[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 54 (Thursday, March 23, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H3712-H3713]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                             WELFARE REFORM

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentlewoman from California [Mrs. Seastrand] is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mrs. SEASTRAND. Mr. Speaker, here we are debating what I believe to 
be one of the most important issues of our time, welfare reform.
  This has not been a particularly civil debate. Frankly, I am amazed 
by the rhetorical warfare being waged by the opponents of welfare 
reform. And that is exactly what they are--opponents of welfare reform 
who are defending a failed system which has cost this Nation almost $5 
trillion and has hurt the very people it was designed to help.
  In addition, many of the comments made by these welfare reform 
opponents have been completely out of line. I find it ironic that the 
standard lines Democrats have used for years--lines like dividing the 
country along racial lines; deceiving the public by hiding the facts; 
engaging in class warfare; favoring the rich at the expense of the poor 
are precisely--are precisely--what the Democrats themselves are doing.
  What we are trying to do is fundamentally reform a system that does 
not work.
  How compassionate is it to continue with a system that has quadrupled 
illegitimacy rates over the last 25 years; where 68 percent of black 
children and 23 percent of white children are born out of wedlock?
  The current welfare system has created a cycle of dependency where 
the average length of stay, including repeat periods, is 13 years. The 
current system robs people of the dignity of work. Of the 5 million 
families on welfare, only 20,000 people work. Is it compassionate to 
maintain this kind of system?
  There are rampant abuses in the current system such as in the SSI 
Program. The number of recipients in this program has nearly tripled 
over the past 5 years because SSI isn't going solely to the disabled 
children where it's supposed to go. It is going to drug addicts and 
alcoholics who are not eligible for these benefits yet continue to 
receive them.
  Is it compassionate to maintain this kind of system?
  Then there is the exploding cost of maintaining the current welfare 
system. Over the past 30 years, the Federal Government has spent almost 
$5 trillion on various forms of welfare assistance. If we do not act, 
welfare spending will increase from $325 billion in 1993 to $500 
billion in 1998.
  Is this what the Democrats call reinventing government and cutting 
spending?
  The Republican reform bill will fundamentally change the welfare 
system of America, but not in the way our opponents have described. 
Allow me to remind welfare reform opponents and the American people of 
the facts in the Republican bill:
  First, the Republican welfare reform bill saves $66.3 billion dollars 
over 5 years by slowing the growth of, or freezing, welfare spending 
not by cutting it. Only in Bill Clinton's Washington would reductions 
in the rate of increase or a freeze be considered a cruel slashing of 
spending.
  Second, with all of the reforms Republicans intend to make in the 
current welfare system, spending will still increase from 1 year to the 
next.
  For example, under the Republican plan, funding for school lunch 
programs increases 4.5 percent in each of the next 5 years--which is 
more than Bill Clinton's proposal.
  Third, the Republican bill addresses the critical problem of 
skyrocketing illegitimacy by no longer rewarding those on welfare with 
additional benefits for having more children.
  Fourth, the Republican bill is based on the belief that work is 
necessary, essential, dignified, and is the best opportunity for moving 
welfare recipients into jobs.
  Fifth, the Republican bill puts American citizens first by 
eliminating welfare assistance--not emergency medical services--to 
noncitizens.
  Sixth, the Republican bill cracks down on the deadbeat parents who 
would abdicate their responsibilities by establishing uniform state 
procedures and computer registries.
  Seventh, the crux of the Republican bill is an acknowledgement that 
the Federal Government has not done a good job of administering aid to 
those in need and that the States can do a much better job of providing 
this aid--if they are given the flexibility to do so.
  Mr. Speaker, there is nothing that would more clearly demonstrate a 
lack 
 [[Page H3713]] of compassion than not making fundamental reforms to 
our welfare system. When Bill Clinton campaigned for President, he told 
American that he was going to ``end welfare as we know it.'' In 
reality, what the President and the Democrats are doing is defending 
welfare as we know it.
  The Republican bill will make the welfare system more just, more 
compassionate, more efficient, and more responsible. It does this by 
recognizing and facing up to the fact that the current system simply 
does not work. The current system has compounded the problems that it 
set out 30 years ago to eliminate.
  If we are truly interested in breaking the cycle of dependency; if we 
are truly interested in maintaining a safety net for those who are 
unable to help themselves; if we are truly interested in offering 
credible and responsible solutions for the 21st century; and if we are 
truly interested in creating and expanding opportunities for all 
Americans; then we must pass the Personal Responsibility Act. Now.
                              {time}  2115

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Calvert). Under a previous order of the 
House, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Poshard] is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. POSHARD. Mr. Speaker, thank you for allowing me to address the 
House. I ask permission to revise and extend my remarks.
  Mr. Speaker, I have listened carefully to this debate on welfare 
reform over the past 2 days. I have read my mail, trying to understand 
how the people I represent feel about this important tissue. And, 
yesterday, I received some correspondence from the Christian Coalition, 
a group whom I respect, articulating their strong support for H.R. 4, 
the Republican welfare reform bill, and at the same time, their equally 
strong support for the $500 per child tax break for families with 
incomes up to $200,000.00 per year. And, having grown up in a 
fundamentalist church, being a southern Baptist by personal choice, I 
have struggled in my spirit to understand these seemingly disparate 
views.
  The Christian Coalition, as have other religious groups in the past, 
has chosen to enter the political arena and to use the weight of their 
membership to influence public policy. The particular position of the 
Christian Coalition on any given issue is almost always the Republican 
position and thats understandable. After all, it is run and financed by 
Rev. Pat Robertson, a former Republican presidential candidate. The 
vote of each member of Congress is recorded on a scorecard and sent out 
to the membership of the Christian Coalition and, by and large, 
Democrats score poorly. And, as a result of that, although it is not 
explicitly stated, the inference drawn by Christian Coalition members 
is that Democrats are less Christian, more ungodly. This is, afterall, 
the ``Christian'' scorecard.
  As a Democrat, as a Christian, as a southern Baptist, as someone who 
fundamentally believes in the words of the Bible, this approach 
troubles me greatly. Not because of what a low score on the Christian 
Coalition scorecard means to my political career. Everybody puts out 
scorecards--we have so little control over what people say about us or 
how they judge us. That doesn't bother me. What troubles me is when I 
see a particular position taken by the Christian Coalition, that 
position being portrayed as the ``Christian position'' and yet in my 
heart I feel, as someone who has shared this basic Christian culture 
all my life, that the position doesn't match up to my understanding of 
the Bible.
  Which brings me to this debate on welfare reform. Let me say that I 
do not believe that God's response to the poor is some wild-eyed 
liberalism running around with a guilt ridden conscience, trying to do 
more things, asking neither responsibility nor good judgment from those 
whom we seek to help. Not realizing that often in our desire to do 
good, we build systems that end up manipulating and controlling the 
poor, more than liberating them.
  But, neither do I believe that God's response to the poor is to treat 
them as though they are the least priority, almost as though they are a 
nuisance to be dealt with. And, if the words of the Scripture are true, 
God would never have us stand in judgment of a poor person by saying in 
our hearts or assuming in our minds that ``there he stands in the midst 
of rural Appalachian poverty or ghetto tenements, among the homeless, 
the dispossessed, the
 disenfranchised because he chooses to be there.'' God would never 
condone that presumptuous attitude.
  And with all due respect to the Christian Coalition and its position 
on this, the recission bill and the tax relief legislation next week, 
where does it say in the Scriptures that the character of God is to 
give more to those who have and less to those who have not? I 
understand that there is still an overall increase in the growth of the 
federal spending for some of these programs, but it is questionable as 
to whether or not that will keep up with the need, and in any case, it 
should not be the position of the Christian community to slow down the 
growth of assistance to the poor while increasing the growth of 
assistance to the wealthy. Out of a $1,600 billion budget less than 
$300 billion go directly to support the poor.
  If there is one thing evident in the Scriptures, it is that God gives 
priority to the poor. In the Old Testament, the subject of the poor is 
the second most prominent theme only to idolatry. In the New Testament, 
one out of every 16 verses is about the poor.
  In Christ's first sermon at Nazareth, he laid down the mission of his 
ministry, He said:

       The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed 
     me to bring good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim 
     release to the captives and to give sight to the blind, to 
     let the oppressed go free.

  In the Beatitudes from the Sermon on the Mount, time and again he 
says, blessed are the poor.
  He said in the day of judgment:

       I will say enter my good and faithful servant, you have 
     been faithful over a few things, now I will make you master 
     over many things. When I was thirsty you gave me drink, when 
     I was hungry you fed me, when I was naked you clothed me, 
     when I was in prison you visited me.

  And we will say in that moment,

       Lord when did I do these things?

  And he will say,

       When you did it to the least of these my brethren, you did 
     it to me.

  The least, the poorest, those who are at the bottom-most rung of the 
ladder--these are the ones to whom God gives the priority. This to me 
is the Christian message as I understand the scriptures.
  Mother Teresa last year spoke to us about God coming to us in the 
``distressing disguise of the poor.''
  Dorothy Day of the Catholic Worker said this:

       The mystery of the poor is this: that they are Jesus and 
     what you do for them you do for Him. It is the only way we 
     have of knowing and believing in our love. The mystery of 
     poverty is that by sharing in it, making ourselves poor in 
     giving to others, we increase our knowledge of and belief in 
     love.

  I do not question nor judge Rev. Robertson nor the Christian 
Coalition, nor my colleagues here who embrace this legislation. I do 
not believe they are mean-spirited. They are all good people, I'm sure 
they are true to their faith and desiring to do what is right.
  But, I pray that you do not judge me, or any other Democrat, in the 
name of the Christian faith as though the leading of the Holy Spirit 
within us is somehow less valid or less Christian than the way you are 
led by that same Spirit.


                          ____________________