[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 116 (Thursday, August 1, 1996)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1444]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 CONFERENCE REPORT TO H.R. 3734, BUDGET RECONCILIATION--WELFARE REFORM

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. ANNA G. ESHOO

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, August 1, 1996

  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, yesterday the House passed a welfare reform 
proposal that I believe will not achieve its stated purpose of breaking 
the cycle of poverty and return people to the workforce. I voted 
against the bill because it sacrifices the legitimate needs of legal 
immigrants, those trying to reenter the workforce, and children who 
through no fault of their own are in the need of assistance.
  I support reforming the welfare system and I have voted for reforms 
such as those included in the bipartisan proposal by Congressmen Tanner 
and Castle. That proposal would have achieved real reform while keeping 
children fed and out of poverty, and providing the necessary funding 
for people to move from welfare into the work force.
  In short, the Tanner-Castle legislation represented responsible 
reform. The conference report did not.
  This is billed as ``welfare reform.'' It is a scale back of benefits. 
It hurts children who have no control over their economic 
circumstances.
  It fails on the issue of legal immigrants who have played by the 
rules we established for living in the United States. In abdicating 
this responsibility, the Federal Government places a heavy financial 
burden on local governments. In California alone, additional costs of 
as much as $10 billion could burden counties over the next 6 years.
  Finally, the level of financial commitment that States must meet is 
inadequate to address the job which is being promised. The Tanner-
Castle proposal guaranteed an 85 percent maintenance of effort by 
states. In other words, States must spend at least 85 percent of what 
they spent in 1994 on welfare programs and yet the conference report 
allows States to spend only 75 percent on their 1994 welfare budgets. 
The Congressional Budget Office has stated that under this bill states 
will have to provide additional services without additional money. 
Welfare recipients may find new job training opportunities, but at what 
cost? Less food? Less child care? These are the choices with which 
Congress has burdened our local governments by passing this bill.
  I could not, in good conscience, support a phony reform bill that so 
clearly fails to provide the resources needed to move individuals from 
welfare to work. It hurts the innocent--the children--and my Faith, not 
a party nor a President nor political winds, gives me the foundation on 
which I cast my vote.

                          ____________________