dollars in 
annual net profits while low wage working families are denied the 
earned income tax credit; while children, handicapped and other 
citizens in need are deprived of adequate medical and hospital care and 
needy children are denied a first class education.
  The President genuinely wants to work with this Congress to end 
welfare as we know it. But Republicans insist in targeting just about 
every conceivable Federal program notwithstanding the merits that they 
may have. Take aim at corporate welfare and stop blaming the poor and 
legal immigrant communities for the fiscal mess. We need to balance the 
budget and everyone needs to share the burden, but with this bill, 
children, the elderly, the handicapped and middle income families are 
financing the special tax giveaways for the rich.
  Start with corporate welfare, then bring all the other programs to 
the table, so that Congress can craft, in a bipartisan way, sensible 
restructuring moves which will prove to be true reforms that will 
benefit the Nation, not hurt it.
  I urge our colleagues to defeat this bill. Put people first! Consider 
the substitute bill that our colleague from Hawaii [Mrs. Mink] has put 
forth.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Nebraska [Mr. Barrett].
  Mr. BARRETT of Nebraska. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time 
to me.
  Mr. Chairman, Nearly 30 years ago, President Johnson initiated the 
war on poverty. Today, after decades of losing the war, we begin 
Operation Restore Trust--trust in our State and local leaders and 
communities to care for their own.
  H.R. 4, the Personal Responsibility Act, would eliminate many Federal 
regulations and policies that have hamstrung States and local 
governments for decades. Under H.R. 4, Washington will not be telling 
State's what is best for their citizens. The States will get the 
credit, or the blame, for enacting policies and programs that will take 
people off welfare, into jobs, and out of dependency.
  For the last few weeks we've seen many of the opponents of H.R. 4 go 
through all kinds of statistical contortions on what H.R. 4 will do to 
our children and families.
  Case in point are the changes we seek to make to the School Lunch 
Program. Basically, we offer two changes while maintaining the Federal 
commitment to providing meals for needy children.
  First, by maintaining a 4.5-percent annual increase, eliminating 
Federal paperwork, and better targeting of Federal dollars, H.R. 4 will 
allow States to feed more children.
  Second, we given State and local communities, which know best the 
needs of their States and towns, the ability to tailor-make programs 
that can serve the nutritional needs of children.
  H.R. 4 would also continue to provide support for the Food Stamp 
Program. This program, which has been racked with abuse, is 
significantly reformed while allowing for $131 billion in additional 
funding over the next 5 years.
  By having the Food Stamp Program as a Federal safety net, people will 
be 
[[Page H3374]] able to supply their families with food and keep their 
dignity in the process.
  Mr. Chairman, I cannot say that H.R. 4 isn't risky. But the risk of 
maintaining the status quo, by far, greatly jeopardizes our children 
and our future. H.R. 4 begins the battle of Operation Restore Trust--
trust in our States and communities to do what is best.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Kildee].
  Mr. KILDEE. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, for nearly 50 years Congress has shown a bipartisan 
commitment to alleviate the worst of human suffering in our Nation, 
especially hunger. Today we begin debating a proposal that would end 
this commitment.
  The Nation's nutrition programs are cost-effective and target the 
truly needy.
  Study after study shows that children who get a school meal perform 
better academically.
  I am puzzled as to why we would want to fix a program that works so 
well.
  The National School Lunch Program came into being for a strong 
national purpose in 1946. Many recruits failed physical examinations 
for the draft because they were found to have been malnourished during 
their formative years.
  Republicans claim that they are increasing funding. But everyone 
recognizes that compared to current law there will be less money for 
each child who receives a school lunch. The bottom line is either less 
money for each child or fewer children eating.
  Why are we putting this program into a block grant? To save money? To 
reduce the deficit? No; it appears that the savings will be used to pay 
for tax cuts for those who are not as needy as our children.
  If the motive of this bill is to save money--why does it remove the 
requirement in the WIC Program for competitive bidding for infant 
formula?
  Most States were not using competitive bidding before Congress 
required them to do so in 1989. When we enacted this law we found that 
it saved over $1 billion a year.
  What can the savings be used for? That billion dollars can be used to 
serve 1\1/2\ million more women and children per month in the WIC 
Program.
  It bewilders me, in this time of budget crunching, why we would want 
to give the three infant formula companies $1 billion if our purpose is 
to better serve women and children.
  For the richest nation on Earth to deny food to its own children is a 
shortsighted betrayal of our values and our future. It is also 
unnecessary.
  In the name of our Nation and its children, we call upon reason to 
prevail in Congress. The 104th Congress should not be remembered as the 
Congress that abandoned our Nation's most vulnerable--our children.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
New Jersey [Mrs. Roukema].
  (Mrs. ROUKEMA asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 4, the Personal 
Responsibility Act of 1995.
  Mr. Chairman, the American people are convinced that the welfare 
system is out of control. As one prominent citizen of New Jersey, a 
Democrat at that, said to me last week: ``No other civilized nation in 
the world pays young girls to have babies. But that's what our welfare 
system does.''
  You know, he is not far from wrong. And that is the perception among 
many other good, generous, caring people who are deeply concerned about 
this country.
  They worry that we are wasting billions upon billions in hard-earned 
taxpayer dollars to support a system that promotes unhealthy, 
unproductive, dysfunctional families that sentence children to a 
lifetime of economic, social, and emotional deprivation.
  In a system like this, it is the children who are the first victims. 
But the taxpayers are not far behind.
  We must act now. We need welfare reform based on the notion of 
individual responsibility. Reform must restore public assistance to its 
original purpose: a temporary safety net for those in need--not a 
permanent way of life for generations of families.
  H.R. 4 makes a number of important changes.
  First, this plan requires that 50 percent of welfare recipients must 
be working.
  There is no good reason why able-bodied welfare recipients cannot, 
and should not, be required to work for their benefits.
  Second, this bill allows States the flexibility to terminate a 
family's welfare benefits after 2 years, and it requires States to 
terminate a family's welfare benefits after 5 years.
  It is clear. Some people take advantage of the current welfare 
program's lax bureaucracy and simply live off welfare--generation after 
generation--by skillfully gaming the system.
  We all saw the article last month in the Boston Globe about four 
generations of one family--one mother, 17 children, 74 grandchildren, 
and an unknown number of great-grandchildren--living in Massachusetts 
on welfare of some kind or another.
  Is it any wonder that the American taxpayers are enraged?
  Also, H.R. 4 clearly denies welfare benefits to illegal aliens and 
legal immigrants, thereby limiting welfare eligibility to only citizens 
of the United States.
  While the exclusion for legal aliens has received quite a bit of 
criticism, I want to make sure that everyone realizes an often-
overlooked, but essential component of our immigration laws--for 
decades, our immigration laws have required immigrants to stipulate 
that they will be self-sufficient once they arrive in America, as a 
condition of their being allowed to immigrate in the first place. 
Consequently, receiving welfare has been grounds for deportation for 
these very same immigrants for generations.
  H.R. 4 only makes explicit what has been implicit for so long. The 
United States of America welcomes immigrants of all kinds to our 
Nation. However, an important prerequisite has always been that 
immigrants will not become wards of the State, but rather self-
supporting members of our society.
  Mr. Chairman, I serve on the Economic and Educational Opportunities 
Committee and I support the committee-reported package of welfare 
reforms.
  I am a strong believer in the block grant approach and feel that this 
is the most effective means for administering the array of services 
available to those who are eligible. Block granting nutrition program 
funds will give States the necessary flexibility to target programs 
which demand the greatest amount of services as a result of increased 
eligibility and participation.
  However, I do have some concerns about certain aspects of this bill's 
impact on nutrition programs. Members of the committee have heard me 
say this before and I will say it again: Children will not go hungry 
and homeless. Not on my watch.
  Our committee adopted my amendment prohibiting the States from 
transferring money from the nutrition block grants unless the State 
guarantees it has enough money to meet food needs.
  But this is not enough.
  However, I do have concerns about our responsibility to monitor 
maintenance of effort by the States and the need to maintain 
accountability standards. In these respects, I do have some concerns 
about certain aspects of this bill's impact on nutrition programs.
  We must be certain that we are not just writing the States a blank 
check. We have a fiduciary responsibility to assure the taxpayers that 
the programs are being honestly administered.
  During committee markup, concerns were raised over questions of 
establishing minimum nutrition standards and allowing for a 22 percent 
transfer provision. I believe that it is critical for this country to 
have uniform minimum nutrition standards because children across the 
country, whether they are participating in school lunch or WIC, should 
all be provided with foods comparable in nutritional content.
  To me, this seems like a practical and straightforward approach--
providing equally nutritious meals to all low-income children who are 
eligible. However, many oppose maintaining minimum nutrition standards 
established 
[[Page H3375]] by the USDA because they believe that keeping such 
requirements would be a mandate on the States. I find this charge 
perplexing since there are numerous mandates in this bill already.
  I would also argue that, if this is considered a mandate, then it is 
a necessary one. We all agreed that there should be some set of 
standards established by the Federal Government, no matter how broadly 
defined. What do we accomplish by allowing 50 States to devise 50 
different sets of nutrition standards? Children participating in the 
various nutrition programs available should have access to meals that 
are equal in nutritional value because all children need the same 
essential nutrients to develop both physically and mentally during the 
critical years of early childhood.
  The amendment I offered which passed and is included in the bill 
requires the National Academy of Sciences to establish voluntary model 
nutrition standards for the States to follow is a small step forward in 
reinstating minimum national nutrition standards. However, I would like 
to see H.R. 4 go much further and maintain the standards already in 
place. Indeed, I believe it will not be too far in the future when we 
will evolve back to updated standards based on the academy research.
  The 20-percent transfer provision clause is a second area of concern 
that I feel needs to be addressed. My fear, both during committee 
markup and presently, is that, if up to 20 percent of block grant funds 
can be transferred to other titles in H.R. 4, then certain programs, 
particularly those under the school-based nutrition block grant and the 
family nutrition block grant, would not be able to carry out services 
to those low-income children participating. Moving funds from one 
program to another is not a solution. Instead, it only creates problems 
permitting political decisions to take precedence over the nutritional 
needs of children.
  For this reason, I offered an amendment during markup which prohibits 
the transfer of funds from either of the food assistance block grants 
unless the appropriate State agency administering this money makes a 
determination that sufficient amounts will remain available to carry 
out the services under the two nutrition block grants. While this 
establishes an important safeguard against depriving children of free 
and low-cost meals, I believe that we must do more.
  Therefore, I submitted to the Rules Committee an amendment to H.R. 4 
that prohibits the transfer of funds outside of these nutrition block 
grants when States experience unemployment above 6 percent.
  Those who support the 20-percent transfer provision claim that it 
gives States additional flexibility during times of recession to 
address increases/decreases in demand for different programs. However, 
I would argue that this does not happen. Instead, as I have already 
mentioned, a decision to transfer funds only shifts existing problems 
to new programs, creates entirely new problems, and makes no sense.
  During economic downturns, participation in various nutrition 
programs, such as school lunch and WIC, increases. It is critical to 
ensure that during such periods, these vital nutrition services 
continue to be provided both to those who become eligible and to those 
who already qualify. The argument that not less than 80 percent of the 
family nutrition block grant funds must be use to carry out WIC 
services holds no water during times of recession. Therefore, we must 
make sure that all low-income people participating in the numerous 
nutrition programs receive healthy and nutritious meals despite 
fluctuations in the economy.
  The second of three amendments I submitted to the Rules Committee 
also deals with unemployment as it affects changes--in particular, 
increases--in nutrition program participation. This amendment would 
establish a trigger to increase a States funding for both the school-
based and family nutrition block grants when that State experiences an 
economic downturn. More specifically, it would allow up to a 1.5 
percent increase in funding of both block grants for each fiscal year 
through fiscal year 2000 to address this problem.
  Under the Opportunities Committee bill, now folded into H.R. 4, block 
grant money under the two aforementioned block grants is distributed 
quarterly. My
 amendment says that for every two-tenths of 1 percent that a State's 
quarterly unemployment level rises above 6 percent, that State will 
receive an additional 1 percent of the total block grant money that it 
received for that quarter. And, because of the funding difference 
between the two food assistance block grants, the additional money is 
authorized for the family nutrition block grant, and it is appropriated 
for the school-based nutrition block grant.

  Many Governors, including Governor Whitman from New Jersey, have 
strongly endorsed a trigger-based safety net as a necessary mechanism 
for ensuring that States can meet participation increases.
  Common sense and experience show that the needs for free and low-cost 
lunches, breakfasts, WIC and other nutrition services increase during 
times of unemployment. This additional money will help to make sure 
that States have the ability to administer current levels of service 
during such a time period while also being able to accommodate those 
who currently qualify. Moreover, this funding helps to prevent children 
from losing their eligibility to school meals and reduces the possible 
reduction in quality, portions, and frequency of meals being served.
  Those who argue that we can always vote for supplemental 
appropriations are ignoring the needs of children and the added stress 
to State treasuries. States will end up tapping into their own 
treasuries and subsequently draining State resources during the many 
months that it takes Congress to draft, approve, and enact supplemental 
appropriations bills.
  My last area of concern was also brought up during the Opportunities 
Committee markup, and it deals with the issue of cost containment.
  Under current law, States are required to participate in competitive 
bidding for infant formula provided to WIC-like programs, or some other 
system of cost containment that yields equal to or greater savings than 
under competitive bidding. As a result, States achieve considerable 
savings, which is reliably estimated to be $1 billion annually, which 
in turn is used to provide additional services to WIC participants. 
However, under our block grant proposal, while States are encouraged to 
continue these systems, they are not required to.
  Therefore, my third and final amendment under review by the Rules 
Committee would require that States implement cost-containment measures 
for infant formula included in food packages under the family nutrition 
block grant. In addition, it would require that a State use all savings 
achieved under this system for the purposes of carrying out services 
for all programs under this block grant. And, the amendment also has 
the State report annually on the system it is using as well as how 
current savings compare to that of the previous fiscal year.
  Cost containment is a fair way for infant formula producers to 
compete for the WIC recipient market which accounts for roughly 40 
percent of the entire infant formula market. The objective of this type 
of cost containment is to provide the maximum savings for the State so 
that it can in turn use this savings to provide additional WIC services 
for those who are eligible. Infant formula producers still have free 
access to 60 percent of the market. If we increase that to 100 percent, 
then we jeopardize the ability of a State to provide the necessary WIC 
nutrition services to those who qualify.
  It is also important to point out that this amendment would allow a 
State's cost-containment savings to go toward providing services under 
the other programs within this block grant: Child & Adult Care Food, 
Summer Food, and Homeless Children Nutrition. As a result, the State is 
given the flexibility to use savings where it sees the greatest need.
  I support the Opportunities Committee block grant approach, but the 
program will be greatly enhanced with my amendments. They will make the 
States accountable for their administration and maintenance of effort. 
And, most importantly, we will maintain the safety net to assure that 
in this land of plenty--no children will go hungry.
  [[Page H3376]] And finally, I want to conclude my statement with some 
remarks about the Child Support Enforcement title of H.R. 4.
  Let me make clear one unequivocal fact: effective child support 
enforcement reforms must be an essential component of any true welfare 
reform plan. In fact, nonsupport of children by their parents is one of 
the primary reasons so many families end up on the welfare rolls to 
begin with.
  Research conducted by Columbia University and the U.S. Department of 
Health and Human Services has found that anywhere between 25 and 40 
percent of mothers on public assistance would not be on welfare if they 
were receiving the child support they are legally and morally entitled 
to.
  It's a national disgrace that our child support enforcement system 
continues to allow so many parents who can afford to pay for their 
children's support to shirk these obligations. The so-called 
enforcement gap--the difference between how much child support could be 
collected and how much child support is collected--has been estimated 
at $34 billion.
  Remember, we are addressing the problems of deadbeats who are 
willfully avoiding their legal obligations under the divorce edicts of 
their individual States. They are avoiding both their legal and moral 
obligations.
  Failure to pay court-ordered child support is not a victimless crime. 
The children going without these payments are the first victims. But, 
the taxpayers who have to pick up the tab for deadbeat parents evading 
their obligations are the ultimate victims.
  Strong, effective child support enforcement is welfare prevention. 
The single best method to reduce welfare spending is to ensure that 
custodial parents with children get their child support payments on 
time, every month.
  I've been a leading voice in this debate for 10 years now, having 
helped draft both the Child Support Enforcement Amendments of 1984 and 
the Family Support Act of 1988. In addition, I served as a member of 
the U.S. Commission on Interstate Child Support Enforcement, which 
issued a comprehensive report, and recommendations for change, of our 
interstate child support system in August 1992.
  I am very pleased to see that the Ways and Means Committee included 
many of my legislation's provisions in its child support enforcement 
title. In 1993, I authored legislation, H.R. 1600, that sought to enact 
the Commission recommendations, and I reintroduced that bill as H.R. 
195 on the first day of the 104th Congress earlier this year.
  Perhaps the most salient fact we must keep in mind as we seek to 
improve our child support enforcement system is: Our interstate child 
support system is only as good as its weakest link. States that have 
made enforcing and collecting child support payments a priority are 
penalized by those States which have failed to reciprocate. In other 
words, the deadbeat under the existing loopholes can slip over the 
State line or just across the Delaware River and escape his legal 
obligations to his kids.
  That is precisely what we need--comprehensive Federal reform of our 
child support system--to ensure that all States come up to the highest 
common denominator, not sink to the lowest common denominator as has 
happened all too frequently in the past.
  There are, however, two important and effective get tough reforms 
which I have long endorsed and supported, which the Ways and Means 
Committee has chosen not to include in its bill. Consequently, I have 
asked the Rules Committee for permission to offer them as floor 
amendments to H.R. 4.
  The first amendment, which has been cosponsored by Congresswoman 
Connie Morella of Maryland and Congressman Mac Collins of Georgia, 
requires that States adopt a program that revokes or restricts driver's 
licenses, professional/occupational licenses, and recreational licenses 
of deadbeat parents.
  The second amendment would require that States enact criminal 
penalties, of their own design and choosing, for those parents who 
willfully fail to pay child support.
  In both cases, I expect that once deadbeat parents realize exactly 
how serious we are about ensuring that they pay their child support, 
the overwhelming majority will do so, rather than lose a driver's 
license, a professional license, or face the prospect of a jail 
sentence.
  It's funny how, when the sheriff knocks on their front door, how many 
delinquent parents who previously claimed they had no money, 
miraculously find some money and begin making child support payments.
  Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, I believe that H.R. 4 contains the kind 
of reforms to our long-broken welfare system that the American people 
have been expecting. In general, this bill has earned my support, and I 
look forward to the amendment process where I believe that this 
important measure will only be improved upon, prior to House passage. I 
urge all of my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Martinez].
  Mr. MARTINEZ. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Democratic substitute, what 
they will offer as reform, and in opposition to the bill before us now.
  Mr. Chairman, there are none of us, I think this has been said before 
by several people, that we are all for welfare reform, and we are. But 
this bill is misnomered. I think it should be called the Lack of 
Responsibility by the Congress Act. Sure, there are a lot of welfare 
abuses, and we all know it. But this begins with a society that breeds 
several generations of welfare recipients. There are a lot of social 
problems that contribute to these factors. In no way is this bill 
addressing any of those problems.
  To put people into productive employment I thought was the goal of 
this bill rather than destructive dependence. But I do not see it in 
this bill. I am afraid this bill under consideration presently does not 
achieve any of the things it should try to achieve to eliminate the 
abuse of welfare.
  There are some States doing a tremendous job in this area. Maryland 
is a good example of cutting out the abuse from the sale of food 
stamps, et cetera, et cetera, by going to a system with a nonforgery 
identification card in terms of goods and supplies that families might 
need.
  If you go back to the original reason why we created welfare, it was 
for the children, not the parents, not the abusive parents. It was to 
protect the children. It was at the time only for widows because we 
understood that widows of the men who had died would be terribly into 
poverty because the times were tough. That was back during the 
Depression. There are a lot of us here who are recipients of the 
programs that were established then, and we did not turn out so bad. 
But there are a lot of other factors in our society that exist today 
which did not exist then that we have to deal with. The fact is that 
right now conditions are very much like the Depression-type conditions 
with regard to the availability of work in many areas and 
neighborhoods. That is something that we have to realize if we are 
going to focus on making sure that we take care of the children.
  This misnamed bill, as I have said, does not contain, as far as I am 
concerned, a job creation in it, which is terribly important if we are 
going to take these people off welfare and put them to work. It does 
not contain any provisions that make sure that the people we put here, 
especially in a single-parent home where the mother is the single 
parent and that parent needs child care for these children, where they 
can leave them at home, where they can be relatively sure these 
children are going to be safe.
  You know, the bill as it is constructed, they do away with the child 
protections that are in the law now. They say they do this by a 
provision in the bill that says it will allow the States to certify.
                              {time}  1845

  Let me tell my colleagues what is wrong with that. The States will 
only be certifying those that are licensed. Over 40 percent of the 
people that provide day care are not licensed, and so that leaves a 
whole group of people.
  There are so many things that, as we get into the rest of the bill, 
we will debate, but I really want to tell my colleagues this, to those 
on the other side, those of my colleagues who have, I think, no less 
compassion than those of us on this side. I wish they really 
[[Page H3377]] would rethink what they are doing here because together 
we can form a welfare reform package that deals with the abuses that 
are out there and make sure that we provide opportunities to succeed to 
people that are on welfare. That is what happened during the 
Depression, and that is why a lot of us that are of the Depression age 
are here today in this House, because there were programs that did in a 
bipartisan way address the societal problems that we have.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania [Mr. Greenwood].
  Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, the American people widely support 
maintaining a strong social service system which provides for children, 
the handicapped, the elderly and those who truly cannot find 
employment. At the same time, Americans have come to believe that the 
system now in place, not only fails to foster self-reliance, but may 
actually promote out-of-wedlock births.
  While we must maintain a compassionate social safety net, I am 
convinced that we can do a better job of instilling self-reliance and 
discouraging irresponsible behavior within our welfare system.
  H.R. 4 offers the first comprehensive package of welfare reform 
measures in nearly half a century. Its fundamental tenets are: (1) 
those welfare recipients who are able-bodied must work in exchange for 
benefits; (2) programs must be designed to discourage--not facilitate 
out-of-wedlock births; and (3) the States, which already operate their 
own welfare programs, will receive blocks of Federal money to provide 
additional social services within Federal guidelines.
  The media has done a less than complete job of informing the general 
public about the nutrition and child care portions of H.R. 4. It is 
time that they know all of the facts.
  First, we are not reducing funds for school lunch. The truth is this 
measure increases funding for school lunch by $1.1 billion over 5 
years.
  Second, we are not reducing funds for women, infants, and children. 
The truth is the bill increases WIC funding by $776 million over 5 
years.
  Third, we are not reducing funds for child care. The truth is the 
bill makes $200 million more available for direct child care services.
  I care about the future of our Nation's children. However, if the 
Federal Government continues to add hundreds of billions of dollars to 
the national debt each year, our children won't have a future. 
Establishing flexible, State-based programs that promote personal 
responsibility and self-reliance is a necessary step toward developing 
a sound fiscal policy.
  As a former social worker and the father of four, I know the 
importance of ensuring the safety and health of all children. H.R. 4 
offers compassionate, fiscally sound solutions which allow us to 
effectively help those in greatest need. As a former State Legislator, 
I am confident that the States and localities can effectively 
administer welfare programs without the Federal Government micro-
managing their efforts.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from California [Ms. Woolsey].
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank my ranking member for yielding me 
this time.
  As the only Member of Congress who has actually been a single, 
working mother on welfare, my ideas about welfare do not come from 
theory or books. I know it, I lived it.
  Make no mistake, I know the welfare system is broken. It does not 
work for recipients or for taxpayers, and it needs fundamental change.
  But I also know that H.R. 4 will gut the welfare system and shred the 
safety net that enabled my family to get back on our feet 27 years ago.
  I will never forget what it was like to lie awake at night worried 
that one of my children would get sick, or trying to decide what was 
more important: new shoes for my children or next week's groceries.
  Even though I was working the entire time I was on AFDC, I needed 
welfare in order to provide my family with health care, child care and 
the food we needed in order to survive. So my colleagues see I know 
about the importance of a safety net, and I also know about the 
importance of work.
  That is why, as cochair of the House Democratic Task Force on Welfare 
Reform, I can tell my colleagues that the Democrats are committed to 
getting families off welfare and into work. We do this by helping them 
with education, with training, by providing the child care they need so 
that they can go to work.
  Mr. Chairman, the choice comes down to this. We could punish poor 
families by voting for H.R. 4, or we can invest in our children and 
their families so they can lead strong, productive lives. I beg my 
colleagues to vote against H.R. 4 that would put people on the streets 
and vote for putting people to work.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
North Carolina [Mr. Funderburk].
  Mr. FUNDERBURK. Mr. Chairman, this is the most important week of the 
104th Congress. It is more important to the future of America than all 
the weeks we will spend on term limits, the line item veto, and the 
balanced budget. This week we decide if we will continue down the 
morally bankrupt path the liberal/left has led millions of Americans or 
will we blaze a new path for hope, responsibility, and freedom.
  This debate is also about two visions. The first is offered by the 
same people who created the welfare nightmare. Their view of the world 
begins and ends with big government. In their world, government 
regulates and dominates every walk of life, it replaces the family, the 
church and the neighborhood. They promise you happiness in exchange for 
a check and the loss of your liberty. The second view--our view--begins 
and ends with the individual. Our view of society is one in which 
people have the right and the opportunity to work, invest, and raise 
their children as they see fit. We have faith in the American spirit; 
the liberal Democrats have faith in Washington, DC.
  I have had enough of the Democrats' big lie about welfare reform. Day 
after day they come to the floor and repeat the lie that Republicans 
are waging war on children. It is offensive because it comes from those 
who have trapped millions of American children in a never ending cycle 
of despair and dependence. Who are they to lecture to anyone about 
taking care of our children after they spent decades destroying the 
American dream for the poor.
  Mr. Chairman, for the last thirty years we watched them create a 
national tragedy. Since 1965 we spent $5 trillion on welfare. What do 
we have to show for it; disintegrating families, children having 
children, burned out cities, a thirty percent illegitimacy rate, and 
three generations of Americans who do nothing but wait at home for the 
next government check.
  Bill Clinton promised to ``end welfare as we know it.'' What 
happened? His first ``reform'' expanded welfare spending by $110 
billion and gutted what was left of workfare. It was business as usual; 
more government, more taxes, more bureaucrats. But, the American people 
said, ``enough is enough.'' They understood that the liberal/left's 
``reform'' is to spend more of other peoples' money. They know the left 
is happy with the ``poverty'' industry and those churning out more of 
the perverse regulations and programs which have turned so many of our 
people into a mass of ``favor seekers.''
  Mr. Chairman, we came to Washington to put people to work and get 
government's hands out of the peoples' pockets. Let me tell you where 
we will be if we do not stop the runaway welfare train. Today federal 
welfare spending stands at $387 billion, by 2000 we will spend $537 
billion on welfare entitlements. The madness has to stop.
  Our bill eliminates the federal middleman and cuts the heart out of 
the Washington bureaucracy. It says the real innovators are in the 
states and the counties.
  Mr. Chairman, the best welfare program is a job. By cutting 
government, taxes, regulations, and bureaucrats we can create a new era 
of opportunity that will make it easier for poor Americans to get back 
on their feet and share America's promise. Mr. Clinton is right about 
one thing, it really is past time to end welfare as we know it. We had 
better get on with it because time is running out.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio [Mr. Sawyer].

[[Page H3378]]

  Mr. SAWYER. Mr. Chairman, I listened carefully to the last speaker, 
and I have to agree that the debate this week over welfare reform does 
come down to one thing, the well-being of the American family. But I 
would just simply have to disagree that this is not about replacing the 
American family. We have known for a long time that parents who 
finished school and who work at real and meaningful jobs are more 
likely to have kids who do well in school themselves and who go on to 
become productive citizens and raise families that are strong in their 
own right.
  Families that function well must have access to a network of 
affordable support services to help them balance the demands of work 
and parenting. That is probably truer of families and young people 
today than it has ever been before. For many parents, the lack of 
affordable, safe child care prevents them from pursuing additional 
education or taking a worthwhile job; that very pathway toward solving 
the problem, nurturing the family, is cut off.
  Now, we hear that we want to cut federal funding for child care by 
20% over 5 years, providing no provision for additional funding when 
demand increases during difficult economic times.
  We know that too many children are receiving inadequate care while 
their parents work, and yet this bill eliminates current health and 
safety standards for child care. It eliminates the requirement that 
states use funds to improve the quality of child care.
  Mr. Chairman, we cannot have it both ways.
  If we want people to move from dependence on welfare to long-term, 
gainful employment, we have to provide the options that make that 
possible.
  There is nothing more important than making sure that children are in 
safe and healthy settings while their parents work.
  We would not want anything less for our own children. We should 
provide nothing less for all children.
  So, I would urge my colleagues to keep this in mind as they vote 
against H.R. 4 in its current form.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Gunderson].
  (Mr. GUNDERSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. GUNDERSON. Mr. Chairman and Members, I think it is important we 
understand exactly what this debate has become all about.
  This debate is about whether my colleagues want to defend the 
Washington bureaucracy or whether they want to be advocates of real 
reform and change. It used to be that we were all for a bipartisan 
commitment to children, but now our defense of the bureaucracy has 
taken precedence over that. I do not know of any area wherein child 
nutrition is part of the school lunch debate which has been more 
intentionally misrepresented and where children have been used as pawns 
for political purposes than they have in this particular area.
  Let me give my colleagues some facts:
  For all of those who say that the school lunch program is a wonderful 
program without any problems I would point out that according to the 
General Accounting Office in the last 4 years that they have kept 
records, over 302 schools have developed out of the Federal school 
lunch program, and their No. 1 reason for doing so was the rules, 
regulations and paperwork required by Washington. Second, I would point 
out that 46 percent of all non-poor or full-priced students voluntarily 
choose not to participate in America's school lunch programs today. 
Finally as a part of the administration's attempt last year to increase 
the regulations on the school lunch program through their nutrient 
standards, even Washington, even USDA in their budget request, say they 
will have to ask for at least 25 million plus to assist schools in 
meeting the computer requirement of this particular provision just in 
fiscal year 1996.
  So, we have come forth with a proposal for change, a proposal that 
increases funding, that increases flexibility and that decreases 
Federal rules, regulations and paperwork. Our proposal recognizes that 
there is a need for increased funding. So we provide a 4.5-percent 
increase through fiscal year 2000.
                              {time}  1900

  We cap State administrative expenses each year at 2 percent, so 98 
percent of that money goes not to States to balance their State 
budgets, but right to that local school to provide school nutrition. 
And we eliminate the Federal bureaucracy at a projection of over $300 
million in savings over the next 5 years.
  In addition to that, second, we provide flexibility at the State and 
local levels, so they can take our resources and combine them with 
their own State innovation and create something new and different, a 
creative and interesting and appetizing and appealing school lunch 
program.
  Third, we do establish minimum Federal safeguards. We establish 
voluntary national nutrition guidelines available for every State 
established by the National Academy of Science in concert with the 
school dieticians.
  Second, as I said earlier, we require that 98 percent of that money 
go to the schools and 80 percent of that money go to the low-income 
students.
  Now, there is something that has been missing in this discussion. I 
would like to challenge my Democratic friends, if they believe that in 
an era of deficit reduction we ought to continue providing the 11.3 
million students, the sons and daughters of the bankers and rich people 
in this country, whether we ought to provide them with a school subsidy 
for every meal they take at a cost to the Federal Government of $556 
million a year. There is not a Member in this Congress who believes 
that that $556 million would survive our efforts to balance the budget, 
and there is not a person who understands the school lunch program who 
knows that if you eliminate that $556 million, that you can continue 
the school nutrition programs or the school lunch program as it exists 
today.
  So there has to be reform. We are the leaders in advocating that 
reform. But we are not cutting school lunch by $556 million. What we 
are doing is increasing it 4.5 percent for every year for the next 5 
years.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Miller].
  (Mr. MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, the legislation that we will be debating this week in 
the House that will be offered to us by our Republican colleagues is 
the most comprehensive and the most focused assault on poor children in 
this country that we have witnessed in the past 30 years. It is not 
that the press has got it wrong, it is that the press has started to 
explain it to the American people, and as the American people have 
started to understand it and started to see its components, they are 
starting to reject it. Because, while all of us agree about welfare 
reform, and every Member has said that on the floor and clearly the 
public agrees with welfare reform, the public is starting to ask what 
is it about welfare reform that requires you to take severely disabled 
children who suffer from cerebral palsy and other disabling diseases, 
what is it that requires you to take them off of the rolls so that 
their parents, many of whom are single parents, who are struggling to 
work and to keep their children at home and out of an institution, what 
is it about welfare reform that requires you to abandon these children?
  What is it about welfare reform that requires you to repeal the child 
welfare protection for abused children, who need protective foster care 
so that they can be rescued from families that are dysfunctional and 
disabled in terms of their ability to take care, and many times lash 
out and injure these children and in some circumstances kill these 
children? What is it about welfare reform that required the Republicans 
to do that?
  What is it about welfare reform that required the Republicans to rip 
away from working poor parents who have struggled to get off of welfare 
but now need child care to stay off of welfare so they can contribute 
to the well-being of their family, and with a little bit of 
[[Page H3379]] assistance and child care and maybe some food stamps 
lighten the load on the Government and retain their dignity? What is it 
about welfare reform that told the Republicans to rip that away from 
those working parents?
  What is it about welfare reform that asks them to rip away $7 billion 
from the child nutrition programs; in our child care programs; in our 
school lunch programs; in our women, infants and children's programs? I 
appreciate that they say that all of these programs are there, but none 
of them are mandated. None of them are provided to these children who 
need these programs, who are enabled to have these programs, because of 
circumstances beyond these children's control.
  What is it about welfare reform that says that if a child happens to 
live in a State that suffers from an economic downturn, that they may 
not get their school lunch because there will be no entitlement for 
that child, a child who finds himself in a family that is now, because 
of an economic downturn, unemployed, and yet the family seeks to hold 
itself together?
  What is it about welfare reform that demanded these kinds of harsh 
actions? What is it about welfare reform that no longer provides an 
entitlement to a pregnant woman at nutritional risk to protect her 
pregnancy for the healthy birth of her newborn infant and to care for 
that infant when they have been medically certified at nutritional risk 
and the likelihood of giving birth to a low-birth-weight baby, babies 
that have a 30 or 40 percent greater frequency of coming back and 
needing help later with special education, with remedial education, 
because of the brain development they suffered? What is it about
 welfare reform that demanded that?

  You talk about people who spend generations on welfare, and yet you 
are creating the very children who are going to be candidates for 
welfare because of your inhumanity, because of your callous nature, and 
because of the war you wage on the poor children of this Nation.
  What is it about welfare reform that requires you to treat the 
children, to punish the child of a young woman who has a child out of 
wedlock under the age of 18, to punish that child and to rip away the 
resources? Sixty percent of all of the pregnancies in this country, no 
matter what your class, your status, no matter what your financial 
well-being, 60 percent of all of the pregnancies in this country are 
unintended. Half of them are resolved by abortion. Half of them are 
resolved by abortion. So what do we do? We tell individuals if you have 
an unintended pregnancy, we are going to make your life more desperate, 
more complicated, more hostile to bringing that child into this world.
  That is not welfare reform, that is a war on America's children, on 
the poorest of America's children.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Weldon].
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, that was a very impassioned 
speech that we heard, but one thing needs to be kept in mind when we 
hear these kinds of comments that all of the terrible problems that 
this gentleman spoke of have actually increased over the past 30 years 
with all of these programs that we have seen emanating from Washington. 
They have not decreased. What we are trying to do here with our welfare 
reform program, Mr. Chairman, is reinvigorate the family, reinvigorate 
personal responsibility, do something about the terrible problem of 
illegitimacy.
  I as a physician worked in inner-city obstetrics clinics and I saw 
15-year-olds coming into the clinic pregnant. I would ask them why they 
are doing this? And they would tell me they want to get out of their 
unit, they want to get out from under their mother, they want to get 
their own place in the project, and they want to get their own welfare 
check.
  This system that has been created over the past 30 years is broken. 
We need to strengthen families. We need to deal with this problem of 
illegitimacy.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Owens].
  (Mr. OWENS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, there is almost 100 percent agreement that 
welfare as we know it should be reformed. We all want to reform 
welfare, make the necessary adjustments to allow it to accomplish what 
it is supposed to accomplish in terms of helping victims.
  We help victims of earthquakes, we help victims of floods, we help 
victims of hurricanes. We should help victims of a mismanaged economy 
which produces a situation where there are no jobs for men and families 
as a result are forced to go on welfare.
  All big government programs should be reviewed occasionally. We 
should certainly look at all programs and look at ways to reform them. 
We should try to reform programs like the farmers home loan mortgages, 
which were so badly repaid that the Department of Agriculture decided 
to just forgive $11.5 billion in loans over a 5-year period. We gave 
away $11.5 billion in loans for the farm welfare program.
  We also have welfare for electric power users out in the West and 
Midwest, where they are using Federal power at within half the rate 
that we have to pay in the big cities. So that is a welfare giveaway we 
ought to take a look at and see if we can reform it. We have enormous 
amounts of welfare for the farmers, and we ought to take a look at 
that. We are spoiling America's farmers by smothering them with 
socialism, and we ought to take a look at rich farmers as well as poor 
farmers receiving welfare.
  Aid for dependent children is a welfare program for poor children 
that costs $16 billion. Aid to rich farmers through the farm price 
subsidy program is not means tested. Rich farmers can get that as well 
as poor, and there are very few poor farmers left. Less than 2 percent 
of the American population lives on farms, so most of the $16 billion 
goes to the welfare program for farmers just as $16 billion goes to 
needy children.
  That $16 billion that goes to farmers, we need to look at how to 
reform that. We need to be serious about that. We should not demonize 
poor children and poor families suffering as a result of economic 
dislocations that are perpetrated by people making decisions far beyond 
their control. Welfare for farmers is not means tested. Millionaires 
receive government checks.
  Two recent articles, one in the Washington Post and one in the New 
York Times, said that city dwellers, they listed the names of people 
who are city dwellers who never set foot on a farm, who are receiving 
welfare farm checks. So I hope we are going to reform that as well, 
because in order to make the budget balance and in order to do things 
that need to be done, we need to reform that.
  We need to go back and take a hard look at the savings and loans 
debacle and the unfortunate steps we took there which did not reform 
that system. Two hundred billion dollars of the taxpayers' money went 
down the drain as a result of our not paying attention to reform. 
Reform is very much needed.
  The Republican welfare reform program, unfortunately, shows contempt 
for work. At every level, it refuses to deal with job training, it 
refuses to make some kind of pledge to provide work for people, it 
refuses to deal with minimum wages that are necessary in order for 
people to get off welfare, to make enough money to live on. They have a 
great contempt for work. It is a big lie that they are interested in 
having people get off welfare and go to work. They have abandoned the 
goal of work.
  It is the Democrats who now carry the goal of work, as we did in 
1988. This is not the first time we have tried to make adjustments to 
the welfare program. In 1988 we attempted to make an adjustment in 
terms of job training and jobs for people on welfare.
  The Republican welfare program swindles poor children through the 
block grant mechanism. It swindles poor children in two ways. When you 
take away the entitlement for aid to dependent children, it means you 
are swindling them, because they do not have a right if they are poor, 
they do not have the Federal Government standing behind them. They do 
not have the power of the Federal Treasury, which guarantees that no 
matter how bad the economic conditions may be and how many people may 
be forced on welfare the money will be made available to meet their 
needs. They are 
[[Page H3380]] swindling poor children through the school lunch 
program. You are taking away an entitlement, so as the numbers 
increase, we expect 20,000 more youngsters to enroll in New York City 
schools next year. Enrollment is skyrocketing. Just enrollment alone 
produces a greater need, so that the block grant will not take care of 
that increasing need by enrollment.
  But when economic conditions get worse, the number of people goes up 
who are eligible. Block grants place the poor at the mercy of State and 
local governments, and the history of State and local governments is 
they have been very mean-spirited and very cruel and some of the worst 
and most corrupt government in the country has been at State and local 
government levels. We are not helping people by placing them at the 
mercy of State and local governments. School lunches were created in 
the first place because State and local governments refused their 
needs.
  Mr. Chairman, now we are saying to the children of America, Children 
of America, there is a fiscal crunch; this great Nation now needs your 
lunch.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Greenwood].
  Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I rise to respond to some of the remarks 
made by my colleague, the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller], who 
talked about the inhumane and callous nature of those of us on this 
side of the aisle. I have to tell you I take a little bit of umbrage at 
that.
  I am a former child welfare worker. I have spent a number of years of 
my life in the homes of some of the most abused and neglected children 
in my community. I met my wife while she was a child protective worker 
there and she is still a social worker. I am the founder of the 
Pennsylvania Children's Coalition, a caucus that we formed in the 
Pennsylvania legislature, and I have been a child advocate for 20 
years.

                              {time}  1915

  When I was a social worker trying to spend all of my time protecting 
children, I had to take away from my time at least a day and a half 
each week to fill out the Federal forms so the bean counters in the 
bureaucracy in Washington could account for my time. I was not able 
during that time to go out and protect the children in my community.
  What we are doing is simply taking this program of child protective 
services, giving it to the States who have been operating it for years, 
increasing the funding from $4.4 billion to $5.6 billion over the next 
5 years. And I will tell you from my personal experience, that is a 
smart and that is a compassionate thing to do.
  The gentleman also made reference to the notion of punishing teenage 
girls who have babies. What punishes teenage girls who have babies who 
are 14 and 15 years of age is to say to them, you and your little baby 
live in a tenement somewhere. We will send you this meager allowance 
and pretend that you can survive, and we know that they do not survive 
and we know that they are the most likely young people to abuse their 
own children. And what we are simply trying to say is, you do not 
become an adult by having a baby. If you are 14 or you are 15 and you 
are 16 and you have a baby, you still need more than ever the care of 
responsible adults, and we want to make sure that those teenage girls 
and their babies are cared for in proper settings where there are rules 
and there are limits and there is safety and they can be taught to 
raise their children properly and help to become successful as adults.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to refute what was just said by the previous 
speaker. I think he ought to know, even though he worked in this kind 
of a position, that most of the teenage pregnancies under 15 years of 
age take place in the home where that kid comes from. It is a violation 
of that kid's personal self-esteem.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina 
[Mr. Watt].
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from 
Missouri for yielding time to me.
  I am not a member of a committee which has had under consideration 
this welfare reform bill so, when I got the bill finally on Friday of 
last week and it was finalized, I went rushing through that bill, 
looked and spent an awful lot of time reviewing the provisions of that 
bill. And two things jumped out at me.
  No. 1, I had heard my Republican colleagues talk about how they were 
going to get people off the public dole and make sure they went to 
work. And I looked and I looked and I looked, and I did not find 
anything in this bill that would provide jobs for people who want to 
work at the end of their welfare stay or any time during their welfare 
stay. So that is the first bogus promise that I found.
  No. 2, I went looking and I found that this bill punishes children 
for the conduct of their parents. If your parent is poor, the children 
get punished. If the parent has a child out of wedlock, the child gets 
punished. No Federal benefits for children or mothers under age 18, if 
they are unwed.
  If the parent is on welfare, has another child, the child gets 
punished. No benefits for that child because he or she was born to a 
mother who was on welfare.
  If the parent will not work, the child gets punished. After 2 years, 
whether they can find work or want work or will work, if they do not 
have a job, the child will be punished and the child will be off of 
welfare. If the parent cannot find a job, who, the child gets punished. 
Cut off the parent and the innocent child.
  This is a mean, mean, mean bill. We should be nurturing, encouraging, 
supporting our children, not punishing them for their parents' 
shortcomings. We should be providing jobs for those who want to work, 
not calling a cutoff after 2 years welfare reform.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill is a hoax. It does not provide any jobs. 
After we heard so much about jobs to get people off the public dole, no 
jobs. And it is mean spirited and mean to children.
  They did not do anything to deserve this. Why would we punish 
children in the name of welfare reform?
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  We have heard all this about whether there is workfare, whether there 
is not. H.R. 4 eliminates the Job Opportunities and Basic Skills Jobs 
Program. Why? Because it failed. Success in this program is an 
exception to the rule. Although it is billed as a welfare to work 
program, after 7 years in operation, Jobs boasts a mere 26,000 
recipients in work. The GOP bill in the first year alone will ensure 
180,000 welfare recipients will be in work. By 2003, 2.25 million 
welfare recipients will be working a minimum of 35 hours per week in 
exchange for the benefit; 90 percent of the American people support 
this.
  The Clinton proposal would not have placed any recipients in work for 
the first 2 years. At its peak, it would have moved only 394,000 
recipients into work.
  So it is very, very clear that there are strong work requirements in 
the bill that will really make the difference.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Tennessee [Mr. Tanner].
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TANNER. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I just simply want to find 
out where in this bill those jobs are. It is not in this bill. You can 
protest all you want. There is nothing in this bill that provides any 
jobs. If you can tell me where that is, I would be happy to hear it.
  Mr. TANNER. Mr. Chairman, in this general debate, I am going to 
remain general, but I know that over the next 2 days there will be a 
lot of specifics.
  I have been in the Congress for 6 years. I have been aware and 
working on welfare reform for that time, particularly the last 3 years. 
And I want to thank the Members who have brought this bill to the floor 
because I think Republicans and Democrats can both agree that the time 
for welfare reform is now.
  I come to speak tonight as one of the original cosponsors of the so-
called Nathan Deal bill. I believe that we have the best approach, the 
Contract With America notwithstanding.
  [[Page H3381]] The Deal approach, and our approach, is for a stronger 
work requirement to bring the dignity of work to the American people. 
We also, unlike any other proposal, make sure that the value of a 
welfare dollar is no more than a dollar earned by the sweat of the 
brow. And our final bottom line in our approach is simply this, if you 
want something from the Government, then you must be willing to do 
something for yourself.
  Let me talk just a minute generally about the Deal substitute to the 
Contract With America. All of us any many Members have said tonight and 
this afternoon that the present welfare system, Federal welfare system 
is broken. Its evolution has trapped many in broken families and 
generational dependence with little, if any, hope. That is wrong and we 
know that.
  In the present system all too often the emphasis is on how to receive 
a welfare check rather than how to return to work. The present system 
has built in disincentives against two-parent families. It has a 
powerful incentive, actually, for young unwed motherhood. That is also 
wrong.
  There is nothing in the present system really requiring personal 
responsibility for one's own future. This is our fault. This is the 
fault of the American people and the policymakers.
  The Federal system is broken. We all know that. We must fix it, in my 
opinion, here, before we take the Republican approach and block grant 
it and dump it in the hands of the States and their Governors and their 
legislatures. That is not the way we need to fulfill our obligation as 
Federal legislators. We abdicate it by just saying we will block grant 
it and our hands are clean.
  The Nathan Deal bill has a way, I think, to address this problem and 
give the States the flexibility they need to address the problem. In 
our bill, the Deal substitute, is work in exchange for assistance with 
a 2-year time limit. If you are offered a job and do not take it, 
benefits end. And if you find a job and refuse to accept it, the same 
is true.
  We encourage families by ending the disincentives in the present 
system to favor marriage. We end the incentives that lead to unwed 
teenage motherhood by demanding liability from parents and requiring 
minor mothers to live with a parent or guardian and remain in school. 
Personal responsibility is demanded in our bill and, unlike any other 
proposal here, we make benefits from AFDC and food stamps subject to 
taxable income, ensuring, as I said at the outset, that a welfare 
dollar is not worth more than a dollar earned by work.
  John Kennedy once said,

       Our privileges can be no greater than our obligations. The 
     protection of our rights can endure no longer than the 
     performance of our responsibilities.

  Let us exercise our responsibilities as Federal legislators and fix 
the Federal system before we dump it on the States. I think that is the 
responsible thing to do. I think the Deal substitute will do that, and 
I would encourage all of my colleagues, as this debate continues, to 
give it great consideration, great weight and put aside partisan 
differences and consider voting for it.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Texas, [Mr. Sam Johnson].
  Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, Democrats are scared of 
losing 40 years of tight-fisted control over the States. This scares 
them so much they have embarked on a big lie campaign to defeat a bill 
that gives the States and individuals the power to create solutions. 
They still believe Washington knows best.
  This example is best illustrated by the Republican proposal to 
improve the school lunch program. This bill does not cut lunches. It 
does not cut funding. We increase funding for the program by 4.5 
percent per year. Let me repeat, 4.5 percent every year. We are not 
taking away food from anyone.
  Republicans believe in change, and this bill represents it. The 
Democrats continue to believe in the status quo. This was shown by 
their event last Sunday. And would you believe they used children as 
props to help their special interest friends raise money, big labor 
unions, welfare state bureaucrats and extremist organizations?
  Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to vote for the real change. Vote 
against big government. Vote for this bill.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas 
[Mr. Stenholm].
  (Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I rise tonight in strong support of Mr. 
Deal's alternative welfare reform proposal. Like most Americans, I feel 
that the time has come to seriously evaluate the structure of our 
system and provide constructive solutions to problems within it. Our 
current system is broken. It must be fixed.
  I come before you today in strong support of a plan that transforms 
our current system into the type of program that it should be--a 
temporary helping hand for those who need a chance to get back on their 
feet again. I think we all agree that the focus of welfare reform 
should be getting people off of the welfare rolls and into work. It has 
become very obvious, however, that while we may agree on the goal, it 
is not as easy to agree on how to get there. Having said that, I feel 
that the welfare reform proposal we have developed provides a centrist 
approach to intelligently reforming our welfare system, without hurting 
those who need a helping hand. We must not take the more limited view 
that welfare reform simply means cutting the cost of welfare. Welfare 
reform is not simply cutting services and denying benefits in order to 
find a budgetary fix. Welfare reform involves real people with real 
needs, which do not just disappear once the funds are cut. Their needs 
will continue, the same as before, unless we provide some of the 
necessary assistance to move them off of welfare into jobs.
  The welfare reform proposal that we have developed addresses these 
basic problems by, first, emphasizing work over welfare. One of the 
basic tenets of the proposal is the establishment of the Work First 
Program, which fundamentally reforms the JOBS Program of our current 
welfare system. The new Work First Program requires participants to 
begin job activities as soon as they enter the program, providing 
individuals with the opportunity to immediately begin working their way 
toward self-sufficiency.
  Second, we change the focus of welfare from a seemingly endless hand-
out to a temporary hand up. The perception of our welfare system as a 
permanent way of life has evolved through years of providing benefits 
to recipients without a sensible plan for moving them off of the 
welfare system. Therefore, we propose a time limited assistance program 
that would empower individuals to move from welfare to work. As an 
incentive to work, the plan would provide transitional assistance to 
make work pay more than welfare. We extend the transitional medical 
assistance from 1 year to 2 years so that individuals do not have to 
fear losing health coverage if they take a job. We also provide child 
care assistance for moms so that they are able to take a job and begin 
working toward self-sufficiency. After 2 years in a work program, 
States also would be allowed to deny AFDC benefits to recipients who do 
not have jobs.
  Third, we propose changing the perception that Government bears all 
of the responsibility for those in need. Individuals also must accept 
their share of responsibility in providing for their families. In order 
to do this, we require recipients to develop an individual plan for 
self-sufficiency, which would include the tools needed to get the 
individual off of welfare and into work. We also strengthen child 
support enforcement and hold the parents of minor mothers and fathers 
liable for financial support of their children. The proposal allows 
States to deny increases in AFDC funding to mothers who have additional 
children while receiving these benefits and requires minor mothers to 
live with a parent or a responsible adult.
  Finally, we realize that a one-size-fits-all approach to welfare 
reform is impractical, if not impossible, because it does not take into 
account the wide range of needs and programs that exist. Therefore, we 
have provided States with the flexibility necessary to develop 
effective programs that meet their own specific needs. While the 
Federal Government has a role to play in setting broad guidelines in 
order to maintain a level playing field, State 
[[Page H3382]] flexibility is the key to reforming our welfare system.
  In addition, I believe it is very important to include local 
communities in the process, as well. To that end, we have provided 
Federal grant assistance to community-based organizations for 
coordination of services. The one-stop shop idea is already being 
explored in many communities and many others could streamline services 
with some additional assistance.
  As a participant in the current welfare reform discussion, I have 
heard many times that we should get rid of fraud and abuse in our 
welfare system and I agree. As the former chairman of the Agriculture 
Subcommittee on Department Operations and Nutrition, I have worked 
tirelessly to correct deficiencies in the Food Stamp Program and I am 
well aware of the need for continued improvement. That is why I am 
pleased to say that we have incorporated a very tough food stamp fraud 
and abuse provision in our proposal. We have also made additional 
improvements to the current Food Stamp Program while maintaining the 
basic food safety net for people in need.
  Finally, I strongly believe that we should not fund tax cuts with 
welfare reform, particularly considering the enormous deficit problem 
we are currently facing. Our substitute, therefore, specifically 
designates any additional savings from the welfare system for deficit 
reduction purposes. We are already threatening the future of our 
children with the unbelievable responsibility of financing our current 
spending behavior. I cannot justify adding additional responsibility to 
our children by requiring them to finance a tax cut before we control 
our deficit.
                              {time}  1930

  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Cunningham], one of the leaders in helping to put this 
bill together as far as our committee is concerned.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I have a book for my colleagues on the 
other side. I have gone to town hall meetings. They understand the lie 
about whether we are adding or cutting nutrition programs. That book is 
called basic mathematics, or the Dick Armey syndrome that says ``If you 
add more money the following year than you have this year, that is an 
add. If you have less, that is a cut.''
  I have also prepared a book in here and it is called ``How to tell 
the truth.'' I think our colleagues need to take a look at both of 
those books.
  The real reason for why are we doing welfare reform, Mr. Chairman, 
why would we tackle this after the other side of the aisle has the 
rhetoric that they want to reform the system, they want to reform it, 
and they have done nothing for 40 years but create the system that we 
are under today.
  The current welfare system, Mr. Chairman, is not compassionate. Look 
at the problems that we have across the country. Nothing could be more 
cruel to welfare recipients and children than the system we have today. 
We as a policy have created that system. That is an effort to change 
that particular system.
  Look at the children's nutrition program. Who are we trying to feed 
with those programs? We are trying to make sure that our poorest 
children are fed, but yet we continue the policies that would create 
those poverty children living in poverty.
  Mr. Chairman, I have the utmost respect for my colleagues, and many 
of them on the other side in the Black Caucus; the gentleman from 
Georgia, John Lewis, who walked in Alabama. However, the Members are 
wrong in this.
  When we look at the welfare systems in the communities with Federal 
housing that persist, with crime-ridden, with drug-ridden, with black 
children, two out of three, being single parents, and to perpetuate 
that system, when they talk about cruel and unusual punishment, to 
foster that kind of a program, Mr. Chairman, is more than 
comprehension.
  The real reason why my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, the 
socialists, the Clinton liberals, we have added money in the nutrition 
programs, but the real reason they are fighting this, and I went to 
great efforts, and the one thing that we cut is the big Federal 
bureaucracies. They cannot stand it. That is what they are fighting, 
over and
 over and over again.

  Mr. Chairman, the system traps recipients in an unending cycle. It 
hurts those, the children, and those that we are really trying to help. 
This brings deadbeat dads for responsibility, a system that encourages 
fathers that have run away from their responsibility to get back 
together with the family.
  The gentleman says there is no creation of jobs. If I can bring a 
family together by not penalizing the father that comes with that 
welfare recipient mother and child, and have one of them work, that is 
better. That is compassionate. What is incompassionate is the current 
system, where we have disincentives to bring those families together. 
We have disincentives to break out of the Federal housing programs.
  The personal responsibility, illegitimacy, we have to attack it, 
because it also ties in with child abuse and it ties in with the 
nutrition programs. We have increased the nutrition programs by 4.5 
percent. President Clinton in his first budget increased it by 3.1 
percent. In this budget just a few weeks ago, the President stood up 
here and only allowed for a 3.6-percent increase in the nutrition 
program. We increased it by 4.5 percent. Why?
  There was a movement on our side to cut it, not to zero, but to cut 
it 5 percent, to actually go in and cut the program. I went to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling] and said ``If you do that, I 
will resign my chairmanship of the committee,'' because at that point 
we will hurt those nutrition programs.
  Let me read what is really wrong with the system: ``Cash benefits 
going for drugs, generations of dependency, children having children, 
killing children.'' Nothing could be more cruel to the kids that exists 
than the welfare systems that we have today.
  I look in Chicago, and police found 19 children living in squalor in 
a cold, dark apartment. Two children in diapers were sharing a bone 
with the family dog. Why? Because the parents were living on cocaine 
and drugs.
  Child abuse services need to be brought in, and yes, we need to 
provide services for those kids, but we also need to eliminate the 
systems in which those people are not held accountable.
  Karen Henderson of Bakersfield, CA, was charged for murder after 
breast-feeding her baby while she was on crack cocaine.
  In August 1994, a couple was sentenced to 6 years in prison for 
neglecting their 4-month-old son. He bled to death after being bitten 
100 times by rats because they took the money and stuck it up their 
noses in cocaine. That was in a Federal housing project, which breeds 
that kind of contempt.
  While an 8-year-old brother screamed in vain for help, 5-year-old 
Eric Morris was dropped to his death from a 14-story public housing 
project by two older boys, aged 10 and 11. That is what is cruel, Mr. 
Chairman.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, let 
us embrace personal responsibility. Let us embrace where we take 
deadbeat dads. I applaud the President for what he has done in 
following suit. I embrace you, to take care and make sure that we have 
the responsibility of parents, so that we can draw less and less for 
those programs, because we have less people that need it because their 
economics are better. We can do that by encouraging families and 
increasing the nutrition program for those children that need it. That 
is what we have done, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. McKeon].
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to express my support for the mandatory work 
requirements contained in H.R. 4. Consistent with 90 percent American 
voters, H.R. 4 requires that recipients of welfare work in exchange for 
their benefits.
  Under H.R. 4, every welfare recipients is required to participate in 
some form of work activity within a minimum of 2 years. After 5 years, 
recipients face the ultimate work requirement, the end of all cash 
welfare, period.
  In addition, we require States to have a minimum of 50 percent of 
adults in one-parent welfare families working by the year 2003 and 
require that 70 
[[Page H3383]] percent of two-parent families work by 1998.
  Under this bill, with limited exceptions, all work participants must 
be in real private-sector jobs, paying real wages, and they must work 
for a minimum of 20 hours per week, rising to 35 hours per week by 
2003.
  Under the GOP proposal, 2.25 million welfare recipients will be 
participating in work by the year 2003. In the first year alone, 
180,000 recipients will be working. How do other welfare-to-work 
proposals fare under these guidelines? The current program, the Job 
Opportunities and Basic Skills Act, while boasting a 20-percent 
participation rate, has a mere 26,000 recipients working. The Clinton 
proposal would have had zero recipients working in the first 2 years, 
and at its peak would have had just 394,000 participants in a real job. 
Mr. Chairman I beg the question, who's serious about work?
  Mr. Chairman, in closing, I just want to add that work provides more 
than a wage, it provides a sense of being, increases self-esteem, and 
provides a role model for the societal value of self-sufficiency, 
reducing the pattern of dependence which currently is passed from one 
generation to another.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 seconds to the gentleman from New 
York.
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, I just want ask the gentleman, at what wage 
rate would people get work under this bill? Would they be paid less 
than minimum wage? Would they go back to slavery?
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Louisiana [Mr. Fields].
  Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this legislation. The 
issue is, first of all, distorted. The issue is not about the 
irresponsible mother in America. The issue is what is in the best 
interests of the child, what is in the best interests of our children 
in America.
  We talk about in 2 years a mother will be off of welfare and will not 
receive the benefits. First of all, the benefits we send to these so-
called mothers is not money for the mother. This money is for the 
child. The reason we send it to the mother is because the last time I 
checked, an infant cannot wake up in the morning, grab a check out of a 
mailbox, and go to the bank and cash it, so that is why we send the 
money to the mother. It is for the child. It is in the best interests 
of the child.
  Mr. Chairman, we talk about ``Two years and you are off.'' That 
sounds real good, but who is going to suffer? Children are going to 
suffer. In 2 years, children are going to be dying of malnutrition in 
this country, because they will not have milk to drink.
  We say they have to work. If they do not work in 2 years, that parent 
is off. Why not mandate that the States provide job training? Mothers 
cannot get up and work in the morning if they do not have day care. If 
Members will take some time and think about this proposal, they will 
know that in order for a mother to go to work and learn a skill, she 
has to have somebody to take care of that baby. We have to talk about 
what is in the best interests of the children in this country.
  Lastly, child nutrition. The gentleman from California said we did 
not cut money in child nutrition. That is absolutely incorrect. The 
proposal was 5.2 percent. This proposal is 4.5 percent. Anybody who is 
not even a mathematical wizard knows that is a cut.
  Not only that, under this block grant proposal, 20 percent of the 
money could be used for other purposes and not child nutrition.

                              {time}  1945

  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 seconds, just to say 
that Louisiana gets $1.5 million more under our proposal.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Riggs].
  Mr. RIGGS. I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania, the distinguished 
chairman, for yielding me the time.
  I would like really to point out to my colleagues and fellow 
Americans that this is one of the most consequential debates not only 
of the first 100 days or even of this Congress but one of the most 
consequential debates that this House will hold in decades. Very few 
Americans would disagree that our welfare system no matter how well-
intentioned at its inception is a complete failure today. However, 
there are many people in this town who have a vested interest in 
maintaining the status quo, and they will argue stridently as we have 
heard tonight and as we will continue to hear over the next few days, 
and often misleadingly against our efforts. So it is important that 
every Member of this Chamber understand the bill that we are bringing 
to the floor, why it is important, and why defenders of the status quo 
are wrong.
  Toward that end, I want to talk about just some of the myths that 
have already been suggested regarding our welfare reform efforts and 
provide a little reality check for each one of those myths.
  Myth 1. Your pro-family provisions are cruel to children. Reality. It 
is the current system that is hurting children by encouraging self-
destructive behavior, dependency, and out-of-wedlock births. Our bill 
does not end assistance to children, only cash assistance. No 
responsible parent would reward an irresponsible child with cash 
payment for an apartment. No responsible employer would give workers a 
raise simply because they have additional children. Taxpayers should 
not do those things, either.
  Another myth. Your bill is weak on work. Reality. Our work 
requirements are tough on work. We require that States make cash 
welfare recipients go to work after 2 years or less at the option of 
the States. After 5 years, recipients face the ultimate work 
requirement, the end of all cash welfare.
  We require States to have 50 percent of adults in one-parent welfare 
families, which is about 2.5 million families today, working by the 
year 2003. We require States to have 90 percent of two-parent families 
working by the year 1998. And we define work as real private sector 
work for pay. States that do not meet these standards lose part of 
their block grant, and that is tough on work.
  Mr. Chairman and my fellow Americans, we are embarked on a tremendous 
debate on historic significance. We are going to replace a failed 
system of despair with more compassionate solutions that encourage work 
and families and offer hope for the future.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas, Mr. Gene Green.
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman, the 
ranking member of the committee, for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Chairman, we are considering the Personal Responsibility Act and 
it is an easy bumper sticker name and people will hear for the next few 
days some of the easy names, that this bill was going to solve out-of-
marriage births. I would hope that we have some reality checks on the 
other side of the aisle, also, because what this bill does, it is a 
transfer of power to the Governors of the country. This bill allows 
Governors to deny legal immigrants State-funded assistance. The bill 
allows governors to remove 20 percent in the 3 block grants for child 
care, family, and school nutrition. That is where we would see the cuts 
on the State level. The Governors could do that. Congress should 
provide a great deal of latitude for State governments, but we also 
need to make sure that the food actually gets to those children instead 
of saying, well, we're guaranteeing it to a Governor but we're not 
guaranteeing it to that child.
  I wish to make it clear that that is what we are doing. We are 
guaranteeing funding to that Governor but not to that child. Welfare 
reform is requiring for work, requiring transitional assistance, 
requiring going to job training. We can reform food stamps. Those are 
all goals that we should have and I think we should have on this side 
of the aisle but I am on the committee that this bill was considered 
and we did not have a bipartisan bill. This was laid out and literally 
rolled over in two days' time. That is why a lot of us are opposing it, 
because it will cut children's nutrition, because the only guarantee it 
is to the Governors of the States and not to the children of our 
country.
  The House of Representatives is debating the Personal Responsibility 
Act.
  [[Page H3384]] A bumper sticker name for a bill which will place 
sweeping powers in the hands of Governors to reform welfare.
  What are some of powers that Governors will be given?
  The bill before us will allow Governors to deny legal immigrants and 
State funded assistance based on economic needs.
  The bill also allows Governors to move 20 percent of funds from the 
three block grants for child care, family and school nutrition 
programs.
  Congress should provide a great deal of latitude to State governments 
to be innovative and imaginative, but Congress must also ensure Federal 
assistance is used by the people who most need that help.
  This bill provides a guarantee to Governors for the funds included in 
the block grants.
  I wish to be very clear on this point: A Governor is guaranteed 
funding but not a child.
  Welfare reform is called for, requiring work requiring transitional 
assistance, reforming food stamps are all goals which must be obtained 
but not at the cost of school children, and nutrition.
  The fatal flaw in the school breakfast and lunch block grant is it 
does not guarantee a child a meal but just as important it does not 
take into affect that foods costs increase along with school 
population.
  Without increasing the funds as a result of food cost inflation and 
increased population, a local school district will be forced to 
increase local tax rates to make up the short-fall.
  We will hear on one side that funding is increased and on the other 
side there are cuts.
  The simple fact is we are all guessing because this bill has been 
rushed through the Congress like a runaway train.
  Mistakes have been made. At one point 57,000 military children were 
left out.
  We must be diligent in reforming welfare but when we are forced to 
take up legislation which has been run through with little discussion, 
mistakes are made.
  Earlier, A fellow Texas colleague states that we should not take away 
someone's dream, and I agree but we should also not take away a helping 
hand.
  Reform is needed, but informed reform is real reform.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentlewoman from Hawaii [Mrs. Mink].
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The 
gentlewoman from Hawaii [Mrs. Mink] is recognized for 4 minutes.
  (Mrs. MINK of Hawaii asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend her remarks.)
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman my ranking 
member for yielding me time.
  I rise today to decry the punitive measures contained in the 
Republican bill which would desert the most impoverished and youngest 
citizens in our country during their time of great need.
  The drastic changes proposed by the Republican bill would devastate 
communities in every State by eliminating vital programs as you have 
heard discussed this afternoon that these communities have relied on 
for many, many decades.
  This shortsighted and intolerant legislation does not put forth the 
constructive agenda to reform. It is to punish people merely because 
they are poor.
  Although most welfare mothers try hard to support their families and 
try to find a decent job that pays a living wage, the Republican bill 
makes no effort to help them. Instead, the Republican bill gives every 
recipient family a ticking time bomb by putting time limits on the 
amount of time that they can receive benefits and cutting them off even 
if they have tried hard and cannot find a job and they do not even 
provide child care while the woman goes out to hunt for work. This bill 
turns a cold shoulder also on legal immigrants that have been lawfully 
admitted into the country by denying them many of the programs, and 
they came to America in search of opportunity and they are being cut 
off arbitrarily, in my view unconstitutionally.
  There are 9 million children in a total of 14 million people who are 
receiving welfare benefits today. The Republican bill would arbitrarily 
cut these children off from cash benefits because of what their parents 
did or would not do. If their parents are unable to find work, if their 
mother is teenaged, if they cannot locate their fathers, they would be 
cut off arbitrarily. It would destroy the frail chances these children 
would have to survive by relegating them and their families to the 
status of second-class citizens in this country just because they are 
poor, because their mothers were teenagers or because they were born 
out of wedlock.
  Republicans say that the answer is that welfare parents must go to 
work. We agree. I believe that the working potential of welfare 
recipients is very high. I have studied this issue for years. The 
average recipient already has 4\1/2\ years of work experience when they 
come on to welfare. They want to work. Their problem is some personal 
problems have affected their ability to hold down a job. Perhaps 
someone is ill or they do not have adequate child care. 56 percent come 
into welfare with a high school diploma or more. Most of the recipients 
stay on only for 11 months. The problem with the current system is it 
has not offered a helping hand to the women. If they had the help they 
probably would have gone off welfare much sooner.
  So the help that the Democratic substitutes provide is the help of 
finding a job, giving them adequate education, and providing the 
essential child care which cannot be left out of the program. This is 
what the Republicans do not seem to understand. You cannot simply 
block-grant money to the States without mandating the essentials, which 
is education, training and a good child care support program.
  What the Republicans have done in their bill is to repeal the jobs 
program. Yet they say their bill is for work? How can you provide a 
work ethic or incentive if you do not have a jobs program which can do 
the training and education with the supportive child care?
  The Republicans completely ignore the child care aspects of it. The 
current law today requires and guarantees that every welfare recipient 
who finds work must be provided with child care. That has been 
repealed.
  The AFDC families are willing to work, want to work, need the help, 
and the Democratic substitute is the bill that must pass this Congress.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Riggs]. Then I will close the debate.
  Mr. RIGGS. I thank the gentleman again for yielding me the time.
  I just wanted to respond since the question of immigrants came up and 
make clear again, reality check, we are not bashing immigrants, we are 
giving strength to the longstanding Federal policy that welfare should 
not be a magnet for immigrants, legal or illegal.
  To accomplish this, we do 4 things: We prohibit legal aliens from the 
big 5 magnet programs, cash welfare, food stamps, Medicaid, title 20, 
and SSI which has been an especially egregious source of abuse by legal 
aliens. We make the alien sponsor's affidavit legally binding and 
enforceable. We apply the existing deeming rule to all Federal means-
tested programs so that in these programs the income of an alien 
sponsor is deemed to be the alien's.
  Lastly, we authorize Federal and State authorities for the first time 
to go after deadbeat sponsors. We are strengthening current immigration 
policy, not bashing anyone.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Goodling] is recognized for 5\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, at least I am glad to hear as I have 
heard all evening that everyone now has a welfare reform program. I am 
also happy to hear that everyone now believes that the system is broken 
and needs fixing. We have come a long, long way. If nothing else, we 
have gotten that far.
  It was interesting to hear a good friend of mine say, at least on two 
occasions on the other side this evening, he had this welfare program 
but they filibustered it to death. I did not know we had such an 
opportunity. I thought 5 minutes and you object and that is the end of 
anybody speaking, and I am sure he was talking about the House of 
Representatives.
  What we are trying to do is take these people out of slavery, not put 
them into slavery. That is where they are at the present time, because 
we have denied them the opportunity to ever get a piece of the American 
dream. For 30 or 40 years, the situation keeps getting worse and worse, 
and we 
[[Page H3385]] deny more and more an opportunity for a piece of that 
American dream. We have to admit the failure, which we are doing this 
evening on both sides of the aisle, and now do something to change it.
  Let me talk just a few minutes about the
   provisions from our committee. I am sure everyone knows that the 
Personal Responsibility Act which was part of the contract included a 
proposal for a single food and nutrition block grant. To that I said, 
``No way, Jose,'' which is the same thing that I said in the early 
1980's. The leadership then said, and I think using good judgment, 
``Okay, then you, as the majority members of the committee, come up 
with your program.'' And we did.

  We have also heard many times this evening how wonderful the program 
is working when you talk about school lunch and child nutrition. No one 
has defended it more than I have. But there are problems, folks. It can 
be a much better program. If you only have 50 percent of the free and 
reduced-price people who are eligible participating, there is something 
wrong with the program. And you can look at the statistics and that is 
exactly what it tell you. If only 46 percent of the paying customers 
who are eligible are participating in the program, something is wrong 
with the program.
  Secondly, the American school food service people have told us over 
and over again, the rules and the regulations and the red tape are 
killing them. They are taking money out of the children's mouths to do 
all of the paperwork that is required by the Federal Government. So we 
can change that.
  And then there is some fraud, because we encourage some of it the way 
it is set up, because it is much more advantageous to count as many as 
you can possibly get away with as free, because the reimbursement is 
far greater if you do that.
  So as I indicated, we are trying to set up programs that will meet 
the local areas' needs. What might work in Flint, Michigan may not work 
in Kansas, or in York, Pennsylvania. We have to allow some flexibility 
so that we can get more people participating in these programs. We know 
you cannot educate a hungry child. So what is happening to that 50 
percent that are not participating? They are probably not doing too 
well in school. We get reports from parents who say, ``We're not going 
to send that money to school, or sign up for them to participate if 
they are going to not participate or they're going to throw the food 
away.''
  Again, I say over and over again, we positively owe it to the 
millions that we have enslaved in this welfare system that has been 
created well-meaningly
 over a 40-year period, we owe it to those people to have an 
opportunity, like I have had and everyone in this Congress has had, to 
get a part of the American dream.

  They are not getting it at the present time. We must make change and 
change I realize upsets everyone. But change is necessary. It is also 
inevitable.
  I would hope when we come back and begin the amendment process, and 
there are a couple of amendments that will deal with a couple of issues 
that I heard mentioned tonight, which I have concerns about, and they 
will be taken care of in that process, but I hope when we finish, we 
will no longer go on saying, ``Well, the system doesn't work and we 
ought to do something about it.'' We will take the bold step to make 
the necessary changes to free the millions who are now enslaved with 
the existing system.

                              {time}  2000

  Mr. Chairman, I would encourage all to support those changes.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired. All time has 
expired.
  To control debate from the Committee on Agriculture, the gentleman 
from Kansas [Mr. Roberts] and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. de la 
Garza] will each be recognized for 45 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Roberts].
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 4, the Personal 
Responsibility Act of 1995. We all know the hour is late, but we also 
know that the debate in regards to welfare reform, if it is a late-
burner topic, it is also a front-burner topic in this town, and all 
throughout the Nation.
  Last November, the American public spoke very decisively on wanting 
change, and welfare reform was a central theme in the election, was a 
central theme 2 years ago in the President's election. The component in 
regards to food stamp reform that comes under the jurisdiction of the 
House Agriculture Committee is in reference to food stamps.
  I would inform my colleagues that food stamp spending has increased 
almost every year since 1979. We are all familiar about the good work 
that the food stamp program has done in terms of workers who have been 
unemployed or of families that have had real tragedy.
  The food stamp program provides that needed bridge during a time of 
hardship and when the economy slipped into recession. We must maintain 
that bridge, and H.R. 4 does just that. It provides a Federal safety 
net, but it eliminates food stamps as a way of life.
  However, I would point out that during the last 15 years the economy 
has not always been in a recession, and we have had record growth in 
regards to the economy. But food stamp spending kept increasing.
  Now common sense would suggest that food stamp spending should go 
down when the economy is strong, but that has not been the case. Why? 
Because our Congress kept expanding the benefits, and the American 
taxpayer, who really foots the bill for the program, has said enough, 
and that is why welfare reform strikes a chord with the American 
public.
  The food stamp program provides benefits to an average of 27 million 
citizens in this country, upward of maybe 28 million each month at an 
annual cost of more than $25 billion on an annual basis. For the most 
part, these benefits really go to families in need of help and are used 
to buy food to feed these families, and there is no question in my mind 
that the food stamp program helps poor people and those who have 
temporarily fallen on hard times. However, there is also no question in 
my mind that it is in need of reform.
  Recently, I reviewed a September 22, 1981, subcommittee hearing. Let 
me repeat that, 1981. And the hearing was on fraud in the food stamp 
program. I reviewed that 14-year-old record with some degree of concern 
and dismay.
  In both hearings, and we just held a hearing in the Committee on 
Agriculture as of this year on February 1, and in both hearings the 
reports were almost identical, the one in 1995 and the one in regards 
to 1981. There were reference to food stamps as a second currency, food 
stamps being used to buy guns, drugs and cars. It is discouraging that 
these events have not changed.
  On September 3, 1981, the TV investigators and the news reports 
talked about the great food stamp scandal. In January of 1995 and again 
in March of 1995 various news teams did similar stories and picked up 
on the film, the tape we have from the new Inspector General from the 
Department of Agriculture. As I said, it is very discouraging.
  The good news is we have a very strong fraud provision, anti-fraud 
provision. It is bipartisan. It is backed by the administration and by 
the minority and the majority.
  However, the situation is much worse today in 1995 than it was in 
1981. Abuses in the food stamp program involve selling food stamps at 
discount grocery stores. They are not grocery stores. It is a sham. 
They are set up to launder food stamps, even abuse of the Electronic 
Benefit Transfer system.
  Also, the Department of Agriculture reports that for the most recent 
year $1.8 billion in food stamps was issued in error, meaning that the 
eligible families receive too much in food stamps or people who are not 
eligible receive these benefits. That is $1.8 billion. That is a 
combination of errors, some on the part of States that administer the 
food stamp program, some on the part of the participants receiving food 
stamps and some, unfortunately, willful and intentional violations of 
the act. That is $1.8 billion of taxpayer money lost to fraud and 
error.
  It is also lost to the recipients, the true recipients of the food 
stamp program. Unfortunately, the food stamp program does not always 
really deliver the benefits to eligible people, and 
[[Page H3386]] those who are eligible do not always use their benefits 
for food, and so others really participate in this activity
 including grocery store personnel, middlemen and criminals involved in 
illicit behavior.

  Let me quote from one report. ``In September, 1994, the U.S. Justice 
Department indicted a couple on charges they used their restaurant 
supply business to illegally acquire and redeem $3.5 million in food 
stamps.'' $3.5 million, one couple. ``Undercover agents say they 
watched family members carting shopping bags of cash to the banks in 
$2,000 bundles of $20 bills. Once deposited, the money was almost 
immediately transferred to accounts in Hong Kong,'' Mr. Chairman, 
``where it was withdrawn, usually by relatives within 24 hours.''
  Or another report, ``a USDA undercover officer got a taste of how 
complacent the big-time traffickers can get when he investigated an 
Orange, NJ, family that used their little store to fence stolen goods 
and traffic in food stamps. And the undercover officer used the food 
stamps to buy cars, TV sets, children's toys, cocaine, microwave ovens, 
and a video camcorder from the family. Then he used the video camera, 
one to test it, then filmed the roomful of stolen goods and the 
agreeable family of crooks.''
  This bad reputation has undermined the public support for the Federal 
food stamp program and for welfare. It is unfortunate. It is wrong. 
Polls indicate that half of the American public support cuts in the 
food stamp program, and I believe this is due to the flagrant abuses 
that are seen on the street almost any day. We don't want this.
  As I indicated before, the food stamp program is a bridge. It is a 
needed program. It has helped the poor. And so the commitment in 
regards to the anti-fraud provision is a good one, and it is 
bipartisan.
  After careful deliberation, the Committee on Agriculture determined 
that the food stamp program for the present should remain a Federal 
program for the following reasons: First, States will be undergoing a 
transition to State-designed welfare programs. During this period, the 
food stamp program will remain the safety net program and able to 
provide food as a basic need while this transition is taking place. The 
food stamp program will be reformed, costs will be controlled, and we 
will ensure that every American in need will have access to food.
  Now, given the hearing record, the lack of public support and the 
dollars involved, the committee could
 not continue the program without significant reforms. Our five 
hearings held between the 1st of February and February 14 of this year 
dictated the course of the changes needed in the food stamp program. 
The food stamp program is taken off automatic pilot, and control of 
spending for this program is returned to the Congress.

  We are going to hear a lot of rhetoric, have heard a lot of rhetoric. 
It has been said in the press over and over again and by certain 
critics of reform that, for goodness sakes, there might be a problem 
with food stamps down the road because we only allow for a 2 percent 
increase. Used to be before we had it as an entitlement program and 
before 1990 when we had a spending cap that the Congress had that 
responsibility, we would come back every year and determine whether or 
not additional funds were needed. That is the responsibility of the 
Congress.
  The food stamp deductions are kept at 1995 levels instead of being 
adjusted automatically. Again, it is off of the automatic pilot for 
increases in the Consumer Price Index. Food stamp benefits will 
increase, increase, not a cut, increase, increase up, not down, not a 
cut, at the rate of 2 percent per year to reflect increases in the cost 
of food. Food stamp spending will no longer grow out of control.
  Oversight from the committee is essential so that reforms are needed 
or the committee will act. And, yes, if we would have a recession and, 
yes, if food prices would go up and, yes, if in fact it were needed I 
am sure the Congress would support a supplemental appropriation.
  States are provided the option of harmonizing their new AFDC programs 
with the food stamp program for those people receiving assistance from 
both programs. Since 1981, the committee has authorized demonstration 
projects aimed at simplifying the rules and regs for those receiving 
assistance from AFDC and food stamps. States have complained, 
recipients have complained for years about the disparity between AFDC 
and food stamp rules.
  We need one-stop shopping, one-stop service. This bill provides them 
the opportunity to reconcile these differences. It is now time to 
provide all States, all recipients with this option.
  H.R. 4 contains a tough work program. We have heard a lot about that. 
Able-bodied persons between the age of 18 and 50, with no dependents, 
no
 dependents, will be able to receive food stamps for three months. 
Eligibility, however, would cease at the end of the 3-month period if 
they are not working at least 20 hours per week in a regular job.

  This rule will not apply to those who are in employment or training 
programs, such as those approved by a governor of a State. A State may 
request a waiver of these rules.
  Let me repeat that. A State, a governor, may request a waiver of the 
rules if the unemployment rates are high or if there are a lack of jobs 
in the area. We have that waiver. We just expect able-bodied people 
between 18 and 50 years who have no one relying upon them to work at 
least half time if they want to continue to receive the food stamps. It 
is essential to begin to restore integrity to the program.
  Abuse of the program occurs in three ways: fraudulent receipt of 
benefits by recipients, street trafficking in food stamps by recipients 
and trafficking offenses made by retail and wholesale grocers.
  H.R. 4 doubles the disqualification periods for food stamp 
participants who intentionally defraud the program. For the first 
offense the period is changed to 1 year. For the second offense the 
disqualification period is changed to 2 years. Food stamp recipients 
who are convicted of trafficking in food stamps with a value over $500, 
they are permanently, permanently disqualified.
  Also, H.R. 4 requires States to use the Federal tax refund offset 
program to collect outstanding overpayments of food stamp benefits. The 
trafficking by unethical wholesale and retail food stores is a serious 
problem. Benefits we appropriate for needy families are going to others 
who are making money illegally from the program. That is wrong.
  Therefore, H.R. 4 limits the authorization period for stores and 
provides the Secretary of Agriculture with other means to ensure that 
only those stores abiding by the rules are authorized to accept the 
food stamps.
  Finally, H.R. 4 includes a provision that all property used to 
traffic in food stamps and the proceeds traceable to any property used 
to traffic in food stamps will be subject to criminal forfeiture. Big 
step in preventing fraud.
  The Electronic Benefit Transfer systems have proven to be helpful in 
reducing the street trafficking in food stamps and to provide better 
administration of the program. They have provided law enforcement 
officers a trail through which they can find and really prosecute. The 
EBT systems do not end the fraudulent activity, but they are 
instrumental in curbing the problem.
  Additionally, the EBT is a more efficient method to issue food 
benefits for participants, States, food stores and banks.
  For all of these reasons, H.R. 4 has included changes in the law to 
encourage States to go forward with the EBT systems.
                              {time}  2015

  Mr. Chairman, this bill and the contribution of the Committee on 
Agriculture to the bill, I think, represent a good policy decision. We 
have kept the Food Stamp Program as a safety net for families in need 
of food. We have taken the program off of automatic pilot and placed a 
ceiling on spending. We save approximately $20 billion over 5 years.
  Congress is back in control of spending on food stamps on a periodic 
basis. If additional funding is needed, as I have said before, Congress 
will act to reform the program so that it operates within the amount of 
funding allowed, or it will provide the additional funding as 
necessary. States are provided with an option to really harmonize 
[[Page H3387]] food stamps with the new welfare reform programs, the 
AFDC programs.
  We take steps to restore integrity to the Food Stamp Program by 
giving law enforcement and the Department of Agriculture additional 
means to curtail fraud and abuse. We encourage and facilitate the EPT 
systems. We begin a tough work program so able-bodied people with 
dependents who are between the ages of 18 and 50 can receive food 
stamps for a limited amount of time without working.
  I think this represents good food stamp policy. I urge my colleagues 
to support this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman and my colleagues, I would like to first express to all 
of my colleagues the fact that I do not consider this entire 
legislation in any part welfare reform, although we have a strong 
section on fraud and abuse. Otherwise, it is merely a reduction in 
funding over $21 billion, and it will cause hungry people to no longer 
be able to attain a nutritionally adequate diet.
  I know there is great controversy about the Food Stamp Program in the 
abuses, in the fraud, but the fact is that the average, or more than 40 
percent of the recipient households have income below 50 percent of the 
poverty guideline and only 20 percent have significant earnings.
  The program has always been responsive to the needs, and in this year 
of our lord, 1995, in the United States of America, the most powerful 
country in the world, we should not have to admit that there is hunger 
in the countryside, that there is hunger in the cities. I know that 
there is great policy debate and disagreement, but the fact that you 
cannot deny is that there are hungry people. There are children who
 go to bed hungry at night. That cannot be denied. That cannot be 
covered by policy. That cannot be covered by saying Democrat or 
Republican. That is a fact. That is a fact that cannot be denied.

  And my concern here this evening is that we go solely on cutting. We 
should not have to do that, because this committee, and the 
distinguished chairman has worked on this effort, has reduced by over 
$65 billion in the past 12 years, more than our share of responsibility 
in the budget. Had every committee in this House done what the 
Committee on Agriculture has done, you would not have to worry about a 
deficit. You would not have to worry about deficit reduction if 
everyone had done what we have done.
  So our concern here is that each year the size of a household food 
stamp allotment is adjusted to reflect any changes in the cost of food. 
This goes back to the old policies for 40 years. We have not had the 
Food Stamp Program for 40 years, but nonetheless, the old policies, the 
old policies took care to see that this was accommodated for.
  Under the present bill, it cannot be. It cuts 2 percent annually of 
increase, but if the food prices go beyond that, then it does not 
cover. Then you will have a problem, and there are those who would say, 
well, you can always come back and ask for more.
  Under the Budget Act and the atmosphere around here today, you cannot 
come back for more. What this bill does, it places a cap on annual food 
stamp expenditures, and that gets into some, and I have never seen it 
before, and I feel maybe that we may be yielding to outside factors, 
but the way that the dollar levels would be arranged in that will be 
the CBO projects low unemployment, assumes no recession in the next 5 
years. But if that assumption is not correct, then we have a problem 
that we have here somehow that we will act according to what the CBO 
projects, and that figure, that CBO gives, will be the figure used, and 
I do not know how that works. That has never been tried before.
  That does not mean that you do not do something that has never been 
tried before. That would not be right to say that. But in this case, we 
know how it has worked, and it would be virtually impossible under the 
Budget Act since to get an added expenditure you would have to have 
offsetting tax increase or offsetting cuts someplace.
  So the fact is that you have to go take from the poor to help the 
poor. And those that would lose jobs during a recession will not have 
food benefits adequate for their families to have a healthy diet. We do 
not accept the majority's assumption that there are plenty of jobs 
available, and if hungry people are denied food benefits, they will get 
a job.
  The fact is that there is little welfare reform in this bill. There 
are no job-training requirements in the bill. It only says that States 
will provide employment and training to food stamp families. That is 
deleted, and funding for this activity is eliminated, and so we have to 
look at what it is that we are doing, and if given adequate job 
training and employment counseling, I know people will work. I know 
that they will work.
  There are those that say, ``Well, they don't want to work. I can't 
find anyone to cut my lawn.'' There are people who would like to work 
even if it is cutting a lawn, but if you only have one of those in a 
month, what would you do? And in my area, I see a lot of people doing 
that with this help.
  In other areas, also, AFDC, the WIC, school lunch, we are making 
radical reforms that, when coupled with changes in the food stamp 
provision in H.R. 7, greatly
 compromise our Federal food safety net. Reason argues for leaving one 
program as a backstop in case reforms in other programs falter or fail.

  We have now learned that the CBO estimates that the reduction in food 
stamps, as I have said before, will equal over $21 billion over 5 
years. If this savings was the result of people moving from welfare 
into jobs, this bill would have the support of every Member of this 
House, I am sure. However, 4 saves money simply by reducing benefits 
and kicking people off the program who cannot find jobs on their own.
  And let me tell you, I can categorically state to you, because I hear 
this at home, I mean, these moneys that we use are hard-earned dollars 
paid to the U.S. Government in taxes, and we have a moral 
responsibility, we have a sacred responsibility to see that these funds 
are used adequately, and there is no way to reform a program that is 
designed to keep our children from going hungry.
  How do you reform that? Make more people go hungry?
  But we are responsible. We have been responsible. But you do not do 
your responsibility, as we have done, to the tune of $65 billion for 12 
years, a little over 12 years. We have done it, but not by reducing 
benefits and kicking people off programs where they get food or in some 
other areas attention for their needs.
  So the reduction in spending resulting from implementation of this 
bill, also, we insist if it is to be done, it should go for deficit 
reduction. That is what people are speaking on throughout the 
countryside, ``Reduce the deficit.'' I just heard it before I boarded 
the plane this morning, ``Reduce the deficit.'' This we must do, that 
the reduction be used to address the deficit.
  And I urge my colleagues to commit themselves to true welfare reform. 
Welfare reform does not mean saying it. Welfare reform does not mean 
30-second sound bites. Welfare reform does not mean saying there are 
no-account, lazy people out there. Welfare reform is what we have been 
doing, what we have done before there was a contract, before there were 
many of the new Members that are here. We have done that. We have been 
doing that. We did it in 1977, we did it in 1981, we did it in 1985.
  We have addressed these issues, not necessarily only in the Food 
Stamp Program. But we have. We have had chairmen of the subcommittee 
that have worked diligently and throughout that process. The 
distinguished chairman, our colleague, the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. 
Emerson], has been a part of this.
  So no one can say that we did not address the issue. Not one can say 
that we were not responsible. No one can say that in any way we reduced 
simply for the sake of reduction. We reduced because it was the right 
thing to do. We went to areas where the program needed change. We have 
made those changes.
  So what we do today is for other reasons besides welfare reform. It 
is for other reasons besides doing the right thing. It is for other 
reasons, and you, all of my friends, know what the other 
[[Page H3388]] reasons are, and this is no way to legislate.
  Mr. Chairman, the food stamp provisions of H.R. 4 cause me great 
concern. Although I am relieved that the Food Stamp Program, unlike the 
National School Lunch Program and other child nutrition programs, 
including the WIC program, will not be immediately turned into a block 
grant by this bill, the enormous reductions in funding, over $21 
billion, will cause hungry people to no longer be able to attain a 
nutritionally adequate diet. As we strive to find the most effective 
ways to help poor parents achieve self-sufficiency, there is no excuse 
for limiting their ability to adequately feed their children.
  The Food Stamp Program is the country's largest provider of food aid 
and one of its most extensive welfare programs. In fiscal year 1994, it 
helped feed more than 1 in 10 people in this country. Half of the 
beneficiaries are children, and over 15 percent are elderly or 
disabled. More than 40 percent of the recipient households have monthly 
income below 50 percent of the poverty guideline, and only 20 percent 
have significant earnings.
  The program has always been very responsive to changes in the economy 
in two major ways. In the first instance, each year, the size of a 
household's food stamp allotment is adjusted to reflect any changes in 
the cost of food. Here is how that works: Maximum monthly food stamp 
allotments are tied to the cost of purchasing a nutritionally adequate 
low cost diet, as measured by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, plus 
3 percent. Food stamp benefits are based on 103 percent of the Thrifty 
Food Plan to acknowledge the fact that food prices usually have 
increased between the time that the cost of the TFP is determined and 
the time that benefits are adjusted and distributed. (The cost of the 
TFP is determined in June, and benefits adjusted beginning the 
following October. Those adjusted benefits are not adjusted again until 
the next October, 15 months after the TFP adjustment.) This formula 
helps assure that families receive benefits reflective of the cost of 
food at the time they are purchasing the food.
 This diet is called the Thrifty Food Plan [TFP], and it is the 
cheapest of four food plans designed by USDA. USDA determines the cost 
of a market basket of low cost food items necessary to maintain a 
nutritious diet. The TFP is priced monthly, and food stamp allotments 
are adjusted, up or down, each October to reflect the cost of the TFP 
in the previous June. The October adjustment in 1995 is expected to be 
an increase of approximately 3.5%, reflecting the percent of increase 
in the cost of food. This mechanism assures that no family will get 
less than what it needs to maintain its ability to purchase a 
nutritionally adequate, albeit low cost, diet.

  H.R. 4 will limit any increases in the food stamp allotments to 2 
percent annually, even if food prices increase nationally more than 2 
percent. While the majority can argue that nominal benefits will not be 
reduced under their bill, benefits will no longer keep pace with the 
cost of food. Given current estimates of what will happen to food 
prices in the future, it is expected that in 2 years food stamp 
families will no longer receive benefits adequate to purchase a 
nutritionally adequate diet. Allotments will have fallen below 100 
percent of the Thrifty Food Plan. Each year thereafter, under the 
majority's bill, benefits will be further eroded. We cannot stress 
enough the importance of maintaining a nutritionally adequate diet. It 
is the linchpin upon which this program is based and upon which all 
changes to the program must be measured. This bill completely abandons 
the principle that poor and hungry families deserve, at minimum, a 
nutritionally adequate diet. I am submitting for the record a chart 
showing that in two years H.R. 4 will begin to deny hungry families the 
chance to purchase a healthy diet.
  In the second instance, the bill becomes even more unresponsive to 
economic fluctuations by making it extremely difficult for the program 
to respond to increases in need during recessions. H.R. 4 places a cap 
on annual food stamp expenditures at the exact dollar levels that the 
Congressional Budget Office estimates the program will cost given 
implementation of the provisions in the bill. The CBO projects low 
unemployment and assumes no recession in the next five years. We hope 
that this assumption is correct, but if it is wrong and the Nation 
faces a recession, benefits to poor and hungry families will be 
reduced. There is no provision for an upward adjustment of the cap if 
the number of beneficiaries rises during a recession. Any effort under 
those circumstances to raise the cap, under the 1990 Budget Enforcement 
Act, would be virtually impossible, since it would require an 
offsetting tax increase, a cut in another entitlement, or an emergency 
designation. At
 exactly the time when poor people need help most, they will receive 
less food assistance. The working poor, those most likely to lose jobs 
during a recession, will not have food benefits adequate to feed their 
families a healthy diet.

  Everyone can agree that we need additional budgetary controls on our 
federal budget. However, this is a most inhumane way to achieve such 
control. Hunger cannot be capped. We must allow the one program that 
provides a minimal safety net to keep hunger at bay to respond to 
recessionary times.
  We must conclude that the majority's bill is a cost savings bill, 
nothing more. There is little welfare reform in this bill. For example, 
there are no job training requirements in this bill. The current 
requirement that states provide employment and training to food stamp 
families is deleted, and funding for these activities is eliminated. 
Instead, the same level of funding is provided to states that choose to 
operate a program requiring that families work in public service jobs 
in return for their food stamp benefits; but, only 6 states operate 
such programs, and none of them are statewide. We do not accept the 
majority's assumptions that there are plenty of jobs available, and if 
hungry people are denied food benefits they will get a job. People do 
not prefer poverty over self-sufficiency. If given adequate job 
training and employment counseling, and if jobs are available, people 
will work. This bill provides no such incentives.
  This process has not produced true welfare reform. Merely cutting the 
Food Stamp Program at some arbitrary level is not reform and no one 
should mistake it as such. This bill simply goes too far in undermining 
our federal food assistance safety net and leaves our poor families 
vulnerable to hunger. In other areas, AFDC, WIC, school lunch, we are 
making radical reforms that when coupled with the changes in the food 
stamp provisions of H.R. 4 greatly compromise our federal food safety 
net. Reason argues for leaving one program as the backstop in case 
reforms in the other programs falter or fail.
  For those who have worked on far-reaching and comprehensive 
legislation in the past, the process of reforming welfare in this 
Congress has been most disturbing. The frantic pace at which we are 
required to move has assured that very little thoughtful consideration 
and deliberation can take place. The Committee on Agriculture, over 
Democratic objections, marked-up this bill without a CBO estimate. It 
is impossible to know the full implication of the bill's benefit 
reductions on the poor and hungry of this country without the CBO 
estimate. The majority many times during mark-up stated that the bill 
they presented for approval was believed to save $16.5 billion over 5 
years. We have now learned that CBO estimates that the reductions in 
food stamp benefits that will result from the food stamp title of H.R. 
4 will equal over $21 billion over 5 years.
  The concerns of the minority over $16.5 billion in benefit reductions 
are magnified several times when the reductions exceed $21 billion. If 
these savings were the result of people moving
 from welfare into jobs, this bill would have the support of every 
member of Congress. However, H.R. 4 saves money simply by reducing 
benefits and kicking people off the program who can't find jobs on 
their own. This is no way to reform a program that is designed to keep 
our children from going hungry.

  Finally, the minority is pleased that the committee approved a Sense 
of the Committee provision that the reduction in spending resulting 
from implementation of this bill must go toward deficit reduction. This 
policy must now be adopted for H.R. 4. There should be only two reasons 
to seek reductions in the Food Stamp Program--(1) to reduce the 
deficit, and (2) to reallocate resources in such a manner that allows 
the participants to achieve self-sufficiency (such as employment and 
training). Any attempt to use the savings to finance tax cuts must be 
roundly denounced. We cannot stand by and allow an erosion of food 
benefits for the poor to provide tax breaks for those who are far 
better off.
  I urge my colleagues to commit themselves to true welfare reform, not 
to this bill that does little more than deny and reduce benefits to 
hungry families in the name of welfare reform.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, there is one man in the Congress who 
probably knows more about food stamps and has contributed more of his 
time and effort to food stamp reform and the problem of hunger and 
malnutrition in America than any other, and that gentleman is the 
gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Emerson]. The gentleman from Missouri [Mr. 
Emerson] has served with distinction on the Select Committee on Hunger 
and has served with distinction on the House Committee on Agriculture. 
He is the distinguished gentleman who has been the leader in food stamp 
reform and is the chairman of the appropriate subcommittee.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 11 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. 
Emerson].
  (Mr. EMERSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)

[[Page H3389]]

  Mr. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 1214, the 
Personal Responsibility Act. For the past decade this topic of 
reforming welfare has been an abiding interest of mine and I am guided 
and motivated by the words of Abraham Lincoln ``The dogmas * * * of the 
* * * past are inadequate to the present. We must think anew and act 
anew.''
  The present welfare system cannot be defended. It is a disgrace. The 
people who receive the assistance do not like it; the people who run 
the system do not like it, and the taxpayers will not stand for 
continuation of the present welfare maintenance system.
  There are welfare programs that provide public assistance directly to 
individual families through cash benefits for food coupons; programs 
providing work or training to get able-bodied people to work; programs 
that provide meals in schools and other institutional settings; 
programs that provide distribution of commodities to hungry people, and 
programs linking health and food. The actual number of programs 
available to needy families is in excess of 125, with 80 of these 
programs considered major programs with a cost in excess of $300 
billion per year in Federal, State, and local tax dollars. There are 
more programs now for providing public assistance to poor families than 
any time in the past, serving more people and costing more money. There 
must be a better way to help low-income people become taxpayers. We 
currently have a welfare maintenance system, not one designed to 
provide temporary assistance and help people reclaim or gain a life.
  Most needy families coming in to seek public assistance need help in 
at least three categories: cash and the accompanying medical 
assistance, food, and housing. The rules and regulations for these 
programs are different and in many cases conflicting. It does not make 
sense for the Federal Government to set up programs for poor families 
and then establish different rules for eligibility. We need one program 
that provides a basic level of assistance for poor families; sets 
conditions for receipt of that assistance, including work, and then 
limits the amount of time families can receive public assistance.
  Over the past 12 years I have served either as ranking Republican on 
the Nutrition Subcommittee of the Agriculture Committee or the Select 
Committee on Hunger. I have looked at these welfare programs in depth; 
I have visited scores of welfare offices, soup kitchens, food banks; I 
have spoken to those administering the welfare programs and the people 
receiving the assistance.
  I learned during my years serving on the Select Committee on Hunger 
that any one program does not comprehensively provide welfare for poor 
families; it takes two or more of the current programs to provide a 
basic level of help. When there are two or more programs with different 
rules and regulations people fall through the cracks in the system and 
also take advantage of the system. This must stop. How anyone could 
defend the present structure and system is a puzzle to me; unless it is 
persons who benefit illicitly from the fractured welfare mess we find 
ourselves in today, be they welfare recipients who take advantage of 
the system or advocates who thrive on the power derived from 
establishing new programs. Advocates of the humane system, a cost-
effective System, an efficient system, a system that helps people up, 
off and out could find little solace in the current system.
  Over the past years I have come to the conclusion that an effective 
welfare system is one that encompasses what I refer to as one-stop-
shopping. We need a lot of integration, consolidation, and automation 
and none of these ``tools'' is much a part of the system at this time. 
This concept takes the multiple welfare programs now in place and tries 
to bring some cohesion to them.
  States have sought or are seeking waivers from the Federal rules and 
regulations to establish some type of reform of the present welfare 
system. Governors in particular recognize that the system is broken and 
needs to be fixed. Thirty States have sought or are seeking waivers 
from the Federal Government to reform all or a part of their respective 
State welfare systems.
  It is amazing to me that this many States have sought to change the 
welfare system, thereby recognizing the failure of the present system, 
without any action on the part of Congress to change the system as 
well. There has also been a recalcitrant bureaucracy, and there is a 
turf program in the bureaucracy that probably exceeds the turf problem 
in Congress. How many more States might try to institute reforms but 
for the maze of bureaucracy they must go through to achieve waivers? 
What we have now is not a welfare system aimed at moving families off 
of welfare and onto the taxpayers rolls, but a maintenance system that 
thwarts State
 initiative and diversity and poorly helps poor families, exasperates 
the front line administrators running the programs, and is a 
frustration and burden to the people paying for this disastrous system.

  I want to help reform the system; I want to change the way we deliver 
this help to poor families, and, I want to do it in an efficient, 
compassionate, and cost-effective manner, and I believe that with this 
legislatiin we are on that path.
  The subcommittee that I chair held four hearings last month on the 
issue of reforming the present welfare system. We heard from the 
General Accounting Office on the multitude of programs that are now 
operating. We heard from a Governor who operates a welfare system that 
is dependent upon Federal bureaucrats for waivers; a former Governor 
who had to devise a system to provide one-stop-shopping for 
participants, and State administrators who must deal with the day-to-
day obstacles that are placed in their way by Federal rules and 
regulations. Witnesses traveled from all over the United States to tell 
the subcommittee of their experiences operating programs to help poor 
families. Two of the members of the welfare simplification and 
coordination advisory committee told us of the experiences deliberating 
the complexities of the present system. Others provided the 
subcommittee with their ideas on how to improve the system.
  I believe the debate on reforming the welfare system has truly begun. 
In the past we were only dealing with reform at the margins. We have 
now started on the path to real reform.
  This reform will not be accomplished in one sitting, with one bill. 
It is a process that will take from 3 to 5 years.
  The Committee on Agriculture, with jurisdiction over the Food Stamp 
Program and Commodity Distribution Programs, is a part of that process. 
The committee, along with the Republican leadership, determined that 
the Food Stamp Program will remain a Federal program for the present 
time. It will serve as the safety net for needy people. Food is 
fundamental and we provide access to food for these families.
  We consolidate four Food Distribution Programs into one and provide 
for a $100 million annual increase in authorizations for the new 
program. Remember, food is fundamental. The food distribution programs, 
such as the Temporary Emergency Food Assistance Program or TEFAP, which 
I might add, at this juncture the administration would like to zero 
out, are the front line of defense against hunger for needy individuals 
and families. Food banks, soup kitchens, churches and community 
organizations are always there with food when it is needed. The Federal 
Government provides a portion of the food that is distributed through 
these programs. But it is an essential part and acts as seed money for 
food contributions from the private sector. If we did not have food 
distribution programs we would have to invent them. The committee bill 
consolidates these programs and increases the money to buy food so that 
these worthwhile organizations, most of which are made up of 
volunteers, can continue the fine work they now do.
  We do reform the Food Stamp Program and it is in need of a lot of 
reform. The states are provided with an option to reconcile the 
differences between their new AFDC Programs with the Food Stamp Program 
for those people receiving help from both programs. This has been one 
of my goals and I believe that we are on the road to a one-stop--
shopping welfare system. Complete welfare reform will come. This is the 
first step in the long road to reform.

[[Page H3390]]

  States are encouraged to go forward with an electronic benefit 
transfer system. EBT is the preferred way to issue food stamp benefits. 
This bill provides States with the ability to implement the EBT system 
they deem approrpriate and the problems with the notorious regulation E 
are eliminated. The committee views EBT as
 a means to effectively issue food stamp benefits and as a means to 
control and detect fraudulent activities in the program. I am 
especially gratified that EBT can become an integral part of the Food 
Stamp Program and other welfare programs.

  The committee has taken steps to restore integrity to the Food Stamp 
Program by instituting criminal forfeiture authority so that criminals 
will pay a price for their illegal activities in food stamp 
trafficking. We double the penalties for recipient fraudulent 
activities and we give USDA the authority to better manage the food 
stores that are authorized to accept and redeem food stamps.
  We include a tough work program. We say that if you are able-bodied 
and between 18 years and 50 years with no dependents, you can receive 
food stamps for 3 months. Following that you must be working in a 
regular job at least 20 hours a week--half-time work--or you will not 
receive food stamps. The American people cannot understand why people 
who can work do not do so. We say you will not receive food stamps 
forever if you do not work.
  The committee determined that the unconstrained growth in the Food 
Stamp Program, due to the automatic increases built into the program 
and the changes made to the program over the past years, cannot 
continue. We restrain the growth in the program by limiting the 
indexing of food stamp income deductions and providing a 2-percent 
increase in food stamp benefits. We place a ceiling on the spending in 
the program. It will be up to Congress to determine whether increases 
above the limits placed on the program will take place. This is the 
appropriate way in which to manage this program. If a supplemental 
appropriation is needed, it will be Congress that decides whether to 
provide the additional money or institute reforms in the program to 
restrain the growth.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a good bill, with sound policy decisions 
incorporated. Remember, we have not ended the process of reforming 
welfare with the action we take today. We are beginning the process of 
real reform. I urge my colleagues to support this bill and take this 
first step along with me. We cannot continue as we are today with a 
welfare system that is despised by all involved. The status quo is 
unacceptable. Let us think anew and act anew.
                              {time}  2030

  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. 
Emerson] and would point out to the Members and to all who are paying 
attention to this debate that the gentleman from Missouri has spent 
more time in regards to personally visiting feeding programs and soup 
kitchens. It is his amendment that consolidates many of the feeding 
programs and adds $100 million to that effort.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Maine [Mr. Baldacci].
  Mr. BALDACCI. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 4, the 
Personal Responsibility Act of 1995 from the Republican Contract With 
America.
  Among the most troubling provisions of the bill are those dealing 
with food and nutrition, deep cuts in food stamps and block grants for 
the School Lunch Program, and Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, 
Infants, and Children. To add insult to injury, the money saved will 
fund tax cuts, not address the debt or deficit.
  While keeping the entitlement nature of food stamps, the majority 
have placed a cap on the program and cut spending by $23 billion over 5 
years. The food purchasing power of millions of recipients will 
diminish over time, and fall below the amount needed to purchase the 
bare-bones minimum.
  In my home State of Maine, history shows us that during down swings 
in the economy, the number of people turning to food stamps increases. 
The rigid cap on food stamp expenditures would allow for no adjustments 
for economic changes.
  The majority would mandate that certain recipients work for their 
benefits, yet they provide no funds for the State to create jobs or to 
provide training.
  All told, Maine would lose $88 million over the next 5 years, nearly 
20 percent from the budget of a program that serves 160,000 people 
monthly.
  I spent time talking to parents and students at a school in Bangor 
ME, yesterday. They could not believe that Congress was going to cut 
the School Lunch Program to pay for tax breaks. It rankled them to no 
end.
  In Maine schools, more than 48,000 students a year gain a substantial 
share of their daily nutrition from free and reduced lunches. That is 
nearly a quarter of Maine's student population. In providing the School 
Lunch Program, Federal, State and local governments spent $44 million 
in Maine last year.
  This is not a welfare program this is an education program, a 
nutrition program. How many times have each of you heard, ``A hungry 
child can't learn?''
  Then there is WIC, a program that ensures adequate nutrition for 
pregnant women and nursing mothers. More than 70 studies have proven 
its effectiveness at preventing low-birth-weight babies and other 
complications. It saves money in the long run.
  For $17 million a year 44,000 women, infants, and children in Maine 
reap the benefits of the sustaining food provided by WIC funds.
  Despite the obvious benefits of both programs, the Personal 
Responsibility Act creates block grants, rolls back nutritional 
standards, and generally fails to give States enough money to do the 
job properly.
  Titles 3 and 5 of the act, those covering WIC and school lunches, cap 
the block grants at less than the rate of inflation. Maine would lose 
$37 million over the next 5 years.
  Food programs are the ultimate safety net. The changes contained in 
the Contract With America would leave the net threadbare and unable to 
break the fall of those who most need it. I urge my colleagues to 
oppose H.R. 4.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Goodlatte], who has authored many strengthening 
amendments to the antifraud provisions of the food stamp reform 
package.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. I thank the chairman for yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Roberts] for 
what I think is a very fine bill, a very fair bill, and a bill that I 
think is going to lead us in the right direction here. You know, I am 
one who strongly supports the idea that this is something that 
eventually should be turned over to the States to run. I think 
government closer to the people is a government that runs a better 
program. We have set up a mechanism to accomplish that in this 
legislation by setting up a method by which States that go to the 
electronic benefit transfer system can eventually qualify to have the 
program administered through a block grant system. I think that is the 
right direction to take.
  In the meantime, measures need to be taken to tighten up this 
program, and I think this bill does just that.
  Before I address those, I would like to first respond to those on the 
other side who claim that this bill lacks compassion. I think that is 
utter nonsense. Compassion is not measured by the size and complexity 
of the bureaucratic program that has been established over the years. 
Compassion is not measured by the billions upon billions of dollars 
that we keep throwing at this program without results, but instead, 
making more and more people dependent upon the program.
  Compassion is measured by taking people by the hand and helping them 
where they need to be helped, but also setting them on their own and 
asking them to go ahead and take some responsibility for their own 
lives. That is what is ultimately the thing that will build back into 
peoples lives the dignity that is needed.
                              {time}  2045

  Mr. Chairman, those who suggest that the work requirements here are 
unfair I think are completely off track. We have a situation here where 
anyone who is between the ages of 18 and 50 is required to work 20 
hours a week, not 40 hours a week, as many people strive to do, merely 
20 hours a week. If they have a dependent child at home, and they are 
the primary care giver, they are not required to comply with that. I 
[[Page H3391]] think ultimately we are going to have to change that and 
require that.
  Today most young American families, both members of the household 
work, and I think that ultimately we need to expect that everyone 
should contribute something for the benefits that they receive, and to 
suggest that we are the ones who are lacking in compassion when the 
President's plan would have gutted the ability of food programs, food 
banks all across this country, to assist people with basic needs, and 
this plan preserves that, again I think it is very misleading to 
suggest that somehow we are being lacking in our compassion.
  The second problem we have with this program is that it has 
historically been beset by all manner of fraud. Food stamps are 
trafficked on the street, traded for drugs, used in a multitude of 
methods.
  I point out that we have done that by requiring that State and local 
governments and the Department of Agriculture verify the existence of 
stores that are trading food stamps because we have had problems with 
them being traded through post office boxes and through the trunks of 
cars, and we have tightened up the requirements that, if somebody is 
found guilty of trafficking in food stamps, and it involves more than 
$500, they can be barred from receiving food stamps.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge support of this bill.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to our distinguished 
colleague, the gentlewoman from Missouri [Ms. McCarthy].
  Ms. McCARTHY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Texas [Mr. de 
la Garza] for yielding me time.
  Mr. Chairman, the Republican welfare bill that we are debating has 
one clear result, save $69 billion over 5 years by creating block 
grants to the States with fixed, capped funding.
  The proposed legislation does little to assist individuals to become 
self-sufficient by helping them find work. It has no guarantees that it 
will reform the welfare system. Instead, this is a package geared 
toward reducing the deficit and guaranteeing that the affluent receive 
a capital gains cut, by cutting benefits and resources to our children.
  On February 23, the National Governors' Association sent a letter to 
the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee signed by the 
Governor of my State, Mel Carnahan, and Republican Governors Tommy 
Thompson of Wisconsin and John Engler of Michigan. The letter states: 
``The Governors view any block grant proposal as an opportunity for 
Congress and the President to provide needed flexibility for States, 
not as a primary means to reduce the Federal budget deficit.'' They 
continue in this four-page letter to list other objections they have 
with the bill in its current form, including provisions that limit 
State flexibility or shift Federal costs to States. With that, Mr. 
Chairman, I ask that the full text of the letter appear in the Record 
after my remarks.
  I understand the need to reform the welfare system. I do not 
understand, however, why we need to forge ahead with legislation that 
is so poorly thought out that it simply abdicates our legislative 
responsibility to the Senate, whom we hope will take the time necessary 
to craft a bill that truly reforms the welfare system. Those of us who 
have extensive understanding of State welfare programs feel we have not 
been given adequate opportunity to help shape the welfare debate going 
on today.
  Because of the way this legislation has been rushed through this body 
and in light of the fact that the bill does not meet the fundamental 
principle of moving people from welfare to work, I cannot support H.R. 
1214 in its current form.
  The letter referred to is as follows:
                               National Governors Association,

     Washington, DC, February 23, 1995.
     Hon. Bill Archer,
     Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means,
     U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: We are writing to express our views on 
     the Personal Responsibility Act, as amended by the 
     Subcommittee on Human Resources. The Governors appreciate the 
     willingness of the subcommittee to grant states new 
     flexibility in designing cash assistance and child welfare 
     programs. We are concerned about a number of the bill's 
     provisions, however, that limit state flexibility or shift 
     federal costs to states.
       The Governors believe Congress has at this moment an 
     enormous opportunity to restructure the federal-state 
     relationship. The Governors urge Congress to take advantage 
     of this opportunity both to examine the allocation of 
     responsibilities among the levels of government and to 
     maximize state flexibility in areas of shared responsibility. 
     We believe, however, that children must be protected 
     throughout the structuring process. In addition, although 
     federal budget cuts are needed, the Governors are concerned 
     about the cumulative impact on the states of federal 
     budgetary decisions. The Governors view any block grant 
     proposal as an opportunity for Congress and the president to 
     provide needed flexibility for states, not as a primary means 
     to reduce the federal budget deficit.
       The Governors have not yet reached consensus on whether 
     cash and other entitlement assistance should remain 
     available, as federal entitlements to needy families or 
     whether it should be converted to state entitlement block 
     grants. We do agree, however, that in either case states 
     should have the flexibility to enact welfare reforms without 
     having to request federal waivers.


                   federal standards for block grants

       If Congress chooses to pursue the block grant approach 
     proposed by the Human Resources Subcommittee, the block 
     grants should include a clear statement of purpose, including 
     mutually agreed-upon goals for the block grant and the 
     measures that will be used to judge the effectiveness of the 
     block grant.
                      cash assistance block grant

       The Governors believe that a cash assistance block grant 
     for families must recognize the nation's interest in: 
     Services to children; moving recipients from welfare to work; 
     and reducing out-of-wedlock births.
       Although the Governors recognize the legitimate interest of 
     the federal government in setting broad program goals in 
     cooperation with states and territories, they also believe 
     that states should be free from prescriptive federal 
     standards.
       We appreciate the flexibility given to states in the bill 
     to design programs, to carry forward program savings, and to 
     transfer funding between block grants. We must oppose, 
     however, Title I's prohibitions on transitional cash 
     assistance to particular families now eligible for help and 
     ask instead that states be given the authority to make these 
     eligibility decisions themselves. Some states may want to be 
     more restrictive than the bill--by conditioning aid on work, 
     for example, sooner than two years--while other states may 
     decide it is appropriate to be less restrictive.
       The federal interest should be limited to ensuring the 
     block grant is used to aid low-income children and families. 
     in the past federal restrictions on eligibility have served 
     to contain federal costs given the open-ended entitlement 
     nature of the Aid to Families with Dependent Children 
     program. Such restrictions have no place, however, in a 
     capped entitlement block grant where the federal government's 
     costs are fixed, regardless of the eligibility and benefit 
     choices made by each state.
       Similarly, while Governors agree that there is a national 
     interest in refocusing the welfare system on the transition 
     to work, we will object strongly to any efforts to prescribe 
     narrow federal work standards for the block grant. The 
     Governors believe that all Americans should be productive 
     members of their community. There are various ways to achieve 
     this goal. The preferred means is through private, 
     unsubsidized work in the business or nonprofit sectors. If 
     the federal government imposes rigid work standards on state 
     programs, such standards could prove self-defeating by 
     foreclosing some possibilities, such as volunteering in the 
     community, that can be stepping stones to full-time, private 
     sector jobs. A rigid federal work standard would also 
     inevitably raise difficult issues about the cost and 
     feasibility of creating a large number of public jobs, and 
     the cost of providing child care for parents required to work 
     a set number of hours a week in a particular type of job.


                      child protection block grant

       Governors view the child protection block grant as overly 
     prescriptive and urge Congress to refocus it on achieving 
     broad goals, such as preserving families, encouraging 
     adoption and protecting health and safety of children. We 
     also oppose the mandated creation of local
      citizen review panels. We believe that it is inapprorpiate 
     for the federal government to dictate the mechanism by 
     which Governors consult the citizens of their state on 
     state policies.


                          block grant funding

       We appreciate the subcommittee's willingness to create 
     block grants whose funding level is guaranteed over five 
     years rather than being subject to annual appropriations. It 
     is essential, however, that block grants include appropriate 
     budget adjustments that recognize agreed-upon national 
     priorities, inflation, and demand for services. The cash 
     assistance block grant does not include any such adjustments 
     for structural growth in the target populations. While some 
     growth is built into funding for the child protection block 
     grant, it is not clear whether it will be adequate especially 
     given that states are likely to be required by the courts to 
     honor existing adoption assistance contracts. Governors will 
     continue to protect abused and 
     [[Page H3392]] neglected children by intervening on their 
     behalf and we believe that federal funding must continue to 
     be available for these services.
       Governors also ask that any block grants include funding 
     adjustments to provide for significant changes in the 
     cyclical economy and for major natural disasters. An 
     additional amount should be set aside each year for automatic 
     and timely distribution to states that experience a major 
     disaster, higher-than-average unemployment, or other 
     indicators of distress. While the bill does include a federal 
     rainy day loan fund, we are concerned that this loan fund 
     will prove to be an inadequate means of addressing sudden 
     changes in the need for assistance. States experiencing 
     fiscal problems will not be able to risk taking out federal 
     loans that they may not be able to repay. Furthermore, one 
     billion dollars over five years may not be sufficient if many 
     states experience economic downturns or natural disasters at 
     the same time, as was the case with the last recession or 
     with the midwestern floods. Finally, an unemployment rate in 
     excess of 6.5% may not be a sufficient proxy for identifying 
     increases in need and should not be the sole trigger for 
     increased aid.
       We also urge the committee to change the funding base year 
     and formula for the two block grants. We believe that initial 
     allotments to states for the cash assistance and child 
     protection block grants should be the higher of a state's 
     actual funding under the consolidated programs in fiscal 1994 
     or a state's average funding during fiscal years 1992 through 
     1994. This change would help protect states with recent 
     caseload growth from receiving initial allotments far below 
     actual need.


                 accountability in block grant programs

       We believe that block grants should include a clear 
     statement of purpose, including mutually agreed-upon goals 
     for the block grant and the measures that will be used to 
     judge the effectiveness of the block grant. We are concerned, 
     however, that the reporting requirements in both the cash 
     assistance and child protection block grant go far beyond 
     what is necessary to monitor whether program goals are being 
     achieved. We encourage the committee to restrict reporting 
     requirements to outcome and performance data strictly related 
     to the goals of the program, and hope that those reporting 
     requirements can be mutually agreed upon by Congress, the 
     administration, and ourselves.
       We agree that states should be required to use the block 
     grant funding to provide services for children and their 
     families. We do have questions, though, about how broadly the 
     bill's audit provisions would be applied. Would the audit 
     process be used, for example, to determine whether the block 
     grant goal of assisting needy children and families was being 
     achieved? We would also suggest that rather than the federal 
     government reclaiming audit exception funds, that these funds 
     remain available to a state for allowable services to 
     families and children.


                             Implementation

       Governors also ask Congress to recognize that moving to a 
     block grant structure raises many implementation issues. 
     Almost every state is operating at least one welfare waiver 
     project. We believe that states with waivers currently in 
     effect should have express permission either to continue 
     their waiver-based reforms, or to withdraw from the waivers, 
     and be held harmless for any costs measured by waivers' cost 
     neutrality provisions. Savings from individual state's 
     waivers should be included in the state's base. Some states 
     have negotiated a settlement to retain access, subject to 
     state match, to an agreed upon dollar amount of waiver 
     savings. Legislative language converting AFDC to a block 
     grant should not terminate these agreements and thereby 
     preclude states from drawing down the balance of these 
     previously negotiated amounts.
       Implementation of block grants would also pose enormous 
     difficulties for state information systems, and we are 
     concerned that there may not be sufficient funding or lead 
     time to allow states to update these systems as necessary to 
     implement the legislation. While states that are ready should 
     be able to implement any new block grants as soon as 
     possible, other states should be allowed at least one year 
     after enactment to implement the new programs. We also 
     believe that a consultative process between Governors, 
     Congress and the administration would be necessary to ensure 
     that the transition to a block grant system is made in an 
     orderly way and that children's needs continue to be met 
     during the transition.


    Federal Aid to Legal Noncitizens and Federal Disability Benefits

       The Governors oppose the bill's elimination of most federal 
     services to legal noncitizens. The elimination of federal 
     benefits does not change any state's legal responsibilities 
     to make services available to all legal immigrants. Policy 
     adopted by the Governors clearly states that since the 
     federal government has exclusive jurisdiction over our 
     nation's immigration policy, all costs resulting from 
     immigration policy should be paid by the federal government. 
     This bill would move the federal government in the opposite 
     direction, and would shift substantial costs to states.
       The Governors also oppose the bill's changes to the 
     Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program. We recognize that 
     the program is growing at an unacceptable rate, and that 
     serious problems exist regarding the definition and diagnosis 
     of disabilities. The changes in the bill go far beyond 
     addressing those problems and represent a substantial and 
     unacceptable cost shift to states. The Governors believe that 
     Congress should wait for the report of the Commission on 
     Childhood Disability before acting to change eligibility for 
     disability to children. We
      also ask that Congress allow last year's amendments 
     regarding the substance abuse population to be implemented 
     before enacting new changes in that area. If changes in 
     SSI are enacted that deny benefits to hundreds of 
     thousands of families and children, the result may be a 
     sharp increase in the need for aid from the new cash 
     assistance block grant at a time when those funds would be 
     capped.
       Thank you for your consideration of our views on the first 
     four titles of Chairman Shaw's bill. We are also reviewing 
     the child support provisions and will be forwarding our 
     comments on them to you separately.
           Sincerely,
     Gov. Howard Dean,
                                                            Chair.
     Gov. Tommy G. Thompson,
                                                       Vice Chair.
     Gov. Tom Carper,
                                      Co-Lead Governor on Welfare.
     Gov. John Engler,
                                      Co-Lead Governor on Welfare.
     Gov. Mel Carnahan,
                                 Chair, Human Resources Committee.
     Gov. Arne H. Carlson,
                            Vice Chair, Human Resources Committee.

  There is one last point I would like to make. Last week my staff 
received an invitation to attend an all-expense-paid trip to visit Navy 
bases in the Pacific. Now Mr. Speaker, I do not know how many staffers 
are going to take this trip--I know mine isn't--and for all I know the 
Navy may need to have staff review their operations in the Pacific. 
However, my question is this: If budgets are so tight that we have to 
cut school lunch programs for children and energy assistance programs 
for the elderly, then why do we continue to allow funding for these 
types of trips, which strike me as completely unnecessary? If we are 
going to cut the deficit, why don't we look to end these types of trips 
that are paid for by U.S. taxpayers.
  Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from North Carolina [Mrs. Clayton].
  (Mrs. CLAYTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, discussion about welfare reform is not 
new. This issue has been debated over the years. We have come a long 
way.
  But, as we stand, prepared to vote on welfare reform legislation, I 
am struck by the feeling that, as far as we have come, we seem to be 
going a long way back.
  A minister in my district tells the story of what school breakfast 
was like, before we had a Federal school program.
  Scolded by her teacher, an embarrassed little girl discarded her 
breakfast. She had been eating it during class. The noise when the item 
landed in the wastebasket was revealing and disturbing. That little 
girl's school breakfast was a raw sweet potato. Without it, she would 
not eat.
  That, Mr. Chairman, is where we have come from. I am worried, 
however, that we may be going back to that same place in time.
  The majority has offered a welfare reform bill that cuts eligibility 
without work program funding, reduces spending and gives wide 
flexibility to the States.
  My party will offer two substitute bills that offer less radical 
reform but provides for funding for work. I rise to encourage my 
colleagues to think America. This issue is not about party and 
politics. It is about people.
  It is about sound bodies, strong minds and sturdy spirits. This issue 
is about moving forward in the future. It is not about wallowing 
backward to the past. We should shape a bill that is neither Republican 
nor Democrat, that hurts neither the rich nor the poor--a bill that 
joins us, not one that divides us.
  We are not 50 States. We are the United States. We do not need fifty 
standards for nutrition in this Nation. We need one standard.
  Regionalization and sectionalism hurts us. We fought a Civil War to 
bring this Nation together. The place of one's birth should not 
determine the quality of one's life. Every child in America should have 
a hearty breakfast and a healthy lunch. At the end of the first 100 
days of this Congress, the current debate on welfare reform will be 
finished. But, where will America be on the 101st day?
  [[Page H3393]] Will there be more people with jobs? Will we show 
improvement in education? Will there be less crime in the streets?
  More specifically, will there be more or fewer hungry children? Will 
infant mortality rates rise or fall? Will our seniors be better off at 
that time than they are now? What, if anything, will a young school 
girl have for breakfast?
  Children are not driving the deficit. Senior citizens are not the 
cause of our economic problems. Programs for poor people do not amount 
to pork.
  In fact, AFDC constitutes just 2 percent of all entitlement spending 
and 1 percent of all federal spending.
  The average American taxpayer spends only about $26 on AFDC. Child 
nutrition programs represent only one-half of 1 percent of total 
federal outlays. And, the average food stamp benefit is 75 cents per 
person, per meal. Only 75 cents.
  That is why I am deeply troubled by the proposed cuts. Cuts have 
occurred, and more are proposed in the WIC Program, for example. WIC 
works.
  It is a program that services low-income and at-risk women, infants, 
and children.
  Pregnant women, infants 12 months and younger, and children from 1 to 
5 years old, are the beneficiaries of the WIC Program.
  For every dollar this Nation spends on WIC prenatal care, we save up 
to $4.21 cents.
  The budget cutting efforts we are experiencing are aimed at reducing 
the deficit. The deficit is being driven by rising health care costs. 
When we put money into WIC, we save money in Medicaid. The equation is 
simple.
  Those who have a genuine interest in deficit reduction can help 
achieve that goal by investing in WIC and the other nutrition programs 
now targeted for cuts.
  Mr. Chairman, the story is told of a rich man, while dining at his 
table of plenty, he noticed a ragged, poor, old woman, outside his 
window, begging for food. ``Go'', he said to his servant, ``It saddens 
me to see that poor, old woman,'' he lamented. ``Get her away from my 
window. Tell her to go away,'' he said.
  As this debate goes on, many charts and numbers will be displayed. 
Republicans and Democrats will claim that theirs is the truth. Let's 
not forget the people.
  When we conclude this week, we must each look in the mirror and ask 
ourselves, what have we told the poor, old women and men, and the 
pregnant women, and the infants and children, and the little school 
girls and little school boys?
  Have we told them to get from our windows? Have we told them to go 
away? Or have we told them to come inside and join us at America's 
table of plenty?
  The issues are clear. The choices are plain. I ask my colleagues. 
Where do you stand? The Personal Responsibility Act, as currently 
written, is mindless and senseless and should be rejected.
  Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Bishop].
  Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Chairman, I rise today with those who over the years 
have been, and continue to be, truly concerned about the citizens of 
America who need us the most.
  Currently H.R. 4 will substitute block grant funding for Federal 
nutrition programs. This block grant procedure would probably eliminate 
federally sponsored nutrition programs such as; (WIC) and the School 
Lunch and Breakfast programs among others, and substitute a single 
Federal payment to the States.
  Based on Congressional Budget Office data, funding for the school 
nutrition block grant would be $170 million less than the levels that 
would be provided under current law. The proposed block grants would 
end the entitlement status of the school lunch and breakfast programs. 
Thus, during recessions, States and school districts with rising 
unemployment could be forced to choose between denying free meals to 
newly poor children and raising taxes, or reducing other programs to 
secure more resources in the middle of a recession.
  We need a bill that maintains nutrition programs for children and the 
elderly, including WIC and school lunch program. These programs have 
produced significant and measurable outcomes among children who 
participate in them. The block grant structure proposed by H.R. 4 can't 
respond when the economy changes and place children at risk by 
eliminating nutrition standards responsible for improved children's 
health.
  We need a bill that has strong anti-fraud and abuse provisions for 
the Food Stamp program. We need a bill that has work requirements for 
able-bodied food stamp recipients, that also helps States provide work 
placement and job training for food stamp recipients. We need a 
simplified food stamp program, revising administrative rules and 
simplified determination of eligibility. We need a program that retains 
the annual inflation adjustments for the cost of food, a program that 
provides a basic benefit level. We do not need a bill, such as H.R. 4, 
that underfunds real welfare reform by cutting spending while giving 
States block grants which do not increase even if the State is in 
recession, or has a drastic increase in its poor population.
  The Republican welfare reform bill talks about work but does little 
to achieve it. It does not have meaningful work requirements for
 moving people from welfare to work. It does not provide the necessary 
education and training to prepare people for work.

  We need a bill that provides tough, meaningful work requirements for 
welfare recipients. Real welfare reform must be about replacing a 
welfare check with a paycheck. The Deal substitute provides work 
requirements for welfare recipients, requiring states to place 16% of 
recipients in work in the first year and 20% in the second year. HR 4 
does not reach the same work participation rate.
  I am interested in the positive health effects that these nutrition 
programs have on our poor children, needy elderly, and handicapped in 
our country. I have heard testimony which clearly outlined the negative 
impact of block granting to the states of commodity distribution 
programs in lieu of the current nutrition program funding mechanisms.
  In addition, a discretionary block grant would eliminate the 
entitlement status of nutrition programs and subject each year's 
nutrition program funding to the Congressional appropriations process. 
There is talk that compromises were made in H.R. 4 which allowed the 
Food Stamp program to remain an entitlement program but at the same 
time placing a cap on benefits for the Program. The compromises also 
provided that all other nutrition programs could be block granted to 
the states. I want to commend the leadership of the Agriculture 
Committee for this effort, but I believe that the block granting with 
limited funding goes too far.
  In the Mississippi delta, in the coal fields of Appalachia, in the 
red clay hills of Georgia, 25 years ago one could see large numbers of 
stunted, apathetic children with swollen stomachs and the dull eyes and 
poorly healing wounds characteristic of malnutrition. Such children are 
not to be seen in such numbers today.
  The need for nutrition assistance has not diminished. We must not 
give up the accomplishments our nutrition programs achieved in the past 
decades. We must find ways to improve our programs. We must have 
flexibility at the State level, reducing excessive administrative 
requirements, and encourage innovation in the delivery of services to 
the needy. Mr. Chairman, I reject H.R. 4 and support the Deal 
substitute for commonsense welfare reform.
  Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Thurman].
  Mrs. THURMAN. Mr. Chairman, the American people want a welfare system 
which provides a hand up, not a hand out. The deal plan provides 
individuals with the assistance necessary to break the cycle of poverty 
and to ensure that welfare recipients are better off by working than by 
remaining on welfare.
  But they also believe that no one in America should go hungry. That 
has been the American tradition, a bipartisan commitment to ensuring 
adequate nutrition for our citizens--especially our children and the 
elderly. The Republican welfare plan chops away at this tradition. 
Americans who care about their neighbors should be concerned.
  Let me just explain what is at stake so we all understand the 
magnitude of what the Republicans are proposing and who will be 
sacrificed for the sake of lowering the capital gains tax rate.
  [[Page H3394]] The program always has been a safety net for the 
working poor who--despite working 40 hours or more a week, do not earn 
enough to feed their families. Food stamps help families who lose their 
jobs during economic bad times and the elderly who cannot stretch their 
fixed incomes to meet all their needs and wind up choosing between food 
and medicine. Finally, food stamps help the millions of innocent 
children who, through no fault of their own, are growing up in poverty.
  Last year, food stamps helped feed more than 1 in 10 people in this 
country. Families with children receive 82 percent of food stamp 
benefits. Elderly and disabled households receive 13 percent of food 
stamp benefits. In 1992, more than half of households receiving food 
stamps--56 percent in fact--earned less than half of the government-
established poverty level. For a family of three, this is $6,150.
  The food stamp proposal in the Republicans bill would lead to sharp 
reductions in food purchasing power.
  The U.S. Department of Agriculture estimates that 2.2 million food 
stamp participants would become ineligible under the bill.
  The Congressional Budget Office says that the bill would reduce the 
food stamp program by $21.4 billion over the next 5 years. The savings 
do not come from reducing fraud or administrative costs, they come from 
taking food out of the mouths of children who desperately need it.
  The Republican plan reduces basic food purchasing power. In a few 
years, food stamp benefits will fall below the amount needed to 
purchase the Thrifty Food Plan, the bare bones food plan that was 
developed under the Nixon and Ford administrations and has served as 
the basis for the food stamp program since 1975.
  Instead of keeping pace with food prices, as food stamp benefits 
always have in the past, benefits could rise by only 2 percent a year. 
Even if food prices jumped 8 percent in a year, food stamp benefits 
would increase just 2 percent. Fact--food prices have risen about 3.4 
percent a year, even in these periods of low inflation.
  Under the Deal substitute, which I helped write, savings are made. 
However, we guarantee that benefits never drop below the cost of the 
thrifty food plan.
  These savings in food stamp benefits, and several other provisions of 
the Deal substitute, were painful cuts to make. But we made them, in 
order to pay for education and training programs and deficit reduction. 
Republicans, in contrast, reduce benefits for the sole purpose of 
paying for tax breaks for people making more than $100,000 a year.
  The Republican bill also ends benefits after 90 days to able-bodied 
persons without children, unless these individuals are working at least 
half-time or are in a workfare or other employment or training program 
regardless of whether jobs are available. More than one million people 
will be kicked off food stamps because of this provision.
  This provision does not reflect the reality of downsizing and loss of 
work without warning. These realities are all too familiar in America.
  What about Americans, who live in small towns all over the country, 
who are laid off from factory jobs. These people know it takes time to 
find a new job. If these individuals use most or all of what little 
cash income they can scrape together for food, some may not be able to 
afford to pay rent. Homelessness and hunger would be a likely 
consequence.
  Many members of this group have strong attachments to the work force 
and turn to food stamps for temporary periods when they are out of 
work. Most leave the program within 6 months.
  The Deal substitute addresses the fact that most of these people re-
enter the job market within 6 months instead of denying benefits after 
just 90 days. Under the Deal substitute, to continue to receive 
benefits a recipient must work at least half-time, participate in a 
public service program, or participate in an employment and training 
program in order to qualify.
  The strength of our nation depends on how we raise our children 
today. We must commit as a Nation to raising strong, healthy children 
who will grow up to realize their full potential. To do this, we cannot 
abandon our commitment to successful nutrition programs. We know they 
work.
                              {time}  2100

  Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Peterson].
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise tonight to support H.R. 938, the Individual 
Responsibility Act of 1995. I am proud to be a cosponsor and want to 
commend the coalition, the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Deal], the 
gentlewoman from Arkansas [Mrs. Lincoln], the gentleman from Tennessee 
[Mr. Tanner], and others that worked so hard to put this legislation 
together.
  We have a bill here that I think responsibly reforms the welfare 
system and, more importantly, coordinates the welfare system with food 
stamps and other aspects.
  When it comes to welfare reform, I think we all agree that the system 
is broke and needs to be fixed. I think we all agree that in some 
respects we need to get tough. But we also need to reform the system 
with a package that makes sense. I think the Republican bill in some 
areas is too extreme and does not fix the problems. In fact, I think in 
some areas it actually probably causes some problems.
  We have a bill that we have put together that makes work pay. The 
Deal substitute would ensure that welfare recipients will be better off 
economically by taking a job than by remaining on welfare. Our bill 
emphasizes work first. It has a definite end to benefits, time limits, 
and it gets tough on deadbeat dads and does a number of things that we 
have been asking for for years.
  I think one of the things that we are proud of in the coalition is 
that we have done a considerable amount of work in the food stamp area, 
and we want to commend the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Emerson] and 
others for the work they have done in this area. But I think we have 
done some things that are going to make the bill somewhat better.
  Mr. Chairman, I, along with the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Condit], the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Baesler], the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Stenholm], and the gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Thurman], 
have done considerable work on this bill, trying to coordinate the food 
stamp program with the changes that we have made in the AFDC program in 
the Deal bill. In fact, this bill includes 19 specific provisions to 
bring the food stamps and the AFDC programs together on applications, 
deductions, eligibilities, income, resources, and certification.
  I heard earlier the Honorable chairman talk about the fact that their 
bill is going to give the States the opportunity to coordinate in these 
areas. We have a bill here where we have done the work, we have already 
coordinated it, and I think it makes the Deal bill a stronger bill. In 
the end, I think the Deal substitute is going to be very close to what 
happens in this Congress.
  Our bill in the food stamp area we believe is also tougher than the 
Republican bill on fraud and abuse. We think we have done a better job 
to get at those issues. We recognize that there is a lot of good 
provisions in the Republican bill as well.
  Mr. Chairman, I again strongly support the Deal substitute, and look 
forward to having a vote on that in the near future.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Foley], a valued member of the committee.
  Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his leadership on 
this issue.
  We continue to hear about the people of America that will suffer 
under Republican leadership. We have debated a food stamp bill for over 
13 hours in committee, discussing what is right and what is wrong about 
it. The other side can vote against this bill. They can continue to 
support over $3 billion of waste in the Food Stamp Program. People 
buying crack cocaine, trading food stamps for prostitution, exchanging 
it for cash, buying liquor, cigarettes.
  I felt so bad for the woman I followed in the store the other day who 
brought 100 dollars' worth of food stamps and bought microwave popcorn, 
ice cream, soda pop, pork rinds. I grew up in a home where my mother 
was working at an eye doctor's and my father was a high school coach. 
She used to get the powdered milk and mix it with a full 
[[Page H3395]] gallon of milk and stretch it to 2 gallons. We did not 
buy sodas at home.
  The Food Stamp Program needs reform. What we are doing in this 
Congress is providing reform for a very, very valuable program, but one 
that in 1979 spent $6.9 billion, this year $26.5 billion. Is that 
something to be proud of? Have times gotten that tough from 1979 to 
1995, that the program should have grown by that amount of money?
  They say what happens if there are no jobs in the State. Well, in our 
bill if the Governor or State certifies that unemployment exceeds 10 
percent and there are not enough jobs, that 90-days-and-you-are-off 
provision is waived. There are provisions to protect in extreme 
unemployment times. There are safety nets. I keep hearing the ``safety 
net'' term. I have to call this program a trampoline. People are 
jumping on it and they do not want to get off. They do not want to 
change their behavior. They do not want to change their way. People do 
not want to work. I spoke about this earlier this evening, not enough 
job training in the programs.
  The food stamp program is growing rapidly out of control. I have to 
suggest that when we talk about the real changes in this program and 
the real reforms, they are in fact in this bill. And they are tough. We 
are curbing trafficking in fraud with increased penalties. We are going 
after people that use these food stamps illicitly and illegally and 
profit by their use. We are promoting real jobs with new incentives. We 
want people to work. We want America to work. But we do not want people 
waking up and growing up and these children we talk about in the 
abstract who are sitting at home while their parents sit at home 
watching Opra Winfrey or Jenny Jones or some other talk show, when they 
could be out in fact working, and inspiring their children to 
participate in the American dream.
  I appreciate the chairman's leadership on this vital issue, and I 
believe when the American public sees what is in this bill, they will 
urge people on both sides of the aisle to support it in its entirety.
  Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from North Dakota [Mr. Pomeroy].
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I strongly support welfare reform, but one 
thing we must not do is rush through changes that hurt children. It is 
not the kids who have the responsibility for the flaws in our present 
system; it must not be the kids that pay the most painful and lasting 
price for the welfare reforms we debate tonight. Unfortunately, it is 
the kids who bear the brunt of the impact of the Republican welfare 
reform proposals because of the deep, in fact devastating cuts, they 
direct at programs which provide for the nutritional needs of these 
children.
  The reform bill does serious harm to child nutrition in two critical 
areas. First, the present programs are capable of dealing with future 
events that impact costs. These include increases in grocery costs, 
higher school enrollments, or an influx in the food stamp program 
brought about rescission, which like the last recession can thrown 
literally millions out of work and into a situation where they 
critically need food stamps for that family.
  Capping programs and not sufficiently allowing for growth in 
enrollment and costs means that by the end of the decade, children will 
not have the nutrition available that they have had or that they have 
today. When it comes to feeding our children, under their plan we will 
be going backwards instead of forward.
  Second, eliminating minimum nutrition standards for our states is 
terribly troubling. Now, I am all for State flexibility, State 
discretion. But for goodness sake, nutritional needs do not vary State 
by State. A kid in your State has the same nutritional requirements as 
a kid in my State. By eliminating national requirements and cutting 
available funds, we are setting in motion the inevitable deterioration 
of the nutritional values in our school lunch and breakfast programs. 
Good-bye milk and hello Koolaid for our kids in the years ahead.
  The Republicans cry foul over these charges. They adamantly deny they 
are cutting anything. But the numbers speak the truth. A total of $26 
billion is cut from WIC, child nutrition and food stamps over the next 
5 years, more than a third of the cuts in the entire Republican welfare 
reform package.
  You do not come up with $26 billion, Mr. Chairman, by reducing 
paperwork, eliminating waste, fraud and abuse. You get this much money 
only if you come directly at the meals our kids are presently receiving 
and reducing them dramatically in the future.
  There seems to me something terribly hypocritical about this, because 
you can bet your bottom dollar as Members of Congress our diets will 
not suffer in the years ahead. If groceries go up, we will pay it, 
because we have the financial resources to do so.
  But there are kids all over the country who depend on these programs 
for their basic nourishment, and they will not be able to keep up with 
rising costs in the future. Kids like the little Will boy I heard about 
in Grand Forks, ND, Friday. The person responsible for the School Lunch 
Program told me lots of kids depend on the school lunch and breakfast 
programs for their basic nourishment, and that in one little grade 
school in Grand Forks, the poorest section of town, you will find on 
any given Monday more than 100 kids in line waiting for the school 
breakfast, perhaps their first balanced meal since the Friday school 
lunch.
  She heard a little boy one day jumping up and down saying, ``That 
smells so good, that smells so good.'' The breakfast that morning was 
cold cereal and toast. Even toast to this little fellow smelled that 
good and caused that excitement. Now, this school district is going to 
have eliminate the School Breakfast Program if the cuts proposed by the 
Republican majority are enacted, and that little boy will not lose his 
breakfast; he will also lose his ability to listen and learn in class. 
Maybe even his edge in being able to fight off childhood illness. As a 
dietician told me this week, child nutrition is not welfare; it is 
health care.
  Mr. Chairman, I owe it to that little fellow to vote against this 
harsh and unfair legislation, and I urge all of my colleagues to join 
me in rejecting these cuts for kids.
  Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, I yield three minutes to our 
distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Baesler].
  Mr. BAESLER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I support the Deal and the coalition bill, the 
alternative to the Republican bill, for several reasons. First is 
because it does, as does the Republican bill, simplify the 
administration of all the programs. Second, it acknowledges that we 
want people to go to work, but to require them to go to work we have to 
have child care and in some cases case transportation. I think the Deal 
bill provides that, whereas I do not think the Republican bill does.
  The third reason I support the Deal bill and the coalition bill is 
because it does acknowledge sometimes people need transition from 
welfare to work, and in that transition they might need a 2-year period 
until able to retain their Medicaid card, which I think is important.
  The fourth reason is it specifically encourages local communities to 
get involved to complete the cycle of self-sufficiency. We talk about 
work, we talk about child care, we talk about other things, but very 
seldom do we talk about self-sufficiency, and I think that is what we 
need to be talking about, and the Deal bill provides for that very 
succinctly.
  Regarding food stamps, the Deal bill and the coalition bill, thanks 
to the work of the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Stenholm, Mr. Peterson, 
Mr. Condit, and others, provides very strict penalties for those who, 
much more strict than even the bill proposed by Mr. Emerson and our 
honorable chairman, which was very good at the time I thought, but ours 
is much more strict, particularly on the recipients and also on the 
violators, much more strict even than the Republican proposal.
  The final reason I support the Deal bill is we all know that two 
words that are sort of underlying this discussion are responsibility 
and accountability.

                              {time}  2115

  I think the Deal bill destroyed the responsibility and 
accountability, and it does so I think in keeping with the contract 
with our own conscience here in America and not just with the Contract 
With America.

[[Page H3396]]

  Mr. ROBERTS. I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Smith], a valued member of the committee.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I think the point needs to be 
made that welfare in this country is not working.
  For 40 years, we have been trying to solve the problems of poverty. 
Politicians created many well-meaning programs designed to transfer 
wealth to the poor. Over this period the Government has borrowed $5 
trillion and spent $5 trillion on welfare programs. And what has 
happened?
  Illegitimate births have grown from 5 percent to 30 percent of 
births; single parent families have gone from 4 per cent of all 
families to 29 percent; teenage pregnancy has doubled; and violent 
crime has arisen fivefold. We have shown that simply transferring 
taxpayers' money to poor people doesn't work.
  H.R. 4 will reform traditional welfare programs that have robbed 
people of self-respect by giving them something for nothing. These 
handouts too often breed a complacency that prevents people from 
helping themselves. They create a culture of irresponsibility by 
subsidizing bad behavior.
  The current welfare system pays unwed mothers to have babies. It 
tells women that if they bear an illegitimate child, the government 
will pay them a monthly allowance and give them a place to live. The
 resulting explosion in illegitimacy and the breakdown of the family 
shouldn't surprise us.

  Let me read a few excerpts from the February 27th U.S. News and World 
Report to emphasize the importance of two-parent families:

       More than virtually any other factor, a biological father's 
     presence in the family will determine a child's success and 
     happiness. Rich or poor, white or black, the children of 
     divorce and those born outside marriage struggle through life 
     at a measurable disadvantage. * * *
       The absence of fathers is linked to most social 
     nightmares--from boys with guns to girls with babies. No 
     welfare reform plan can cut poverty as thoroughly as a two-
     parent family. * * *

  Raising marriage rates will do far more to fight crime than building 
prisons or putting more cops on the streets. Studies show that most 
state prison inmates grew up in single-family households. A missing 
father is a better predictor of criminal activity than race or poverty.
  H.R. 4 helps promote families. Too often, welfare discourages 
traditional families. Benefit formulas have discouraged marriage and 
encouraged women to have illegitimate children. Government can't create 
two-parent families, but we can stop encouraging one-parent families. I 
hope Congress has the determination to make needed changes by: (1) 
ending payments to teenage mothers who decide to have a baby without a 
husband; (2) requiring all welfare mothers to identify the father; (3) 
making deadbeat parents live up to their child support obligations; and 
(4) in the next couple weeks, passing legislation to get rid of the 
marriage penalties in the tax code.
  This bill H.R. 4 also makes needed changes in our food and nutrition 
programs. The food stamp program costs $26.5 billion; the school lunch 
and other child nutrition programs cost $7 billion; WIC costs about 
$3.5 billion.
 H.R. 4 block grants the WIC and child nutrition programs to the 
states. The food stamp program, which is the most abused and wasteful 
program, is tentatively being kept a the federal level. We are making 
long-overdue changes to improve the program. We also need to stop food 
stamps from being used for candy, chewing gum, soda pop, and other junk 
food. If hard-working Americans are going to pay taxes for this 
program, it should be for nutritious food for individuals who might 
otherwise go hungry.

  States should have the flexibility to modify the eligibility criteria 
for food stamps. Right now, national standards make a couple with four 
children eligible for food stamps if they earn less than $26,692 a 
year. But $26,000 goes a lot further in different areas of the country. 
We need to give states the authority to vary these eligibility 
requirements, making limited funds better serve their citizens.
  H.R. 4 ends many welfare abuses. For too long, we have allowed 
alcoholics, drug addicts, and those with dubious ``functional 
disabilities'' to collect for disability payments. We need to end these 
abuses and this bill will help to do that.
  H.R. 4 is not a perfect bill, but it is a good bill that starts to 
replace a failed system of despair with more compassionate solutions 
that encourage work, strengthen families, and offer hope for a brighter 
future.
  Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to our distinguished 
colleague, the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro].
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I intend to vote for real welfare reform 
that puts people to work. The Deal substitute does that--it demands 
more responsibility of welfare recipients by requiring that they go to 
work after 2 years, and it provides more opportunity by making sure 
that work pays more than welfare. The Deal substitute is real welfare 
reform.
  But the bill before us, the Personal Responsibility Act, is not 
welfare reform at all. This bill is more intent on punishing our 
children than in putting welfare recipients to work. This bill would 
destroy the School Lunch program and other federal nutrition programs 
in order to pay for a tax cut for the wealthiest Americans. That is 
wrong, and we must defeat this bill.
  The School Lunch program works to provide many of our children with 
the one balanced meal they eat all day. But this bill would cut $2.3 
billion from the School Lunch program over the next 5 years, according 
to the Congressional Budget Office. The Children's Defense Fund 
estimates that 2 million children will be thrown out of this program--
20,000 in my home state of Connecticut alone.
  That is only the beginning of the assault on children. Altogether, 
this bill cuts $7 billion from important federal child nutrition 
programs. And it immediately eliminates Social Security benefits for 
250,000 low-income children who are severely disabled or blind.
  Supporters of this bill have come up with all kinds of creative 
excuses to defend these cuts.
  First, they claim they are cutting bureaucrats, not food for kids. 
But the entire administrative budget for all U.S. Department of 
Agriculture feeding programs is just $106 million per year--just 1.5 
percent of these programs' total budget. The Republican plan would cut 
eight times that amount--$860 million--in child nutrition programs in 
1996 alone. That's cutting kids, not bureaucrats.
  Then supporters of this bill claim they are increasing funding for 
the School Lunch program by 4.5 percent annually. Even if that was 
true, this increase falls far short of keeping up with inflation, 
increased enrollment, or a downturn in the economy. This program grows 
6.7 percent each year.
  Therefore, we are 2 percent short, but the fact is, this promise of a 
4.5-percent increase is just that--an empty promise. And the odds are, 
it is a promise that will never be kept. That is because this bill 
lumps the School Lunch program in a giant, underfunded block grant, 
with no guaranteed levels of funding for any specific program.
  I intend to vote for real welfare reform that puts work first, but I 
cannot vote to punish children. I urge my colleagues to join me in 
opposing the Personal Responsibility Act. Our children are our future--
let's not abandon them.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to a very valued member 
of the committee, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. LaHood].
  (Mr. LaHOOD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Chairman, I first want to congratulate the chairman 
of the sometimes powerful Agriculture Committee, the gentleman from 
Kansas [Mr. Roberts], who has done a magnificent job providing the 
leadership on this important bill and also to the gentleman from 
Missouri [Mr. Emerson] for his leadership.
  I have a very limited amount of time. I have not met one Democrat or 
one Republican in all of this House that wants to gut or cut the School 
Lunch Program. I do not know of anybody who wants to gut or cut the 
School Lunch Program. For anyone to stand here in the House and 
proclaim that is just simply not true.
  Our proposal will reform the School Lunch Program, will feed hungry 
children, will provide the nutrition necessary for hungry young people, 
but it will not gut or cut the program. So I 
[[Page H3397]] want that message to go out around the country. It is 
simply not true.
  Our proposal will also reform the Food Stamp Program. Americans know 
that we have a lousy welfare system. It is fraught with abuse and 
fraud, and Americans want a change.
  And we are going to carry out one of President Clinton's campaign 
promises. We are going to reform welfare as we know it, and we are 
going to do it by giving back to the people in local communities and 
States the responsibility and the financial resources to really deal 
with the problems. We are going to give back to them not only the 
responsibility but the resources to carry out these programs. Who knows 
better than people in local communities who the most needy are? Local 
people do. I ask support for this important legislation.
  Mr. de la GARZA. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to our distinguished 
colleague, the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Malony].
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, the current welfare system has created a 
culture of dependency. It is not working and needs to be changed. The 
system offers several incentives for welfare clients to shun 
independence and stay on the dole.
  You might ask what could possibly be worse. The answer is the 
Republican bill before us tonight. It is a harsh, heartless, extremist 
proposal. It would worsen poverty and hunger for innocent children by 
making deep cuts in benefits that provide food and shelter. It is weak 
on work and long on punishment of children. It would cut back the very 
child care funding that would allow welfare recipients to go to work.
  Simply saying no more welfare is not welfare reform. It is a recipe 
for disaster. A real reform plan would get welfare recipients to go to 
work. A real reform plan would provide child care and skills, training 
to move people off the dole and on a payroll.
  Reason and compassion demand a ``no'' vote on the extreme Republican 
plan. Let us pass a bill that rewards work and protects our children: 
the Democratic substitute, the Deal plan.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Iowa [Mr. Latham], a valued member of the committee.
  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the Agriculture 
Committee for his leadership.
  Mr. Chairman, I am holding in my hands a 700-page document just 
released by the Clinton administration that purports to contract 
Federal EBT services and equipment through a little-known procurement 
process called IEI or Invitation for Expression of Interest. It is my 
understanding that only financial institutions, large banks are able to 
apply. It totally eliminates current electronic transfer companies from 
bidding.
  I am deeply concerned that this document would create a Federal EBT 
system that will inhibit the individual States from setting up their 
own EBT systems. As I understand it, 6 States have already set up EBT 
systems for themselves, and over 20 States are currently moving to do 
the same.
  With all the efforts we have made to give more flexibility to the 
States, I am deeply concerned that the Clinton administration is moving 
to develop a new Federal bureaucracy to deliver benefits to recipients, 
and I wish to commend the chairman of the Committee on Agriculture, 
Subcommittee on Department Operations and Nutrition, for including in 
the welfare reform package language that will prohibit the Federal 
Government from doing anything that would stand in the way of States 
creating and implementing their own EBT systems.

                              {time}  2130

  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LATHAM. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I agree with the gentleman that this IEI 
raises some very disturbing questions. With all the attention and 
action we have had this last few weeks in terms of sending block grants 
and returning responsibilities and accountability to the States, I am 
concerned that that document could well throw out the efforts that we 
have had in trying to return this and allow Federal bureaucrats to 
block and restrain individual States. I am concerned this will block 
our ability to allow States to develop programs for their own eligible 
citizens.
  Mr. Chairman, my understanding of the intent contained in the 
legislation that we are talking about now is that the Federal 
Government is prohibited from doing anything that would stand in the 
way of States creating and implementing their own EBT systems. Section 
556 of this bill states:

       (B) Subject to paragraph (2), a State is authorized to 
     procure and implement an on-line electronic benefit transfer 
     system under the terms, conditions, and design that the State 
     deems appropriate.

  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. 
Emerson], the chairman of the subcommittee.
  Mr. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Iowa for 
yielding to me.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman has been an extremely constructive member 
of the subcommittee throughout these deliberations. I want to thank him 
for his participation, and for raising the subject, as he has.
  Let me say, Mr. Chairman, that the gentleman from Oklahoma is correct 
in his understanding of the language and intent of section 556.
  Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to our distinguished 
colleague, the gentleman from California [Mr. Tucker].
  Mr. TUCKER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, the bible says: ``suffer the little children and forbid 
them not.'' The word ``suffer'' here is used to mean to bear, to 
support, maintain, abide and sustain. This passage does not imply that 
we cause suffering on children, but that we are supposed to support 
them. Somehow, some way, too many of my Republican colleagues have got 
the real contract all wrong.
  Yes, the system needs fixing, but what system? If this House passes 
this distorted and destructive legislation, it is not welfare that 
needs reforming, but Congress, and those who currently regard 
themselves as its leaders. This bill is flagrantly flawed and 
poignantly punitive. It falsely assumes that welfare recipients are 
some lazy, rip-off artists who don't want to work. The reality of 
course is that 70 percent of all recipients are children, our Nation's 
children, and the 30 percent adult population is largely made up of 
those who want to work. And yet, this bill does not guarantee work. No, 
this is no reform. This bill guarantees nothing, except that after 5 
years of benefits, recipients must be cut off regardless of a lack of 
jobs. This bill does not guarantee job training and education 
resources. This bill only guarantees that there will be no guarantees. 
No more entitlements for AFDC, for foster care, for school lunches for 
WIC.
  Twenty-five million of our children are recipients of school lunches. 
This program ain't broke an we don't need to fix it. The result of the 
Republicans block granting to the States is either that nutrition 
standards will suffer, or less children will be fed in times of 
economic downturn. This bill causes suffering to children of mothers 
under age 18. This bill does nothing to solve the problem of out of 
wedlock pregnancies. It does nothing to make welfare dependents whole 
and productive. This is the most mean-spirited, irresponsible attack on 
the poor and the youth that our house has ever seen. No matter how my 
colleagues try to move their contract forward and pay for a tax break 
for the rich on the backs of the children, there still remains a 
contract, a law of higher authority for which they will be held 
responsible. Remember suffer the little children, and forbid them not. 
I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing the Personal Responsibility 
Act, and support the Deal substitute.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. de la Garza] has 2\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remaining time.
  Mr. Chairman, we heard many of our colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle expressing their views and their concerns about this legislation. 
I share the same concerns about cutting fraud and cutting abuse, seeing 
that our monies are used efficiently for the purpose intended.
  Beyond the rhetoric and beyond the policy and beyond the sound bites, 
beyond everything that we have heard here tonight, I would ask for 
Members 
[[Page H3398]] to come with me to every home across America: a little 
shanty, a little ramshackle farmhouse. In my area, we have some 
cardboard and tin-roofed places where the poor live.
  I can assure the Members, and I challenge anyone to deny, that in 
some of those houses Members will find a hungry child that had no 
supper tonight. Members will find an elderly person that had no supper 
tonight. I challenge anyone to deny that. They cannot, because that is 
the fact. That is the purpose for what we use the food stamps.
  All the other areas we can address, and we have. It pains me to hear 
Members using the political ``40 years, 40 years.'' For 28 of those 
years, those 40 years, we had a Republican President, that Republican 
President that tried to cut some of the programs. How ironic.
  I quote:

       I cannot lend my support to the concept of turning back to 
     the States all responsibility for achieving child nutrition 
     goals. In short, we have a continuing obligation to ensure 
     that the nutrition needs of our truly needy youngsters, 
     wherever they may reside, are adequately met. This is and 
     must remain a national priority goal.

  Quoting the Chairman, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling], 
who chairs one of our committees at this time. That is a quote from the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Roberts] has 2\3/4\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, to end the colloquy that was previously 
discussed, I yield 17.5 seconds to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. 
Emerson].
  Mr. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
   Mr. Chairman, I just want to say that the gentleman from Oklahoma is 
correct in his understanding of the language and intent of section 556.
  Further, my colleague raises extremely important points in relation 
to the approach being taken by the administration's EBT IEI proposal. I 
look forward to digging deeper into this issue during the oversight 
hearings which we are going to hold on the subject.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, can we please end the class warfare argument or 
discussion or partisan exchange and get to food stamp reform? We have 
had a lot of discussion about school lunches, which is not even part of 
this debate, we are talking about food stamps. We have had a lot of 
talk about the food costs and how we cannot really match the food 
costs.
  Only in Washington is a 2 percent increase considered a cut. If food 
prices go down, food stamps, benefits, will go up 2 percent. It 
happened in 1990. If the food costs go up, and nobody can predict that, 
other than the gentleman from Texas Dick Armey the self-declared 
Assistant Secretary of Agriculture in this body, but if food costs 
would go up we will appropriate the money with a supplemental, so that 
deals with the problem of food costs.
  Quality control, it is out of control. It is over 8.5 percent. The 
Panetta plan reduces it back in terms of quality control to 6 percent. 
That is in part how we control these costs.
  Somebody mentioned the WIC program. We are not discussing WIC here. 
There is $25 million sitting there in the account of WIC. It was cut 
$25 million. We had $50 million, it is down to $25 million. They have 
to advertise on the radio to get more participants. It is a good 
program, by the way.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from North Dakota said that some school 
child in North Dakota was going to go hungry because of school lunches. 
The Chairman of the Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities 
has informed this Member $1 million more next year than last year. We 
will cut the paperwork and the administration and we will give the 
money to that very hungry child.
  Let us really talk about food stamp reform. In 1985, 19.9 million 
people were on food stamps. It went up to 20 million in 1990, 22.6 in 
1991, 25.4 in 1992, and in 1993, 27.3. When the economy goes down, the 
food stamps, that expenditure goes up. When the economy goes up, food 
stamp expenditures go up. We simply want to control the growth of the 
program. We will address the needs, if in fact they are needed.
  The opportunity of the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Deal] is a deal 
but it is not the best deal. We should be supporting this bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
  Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Inglis of South Carolina) having assumed the chair, Mr. Linder, 
Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, 
reported that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill 
(H.R. 4) to restore the American family, reduce illegitimacy, control 
welfare spending and reduce welfare dependence, had come to no 
resolution thereon.

                          ____________________