[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 105 (Wednesday, July 17, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H7765-H7766]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       WELFARE REFORM LEGISLATION

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pallone] is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to spend my 5 minutes tonight 
talking about the so-called welfare reform legislation that we will be 
voting on tomorrow, and that debate was started on tonight.
  I intend to be very critical of the Republican leadership proposal 
which has been brought up on the floor and to praise, if you will, the 
bipartisan alternative that has been put forth by the gentleman from 
Delaware, Congressman Castle, who is a Republican, and also the 
gentleman from Tennessee, Congressman Tanner, who is a Democrat.
  When I talk about welfare reform, and I discuss it with my 
constituents in my district in New Jersey, what I hear is that most of 
my constituents feel that in the process of welfare reform children 
should not suffer, children should not be harmed in any way.
  What my constituents say they want is they want to get people off 
welfare to work and to have a future for themselves and a certain pride 
in the fact that they are working for their families. They do not 
necessarily think that welfare reform should be money driven; in other 
words, that we should use welfare reform as a way to save money. They 
seem to be more concerned about the need to change the social fabric, 
to eliminate the so-called welfare mentality.
  My point tonight is that the Republican leadership bill, which we are 
going to be voting on tomorrow, I think falls short in terms of what my 
constituents want. In fact, it is tough on kids. It makes kids suffer. 
It does substantial harm to children, and it is very weak on work. It 
does not really do very much to get people to work or make it possible 
for them to work.
  The Castle-Tanner bipartisan substitute, I think, is just the 
opposite. It achieves the goals of trying to get people off welfare and 
working, and, at the same time, making sure that kids are protected, 
that they are not suffering in terms of food nutrition programs, 
housing, or the other things that would keep them healthy and prepare 
for their future.
  Now, let me just give an example. The Republican leadership bill 
would probably push more than 1 million children into poverty, just the 
opposite of what most of my constituents would expect it would do.
  When it comes to the work program, which I say is rather weak, the 
Congressional Budget Office says that no State would be able to meet 
the work requirements in the Republican proposal given the resources or 
the lack of resources that the bill devotes and gives to States so that 
they can train people and get them into productive jobs.
  The worst example, though, is with regard to the Food Stamp Program. 
I do not think that any American would think that the purpose of 
welfare reform would be to cut back on the amount of money that the 
average welfare recipient has available to pay for food, particularly 
for their children.
  The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities did a study, which was 
issued today, and it says that the Nation's poorest households, those 
with incomes below half of the poverty line, would lose an average of 
$650 a year in food stamp benefits under the welfare legislation now 
before Congress, the Republican leadership proposal.
  The study also found that working poor households, and these are 
people that are working, that receive food stamps, because we know many 
people get food stamps who are not on welfare; in other words, they are 
not on Aid to Families with Dependent Children, they are actually 
working, but what the study found is that working poor households that 
receive food stamps to help supplement their low wages along with the 
elderly poor and poor families with children would lose several hundred 
dollars a year in food cash assistance as well.
  The welfare bills coming this week to the House and Senate floors 
contain $28 billion in food stamp reductions over the next 6 years, 
with many of those reductions being achieved by across-the-board cuts 
that affect all groups of the poor. What the report basically says is 
that a large share of the welfare bill's food stamp savings would come 
from across-the-board food stamp benefit cuts with only 2 percent of 
the food stamp savings in the bill coming from provisions to reduce 
administrative cost, curb fraud or end benefits for people failing to 
comply with work requirements.

[[Page H7766]]

  I think that is what most Americans think, that with reform we would 
say that if you do not work then you lose your benefits or that we 
would try to get at the welfare fraud or curb the cost of the 
bureaucracy administering the program. That is what is happening here.
  What was supposed to be a historic effort to balance the budget has 
deteriorated into legislation that does relatively little to reduce the 
long-term deficit, but would substantially increase the depth of 
poverty and likely cause substantial numbers of poor children and 
elderly people to fail to secure adequate food and nutrition.
  Now, the Castle-Tanner substitute, which I will be supporting 
tomorrow, basically ensures that States would be able to meet the work 
requirements in the bill by providing $3 billion in additional 
mandatory funds that States can access in order to meet the cost of 
moving welfare recipients to work.
  It costs money to get the States to train people to get them to work. 
That is why we need the Castle-Tanner substitute. We need a program 
that is going to get people to work and not hurt the children.

                          ____________________