[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 124 (Wednesday, September 11, 1996)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1570]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                             WELFARE REFORM

                                 ______
                                 

                          HON. LEE H. HAMILTON

                               of indiana

                    in the house of representatives

                     Wednesday, September 11, 1996

  Mr. HAMILTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I would like to insert my 
Washington Report for Wednesday, August 7, 1996 into the Congressional 
Record.

                        The Welfare Reform Bill

       With passage of the welfare reform bill, Congress has made 
     a sweeping change in social policy. It came to pass because 
     of rising public indignation over an open-ended entitlement 
     welfare system. We are ending welfare as we know it, creating 
     a new system without really knowing what its impact will be, 
     but feeling strongly that the present system needs radical 
     change.
       I supported this bill because I concluded a long time ago 
     that the current welfare system cries out for reform. 
     Virtually no one defends it. It undermines the basic values 
     of work, responsibility and family, traps generation after 
     generation in dependency, and hurts the very people that it 
     was designed to help. The principal goal of this legislation 
     is to promote work and self-sufficiency and to end 
     dependence.


                           what the bill does

       For sixty years the welfare system has been driven by the 
     view that if you are poor and eligible you're guaranteed a 
     check. This bill ends that guarantee. As of July 1, 1997, the 
     federal program of welfare--Aid to Families With Dependent 
     Children--will be eliminated. A new program, Temporary 
     Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) will provide block 
     grants which states will use to run their own welfare 
     systems.
       Abled-bodied welfare recipients will now be required to 
     work after two years, or lose benefits. By the year 2002, 
     states should have 50% of welfare recipients in work 
     programs. Moreover, the bill establishes a five-year lifetime 
     limit on TANF benefits, although states can exempt up to 20% 
     of their caseloads and use their own funds to provide 
     assistance after the five-year cutoff.
       TANF benefits are prohibited to those convicted of drug 
     felonies, single mothers who refuse to help identify the 
     fathers of their children, families without minor children, 
     and teen parents unless they stay in school and live with an 
     adult. Most legal immigrants who are not citizens will lose 
     eligibility for food stamps and Supplemental Security Income 
     (SSI). States will decide whether to provide TANF or Medicaid 
     benefits to legal immigrants.
       Current welfare child care programs are converted into a 
     block grant to states, which may not cut off TANF to a parent 
     with a child under six who could not work because of a lack 
     of child care.
       The bill also tightens eligibility standards for food 
     stamps, and limits childless adults age 50 and under to three 
     months of food stamps in any three year period unless they 
     are working or training for a job. People who are laid off 
     from their jobs during that period could receive an 
     additional three months of food stamp benefits.
       Child support enforcement is also strengthened. The bill 
     requires states to develop computerized listings of child 
     support orders and new hires, place more emphasis on 
     paternity establishment, and suspend or restrict the use of 
     driver's licenses, professional licenses, and recreational 
     licenses of parents who are delinquent on child support 
     payments.
       The bill is expected to save the federal government $55 
     billion over the next six years, mostly due to the cuts in 
     food stamps and benefits for legal immigrants.


                               assessment

       I think this bill meets several key tests. It moves people 
     from welfare to work, imposes time limits, provides child 
     care and health care, cracks down on child support 
     enforcement, and gives us a chance to break the cycle of 
     dependency. This bill is much better than previous welfare 
     reform legislation considered by Congress, which was too soft 
     on work and too tough on children. Those bills failed to 
     provide adequate child care and health care and imposed deep 
     cuts on school lunches and help for disabled children.
       This bill turns upside down the relationship between 
     Washington and the states on welfare. Under the present 
     system, states share the cost of welfare, but Washington 
     writes most of the rules and provides a large share of the 
     money, especially when the welfare rolls rise. Under this 
     bill, the federal and state governments will continue to 
     share the cost but each state will manage its own program and 
     be responsible for coming up with extra money if the federal 
     money is not enough. Much responsibility now rests with 
     states.
       The idea behind the bill is to get people into jobs, the 
     sooner the better, and then try to develop ways to sustain 
     them in the workforce. It envisions welfare offices as job 
     placements centers where applicants are steered toward 
     training and work rather than handed a check.
       But this is far from a perfect bill. I'm concerned about 
     the estimates that the bill will make hundreds of thousands 
     of children poorer. Legal immigrants who have played by the 
     rules and have played by the rules and have every reason to 
     assume that they are welcome here, will be stripped of their 
     federal benefits. The roughly $24 billion cut in food stamps 
     over the next six years is very deep. One of the questions 
     the bill does not confront is what to do about people who are 
     willing to work but cannot find a job. And negotiations will 
     almost certainly continue between the federal government and 
     the states over welfare rules.
       I think all of us want to push people off of welfare who 
     are able to work, but this bill probably does not do enough 
     to help people become self-sustaining. I am deeply concerned 
     that the major part of our budget cutting efforts in this 
     Congress is focused on reducing programs for the poor.
       When dealing with welfare I think we all have to admit a 
     certain level of humility. There are so many people on 
     welfare today with so many different problems that it is 
     extremely difficult to gauge exactly how these changes will 
     impact them. There will be continuing efforts to review 
     programs for job training, education, and economic 
     investments. Already legislation has been introduced aimed at 
     curing the deeper ills of communities. This bill does not 
     solve the desperate problems of chronic poverty in America, 
     and so almost certainly we have not heard the last of the 
     welfare debate.
       The real choice was between the present system and this 
     bill. My conclusion is that we simply have to be willing to 
     let states experiment to find ways to break the cycle of 
     dependency that keeps dragging people down. In my view, the 
     bill probably represents our best hope for figuring out how 
     to solve the problems of the poor and underclass.

                          ____________________