[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 58 (Wednesday, March 29, 1995)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E726]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                             WELFARE REFORM

                                 ______


                          HON. LEE H. HAMILTON

                               of indiana

                    in the house of representatives

                       Wednesday, March 29, 1995
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I would like to insert my Washington 
report for Wednesday, March 29, 1995, into the Congressional Record.
                             Welfare Reform

       There is virtually universal agreement that the current 
     welfare system discourages self-sufficiency, punishes work, 
     and does not ensure that parents support their children. I 
     agree that comprehensive overhaul is needed. But I opposed 
     the welfare reform bill passed by the House. While it 
     contains some good reforms, it guts programs important to the 
     health and well-being of children. I instead supported 
     another plan which more effectively addresses shortcomings in 
     the system without punishing children.
       House Bill: The bill passed by the House makes vast changes 
     in welfare programs put into place over the past 60 years:
       Assistance for Needy Families: It would replace Aid to 
     Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) with a block grant to 
     states. Eligible families would not be automatically entitled 
     to benefits. No cash benefits could be provided for children 
     born to unmarried women under 18 (until the mother reached 
     age 18), nor for children born to families already receiving 
     aid. Benefits would end if parents are not in a work program 
     after two years, and there would be a five-year lifetime 
     limit. Federal funding for this program would be $11.8 
     billion less over the next five years than provided under 
     current law.
       Child Protection: The bill establishes a block grant to 
     replace existing programs for foster care and child abuse 
     prevention and treatment. After the first two years, states 
     would not be required to spend any of their own money on 
     these services. The funding guaranteed is $2.7 billion less 
     than under current law, and would not allow for increases in 
     inflation.
       Child Care: Child care programs would be consolidated into 
     a block grant. Child care would no longer be guaranteed to 
     welfare recipients who are participating in school, job 
     training, or work, even though many would be required to do 
     so.
       Nutrition: The bill would eliminate the school lunch 
     program (including nutritional standards) and supplemental 
     nutrition for women, infants and children (WIC), and create 
     two block grants--one for family nutrition and one for 
     school-based programs. The new programs would receive $7.2 
     billion less than under current law over the next 5 years. 
     The bill would retain food stamps, but cap future spending.
       SSI: The bill would end cash Supplemental Security Income 
     (SSI) benefits for hundreds of thousands of children. Future 
     cash benefits would go only to children in institutional care 
     and those who would be placed in such care without 
     assistance.
       Child support: Under the bill, both the federal and state 
     governments would create automated registries of child 
     support orders and new hires. States would revoke driver's 
     and professional licenses of parents who are delinquent in 
     child support.
       Assessment: I strongly support welfare reform that 
     strengthens families, encourages productive work, and 
     protects vulnerable children. But the House bill is deeply 
     flawed. First, it slashes the amount of aid available. 
     Payments to the poor are just a sliver of the federal budget. 
     Two of the largest programs, AFDC and food stamps, account 
     for only 2.7% of the budget. Some reductions are certainly in 
     order, but nothing like the $66 billion proposed.
       Second, it will leave the poor without adequate help in 
     terms of recession. Ending welfare's entitlement status means 
     the program would be far less flexible and responsive to 
     changing economic circumstances. There would be no extra 
     money as need grows.
       Third, it shifts enormous responsibilities to the states, 
     and there are serious doubts about states' ability to meet 
     them. We should certainly give states more flexibility, but 
     the federal government still has an important role to play. 
     The House bill sharply curtails important federal 
     responsibilities on the one hand, while imposing many 
     prescriptions that are costly to implement and inconsistent 
     with the notion of allowing states to experiment.
       Fourth, the House bill would allow savings from welfare 
     cuts to be used to finance tax breaks mostly benefitting 
     wealthy adults. Taking basic needs from children to help the 
     rich goes too far.
       Alternative Plan: I supported an alternative plan which 
     does much more to promote self-sufficiency without punishing 
     children. It would save $25 billion over the next five years.
       This alternative would require welfare recipients to sign a 
     plan detailing what they will do to find private employment 
     and what the state will do to assist them. Recipients would 
     be eligible for up to two years of assistance in finding a 
     job. This work requirement would take effect more quickly 
     than the one in the House bill. Recipients who do not find a 
     job after two years would be ineligible to receive AFDC, but 
     states would have the option to provide a community service 
     job or a job voucher which could be redeemed by a private 
     employer who hires the individual.
       The alternative would provide states more flexibility--for 
     example, allowing them to restrict benefits for children born 
     to parents already on welfare and to allow families to 
     accumulate more assets while on welfare. It would further 
     encourage work by extending Medicaid coverage for former 
     welfare recipients and guaranteeing child care assistance.
       The alternative bill retains entitlement status for foster 
     care services. Child support enforcement improvements similar 
     to those in the House bill are included.
       The alternative maintains the current nutrition programs. 
     In addition, it seeks to eliminate fraud in the SSI program.
       I do not want a welfare system that relies on bureaucratic 
     approaches, discourages work, and breaks up families. The 
     bill I supported is the best hope for accomplishing reform 
     while ensuring that the safety net for the poor is not torn 
     apart.
     

                          ____________________