[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 24 (Tuesday, February 27, 1996)]
[House]
[Page H1256]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  THE DEBT CEILING AND WELFARE REFORM

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of May 
12, 1995, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Levin] is recognized during 
morning business for 5 minutes.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I want this afternoon to talk about two 
issues that are related. The first one is whether the Republicans are 
going to try to use the debt ceiling as leverage instead of passing a 
clean debt ceiling bill. I read this morning there were two different 
sets of advices coming from within the majority ranks. One was use it 
as leverage for what is called a change in entitlement programs. The 
second that came from our colleague from New Jersey, who said, ``It is 
playing with fire. When it comes to this Nation's financial reputation, 
the stakes are simply too high. We must abandon any strategy of 
confrontation and resolve this critical issue in the spirit of 
cooperation.''
  I hope the majority will heed the advice of the second person. The 
Republican Party was badly burned by their misguided efforts to shut 
down the Government with the CR but more importantly the Nation was 
hurt when I was in the district the last several weeks, I met among 
others with representatives of veterans organizations who told us the 
appeals process was already way behind and with the shutdown it became 
even more delinquent, to the terrible detriment of the veterans of this 
country.
  Second, I want to talk about one of the issues that might be tied to 
the debt ceiling and that relate to welfare reform. This country badly 
needs it. It is clear, I think, from the experience of last year, it 
can be achieved only on a bipartisan basis. In the last session, the 
Republicans tried it on a strictly partisan route. They produced a bill 
that did not effectively link welfare to work, and it would have hurt 
kids. It missed the mark by carrying out the true national interest in 
welfare reform, breaking cycles of dependency and helping children in 
the welfare system, not by punishing them but by moving their parents 
from welfare to work.
  There was no attempt, none whatsoever, to work out differences on a 
bipartisan basis with Democrats in the House--we do want welfare 
reform--or with an administration that has been active for years on 
this.
  A hearing was held last week in the Human Resources Subcommittee, on 
which I sit. Two Governors, among others, presented the NGA proposal. 
We discussed with the Governors a number of concerns about their 
proposals.
  First of all, their contingency fund, it is not going to protect 
against a recession. In the recession of the early 1990's, AFDC funding 
increased over $6 billion in 3 years. The provisions of the Governors' 
proposal would have much less than that, in fact a third of that over 5 
years.
  The maintenance of effort provisions in the Governors' proposal need 
to be looked at further. The way they have crafted that, the result 
could be a far larger proportion of Federal as compared with State 
dollars, a substitution of Federal dollars for State moneys including 
in child care and overall far fewer dollars available to implement 
welfare reform.
  Welfare reform must be driven by moving people off of welfare into 
work. A rebalanced partnership to achieve this does mean more State 
flexibility, but it must be combined with State accountability and 
effectiveness.
  A third provision that needs much more work relates to fair and 
equitable treatment of families receiving assistance. There is a broad 
reference in the NGA proposal, but much more work is clearly needed to 
ensure that provisions are enforceable and that there are procedural 
safeguards for individual families seeking assistance.
  Likely on Medicaid the Governors' proposal would sever the assurance 
that when families, when people move from welfare to work, there is 
health care coverage for their kids.
  Fifth, on food stamps, the proposal of the NGA would undermine the 
Food Stamp Program as a safety net for the children who are covered 
today.
  There is also a clear need to review provisions in the NGA document 
on child care, child welfare, SSI and, clearly, benefits for legal 
immigrants. These concerns and others will be spelled out in more 
detail tomorrow in the testimony on behalf of the administration by HHS 
Secretary Donna Shalala.
  The Governors stated in their testimony last week, and I quote, that 
it is imperative that the congressional process be bipartisan. The 
House Republicans have a clear choice. They can make a good-faith 
effort to discuss concerns on a bipartisan basis and attempt to work 
out differences, or they can proceed as they did last year and as they 
are beginning to do this year acting on a strictly partisan basis.
  I finish with this. If the majority searchers for a political issue, 
then the outlook for welfare reform is, indeed, dismal. But if the 
search is for a new structure that reflects where the mainstream of 
America is, the outlook is more promising.

                          ____________________