[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 54 (Thursday, March 23, 1995)]
[House]
[Page H3710]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                      ON REPUBLICAN AND DEAL PLAN

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Maloney] is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, the former speakers keep talking about how 
they are not cutting money and then they start talking about how they 
are cutting the deficit. So which is it?
  Mr. Speaker, the current welfare system has created a culture of 
dependency.
  The system offers several incentives for welfare clients to shun 
independence and stay on the dole.
  A single mother who goes to work could lose here child care, forcing 
her to leave her children home alone.
  She could lose Medicaid benefits and go without health insurance.
  And she could lose the food stamps that help her feed her children.
  And for what?
  To get a low-paying job that will leave her worse off financially, 
uninsured, and unable to supervise her children during the day.
  You might ask, what could possibly be worse?
  The answer is, H.R. 4 the Republican's Personal Responsibility Act.
  The Republican bill would worsen poverty and hunger for innocent 
children by making deep cuts in benefits, especially during economic 
downturns.
  It would do far too little to empower welfare recipients to rejoin 
the work force with education and training.
  It would scale back the very child care funding that would liberate 
welfare recipients to go to work.
  The plan is punitive, irresponsible, and cruel to children.
  The Republican plan could render millions of Americans with nothing 
to lose.
  No cash assistance, no housing, no day care, no medical care, and no 
jobs.
  In New York City alone, experts are projecting that by the year 2000: 
76,000 poor children will lose AFDC benefits, an allowance they need 
for food, shelter and clothing; 300,000 more children will require 
child care slots so their mothers can work. However, the Republican 
plan cuts child care spending by $1.6 billion;
 60,000 children would be dropped from the school lunch programs; 
640,000 children would see their food stamps decrease by 30 percent.

  Simply saying, ``No more welfare, go get job'' is not welfare reform.
  The Republicans want people off of welfare. The Democrats want people 
to get a job.
  The Deal substitute is not perfect.
  But it is far better than the Republican plan.
  Although it was defeated tonight parts of it should be a model when 
the Senate takes up the bill.
  At least, the Deal substitute operates in the real world.
  It recognizes that for welfare recipients to go to work, child care 
is essential.
  So it invests in comprehensive child care.
  It recognizes that for welfare recipients to go to work, they need 
skills and training.
  So the plan invests in comprehensive training, education, and 
workfare programs.
  The Deal plan's Work First Program supplies a vehicle of real 
assistance for recipients to move into the work force.
  And once they do find a job, the Deal plan would extend their medical 
coverage for 1 to 2 years.
  These are the tools of economic empowerment which are tragically 
absent from the Republican plan.
  But make no mistake: this is a tough plan.
  People must develop and carry out comprehensive plans to get back to 
work or they lose their benefits.
  The Deal substitute requires teenage recipients to stay in school and 
make the grade or they lose their benefits.
  It calls for punitive measures for deadbeat parents, like direct 
income withholding, revoking their drivers' license, or revoking their 
professional licenses, thus paralyzing their careers until they do 
right by their children.
  And the Deal substitute targets a major source of welfare 
dependency--teen pregnancy--with major prevention.
  The Republican plan contains no prevention plan except to cut off 
benefits, and hope less children are born.
  It could be described as tough love.
  The Republican bill just tells children, ``tough luck.''
  The Democratic bill requires work and demands responsibility.
  I would like to put this into the map illustrating the children cut 
off of school lunches.
  Mr. Speaker, I include the following information for the Record.

             CRS Report on Child Nutrition--Talking Points

       CRS released a report Tuesday comparing 1996 estimated 
     state funding levels for the child nutrition programs under 
     current law and under the Republican block grant. The numbers 
     in the report are calculated differently for the school based 
     block grant that we have seen before, showing a $73 million 
     increase in school lunch and breakfast funding under the 
     block grant when compared to USDA's 1996 baseline. The 
     Republicans are using these numbers to show that they do not 
     cut school meals even when compared to the USDA baseline 
     projection in 1996.
       The report supports Democratic statements about total cuts:
       Over $800 million CUT in the total amount available for 
     child nutrition programs in 1996
       CRS supports CBO's estimate of a total child nutrition cut 
     of $7 billion over 5 years (this is not stated in this report 
     but is the CRS stated position)
       The report assumes a cut in school meal service to 
     children:
       Because the block grant provides so little ($1.5 million 
     per state, on average) over what schools will need to serve 
     their students just lunch and breakfast, the CRS chart 
     assumes that schools will not use these funds to operate 
     summer food or after school food programs.
       The report compares projected spending for lunch and 
     breakfast under current law in 1996 to the Republican's 
     entire school meal block grant. The block grant is supposed 
     to be used for lunch, breakfast, summer food, and after 
     school food. It compares apples to oranges.
       The summer and after school/child care food programs serve 
     some of our nation's poorest children. Summer food programs, 
     in particular, have proven essential to the health and safety 
     of children in high poverty areas--these children get what 
     may be their only nutritious meal of the day and become 
     involved in planned community group activities. Summer food 
     keeps kids off the streets and in the school yards.
       Furthermore, the report states the, ``FY 1995 and FY 1996 
     estimates of spending under current law are likely to be 
     understated. The amounts shown in the tables do not reflect 
     the actual amounts of funding that States will receive either 
     under current law or under the proposed block grants. They 
     should be used only for the purpose of comparing the likely 
     shifts in spending among the States under the proposed block 
     grants.''

  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. MALONEY. I yield to the gentleman from Mississippi.
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  I really had not intended to get involved in this until I had heard 
one of the most flagrant misstatements that might have ever been made 
on the House floor when my friend from Georgia said, you know, we want 
to put this money towards the deficit.
  Less than an hour and a half ago, the Republican Members of this body 
had an opportunity to vote for cuts that would have put the money 
towards the deficit. Unanimously, they voted against it because they 
want to give that money to millionaires who got all the tax breaks 
during the 1980s so they can get more tax breaks now.


                          ____________________