[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 117 (Friday, August 2, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H9904-H9905]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




               WELFARE REFORM ``NOT THIS WELFARE REFORM''

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Millender-McDonald] is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Speaker, the welfare system in this 
country is in desperate need of reform. The current system has created 
a cycle of dependency that has had a detrimental effect on our society.
  For the first time in my lifetime, we are looking at third generation 
citizens that have never known the value of hard work and the 
satisfaction of bringing home a paycheck earned as a result of an 
honest days work.
  The very nature of the term welfare reform implies that our current 
system is not functioning properly and is in need of modification. But 
in our zeal, to reform--to score political points in an election year--
we must ask ourselves one very important question: Is it fair to gut 
this welfare program on the backs of our children?
  I would submit that the welfare system as we know it today was not 
intended to function as it does currently. At its inception, welfare 
was intended to be a transitional program--a proverbial bridge over 
troubled waters for our citizens who had recently become unemployed, 
widowed, or forced to deal with some other unfortunate financial 
crisis.
  At its inception, the current welfare program did not contain child 
care programs for parents who wanted to work. Nor did it provide 
adequate job training or job location assistance.
  We now know that these elements--child care, job training, and job 
search assistance--are necessary if parents are going to get off of 
welfare and into the work force.
  I recognized this and my constituents recognized this. Throughout the 
town hall meetings that I have had over the last few weeks I have heard 
again and again that welfare reform is not true reform unless it 
contains job training, child care, and job location assistance.
  Welfare usually referred to aid to families with dependent children 
program, AFDC, as it is commonly referred to today, provides benefits 
to families with children headed by a single parent, or two parents, if 
one is incapacitated, or unemployed, with incomes below State-
determined limits. Most adult AFDC recipients

[[Page H9905]]

are not working or are looking for work in the months during which they 
receive aid. Income eligibility thresholds in many States are so low 
that even meager earnings make a family ineligible for AFDC.

  I do not subscribe to the theory that the vast majority of persons on 
welfare are able-bodied persons who do not want to work. Research has 
provided evidence that there is much movement between welfare and work, 
and that the average time spent on welfare is about 2 years.
  When I was elected to Congress last March I told my constituents that 
I was committed to ending welfare as they knew it and to making AFDC 
the transitional program it was intended to be--a bridge over troubled 
waters. But I was not committed to the bill that was voted on today.
  The legislation that was passed by this body and will be signed by 
the President will move over 1 million children and 2.6 million 
families further into poverty, without any safety net provisions or 
proof that there will be jobs available that allow them to earn a 
livable wage.
  In the State of California there are more than 2.5 million families 
on welfare: 1.8 million children and 800 thousand adults. What will 
happen to those families when the promise of a job is not kept and 
there are no means by which parents can put food on the table?
  This reform bill will have disastrous financial consequences for 
California and Los Angeles County. California alone will be subjected 
to 40 percent of the Federal funding loss over the next 6 years, 
totaling $10 billion of an estimated $25 billion in lost revenue.
  In Los Angeles County, the estimated 93,000 legal immigrants who 
would lose SSI benefits would still be eligible for county-funded 
general relief. The annual increase, however, in county costs could 
total $236 million if all 93,000 applied for general assistance, 
putting LA county's budget into a further deficit.
  My State and my constituency will bear the full weight of the 
disproportionate fiscal impact that will ultimately undermine the 
fiscal health of Los Angeles County.
  The current welfare system doesn't work and hadn't worked for a long 
time. However, in our attempts to aid the families who are on welfare 
gain economic self sufficiency, we should have been careful not to hurt 
our Nation's children and bankrupt the counties in which they live.

                          ____________________