[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 106 (Thursday, July 18, 1996)]
[House]
[Page H7996]
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 
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pallone] is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I listened to the debate over the so-called 
welfare reform legislation today, as well as last night, and I felt 
very strongly that the Republican leadership bill was not welfare 
reform, would not accomplish the goal of getting people off of welfare 
and working into productive jobs, into being productive members of 
society. I also was very concerned over the fact that it would take 
away many of the protections for children in this country.
  It disturbed me to a great extent to listen to some of the statements 
that were being made on the Republican side of the aisle on the issue 
of welfare reform and what we need to do to get people back to work, 
one of the basic tenets of this Republican leadership bill, and I think 
that is how it differs a great deal from the Democrat or bipartisan 
Castle-Tanner substitute, which I supported, is that the Republican 
leadership bill essentially is money-driven. In other words, its major 
focus, if you will, is to try to save significant amounts of money that 
would theoretically help us balance the budget and reduce the Federal 
deficit.
  In its drive to save money, it assumes that by cutting back on 
programs like food stamps and other types of assistance, that that will 
ultimately end the welfare system and get people to work and get people 
productive jobs.
  Historically, if you look at successful welfare reforms that have 
been tried out in may States in this country, and the States really 
have been good laboratories to experiment with ways to produce welfare 
reform, in many cases it has actually cost the State more money, and 
the notion that somehow welfare reform will at least in the short run 
result in monetary savings is simply a false premise.
  Think about it for a minute. If you are saying that the State is 
going to get people off welfare, oftentimes that involves job training, 
which costs money; oftentimes it requires day care, because most 
welfare recipients, at least those on AFDC, Aid to Families with 
Dependent Children, are mothers with dependent children.
  So it costs money to provide day care. It costs money to provide job 
training or education. If often costs money to provide for health 
benefits so that there is health insurance coverage for children.

  So where does the notion come that somehow we are going to save money 
for the deficit, at least in the short run, by providing for welfare 
reform? I think that is a basic tenet of this Republican bill that is 
false and is creating the problems that result in less protection and 
measures in this bill that actually hurt children.
  If you look at the Republican bill, the largest share of the welfare 
bill's food stamp savings would come from across-the-board cuts in food 
stamp benefit programs. A lot of my Republican colleagues talked about 
how there were a lot of people on welfare who were fraudulent, or how 
they wanted to end benefits for people failing to comply with work 
requirements.
  But actually if you look at this bill, only 2 percent of the food 
stamp savings in the bill, and the food stamps is the largest savings 
in the bill, only 2 percent of that food stamp savings come from 
provisions to reduce administrative costs, curbing fraud or ending 
benefits for people found to comply with work requirements.
  Most of the savings is achieved by just slashing the amount of money 
that goes to food stamp programs. So even people who legitimately need 
the food stamps, because they are working in many cases, will actually 
suffer losses in their benefits under the food stamp program.
  The other myth I think that was promulgated by the Republicans was 
this notion that, well, the welfare system is a failure because the 
poverty rate has climbed in the last few years under the existing 
welfare program. I guess the theory is that throwing money at the 
problem does not work.
  Well, the reality is that the reason why more and more people are 
sinking into poverty in this country is because the safety net is being 
cut. In other words, the food stamps, the cash assistance, the housing 
assistance that many of the poor individuals that need this type of 
assistance receive, in real dollars has actually decreased over the 
last 5 or 10 years. So the reality is that more and more people are 
going into poverty because we are not providing sufficient funding for 
them to eke through an existence, to have a healthy life, to have 
proper housing, to have enough money to take care of their children.
  So I honestly believe that the basic premise, if you will, of this 
Republican plan, which says that somehow we are going to be able to 
save money by making the kind of welfare reform that they propose, is a 
false premise, and one of the biggest problems with their bill.

                          ____________________