Summary:

All articles in House section

WELFARE AND MEDICAID REFORM ACT OF 1996
(House of Representatives - July 18, 1996)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages H7796-H7907] WELFARE AND MEDICAID REFORM ACT OF 1996 The SPEAKER pro tempore [Mr. Kolbe]. Pursuant to House Resolution 482 and rule XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill, H.R. 3734. {time} 1047 in the committee of the whole Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill (H.R. 3734) to provide for reconciliation pursuant to section 201(a)(1) of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 1997, with Ms. Greene of Utah in the chair. The Clerk read the title of the bill. point of order Mr. ORTON. Madam Chairman, I rise to make a point of order against consideration of H.R. 3724. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order. Mr. ORTON. Madam Chairman, section 425 of the Congressional Budget Act prohibits us from considering legislation which would create an unfunded mandate upon the States. The Congressional Budget Office has ruled that H.R. 3734 falls $12.9 billion short in funding necessary to fund the work requirements of the bill. Also the National Governors Association has stated: We are concerned that the bill restricts State flexibility and will create additional unfunded costs. This bill clearly creates an unfunded mandate, violates section 425 of the Congressional Budget Act, and I would further point out that section 426 of the Congressional Budget Act prohibits this House from considering a rule which would waive section 425. So that in any event we would have a vote and a determination as to whether or not a bill does in fact create an unfunded mandate. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would respond to the gentleman's point of order as follows. Points of order against consideration of the bill H.R. 3734 were waived by unanimous consent on July 17, 1996. Further, a point of order against consideration of House Resolution 482 would not be timely after adoption of that resolution. The gentleman's points are not in order. Mr. ORTON. I thank the Chairman. I think it is clear to the House and the country that in fact we are violating the first bill we passed in this Congress with the adoption of this bill. The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Wednesday, July 17, 1996, all time for general debate pursuant to the previous order of the House had expired. Pursuant to House Resolution 482, there will be 2 additional hours of general debate. The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] and the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Sabo] will each control 1 hour. Mr. SABO. Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer] be allowed to control the time for the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] temporarily and be allowed to yield time. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Minnesota? There was no objection. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer]. Mr. ARCHER. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Chairman, since 1965, roughly 30 years ago, government in this country has spent $5.5 trillion on welfare programs, more than has been spent on all of the wars fought in this century. Yet people are poorer and more dependent than ever. Despite our best efforts, despite the expenditure of these massive amounts of money, we have lost the war on poverty. Madam Chairman, today, we stand on the threshold of a new effort, an effort that can win the war. With the vote we take today, we recognize that the Great Society's welfare programs have not helped people. They have destroyed people. They have not kept families together. They have torn them apart. These policies haven't turned urban areas of America into shining cities on a hill. They have made them into war zones where law-abiding citizens are afraid to go out at night. They have led to the creation of two Americas. One marked by hope and opportunity. The other by despair and decay. In short, the welfare state has created a world in which children have no dreams for tomorrow and parents have abandoned their hopes for today. The people trapped in welfare, the mothers, the children, the fathers, are our fellow citizens, one and all. We have a moral obligation to them, as Americans, to lend a helping hand. For the people on welfare aren't abusing welfare, as much as welfare is abusing them. We are on the threshold of improving America by fixing our failed welfare state. We're improving America for the children on welfare, for the parents on welfare, and for ourselves. Our reforms are based on five pillars. The pillars represent the values that made America great. One--we think people on welfare should work for their benefits. A welfare worker I spoke with told me the biggest beneficiaries of work aren't the moms or the dads. Yes, they benefit. But she said it's the children who watch their parents get up each morning, go to a job, and return home at night who are the big winners. These children get better grades in school, have fewer problems with crime, and are less likely to end up on welfare because the values and virtues of work, not idleness, are instilled in them at a young age. Two--Time limit benefits. Welfare should be a temporary helping hand, not a way of life. [[Page H7797]] Three--Provide no welfare for felons and noncitizens. America always has been and always will be the land of opportunity for immigrants. But it's not right to ask hardworking, taxpaying Americans to support noncitizens who come here and then go on welfare. Four--Return power and control of welfare to the states and communities where help can best be delivered. We must remove Washington's control over welfare. This city built the failed welfare state. It's time to get Washington out of the welfare business. Five--Reward personal responsibility and fight illegitimacy. We shouldn't have a welfare system that promotes illegitimacy and discourages marriage. It's time to change signals and return to old- fashioned values. Madam Chairman, today's vote will be historic. It represents the biggest, most helpful change to social policy in America since the 1930s. This vote recognizes that America is a caring country, that Americans are a giving people, and that welfare recipients are capable of success if we would only let them try. Our colleague, J.C. Watts, has a wonderful way of expressing it. He says America's welfare recipients are eagles waiting to soar. Madam Chairman, I think it's time we removed the heavy hand of the Federal Government from their wings. We must let our fellow citizens on welfare reach new heights as they climb the economic ladder of life. That's what this bill does. It helps people to help themselves. It restores hope and it provides opportunity. It's strong welfare reform and it's what the American people have wanted for years. Madam Chairman, there is no good reason why this bill should not be passed by the Congress and signed into law. The American people expect nothing less, and families on welfare deserve much, much more than the sad status quo. For the sake of all Americans, I hope the President will let this bill become law. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. SABO. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Matsui]. Mr. MATSUI. Madam Chairman, yesterday we heard the chairman of the Budget Committee say that this debate was really about Judeo-Christian ethics. That is why I was somewhat disappointed last night when I read Congress Daily. In the Congress Daily we talked about welfare reform and we talked about what this debate was really all about. The chairman of the subcommittee that has jurisdiction over welfare was quoted as stating from a political point of view, the President of the United States is in a box. Madam Chairman, that is what this debate is all about--to jeopardize 9 million children who will be affected by this bill just to put the President of the United States in a box. What kind of people would draft legislation for political purposes to affect so many children of America? This bill is weak on work and tough on America's children. {time} 1100 The Congressional Budget Office, their own agency, hired by the Republican House and Senate, has said that the 1.7 million jobs that the Republicans say will be created by a woman going off welfare is an illusion. It is deceptive, it is not going to happen, because they do not provide the resources for it. Their own agency has said they will not obtain those 1.7 million jobs. So this is not a jobs bill. This is not a bill to get people off of welfare into work. But the worst part of this bill is what it will do to children. Because of those time limits and because of the fact that the Republican bill prohibits the States from using Federal funds for vouchers or any kind of assistance after a woman meets those time limits, she will then become destitute, she will become homeless, her children will probably have to go into foster care, even though she might be a good mother. This is what this is all about. It is about politics to hurt America's children. I urge a ``no'' vote on this legislation. Mr. ARCHER. Madam Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson], the chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight of the Committee on Ways and Means, the chairman of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, a person who is so greatly respected on our committee and has given such great service to this House, the country, in all of those roles. Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Madam Chairman, I rise in strong support of this bill, and I could not disagree more with the preceding speaker. We have to change the future. Welfare cannot be a way of life for either women or children. It is not a satisfactory way of life. There is no hope, there is no opportunity when you are on welfare. Now, remember, under this bill at the end of 5 years you get Medicaid, nutrition assistance, housing assistance, energy assistance, all those programs that provide services, on a means-tested basis. In addition, 20 percent of the whole caseload can be carried forward. So we are not talking about a draconian system; we are talking about reform and creating hope and opportunity in our welfare system for both the women and children on welfare. This bill, let me show you, will allow States, for instance, to be free of the rigid law that now governs income disregards. The woman is on welfare and starts earning money, and we right away start reducing benefits. Under this reform bill States will have complete freedom to design a fairer system. They may choose to keep her benefits up, and, as her salary goes up, to then decline her benefits. States have the power to help her get a good start in those 5 years. They have the power to educate and train, but to combine that with work experience. Under this program, women on welfare could immediately go to work for half a day in new day care centers, use State day care subsidies to give informed leadership to those centers as skilled master teachers. Let welfare mothers, who are good care providers, be the soldiers in those day care centers and then in the afternoon go on education and training centers while other welfare recipients staff the day care centers. It will cut the cost of day care and it will allow the money to be used powerfully in the transition period. This gives opportunity to States to create the kind of humane and supportive system women need to literally change their lives. In addition, the terrible decline in the cities is in part the result of nonpayment of rent. Part of the problem of our cities is that if a welfare recipient fails to pay their rent, it takes at least 6 months to solve the problem and sometimes much more than that. Under this new system, States can say you miss a month's rent? Fine, we will pay it directly now until you get on your feet. So we can prevent the degradation of our housing stock in the cities just by requiring personal responsibility on the part of welfare recipients and providing States the flexibility to create a more realistic support system, under the umbrella of Federal concern, compassion and support. Mr. SABO. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Chairman, if I might inquire of the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, we are curious if there is a final version of the bill and if there is a final summary of the last minute changes? Mr. ARCHER. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. SABO. I yield to the gentleman from Texas. Mr. ARCHER. Madam Chairman, the Committee on Rules had the statutory language of the bill. That was made a part of the rule we voted on. Mr. SABO. Is there a summary of the last minute changes that were made? Mr. ARCHER. Not to my knowledge, although the gentleman is aware that this bill did not come out of the Committee on Ways and Means; it came out of his committee, the Committee on the Budget. Mr. SABO. Well, it has been substantially changed since it came through the Committee on the Budget. Many of us are curious what the final form of the bill is. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Woolsey]. (Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.) [[Page H7798]] Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Chairman, we all agree that welfare does not work, the welfare system does not work for the taxpayers, and it does not work for the families who are on welfare, and we all agree that the welfare system must be overhauled. It must be overhauled so that it helps recipients get jobs and stay off welfare permanently. But that is the easy part. The challenge and responsibility we face as legislators, however, is finding the answers to, what if's. What if a mother on welfare cannot find a job? What if she is not earning enough to take care of her family? What if her benefits are cut off and she is unable to provide her children with food, with clothes, and with health care? Madam Chairman, this bill does not even attempt to answer these, what if's. In fact, the majority has gone out of its way to prevent States from meeting the basic needs of children, children whose parents are unable to get a job. This bill says to poor children, do not get hungry, do not get sick, and, for Pete's sake, do not get cold, because your time is up, and we do not think you are important enough to provide you with the basics that you need to survive. Madam Chairman, no other Member of this body knows better than I do that this is the wrong way to fix welfare. As a single mother with three small children, working, many years ago, I could not have stayed in the work force if I did not have the safety net of health care, child care, and food that the welfare system provided for my family. So I urge my colleagues, do not take this vote lightly. Your vote today will have consequences, consequences for children long after election day, and it will be too late to answer the, what if's tomorrow. Mr. ARCHER. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Herger], a respected member of the Committee on Ways and Means. Mr. HERGER. Madam Chairman, over the last three decades the American taxpayer has spent $5 trillion on our welfare system. Working Americans may be asking themselves, what have we gained from all that spending? Do we have less poverty in the United States? No; are welfare recipients spending less time on welfare? No; after spending $5 trillion on welfare, have we solved the problems of poverty and dependency on Federal dollars? Is it extreme to think that maybe there is a better way of running our welfare system? Madam Chairwoman, the Republican welfare reform proposal will allow welfare to work better for all Americans. Our welfare reform makes welfare a way out--not a way of life. It promotes work over a continual cycle of welfare. It returns power and money to the States and encourages personal responsibility. Madam, Chairwoman, this reform proposal also denies welfare for noncitizens and includes a provision I developed with a sheriff in my district to deny imprisoned criminals welfare and create an incentive for local law enforcement officials to help stop this abuse. Currently, an estimated 5 to 10 percent of inmates in local and State jails are illegally receiving welfare checks. Without this welfare reform, the American taxpayer will allegedly give prisoners $270 million over the next 7 years in welfare payments. Madam Chairwoman, our current welfare system is inefficient, unfair, and damaging to those it is supposed to help. The American people deserve a better welfare program that is unaccepting to those abusing the system and compassionate to those in real need. I urge my colleagues to vote for this welfare reform. Mr. SABO. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York [Mr. Rangel]. (Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. RANGEL. Madam Chairman, we have gotten off the subject now of substantive legislation, and we are now dealing with Presidential politics. Well, let us do it. The welfare bill now has become like a tennis ball in a political volley, and the question is, Does it make more sense to force the President to keep his commitment to change welfare as we know it, or really do we want to get the President in the position that he has to veto the bill? Well, we have tried so many times on the Republican side to find out just what is it that the President hates. Obviously, it was the tremendous cuts that were recommended by the other side as relates to Medicaid. So what was the solution? Continue to make certain it was one package, until it becomes politically expedient to change that and to put another poison pill, and several other poison pills, so you can go home and say the President has vetoed the welfare bill once again. Who really suffers? It is really the voters, or it is our children? This obsession in saying that the Federal Government cannot take care of them has no responsibility to our children, but that the Governors should be trusted. And then to have the Christian coalition to come up and embrace this in a Christian way. Well, thank God we have the National Council of Catholic Bishops that say the program stinks. Thank God we have the Jewish Council Against Poverty that says it is no good. Thank God we have the Protestant Council that says it is no good. It may be good politics, but it is bad for the children of our Nation. The whole concept that we are saying 5 years, but the Governors can say 2: We are relinquishing our responsibility to the children of the United States of America, and it is a bad day in the congressional history. Mr. ARCHER. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the very respected gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. McCrery], a member of the Committee on Ways and Means. Mr. McCRERY. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Madam Chairman, I want to talk for just a while about the basis for reform. I think it is worthwhile to examine the current welfare system and its results over the last few years. This chart shows very graphically, this line right here is the poverty rate in the United States. Beginning in 1950, you can see it drops until about 1965 or so. Well, it just happens to be that 1965 was the beginning of the Great Society programs, and the avalanche of welfare spending in this country; as it has been said, $5 trillion over the last 30 years. What happens in 1965? It flattens out, the poverty rate, and then even goes up. So nothing has happened on the poverty rate. It has even gone up a little bit since 1965, since we have spent $5 trillion. This blue line right here is spending on welfare. Look, it is going off the chart in 1995. We are not getting the results, folks, that were advertised with all the taxpayer spending that we have done. It is the current system that is trapping children in poverty. It is the current system that is cruel to children. And if you do not recognize that, you have not been paying attention. Now is the time, not next year, not 5 or 10 years from now, now is the time finally to do something about this terrible welfare system that we have got. The status quo stinks. Admit it. Let us do something about it and quit talking about it. We sent the President two welfare bills. We are going to send him another one. We keep modifying it. This one is patterned after the bipartisan Governors' proposal. I have met with the President to talk about welfare reform, and this is very, very close. This bill is very, very close to what the President says he wants. Let us pass it, send it to him, and I hope he signs it. Mr. SABO. Madam Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Ford]. Mr. FORD. Madam Chairman, let me thank my colleague for yielding me time. Madam Chairman, much of today's welfare news is good. There are fewer welfare and food stamp recipients today than when President Clinton took office. The poverty rate is down and teen pregnancy rates are lower in most States. Teen birth rates have dropped as well. Child support collections have grown and welfare reform is alive and well in States, thanks to 38 waivers approved by the Clinton administration. [[Page H7799]] {time} 1115 That is all good news for the President and even better news for American families. Unfortunately, Madam Chairman, we have not made much progress on national welfare reform. Partisan politics seems to have gotten in the way, and that is a shame. President Clinton has twice sent Congress welfare reform proposals. He has sent clear signals about the kind of reform he will sign into law. He wants a bill that requires work, promotes responsibility, and protects children. He would impose tough time limits and work requirements, provide more funding for child care, require teen parents to live at home and stay in school, and crack down on child support enforcement. And that is real welfare reform. He vetoed the Republican plan, H.R. 4, because it was not real welfare reform. He rejected H.R. 4 because it was weak on work, it did little to move people from welfare to work, it did not guarantee child care, it gutted the earned income tax credit, it was tough on children, it made unacceptable deep cuts that undermined child welfare, school lunch, and aid to disabled children. It was a step backward in an effort to get health care coverage to all Americans and it eliminated the guaranteed medical coverage that single parents need to move from welfare to entry-level jobs. Thanks to the National Governors' Association, today we will try again to send another welfare package to the President. I remain skeptical about what my Republican colleagues want as a bipartisan effort in a Republican bill. Admittedly, this new Republican plan corrects some of the worst mistakes of the vetoed bill, confirming that the President was right to say ``no'' to the last Republican plan, but it looks to me like the Republicans want to make certain that this bill is also unacceptable to the President. I want one point to clear, Madam Chairman. I support welfare reform. So does our President. But we also want to make sure that needy children are not the victims of excessive election-year posturing. Real welfare reform should give children a safety net on which to rely, and it makes certain children are not punished for the mistakes of their parents. Mr. ARCHER. Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay], the whip of the House. Mr. DeLAY. Madam Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me this time, and I rise in support of this legislation. I really commend the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means and the Committee on the Budget for their efforts in producing this legislation. Madam Chairman, as my colleagues ponder their vote on this important issue, I would just urge them to consider this question: Does the current welfare system help people realize the American dream? If the answer is no, we should vote for this reform legislation. I believe that the current welfare system has destroyed the American dream for too many people, and this bill represents an important part of our agenda to restore the American dream. It also represents a core philosophical principle; that a hand-up is better than a hand-out. The American people have rightfully demanded that we fix this welfare system. They instinctively understand that the current welfare system undermines incentives to work, encourages the expansion of the underclass, breaks up families, and promotes welfare as a way of life. And they understand that the current system is a perversion of basic American values that value work, that promote personal responsibility, and that foster freedom. This reform legislation values work. It requires that every able- bodied welfare recipient work for their benefits within 2 years. It promotes personal responsibility. It cracks down on deadbeat dads, giving States the tools to track down men who leave or abandon their families and leave their children to fend for themselves. And it fosters freedom. Scripture says if you give a man a fish, he can eat for a day; but if you teach a man to fish, he can eat for the rest of his life. Our reform plan gives welfare recipients the incentives to gain their freedom, to gain control of their lives and to become productive members of society. Madam Chairman, some on the left call our efforts mean and extreme. Well, I say that defending the status quo is extreme. Continuing the current system that has destroyed families and promoted dependency is mean. The legislation, this legislation, is a commonsense effort to restore the basic American values of work, personal responsibility and freedom to our Federal welfare system. It is a necessary step to restore the American dream for those who are currently in the welfare system. I urge my colleagues to have the courage to change this system. Stand with the American people and vote for this commonsense reform plan. Mr. SABO. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Payne]. Mr. PAYNE of Virginia. Madam Chairman, I thank my colleague for yielding me this time. Madam Chairman, Republicans and Democrats agree that the current welfare system does not work. Instead of requiring work, it punishes those who go to work; instead of instilling personal responsibility, it encourages dependence on the Government; and instead of encouraging marriage and family stability, it penalizes two-parent families and rewards teenage pregnancies. We all agree that welfare must be dramtically reformed, and that welfare should only offer transitional assistance leading to work, not a way of life. Where we disagree, however, is whether the Republican bill will make transition to work a reality or whether it is just empty rhetoric. Real welfare reform must be about replacing a welfare check with a paycheck. Real welfare reform gets people into the work force as quickly as possible. In order to do that, real welfare reform provides enough money for the work requirements to be effective. The Congressional Budget Office has concluded that the Republican bill will not work because most States will fail to meet the work requirements. It will be less expensive for the States to accept the penalties for failing to meet the participation rates than it will be to meet the costs of the work programs. Creating a system that is prone to failure from the outset is not real welfare reform. The Castle-Tanner bipartisan bill provides $3 billion in supplemental funds for States to meet the costs of work programs for welfare recipients. This is money in the bank, not just an authorization backed by a hope that someday we might actually find this money. The Castle-Tanner bipartisan bill provides real welfare reform and I urge my colleagues to support this plan. Mr. SHAW. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Zimmer], a distinguished member of the Committee on Ways and Means. Mr. ZIMMER. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding me this time, and I commend him for his tenacious and principled support for true welfare reform. Madam Chairman, welfare as we know it has unmercifully condemned generation after generation of Americans to a life without hope and without access to the American dream. This bill will foster independence by breaking the chains that bind families to the welfare state. The current system, which fosters poverty, despair, hopelessness, and illegitimacy will be replaced with a program that generates hope, optimism, and self-esteem. People will be accountable for their own lives. Mothers and fathers will be responsible for the children they bring into this world. What this bill proposes is very straightforward: No more money for nothing. It tells the poor that we will help you get on your feet but we owe it to you as well as to ourselves, to require that you work for your benefits, and that after a specified period of time you get a real job. You see, work is not punishment. Work is the foundation of the American dream. It gives us self-respect and gives our children respect for us and for themselves. I urge those who have rejected reform in the past to reconsider for the sake of our future. I urge this House to [[Page H7800]] pass this legislation. I urge the President to sign this legislation. Mr. SABO. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from North Carolina [Mrs. Clayton]. Mrs. CLAYTON. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Madam Chairman, in a ideal world we would not be forced to save money while sacrificing even some of our children. In an ideal world we would provide something to wear, something to eat, and a place to sleep for all of our children, even those who happen to be born in circumstances not of their own creation or their own will. In an ideal world we would not set time limits and spending caps and impose budget savings requirements on the most vulnerable people of our society, our children. I realize, however, we do not live in an ideal world. I too believe we must reform our welfare system because the current welfare system surely is not working. However, the proposed welfare system by the Republicans is doomed not to work either. In fact, I offer to say that it will not work for millions of children and for millions of mothers that we want to be self-sufficient and who desire to work. I intend to vote for Castle-Tanner because it treats our children better than the bill before us treats them. It honors people's will. The bill before us is short on reform, weak on work, and tough on our children. Millions of children will be abandoned. I admonish my colleagues, as they consider the decision they will make in the context of the decisions we make all the time, and the ones we have made. Last week this House refused to fund teenage pregnancy prevention programs by $30 million, yet now we are talking about teenage pregnancy as if we wanted to prevent it. We are now willing to punish them, however, if indeed they happen to have a child. We should have stepping stones for our children and not have them as stumbling blocks. Recently the education funding was slashed. Where is the development in our children? This House has voted numerous times to cut nutrition programs. We should not abandon our children. The proposal before us does not honor the principle of work, responsibility and caring for children. Mr. SHAW. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume to advise the last speaker who said that our bill is tough on children that the bill she referred to, which will be the Gephardt substitute, mimics exactly what is in the bill that she is criticizing as far as the children's program are concerned. I would also tell the gentlewoman that in the bill there is some $6 billion of cuts in EITC, which is what the President criticized the Republicans for as calling that a tax increase. It is not in our bill, it is in her bill. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington [Ms. Dunn], a distinguished member of the Committee on Ways and Means. Ms. DUNN of Washington. Madam Chairman, I am involved in this debate on welfare because I believe that the current welfare system and what it does to children, and families is a crime. The system is cruel, it is broken, and it needs to be fixed. For the third time today, Madam Chairman, we are going to vote to send to the President a welfare bill so he can keep his promise that he made in his campaign to reform welfare. It is a clean bill and it protects children. It is based on three principles: One, that welfare should not be a way of life; that these poor children, some of whom never have a working role model in their lives, will not be put in that position ever, ever again. It is also based on the second principle of returning flexibility to the States; and, third, it is based on the principle that if Government is going to provide incentives in our lives, that the incentive in welfare should be to encourage personal responsibility in our citizens. Today I want to focus on one thing that is probably the most important thing in this whole debate, and that is the children. Back home in Washington State women tell me, ``Jennifer, my child support is the sole difference between making ends meet and going on welfare.'' On behalf of these women, we have a responsibility to make sure that deadbeat parents pay their child support to their own flesh and blood children. {time} 1130 Today in this Nation, Madam Chairman, $34 billion is owed by parents who have left their children's home to custodial parents. Thirty percent of these people leave the State in order to avoid that responsibility. I think it is outrageous. The tools this bill provides give us the way to track those deadbeat parents down. I know what it is like to raise children as a single parent. I have done that. I worried about money, and I worried about child care. I worried about how you fit a full-time job around the responsibilities of my own children's needs. It is hard enough in my case, Madam Chairman, where I did receive support. I cannot imagine what it would be like when a parent did not receive that support. It is the mothers and the children that we have included in these provisions. As far as I am concerned, Madam Chairman, the President needs to sign this bill for the sake of our children. Mr. SABO. Madam Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from North Carolina [Mrs. Clayton]. Mrs. CLAYTON. Madam Chairman, I want to respond to the distinguished chair of the Committee on Ways and Means. The bill that he said that I am supporting, I am delighted to be supporting, Castle-Tanner, really indeed allows States to provide for vouchers, wherein his bill does not. Castle-Tanner also provides Medicaid coverage for children, where his bill indeed does not. Castle-Tanner also has a no caps on assistance in the event of an economic turndown. The bill he has makes no provisions for that, or very limited, in their contingency fund. Mr. SABO. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Cardin]. Mr. CARDIN. Madam Chairman, I along with many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle have been working for almost 4 years to dramatically reform our Nation's welfare system. The current system has failed. A new system is needed. The Federal Government in partnership with our States needs to provide temporary compassionate assistance to those who have genuine need, making it clear that people who receive welfare must become employed as soon as possible in a private sector job. We must move people off of welfare to work. My concern is that the Republican bill will move people off of welfare, but in far too many cases our children will end up on the streets. The Republican bill is woefully inadequate in providing resources to our States. It is inadequate in financing safe, affordable day care for welfare parents. It does not adequately deal with one of the principal problems in our welfare system; that is, preventing out-of-wedlock births, particularly among our teenagers. Quite frankly, the failure of the Republican bill is because it was developed in a partisan political manner, rather than in an open legislative format. We have not even really had a chance to review this bill because it was developed by the Republicans in a closed meeting, rather than using an open forum so that we could debate some of these issues and could work out some of these issues. The Castle-Tanner bill substitute is the only bill that has been worked out in a bipartisan manner in an open forum. I urge my colleagues to support the Castle-Tanner substitute. It is far better than the Republican bill and although I believe it can be improved, I urge my colleagues to vote for the substitute and against the underlying bill. Then let us work together, Democrats and Republicans, to dramatically change our welfare system. It can be done this year. If our objective is to get a welfare bill enacted, I urge my colleagues to follow that action. If our objective is to get the President to veto another bill, then I understand what the Republicans are doing. Mr. SHAW. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from the State of Georgia [Mr. Collins, a valued member of the Committee on Ways and Means. Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding the time to me. Madam Chairman, we have previously debated and passed legislative proposals that will change the welfare [[Page H7801]] system. And although President Clinton vetoed those measures, he has proposed welfare legislation of his own. So today, we have two different approaches to welfare reform. We must clearly understand that the real debate is about whether we are going to just piecemeal reform the broken welfare system, or if we are going to entirely change welfare as we know it. We all agree the welfare system is a failure. It is an open-ended Federal entitlement that encourages people to believe that receiving a welfare check, free health care, and other free services without working is their right. By the end of the decade, American workers will have spent over $6 trillion on welfare programs. After 30 years under the current system, our poverty rate remains unchanged and we have millions of people trapped, dependent upon broken welfare programs. Americans are tired of paying for a welfare system that just doesn't work. And although Presidential candidate Clinton once stated that he intended to change welfare as we know it, his proposal will only make limited reforms to a system that fails those who receive welfare and those working people who pay the bill. In sharp contrast to the President's patchwork plan, the Republican majority's proposal changes the welfare system as we know it. The Republican plan will remove the one-size-fits-all entitlement system. This measure will transfer the management authority from the bureaucratic Federal level to the States. Local authorities will finally have the ability to design a welfare program that best meets the needs of the poor in their region. Welfare programs will be administered on a local level through a State/Federal financial partnership. The responsibility for administering welfare programs will be where it needs to be: closer to those who know what works, closer to those who need the assistance, and closer to the workers who pay the bill. Working Americans support the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act because it will comprehensively change the welfare system as we know it. Mr. SABO. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes and 30 seconds to the distinguished gentleman from California [Mr. Waxman]. Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Republican welfare bill. This legislation masquerades as reform, but it is not that. It is instead a giant step back into poverty for millions of American children. But it is more. This bill will have a devastating impact on the health care system in many urban areas and in many States in this Nation because of its mean-spirited and shortsighted provisions to deny Medicaid funds for necessary medical care for legal immigrants. Whatever the view Members may have as to whether we should provide cash support to legal immigrants who end up in need of assistance, there can be no justification to deny health care services to persons who are legally in this country. Cutting Medicaid funds is not going to keep people from getting sick. It is not going to keep them from needing health care services. All this bill will accomplish is to keep them from going for care when they need it and causing them to be sicker and more costly cases when the situation becomes so bad they end up in an emergency room. Local hospitals and local governments are going to be left holding the bag for these costs. The sad fact is, they cannot afford it. There should not be a Member from California in this House that supports this policy. It will have devastating consequences for Los Angeles, and it will have devastating consequences for the State of California. The $12 billion reduction in Medicaid expenditures resulting from these provisions is fully one-fifth of the expenditures my Republican colleagues were trying to cut from Medicaid with their block grant proposal. Trying to achieve a big chunk of those so-called savings through the back door of the welfare bill by taking away any access to Medicaid for legal immigrants is wrong. It will hurt urban hospitals. It will hurt innocent people. It is the wrong thing to do. Mr. SABO. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. WAXMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota. Mr. SABO. Madam Chairman, is what the gentleman is saying that this bill will mean a significant transfer from Federal resources to obligations on the local property tax? Mr. WAXMAN. Absolutely. Mr. SABO. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his answer. Mr. SHAW. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. English], a valued member of the Subcommittee on Human Resources of the Committee on Ways and Means. Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Madam Chairman, today we will vote on fundamental welfare reform legislation, a mainstream proposal that working families across the Nation have been demanding for years. Three decades and $5 trillion ago, this Nation declared war on poverty. What was the outcome? All we have to show are casualties. Children killing children, boys and girls growing up without fathers, and welfare recipients spending an average of 13 years out of work because work does not pay as well as Uncle Sam. Madam Chairman, generations have been trapped in this soul-destroying system, prisoners of the lost war on poverty. I have to ask this House: How many more of our children must we lose to poverty and violence before we say, enough is enough? We have the opportunity today to change America by fixing the failed welfare state and restoring the American dream for an abandoned underclass. Under this bill, welfare will be converted into a work program. Every person receiving welfare must work within 2 years or cash benefits will end. Under our bill, lifetime welfare benefits will be limited to 5 years but up to 20 percent of families can be exempted for hardship. States are required to have 50 percent of welfare families working by 2002. Our bill will end welfare payments for noncitizens; those we welcome to our country as guests should not abuse the hospitality of hard- working Americans. American families are spending $8 billion every year on welfare for noncitizens. That is not fair. Our bill will stop the destructive practice of giving Social Security cash benefits to drug addicts and alcoholics, blighting their lives at great public expense. Madam Chairman, we in Washington need to learn from past mistakes. We must create a welfare system that ties welfare rights to responsible behavior. I urge all of my colleagues to put aside petty partisan politics. Support this bill and allow this Congress to leave an enduring legacy of social reform. Mr. SABO. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Meek]. (Mrs. MEEK of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.) Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Madam Chairman, I thank my ranking member for yielding the time to me. I say over and over again, this is a flawed bill. It is not hard to see it. They are wrapping it in politics to try and save the fact that there is no substance in this bill that is going to save the children of this country. Everything I have heard from the majority side makes me know they have never, ever experienced welfare. Now they are beginning to try to reform it. I want to reform it. I know it needs to be reformed. But it does not have to be reformed on the backs of the children of this country. It does not have to be reformed on food stamps. And they are having a similar idea that people who get food stamps, AFDC, do not know how to choose their food. That is not correct. The same Members who feel that way are the ones who drafted this bill. This bill is going to deny 300,000 children of legal immigrants from getting food stamps. Do they want to cut children off from food? They have said they have a family-friendly atmosphere in the Republican Party. This does not meet the test of family-friendly. Until yesterday they have changed back and forth so much, it is hard. I have not seen this new language. But yesterday their bill prohibited benefits and vouchers. Now they have switched over and now they are making that, they are putting that in, but they are not requiring it. They are not fooling [[Page H7802]] me, because they are making it permissive. They cannot do it or they may do it. Why not say, as our bills do, that they will be required to provide vouchers to these children who will go off Medicaid? My colleagues have exceeded the limits of care and sympathy and compassion which this Congress is supposed to give to the American people. They are not fooling the American people by saying this is a good welfare bill. We all want to reform welfare. Why can we not get together, both Republicans and Democrats, put our heads together and reform this without having a one-sided view toward Medicare and toward welfare? I say to my colleagues, turn this bill back. I do not blame the President of the United States. Every time we send him a bad bill, he should veto it, no matter how many times. Mr. SHAW. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Washington [Ms. Dunn]. Ms. DUNN of Washington. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding the time to me. I am very alarmed at the misinformation I have heard last evening and today coming out on the issue of child care. I want to set something straight. In the Republican bill, the bill that we are debating and voting on today, in fact, we have been told by the people who make these estimates that we need, in child care, $16 billion to perform the duties that are outlined in the bill. We have, in fact, in the Republican bill provided $23 billion. Madam Chairman, I just want to say in my book of mathematics, that leaves $7 billion aside that can be helped to ease working mothers off AFDC into the working world. {time} 1145 In addition, Madam Chairman, that is $4.5 billion more than is in the current child care portion of the welfare bill. It is also very important, as it is also $2 billion more than the President has in his own legislation. Mr. SHAW. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Nevada [Mr. Ensign], a member of the Committee on Ways and Means. Mr. ENSIGN. Madam Chairman, I think we have to ask ourselves a couple of fundamental questions. First of all, has the current welfare system worked? Has it helped children? Is it compassionate, especially to those children? Should we continue to give cash payments to prisoners and drug addicts? The answers to these questions are obvious. Out-of-wedlock births have skyrocketed since our welfare system began. Crime rates have skyrocketed. This is federally funded child abuse. Madam Chairman, we tell the teenage mom, ``If you have a child out of wedlock, move away from your parents, we'll get you an apartment. By the way, don't work, don't save, and if you want a little extra money, have another child out of wedlock.'' This is truly federally funded child abuse. Our bill does something remarkable. It reforms welfare in a compassionate way. It has $2 billion more, as the previous speaker talked about, for child care than the President does so that in the transition from welfare to work we can help families do that. We also provide transitional health care, which is one of the biggest incentives to staying on welfare, the lack of health care coverage. We also stopped cash payments to noncitizens and prisoners. There is a fundamental disagreement between that side of the aisle and this side of the aisle on whether we should continue cash payments to noncitizens. We believe, I believe strongly, that it should be reserved for U.S. citizens. We also fundamentally believe that we to have a limit, a time limit on the amount of time that somebody can receive welfare benefits. There is no greater incentive than to know that at the end of a certain period of time they are going to have to get a job, they better get their life together, they better get out there, take advantage of the job training we provide, get their life together so that they can get off of welfare so that they can take care of their own family and have that personal responsibility. Lastly, from somebody who grew up with a deadbeat dad, I am applauding this bill for the strong child support enforcement provisions that it has so we can go after those deadbeat parents who are abandoning their children and not taking full responsibility. I thank the chairman of the subcommittee for writing a great bill. Mr. SABO. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute to say I find it very unfortunate when we compare legal immigrants in this country with prisoners and put them in the same category. In fact I find it sort of personal. My parents were both immigrants to this country. I remember when my mother became a citizen. I also hear this discussion of nothing has ever been given or done in conjunction with legal immigrants. My father was a homesteader. That was how he and many other immigrants got started in this country, and they worked hard and did well. But regardless of how one feels on this question, to rhetorically combine legal immigrants with prisoners I think is totally unfortunate. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer]. (Mr. HOYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. HOYER. Madam Chairman, there is a consensus on this floor that our welfare system undermines the core values Americans believe in: responsibility, work, opportunity, and family. Too many people who do not want to be on welfare cannot escape it. Too many people who want to be on welfare are allowed to coast at the taxpayers' expenses. We agree that we must create a different kind of social safety net which will uphold the values our current system undermines. It must require work, it must demand responsibility, and it must protect children. Today the House will consider two alternative welfare reform proposals. One, offered by the House Republican leadership, I suggest, is not reform at all, although it has much in it with which we agree and Castle-Tanner agree. It lacks the funds for serious work requirements. CBO says so, not us. And under this bill children can be denied all support, even in an emergency, when their families are cut off welfare due to time limits. When the American people demanded an end to welfare, this is not what they had in mind. The so-called welfare reform bill offered today by the Republican leadership makes a mockery, in my opinion, of the American values of work and family. It does have progress in it. But it is not bipartisan, and that is what the American public wanted. They wanted us to come together in-bipartisan manner and reform welfare. Governor Castle, now a Congressman, and the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Tanner] have done exactly that. Their bill brings together and reinforces family values, while meeting our responsibilities to our people and reinforcing our expectations on their personal responsibility. I urge my colleagues to come together in a bipartisan fashion, as most of the Members on this side of the aisle will do. Democrats will support a bipartisan effort to accomplish this objective. All of us should do the same. America's welfare system is at odds with the core values Americans believe in: Responsibility, work, opportunity, and family. Too many people who don't want to be on welfare can't escape it. Too many people who want to be on welfare are allowed to coast at the taxpayers' expense. In both cases, this broken system weakens families, undermines personal responsibility, destroys self-respect and initiative, and fails to move able-bodied people from welfare to work. A complete overhaul of the welfare system is long overdue. We must create a different kind of social safety net which will uphold the values our current system destroys. It must require work. It must demand responsibility. And it must protect children, to break the generational cycle of poverty. Today, the House will consider two alternative welfare reform proposals. First, offered by the House Republican leadership, is not reform at all. It lacks the funds for serious work requirements. It shreds the safety net for chidlren. The Nation's Governors adopted a resolution expressing their concern about restrictions on States' flexibility and unfunded costs in the Job Program, a shortfall of $13 billion which will knock the teeth out of the much-touted work requirements in the Republican bill. [[Page H7803]] The second alternative, the bipartisan Tanner-Castle welfare reform proposal, will truly reform our broken system. It, and it alone, requires all recipients to start work--real work, in real jobs--within 2 years. It provides funding to make those requirements real. It establishes a 5-year lifetime limit for welfare benefits, with a State option to create a shorter limit. It requires teen parents to live at home or in a supervised setting, and teaches responsibility by requiring school or training attendance as a condition of receiving assistance. It includes tough child support enforcement provisions to make sure deadbeat parents live up to their responsibility to support their children. Unlike the Republican leadership proposal, the Tanner-Castle bill is tough on work without being tough on kids. It includes additional funding above the leadership bill for child care, to make sure children aren't left on the streets when their parents go to work. Under the Republican leadership bill children could be denied all support, even in an emergency, when their families are cut off welfare because of a time limit. The bipartisan bill provides vouchers to meet the needs of children if their parents exceed the welfare time limit. While the Republican leadership bill would deny Medicaid coverage for children in families who exceed a time limit, the bipartisan bill ensures that no child loses medical care because of welfare reform. The so-called welfare reform bill offered today by the Republican leadership makes a mockery of the American values of work and family. It contains a hollow promise of work requirements which the Nation's Governors and the Congressional Budget Office both concede States can never achieve. It strips poor children of food assistance and medical care. I do not believe that when the American people demanded an end to welfare as we know it, this is what they had in mind. The bipartisan Tanner-Castle bill supports those American values we all share. It demands work and personal responsibility without shredding the social safety net and abandoning children. I urge my colleagues to reject the Republican leadership bill, and support the bipartisan Tanner-Castle proposal. Mr. SHAW. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Chairman, I would like to respond very quickly to what the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Sabo] said. Nobody in this House is criticizing or putting anything saying that people coming into this country to experience the American dream are in the class of felons. That is ridiculous. That argument falls on deaf ears. It has no relevancy. But I would like to share this with him. When his parents or grandparents came into this country, they made a pledge not to become a public charge, and I would bet next week's paycheck that they did not become a public charge. They came for a better way of life, and they went to work. They made something of themselves, and they had a child or a grandchild that came to the U.S. Congress. I would also like to say, when we are talking about aliens, aliens over 65 are five times more likely to go on SSI than citizens over 65. Alien SSI applications have increased 370 percent from 1982 to 1992. We have got to stop making welfare available for citizens of other countries. It is that simple. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Christensen], a valuable member of the Committee on Ways and Means. Mr. CHRISTENSEN. Madam Chairman, welfare reform is an issue, like the previous speaker said, that we can agree on, that we can come together on in a bipartisan fashion and that we can work together on. I think all agree that the welfare system has caused people to rely on the Government instead of themselves. I think Senator John Ashcroft said it best last week when he talked about the system, that it has deprived hope, it has diminished opportunity, and it has destroyed lives. But there are questions that we have to ask. After spending billions of dollars, has the Government solved the problems of poverty and of dependency? How many more families are we going to allow to be trapped in the current system before we get a bill out of this House? How many more children must we sacrifice to poverty before we say enough is enough? As my colleagues know, we have heard many people say, and I think the statement is accurate, the fact is we cannot have a moral environment to raise children in America when we have 12-year-olds having babies, 15-year-olds killing each other, 17-year-olds dying of AIDS, and 18- year-olds who are graduating with diplomas that they cannot read. If we are to restore our moral health in this country, we must change the system that fosters that environment. As Franklin Delano Roosevelt said in the late 1930's, giving permanent aid to anyone destroys them. Our bill gives people a chance. It puts a hand out so they can help themselves. It is time that we worked together in a bipartisan fashion to end welfare as we know it. Mr. SABO. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Washington [Mr. McDermott]. (Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Chairman, the gentlewoman from Florida put her finger on the fundamental problem here, and that is that the Republican bill will not guarantee support to children if all else fails. Now, my brother runs the public assistance program in the State of Washington. I know the facts. In the State of Washington there are 100,000 adults on welfare, 125,000 people, unduplicated count, on unemployment. That is 225,000 people on average every month in the year 1995. If they all showed up for a job on tomorrow, there would be jobs. Last year they created 44,000 new jobs in the State of Washington. That means 181,000 adults in the State of Washington, that DRI, McGraw- Hill, the economic forecaster says is the fifth most rapidly growing State in this country, could not get jobs, 181,000 people. Now the Labor Department has recently said that the unemployment rate is as low as it ever is. Tomorrow Mr. Greenspan is going to meet with the Federal Reserve to talk about raising the interest rates so that we can slow the economy so we do not have inflation. Now, we cannot slow the economy and stop job creation when we have 181,000 people in 1995 in the State of Washington who could not get a job and say to their children, ``Hey, folks, kids, I'm sorry. Your Ma went down for a job, but there was none, and you can't eat.'' That is what the Republican bill says. They will not give a voucher if they have done everything, and there is no way. I think the President, who cares about the kids in this country, is going to take a long careful look at what comes out of this body because, if we are not careful of how we deal with the weakest and the most vulnerable in our society, we are not a civil society. Mr. SHAW. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas, Mr. Sam Johnson, from the Committee on Ways and Means. (Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Madam Chairman, I have to disagree with the gentleman that just spoke. It is a shame, but I tell my colleagues that. The Government has been spending billions of dollars, and I would just like to know

Major Actions:

All articles in House section

WELFARE AND MEDICAID REFORM ACT OF 1996
(House of Representatives - July 18, 1996)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages H7796-H7907] WELFARE AND MEDICAID REFORM ACT OF 1996 The SPEAKER pro tempore [Mr. Kolbe]. Pursuant to House Resolution 482 and rule XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill, H.R. 3734. {time} 1047 in the committee of the whole Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill (H.R. 3734) to provide for reconciliation pursuant to section 201(a)(1) of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 1997, with Ms. Greene of Utah in the chair. The Clerk read the title of the bill. point of order Mr. ORTON. Madam Chairman, I rise to make a point of order against consideration of H.R. 3724. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order. Mr. ORTON. Madam Chairman, section 425 of the Congressional Budget Act prohibits us from considering legislation which would create an unfunded mandate upon the States. The Congressional Budget Office has ruled that H.R. 3734 falls $12.9 billion short in funding necessary to fund the work requirements of the bill. Also the National Governors Association has stated: We are concerned that the bill restricts State flexibility and will create additional unfunded costs. This bill clearly creates an unfunded mandate, violates section 425 of the Congressional Budget Act, and I would further point out that section 426 of the Congressional Budget Act prohibits this House from considering a rule which would waive section 425. So that in any event we would have a vote and a determination as to whether or not a bill does in fact create an unfunded mandate. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would respond to the gentleman's point of order as follows. Points of order against consideration of the bill H.R. 3734 were waived by unanimous consent on July 17, 1996. Further, a point of order against consideration of House Resolution 482 would not be timely after adoption of that resolution. The gentleman's points are not in order. Mr. ORTON. I thank the Chairman. I think it is clear to the House and the country that in fact we are violating the first bill we passed in this Congress with the adoption of this bill. The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Wednesday, July 17, 1996, all time for general debate pursuant to the previous order of the House had expired. Pursuant to House Resolution 482, there will be 2 additional hours of general debate. The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] and the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Sabo] will each control 1 hour. Mr. SABO. Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer] be allowed to control the time for the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] temporarily and be allowed to yield time. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Minnesota? There was no objection. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer]. Mr. ARCHER. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Chairman, since 1965, roughly 30 years ago, government in this country has spent $5.5 trillion on welfare programs, more than has been spent on all of the wars fought in this century. Yet people are poorer and more dependent than ever. Despite our best efforts, despite the expenditure of these massive amounts of money, we have lost the war on poverty. Madam Chairman, today, we stand on the threshold of a new effort, an effort that can win the war. With the vote we take today, we recognize that the Great Society's welfare programs have not helped people. They have destroyed people. They have not kept families together. They have torn them apart. These policies haven't turned urban areas of America into shining cities on a hill. They have made them into war zones where law-abiding citizens are afraid to go out at night. They have led to the creation of two Americas. One marked by hope and opportunity. The other by despair and decay. In short, the welfare state has created a world in which children have no dreams for tomorrow and parents have abandoned their hopes for today. The people trapped in welfare, the mothers, the children, the fathers, are our fellow citizens, one and all. We have a moral obligation to them, as Americans, to lend a helping hand. For the people on welfare aren't abusing welfare, as much as welfare is abusing them. We are on the threshold of improving America by fixing our failed welfare state. We're improving America for the children on welfare, for the parents on welfare, and for ourselves. Our reforms are based on five pillars. The pillars represent the values that made America great. One--we think people on welfare should work for their benefits. A welfare worker I spoke with told me the biggest beneficiaries of work aren't the moms or the dads. Yes, they benefit. But she said it's the children who watch their parents get up each morning, go to a job, and return home at night who are the big winners. These children get better grades in school, have fewer problems with crime, and are less likely to end up on welfare because the values and virtues of work, not idleness, are instilled in them at a young age. Two--Time limit benefits. Welfare should be a temporary helping hand, not a way of life. [[Page H7797]] Three--Provide no welfare for felons and noncitizens. America always has been and always will be the land of opportunity for immigrants. But it's not right to ask hardworking, taxpaying Americans to support noncitizens who come here and then go on welfare. Four--Return power and control of welfare to the states and communities where help can best be delivered. We must remove Washington's control over welfare. This city built the failed welfare state. It's time to get Washington out of the welfare business. Five--Reward personal responsibility and fight illegitimacy. We shouldn't have a welfare system that promotes illegitimacy and discourages marriage. It's time to change signals and return to old- fashioned values. Madam Chairman, today's vote will be historic. It represents the biggest, most helpful change to social policy in America since the 1930s. This vote recognizes that America is a caring country, that Americans are a giving people, and that welfare recipients are capable of success if we would only let them try. Our colleague, J.C. Watts, has a wonderful way of expressing it. He says America's welfare recipients are eagles waiting to soar. Madam Chairman, I think it's time we removed the heavy hand of the Federal Government from their wings. We must let our fellow citizens on welfare reach new heights as they climb the economic ladder of life. That's what this bill does. It helps people to help themselves. It restores hope and it provides opportunity. It's strong welfare reform and it's what the American people have wanted for years. Madam Chairman, there is no good reason why this bill should not be passed by the Congress and signed into law. The American people expect nothing less, and families on welfare deserve much, much more than the sad status quo. For the sake of all Americans, I hope the President will let this bill become law. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. SABO. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Matsui]. Mr. MATSUI. Madam Chairman, yesterday we heard the chairman of the Budget Committee say that this debate was really about Judeo-Christian ethics. That is why I was somewhat disappointed last night when I read Congress Daily. In the Congress Daily we talked about welfare reform and we talked about what this debate was really all about. The chairman of the subcommittee that has jurisdiction over welfare was quoted as stating from a political point of view, the President of the United States is in a box. Madam Chairman, that is what this debate is all about--to jeopardize 9 million children who will be affected by this bill just to put the President of the United States in a box. What kind of people would draft legislation for political purposes to affect so many children of America? This bill is weak on work and tough on America's children. {time} 1100 The Congressional Budget Office, their own agency, hired by the Republican House and Senate, has said that the 1.7 million jobs that the Republicans say will be created by a woman going off welfare is an illusion. It is deceptive, it is not going to happen, because they do not provide the resources for it. Their own agency has said they will not obtain those 1.7 million jobs. So this is not a jobs bill. This is not a bill to get people off of welfare into work. But the worst part of this bill is what it will do to children. Because of those time limits and because of the fact that the Republican bill prohibits the States from using Federal funds for vouchers or any kind of assistance after a woman meets those time limits, she will then become destitute, she will become homeless, her children will probably have to go into foster care, even though she might be a good mother. This is what this is all about. It is about politics to hurt America's children. I urge a ``no'' vote on this legislation. Mr. ARCHER. Madam Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson], the chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight of the Committee on Ways and Means, the chairman of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, a person who is so greatly respected on our committee and has given such great service to this House, the country, in all of those roles. Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Madam Chairman, I rise in strong support of this bill, and I could not disagree more with the preceding speaker. We have to change the future. Welfare cannot be a way of life for either women or children. It is not a satisfactory way of life. There is no hope, there is no opportunity when you are on welfare. Now, remember, under this bill at the end of 5 years you get Medicaid, nutrition assistance, housing assistance, energy assistance, all those programs that provide services, on a means-tested basis. In addition, 20 percent of the whole caseload can be carried forward. So we are not talking about a draconian system; we are talking about reform and creating hope and opportunity in our welfare system for both the women and children on welfare. This bill, let me show you, will allow States, for instance, to be free of the rigid law that now governs income disregards. The woman is on welfare and starts earning money, and we right away start reducing benefits. Under this reform bill States will have complete freedom to design a fairer system. They may choose to keep her benefits up, and, as her salary goes up, to then decline her benefits. States have the power to help her get a good start in those 5 years. They have the power to educate and train, but to combine that with work experience. Under this program, women on welfare could immediately go to work for half a day in new day care centers, use State day care subsidies to give informed leadership to those centers as skilled master teachers. Let welfare mothers, who are good care providers, be the soldiers in those day care centers and then in the afternoon go on education and training centers while other welfare recipients staff the day care centers. It will cut the cost of day care and it will allow the money to be used powerfully in the transition period. This gives opportunity to States to create the kind of humane and supportive system women need to literally change their lives. In addition, the terrible decline in the cities is in part the result of nonpayment of rent. Part of the problem of our cities is that if a welfare recipient fails to pay their rent, it takes at least 6 months to solve the problem and sometimes much more than that. Under this new system, States can say you miss a month's rent? Fine, we will pay it directly now until you get on your feet. So we can prevent the degradation of our housing stock in the cities just by requiring personal responsibility on the part of welfare recipients and providing States the flexibility to create a more realistic support system, under the umbrella of Federal concern, compassion and support. Mr. SABO. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Chairman, if I might inquire of the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, we are curious if there is a final version of the bill and if there is a final summary of the last minute changes? Mr. ARCHER. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. SABO. I yield to the gentleman from Texas. Mr. ARCHER. Madam Chairman, the Committee on Rules had the statutory language of the bill. That was made a part of the rule we voted on. Mr. SABO. Is there a summary of the last minute changes that were made? Mr. ARCHER. Not to my knowledge, although the gentleman is aware that this bill did not come out of the Committee on Ways and Means; it came out of his committee, the Committee on the Budget. Mr. SABO. Well, it has been substantially changed since it came through the Committee on the Budget. Many of us are curious what the final form of the bill is. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Woolsey]. (Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.) [[Page H7798]] Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Chairman, we all agree that welfare does not work, the welfare system does not work for the taxpayers, and it does not work for the families who are on welfare, and we all agree that the welfare system must be overhauled. It must be overhauled so that it helps recipients get jobs and stay off welfare permanently. But that is the easy part. The challenge and responsibility we face as legislators, however, is finding the answers to, what if's. What if a mother on welfare cannot find a job? What if she is not earning enough to take care of her family? What if her benefits are cut off and she is unable to provide her children with food, with clothes, and with health care? Madam Chairman, this bill does not even attempt to answer these, what if's. In fact, the majority has gone out of its way to prevent States from meeting the basic needs of children, children whose parents are unable to get a job. This bill says to poor children, do not get hungry, do not get sick, and, for Pete's sake, do not get cold, because your time is up, and we do not think you are important enough to provide you with the basics that you need to survive. Madam Chairman, no other Member of this body knows better than I do that this is the wrong way to fix welfare. As a single mother with three small children, working, many years ago, I could not have stayed in the work force if I did not have the safety net of health care, child care, and food that the welfare system provided for my family. So I urge my colleagues, do not take this vote lightly. Your vote today will have consequences, consequences for children long after election day, and it will be too late to answer the, what if's tomorrow. Mr. ARCHER. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Herger], a respected member of the Committee on Ways and Means. Mr. HERGER. Madam Chairman, over the last three decades the American taxpayer has spent $5 trillion on our welfare system. Working Americans may be asking themselves, what have we gained from all that spending? Do we have less poverty in the United States? No; are welfare recipients spending less time on welfare? No; after spending $5 trillion on welfare, have we solved the problems of poverty and dependency on Federal dollars? Is it extreme to think that maybe there is a better way of running our welfare system? Madam Chairwoman, the Republican welfare reform proposal will allow welfare to work better for all Americans. Our welfare reform makes welfare a way out--not a way of life. It promotes work over a continual cycle of welfare. It returns power and money to the States and encourages personal responsibility. Madam, Chairwoman, this reform proposal also denies welfare for noncitizens and includes a provision I developed with a sheriff in my district to deny imprisoned criminals welfare and create an incentive for local law enforcement officials to help stop this abuse. Currently, an estimated 5 to 10 percent of inmates in local and State jails are illegally receiving welfare checks. Without this welfare reform, the American taxpayer will allegedly give prisoners $270 million over the next 7 years in welfare payments. Madam Chairwoman, our current welfare system is inefficient, unfair, and damaging to those it is supposed to help. The American people deserve a better welfare program that is unaccepting to those abusing the system and compassionate to those in real need. I urge my colleagues to vote for this welfare reform. Mr. SABO. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York [Mr. Rangel]. (Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. RANGEL. Madam Chairman, we have gotten off the subject now of substantive legislation, and we are now dealing with Presidential politics. Well, let us do it. The welfare bill now has become like a tennis ball in a political volley, and the question is, Does it make more sense to force the President to keep his commitment to change welfare as we know it, or really do we want to get the President in the position that he has to veto the bill? Well, we have tried so many times on the Republican side to find out just what is it that the President hates. Obviously, it was the tremendous cuts that were recommended by the other side as relates to Medicaid. So what was the solution? Continue to make certain it was one package, until it becomes politically expedient to change that and to put another poison pill, and several other poison pills, so you can go home and say the President has vetoed the welfare bill once again. Who really suffers? It is really the voters, or it is our children? This obsession in saying that the Federal Government cannot take care of them has no responsibility to our children, but that the Governors should be trusted. And then to have the Christian coalition to come up and embrace this in a Christian way. Well, thank God we have the National Council of Catholic Bishops that say the program stinks. Thank God we have the Jewish Council Against Poverty that says it is no good. Thank God we have the Protestant Council that says it is no good. It may be good politics, but it is bad for the children of our Nation. The whole concept that we are saying 5 years, but the Governors can say 2: We are relinquishing our responsibility to the children of the United States of America, and it is a bad day in the congressional history. Mr. ARCHER. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the very respected gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. McCrery], a member of the Committee on Ways and Means. Mr. McCRERY. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Madam Chairman, I want to talk for just a while about the basis for reform. I think it is worthwhile to examine the current welfare system and its results over the last few years. This chart shows very graphically, this line right here is the poverty rate in the United States. Beginning in 1950, you can see it drops until about 1965 or so. Well, it just happens to be that 1965 was the beginning of the Great Society programs, and the avalanche of welfare spending in this country; as it has been said, $5 trillion over the last 30 years. What happens in 1965? It flattens out, the poverty rate, and then even goes up. So nothing has happened on the poverty rate. It has even gone up a little bit since 1965, since we have spent $5 trillion. This blue line right here is spending on welfare. Look, it is going off the chart in 1995. We are not getting the results, folks, that were advertised with all the taxpayer spending that we have done. It is the current system that is trapping children in poverty. It is the current system that is cruel to children. And if you do not recognize that, you have not been paying attention. Now is the time, not next year, not 5 or 10 years from now, now is the time finally to do something about this terrible welfare system that we have got. The status quo stinks. Admit it. Let us do something about it and quit talking about it. We sent the President two welfare bills. We are going to send him another one. We keep modifying it. This one is patterned after the bipartisan Governors' proposal. I have met with the President to talk about welfare reform, and this is very, very close. This bill is very, very close to what the President says he wants. Let us pass it, send it to him, and I hope he signs it. Mr. SABO. Madam Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Ford]. Mr. FORD. Madam Chairman, let me thank my colleague for yielding me time. Madam Chairman, much of today's welfare news is good. There are fewer welfare and food stamp recipients today than when President Clinton took office. The poverty rate is down and teen pregnancy rates are lower in most States. Teen birth rates have dropped as well. Child support collections have grown and welfare reform is alive and well in States, thanks to 38 waivers approved by the Clinton administration. [[Page H7799]] {time} 1115 That is all good news for the President and even better news for American families. Unfortunately, Madam Chairman, we have not made much progress on national welfare reform. Partisan politics seems to have gotten in the way, and that is a shame. President Clinton has twice sent Congress welfare reform proposals. He has sent clear signals about the kind of reform he will sign into law. He wants a bill that requires work, promotes responsibility, and protects children. He would impose tough time limits and work requirements, provide more funding for child care, require teen parents to live at home and stay in school, and crack down on child support enforcement. And that is real welfare reform. He vetoed the Republican plan, H.R. 4, because it was not real welfare reform. He rejected H.R. 4 because it was weak on work, it did little to move people from welfare to work, it did not guarantee child care, it gutted the earned income tax credit, it was tough on children, it made unacceptable deep cuts that undermined child welfare, school lunch, and aid to disabled children. It was a step backward in an effort to get health care coverage to all Americans and it eliminated the guaranteed medical coverage that single parents need to move from welfare to entry-level jobs. Thanks to the National Governors' Association, today we will try again to send another welfare package to the President. I remain skeptical about what my Republican colleagues want as a bipartisan effort in a Republican bill. Admittedly, this new Republican plan corrects some of the worst mistakes of the vetoed bill, confirming that the President was right to say ``no'' to the last Republican plan, but it looks to me like the Republicans want to make certain that this bill is also unacceptable to the President. I want one point to clear, Madam Chairman. I support welfare reform. So does our President. But we also want to make sure that needy children are not the victims of excessive election-year posturing. Real welfare reform should give children a safety net on which to rely, and it makes certain children are not punished for the mistakes of their parents. Mr. ARCHER. Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay], the whip of the House. Mr. DeLAY. Madam Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me this time, and I rise in support of this legislation. I really commend the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means and the Committee on the Budget for their efforts in producing this legislation. Madam Chairman, as my colleagues ponder their vote on this important issue, I would just urge them to consider this question: Does the current welfare system help people realize the American dream? If the answer is no, we should vote for this reform legislation. I believe that the current welfare system has destroyed the American dream for too many people, and this bill represents an important part of our agenda to restore the American dream. It also represents a core philosophical principle; that a hand-up is better than a hand-out. The American people have rightfully demanded that we fix this welfare system. They instinctively understand that the current welfare system undermines incentives to work, encourages the expansion of the underclass, breaks up families, and promotes welfare as a way of life. And they understand that the current system is a perversion of basic American values that value work, that promote personal responsibility, and that foster freedom. This reform legislation values work. It requires that every able- bodied welfare recipient work for their benefits within 2 years. It promotes personal responsibility. It cracks down on deadbeat dads, giving States the tools to track down men who leave or abandon their families and leave their children to fend for themselves. And it fosters freedom. Scripture says if you give a man a fish, he can eat for a day; but if you teach a man to fish, he can eat for the rest of his life. Our reform plan gives welfare recipients the incentives to gain their freedom, to gain control of their lives and to become productive members of society. Madam Chairman, some on the left call our efforts mean and extreme. Well, I say that defending the status quo is extreme. Continuing the current system that has destroyed families and promoted dependency is mean. The legislation, this legislation, is a commonsense effort to restore the basic American values of work, personal responsibility and freedom to our Federal welfare system. It is a necessary step to restore the American dream for those who are currently in the welfare system. I urge my colleagues to have the courage to change this system. Stand with the American people and vote for this commonsense reform plan. Mr. SABO. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Payne]. Mr. PAYNE of Virginia. Madam Chairman, I thank my colleague for yielding me this time. Madam Chairman, Republicans and Democrats agree that the current welfare system does not work. Instead of requiring work, it punishes those who go to work; instead of instilling personal responsibility, it encourages dependence on the Government; and instead of encouraging marriage and family stability, it penalizes two-parent families and rewards teenage pregnancies. We all agree that welfare must be dramtically reformed, and that welfare should only offer transitional assistance leading to work, not a way of life. Where we disagree, however, is whether the Republican bill will make transition to work a reality or whether it is just empty rhetoric. Real welfare reform must be about replacing a welfare check with a paycheck. Real welfare reform gets people into the work force as quickly as possible. In order to do that, real welfare reform provides enough money for the work requirements to be effective. The Congressional Budget Office has concluded that the Republican bill will not work because most States will fail to meet the work requirements. It will be less expensive for the States to accept the penalties for failing to meet the participation rates than it will be to meet the costs of the work programs. Creating a system that is prone to failure from the outset is not real welfare reform. The Castle-Tanner bipartisan bill provides $3 billion in supplemental funds for States to meet the costs of work programs for welfare recipients. This is money in the bank, not just an authorization backed by a hope that someday we might actually find this money. The Castle-Tanner bipartisan bill provides real welfare reform and I urge my colleagues to support this plan. Mr. SHAW. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Zimmer], a distinguished member of the Committee on Ways and Means. Mr. ZIMMER. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding me this time, and I commend him for his tenacious and principled support for true welfare reform. Madam Chairman, welfare as we know it has unmercifully condemned generation after generation of Americans to a life without hope and without access to the American dream. This bill will foster independence by breaking the chains that bind families to the welfare state. The current system, which fosters poverty, despair, hopelessness, and illegitimacy will be replaced with a program that generates hope, optimism, and self-esteem. People will be accountable for their own lives. Mothers and fathers will be responsible for the children they bring into this world. What this bill proposes is very straightforward: No more money for nothing. It tells the poor that we will help you get on your feet but we owe it to you as well as to ourselves, to require that you work for your benefits, and that after a specified period of time you get a real job. You see, work is not punishment. Work is the foundation of the American dream. It gives us self-respect and gives our children respect for us and for themselves. I urge those who have rejected reform in the past to reconsider for the sake of our future. I urge this House to [[Page H7800]] pass this legislation. I urge the President to sign this legislation. Mr. SABO. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from North Carolina [Mrs. Clayton]. Mrs. CLAYTON. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Madam Chairman, in a ideal world we would not be forced to save money while sacrificing even some of our children. In an ideal world we would provide something to wear, something to eat, and a place to sleep for all of our children, even those who happen to be born in circumstances not of their own creation or their own will. In an ideal world we would not set time limits and spending caps and impose budget savings requirements on the most vulnerable people of our society, our children. I realize, however, we do not live in an ideal world. I too believe we must reform our welfare system because the current welfare system surely is not working. However, the proposed welfare system by the Republicans is doomed not to work either. In fact, I offer to say that it will not work for millions of children and for millions of mothers that we want to be self-sufficient and who desire to work. I intend to vote for Castle-Tanner because it treats our children better than the bill before us treats them. It honors people's will. The bill before us is short on reform, weak on work, and tough on our children. Millions of children will be abandoned. I admonish my colleagues, as they consider the decision they will make in the context of the decisions we make all the time, and the ones we have made. Last week this House refused to fund teenage pregnancy prevention programs by $30 million, yet now we are talking about teenage pregnancy as if we wanted to prevent it. We are now willing to punish them, however, if indeed they happen to have a child. We should have stepping stones for our children and not have them as stumbling blocks. Recently the education funding was slashed. Where is the development in our children? This House has voted numerous times to cut nutrition programs. We should not abandon our children. The proposal before us does not honor the principle of work, responsibility and caring for children. Mr. SHAW. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume to advise the last speaker who said that our bill is tough on children that the bill she referred to, which will be the Gephardt substitute, mimics exactly what is in the bill that she is criticizing as far as the children's program are concerned. I would also tell the gentlewoman that in the bill there is some $6 billion of cuts in EITC, which is what the President criticized the Republicans for as calling that a tax increase. It is not in our bill, it is in her bill. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington [Ms. Dunn], a distinguished member of the Committee on Ways and Means. Ms. DUNN of Washington. Madam Chairman, I am involved in this debate on welfare because I believe that the current welfare system and what it does to children, and families is a crime. The system is cruel, it is broken, and it needs to be fixed. For the third time today, Madam Chairman, we are going to vote to send to the President a welfare bill so he can keep his promise that he made in his campaign to reform welfare. It is a clean bill and it protects children. It is based on three principles: One, that welfare should not be a way of life; that these poor children, some of whom never have a working role model in their lives, will not be put in that position ever, ever again. It is also based on the second principle of returning flexibility to the States; and, third, it is based on the principle that if Government is going to provide incentives in our lives, that the incentive in welfare should be to encourage personal responsibility in our citizens. Today I want to focus on one thing that is probably the most important thing in this whole debate, and that is the children. Back home in Washington State women tell me, ``Jennifer, my child support is the sole difference between making ends meet and going on welfare.'' On behalf of these women, we have a responsibility to make sure that deadbeat parents pay their child support to their own flesh and blood children. {time} 1130 Today in this Nation, Madam Chairman, $34 billion is owed by parents who have left their children's home to custodial parents. Thirty percent of these people leave the State in order to avoid that responsibility. I think it is outrageous. The tools this bill provides give us the way to track those deadbeat parents down. I know what it is like to raise children as a single parent. I have done that. I worried about money, and I worried about child care. I worried about how you fit a full-time job around the responsibilities of my own children's needs. It is hard enough in my case, Madam Chairman, where I did receive support. I cannot imagine what it would be like when a parent did not receive that support. It is the mothers and the children that we have included in these provisions. As far as I am concerned, Madam Chairman, the President needs to sign this bill for the sake of our children. Mr. SABO. Madam Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from North Carolina [Mrs. Clayton]. Mrs. CLAYTON. Madam Chairman, I want to respond to the distinguished chair of the Committee on Ways and Means. The bill that he said that I am supporting, I am delighted to be supporting, Castle-Tanner, really indeed allows States to provide for vouchers, wherein his bill does not. Castle-Tanner also provides Medicaid coverage for children, where his bill indeed does not. Castle-Tanner also has a no caps on assistance in the event of an economic turndown. The bill he has makes no provisions for that, or very limited, in their contingency fund. Mr. SABO. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Cardin]. Mr. CARDIN. Madam Chairman, I along with many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle have been working for almost 4 years to dramatically reform our Nation's welfare system. The current system has failed. A new system is needed. The Federal Government in partnership with our States needs to provide temporary compassionate assistance to those who have genuine need, making it clear that people who receive welfare must become employed as soon as possible in a private sector job. We must move people off of welfare to work. My concern is that the Republican bill will move people off of welfare, but in far too many cases our children will end up on the streets. The Republican bill is woefully inadequate in providing resources to our States. It is inadequate in financing safe, affordable day care for welfare parents. It does not adequately deal with one of the principal problems in our welfare system; that is, preventing out-of-wedlock births, particularly among our teenagers. Quite frankly, the failure of the Republican bill is because it was developed in a partisan political manner, rather than in an open legislative format. We have not even really had a chance to review this bill because it was developed by the Republicans in a closed meeting, rather than using an open forum so that we could debate some of these issues and could work out some of these issues. The Castle-Tanner bill substitute is the only bill that has been worked out in a bipartisan manner in an open forum. I urge my colleagues to support the Castle-Tanner substitute. It is far better than the Republican bill and although I believe it can be improved, I urge my colleagues to vote for the substitute and against the underlying bill. Then let us work together, Democrats and Republicans, to dramatically change our welfare system. It can be done this year. If our objective is to get a welfare bill enacted, I urge my colleagues to follow that action. If our objective is to get the President to veto another bill, then I understand what the Republicans are doing. Mr. SHAW. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from the State of Georgia [Mr. Collins, a valued member of the Committee on Ways and Means. Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding the time to me. Madam Chairman, we have previously debated and passed legislative proposals that will change the welfare [[Page H7801]] system. And although President Clinton vetoed those measures, he has proposed welfare legislation of his own. So today, we have two different approaches to welfare reform. We must clearly understand that the real debate is about whether we are going to just piecemeal reform the broken welfare system, or if we are going to entirely change welfare as we know it. We all agree the welfare system is a failure. It is an open-ended Federal entitlement that encourages people to believe that receiving a welfare check, free health care, and other free services without working is their right. By the end of the decade, American workers will have spent over $6 trillion on welfare programs. After 30 years under the current system, our poverty rate remains unchanged and we have millions of people trapped, dependent upon broken welfare programs. Americans are tired of paying for a welfare system that just doesn't work. And although Presidential candidate Clinton once stated that he intended to change welfare as we know it, his proposal will only make limited reforms to a system that fails those who receive welfare and those working people who pay the bill. In sharp contrast to the President's patchwork plan, the Republican majority's proposal changes the welfare system as we know it. The Republican plan will remove the one-size-fits-all entitlement system. This measure will transfer the management authority from the bureaucratic Federal level to the States. Local authorities will finally have the ability to design a welfare program that best meets the needs of the poor in their region. Welfare programs will be administered on a local level through a State/Federal financial partnership. The responsibility for administering welfare programs will be where it needs to be: closer to those who know what works, closer to those who need the assistance, and closer to the workers who pay the bill. Working Americans support the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act because it will comprehensively change the welfare system as we know it. Mr. SABO. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes and 30 seconds to the distinguished gentleman from California [Mr. Waxman]. Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Republican welfare bill. This legislation masquerades as reform, but it is not that. It is instead a giant step back into poverty for millions of American children. But it is more. This bill will have a devastating impact on the health care system in many urban areas and in many States in this Nation because of its mean-spirited and shortsighted provisions to deny Medicaid funds for necessary medical care for legal immigrants. Whatever the view Members may have as to whether we should provide cash support to legal immigrants who end up in need of assistance, there can be no justification to deny health care services to persons who are legally in this country. Cutting Medicaid funds is not going to keep people from getting sick. It is not going to keep them from needing health care services. All this bill will accomplish is to keep them from going for care when they need it and causing them to be sicker and more costly cases when the situation becomes so bad they end up in an emergency room. Local hospitals and local governments are going to be left holding the bag for these costs. The sad fact is, they cannot afford it. There should not be a Member from California in this House that supports this policy. It will have devastating consequences for Los Angeles, and it will have devastating consequences for the State of California. The $12 billion reduction in Medicaid expenditures resulting from these provisions is fully one-fifth of the expenditures my Republican colleagues were trying to cut from Medicaid with their block grant proposal. Trying to achieve a big chunk of those so-called savings through the back door of the welfare bill by taking away any access to Medicaid for legal immigrants is wrong. It will hurt urban hospitals. It will hurt innocent people. It is the wrong thing to do. Mr. SABO. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. WAXMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota. Mr. SABO. Madam Chairman, is what the gentleman is saying that this bill will mean a significant transfer from Federal resources to obligations on the local property tax? Mr. WAXMAN. Absolutely. Mr. SABO. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his answer. Mr. SHAW. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. English], a valued member of the Subcommittee on Human Resources of the Committee on Ways and Means. Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Madam Chairman, today we will vote on fundamental welfare reform legislation, a mainstream proposal that working families across the Nation have been demanding for years. Three decades and $5 trillion ago, this Nation declared war on poverty. What was the outcome? All we have to show are casualties. Children killing children, boys and girls growing up without fathers, and welfare recipients spending an average of 13 years out of work because work does not pay as well as Uncle Sam. Madam Chairman, generations have been trapped in this soul-destroying system, prisoners of the lost war on poverty. I have to ask this House: How many more of our children must we lose to poverty and violence before we say, enough is enough? We have the opportunity today to change America by fixing the failed welfare state and restoring the American dream for an abandoned underclass. Under this bill, welfare will be converted into a work program. Every person receiving welfare must work within 2 years or cash benefits will end. Under our bill, lifetime welfare benefits will be limited to 5 years but up to 20 percent of families can be exempted for hardship. States are required to have 50 percent of welfare families working by 2002. Our bill will end welfare payments for noncitizens; those we welcome to our country as guests should not abuse the hospitality of hard- working Americans. American families are spending $8 billion every year on welfare for noncitizens. That is not fair. Our bill will stop the destructive practice of giving Social Security cash benefits to drug addicts and alcoholics, blighting their lives at great public expense. Madam Chairman, we in Washington need to learn from past mistakes. We must create a welfare system that ties welfare rights to responsible behavior. I urge all of my colleagues to put aside petty partisan politics. Support this bill and allow this Congress to leave an enduring legacy of social reform. Mr. SABO. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Meek]. (Mrs. MEEK of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.) Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Madam Chairman, I thank my ranking member for yielding the time to me. I say over and over again, this is a flawed bill. It is not hard to see it. They are wrapping it in politics to try and save the fact that there is no substance in this bill that is going to save the children of this country. Everything I have heard from the majority side makes me know they have never, ever experienced welfare. Now they are beginning to try to reform it. I want to reform it. I know it needs to be reformed. But it does not have to be reformed on the backs of the children of this country. It does not have to be reformed on food stamps. And they are having a similar idea that people who get food stamps, AFDC, do not know how to choose their food. That is not correct. The same Members who feel that way are the ones who drafted this bill. This bill is going to deny 300,000 children of legal immigrants from getting food stamps. Do they want to cut children off from food? They have said they have a family-friendly atmosphere in the Republican Party. This does not meet the test of family-friendly. Until yesterday they have changed back and forth so much, it is hard. I have not seen this new language. But yesterday their bill prohibited benefits and vouchers. Now they have switched over and now they are making that, they are putting that in, but they are not requiring it. They are not fooling [[Page H7802]] me, because they are making it permissive. They cannot do it or they may do it. Why not say, as our bills do, that they will be required to provide vouchers to these children who will go off Medicaid? My colleagues have exceeded the limits of care and sympathy and compassion which this Congress is supposed to give to the American people. They are not fooling the American people by saying this is a good welfare bill. We all want to reform welfare. Why can we not get together, both Republicans and Democrats, put our heads together and reform this without having a one-sided view toward Medicare and toward welfare? I say to my colleagues, turn this bill back. I do not blame the President of the United States. Every time we send him a bad bill, he should veto it, no matter how many times. Mr. SHAW. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Washington [Ms. Dunn]. Ms. DUNN of Washington. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding the time to me. I am very alarmed at the misinformation I have heard last evening and today coming out on the issue of child care. I want to set something straight. In the Republican bill, the bill that we are debating and voting on today, in fact, we have been told by the people who make these estimates that we need, in child care, $16 billion to perform the duties that are outlined in the bill. We have, in fact, in the Republican bill provided $23 billion. Madam Chairman, I just want to say in my book of mathematics, that leaves $7 billion aside that can be helped to ease working mothers off AFDC into the working world. {time} 1145 In addition, Madam Chairman, that is $4.5 billion more than is in the current child care portion of the welfare bill. It is also very important, as it is also $2 billion more than the President has in his own legislation. Mr. SHAW. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Nevada [Mr. Ensign], a member of the Committee on Ways and Means. Mr. ENSIGN. Madam Chairman, I think we have to ask ourselves a couple of fundamental questions. First of all, has the current welfare system worked? Has it helped children? Is it compassionate, especially to those children? Should we continue to give cash payments to prisoners and drug addicts? The answers to these questions are obvious. Out-of-wedlock births have skyrocketed since our welfare system began. Crime rates have skyrocketed. This is federally funded child abuse. Madam Chairman, we tell the teenage mom, ``If you have a child out of wedlock, move away from your parents, we'll get you an apartment. By the way, don't work, don't save, and if you want a little extra money, have another child out of wedlock.'' This is truly federally funded child abuse. Our bill does something remarkable. It reforms welfare in a compassionate way. It has $2 billion more, as the previous speaker talked about, for child care than the President does so that in the transition from welfare to work we can help families do that. We also provide transitional health care, which is one of the biggest incentives to staying on welfare, the lack of health care coverage. We also stopped cash payments to noncitizens and prisoners. There is a fundamental disagreement between that side of the aisle and this side of the aisle on whether we should continue cash payments to noncitizens. We believe, I believe strongly, that it should be reserved for U.S. citizens. We also fundamentally believe that we to have a limit, a time limit on the amount of time that somebody can receive welfare benefits. There is no greater incentive than to know that at the end of a certain period of time they are going to have to get a job, they better get their life together, they better get out there, take advantage of the job training we provide, get their life together so that they can get off of welfare so that they can take care of their own family and have that personal responsibility. Lastly, from somebody who grew up with a deadbeat dad, I am applauding this bill for the strong child support enforcement provisions that it has so we can go after those deadbeat parents who are abandoning their children and not taking full responsibility. I thank the chairman of the subcommittee for writing a great bill. Mr. SABO. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute to say I find it very unfortunate when we compare legal immigrants in this country with prisoners and put them in the same category. In fact I find it sort of personal. My parents were both immigrants to this country. I remember when my mother became a citizen. I also hear this discussion of nothing has ever been given or done in conjunction with legal immigrants. My father was a homesteader. That was how he and many other immigrants got started in this country, and they worked hard and did well. But regardless of how one feels on this question, to rhetorically combine legal immigrants with prisoners I think is totally unfortunate. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer]. (Mr. HOYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. HOYER. Madam Chairman, there is a consensus on this floor that our welfare system undermines the core values Americans believe in: responsibility, work, opportunity, and family. Too many people who do not want to be on welfare cannot escape it. Too many people who want to be on welfare are allowed to coast at the taxpayers' expenses. We agree that we must create a different kind of social safety net which will uphold the values our current system undermines. It must require work, it must demand responsibility, and it must protect children. Today the House will consider two alternative welfare reform proposals. One, offered by the House Republican leadership, I suggest, is not reform at all, although it has much in it with which we agree and Castle-Tanner agree. It lacks the funds for serious work requirements. CBO says so, not us. And under this bill children can be denied all support, even in an emergency, when their families are cut off welfare due to time limits. When the American people demanded an end to welfare, this is not what they had in mind. The so-called welfare reform bill offered today by the Republican leadership makes a mockery, in my opinion, of the American values of work and family. It does have progress in it. But it is not bipartisan, and that is what the American public wanted. They wanted us to come together in-bipartisan manner and reform welfare. Governor Castle, now a Congressman, and the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Tanner] have done exactly that. Their bill brings together and reinforces family values, while meeting our responsibilities to our people and reinforcing our expectations on their personal responsibility. I urge my colleagues to come together in a bipartisan fashion, as most of the Members on this side of the aisle will do. Democrats will support a bipartisan effort to accomplish this objective. All of us should do the same. America's welfare system is at odds with the core values Americans believe in: Responsibility, work, opportunity, and family. Too many people who don't want to be on welfare can't escape it. Too many people who want to be on welfare are allowed to coast at the taxpayers' expense. In both cases, this broken system weakens families, undermines personal responsibility, destroys self-respect and initiative, and fails to move able-bodied people from welfare to work. A complete overhaul of the welfare system is long overdue. We must create a different kind of social safety net which will uphold the values our current system destroys. It must require work. It must demand responsibility. And it must protect children, to break the generational cycle of poverty. Today, the House will consider two alternative welfare reform proposals. First, offered by the House Republican leadership, is not reform at all. It lacks the funds for serious work requirements. It shreds the safety net for chidlren. The Nation's Governors adopted a resolution expressing their concern about restrictions on States' flexibility and unfunded costs in the Job Program, a shortfall of $13 billion which will knock the teeth out of the much-touted work requirements in the Republican bill. [[Page H7803]] The second alternative, the bipartisan Tanner-Castle welfare reform proposal, will truly reform our broken system. It, and it alone, requires all recipients to start work--real work, in real jobs--within 2 years. It provides funding to make those requirements real. It establishes a 5-year lifetime limit for welfare benefits, with a State option to create a shorter limit. It requires teen parents to live at home or in a supervised setting, and teaches responsibility by requiring school or training attendance as a condition of receiving assistance. It includes tough child support enforcement provisions to make sure deadbeat parents live up to their responsibility to support their children. Unlike the Republican leadership proposal, the Tanner-Castle bill is tough on work without being tough on kids. It includes additional funding above the leadership bill for child care, to make sure children aren't left on the streets when their parents go to work. Under the Republican leadership bill children could be denied all support, even in an emergency, when their families are cut off welfare because of a time limit. The bipartisan bill provides vouchers to meet the needs of children if their parents exceed the welfare time limit. While the Republican leadership bill would deny Medicaid coverage for children in families who exceed a time limit, the bipartisan bill ensures that no child loses medical care because of welfare reform. The so-called welfare reform bill offered today by the Republican leadership makes a mockery of the American values of work and family. It contains a hollow promise of work requirements which the Nation's Governors and the Congressional Budget Office both concede States can never achieve. It strips poor children of food assistance and medical care. I do not believe that when the American people demanded an end to welfare as we know it, this is what they had in mind. The bipartisan Tanner-Castle bill supports those American values we all share. It demands work and personal responsibility without shredding the social safety net and abandoning children. I urge my colleagues to reject the Republican leadership bill, and support the bipartisan Tanner-Castle proposal. Mr. SHAW. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Chairman, I would like to respond very quickly to what the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Sabo] said. Nobody in this House is criticizing or putting anything saying that people coming into this country to experience the American dream are in the class of felons. That is ridiculous. That argument falls on deaf ears. It has no relevancy. But I would like to share this with him. When his parents or grandparents came into this country, they made a pledge not to become a public charge, and I would bet next week's paycheck that they did not become a public charge. They came for a better way of life, and they went to work. They made something of themselves, and they had a child or a grandchild that came to the U.S. Congress. I would also like to say, when we are talking about aliens, aliens over 65 are five times more likely to go on SSI than citizens over 65. Alien SSI applications have increased 370 percent from 1982 to 1992. We have got to stop making welfare available for citizens of other countries. It is that simple. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Christensen], a valuable member of the Committee on Ways and Means. Mr. CHRISTENSEN. Madam Chairman, welfare reform is an issue, like the previous speaker said, that we can agree on, that we can come together on in a bipartisan fashion and that we can work together on. I think all agree that the welfare system has caused people to rely on the Government instead of themselves. I think Senator John Ashcroft said it best last week when he talked about the system, that it has deprived hope, it has diminished opportunity, and it has destroyed lives. But there are questions that we have to ask. After spending billions of dollars, has the Government solved the problems of poverty and of dependency? How many more families are we going to allow to be trapped in the current system before we get a bill out of this House? How many more children must we sacrifice to poverty before we say enough is enough? As my colleagues know, we have heard many people say, and I think the statement is accurate, the fact is we cannot have a moral environment to raise children in America when we have 12-year-olds having babies, 15-year-olds killing each other, 17-year-olds dying of AIDS, and 18- year-olds who are graduating with diplomas that they cannot read. If we are to restore our moral health in this country, we must change the system that fosters that environment. As Franklin Delano Roosevelt said in the late 1930's, giving permanent aid to anyone destroys them. Our bill gives people a chance. It puts a hand out so they can help themselves. It is time that we worked together in a bipartisan fashion to end welfare as we know it. Mr. SABO. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Washington [Mr. McDermott]. (Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Chairman, the gentlewoman from Florida put her finger on the fundamental problem here, and that is that the Republican bill will not guarantee support to children if all else fails. Now, my brother runs the public assistance program in the State of Washington. I know the facts. In the State of Washington there are 100,000 adults on welfare, 125,000 people, unduplicated count, on unemployment. That is 225,000 people on average every month in the year 1995. If they all showed up for a job on tomorrow, there would be jobs. Last year they created 44,000 new jobs in the State of Washington. That means 181,000 adults in the State of Washington, that DRI, McGraw- Hill, the economic forecaster says is the fifth most rapidly growing State in this country, could not get jobs, 181,000 people. Now the Labor Department has recently said that the unemployment rate is as low as it ever is. Tomorrow Mr. Greenspan is going to meet with the Federal Reserve to talk about raising the interest rates so that we can slow the economy so we do not have inflation. Now, we cannot slow the economy and stop job creation when we have 181,000 people in 1995 in the State of Washington who could not get a job and say to their children, ``Hey, folks, kids, I'm sorry. Your Ma went down for a job, but there was none, and you can't eat.'' That is what the Republican bill says. They will not give a voucher if they have done everything, and there is no way. I think the President, who cares about the kids in this country, is going to take a long careful look at what comes out of this body because, if we are not careful of how we deal with the weakest and the most vulnerable in our society, we are not a civil society. Mr. SHAW. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas, Mr. Sam Johnson, from the Committee on Ways and Means. (Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Madam Chairman, I have to disagree with the gentleman that just spoke. It is a shame, but I tell my colleagues that. The Government has been spending billions of dollars, and I would just li

Summary:

All articles in House section

WELFARE AND MEDICAID REFORM ACT OF 1996
(House of Representatives - July 18, 1996)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages H7796-H7907] WELFARE AND MEDICAID REFORM ACT OF 1996 The SPEAKER pro tempore [Mr. Kolbe]. Pursuant to House Resolution 482 and rule XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill, H.R. 3734. {time} 1047 in the committee of the whole Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill (H.R. 3734) to provide for reconciliation pursuant to section 201(a)(1) of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 1997, with Ms. Greene of Utah in the chair. The Clerk read the title of the bill. point of order Mr. ORTON. Madam Chairman, I rise to make a point of order against consideration of H.R. 3724. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order. Mr. ORTON. Madam Chairman, section 425 of the Congressional Budget Act prohibits us from considering legislation which would create an unfunded mandate upon the States. The Congressional Budget Office has ruled that H.R. 3734 falls $12.9 billion short in funding necessary to fund the work requirements of the bill. Also the National Governors Association has stated: We are concerned that the bill restricts State flexibility and will create additional unfunded costs. This bill clearly creates an unfunded mandate, violates section 425 of the Congressional Budget Act, and I would further point out that section 426 of the Congressional Budget Act prohibits this House from considering a rule which would waive section 425. So that in any event we would have a vote and a determination as to whether or not a bill does in fact create an unfunded mandate. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would respond to the gentleman's point of order as follows. Points of order against consideration of the bill H.R. 3734 were waived by unanimous consent on July 17, 1996. Further, a point of order against consideration of House Resolution 482 would not be timely after adoption of that resolution. The gentleman's points are not in order. Mr. ORTON. I thank the Chairman. I think it is clear to the House and the country that in fact we are violating the first bill we passed in this Congress with the adoption of this bill. The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Wednesday, July 17, 1996, all time for general debate pursuant to the previous order of the House had expired. Pursuant to House Resolution 482, there will be 2 additional hours of general debate. The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] and the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Sabo] will each control 1 hour. Mr. SABO. Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer] be allowed to control the time for the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] temporarily and be allowed to yield time. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Minnesota? There was no objection. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer]. Mr. ARCHER. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Chairman, since 1965, roughly 30 years ago, government in this country has spent $5.5 trillion on welfare programs, more than has been spent on all of the wars fought in this century. Yet people are poorer and more dependent than ever. Despite our best efforts, despite the expenditure of these massive amounts of money, we have lost the war on poverty. Madam Chairman, today, we stand on the threshold of a new effort, an effort that can win the war. With the vote we take today, we recognize that the Great Society's welfare programs have not helped people. They have destroyed people. They have not kept families together. They have torn them apart. These policies haven't turned urban areas of America into shining cities on a hill. They have made them into war zones where law-abiding citizens are afraid to go out at night. They have led to the creation of two Americas. One marked by hope and opportunity. The other by despair and decay. In short, the welfare state has created a world in which children have no dreams for tomorrow and parents have abandoned their hopes for today. The people trapped in welfare, the mothers, the children, the fathers, are our fellow citizens, one and all. We have a moral obligation to them, as Americans, to lend a helping hand. For the people on welfare aren't abusing welfare, as much as welfare is abusing them. We are on the threshold of improving America by fixing our failed welfare state. We're improving America for the children on welfare, for the parents on welfare, and for ourselves. Our reforms are based on five pillars. The pillars represent the values that made America great. One--we think people on welfare should work for their benefits. A welfare worker I spoke with told me the biggest beneficiaries of work aren't the moms or the dads. Yes, they benefit. But she said it's the children who watch their parents get up each morning, go to a job, and return home at night who are the big winners. These children get better grades in school, have fewer problems with crime, and are less likely to end up on welfare because the values and virtues of work, not idleness, are instilled in them at a young age. Two--Time limit benefits. Welfare should be a temporary helping hand, not a way of life. [[Page H7797]] Three--Provide no welfare for felons and noncitizens. America always has been and always will be the land of opportunity for immigrants. But it's not right to ask hardworking, taxpaying Americans to support noncitizens who come here and then go on welfare. Four--Return power and control of welfare to the states and communities where help can best be delivered. We must remove Washington's control over welfare. This city built the failed welfare state. It's time to get Washington out of the welfare business. Five--Reward personal responsibility and fight illegitimacy. We shouldn't have a welfare system that promotes illegitimacy and discourages marriage. It's time to change signals and return to old- fashioned values. Madam Chairman, today's vote will be historic. It represents the biggest, most helpful change to social policy in America since the 1930s. This vote recognizes that America is a caring country, that Americans are a giving people, and that welfare recipients are capable of success if we would only let them try. Our colleague, J.C. Watts, has a wonderful way of expressing it. He says America's welfare recipients are eagles waiting to soar. Madam Chairman, I think it's time we removed the heavy hand of the Federal Government from their wings. We must let our fellow citizens on welfare reach new heights as they climb the economic ladder of life. That's what this bill does. It helps people to help themselves. It restores hope and it provides opportunity. It's strong welfare reform and it's what the American people have wanted for years. Madam Chairman, there is no good reason why this bill should not be passed by the Congress and signed into law. The American people expect nothing less, and families on welfare deserve much, much more than the sad status quo. For the sake of all Americans, I hope the President will let this bill become law. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. SABO. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Matsui]. Mr. MATSUI. Madam Chairman, yesterday we heard the chairman of the Budget Committee say that this debate was really about Judeo-Christian ethics. That is why I was somewhat disappointed last night when I read Congress Daily. In the Congress Daily we talked about welfare reform and we talked about what this debate was really all about. The chairman of the subcommittee that has jurisdiction over welfare was quoted as stating from a political point of view, the President of the United States is in a box. Madam Chairman, that is what this debate is all about--to jeopardize 9 million children who will be affected by this bill just to put the President of the United States in a box. What kind of people would draft legislation for political purposes to affect so many children of America? This bill is weak on work and tough on America's children. {time} 1100 The Congressional Budget Office, their own agency, hired by the Republican House and Senate, has said that the 1.7 million jobs that the Republicans say will be created by a woman going off welfare is an illusion. It is deceptive, it is not going to happen, because they do not provide the resources for it. Their own agency has said they will not obtain those 1.7 million jobs. So this is not a jobs bill. This is not a bill to get people off of welfare into work. But the worst part of this bill is what it will do to children. Because of those time limits and because of the fact that the Republican bill prohibits the States from using Federal funds for vouchers or any kind of assistance after a woman meets those time limits, she will then become destitute, she will become homeless, her children will probably have to go into foster care, even though she might be a good mother. This is what this is all about. It is about politics to hurt America's children. I urge a ``no'' vote on this legislation. Mr. ARCHER. Madam Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson], the chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight of the Committee on Ways and Means, the chairman of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, a person who is so greatly respected on our committee and has given such great service to this House, the country, in all of those roles. Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Madam Chairman, I rise in strong support of this bill, and I could not disagree more with the preceding speaker. We have to change the future. Welfare cannot be a way of life for either women or children. It is not a satisfactory way of life. There is no hope, there is no opportunity when you are on welfare. Now, remember, under this bill at the end of 5 years you get Medicaid, nutrition assistance, housing assistance, energy assistance, all those programs that provide services, on a means-tested basis. In addition, 20 percent of the whole caseload can be carried forward. So we are not talking about a draconian system; we are talking about reform and creating hope and opportunity in our welfare system for both the women and children on welfare. This bill, let me show you, will allow States, for instance, to be free of the rigid law that now governs income disregards. The woman is on welfare and starts earning money, and we right away start reducing benefits. Under this reform bill States will have complete freedom to design a fairer system. They may choose to keep her benefits up, and, as her salary goes up, to then decline her benefits. States have the power to help her get a good start in those 5 years. They have the power to educate and train, but to combine that with work experience. Under this program, women on welfare could immediately go to work for half a day in new day care centers, use State day care subsidies to give informed leadership to those centers as skilled master teachers. Let welfare mothers, who are good care providers, be the soldiers in those day care centers and then in the afternoon go on education and training centers while other welfare recipients staff the day care centers. It will cut the cost of day care and it will allow the money to be used powerfully in the transition period. This gives opportunity to States to create the kind of humane and supportive system women need to literally change their lives. In addition, the terrible decline in the cities is in part the result of nonpayment of rent. Part of the problem of our cities is that if a welfare recipient fails to pay their rent, it takes at least 6 months to solve the problem and sometimes much more than that. Under this new system, States can say you miss a month's rent? Fine, we will pay it directly now until you get on your feet. So we can prevent the degradation of our housing stock in the cities just by requiring personal responsibility on the part of welfare recipients and providing States the flexibility to create a more realistic support system, under the umbrella of Federal concern, compassion and support. Mr. SABO. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Chairman, if I might inquire of the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, we are curious if there is a final version of the bill and if there is a final summary of the last minute changes? Mr. ARCHER. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. SABO. I yield to the gentleman from Texas. Mr. ARCHER. Madam Chairman, the Committee on Rules had the statutory language of the bill. That was made a part of the rule we voted on. Mr. SABO. Is there a summary of the last minute changes that were made? Mr. ARCHER. Not to my knowledge, although the gentleman is aware that this bill did not come out of the Committee on Ways and Means; it came out of his committee, the Committee on the Budget. Mr. SABO. Well, it has been substantially changed since it came through the Committee on the Budget. Many of us are curious what the final form of the bill is. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Woolsey]. (Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.) [[Page H7798]] Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Chairman, we all agree that welfare does not work, the welfare system does not work for the taxpayers, and it does not work for the families who are on welfare, and we all agree that the welfare system must be overhauled. It must be overhauled so that it helps recipients get jobs and stay off welfare permanently. But that is the easy part. The challenge and responsibility we face as legislators, however, is finding the answers to, what if's. What if a mother on welfare cannot find a job? What if she is not earning enough to take care of her family? What if her benefits are cut off and she is unable to provide her children with food, with clothes, and with health care? Madam Chairman, this bill does not even attempt to answer these, what if's. In fact, the majority has gone out of its way to prevent States from meeting the basic needs of children, children whose parents are unable to get a job. This bill says to poor children, do not get hungry, do not get sick, and, for Pete's sake, do not get cold, because your time is up, and we do not think you are important enough to provide you with the basics that you need to survive. Madam Chairman, no other Member of this body knows better than I do that this is the wrong way to fix welfare. As a single mother with three small children, working, many years ago, I could not have stayed in the work force if I did not have the safety net of health care, child care, and food that the welfare system provided for my family. So I urge my colleagues, do not take this vote lightly. Your vote today will have consequences, consequences for children long after election day, and it will be too late to answer the, what if's tomorrow. Mr. ARCHER. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Herger], a respected member of the Committee on Ways and Means. Mr. HERGER. Madam Chairman, over the last three decades the American taxpayer has spent $5 trillion on our welfare system. Working Americans may be asking themselves, what have we gained from all that spending? Do we have less poverty in the United States? No; are welfare recipients spending less time on welfare? No; after spending $5 trillion on welfare, have we solved the problems of poverty and dependency on Federal dollars? Is it extreme to think that maybe there is a better way of running our welfare system? Madam Chairwoman, the Republican welfare reform proposal will allow welfare to work better for all Americans. Our welfare reform makes welfare a way out--not a way of life. It promotes work over a continual cycle of welfare. It returns power and money to the States and encourages personal responsibility. Madam, Chairwoman, this reform proposal also denies welfare for noncitizens and includes a provision I developed with a sheriff in my district to deny imprisoned criminals welfare and create an incentive for local law enforcement officials to help stop this abuse. Currently, an estimated 5 to 10 percent of inmates in local and State jails are illegally receiving welfare checks. Without this welfare reform, the American taxpayer will allegedly give prisoners $270 million over the next 7 years in welfare payments. Madam Chairwoman, our current welfare system is inefficient, unfair, and damaging to those it is supposed to help. The American people deserve a better welfare program that is unaccepting to those abusing the system and compassionate to those in real need. I urge my colleagues to vote for this welfare reform. Mr. SABO. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York [Mr. Rangel]. (Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. RANGEL. Madam Chairman, we have gotten off the subject now of substantive legislation, and we are now dealing with Presidential politics. Well, let us do it. The welfare bill now has become like a tennis ball in a political volley, and the question is, Does it make more sense to force the President to keep his commitment to change welfare as we know it, or really do we want to get the President in the position that he has to veto the bill? Well, we have tried so many times on the Republican side to find out just what is it that the President hates. Obviously, it was the tremendous cuts that were recommended by the other side as relates to Medicaid. So what was the solution? Continue to make certain it was one package, until it becomes politically expedient to change that and to put another poison pill, and several other poison pills, so you can go home and say the President has vetoed the welfare bill once again. Who really suffers? It is really the voters, or it is our children? This obsession in saying that the Federal Government cannot take care of them has no responsibility to our children, but that the Governors should be trusted. And then to have the Christian coalition to come up and embrace this in a Christian way. Well, thank God we have the National Council of Catholic Bishops that say the program stinks. Thank God we have the Jewish Council Against Poverty that says it is no good. Thank God we have the Protestant Council that says it is no good. It may be good politics, but it is bad for the children of our Nation. The whole concept that we are saying 5 years, but the Governors can say 2: We are relinquishing our responsibility to the children of the United States of America, and it is a bad day in the congressional history. Mr. ARCHER. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the very respected gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. McCrery], a member of the Committee on Ways and Means. Mr. McCRERY. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Madam Chairman, I want to talk for just a while about the basis for reform. I think it is worthwhile to examine the current welfare system and its results over the last few years. This chart shows very graphically, this line right here is the poverty rate in the United States. Beginning in 1950, you can see it drops until about 1965 or so. Well, it just happens to be that 1965 was the beginning of the Great Society programs, and the avalanche of welfare spending in this country; as it has been said, $5 trillion over the last 30 years. What happens in 1965? It flattens out, the poverty rate, and then even goes up. So nothing has happened on the poverty rate. It has even gone up a little bit since 1965, since we have spent $5 trillion. This blue line right here is spending on welfare. Look, it is going off the chart in 1995. We are not getting the results, folks, that were advertised with all the taxpayer spending that we have done. It is the current system that is trapping children in poverty. It is the current system that is cruel to children. And if you do not recognize that, you have not been paying attention. Now is the time, not next year, not 5 or 10 years from now, now is the time finally to do something about this terrible welfare system that we have got. The status quo stinks. Admit it. Let us do something about it and quit talking about it. We sent the President two welfare bills. We are going to send him another one. We keep modifying it. This one is patterned after the bipartisan Governors' proposal. I have met with the President to talk about welfare reform, and this is very, very close. This bill is very, very close to what the President says he wants. Let us pass it, send it to him, and I hope he signs it. Mr. SABO. Madam Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Ford]. Mr. FORD. Madam Chairman, let me thank my colleague for yielding me time. Madam Chairman, much of today's welfare news is good. There are fewer welfare and food stamp recipients today than when President Clinton took office. The poverty rate is down and teen pregnancy rates are lower in most States. Teen birth rates have dropped as well. Child support collections have grown and welfare reform is alive and well in States, thanks to 38 waivers approved by the Clinton administration. [[Page H7799]] {time} 1115 That is all good news for the President and even better news for American families. Unfortunately, Madam Chairman, we have not made much progress on national welfare reform. Partisan politics seems to have gotten in the way, and that is a shame. President Clinton has twice sent Congress welfare reform proposals. He has sent clear signals about the kind of reform he will sign into law. He wants a bill that requires work, promotes responsibility, and protects children. He would impose tough time limits and work requirements, provide more funding for child care, require teen parents to live at home and stay in school, and crack down on child support enforcement. And that is real welfare reform. He vetoed the Republican plan, H.R. 4, because it was not real welfare reform. He rejected H.R. 4 because it was weak on work, it did little to move people from welfare to work, it did not guarantee child care, it gutted the earned income tax credit, it was tough on children, it made unacceptable deep cuts that undermined child welfare, school lunch, and aid to disabled children. It was a step backward in an effort to get health care coverage to all Americans and it eliminated the guaranteed medical coverage that single parents need to move from welfare to entry-level jobs. Thanks to the National Governors' Association, today we will try again to send another welfare package to the President. I remain skeptical about what my Republican colleagues want as a bipartisan effort in a Republican bill. Admittedly, this new Republican plan corrects some of the worst mistakes of the vetoed bill, confirming that the President was right to say ``no'' to the last Republican plan, but it looks to me like the Republicans want to make certain that this bill is also unacceptable to the President. I want one point to clear, Madam Chairman. I support welfare reform. So does our President. But we also want to make sure that needy children are not the victims of excessive election-year posturing. Real welfare reform should give children a safety net on which to rely, and it makes certain children are not punished for the mistakes of their parents. Mr. ARCHER. Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay], the whip of the House. Mr. DeLAY. Madam Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me this time, and I rise in support of this legislation. I really commend the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means and the Committee on the Budget for their efforts in producing this legislation. Madam Chairman, as my colleagues ponder their vote on this important issue, I would just urge them to consider this question: Does the current welfare system help people realize the American dream? If the answer is no, we should vote for this reform legislation. I believe that the current welfare system has destroyed the American dream for too many people, and this bill represents an important part of our agenda to restore the American dream. It also represents a core philosophical principle; that a hand-up is better than a hand-out. The American people have rightfully demanded that we fix this welfare system. They instinctively understand that the current welfare system undermines incentives to work, encourages the expansion of the underclass, breaks up families, and promotes welfare as a way of life. And they understand that the current system is a perversion of basic American values that value work, that promote personal responsibility, and that foster freedom. This reform legislation values work. It requires that every able- bodied welfare recipient work for their benefits within 2 years. It promotes personal responsibility. It cracks down on deadbeat dads, giving States the tools to track down men who leave or abandon their families and leave their children to fend for themselves. And it fosters freedom. Scripture says if you give a man a fish, he can eat for a day; but if you teach a man to fish, he can eat for the rest of his life. Our reform plan gives welfare recipients the incentives to gain their freedom, to gain control of their lives and to become productive members of society. Madam Chairman, some on the left call our efforts mean and extreme. Well, I say that defending the status quo is extreme. Continuing the current system that has destroyed families and promoted dependency is mean. The legislation, this legislation, is a commonsense effort to restore the basic American values of work, personal responsibility and freedom to our Federal welfare system. It is a necessary step to restore the American dream for those who are currently in the welfare system. I urge my colleagues to have the courage to change this system. Stand with the American people and vote for this commonsense reform plan. Mr. SABO. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Payne]. Mr. PAYNE of Virginia. Madam Chairman, I thank my colleague for yielding me this time. Madam Chairman, Republicans and Democrats agree that the current welfare system does not work. Instead of requiring work, it punishes those who go to work; instead of instilling personal responsibility, it encourages dependence on the Government; and instead of encouraging marriage and family stability, it penalizes two-parent families and rewards teenage pregnancies. We all agree that welfare must be dramtically reformed, and that welfare should only offer transitional assistance leading to work, not a way of life. Where we disagree, however, is whether the Republican bill will make transition to work a reality or whether it is just empty rhetoric. Real welfare reform must be about replacing a welfare check with a paycheck. Real welfare reform gets people into the work force as quickly as possible. In order to do that, real welfare reform provides enough money for the work requirements to be effective. The Congressional Budget Office has concluded that the Republican bill will not work because most States will fail to meet the work requirements. It will be less expensive for the States to accept the penalties for failing to meet the participation rates than it will be to meet the costs of the work programs. Creating a system that is prone to failure from the outset is not real welfare reform. The Castle-Tanner bipartisan bill provides $3 billion in supplemental funds for States to meet the costs of work programs for welfare recipients. This is money in the bank, not just an authorization backed by a hope that someday we might actually find this money. The Castle-Tanner bipartisan bill provides real welfare reform and I urge my colleagues to support this plan. Mr. SHAW. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Zimmer], a distinguished member of the Committee on Ways and Means. Mr. ZIMMER. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding me this time, and I commend him for his tenacious and principled support for true welfare reform. Madam Chairman, welfare as we know it has unmercifully condemned generation after generation of Americans to a life without hope and without access to the American dream. This bill will foster independence by breaking the chains that bind families to the welfare state. The current system, which fosters poverty, despair, hopelessness, and illegitimacy will be replaced with a program that generates hope, optimism, and self-esteem. People will be accountable for their own lives. Mothers and fathers will be responsible for the children they bring into this world. What this bill proposes is very straightforward: No more money for nothing. It tells the poor that we will help you get on your feet but we owe it to you as well as to ourselves, to require that you work for your benefits, and that after a specified period of time you get a real job. You see, work is not punishment. Work is the foundation of the American dream. It gives us self-respect and gives our children respect for us and for themselves. I urge those who have rejected reform in the past to reconsider for the sake of our future. I urge this House to [[Page H7800]] pass this legislation. I urge the President to sign this legislation. Mr. SABO. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from North Carolina [Mrs. Clayton]. Mrs. CLAYTON. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Madam Chairman, in a ideal world we would not be forced to save money while sacrificing even some of our children. In an ideal world we would provide something to wear, something to eat, and a place to sleep for all of our children, even those who happen to be born in circumstances not of their own creation or their own will. In an ideal world we would not set time limits and spending caps and impose budget savings requirements on the most vulnerable people of our society, our children. I realize, however, we do not live in an ideal world. I too believe we must reform our welfare system because the current welfare system surely is not working. However, the proposed welfare system by the Republicans is doomed not to work either. In fact, I offer to say that it will not work for millions of children and for millions of mothers that we want to be self-sufficient and who desire to work. I intend to vote for Castle-Tanner because it treats our children better than the bill before us treats them. It honors people's will. The bill before us is short on reform, weak on work, and tough on our children. Millions of children will be abandoned. I admonish my colleagues, as they consider the decision they will make in the context of the decisions we make all the time, and the ones we have made. Last week this House refused to fund teenage pregnancy prevention programs by $30 million, yet now we are talking about teenage pregnancy as if we wanted to prevent it. We are now willing to punish them, however, if indeed they happen to have a child. We should have stepping stones for our children and not have them as stumbling blocks. Recently the education funding was slashed. Where is the development in our children? This House has voted numerous times to cut nutrition programs. We should not abandon our children. The proposal before us does not honor the principle of work, responsibility and caring for children. Mr. SHAW. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume to advise the last speaker who said that our bill is tough on children that the bill she referred to, which will be the Gephardt substitute, mimics exactly what is in the bill that she is criticizing as far as the children's program are concerned. I would also tell the gentlewoman that in the bill there is some $6 billion of cuts in EITC, which is what the President criticized the Republicans for as calling that a tax increase. It is not in our bill, it is in her bill. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington [Ms. Dunn], a distinguished member of the Committee on Ways and Means. Ms. DUNN of Washington. Madam Chairman, I am involved in this debate on welfare because I believe that the current welfare system and what it does to children, and families is a crime. The system is cruel, it is broken, and it needs to be fixed. For the third time today, Madam Chairman, we are going to vote to send to the President a welfare bill so he can keep his promise that he made in his campaign to reform welfare. It is a clean bill and it protects children. It is based on three principles: One, that welfare should not be a way of life; that these poor children, some of whom never have a working role model in their lives, will not be put in that position ever, ever again. It is also based on the second principle of returning flexibility to the States; and, third, it is based on the principle that if Government is going to provide incentives in our lives, that the incentive in welfare should be to encourage personal responsibility in our citizens. Today I want to focus on one thing that is probably the most important thing in this whole debate, and that is the children. Back home in Washington State women tell me, ``Jennifer, my child support is the sole difference between making ends meet and going on welfare.'' On behalf of these women, we have a responsibility to make sure that deadbeat parents pay their child support to their own flesh and blood children. {time} 1130 Today in this Nation, Madam Chairman, $34 billion is owed by parents who have left their children's home to custodial parents. Thirty percent of these people leave the State in order to avoid that responsibility. I think it is outrageous. The tools this bill provides give us the way to track those deadbeat parents down. I know what it is like to raise children as a single parent. I have done that. I worried about money, and I worried about child care. I worried about how you fit a full-time job around the responsibilities of my own children's needs. It is hard enough in my case, Madam Chairman, where I did receive support. I cannot imagine what it would be like when a parent did not receive that support. It is the mothers and the children that we have included in these provisions. As far as I am concerned, Madam Chairman, the President needs to sign this bill for the sake of our children. Mr. SABO. Madam Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from North Carolina [Mrs. Clayton]. Mrs. CLAYTON. Madam Chairman, I want to respond to the distinguished chair of the Committee on Ways and Means. The bill that he said that I am supporting, I am delighted to be supporting, Castle-Tanner, really indeed allows States to provide for vouchers, wherein his bill does not. Castle-Tanner also provides Medicaid coverage for children, where his bill indeed does not. Castle-Tanner also has a no caps on assistance in the event of an economic turndown. The bill he has makes no provisions for that, or very limited, in their contingency fund. Mr. SABO. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Cardin]. Mr. CARDIN. Madam Chairman, I along with many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle have been working for almost 4 years to dramatically reform our Nation's welfare system. The current system has failed. A new system is needed. The Federal Government in partnership with our States needs to provide temporary compassionate assistance to those who have genuine need, making it clear that people who receive welfare must become employed as soon as possible in a private sector job. We must move people off of welfare to work. My concern is that the Republican bill will move people off of welfare, but in far too many cases our children will end up on the streets. The Republican bill is woefully inadequate in providing resources to our States. It is inadequate in financing safe, affordable day care for welfare parents. It does not adequately deal with one of the principal problems in our welfare system; that is, preventing out-of-wedlock births, particularly among our teenagers. Quite frankly, the failure of the Republican bill is because it was developed in a partisan political manner, rather than in an open legislative format. We have not even really had a chance to review this bill because it was developed by the Republicans in a closed meeting, rather than using an open forum so that we could debate some of these issues and could work out some of these issues. The Castle-Tanner bill substitute is the only bill that has been worked out in a bipartisan manner in an open forum. I urge my colleagues to support the Castle-Tanner substitute. It is far better than the Republican bill and although I believe it can be improved, I urge my colleagues to vote for the substitute and against the underlying bill. Then let us work together, Democrats and Republicans, to dramatically change our welfare system. It can be done this year. If our objective is to get a welfare bill enacted, I urge my colleagues to follow that action. If our objective is to get the President to veto another bill, then I understand what the Republicans are doing. Mr. SHAW. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from the State of Georgia [Mr. Collins, a valued member of the Committee on Ways and Means. Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding the time to me. Madam Chairman, we have previously debated and passed legislative proposals that will change the welfare [[Page H7801]] system. And although President Clinton vetoed those measures, he has proposed welfare legislation of his own. So today, we have two different approaches to welfare reform. We must clearly understand that the real debate is about whether we are going to just piecemeal reform the broken welfare system, or if we are going to entirely change welfare as we know it. We all agree the welfare system is a failure. It is an open-ended Federal entitlement that encourages people to believe that receiving a welfare check, free health care, and other free services without working is their right. By the end of the decade, American workers will have spent over $6 trillion on welfare programs. After 30 years under the current system, our poverty rate remains unchanged and we have millions of people trapped, dependent upon broken welfare programs. Americans are tired of paying for a welfare system that just doesn't work. And although Presidential candidate Clinton once stated that he intended to change welfare as we know it, his proposal will only make limited reforms to a system that fails those who receive welfare and those working people who pay the bill. In sharp contrast to the President's patchwork plan, the Republican majority's proposal changes the welfare system as we know it. The Republican plan will remove the one-size-fits-all entitlement system. This measure will transfer the management authority from the bureaucratic Federal level to the States. Local authorities will finally have the ability to design a welfare program that best meets the needs of the poor in their region. Welfare programs will be administered on a local level through a State/Federal financial partnership. The responsibility for administering welfare programs will be where it needs to be: closer to those who know what works, closer to those who need the assistance, and closer to the workers who pay the bill. Working Americans support the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act because it will comprehensively change the welfare system as we know it. Mr. SABO. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes and 30 seconds to the distinguished gentleman from California [Mr. Waxman]. Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Republican welfare bill. This legislation masquerades as reform, but it is not that. It is instead a giant step back into poverty for millions of American children. But it is more. This bill will have a devastating impact on the health care system in many urban areas and in many States in this Nation because of its mean-spirited and shortsighted provisions to deny Medicaid funds for necessary medical care for legal immigrants. Whatever the view Members may have as to whether we should provide cash support to legal immigrants who end up in need of assistance, there can be no justification to deny health care services to persons who are legally in this country. Cutting Medicaid funds is not going to keep people from getting sick. It is not going to keep them from needing health care services. All this bill will accomplish is to keep them from going for care when they need it and causing them to be sicker and more costly cases when the situation becomes so bad they end up in an emergency room. Local hospitals and local governments are going to be left holding the bag for these costs. The sad fact is, they cannot afford it. There should not be a Member from California in this House that supports this policy. It will have devastating consequences for Los Angeles, and it will have devastating consequences for the State of California. The $12 billion reduction in Medicaid expenditures resulting from these provisions is fully one-fifth of the expenditures my Republican colleagues were trying to cut from Medicaid with their block grant proposal. Trying to achieve a big chunk of those so-called savings through the back door of the welfare bill by taking away any access to Medicaid for legal immigrants is wrong. It will hurt urban hospitals. It will hurt innocent people. It is the wrong thing to do. Mr. SABO. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. WAXMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota. Mr. SABO. Madam Chairman, is what the gentleman is saying that this bill will mean a significant transfer from Federal resources to obligations on the local property tax? Mr. WAXMAN. Absolutely. Mr. SABO. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his answer. Mr. SHAW. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. English], a valued member of the Subcommittee on Human Resources of the Committee on Ways and Means. Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Madam Chairman, today we will vote on fundamental welfare reform legislation, a mainstream proposal that working families across the Nation have been demanding for years. Three decades and $5 trillion ago, this Nation declared war on poverty. What was the outcome? All we have to show are casualties. Children killing children, boys and girls growing up without fathers, and welfare recipients spending an average of 13 years out of work because work does not pay as well as Uncle Sam. Madam Chairman, generations have been trapped in this soul-destroying system, prisoners of the lost war on poverty. I have to ask this House: How many more of our children must we lose to poverty and violence before we say, enough is enough? We have the opportunity today to change America by fixing the failed welfare state and restoring the American dream for an abandoned underclass. Under this bill, welfare will be converted into a work program. Every person receiving welfare must work within 2 years or cash benefits will end. Under our bill, lifetime welfare benefits will be limited to 5 years but up to 20 percent of families can be exempted for hardship. States are required to have 50 percent of welfare families working by 2002. Our bill will end welfare payments for noncitizens; those we welcome to our country as guests should not abuse the hospitality of hard- working Americans. American families are spending $8 billion every year on welfare for noncitizens. That is not fair. Our bill will stop the destructive practice of giving Social Security cash benefits to drug addicts and alcoholics, blighting their lives at great public expense. Madam Chairman, we in Washington need to learn from past mistakes. We must create a welfare system that ties welfare rights to responsible behavior. I urge all of my colleagues to put aside petty partisan politics. Support this bill and allow this Congress to leave an enduring legacy of social reform. Mr. SABO. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Meek]. (Mrs. MEEK of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.) Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Madam Chairman, I thank my ranking member for yielding the time to me. I say over and over again, this is a flawed bill. It is not hard to see it. They are wrapping it in politics to try and save the fact that there is no substance in this bill that is going to save the children of this country. Everything I have heard from the majority side makes me know they have never, ever experienced welfare. Now they are beginning to try to reform it. I want to reform it. I know it needs to be reformed. But it does not have to be reformed on the backs of the children of this country. It does not have to be reformed on food stamps. And they are having a similar idea that people who get food stamps, AFDC, do not know how to choose their food. That is not correct. The same Members who feel that way are the ones who drafted this bill. This bill is going to deny 300,000 children of legal immigrants from getting food stamps. Do they want to cut children off from food? They have said they have a family-friendly atmosphere in the Republican Party. This does not meet the test of family-friendly. Until yesterday they have changed back and forth so much, it is hard. I have not seen this new language. But yesterday their bill prohibited benefits and vouchers. Now they have switched over and now they are making that, they are putting that in, but they are not requiring it. They are not fooling [[Page H7802]] me, because they are making it permissive. They cannot do it or they may do it. Why not say, as our bills do, that they will be required to provide vouchers to these children who will go off Medicaid? My colleagues have exceeded the limits of care and sympathy and compassion which this Congress is supposed to give to the American people. They are not fooling the American people by saying this is a good welfare bill. We all want to reform welfare. Why can we not get together, both Republicans and Democrats, put our heads together and reform this without having a one-sided view toward Medicare and toward welfare? I say to my colleagues, turn this bill back. I do not blame the President of the United States. Every time we send him a bad bill, he should veto it, no matter how many times. Mr. SHAW. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Washington [Ms. Dunn]. Ms. DUNN of Washington. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding the time to me. I am very alarmed at the misinformation I have heard last evening and today coming out on the issue of child care. I want to set something straight. In the Republican bill, the bill that we are debating and voting on today, in fact, we have been told by the people who make these estimates that we need, in child care, $16 billion to perform the duties that are outlined in the bill. We have, in fact, in the Republican bill provided $23 billion. Madam Chairman, I just want to say in my book of mathematics, that leaves $7 billion aside that can be helped to ease working mothers off AFDC into the working world. {time} 1145 In addition, Madam Chairman, that is $4.5 billion more than is in the current child care portion of the welfare bill. It is also very important, as it is also $2 billion more than the President has in his own legislation. Mr. SHAW. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Nevada [Mr. Ensign], a member of the Committee on Ways and Means. Mr. ENSIGN. Madam Chairman, I think we have to ask ourselves a couple of fundamental questions. First of all, has the current welfare system worked? Has it helped children? Is it compassionate, especially to those children? Should we continue to give cash payments to prisoners and drug addicts? The answers to these questions are obvious. Out-of-wedlock births have skyrocketed since our welfare system began. Crime rates have skyrocketed. This is federally funded child abuse. Madam Chairman, we tell the teenage mom, ``If you have a child out of wedlock, move away from your parents, we'll get you an apartment. By the way, don't work, don't save, and if you want a little extra money, have another child out of wedlock.'' This is truly federally funded child abuse. Our bill does something remarkable. It reforms welfare in a compassionate way. It has $2 billion more, as the previous speaker talked about, for child care than the President does so that in the transition from welfare to work we can help families do that. We also provide transitional health care, which is one of the biggest incentives to staying on welfare, the lack of health care coverage. We also stopped cash payments to noncitizens and prisoners. There is a fundamental disagreement between that side of the aisle and this side of the aisle on whether we should continue cash payments to noncitizens. We believe, I believe strongly, that it should be reserved for U.S. citizens. We also fundamentally believe that we to have a limit, a time limit on the amount of time that somebody can receive welfare benefits. There is no greater incentive than to know that at the end of a certain period of time they are going to have to get a job, they better get their life together, they better get out there, take advantage of the job training we provide, get their life together so that they can get off of welfare so that they can take care of their own family and have that personal responsibility. Lastly, from somebody who grew up with a deadbeat dad, I am applauding this bill for the strong child support enforcement provisions that it has so we can go after those deadbeat parents who are abandoning their children and not taking full responsibility. I thank the chairman of the subcommittee for writing a great bill. Mr. SABO. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute to say I find it very unfortunate when we compare legal immigrants in this country with prisoners and put them in the same category. In fact I find it sort of personal. My parents were both immigrants to this country. I remember when my mother became a citizen. I also hear this discussion of nothing has ever been given or done in conjunction with legal immigrants. My father was a homesteader. That was how he and many other immigrants got started in this country, and they worked hard and did well. But regardless of how one feels on this question, to rhetorically combine legal immigrants with prisoners I think is totally unfortunate. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer]. (Mr. HOYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. HOYER. Madam Chairman, there is a consensus on this floor that our welfare system undermines the core values Americans believe in: responsibility, work, opportunity, and family. Too many people who do not want to be on welfare cannot escape it. Too many people who want to be on welfare are allowed to coast at the taxpayers' expenses. We agree that we must create a different kind of social safety net which will uphold the values our current system undermines. It must require work, it must demand responsibility, and it must protect children. Today the House will consider two alternative welfare reform proposals. One, offered by the House Republican leadership, I suggest, is not reform at all, although it has much in it with which we agree and Castle-Tanner agree. It lacks the funds for serious work requirements. CBO says so, not us. And under this bill children can be denied all support, even in an emergency, when their families are cut off welfare due to time limits. When the American people demanded an end to welfare, this is not what they had in mind. The so-called welfare reform bill offered today by the Republican leadership makes a mockery, in my opinion, of the American values of work and family. It does have progress in it. But it is not bipartisan, and that is what the American public wanted. They wanted us to come together in-bipartisan manner and reform welfare. Governor Castle, now a Congressman, and the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Tanner] have done exactly that. Their bill brings together and reinforces family values, while meeting our responsibilities to our people and reinforcing our expectations on their personal responsibility. I urge my colleagues to come together in a bipartisan fashion, as most of the Members on this side of the aisle will do. Democrats will support a bipartisan effort to accomplish this objective. All of us should do the same. America's welfare system is at odds with the core values Americans believe in: Responsibility, work, opportunity, and family. Too many people who don't want to be on welfare can't escape it. Too many people who want to be on welfare are allowed to coast at the taxpayers' expense. In both cases, this broken system weakens families, undermines personal responsibility, destroys self-respect and initiative, and fails to move able-bodied people from welfare to work. A complete overhaul of the welfare system is long overdue. We must create a different kind of social safety net which will uphold the values our current system destroys. It must require work. It must demand responsibility. And it must protect children, to break the generational cycle of poverty. Today, the House will consider two alternative welfare reform proposals. First, offered by the House Republican leadership, is not reform at all. It lacks the funds for serious work requirements. It shreds the safety net for chidlren. The Nation's Governors adopted a resolution expressing their concern about restrictions on States' flexibility and unfunded costs in the Job Program, a shortfall of $13 billion which will knock the teeth out of the much-touted work requirements in the Republican bill. [[Page H7803]] The second alternative, the bipartisan Tanner-Castle welfare reform proposal, will truly reform our broken system. It, and it alone, requires all recipients to start work--real work, in real jobs--within 2 years. It provides funding to make those requirements real. It establishes a 5-year lifetime limit for welfare benefits, with a State option to create a shorter limit. It requires teen parents to live at home or in a supervised setting, and teaches responsibility by requiring school or training attendance as a condition of receiving assistance. It includes tough child support enforcement provisions to make sure deadbeat parents live up to their responsibility to support their children. Unlike the Republican leadership proposal, the Tanner-Castle bill is tough on work without being tough on kids. It includes additional funding above the leadership bill for child care, to make sure children aren't left on the streets when their parents go to work. Under the Republican leadership bill children could be denied all support, even in an emergency, when their families are cut off welfare because of a time limit. The bipartisan bill provides vouchers to meet the needs of children if their parents exceed the welfare time limit. While the Republican leadership bill would deny Medicaid coverage for children in families who exceed a time limit, the bipartisan bill ensures that no child loses medical care because of welfare reform. The so-called welfare reform bill offered today by the Republican leadership makes a mockery of the American values of work and family. It contains a hollow promise of work requirements which the Nation's Governors and the Congressional Budget Office both concede States can never achieve. It strips poor children of food assistance and medical care. I do not believe that when the American people demanded an end to welfare as we know it, this is what they had in mind. The bipartisan Tanner-Castle bill supports those American values we all share. It demands work and personal responsibility without shredding the social safety net and abandoning children. I urge my colleagues to reject the Republican leadership bill, and support the bipartisan Tanner-Castle proposal. Mr. SHAW. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Chairman, I would like to respond very quickly to what the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Sabo] said. Nobody in this House is criticizing or putting anything saying that people coming into this country to experience the American dream are in the class of felons. That is ridiculous. That argument falls on deaf ears. It has no relevancy. But I would like to share this with him. When his parents or grandparents came into this country, they made a pledge not to become a public charge, and I would bet next week's paycheck that they did not become a public charge. They came for a better way of life, and they went to work. They made something of themselves, and they had a child or a grandchild that came to the U.S. Congress. I would also like to say, when we are talking about aliens, aliens over 65 are five times more likely to go on SSI than citizens over 65. Alien SSI applications have increased 370 percent from 1982 to 1992. We have got to stop making welfare available for citizens of other countries. It is that simple. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Christensen], a valuable member of the Committee on Ways and Means. Mr. CHRISTENSEN. Madam Chairman, welfare reform is an issue, like the previous speaker said, that we can agree on, that we can come together on in a bipartisan fashion and that we can work together on. I think all agree that the welfare system has caused people to rely on the Government instead of themselves. I think Senator John Ashcroft said it best last week when he talked about the system, that it has deprived hope, it has diminished opportunity, and it has destroyed lives. But there are questions that we have to ask. After spending billions of dollars, has the Government solved the problems of poverty and of dependency? How many more families are we going to allow to be trapped in the current system before we get a bill out of this House? How many more children must we sacrifice to poverty before we say enough is enough? As my colleagues know, we have heard many people say, and I think the statement is accurate, the fact is we cannot have a moral environment to raise children in America when we have 12-year-olds having babies, 15-year-olds killing each other, 17-year-olds dying of AIDS, and 18- year-olds who are graduating with diplomas that they cannot read. If we are to restore our moral health in this country, we must change the system that fosters that environment. As Franklin Delano Roosevelt said in the late 1930's, giving permanent aid to anyone destroys them. Our bill gives people a chance. It puts a hand out so they can help themselves. It is time that we worked together in a bipartisan fashion to end welfare as we know it. Mr. SABO. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Washington [Mr. McDermott]. (Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Chairman, the gentlewoman from Florida put her finger on the fundamental problem here, and that is that the Republican bill will not guarantee support to children if all else fails. Now, my brother runs the public assistance program in the State of Washington. I know the facts. In the State of Washington there are 100,000 adults on welfare, 125,000 people, unduplicated count, on unemployment. That is 225,000 people on average every month in the year 1995. If they all showed up for a job on tomorrow, there would be jobs. Last year they created 44,000 new jobs in the State of Washington. That means 181,000 adults in the State of Washington, that DRI, McGraw- Hill, the economic forecaster says is the fifth most rapidly growing State in this country, could not get jobs, 181,000 people. Now the Labor Department has recently said that the unemployment rate is as low as it ever is. Tomorrow Mr. Greenspan is going to meet with the Federal Reserve to talk about raising the interest rates so that we can slow the economy so we do not have inflation. Now, we cannot slow the economy and stop job creation when we have 181,000 people in 1995 in the State of Washington who could not get a job and say to their children, ``Hey, folks, kids, I'm sorry. Your Ma went down for a job, but there was none, and you can't eat.'' That is what the Republican bill says. They will not give a voucher if they have done everything, and there is no way. I think the President, who cares about the kids in this country, is going to take a long careful look at what comes out of this body because, if we are not careful of how we deal with the weakest and the most vulnerable in our society, we are not a civil society. Mr. SHAW. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas, Mr. Sam Johnson, from the Committee on Ways and Means. (Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Madam Chairman, I have to disagree with the gentleman that just spoke. It is a shame, but I tell my colleagues that. The Government has been spending billions of dollars, and I would just like to know

Major Actions:

All articles in House section

WELFARE AND MEDICAID REFORM ACT OF 1996
(House of Representatives - July 18, 1996)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages H7796-H7907] WELFARE AND MEDICAID REFORM ACT OF 1996 The SPEAKER pro tempore [Mr. Kolbe]. Pursuant to House Resolution 482 and rule XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill, H.R. 3734. {time} 1047 in the committee of the whole Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill (H.R. 3734) to provide for reconciliation pursuant to section 201(a)(1) of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 1997, with Ms. Greene of Utah in the chair. The Clerk read the title of the bill. point of order Mr. ORTON. Madam Chairman, I rise to make a point of order against consideration of H.R. 3724. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order. Mr. ORTON. Madam Chairman, section 425 of the Congressional Budget Act prohibits us from considering legislation which would create an unfunded mandate upon the States. The Congressional Budget Office has ruled that H.R. 3734 falls $12.9 billion short in funding necessary to fund the work requirements of the bill. Also the National Governors Association has stated: We are concerned that the bill restricts State flexibility and will create additional unfunded costs. This bill clearly creates an unfunded mandate, violates section 425 of the Congressional Budget Act, and I would further point out that section 426 of the Congressional Budget Act prohibits this House from considering a rule which would waive section 425. So that in any event we would have a vote and a determination as to whether or not a bill does in fact create an unfunded mandate. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would respond to the gentleman's point of order as follows. Points of order against consideration of the bill H.R. 3734 were waived by unanimous consent on July 17, 1996. Further, a point of order against consideration of House Resolution 482 would not be timely after adoption of that resolution. The gentleman's points are not in order. Mr. ORTON. I thank the Chairman. I think it is clear to the House and the country that in fact we are violating the first bill we passed in this Congress with the adoption of this bill. The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Wednesday, July 17, 1996, all time for general debate pursuant to the previous order of the House had expired. Pursuant to House Resolution 482, there will be 2 additional hours of general debate. The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] and the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Sabo] will each control 1 hour. Mr. SABO. Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer] be allowed to control the time for the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] temporarily and be allowed to yield time. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Minnesota? There was no objection. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer]. Mr. ARCHER. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Chairman, since 1965, roughly 30 years ago, government in this country has spent $5.5 trillion on welfare programs, more than has been spent on all of the wars fought in this century. Yet people are poorer and more dependent than ever. Despite our best efforts, despite the expenditure of these massive amounts of money, we have lost the war on poverty. Madam Chairman, today, we stand on the threshold of a new effort, an effort that can win the war. With the vote we take today, we recognize that the Great Society's welfare programs have not helped people. They have destroyed people. They have not kept families together. They have torn them apart. These policies haven't turned urban areas of America into shining cities on a hill. They have made them into war zones where law-abiding citizens are afraid to go out at night. They have led to the creation of two Americas. One marked by hope and opportunity. The other by despair and decay. In short, the welfare state has created a world in which children have no dreams for tomorrow and parents have abandoned their hopes for today. The people trapped in welfare, the mothers, the children, the fathers, are our fellow citizens, one and all. We have a moral obligation to them, as Americans, to lend a helping hand. For the people on welfare aren't abusing welfare, as much as welfare is abusing them. We are on the threshold of improving America by fixing our failed welfare state. We're improving America for the children on welfare, for the parents on welfare, and for ourselves. Our reforms are based on five pillars. The pillars represent the values that made America great. One--we think people on welfare should work for their benefits. A welfare worker I spoke with told me the biggest beneficiaries of work aren't the moms or the dads. Yes, they benefit. But she said it's the children who watch their parents get up each morning, go to a job, and return home at night who are the big winners. These children get better grades in school, have fewer problems with crime, and are less likely to end up on welfare because the values and virtues of work, not idleness, are instilled in them at a young age. Two--Time limit benefits. Welfare should be a temporary helping hand, not a way of life. [[Page H7797]] Three--Provide no welfare for felons and noncitizens. America always has been and always will be the land of opportunity for immigrants. But it's not right to ask hardworking, taxpaying Americans to support noncitizens who come here and then go on welfare. Four--Return power and control of welfare to the states and communities where help can best be delivered. We must remove Washington's control over welfare. This city built the failed welfare state. It's time to get Washington out of the welfare business. Five--Reward personal responsibility and fight illegitimacy. We shouldn't have a welfare system that promotes illegitimacy and discourages marriage. It's time to change signals and return to old- fashioned values. Madam Chairman, today's vote will be historic. It represents the biggest, most helpful change to social policy in America since the 1930s. This vote recognizes that America is a caring country, that Americans are a giving people, and that welfare recipients are capable of success if we would only let them try. Our colleague, J.C. Watts, has a wonderful way of expressing it. He says America's welfare recipients are eagles waiting to soar. Madam Chairman, I think it's time we removed the heavy hand of the Federal Government from their wings. We must let our fellow citizens on welfare reach new heights as they climb the economic ladder of life. That's what this bill does. It helps people to help themselves. It restores hope and it provides opportunity. It's strong welfare reform and it's what the American people have wanted for years. Madam Chairman, there is no good reason why this bill should not be passed by the Congress and signed into law. The American people expect nothing less, and families on welfare deserve much, much more than the sad status quo. For the sake of all Americans, I hope the President will let this bill become law. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. SABO. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Matsui]. Mr. MATSUI. Madam Chairman, yesterday we heard the chairman of the Budget Committee say that this debate was really about Judeo-Christian ethics. That is why I was somewhat disappointed last night when I read Congress Daily. In the Congress Daily we talked about welfare reform and we talked about what this debate was really all about. The chairman of the subcommittee that has jurisdiction over welfare was quoted as stating from a political point of view, the President of the United States is in a box. Madam Chairman, that is what this debate is all about--to jeopardize 9 million children who will be affected by this bill just to put the President of the United States in a box. What kind of people would draft legislation for political purposes to affect so many children of America? This bill is weak on work and tough on America's children. {time} 1100 The Congressional Budget Office, their own agency, hired by the Republican House and Senate, has said that the 1.7 million jobs that the Republicans say will be created by a woman going off welfare is an illusion. It is deceptive, it is not going to happen, because they do not provide the resources for it. Their own agency has said they will not obtain those 1.7 million jobs. So this is not a jobs bill. This is not a bill to get people off of welfare into work. But the worst part of this bill is what it will do to children. Because of those time limits and because of the fact that the Republican bill prohibits the States from using Federal funds for vouchers or any kind of assistance after a woman meets those time limits, she will then become destitute, she will become homeless, her children will probably have to go into foster care, even though she might be a good mother. This is what this is all about. It is about politics to hurt America's children. I urge a ``no'' vote on this legislation. Mr. ARCHER. Madam Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson], the chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight of the Committee on Ways and Means, the chairman of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, a person who is so greatly respected on our committee and has given such great service to this House, the country, in all of those roles. Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Madam Chairman, I rise in strong support of this bill, and I could not disagree more with the preceding speaker. We have to change the future. Welfare cannot be a way of life for either women or children. It is not a satisfactory way of life. There is no hope, there is no opportunity when you are on welfare. Now, remember, under this bill at the end of 5 years you get Medicaid, nutrition assistance, housing assistance, energy assistance, all those programs that provide services, on a means-tested basis. In addition, 20 percent of the whole caseload can be carried forward. So we are not talking about a draconian system; we are talking about reform and creating hope and opportunity in our welfare system for both the women and children on welfare. This bill, let me show you, will allow States, for instance, to be free of the rigid law that now governs income disregards. The woman is on welfare and starts earning money, and we right away start reducing benefits. Under this reform bill States will have complete freedom to design a fairer system. They may choose to keep her benefits up, and, as her salary goes up, to then decline her benefits. States have the power to help her get a good start in those 5 years. They have the power to educate and train, but to combine that with work experience. Under this program, women on welfare could immediately go to work for half a day in new day care centers, use State day care subsidies to give informed leadership to those centers as skilled master teachers. Let welfare mothers, who are good care providers, be the soldiers in those day care centers and then in the afternoon go on education and training centers while other welfare recipients staff the day care centers. It will cut the cost of day care and it will allow the money to be used powerfully in the transition period. This gives opportunity to States to create the kind of humane and supportive system women need to literally change their lives. In addition, the terrible decline in the cities is in part the result of nonpayment of rent. Part of the problem of our cities is that if a welfare recipient fails to pay their rent, it takes at least 6 months to solve the problem and sometimes much more than that. Under this new system, States can say you miss a month's rent? Fine, we will pay it directly now until you get on your feet. So we can prevent the degradation of our housing stock in the cities just by requiring personal responsibility on the part of welfare recipients and providing States the flexibility to create a more realistic support system, under the umbrella of Federal concern, compassion and support. Mr. SABO. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Chairman, if I might inquire of the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, we are curious if there is a final version of the bill and if there is a final summary of the last minute changes? Mr. ARCHER. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. SABO. I yield to the gentleman from Texas. Mr. ARCHER. Madam Chairman, the Committee on Rules had the statutory language of the bill. That was made a part of the rule we voted on. Mr. SABO. Is there a summary of the last minute changes that were made? Mr. ARCHER. Not to my knowledge, although the gentleman is aware that this bill did not come out of the Committee on Ways and Means; it came out of his committee, the Committee on the Budget. Mr. SABO. Well, it has been substantially changed since it came through the Committee on the Budget. Many of us are curious what the final form of the bill is. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Woolsey]. (Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.) [[Page H7798]] Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Chairman, we all agree that welfare does not work, the welfare system does not work for the taxpayers, and it does not work for the families who are on welfare, and we all agree that the welfare system must be overhauled. It must be overhauled so that it helps recipients get jobs and stay off welfare permanently. But that is the easy part. The challenge and responsibility we face as legislators, however, is finding the answers to, what if's. What if a mother on welfare cannot find a job? What if she is not earning enough to take care of her family? What if her benefits are cut off and she is unable to provide her children with food, with clothes, and with health care? Madam Chairman, this bill does not even attempt to answer these, what if's. In fact, the majority has gone out of its way to prevent States from meeting the basic needs of children, children whose parents are unable to get a job. This bill says to poor children, do not get hungry, do not get sick, and, for Pete's sake, do not get cold, because your time is up, and we do not think you are important enough to provide you with the basics that you need to survive. Madam Chairman, no other Member of this body knows better than I do that this is the wrong way to fix welfare. As a single mother with three small children, working, many years ago, I could not have stayed in the work force if I did not have the safety net of health care, child care, and food that the welfare system provided for my family. So I urge my colleagues, do not take this vote lightly. Your vote today will have consequences, consequences for children long after election day, and it will be too late to answer the, what if's tomorrow. Mr. ARCHER. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Herger], a respected member of the Committee on Ways and Means. Mr. HERGER. Madam Chairman, over the last three decades the American taxpayer has spent $5 trillion on our welfare system. Working Americans may be asking themselves, what have we gained from all that spending? Do we have less poverty in the United States? No; are welfare recipients spending less time on welfare? No; after spending $5 trillion on welfare, have we solved the problems of poverty and dependency on Federal dollars? Is it extreme to think that maybe there is a better way of running our welfare system? Madam Chairwoman, the Republican welfare reform proposal will allow welfare to work better for all Americans. Our welfare reform makes welfare a way out--not a way of life. It promotes work over a continual cycle of welfare. It returns power and money to the States and encourages personal responsibility. Madam, Chairwoman, this reform proposal also denies welfare for noncitizens and includes a provision I developed with a sheriff in my district to deny imprisoned criminals welfare and create an incentive for local law enforcement officials to help stop this abuse. Currently, an estimated 5 to 10 percent of inmates in local and State jails are illegally receiving welfare checks. Without this welfare reform, the American taxpayer will allegedly give prisoners $270 million over the next 7 years in welfare payments. Madam Chairwoman, our current welfare system is inefficient, unfair, and damaging to those it is supposed to help. The American people deserve a better welfare program that is unaccepting to those abusing the system and compassionate to those in real need. I urge my colleagues to vote for this welfare reform. Mr. SABO. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York [Mr. Rangel]. (Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. RANGEL. Madam Chairman, we have gotten off the subject now of substantive legislation, and we are now dealing with Presidential politics. Well, let us do it. The welfare bill now has become like a tennis ball in a political volley, and the question is, Does it make more sense to force the President to keep his commitment to change welfare as we know it, or really do we want to get the President in the position that he has to veto the bill? Well, we have tried so many times on the Republican side to find out just what is it that the President hates. Obviously, it was the tremendous cuts that were recommended by the other side as relates to Medicaid. So what was the solution? Continue to make certain it was one package, until it becomes politically expedient to change that and to put another poison pill, and several other poison pills, so you can go home and say the President has vetoed the welfare bill once again. Who really suffers? It is really the voters, or it is our children? This obsession in saying that the Federal Government cannot take care of them has no responsibility to our children, but that the Governors should be trusted. And then to have the Christian coalition to come up and embrace this in a Christian way. Well, thank God we have the National Council of Catholic Bishops that say the program stinks. Thank God we have the Jewish Council Against Poverty that says it is no good. Thank God we have the Protestant Council that says it is no good. It may be good politics, but it is bad for the children of our Nation. The whole concept that we are saying 5 years, but the Governors can say 2: We are relinquishing our responsibility to the children of the United States of America, and it is a bad day in the congressional history. Mr. ARCHER. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the very respected gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. McCrery], a member of the Committee on Ways and Means. Mr. McCRERY. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Madam Chairman, I want to talk for just a while about the basis for reform. I think it is worthwhile to examine the current welfare system and its results over the last few years. This chart shows very graphically, this line right here is the poverty rate in the United States. Beginning in 1950, you can see it drops until about 1965 or so. Well, it just happens to be that 1965 was the beginning of the Great Society programs, and the avalanche of welfare spending in this country; as it has been said, $5 trillion over the last 30 years. What happens in 1965? It flattens out, the poverty rate, and then even goes up. So nothing has happened on the poverty rate. It has even gone up a little bit since 1965, since we have spent $5 trillion. This blue line right here is spending on welfare. Look, it is going off the chart in 1995. We are not getting the results, folks, that were advertised with all the taxpayer spending that we have done. It is the current system that is trapping children in poverty. It is the current system that is cruel to children. And if you do not recognize that, you have not been paying attention. Now is the time, not next year, not 5 or 10 years from now, now is the time finally to do something about this terrible welfare system that we have got. The status quo stinks. Admit it. Let us do something about it and quit talking about it. We sent the President two welfare bills. We are going to send him another one. We keep modifying it. This one is patterned after the bipartisan Governors' proposal. I have met with the President to talk about welfare reform, and this is very, very close. This bill is very, very close to what the President says he wants. Let us pass it, send it to him, and I hope he signs it. Mr. SABO. Madam Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Ford]. Mr. FORD. Madam Chairman, let me thank my colleague for yielding me time. Madam Chairman, much of today's welfare news is good. There are fewer welfare and food stamp recipients today than when President Clinton took office. The poverty rate is down and teen pregnancy rates are lower in most States. Teen birth rates have dropped as well. Child support collections have grown and welfare reform is alive and well in States, thanks to 38 waivers approved by the Clinton administration. [[Page H7799]] {time} 1115 That is all good news for the President and even better news for American families. Unfortunately, Madam Chairman, we have not made much progress on national welfare reform. Partisan politics seems to have gotten in the way, and that is a shame. President Clinton has twice sent Congress welfare reform proposals. He has sent clear signals about the kind of reform he will sign into law. He wants a bill that requires work, promotes responsibility, and protects children. He would impose tough time limits and work requirements, provide more funding for child care, require teen parents to live at home and stay in school, and crack down on child support enforcement. And that is real welfare reform. He vetoed the Republican plan, H.R. 4, because it was not real welfare reform. He rejected H.R. 4 because it was weak on work, it did little to move people from welfare to work, it did not guarantee child care, it gutted the earned income tax credit, it was tough on children, it made unacceptable deep cuts that undermined child welfare, school lunch, and aid to disabled children. It was a step backward in an effort to get health care coverage to all Americans and it eliminated the guaranteed medical coverage that single parents need to move from welfare to entry-level jobs. Thanks to the National Governors' Association, today we will try again to send another welfare package to the President. I remain skeptical about what my Republican colleagues want as a bipartisan effort in a Republican bill. Admittedly, this new Republican plan corrects some of the worst mistakes of the vetoed bill, confirming that the President was right to say ``no'' to the last Republican plan, but it looks to me like the Republicans want to make certain that this bill is also unacceptable to the President. I want one point to clear, Madam Chairman. I support welfare reform. So does our President. But we also want to make sure that needy children are not the victims of excessive election-year posturing. Real welfare reform should give children a safety net on which to rely, and it makes certain children are not punished for the mistakes of their parents. Mr. ARCHER. Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay], the whip of the House. Mr. DeLAY. Madam Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me this time, and I rise in support of this legislation. I really commend the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means and the Committee on the Budget for their efforts in producing this legislation. Madam Chairman, as my colleagues ponder their vote on this important issue, I would just urge them to consider this question: Does the current welfare system help people realize the American dream? If the answer is no, we should vote for this reform legislation. I believe that the current welfare system has destroyed the American dream for too many people, and this bill represents an important part of our agenda to restore the American dream. It also represents a core philosophical principle; that a hand-up is better than a hand-out. The American people have rightfully demanded that we fix this welfare system. They instinctively understand that the current welfare system undermines incentives to work, encourages the expansion of the underclass, breaks up families, and promotes welfare as a way of life. And they understand that the current system is a perversion of basic American values that value work, that promote personal responsibility, and that foster freedom. This reform legislation values work. It requires that every able- bodied welfare recipient work for their benefits within 2 years. It promotes personal responsibility. It cracks down on deadbeat dads, giving States the tools to track down men who leave or abandon their families and leave their children to fend for themselves. And it fosters freedom. Scripture says if you give a man a fish, he can eat for a day; but if you teach a man to fish, he can eat for the rest of his life. Our reform plan gives welfare recipients the incentives to gain their freedom, to gain control of their lives and to become productive members of society. Madam Chairman, some on the left call our efforts mean and extreme. Well, I say that defending the status quo is extreme. Continuing the current system that has destroyed families and promoted dependency is mean. The legislation, this legislation, is a commonsense effort to restore the basic American values of work, personal responsibility and freedom to our Federal welfare system. It is a necessary step to restore the American dream for those who are currently in the welfare system. I urge my colleagues to have the courage to change this system. Stand with the American people and vote for this commonsense reform plan. Mr. SABO. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Payne]. Mr. PAYNE of Virginia. Madam Chairman, I thank my colleague for yielding me this time. Madam Chairman, Republicans and Democrats agree that the current welfare system does not work. Instead of requiring work, it punishes those who go to work; instead of instilling personal responsibility, it encourages dependence on the Government; and instead of encouraging marriage and family stability, it penalizes two-parent families and rewards teenage pregnancies. We all agree that welfare must be dramtically reformed, and that welfare should only offer transitional assistance leading to work, not a way of life. Where we disagree, however, is whether the Republican bill will make transition to work a reality or whether it is just empty rhetoric. Real welfare reform must be about replacing a welfare check with a paycheck. Real welfare reform gets people into the work force as quickly as possible. In order to do that, real welfare reform provides enough money for the work requirements to be effective. The Congressional Budget Office has concluded that the Republican bill will not work because most States will fail to meet the work requirements. It will be less expensive for the States to accept the penalties for failing to meet the participation rates than it will be to meet the costs of the work programs. Creating a system that is prone to failure from the outset is not real welfare reform. The Castle-Tanner bipartisan bill provides $3 billion in supplemental funds for States to meet the costs of work programs for welfare recipients. This is money in the bank, not just an authorization backed by a hope that someday we might actually find this money. The Castle-Tanner bipartisan bill provides real welfare reform and I urge my colleagues to support this plan. Mr. SHAW. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Zimmer], a distinguished member of the Committee on Ways and Means. Mr. ZIMMER. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding me this time, and I commend him for his tenacious and principled support for true welfare reform. Madam Chairman, welfare as we know it has unmercifully condemned generation after generation of Americans to a life without hope and without access to the American dream. This bill will foster independence by breaking the chains that bind families to the welfare state. The current system, which fosters poverty, despair, hopelessness, and illegitimacy will be replaced with a program that generates hope, optimism, and self-esteem. People will be accountable for their own lives. Mothers and fathers will be responsible for the children they bring into this world. What this bill proposes is very straightforward: No more money for nothing. It tells the poor that we will help you get on your feet but we owe it to you as well as to ourselves, to require that you work for your benefits, and that after a specified period of time you get a real job. You see, work is not punishment. Work is the foundation of the American dream. It gives us self-respect and gives our children respect for us and for themselves. I urge those who have rejected reform in the past to reconsider for the sake of our future. I urge this House to [[Page H7800]] pass this legislation. I urge the President to sign this legislation. Mr. SABO. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from North Carolina [Mrs. Clayton]. Mrs. CLAYTON. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Madam Chairman, in a ideal world we would not be forced to save money while sacrificing even some of our children. In an ideal world we would provide something to wear, something to eat, and a place to sleep for all of our children, even those who happen to be born in circumstances not of their own creation or their own will. In an ideal world we would not set time limits and spending caps and impose budget savings requirements on the most vulnerable people of our society, our children. I realize, however, we do not live in an ideal world. I too believe we must reform our welfare system because the current welfare system surely is not working. However, the proposed welfare system by the Republicans is doomed not to work either. In fact, I offer to say that it will not work for millions of children and for millions of mothers that we want to be self-sufficient and who desire to work. I intend to vote for Castle-Tanner because it treats our children better than the bill before us treats them. It honors people's will. The bill before us is short on reform, weak on work, and tough on our children. Millions of children will be abandoned. I admonish my colleagues, as they consider the decision they will make in the context of the decisions we make all the time, and the ones we have made. Last week this House refused to fund teenage pregnancy prevention programs by $30 million, yet now we are talking about teenage pregnancy as if we wanted to prevent it. We are now willing to punish them, however, if indeed they happen to have a child. We should have stepping stones for our children and not have them as stumbling blocks. Recently the education funding was slashed. Where is the development in our children? This House has voted numerous times to cut nutrition programs. We should not abandon our children. The proposal before us does not honor the principle of work, responsibility and caring for children. Mr. SHAW. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume to advise the last speaker who said that our bill is tough on children that the bill she referred to, which will be the Gephardt substitute, mimics exactly what is in the bill that she is criticizing as far as the children's program are concerned. I would also tell the gentlewoman that in the bill there is some $6 billion of cuts in EITC, which is what the President criticized the Republicans for as calling that a tax increase. It is not in our bill, it is in her bill. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington [Ms. Dunn], a distinguished member of the Committee on Ways and Means. Ms. DUNN of Washington. Madam Chairman, I am involved in this debate on welfare because I believe that the current welfare system and what it does to children, and families is a crime. The system is cruel, it is broken, and it needs to be fixed. For the third time today, Madam Chairman, we are going to vote to send to the President a welfare bill so he can keep his promise that he made in his campaign to reform welfare. It is a clean bill and it protects children. It is based on three principles: One, that welfare should not be a way of life; that these poor children, some of whom never have a working role model in their lives, will not be put in that position ever, ever again. It is also based on the second principle of returning flexibility to the States; and, third, it is based on the principle that if Government is going to provide incentives in our lives, that the incentive in welfare should be to encourage personal responsibility in our citizens. Today I want to focus on one thing that is probably the most important thing in this whole debate, and that is the children. Back home in Washington State women tell me, ``Jennifer, my child support is the sole difference between making ends meet and going on welfare.'' On behalf of these women, we have a responsibility to make sure that deadbeat parents pay their child support to their own flesh and blood children. {time} 1130 Today in this Nation, Madam Chairman, $34 billion is owed by parents who have left their children's home to custodial parents. Thirty percent of these people leave the State in order to avoid that responsibility. I think it is outrageous. The tools this bill provides give us the way to track those deadbeat parents down. I know what it is like to raise children as a single parent. I have done that. I worried about money, and I worried about child care. I worried about how you fit a full-time job around the responsibilities of my own children's needs. It is hard enough in my case, Madam Chairman, where I did receive support. I cannot imagine what it would be like when a parent did not receive that support. It is the mothers and the children that we have included in these provisions. As far as I am concerned, Madam Chairman, the President needs to sign this bill for the sake of our children. Mr. SABO. Madam Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from North Carolina [Mrs. Clayton]. Mrs. CLAYTON. Madam Chairman, I want to respond to the distinguished chair of the Committee on Ways and Means. The bill that he said that I am supporting, I am delighted to be supporting, Castle-Tanner, really indeed allows States to provide for vouchers, wherein his bill does not. Castle-Tanner also provides Medicaid coverage for children, where his bill indeed does not. Castle-Tanner also has a no caps on assistance in the event of an economic turndown. The bill he has makes no provisions for that, or very limited, in their contingency fund. Mr. SABO. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Cardin]. Mr. CARDIN. Madam Chairman, I along with many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle have been working for almost 4 years to dramatically reform our Nation's welfare system. The current system has failed. A new system is needed. The Federal Government in partnership with our States needs to provide temporary compassionate assistance to those who have genuine need, making it clear that people who receive welfare must become employed as soon as possible in a private sector job. We must move people off of welfare to work. My concern is that the Republican bill will move people off of welfare, but in far too many cases our children will end up on the streets. The Republican bill is woefully inadequate in providing resources to our States. It is inadequate in financing safe, affordable day care for welfare parents. It does not adequately deal with one of the principal problems in our welfare system; that is, preventing out-of-wedlock births, particularly among our teenagers. Quite frankly, the failure of the Republican bill is because it was developed in a partisan political manner, rather than in an open legislative format. We have not even really had a chance to review this bill because it was developed by the Republicans in a closed meeting, rather than using an open forum so that we could debate some of these issues and could work out some of these issues. The Castle-Tanner bill substitute is the only bill that has been worked out in a bipartisan manner in an open forum. I urge my colleagues to support the Castle-Tanner substitute. It is far better than the Republican bill and although I believe it can be improved, I urge my colleagues to vote for the substitute and against the underlying bill. Then let us work together, Democrats and Republicans, to dramatically change our welfare system. It can be done this year. If our objective is to get a welfare bill enacted, I urge my colleagues to follow that action. If our objective is to get the President to veto another bill, then I understand what the Republicans are doing. Mr. SHAW. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from the State of Georgia [Mr. Collins, a valued member of the Committee on Ways and Means. Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding the time to me. Madam Chairman, we have previously debated and passed legislative proposals that will change the welfare [[Page H7801]] system. And although President Clinton vetoed those measures, he has proposed welfare legislation of his own. So today, we have two different approaches to welfare reform. We must clearly understand that the real debate is about whether we are going to just piecemeal reform the broken welfare system, or if we are going to entirely change welfare as we know it. We all agree the welfare system is a failure. It is an open-ended Federal entitlement that encourages people to believe that receiving a welfare check, free health care, and other free services without working is their right. By the end of the decade, American workers will have spent over $6 trillion on welfare programs. After 30 years under the current system, our poverty rate remains unchanged and we have millions of people trapped, dependent upon broken welfare programs. Americans are tired of paying for a welfare system that just doesn't work. And although Presidential candidate Clinton once stated that he intended to change welfare as we know it, his proposal will only make limited reforms to a system that fails those who receive welfare and those working people who pay the bill. In sharp contrast to the President's patchwork plan, the Republican majority's proposal changes the welfare system as we know it. The Republican plan will remove the one-size-fits-all entitlement system. This measure will transfer the management authority from the bureaucratic Federal level to the States. Local authorities will finally have the ability to design a welfare program that best meets the needs of the poor in their region. Welfare programs will be administered on a local level through a State/Federal financial partnership. The responsibility for administering welfare programs will be where it needs to be: closer to those who know what works, closer to those who need the assistance, and closer to the workers who pay the bill. Working Americans support the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act because it will comprehensively change the welfare system as we know it. Mr. SABO. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes and 30 seconds to the distinguished gentleman from California [Mr. Waxman]. Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Republican welfare bill. This legislation masquerades as reform, but it is not that. It is instead a giant step back into poverty for millions of American children. But it is more. This bill will have a devastating impact on the health care system in many urban areas and in many States in this Nation because of its mean-spirited and shortsighted provisions to deny Medicaid funds for necessary medical care for legal immigrants. Whatever the view Members may have as to whether we should provide cash support to legal immigrants who end up in need of assistance, there can be no justification to deny health care services to persons who are legally in this country. Cutting Medicaid funds is not going to keep people from getting sick. It is not going to keep them from needing health care services. All this bill will accomplish is to keep them from going for care when they need it and causing them to be sicker and more costly cases when the situation becomes so bad they end up in an emergency room. Local hospitals and local governments are going to be left holding the bag for these costs. The sad fact is, they cannot afford it. There should not be a Member from California in this House that supports this policy. It will have devastating consequences for Los Angeles, and it will have devastating consequences for the State of California. The $12 billion reduction in Medicaid expenditures resulting from these provisions is fully one-fifth of the expenditures my Republican colleagues were trying to cut from Medicaid with their block grant proposal. Trying to achieve a big chunk of those so-called savings through the back door of the welfare bill by taking away any access to Medicaid for legal immigrants is wrong. It will hurt urban hospitals. It will hurt innocent people. It is the wrong thing to do. Mr. SABO. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. WAXMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota. Mr. SABO. Madam Chairman, is what the gentleman is saying that this bill will mean a significant transfer from Federal resources to obligations on the local property tax? Mr. WAXMAN. Absolutely. Mr. SABO. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his answer. Mr. SHAW. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. English], a valued member of the Subcommittee on Human Resources of the Committee on Ways and Means. Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Madam Chairman, today we will vote on fundamental welfare reform legislation, a mainstream proposal that working families across the Nation have been demanding for years. Three decades and $5 trillion ago, this Nation declared war on poverty. What was the outcome? All we have to show are casualties. Children killing children, boys and girls growing up without fathers, and welfare recipients spending an average of 13 years out of work because work does not pay as well as Uncle Sam. Madam Chairman, generations have been trapped in this soul-destroying system, prisoners of the lost war on poverty. I have to ask this House: How many more of our children must we lose to poverty and violence before we say, enough is enough? We have the opportunity today to change America by fixing the failed welfare state and restoring the American dream for an abandoned underclass. Under this bill, welfare will be converted into a work program. Every person receiving welfare must work within 2 years or cash benefits will end. Under our bill, lifetime welfare benefits will be limited to 5 years but up to 20 percent of families can be exempted for hardship. States are required to have 50 percent of welfare families working by 2002. Our bill will end welfare payments for noncitizens; those we welcome to our country as guests should not abuse the hospitality of hard- working Americans. American families are spending $8 billion every year on welfare for noncitizens. That is not fair. Our bill will stop the destructive practice of giving Social Security cash benefits to drug addicts and alcoholics, blighting their lives at great public expense. Madam Chairman, we in Washington need to learn from past mistakes. We must create a welfare system that ties welfare rights to responsible behavior. I urge all of my colleagues to put aside petty partisan politics. Support this bill and allow this Congress to leave an enduring legacy of social reform. Mr. SABO. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Meek]. (Mrs. MEEK of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.) Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Madam Chairman, I thank my ranking member for yielding the time to me. I say over and over again, this is a flawed bill. It is not hard to see it. They are wrapping it in politics to try and save the fact that there is no substance in this bill that is going to save the children of this country. Everything I have heard from the majority side makes me know they have never, ever experienced welfare. Now they are beginning to try to reform it. I want to reform it. I know it needs to be reformed. But it does not have to be reformed on the backs of the children of this country. It does not have to be reformed on food stamps. And they are having a similar idea that people who get food stamps, AFDC, do not know how to choose their food. That is not correct. The same Members who feel that way are the ones who drafted this bill. This bill is going to deny 300,000 children of legal immigrants from getting food stamps. Do they want to cut children off from food? They have said they have a family-friendly atmosphere in the Republican Party. This does not meet the test of family-friendly. Until yesterday they have changed back and forth so much, it is hard. I have not seen this new language. But yesterday their bill prohibited benefits and vouchers. Now they have switched over and now they are making that, they are putting that in, but they are not requiring it. They are not fooling [[Page H7802]] me, because they are making it permissive. They cannot do it or they may do it. Why not say, as our bills do, that they will be required to provide vouchers to these children who will go off Medicaid? My colleagues have exceeded the limits of care and sympathy and compassion which this Congress is supposed to give to the American people. They are not fooling the American people by saying this is a good welfare bill. We all want to reform welfare. Why can we not get together, both Republicans and Democrats, put our heads together and reform this without having a one-sided view toward Medicare and toward welfare? I say to my colleagues, turn this bill back. I do not blame the President of the United States. Every time we send him a bad bill, he should veto it, no matter how many times. Mr. SHAW. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Washington [Ms. Dunn]. Ms. DUNN of Washington. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding the time to me. I am very alarmed at the misinformation I have heard last evening and today coming out on the issue of child care. I want to set something straight. In the Republican bill, the bill that we are debating and voting on today, in fact, we have been told by the people who make these estimates that we need, in child care, $16 billion to perform the duties that are outlined in the bill. We have, in fact, in the Republican bill provided $23 billion. Madam Chairman, I just want to say in my book of mathematics, that leaves $7 billion aside that can be helped to ease working mothers off AFDC into the working world. {time} 1145 In addition, Madam Chairman, that is $4.5 billion more than is in the current child care portion of the welfare bill. It is also very important, as it is also $2 billion more than the President has in his own legislation. Mr. SHAW. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Nevada [Mr. Ensign], a member of the Committee on Ways and Means. Mr. ENSIGN. Madam Chairman, I think we have to ask ourselves a couple of fundamental questions. First of all, has the current welfare system worked? Has it helped children? Is it compassionate, especially to those children? Should we continue to give cash payments to prisoners and drug addicts? The answers to these questions are obvious. Out-of-wedlock births have skyrocketed since our welfare system began. Crime rates have skyrocketed. This is federally funded child abuse. Madam Chairman, we tell the teenage mom, ``If you have a child out of wedlock, move away from your parents, we'll get you an apartment. By the way, don't work, don't save, and if you want a little extra money, have another child out of wedlock.'' This is truly federally funded child abuse. Our bill does something remarkable. It reforms welfare in a compassionate way. It has $2 billion more, as the previous speaker talked about, for child care than the President does so that in the transition from welfare to work we can help families do that. We also provide transitional health care, which is one of the biggest incentives to staying on welfare, the lack of health care coverage. We also stopped cash payments to noncitizens and prisoners. There is a fundamental disagreement between that side of the aisle and this side of the aisle on whether we should continue cash payments to noncitizens. We believe, I believe strongly, that it should be reserved for U.S. citizens. We also fundamentally believe that we to have a limit, a time limit on the amount of time that somebody can receive welfare benefits. There is no greater incentive than to know that at the end of a certain period of time they are going to have to get a job, they better get their life together, they better get out there, take advantage of the job training we provide, get their life together so that they can get off of welfare so that they can take care of their own family and have that personal responsibility. Lastly, from somebody who grew up with a deadbeat dad, I am applauding this bill for the strong child support enforcement provisions that it has so we can go after those deadbeat parents who are abandoning their children and not taking full responsibility. I thank the chairman of the subcommittee for writing a great bill. Mr. SABO. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute to say I find it very unfortunate when we compare legal immigrants in this country with prisoners and put them in the same category. In fact I find it sort of personal. My parents were both immigrants to this country. I remember when my mother became a citizen. I also hear this discussion of nothing has ever been given or done in conjunction with legal immigrants. My father was a homesteader. That was how he and many other immigrants got started in this country, and they worked hard and did well. But regardless of how one feels on this question, to rhetorically combine legal immigrants with prisoners I think is totally unfortunate. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer]. (Mr. HOYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. HOYER. Madam Chairman, there is a consensus on this floor that our welfare system undermines the core values Americans believe in: responsibility, work, opportunity, and family. Too many people who do not want to be on welfare cannot escape it. Too many people who want to be on welfare are allowed to coast at the taxpayers' expenses. We agree that we must create a different kind of social safety net which will uphold the values our current system undermines. It must require work, it must demand responsibility, and it must protect children. Today the House will consider two alternative welfare reform proposals. One, offered by the House Republican leadership, I suggest, is not reform at all, although it has much in it with which we agree and Castle-Tanner agree. It lacks the funds for serious work requirements. CBO says so, not us. And under this bill children can be denied all support, even in an emergency, when their families are cut off welfare due to time limits. When the American people demanded an end to welfare, this is not what they had in mind. The so-called welfare reform bill offered today by the Republican leadership makes a mockery, in my opinion, of the American values of work and family. It does have progress in it. But it is not bipartisan, and that is what the American public wanted. They wanted us to come together in-bipartisan manner and reform welfare. Governor Castle, now a Congressman, and the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Tanner] have done exactly that. Their bill brings together and reinforces family values, while meeting our responsibilities to our people and reinforcing our expectations on their personal responsibility. I urge my colleagues to come together in a bipartisan fashion, as most of the Members on this side of the aisle will do. Democrats will support a bipartisan effort to accomplish this objective. All of us should do the same. America's welfare system is at odds with the core values Americans believe in: Responsibility, work, opportunity, and family. Too many people who don't want to be on welfare can't escape it. Too many people who want to be on welfare are allowed to coast at the taxpayers' expense. In both cases, this broken system weakens families, undermines personal responsibility, destroys self-respect and initiative, and fails to move able-bodied people from welfare to work. A complete overhaul of the welfare system is long overdue. We must create a different kind of social safety net which will uphold the values our current system destroys. It must require work. It must demand responsibility. And it must protect children, to break the generational cycle of poverty. Today, the House will consider two alternative welfare reform proposals. First, offered by the House Republican leadership, is not reform at all. It lacks the funds for serious work requirements. It shreds the safety net for chidlren. The Nation's Governors adopted a resolution expressing their concern about restrictions on States' flexibility and unfunded costs in the Job Program, a shortfall of $13 billion which will knock the teeth out of the much-touted work requirements in the Republican bill. [[Page H7803]] The second alternative, the bipartisan Tanner-Castle welfare reform proposal, will truly reform our broken system. It, and it alone, requires all recipients to start work--real work, in real jobs--within 2 years. It provides funding to make those requirements real. It establishes a 5-year lifetime limit for welfare benefits, with a State option to create a shorter limit. It requires teen parents to live at home or in a supervised setting, and teaches responsibility by requiring school or training attendance as a condition of receiving assistance. It includes tough child support enforcement provisions to make sure deadbeat parents live up to their responsibility to support their children. Unlike the Republican leadership proposal, the Tanner-Castle bill is tough on work without being tough on kids. It includes additional funding above the leadership bill for child care, to make sure children aren't left on the streets when their parents go to work. Under the Republican leadership bill children could be denied all support, even in an emergency, when their families are cut off welfare because of a time limit. The bipartisan bill provides vouchers to meet the needs of children if their parents exceed the welfare time limit. While the Republican leadership bill would deny Medicaid coverage for children in families who exceed a time limit, the bipartisan bill ensures that no child loses medical care because of welfare reform. The so-called welfare reform bill offered today by the Republican leadership makes a mockery of the American values of work and family. It contains a hollow promise of work requirements which the Nation's Governors and the Congressional Budget Office both concede States can never achieve. It strips poor children of food assistance and medical care. I do not believe that when the American people demanded an end to welfare as we know it, this is what they had in mind. The bipartisan Tanner-Castle bill supports those American values we all share. It demands work and personal responsibility without shredding the social safety net and abandoning children. I urge my colleagues to reject the Republican leadership bill, and support the bipartisan Tanner-Castle proposal. Mr. SHAW. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Chairman, I would like to respond very quickly to what the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Sabo] said. Nobody in this House is criticizing or putting anything saying that people coming into this country to experience the American dream are in the class of felons. That is ridiculous. That argument falls on deaf ears. It has no relevancy. But I would like to share this with him. When his parents or grandparents came into this country, they made a pledge not to become a public charge, and I would bet next week's paycheck that they did not become a public charge. They came for a better way of life, and they went to work. They made something of themselves, and they had a child or a grandchild that came to the U.S. Congress. I would also like to say, when we are talking about aliens, aliens over 65 are five times more likely to go on SSI than citizens over 65. Alien SSI applications have increased 370 percent from 1982 to 1992. We have got to stop making welfare available for citizens of other countries. It is that simple. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Christensen], a valuable member of the Committee on Ways and Means. Mr. CHRISTENSEN. Madam Chairman, welfare reform is an issue, like the previous speaker said, that we can agree on, that we can come together on in a bipartisan fashion and that we can work together on. I think all agree that the welfare system has caused people to rely on the Government instead of themselves. I think Senator John Ashcroft said it best last week when he talked about the system, that it has deprived hope, it has diminished opportunity, and it has destroyed lives. But there are questions that we have to ask. After spending billions of dollars, has the Government solved the problems of poverty and of dependency? How many more families are we going to allow to be trapped in the current system before we get a bill out of this House? How many more children must we sacrifice to poverty before we say enough is enough? As my colleagues know, we have heard many people say, and I think the statement is accurate, the fact is we cannot have a moral environment to raise children in America when we have 12-year-olds having babies, 15-year-olds killing each other, 17-year-olds dying of AIDS, and 18- year-olds who are graduating with diplomas that they cannot read. If we are to restore our moral health in this country, we must change the system that fosters that environment. As Franklin Delano Roosevelt said in the late 1930's, giving permanent aid to anyone destroys them. Our bill gives people a chance. It puts a hand out so they can help themselves. It is time that we worked together in a bipartisan fashion to end welfare as we know it. Mr. SABO. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Washington [Mr. McDermott]. (Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Chairman, the gentlewoman from Florida put her finger on the fundamental problem here, and that is that the Republican bill will not guarantee support to children if all else fails. Now, my brother runs the public assistance program in the State of Washington. I know the facts. In the State of Washington there are 100,000 adults on welfare, 125,000 people, unduplicated count, on unemployment. That is 225,000 people on average every month in the year 1995. If they all showed up for a job on tomorrow, there would be jobs. Last year they created 44,000 new jobs in the State of Washington. That means 181,000 adults in the State of Washington, that DRI, McGraw- Hill, the economic forecaster says is the fifth most rapidly growing State in this country, could not get jobs, 181,000 people. Now the Labor Department has recently said that the unemployment rate is as low as it ever is. Tomorrow Mr. Greenspan is going to meet with the Federal Reserve to talk about raising the interest rates so that we can slow the economy so we do not have inflation. Now, we cannot slow the economy and stop job creation when we have 181,000 people in 1995 in the State of Washington who could not get a job and say to their children, ``Hey, folks, kids, I'm sorry. Your Ma went down for a job, but there was none, and you can't eat.'' That is what the Republican bill says. They will not give a voucher if they have done everything, and there is no way. I think the President, who cares about the kids in this country, is going to take a long careful look at what comes out of this body because, if we are not careful of how we deal with the weakest and the most vulnerable in our society, we are not a civil society. Mr. SHAW. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas, Mr. Sam Johnson, from the Committee on Ways and Means. (Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Madam Chairman, I have to disagree with the gentleman that just spoke. It is a shame, but I tell my colleagues that. The Government has been spending billions of dollars, and I would just li