[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 53 (Wednesday, March 22, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H3537-H3538]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                              {time}  2130
                         MORE ON WELFARE REFORM

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). Under a previous order of 
the House, the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Jones] is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. JONES. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
[Mr. Greenwood].
  Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman very much for 
yielding to me. I simply asked for the time so I could respond to the 
comments of my very good friend, the gentlewoman from California, 
because frankly, she brought the debate back to where I think it should 
be and that is a fair debate.
  The previous speaker raised legitimate issues about the difference 
between an entitlement program and a block grant. That is the level of 
the discussion that we ought to have. If we have that level of 
discussion, then we can talk about different strategies to balance the 
budget.
  I came over here fairly upset because I am so angered to hear over 
and over again the use of the term ``cutting'' the funding for this 
program. It simply is not true. It really should not be said.
  The level of debate will be elevated tremendously if we talk about 
different strategies, whether it is entitlements or block grants. We 
can do that. We can have honest differences of opinion. We might 
actually learn from each other and find some common ground.
  I really would encourage my friends on the other side of the aisle to 
stop using the terminology of cutting funding for this program, when in 
fact the facts are, and I will repeat them, when the Democrats 
controlled the House and the Senate and the White House, they provided 
this program with a 3.1 percent increase and the president, in this 
year's budget, proposed 3.6 percent, and we have offered 4.5 percent 
for the next 5 years.
  If the appropriators do not do that, that is a discussion for another 
day. And perhaps we will join some of you in voting against an 
appropriations bill that does not live up to the 4.5 percent 
authorization. But let us be honest about where we are in the process.
  Mr. JONES. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from California 
[Ms. Pelosi].
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, in the spirit of debate, I would like to 
respond to the gentleman's comments.
 What we have to do, if we are going to debate this in a way that is 
clear to the American people, is to define our terms. The gentleman 
from Ohio was waving the CRS report before and saying how much of an 
increase that the Republican proposal was of the school-based lunch 
plan versus, as you are referencing, President Clinton's increase on an 
entitlement program as opposed to a block grant.

  The point I want to make is that what the gentleman was waving was 
already a cut, yes, a cut, because it is only referring to the school-
based lunch program. It does not provide funding for the afternoon 
program or the summer school program. So you have already cut 
children's nutrition plans.
  Mr. JONES. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the debate on both sides as it 
relates to the nutrition program. I wanted to touch on welfare and the 
need for welfare, but first I have to make these comments as a former 
Democrat, that today I was interviewed by the Washington Post wanting 
to know why in the State of North Carolina that we went from 8 
Democratic Congressmen, four Republicans to four Republican Congressmen 
and four--excuse me, eight Republican Congressmen and four Democrats. 
The whole purpose is simply because the new minority party was out of 
touch with the middle-class working American.
  People in America are paying, the working family will spend half of 
what it makes on paying taxes and actually spend more on paying taxes 
than it will spend on clothing, housing and food. And this debate 
tonight about children is extremely important, and on our side we 
believe we are doing what is right for children.
  I can tell the other side, after hearing the debate today and 
yesterday, that the American people are ready for downsizing 
Government. They are ready to see efficiency in programs. They are 
ready to see less taxes coming out of their paycheck. That is what I 
think the Republican party has done.
  Let me talk just briefly, I know my time is short, about the facts on 
welfare. Since the 1960s, Washington has spent approximately $5 
trillion of taxpayers' money on the war on poverty. It is the most 
expensive war our Nation has ever waged, and it is a war we have lost. 
The amount we spend in a year on welfare is roughly three times the 
amount needed to raise the incomes of all poor Americans above the 
poverty income threshold. Nearly 65 percent of the people on welfare at 
any given time would be in the welfare system for 8 years or longer.
  A record 14.3 million people now receive welfare benefits, a 31 
percent increase since 1989. Funding for welfare programs is estimated 
to increase from $325 billion in 1993 to $500 billion in 1998.
  My colleagues, the people of America are demanding welfare reform. We 
can debate as we should debate, being a democracy, but when we really 
come down to it, the working people of America are tired and fed up of 
seeing 
[[Page H3538]] their money wasted. It is our responsibility and 
obligation to pass welfare reform.


                          ____________________