[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 52 (Tuesday, March 21, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H3406-H3414]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       MEANINGFUL WELFARE REFORM

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 4, 1995, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox] is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, tonight with me are the 
gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Hayworth] and the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Riggs] in support of meaningful welfare reform that will help all 
of the people of the United States. We are here to speak out for a 
compassionate system which does not simply hand out cash and create a 
desperate cycle of dependence, but instead strengthens families, 
encourages work, and offers hope for the future.
  As you can see from this diagram right here, the poverty paradox, the 
poverty rate and welfare spending. In the years of the Reagan 
administration, you will see we did not spend as much money on welfare, 
yet welfare went down. In the last 2 years, in the Clinton 
administration, more has been spent, and yet it has been a failed 
system of welfare.
  We are offering an alternative here this week in the House of 
Representatives that we think is going to be meaningful for all 
families. We must bring an end to our current welfare system, which 
abuses its recipients. Nothing can be more cruel to children and 
families than the current failed policies.
  Tonight my colleagues and I will discuss various sections of the 
Personal Responsibility Act which the House is considering this week. 
The bill addresses cash welfare, child protection, child care, family 
and school nutrition, alien eligibility, commodities and food stamps, 
SSI, and child support enforcement. Our bill, when it is passed, will 
allow millions of Americans to escape the cycle of poverty and learn 
the freedom, dignity, and responsibility that comes would work.
  We need to evaluate the success of welfare, as the gentleman from 
Oklahoma, Mr. J.C. Watts has said from our freshman class, not by how 
many people are on AFDC or on food stamps or in public housing, but how 
many people are no longer on AFDC, food stamps, and public housing.
  In that spirit and with the help our good colleague from Arizona, the 
esteemed Member of the House of Representatives, J.D. Hayworth, I would 
like to yield to you to discuss the important cash welfare block grant 
program, of which you have been a leader.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania, and really, 
Mr. Speaker, before we get into this discussion, I see our good friend 
uncharacteristically sitting to the left of me, the esteemed chairman 
of the Committee on Rules, the Honorable Jerry Solomon of upstate New 
York. You have something you would like to say now, at this juncture?
  Mr. SOLOMON. I want to commend you for this special order, but I am 
still waiting for the papers to file on the rule that will take up 
exactly what you are talking about here tomorrow. I thank the 
gentleman.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. I thank you very much. We all wait with interest to see 
what is hot off the presses in the Committee on Rules, and we thank the 
gentleman from upstate New York for his valuable service as the 
chairman of the Committee on Rules.
  Mr. Speaker, it is good to see you in the chair tonight, as you 
represent so capably the good people of upstate South Carolina, and it 
is good to join my good friend from Pennsylvania standing in the well 
of the House, to address this topic.
  It is not my intent to invoke any type of negativity in this debate 
tonight, Mr. Speaker, but I listened with great interest to the 
gentleman on the other side of the aisle who calls the State of New 
York his home, and listened to so much name calling, so much myth 
making, as we enter this great debate on welfare reform. And let there 
be no mistake, this will be a great debate.
  But again, I would issue a challenge to our friends on the other side 
of the aisle to come forth with positive, positive welfare reform, 
because as my friend from Pennsylvania will attest, and indeed, since 
we are in our first term in the Congress, we have seen and certainly 
our friend who is the chairman of the Committee on Rules has been time 
and time again the phenomenon in this new 104th Congress of folks who I 
believe fairly could be referred to as the Yeah, buts. ``Yeah, we need 
welfare reform, but, the positive plan for change being offered 
inflicts too much pain.'' Indeed, I listened with interest to my good 
friend the Democrat from New York just a moment ago talk about the 
civility of this society being threatened.
  Mr. Speaker, not only is the civility of our society being 
threatened, but 
[[Page H3407]] our very fiscal integrity and our entire society and the 
survival of that society is being threatened by a system which 
threatens to bankrupt this, the grandest of all republics, and which 
threatens to change the very core of our existence.
  Some history is in order. Despite the comments of my good friend from 
New York earlier, the fact is that government at all levels has spent 
in excess of $5 trillion trying to eradicate poverty. And as the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania showed us, we have this poverty paradox, 
where the more we spend on poverty it seems, the numbers of the poor 
increase. It is an incredible paradox.
  I see our friend the chairman of the Committee on Rules is prepared 
with a statement now. I would gladly yield time to the gentleman from 
upstate New York.
  Mr. SOLOMON. I think the appropriateness would be for the gentleman 
in the well to yield time.
  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. We both yield to you, our senior Committee 
on Rules chairman.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, let me commend both the gentlemen for 
taking this special order this evening. It is so terribly, terribly 
important. I could not help but listening to my associate from New York 
City speak before, and he used the word compassion, and that we have to 
spend money on people to be compassionate.
  Well, I would just go back and say what I said the other day when we 
had the rescission package on the floor. What is compassionate about 
piling $4.5 trillion in debt on our children and grandchildren? What is 
compassionate about President Clinton's new proposals that offer the 
next 5 years to add another $1 trillion to that $4.5 trillion debt, 
thereby increasing the amount of interest that we have to pay to just 
support that accumulated debt? What is compassionate about that? And 
what is compassionate about a welfare program that we have been on now 
for 20 years which breeds second and third and fourth year welfare 
recipients? Those people want to get off welfare, and they need to do 
it with what we are planning here today. That is why I am so proud of 
you two for taking this special order this evening. I wish you well.
  In the meantime, I have got the rule which will bring the most 
significant comprehensive welfare reform that has ever been brought to 
this House, we will bring on this floor tomorrow.
  I thank you two gentlemen, and the best of luck to you. I salute you.
  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Chairman Solomon, we look forward to lively 
debate tomorrow, moving on to welfare reform with your leadership. We 
appreciate what you have done to work overtime on this proposal.
  I would now like to yield back to let my colleague and good friend 
from Arizona [Mr. Hayworth] continue your discussion on the important 
reasons why welfare reform, meaningful welfare reform, is so important 
to the American people.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox], and 
indeed I thank the esteemed chairman of the Rules Committee for again 
outlining the Rules of this House and indeed our Speaker pro tempore 
tonight for enforcing those Rules.
  It is important to remember that we are a society of laws in this 
body. We are a society that follows rules. And it is worth noting that 
the Rules of this House in this new majority are far more open than 
anything offered during the previous 40 years of one party rule by the 
new minority.
  I mentioned earlier the tale of the numbers. Would that it were only 
a fairy tale. Would that these numbers were not reflected in cold, hard 
facts. But it is time for straight talk with the American people.
  I refer to the fact that in the last 30 years we have spent at all 
levels of government in excess of $5 trillion to try and eradicate 
poverty. We have failed miserably, and it is fair to ask the question 
why. Why have these programs, perhaps so noble in their intent, failed 
so abysmally?
  No. In stark contrast to what the preceding gentleman from New York 
[Mr. Owens] said, it is not a vendetta. It is not some demonization of 
one group of Americans. It is not our intent to set one group of 
Americans against another group of Americans. The gentleman himself 
said welfare reform is needed.
  Well, as my friend, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox], will 
attest, Mr. Speaker, the debate in coming days the rest of this week 
will articulate how we are prepared to make changes.
  Marvin Olasky has offered a new book, entitled ``The Tragedy of 
American Compassion.'' And the Rules chairman referred to it just a 
moment ago when he talked about the true meaning of compassion.
  What is compassionate about a system that leaves to our children and 
to generations yet unborn a debt of untold trillions that they will 
have to service, that they will have to pay off?
  In the past, it was in grand American fashion, no matter if you 
hailed from the inner city or from rural America, that you would pay 
off the mortgage and leave a home for the children or leave a farm for 
the next generation. We have reversed the process under the guardians 
of the old order. We have basically enjoyed the fruits of the farm and 
the fruits of the homes and left the mortgage for our children to pay.
  So your new majority in Congress, Mr. Speaker, has advanced some 
significant reforms. Let me delineate them for you right now.
  Part of the problem has been that we continue to allow Federal 
programs to grow like topsy. We have programs that are duplicative, 
that are redundant and that, quite frankly, are not a good way to spend 
the hard-earned money of the American taxpayers.
  So what the GOP welfare bill does is, first, consolidate for cash 
welfare programs, including AFDC and the JOBS Program, into one block 
grant. The idea again being that people on the frontlines, in the city, 
States, and towns know best how to spend that money, know best how to 
attack those problems, lets in the redundancy and allows these great 
laboratories of democracy to do what they do best.
  Indeed, we have seen pilot programs in Wisconsin and in Michigan and 
we see other States like my home State of Arizona and the great State 
of North Carolina working to enact workfare programs working on these 
problems on the frontline. That is where we are talking about. 
Consolidate these programs into one block grant and allow this battle 
to be fought more effectively at the State and local level.
  Our new majority welfare bill also requires recipients to work with 2 
years and leave the cash welfare rolls after 5 years. Again, it is this 
notion, Mr. Speaker, what is reasonable? Is it reasonable to expect in 
a free economy where we look day after day at classified advertisements 
in a variety of publications touting the facts that jobs are available, 
is it fair or reasonable to allow someone to become a prisoner of this 
failed system?
  No, we need to offer a way out, and indeed we need to offer incentive 
to leave the welfare rolls and get involved in work. And that is what 
our plan does by requiring recipients to work within 2 years and to 
leave the cash welfare rolls after 5 years.
  Our plan requires 50 percent of single adult welfare recipients to 
work no less than 35 hours by the year 2003, a gradual program, not 
draconian but establishing clear guidelines in a period of time, 
altogether modest to allow these reforms to take place.
  It requires 90 percent of two-parent families to have one adult work 
no less than 35 hours a week by
 1998. In a 3-year period, a chance to get that done.

  And we define work as real, private-sector jobs with concurrent 
education and training permitted. In other words, it is not the role of 
our society or our government to provide make-work. We want to grow 
this economy and allow people to find work in the private sector.
  Now, in jobless areas it is worth noting, areas plagued by chronic 
unemployment, indeed many of the areas that our friend from the other 
side of the aisle mentioned and championed, we allow work to be defined 
as subsidized work, community work or on-the-job training. So we do 
provide for those areas where there is chronic unemployment. We do 
provide every American with the opportunity, the dignity and 
responsibility of work.
  We bar Federal cash to unwed parents. Let me repeat this: We bar 
Federal cash to unwed parents under 18. 
[[Page H3408]] Now, let us emphasize what will transpire here. Because 
lost in the debate, with so many members of the liberal media failing 
to articulate and emphasize this point, while we bar Federal cash 
payments to unwed parents under the age of 18, this plan will still 
allow for noncash benefits.
  Indeed, I refer to Marvin Olasky's book, ``The Tragedy of American 
Compassion,'' where he chronicles where our society has changed from a 
caring society to a caretaking society.
  And I think it is so important to emphasize that, again, we do not 
seek to demonize or starve or deprive anyone who is truly needy. But 
what we believe, as we have taken a look at the failed system, that we 
ought to be able to provide in-kind benefits to those who deserve them, 
noncash benefits in the forms of staples and those materials vital for 
life itself to those, but we do cut out cash payments to youngsters. In 
other words, we don't have the Federal Government giving money to 
children who continue to have more children.
  We would bar additional Federal cash for additional children born 
while the mother is on cash welfare. Why is that important? Again, 
because under this failed system what we have done in our society by 
any fair and objective measure is that we have subsidized illegitimacy 
to the point that one out of every three children is born out of 
wedlock.
  My constituents of the Sixth District of Arizona and others I have 
talked to throughout this country point to illegitimacy as one of the 
factors, if not the key factor, that can totally undermine our society. 
So we move to change a failed policy that gives improper incentives to 
the increase in illegitimacy.
  We would bar cash to unwed mothers who refuse to cooperate in 
establishing a child's paternity. Because we understand in our society 
that we have rights and we have responsibilities, and it is time for 
the fathers of this country to, if they are willing to father a child, 
to go through that biological action, to indeed take responsibility for 
the paternity of that child.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my strong 
opposition to H.R. 4 the Personal Responsibility Act. I believe that 
this piece of legislation is fatally flawed, and, if enacted, would 
shatter the lives of millions of our Nation's poor.
  I believe there is general consensus that the goal of welfare reform 
is to move individuals out of dependency and into self-sufficiency. 
However, in order to achieve this goal, it is vital that the enacted 
proposal be both cost effective and compassionate to the needs of our 
Nation's low-income individuals. In addition, the proposal must 
effectively address the issue of job training to get people off of 
welfare and into meaningful work. The Personal Responsibility Act 
thoroughly fails in these areas and is a cruel and callous attempt to 
eliminate the most basic income support for desperately needy children 
and their families.
  There is no doubt that many of our Nation's poor will suffer under 
this proposal. Almost 70 percent of the individuals currently receiving 
benefits, or 9.7 million people, are children. According to the 
Department of Health and Human Services, it is estimated that more than 
6 million children would lose their financial support under this 
proposal. It is both cowardly and unconscionable to hurt the most 
vulnerable people in our population. Yet this is the very consequence 
of this plan.
  H.R. 4 jeopardizes the health and well-being of children by making 
devastating assaults on many of our Nation's existing food assistance 
programs. Programs such as WIC and the School Breakfast and Lunch 
Programs would be consolidated into a State block grant, dramatically 
decreasing the funding available to these programs. It is estimated 
that in only 5 years, in the year 2000, 2.2 million American children 
will lose the benefit of a school lunch. In the State of Ohio, an 
average of 856,514 children eat a school lunch each day. Under the 
Personal Responsibility Act, 85,600 of these children will be dropped 
from this program by the year 2000. In addition, this bill eliminates a 
national nutritional standard which could ultimately mean 50 different 
nutritional standards--a situation which would be chaotic.
  As set forth in the Personal Responsibility Act, States would be 
allowed to cut off all AFDC benefits after 2 cumulative years of 
receiving AFDC if the parent had participated in a work program for 1 
year. After 5 years, States would be required to terminate both 
financial assistance and the work program. It concerns me that this 
provision does not take into account those individuals who earnestly 
attempt, but are unable to find jobs. In addition, the plan makes very 
limited exemptions or waivers for the 20 percent of mothers on AFDC 
with a temporary disability, or the 8 percent who are caring for a 
disabled child.
  In fact, this plan also slashes funding for child care services by 
$1.7 billion over the next 5 years. Therefore, a person working to stay 
off of welfare would find themselves in the unenviable position of 
leaving their children home alone or in inadequate settings. Without 
the ability to pay for child care, low-income working families may find 
themselves returning to welfare.
  H.R. 4 unfairly punishes children and their families simply because 
they are poor. In my community, we have a 20-percent poverty rate in a 
county of 1.4 million people. More than 228,000 people are recipients 
of food stamps and more than 137,000 rely on aid to families with 
dependent children. The average household of three on public assistance 
receives $341 per month, or $4,021 per year from the Government. This 
punitive measure will undoubtedly endanger their health and well-being.
  Mr. Chairman, the pledge to end welfare as we now know it is not a 
mandate to act irresponsibly and without compassion and destroy the 
lives of people, who, through no fault of their own, are in need of 
assistance. On behalf of America's children and the poor, I urge my 
colleagues to vote against H.R. 4.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, the current welfare system is at odds with 
the core values Americans share: work, opportunity, family, and 
responsibility. And 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.
  Instead of promoting self-sufficiency, the culture of welfare offices 
creates an expectation of dependence.
  Our society cannot--and should not--afford a social welfare system 
without obligations. Individuals--not the taxpayers--should be 
providing for their own families. 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 requires only 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.
  Moreover, under the Republican bill, States can count any kind of 
caseload reduction toward their work participation rate, whether those 
people are actually working or not. In no way does this practice make 
recipients responsible, or contribute to a change in their behavior.
  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.
  In order for welfare to be truly reformed, it must send a clear 
message to all Americans: you should not become a parent until you are 
able to provide and care for your child. Having a child is an immense 
lifelong responsibility. Only those capable of and committed to 
shouldering the responsibility of parenthood should have children.
  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. The driver's and professional license revocation 
provision they deleted would save taxpayers $146 million--over 5 
years--while creating a better life for children.
  Instead of attacking deadbeats, the Republican bill attacks children. 
It eliminates the 
[[Page H3409]] 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 
funding that would be provided by current law. The Democratic deficit-
reduction amendment was ruled out of order in committee so that kids' 
food money could be used for tax cuts for the rich.
  The Republican bill also changes the child nutrition funding formula 
to redistribute resources away from relatively poorer States to 
relatively wealthier ones. Funding for the Women, Infants and Children 
Program is also reduced compared to current law--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.
  Our foster care system, already overloaded, is also under siege. In 
committee, Mr. McCrery stated that, ``If a woman just can't find or 
keep a job, she will have the option to give her children up for 
adoption, place them in a group setting or foster care.'' Adoption and 
foster care services are failing our children. 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 requires and rewards work over welfare. It 
makes the point that people should not have children until they are 
ready to support them. 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.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 4, the Personal 
Responsibility Act.
  Mr. Chairman, I strongly support honest and meaningful welfare reform 
that gives poor unemployed Americans a real opportunity to work and 
provide for themselves and their families. All welfare recipients 
should be given the opportunity to work; those who fail to seize that 
opportunity should not be rewarded with limitless governmental 
assistance.
  Mr. Chairman, moving recipients off of the welfare rolls and onto a 
payroll means more than just handing them a copy of the help wanted 
pages from the local newspaper. Government, working with the private 
sector which has a real stake in expanding the pool of skilled labor, 
needs to provide education, job training and child care if we are to be 
successful in helping welfare recipients become productive gainfully 
employed citizens.
  Mr. Chairman, I agree with President Clinton and many of my 
colleagues in the majority that argue we must end welfare as we know 
it. We must reform a welfare system that has trapped millions in a 
cruel cycle of dependency and despair.
  However, ending welfare as we know it does not mean we should 
completely dismantle the safety net programs that protect our Nation's 
most vulnerable population: our children. Yet that is exactly what the 
majority's welfare reform plan would do. H.R. 4 would terminate current 
child welfare programs, including the child abuse prevention and 
treatment program, and the adoption assistance program, and replace 
them with a new State block grant at drastically reduced funding. The 
School Lunch Program would also be eliminated and replaced by a block 
grant. No longer would a hungry child be entitled to a nutritious 
school lunch, often the only decent meal they receive all day.
  Unfortunately, under the Republican welfare plan, punishing our 
children for the unfortunate circumstances or unacceptable behavior of 
their parents goes much further than denying a child a hot meal or 
failing to protect them from abuse. H.R. 4 would deny benefits to 
children born out of wedlock to teenage mothers, and limit benefits to 
mothers who have additional children while receiving Federal 
assistance.
  Illegitimacy is perhaps the most devastating social and moral dilemma 
confronting our Nation. Yet turning our backs on the real victims of 
this problem, the children, is a cruel and simplistic solution that 
seems to be based more on an effort to save money than to change 
behavior.
  Mr. Chairman, we can require parents to act responsibly and become 
self-sufficient without abandoning our children. Sadly, H.R. 4 takes a 
radically different approach and will result in untold pain for our 
children while creating undesirable incentives for teenagers and 
mothers on welfare who become pregnant.
  New York's Cardinal John O'Connor recently said the welfare plan 
proposed in the Republican Contract With America is immoral in its 
virtually inevitable consequences.
  Mr. Chairman, children in poverty are not a burden on our society; 
they are the future of our Nation. We can end welfare as we know it, 
But we do not have to condemn poor children to do it. I urge my 
colleagues to defeat this legislation.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Republican's 
welfare reform legislation, entitled, the ``Personal Responsibility Act 
of 1995.''
  I don't support the status quo. I fully believe that our welfare 
system needs to be changed. But, the Republican proposal is not strong 
enough in terms of work.
  Under the Republican bill, individuals can receive welfare benefits 
for 2 years without meeting any work requirements. I don't know about 
my Republican colleagues, but my voters didn't send me to Washington to 
write a blank check to anybody. But this Republican proposal does just 
that. It gives billions of dollars to States without requiring that any 
of that money be used to put more people back to work.
  Meaningful welfare reform can not be achieved unless we move more 
people from welfare to work. Democratic proposals encourage people to 
take care of themselves immediately--not 2 years later. From the day 
one, AFDC recipients would have to prepare for work and aggressively 
look for a job. Anyone who turns down a job would be denied benefits. 
The Democratic proposals are tough on work, but promote self-
sufficiency, not dependency.
  I am opposed to the Republican welfare proposal because it is weak on 
work and responsibility and tough on children. Children are the losers 
in this debate. Under the Republican proposal, 131,000 children in 
Massachusetts would lose Federal assistance. 400,000 children 
nationwide would lose child care assistance, and thousands more would 
no longer be guaranteed a nutritious meal. The Republican proposal 
punishes children and babies.
  In order to make the transition from work to welfare a reality, we 
need to provide job training, affordable and safe child care, and most 
of all we need to create jobs. The Democratic alternatives give the 
American people what they want--an aggressive proposal that requires 
parents to work, but protects our Nation's children.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, the Personal Responsibility Act is a 
disheartening, empty charade. It does very little to foster personal 
economic independence and virtually nothing to reform a welfare system 
that is in serious need of repair. The Republican bill simply passes 
the buck to the States. We should call this legislation the Government 
Responsibility Abdication Act, because all this bill does is to drop 
the responsibilities of the Federal Government and to push poor people 
off a cliff. By drastically reducing some benefits and eliminating 
others, this legislation creates a gaping hole in the safety net we 
provide for our neediest citizens.
  The Personal Responsibility Act misses the major point that any 
welfare reform should address--work. My Republican colleagues claim 
that they make people work under their bill. They claim that States are 
required to have 50 percent of one-parent welfare families and 90 
percent of two-parent families in work programs by 1998. But what they 
do not tell us is that caseload reductions count toward this work 
requirement. So States can simply do nothing for 2 years, cut families 
off, and claim that they have put people to work. That is weak on work 
and tough on kids.
  Perhaps the cruelest and most disappointing aspect of this 
legislation is that it actually punishes those children who, through no 
fault of their own, are born poor. The bill punishes a child--for his 
entire childhood--for the sin of being born to a family on welfare.
  A child is also punished under this bill if he or she happens to be 
born to a young parent out-of-wedlock. Although I believe we should do 
everything reasonable to discourage teenagers from having out of 
wedlock children, this bill is not reasonable. It denies cash benefits 
to teenage mothers at a time when both the mother and child need 
support most. There is no evidence to suggest that teenagers get 
pregnant in order to collect welfare or that families on welfare have 
more children in order to collect more welfare benefits.
  The most direct and sensible way to decrease out-of-wedlock 
pregnancies, and all unintended pregnancies, is to make sure that 
family planning services are available to all who want them. But the 
welfare bill does nothing to make voluntarily family planning more 
available or accessible.
  Instead of offering our children a helping hand, this legislation 
introduces them to the harshest realities of life before they are able 
or prepared to cope. Reform of the welfare system should concentrate on 
healing families, not tearing them apart.
  [[Page H3410]] Without jobs, money, shelter or other assistance, 
dignity and hope is replaced with desperation and anger. This bill 
promotes a climate of social unrest and violence. The Personal 
Responsibility Act does what a responsible government should never do: 
it takes a difficult problem and makes it worse. There is no doubt that 
our current welfare system needs reform. But the Republican bill 
replaces a cruel system with a mean-spirited system. Welfare reform 
should not punish deserving residents and innocent children and must 
not take away the last vestiges of assistance that our Government 
provides.
  Mr. EVANS. Mr. Chairman, in their zeal to balance the Federal budget, 
the new majority will be forcing working Americans to make sacrifices 
to cut the deficit. Sacrifices for a debt they did not create. 
Sacrifices that will cut their hard-earned benefits. And sacrifices 
that will threaten their future standard of living and that of their 
children.
  While these cuts focus on supposed government waste, one thing has 
been ignored; Government giveaways or the $200 billion in corporate 
welfare we let big business and foreign multinationals pocket each year 
in the form of tax loopholes and shelters.
  It strains belief that we can even start to talk about sacrifice to 
middle class Americans who have seen their earning power decrease, when 
industry is not doing its fair share towards reducing the deficit. We 
must do better.
  Today, I am introducing the Corporate Welfare Reduction Act of 1995. 
The bill will close a number of loopholes that provide unfair tax 
breaks for multinationals and foreign corporations. For example, the 
bill would eliminate the following provisions that:
  Allow multinationals to use excess foreign tax credits generated by 
foreign operations to offset U.S. income tax under the so-called 
``title passage rule''.
  Exempt foreign investors from paying U.S. tax on the interest they 
receive from U.S. borrowing.
  Allow multinational oil and gas companies to claim foreign tax 
credits for some of the ordinary costs of doing business in foreign 
countries.
  Enable multinationals to hide behind alleged restrictions in local 
law in order to avoid complying with transfer pricing rules.
  Allow multinationals to profit from the exemption from U.S. tax of 
their employees' foreign earned income regardless of whether or not 
that income is subject to foreign tax.
  Exempt foreign investors from paying capital gains tax from the sale 
of the stock in U.S. corporations.
  The savings from these provisions will then be applied to reducing 
the deficit, with a small portion going to export promotion programs 
for small and medium-sized U.S. businesses.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in sponsoring this legislation and 
put an end to handouts for big business and foreign corporations.
                              {time}  2310

  We offer a funding bonus of up to 10 percent for States that reduce 
out-of-wedlock births. We provide level funding of $15.4 billion a year 
for 5 years. We create a $1 billion Federal rainy day borrowing fund 
for recessions or emergencies. In other words, we are not so dogmatic 
as to believe there will not be emergencies, we are not so dogmatic as 
to believe there will not be rolling readjustments in our economy, part 
of a free society from time to time, people encounter tough times, and 
we are willing to understand and deal with that.
  We allow States to set up their own rainy day funds and pocket any 
savings over 120 percent of their annual grant amount. We set aside 
$100 million a year in a fund to ease pressures on States with rapid 
population growth. Indeed, the great State of Arizona and my own Sixth 
District is experiencing rapid population growth. This plan again 
accommodates those changes in our society. We will save untold billions 
of dollars over 5 years as opposed to the current system.
  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. There are questions the press has asked and 
I just thought there is a myth out there that possibly the gentleman 
could explain and frankly let people know it is incorrect.
  There is a myth that your pro-family provisions that we have in our 
welfare reform proposal will be cruel to children. How do you answer 
that?
  Mr. HAYWORTH. As the gentleman from Pennsylvania knows and as I am 
glad to articulate here on the floor of the U.S. House tonight, I think 
by any objective standard, even the standards set by our friends on the 
other side of the aisle, the yeah-buts, the people who say, ``Yeah, we 
need welfare reform but,'' it is important to remember this. It is the 
current system that hurts children, because the current system 
encourages self-destructive behavior, it encourages dependency, it 
encourages out-of-wedlock births. Our bill does not end assistance to 
children. Let me repeat that for the mythmakers on the other side of 
the aisle who would try to gain unfair partisan advantage by wielding a 
campaign of fear unparalleled in our society, our bill does not, does 
not end assistance to children. It only terminates cash assistance.
  No responsible parent would reward an irresponsible child with cash 
payments and an apartment. No responsible employer would give workers a 
raise simply because they have additional children. If people in the 
private sector, who care about the quality of work being done, who care 
about the future of their children, who seek to instill responsibility 
and responsible actions, if private businesses will not do those 
things, the taxpayers of this country who work from January 1 on 
through now almost 6 months of the year paying off their burdensome 
taxes, those taxpayers who work hard for their money should not be 
asked to do those things, either.
  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. What about this further myth that has been 
propagated about the fact that this bill is not strong enough on work 
requirements? What do you say to that?
  Mr. HAYWORTH. I think the record will show as the debate continues, 
our work requirements are very, very tough on work. We require States 
to make cash welfare recipients go to work after 2 years. Some States 
will choose a more stringent requirement. I know the great Commonwealth 
of Virginia has taken an action to actually offer less time. But that 
is the option of the State and indeed is that not truly federalism in 
action?
  After 5 years, recipients would face the ultimate work requirement 
and that would be the end of all cash welfare. We require States to 
have 50 percent of adults in one-parent welfare families, that is about 
2.5 million families, working by the year 2003. We require States to 
have 90 percent of two-parent families working by 1998. We define real 
work with only a few limited exceptions as real private sector work for 
pay. States that do not meet these standards would lose part of their 
block grant. That is truly being tough on work. That is truly workfare 
and not welfare.
  Mr. RIGGS. Would the gentleman from Pennsylvania yield?
  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. RIGGS. I thank the gentleman for his leadership in organizing 
this very important special order tonight as we prepare to enter day 
two of what I think is probably the single most important debate that 
will take place on the floor of this House in the 104th session of 
Congress. But before we leave the subject of children, I simply want to 
point out that since it seems like really the ammunition from our
 opponents is primarily focused on what our plan might do to children, 
so let me point out that cash benefits going for drugs, generation 
after generation of dependency, children having children and children 
killing children, nothing could be more cruel to our kids than the 
current failed welfare system. Some statistics to back up what I am 
saying here, 70 percent of juvenile delinquents in State reform 
institutions lived in single-parent homes or with someone other than 
their natural parents before being incarcerated. Here is the really 
staggering statistic. Children born out of wedlock are 3 times more 
likely to end up on welfare themselves when they grow up than children 
born to married parents.

  Clearly the system that we have in place today has been a monumental 
failure and a very cruel, cruel, almost inhumane system in terms of how 
it treats the children entrapped in welfare dependency and entrapped in 
the poverty that welfare dependency and entrapped in the poverty that 
welfare dependency generates.
  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. The gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs] is 
absolutely right. Your point it well-taken and your leadership is 
appreciated in trying to move what is truly pro-people welfare reform 
in this House forward.
  I would like to ask if I may another question back to the gentleman 
from Arizona [Mr. Hayworth].
  [[Page H3411]] Repealing the entitlement to individuals has been said 
by those on the other side of the aisle will cause misery and a 
recession. How do you respond to that?
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Again the current system, and this is the irony. As the 
gentleman from California mentioned and as indeed our good friend the 
gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Watts] mentions, the current system 
rewards States for having additional people on cash welfare. In other 
words, under this not only bankrupt system financially but I would call 
it a morally bankrupt system, we gauge its success by the numbers of 
people we can add to the rolls.
  Now think about this. Under a block grant, States will have a built-
in incentive to move people off the cash welfare rolls and into jobs. 
And block-granting will give them the flexibility to do so.
  If you doubt it, I would commend, Mr. Speaker, our friends on the 
other side and indeed all the American people to look to States like 
Wisconsin and Michigan where they are working hard to implement real 
change in the welfare system. So what we need is to unleash the 
creative power of States and localities to deal with this problem.
  Additionally the bill creates, and this is worth noting for our 
friends who choose to deionize or mischaracterize our plans, let us 
repeat this. The bill creates a $1 billion Federal rainy day borrowing 
fund for recessions or emergencies, and it allows States to set up 
their own rainy day funds and pocket any savings over 120 percent of 
their annual grant amount. That is a powerful incentive for those 
respective States to save up voluntarily for a rainy day, or given the 
current level of government spending if we do not curtail it, the 
inevitable recession that will result.
  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Let me ask this further question. Your State 
is growing and many other States are as well.
  How would you make sure the block grants will adjust for shifts in 
population, because the ladies and gentlemen on the other side of the 
aisle would have the public believe a misconception that in fact the 
block grants that we are proposing will allow for such shifts?
  Mr. HAYWORTH. I think it is worth noting that our legislation creates 
a $400 million fund to help ease pressures in States with high 
population growth. It permits States to save unlimited amounts of cash 
from their block grant in the State rainy day fund for recessions and 
emergencies, amounts in the rainy day fund in excess of 120 percent of 
the State's annual block grant amount can be shifted into that Stat's 
general fund. That is another incentive to move welfare recipients into 
jobs. Then again the bill also lets States borrow from a billion-dollar 
Federal rainy day fund which they would have to repay with interest.
  But finally the bill lets the States shift 30 percent of other block 
grants, and this is something the other side has chosen to demonize, 
when in fact it really goes to help children and it really goes to help 
families who are looking for a hand up and a helping hand instead of a 
handout, it offers 20 percent of the nutrition block grant into the 
block grant and vice versa. It really is the ultimate in flexibility.
  Indeed, and that is the other side of the nutrition issue, if I could 
digress for a second, when the other side talks about block grants 
being inherently evil and how 20 percent of those grants could be moved 
to other areas, that 20 percent provision is custom-made for this 
opportunity, not to starve children but ensure that their families who 
may be encountering tough times have the economic wherewithal to 
survive those times.
                              {time}  2320

  We offer the ultimate in flexibility, and I might add nothing in any 
act we have proposed restricts States from offering more of their 
resources gained either through income tax in some States or other 
revenue-accruing mechanisms in those States from offering even more 
money for nutrition programs or for helping the truly needy in those 
respective States.
  Mr. FOX. I want to underscore what the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. 
Hayworth] just said and what Congressman Riggs has pointed out on the 
floor many times, and the fact is under our compassionate welfare 
reform we are actually going to serve more people with less 
administrative costs and more money for direct services, and I think 
that is the bottom line.
  I would like to yield, if I could at this time, to Congressman Riggs 
to discuss not only with the American people, with us in a colloquy, 
about the alien welfare eligibility program, the food stamp reform, the 
child care block grants, and the SSI reform.
  I know that you have done a great deal of work on this area, and I 
know your constituents from California appreciate the fact that you 
have sensibly provided the leadership necessary to move this debate 
forward so we can help everybody.
  Mr. RIGGS. Well, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for 
yielding.
  And, obviously, the whole issue of alien welfare is very important to 
Californians, particularly those who voted last November for 
proposition 187, which would have imposed a flat prohibition on the 
providing of social welfare services to illegal immigrants. And, 
unfortunately, the statewide ballot initiative is now tied up in the 
Federal courts pending some sort of adjudication.
  But it is very clear, just talking to voters and looking at the 
election results in California, that California voters are saying we 
need to put our own citizens first.
  It is equally clear that as we look at a streamlined welfare system, 
a welfare system that allows us to achieve real reform, a welfare 
system that allows us to help move people from welfare to work, a 
welfare system that, yes, through dramatic reform and overhaul will 
contribute to our overall goal of reducing the deficit and ultimately 
balancing the budget, that that welfare system cannot provide welfare 
benefits to aliens.
  So what we have attempted to do in the Economic and Educational 
Opportunities Committee on which I serve is come up with a provision 
that we think will reflect what Americans think and feel on the subject 
of welfare benefits for aliens, both legal and illegal.
  So I want to take a moment because we are going to hear the argument, 
in fact, it came up today, that we on our side of the aisle are engaged 
in punitive, almost un-American activities in that we do want to 
restrict benefits for, particularly for illegal aliens and that we are 
engaged in a not-so-subtle form of immigrant bashing.
  I want to respond to that. I said earlier today on the floor that we 
are not bashing immigrants. We are giving strength to the longstanding 
Federal policy that welfare should not be some sort of magnet for 
immigrants, legal or illegal. We should be putting out the welcome mat 
for those who want to enter our country legally, who want to go through 
the process of establishing residency and ultimately achieving 
citizenship.
  But, on the same hand, we should not be encouraging through some sort 
of perverse incentive in the welfare system the hordes of illegal 
immigration that those of us who hail from and represent border States 
such as myself and the gentleman from Arizona have been seeing 
firsthand for several years.
  Again, that is what really prompted the overwhelming response by 
California voters when they approved Prop 187 in California by a vote 
of nearly two-thirds to one-third.
  So what we are trying to do to eliminate the magnet for immigrants is 
take four simple steps to reform welfare in this whole area. One, we 
prohibit legal aliens from participation in the big five magnet 
programs. And they are cash welfare that the gentleman from Arizona was 
talking about just a moment ago, food stamps that we are going to talk 
about in just a few minutes, Medicaid, Title 20, and the SSI program.
  And, frankly, the SSI program has been one of the areas that has been 
most egregiously abused by any number of welfare recipients from legal 
aliens to children.
  I also should point out that we talked a moment ago about AFDC, cash 
welfare payments, and we have not
 done a good job to date in bringing out in this debate that citizen 
children or so-called citizen children, children 
[[Page H3412]] of illegal immigrants who are born here in this country 
and who thereby immediately become American citizens, are the fastest 
growing group of AFDC recipients in America today.
  So what we want to do is go back to the idea of sponsorship. We want 
to make the alien's sponsor financially responsible for the support of 
that alien.
  We would require an affidavit of financial support that would be 
legally binding and in fact would be enforceable in court proceedings. 
We apply, this is an interesting fact. 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 income when 
determining welfare eligibility.
  And, lastly, we authorize Federal and State authorities for the first 
time in history to go after deadbeat sponsors.
  Thus, if you look carefully at our welfare reform proposal in the 
area of welfare benefits for aliens, we are actually strengthening our 
current immigration policy, and we are not bashing anyone. That is not 
our intent.
  Now, there are also those who say, well, if you cut off welfare 
benefits entirely to illegal immigrants, we will have children, the 
children of those illegal immigrants or the children in those families, 
literally dying on our streets. And nothing could be further from the 
truth. We allow both legal and illegal aliens access to noncash, in-
kind emergency services.
  That is, in effect, the case today in our emergency rooms around the 
country. So they will have access to emergency medical services at the 
State and Federal levels. And no alien, legal or illegal, will go 
without such humanitarian services as a result of our bill.
  So as we have attempted to do throughout our welfare reform package, 
we are imposing stringent measures. We are sending a signal to those 
who would desire to aspire to emigrate to our country that they have to 
come through the door legally.
  You know, just an anecdote from last fall's election campaign.
  I was out actually precinct walking one day in my congressional 
district, and this was right at the peak of the controversy and the 
furor over proposition 187. I was walking down the street. I heard over 
my shoulder a gentleman calling out to me in broken English with an 
obvious Hispanic accent. And I turned around, and he came running down 
the street.
  And he was very excited, actually, to meet me. And so we got into a 
nice conversation. And as I had a chance to probe a little bit, he was 
very excited that a political candidate had just come to his door 
because he was in his fifth and final year of qualifying for American 
citizenship, and he was overjoyed at the prospect that he would be able 
to exercise his franchise as an American citizen and vote in the 
election.
                              {time}  2330

  So I took that opportunity to ask him his feelings on proposition 
187, and he looked me right in the eye and said that he was very much 
in favor of proposition 187. He was in favor of cutting off social 
welfare benefits for illegal immigrants, because he expected them to do 
it the right way, the legal way, the hard way, just as he had in 
qualifying for American citizenship.
  So that is the message that we are sending here, and we are clearly 
stating to our fellow citizens that we really are going to put the 
rights and the needs of American citizens first.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. If the gentleman will yield, I just think it is very 
important to take to heart the real-life experience of our friend from 
California and say that it is shared by so many immigrants who came in 
our open door, came into this country in a legal, orderly fashion, and 
it is not our intent to harm those who would immigrate to these shores 
legally but those who would come in through surreptitious means, those 
who would come here to enjoy the fruits of the labor of American 
taxpayers without being involved in the system in stark contrast to the 
fine example so many legal aliens set for us, whether they are 
immigrants from immediately south of our border who come here legally 
or so many folks who have immigrated here from Asia and from Europe, so 
many people from throughout this world who have come here legally 
seeking a better life and true freedom for their families. No one 
denies those who would come here legally an opportunity. But yet as the 
gentleman from California mentions, we must take action that is 
reasonable to stop the flow of those who would reach these shores 
illegally to take advantage of a system which we have proven tonight 
has failed miserably and lacks the very compassion the champions of 
that failed system so claim extravagantly in their rhetoric.
  Mr. RIGGS. If the gentleman from Pennsylvania would yield on one more 
point related to, again, the provisions in our package dealing with 
alien welfare eligibility, I should also point out that we had 
considerable discussion and even some controversy within the ranks of 
House Republicans as to whether to deny legal aliens federally 
subsidized or Federal taxpayer-paid welfare benefits. And what we 
decided to do, and the proposal that will be before the House tomorrow 
open for amendment allows legal aliens to draw certain limited welfare 
benefits, but only if they have served honorably in the U.S. military, 
that is to say, they are an honorably discharged veteran of the U.S. 
military, or they are a naturalized citizen, and they have begun again 
the process of obtaining American citizenship.
  I wanted to point out we do make a distinction between legal aliens 
who fit one or the other of those criteria and those again who break 
the law by entering our country illegally and who have put a tremendous 
drain on the Treasury of border States and, in the broadest sense, the 
Treasury of the Federal Government through again these waves of illegal 
immigration that have been invading our shores.
  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. I believe that, based on what I heard from 
the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Hayworth] and the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Riggs], it seems clear to me what you have reached in 
your committee is a compassionate balance between those who are in fact 
legally here and deserve to have certain benefits and those who are 
illegal and who frankly the restrictions are appropriate and fair.
  Mr. RIGGS. That is exactly the case, and we are again making a very 
blunt statement here, make no mistake about it. This action in this 
legislation puts the House of Representatives firmly on record in two 
respects. One, we obviously, by denying any welfare benefits at all to 
illegal immigrants, set a strict policy and a very clear standard for 
our country. We are, in fact, drawing a line.
  And, secondly, we are sending a message that Federal immigration 
policy needs to be revisited and reformed, and the reason that I am so 
strongly in favor of these revised and stringent alien welfare 
eligibility standards is that with respect to legal immigration we are 
putting responsibility back where it belongs. We are putting the 
responsibility back on the shoulders of sponsors. We are telling the 
people who sponsor those legal immigrants into our country that they 
will bear a financial responsibility, and that is as it should be 
rather than substituting the Federal taxpayer for those sponsors.
  So this is a good balanced compromise, and I believe it is one that 
is deserving of the support of our colleagues, and I would hope and 
expect that this particular part of the welfare reform package will 
receive strong bipartisan support from the House over the next few 
days.
  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. I believe that it will, and I would ask 
that, if we could, for the purposes of making sure the Members of the 
House are aware of the further reforms, could we talk about how the 
food stamp reform proposal is actually going to make sure more benefits 
get to those in need and we eliminate some of the abuses and the fraud 
that have existed prior to now?
  Mr. RIGGS. If the gentleman from Pennsylvania will yield, I think 
perhaps I should point out to my colleagues, and certainly for those 
viewers who are joining us now, that we do have a series of charts that 
show the principal elements of our welfare reform bill, and what I have 
put up here are the highlights of reform to the Federal food stamp 
program.
  Now, many of our fellow Americans know that this particular area of 
the Federal law is overdue. It is overdoomed, but it is also overdue 
for 
[[Page H3413]] reform. What we are doing here is obviously we are 
preserving food stamps as an entitlement, a direct Federal entitlement, 
as a part of the Federal safety net for the poor, and we do anticipate 
and make provisions for participation in the program in the overall 
rolls, the overall number of food stamp recipients to grow in a 
recession. We do require able-bodied recipients, age 18 to 50, without 
dependents, to work, again, as part of our overall workfare approach to 
reforming the welfare system.
  We let States deny food stamps to cash welfare recipients who refuse 
to work. The message is if you are able-bodied but unwilling to work or 
get job training or some form of vocational skills, then you will be 
denied benefits altogether.
  Another keypoint, we allow States to convert food stamps to cash wage 
supplement for persons who agree to work. So what we are doing there is 
allowing food stamps to augment the basic welfare grant or the cash 
welfare grant for people who agree to work.
  We allow States to engage in electronic transfers in lieu of a cash 
block grant.
  There are stories that are renowned and quite legion about food stamp 
recipients exchanging their food stamps for all sorts of different 
items----
  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Drugs.
  Mr. RIGGS. Liquor or drugs, obviously items that go far beyond the 
basic food supplies or foodstuffs that the food stamps are intended to 
provide. We limit cost-of-living adjustments to 2 percent-per-year, and 
as a result of reform in this area, again, since what we are attempting 
to do here now is through welfare reform and discretionary spending 
cuts, domestic discretionary spending cuts in the Federal budget, is 
making a significant down payment on deficit reduction that will, 
before the 1996 fiscal year is out, start our country on the path of 
balancing the Federal budget by the year 2002, and the reform to the 
food stamp program will contribute $18.2 billion over 5 years again as 
part of our overall deficit reduction effort.
  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. I know that the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. 
Hayworth] and I are, on the Government Reform Committee, often talk 
about the problems that you have discussed in your committee, Education 
and Labor, dealing with the abuses in the system, where most of the 
people who receive the benefits of the program are in need and it is 
justified and applying for food stamps and compassion of the country 
does what it can.
  What have we done in the system to intercede, to make sure that the 
problems you outline with illegal drugs and using the food stamp money 
for alcohol or other nonnecessities of life, what have we introduced 
into the system to make sure that those kinds of abuses do not 
continue?
                              {time}  2340

  Mr. RIGGS. Well, one of the primary reforms is the one I talked about 
where States can set up an electronic transfer system. That is to say 
where food stamp recipients can get credit at a grocery store or, you 
know, at a location where they would be buying food stamps, but it 
would be done again on a more of an electronic transfer basis, or 
almost like a credit card, in lieu of food stamps that could be 
converted for cash or converted for items that again would not be 
essential foodstuffs. That is one of the principal reforms that we have 
acquired here.
  Another obvious reform is requiring able-bodied recipients, again 
ages 18 through 50 without children, to work in exchange for their food 
stamps, and then again allowing States to deny food stamps altogether 
to those aged 18 through 50 who do again not have dependent children, 
but who refuse to work.
  So, there are again stringent standards in the food stamp reform area 
to cut down on the rampant abuse that we have experienced with this 
program and has been well documented back here in Washington for many 
years.
  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. 
Hayworth].
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
and listened with great interest to our friend from California outline 
many of the reforms.
  One other reform that I think is so vital, because again, despite the 
propaganda and the labels of mean spiritedness about our proposal that 
the defenders of the tired old system continue to propagate, I think it 
is important also to note that this legislation would harmonize the aid 
to families with dependent children and the food stamp program, 
allowing States to use one set of rules for families applying for food 
stamps and AFDC, and, by providing that one-stop service, would 
actually make the entire process more recipient friendly, and it would 
make the programs more taxpayer friendly by eliminating red tape, and 
indeed, when you strip away all the hyperbole from the arguments and 
ask, I believe, a fairer question of the other side, why this constant 
defense of the status quo, we come to understand that in fact the 
minority party, many of the liberals in that party are in fact 
championing the continuation and the growth of the bureaucracy. They 
are championing the duplicative type of problems we have had.
  That is all I can really draw from their arguments and their 
opposition, and we are trying to change that, not out of mean 
spiritedness, but out of public spiritedness, the idea being that even 
those recipients are entitled to more efficient service, though truly 
needy in our society should benefit from a program that will treat them 
with some dignity, not only inspiring those able-bodied folks to work, 
and to look for work, and to really be involved in our great, free 
market economy, but also on the governmental side to downsize, and I 
think much of the hue and cry comes from those who quite candidly would 
rather work in the public sector, would rather have these programs 
duplicated instead of appealing to what is--makes preeminent common 
sense from my viewpoint and what is just reasonable, and that is to 
combine these programs to serve the needy recipients and, again, to cut 
out excessive governmental waste, and I think that reform is vital to 
be mentioned.
  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, 
Congressman Hayworth, I think you are right on target with the message. 
I think part of what is important is what the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Riggs] spoke about moments ago, goes
 to the work requirement, but it also carries with it job counseling, 
job training and job placement, and, where necessary, even day care to 
make sure that those who really want to work have the opportunity to do 
work, and, after all, everyone wants the right and the opportunity to 
be all they can be.

  I would like to turn back, if I could, to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Riggs] to explain the kinds of abuses we have had with 
SSI and where the program that the Republican majority has presented 
tomorrow will help to solve the problem.
  Mr. RIGGS. Well, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox] 
for yielding because the SSI, the Supplemental Security Income Program, 
has been just rife with abuse for years.
  I am a little bit embarrassed to admit that one particular abuse, 
disability payments to drug addicts and alcoholics who refuse to get 
any kind of treatment or rehabilitation, that particular abuse was 
highlighted through a 60 Minutes segment that focused in on actually a 
local tavern in Eureka, CA, in Humboldt County, the largest county in 
my congressional district, where the friendly bartender or tavern 
keeper was actually cashing these checks for the local residents who 
had qualified for SSI.
  So, we are focusing in on ending these glaring abuses, ending 
disability payments to drug addicts and alcoholics again who refuse to 
undergo any kind of treatment or rehabilitation program, who refuse to 
acknowledge that they have a problem and need help, which is the first 
step on the road to recovery.
  We end cash payments for children made eligible through 
individualized functional assessments, IFAs, another growing abuse of 
SSI and the overall Federal welfare system. It has become almost common 
knowledge that one way to scam the system for families on welfare with 
children is to take them through this process wherein again they are 
diagnosed as individually--as individually impaired or functionally 
impaired and thereby enable the children to collect SSI benefits. We 
make 
[[Page H3414]] only children with severe medical disabilities eligible 
for disability benefits. We provide more SSI medical and nonmedical 
services to severely disabled children. We require States to conduct 
continuing disability reviews every 3 years for most children involved 
in the program, and we set aside $400 million for additional drug 
treatment and research to again help those who want help with their 
problem and who, in effect, should be eligible for SSI at least during 
the duration of their treatment and rehabilitation program.
  We are not cutting SSI for kids. What we are doing, again, is trying 
to provide more funding for severely disabled children while protecting 
taxpayers against the growing abuse of the SSI program that has been 
well documented, again, in evidence presented to the Congress.
  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. What of the child care block grant program? 
Is that your next proposal?
  Mr. RIGGS. Well, we have touched on that at some considerable length, 
the job care block grant program, and it is quite likely that we will 
see an amendment here on the floor. The child care block grant is 
obviously very important to helping people move from welfare to work. 
Now we recognize that many single mothers struggle against heroic odds, 
and if we, in fact, are going to assist them in making that transition, 
we need to help them with adequate quality child care and health care 
benefits.
  So what we have done in the child care block grant is consolidate 
eight child care and development programs into a single block grant. We 
actually
 enable States to direct more funds to child care services even while 
providing level funding, and I believe that that funding will be 
increased through an amendment to be offered by the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson]. We preserve parental choice provisions in 
the current child care development block grant. We require States to 
have and meet their own safety and health laws for day care providers, 
and again we poropose initially level funding of 1.9 billion a year for 
5 years, although I believe the gentlewoman's amendment would increase 
that in the neighborhood of $750 million more, again recognizing that 
quality child care is paramount to helping people make that transition 
from welfare to work.

  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. I will yield to the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. I just want to thank our good friend from California 
for delineating so many provisions in our Welfare Reform Act that we 
will talk about tomorrow, and certainly many more provisions remain, 
and we invite, Mr. Speaker, all the American people to be involved in 
this debate in this new partnership, and I think it is fair to mention 
that people at home are saying, ``Well, what does this mean for me, for 
the taxpayers of America, for those who are working to provide for 
their families and who are providing through charitable sources, and 
also through their tax dollars, for the truly needy?''
  What we are saying is it is time to change the system. And for those 
who find themselves entrapped in this system that would lead to a 
growing cycle of dependency, we are saying take heart. Benefits will 
remain for the truly needy, but we offer you an opportunity to truly 
become involved in this system, to understand and enjoy the dignity of 
work and the fruits of your labor and to really become involved in this 
grand experiment we know as the last best hope of mankind.

                              {time}  2350

  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Our current system is so perverse to people, 
if they have savings, you cannot be on welfare. If you want to own 
property, you cannot be on welfare. It actually discourages the child's 
mother to marry the father because she will lose welfare. So what we 
have tried with these Republican proposals is frankly to give a better 
system to trim the fat from the budget, but to give the benefits where 
they belong, to those who really are in need, and not those who abuse 
the system that was outlined by the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Riggs].
  Mr. RIGGS. I would like to sum up. Again, as I said earlier today, 
several hours ago now on this very floor, it is time to get real. We 
all know the system is broken. We know that today's welfare system 
destroys families and the work ethic and that it traps people in the 
cycle of Government dependency and promotes intergenerational 
dependency on welfare. So what we are even deferring to do now in this 
historic debate is replace a failed system of despair with reforms 
based on the dignity of work and strength of families that move 
solutions closer to home and offer hope for the future.
  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. With that final statement from the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Riggs], I want to thank also the gentleman from 
Arizona for his leadership [Mr. Hayworth], in trying to move this 
Congress forward in meaningful welfare reform that is compassionate and 
cares for people and will respect the rights of all individuals in the 
United States. I want to thank the gentleman for participating in this 
special hour on behalf of the House of Representatives. I want to thank 
the Speaker for his leadership and assistance in this regard.


                          ____________________