[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 54 (Thursday, March 23, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H3719-H3720]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                         MORE ON WELFARE REFORM

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Hayworth] is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I have enjoyed listening tonight to many 
different viewpoints. I listened with great interest to my good friend 
from Illinois who could no longer stay with us on the floor.
  Let me pause at this juncture to yield to my friend from Ohio [Mr. 
Hoke] who I think wants to read into the Record a couple of items of 
great import with reference to our friend from Michigan who preceded me 
in the well.
  Mr. HOKE. I just want to point out that from the CRS report with 
respect to Michigan, there is a $10,489,000 increase in the block grant 
program from 1996 over fiscal 1995. And in the state of Illinois, we 
have got a $14 million increase. In the state of Texas we have a $33 
million increase. So as those flags go up, we see that in fact CRS has 
shown very clearly that there are increases.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. I thank the gentleman from Ohio.
  My friend from Illinois raised a valid point, and
   I think it is one we should all remember, that good people can agree 
to disagree, that good people can interpret in different manners the 
statistics available and the implications of various policy decisions, 
and, in fact, we can disagree on holy scripture.

  I celebrate religious and spiritual diversity in this country. I 
thank my Creator that we live in a country where we are free to engage 
in the exercise of religion as we see fit.

                              {time}  2215

  But I would simply point out to my friend from Illinois, when he 
quoted Christ and the Gospel according to Matthew, Christ said when you 
do this to the least of these, you have done it also to me. He did not 
say when government does this for the least of these.
  And then again there can be a legitimate difference of opinion about 
that. Perhaps some interpret the ``you'' to be a universal you, to be a 
government so powerful, so all encompassing that we would leave for 
government the responsibility to change the hearts of man, that we 
would leave for government the responsibility of charity and 
compassion, that it be the sole province of the Federal Government to 
provide the same according to its own definition. And that is a 
legitimate policy difference.
  That is fine. Good people can disagree. But, Mr. Speaker, again, and 
I visited in a moment of almost levity with one of our distinguished 
colleagues on the other side today who looked at me with a wink and 
smile and asked me to calm down, and I nodded. But I will tell you, 
when people on the other side do as they did yesterday, comparing those 
of us in the new majority to members of the Third Reich or those of us 
involved in legitimate policy differences with a different vision for 
America to slaveholders of the Civil War days, you wonder what is 
really at stake. Have we so perverted legitimate policy divisions and 
discussions that we are willing to engage in reckless name calling?
  My friend from Michigan salutes the Deal bill. That is his right. I 
would simply point out, Mr. Speaker, to those assembled and to our 
audience gathered beyond this hall via television, that we have a 
different interpretation of who would have gone to work or who will go 
to work under our resolution as opposed to the work requirements in the 
Deal bill. Good people can disagree.
  My friend from Minnesota came to talk about the personal nature of 
the so-called cuts, and I think that term is inaccurate, but he is 
entitled to that term because I believe he assumes that there is a 
vacuum into which his son is stepping and which there is no escape. But 
I know when I heard him speak of his son that his son has the 
wherewithal and the ability to take a detour in plans. It may not have 
been what he intended, but he will find another way to help. That his 
daughter-in-law, so intent on teaching children with learning 
disabilities, does not rely solely on the province of the Federal 
Government to do the same.
  And I would invite my colleagues to come with me to the Sixth 
District of Arizona, to the small town of Holbrook, and visit a single 
mother who has battled the odds to open a restaurant and who time and 
again offers to the welfare-collecting youth of that city employment, 
and she tells me invariably after three weeks time the youngsters 
employed there leave. Why? Because it is simpler to take a check and a 
handout instead of a hand up.
                             WELFARE REFORM

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Calvert). The gentlewoman from 
California [Ms. Woolsey] is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. 
Stupak].
  Mr. STUPAK. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  The other side said that Michigan would actually gain money. That is 
only if the bill is not revised, and your CRS report, page 1, says that 
is subject to a base assumption you make as long as you do not revise 
it.
  But you have revised it. Go to your bill, H.R. 1214. Go to page 122. 
And what do you do on the nutrition, the food block grants for these 
kids? You cut it 20 percent and put it in other programs. You have $6.6 
billion, take away 20 percent. It is $1.3 billion.
  You increase the administrative costs from 1.8 percent to 5 percent, 
add another $334 million for administrative costs. The first year alone 
you cut $1.6 billion from the nutrition program. Michigan gets nailed 
by $1.5 million.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join my colleagues tonight 
to talk about the Republican's mean- 
 [[Page H3720]] spirited welfare plan. A plan that will gut the welfare 
system and shred the safety net for over 15 million children.
  I know firsthand about welfare and the importance of a safety net 
because 27 years ago, I was a single, working mother receiving no child 
support. I was forced to go on welfare, even though I was employed, in 
order to give my three small children, ages 1, 3, and 5, the health 
care, child care, and food they needed.
  My colleagues, that experience never leaves me.
  My ideas about welfare do not come from books or theories. I know it 
* * * I lived it. And I am continually amazed that any of you presume 
that you know what it is like. Make no mistake, I also know the welfare 
system is broken. It doesn't work for recipients or for taxpayers, and 
it needs fundamental change.
  Unfortunately, the Republican ideas for change are weak on work and 
tough on children.
  The Republican plan does nothing, absolutely nothing, to prepare 
welfare recipients for jobs that pay a livable wage, or to help 
recipients make the transition from welfare to work.
  There's no job training; there's no education; there's not nearly 
enough child care.
  All the Republicans care about is reducing the welfare rolls, and if 
that means putting families on the streets, then so be it!! The Chair 
of the House Budget Committee, John Kasich, told us last week that 
these cuts will be applied to the Republican plan to cut taxes * * * 
the great majority of which apply to the very wealthy.
  And their bill literally takes food out of the mouths of our kids.
  In my district alone, Marin and Sonoma counties in California, almost 
7,000 school children will be denied a school meal under the 
Republican's mean-spirited plan.
  If the Republicans think their plan doesn't punish children, they 
should talk to some of the wonderful children I ate lunch with when I 
was back in California earlier this week.
  When I asked these kids why they liked their lunches so much, they 
told me that they can not learn or pay attention in class when they are 
hungry.
  One of their teachers told me that when she asked her students to 
make a list of wishes for their families, over 50 percent of the kids 
wished for food. I remind you, these are children who live in one of 
the most affluent counties, in one of the richest Nations in the world.
  After meeting these kids, I have only one thing to say about Newt's 
pea-brained plan to wreck child nutrition programs: ``States don't get 
hungry, Newt, children do.'' and, starving our children is not the 
solution to the welfare mess.
  Democrats, on the other hand, know that we can fix the welfare system 
without punishing poor women and children.
  Democrats offer welfare recipients a fair deal!!
  Democrats invest in education; job training; and child care in order 
to get families off welfare and into jobs that pay a livable wage.
  Mr. Speaker, the choice comes down to this: we either punish poor 
children, as the Republican bill would do, or, as in my case, we invest 
in families so they can get off welfare permanently.
  Let us do what is right for our children. Let us defeat the mean-
spirited Republican welfare bill.


                          ____________________