On the recordMay 16, 2002
Mr. Speaker, the first thing I notice about the Democratic substitute is that, at least on the surface, it has no quarrel with strong work requirements. This really tells me they have come a long way since 1996, when many of my friends on the other side of the aisle made so many doom-and-gloom predictions about how welfare reform would bring about the end of civilization as we know it. Former Senator Pat Moynihan famously said that those who supported the 1996 reforms would ``take this disgrace to their graves.'' Mr. Speaker, I am one who voted for the bill and proud that I did. This is why I am supporting the underlying bill today. By strengthening the work requirements and expanding flexibility, it builds on what is really best about the 1996 act. And while the Democrat substitute is a sign that my friends on the other side of the aisle are reconciled to welfare reform, it is also a sign they are unwilling to move beyond the status quo. While caseloads have declined dramatically since 1996, there is room for improvement. Fifty-eight percent of TANF recipients still are not engaged in any work-related activities. Now, there is one place where the substitute offers radical change, and that is in the area of child care. It proposes spending $11 billion more on child care over the next 5 years. Mr. Speaker, to say this is generous would be an understatement.
Source
govinfo.gov




