Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi

Opposes Republican Welfare Bill

May 16, 2002


Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Maryland for yielding me this time and for his leadership on this important Democratic substitute that is on the floor today.
Unfortunately, our Republican colleagues refuse to allow the Democrats to bring an amendment to the floor which would talk about child care, which is one of the most serious deficiencies in their bill. It is loaded with deficiencies; but if I could talk about one, it would be child care.

The Democratic substitute gives women and their families the tools to leave poverty behind. It gives women access to job training, education, and the chance to make better lives for themselves and their families. It gives the States flexibility to implement the best approach. It focuses on real work and helps families escape poverty and achieve permanent employment.

The Republican bill that is on the floor not only short-changes the important component of child care, which is essential to women lifting themselves out of poverty, it also foists on the States additional funding requirements to implement the requirements of H.R. 4737. In my own State of California alone, a $2.5 billion addition in costs to California, costs we can ill afford in a time of deficit, and that is required by this bill.

But I want to talk again about child care. The complete missing link in lifting people out of poverty and putting people to work is the answer to the question, Who is going to take care of the children? We all talk about family values here; and we are all committed, both Democrats and Republicans alike. But why is that not reflected in the Republican bill? The Democratic substitute puts five times more resources to really enable women to get educated, to work, to lift their families out of poverty. I urge a ``yes'' on the substitute and a ``no'' on the Republican bill.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Once again, as a Member from California, California currently, under the Democratic Governor, is $24 billion in the red and this would add another $1 billion over 5 years of an induced stick, if they want to receive the illusory benefits under the bill. Once again, as my colleagues can see in the well, I find it ironic that just 6 years ago, the gentlewoman from California said, ``I hope children throughout this country never have to feel the pain of this legislation. I hope it does not pass.'' Indeed, there was offered a substitute which would have saved money in an attempt to not have the legislation go forward. Of course, now that we know the process works, as the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt) said it works, they are now offering a substitute which throws money at the problem.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. THOMAS. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is correct, I did not support it, because I thought the bill was harsh to newcomers to our country, and some of those provisions have been corrected over time due to the leadership on this side of the aisle. The gentleman's colleague, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman), earlier referenced that in the farm bill there would be food stamps for immigrants, yes; again, an initiative from this side of the aisle. So there has been some of the harshness removed from the provisions of the earlier welfare reform bill and, I may say, during the Clinton administration, a thriving and dynamic economy that indeed lifted up our economy and lifted many people out of poverty.