Congressional Record, Volume 142 Issue 116 (Thursday, August 1, 1996)

[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 116 (Thursday, August 1, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9352-S9386]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY AND WORK OPPORTUNITY RECONCILIATION ACT OF
1996--CONFERENCE REPORT

The Senate continued with the consideration of the conference report.
Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, let me now talk about welfare. We are going
to pass here in the Senate tonight a welfare reform bill that has the
promise of dramatically changing a system which has failed in America.
Let me begin by talking about the failure.
In the past 30 years, we have spent $5.4 trillion on welfare
programs; programs where we were trying to help poor people. Nobody in
America knows what a trillion dollars is. So let me try to put that
number in perspective.
If you take the total value of all buildings, all plants and
equipment, and all productive tools in American industry and
agriculture combined, they are worth about $5 trillion.
So if you want to know how much we have invested in the old welfare
program over the past 30 years, it is roughly the equivalent of the
value of all buildings, all plants and equipment, and all of the tools
of all the workers in the United States of America. No society in
history has ever invested more money trying to help needy people than
the United States of America has invested.
Yet, what has been the result of all of those good intentions? What
has been the result of that investment? The result of that investment,
30 years later, is that we have as many poor people today as we had 30
years ago. They are poorer today, they are more dependent on the
Government today, and by any definition of quality of life,
fulfillment, or happiness, people are worse off today than they were
when we started the current welfare system.
When we started the War on Poverty in the mid-1960s, two-parent
families were the norm in poor families in America. Today, two-parent
families are the exception. Since 1965, the illegitimacy rate has
tripled.
I know that we have colleagues on the other side of the aisle who are
going to lament the passage of this new welfare reform bill. But I do
not see how anybody with a straight face, or a clear conscience, can
defend the status quo in welfare. Our current welfare program has
failed. It has driven fathers out of the household. It has made mothers
dependent. It has taken away people's dignity. It has bred child abuse
and neglect, and filled the streets of our cities with crime. And we
are here today to change it.
Let me outline what our program does. I think if each of us looks
back to a period when our ancestors first came to America, or back to a
time when those who have gone before us found themselves poor, we are
going to find that there are two things that get individuals and
nations out of poverty.

[[Page S9353]]

Those two things are work and family. I think it is instructive to
note that those are the two things that we have never applied to the
current welfare program of the United States of America.
The bill before us asks people to work. It says that able-bodied men
and women will be required to work in order to receive benefits. It
sets a time limit so that people cannot make welfare a way of life. It
seeks to change the incentives within the welfare system. And I believe
the time has come to change those incentives within the welfare system.
So what we have done in adopting this bill is make some very simple
changes. No. 1, we have said that unless you are disabled, welfare is
not a permanent program. It is a temporary program. We are going to
help you for up to 5 years. We are going to train you. But at the end
of 5 years, you are going to have to work.
We have also in this program given the States the ability to run
their own programs. We believe that the Federal Government does not
have all the wisdom in the world, and that States should run welfare.
What we have done is we have taken a federally-run program, we have
taken the funds that we have spent on that program, and we have given
that money to the States so that, rather than have one program, each
State in the Union can tailor its program to meet its individual needs.
I believe that we have put together a positive program. It is a
program that asks people to work. It is a program that tries to make
Americans independent. It is a program that for the first time uses
work and family to help families in America escape welfare and to
escape poverty. I think this is a major achievement. I am very proud of
this bill, and I hope we can get a sound vote for it.
I know there will be those who say that the President, in committing
to sign this bill, is going to end up taking credit for it. I do not
believe the American people care who gets credit for this bill. We know
that had there been no Republican majority in both Houses of Congress,
we would never have passed this bill. We know that without a Republican
majority in both Houses of Congress, we would not have a mandatory work
requirement. We would not be changing welfare as we know it. But it
seems to me that the return we are going to get for adopting this bill
is worth letting the President take a substantial amount of credit for
it.
I think this is a major step in the right direction. I am very proud
of this bill. I commend it to my colleagues.
I yield the floor.
Mr. D'AMATO addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I yield myself 5 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York has 5 minutes.
Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, let me reflect, if I might, not only on
the economy but more particularly as to the impact, the adverse impact
that the brutal welfare program--brutal, one that entraps people--has
had on this country. It has not been beneficial. We have seen welfare
spending move from approximately $29 billion in 1980 to something in
the area of $128 billion today. Incredible. This is a program that was
intended to help people temporarily, those people who were disabled,
those people who, through no fault of their own, found themselves
without a job.

The lessons of history, confirmed by the evidence
immediately before me, show conclusively that continued
dependence upon relief induces a spiritual and moral
disintegration fundamentally destructive to the national
fiber. To dole out relief in this way is to administer a
narcotic, a subtle destroyer of the human spirit. It is in
violation of the traditions of America.

Mr. President, those were the words spoken by Franklin Delano
Roosevelt when President Roosevelt gave his second annual message to
the people on January 4, 1935. Indeed, how prophetic; 60 years later we
see his admonition that where welfare becomes a long-term program, it
is fundamentally destructive to the national fiber, and that it is a
narcotic to the human spirit, and it is a violation of the traditions
of America.
That is exactly what the welfare programs have done to this country.
And let me say, as difficult as is the political process of campaigns
and elections, thank God it is an election year; there is one good
thing that has come about, and that is welfare reform.
Let me also suggest that without there having been a Republican
Congress pushing, working, challenging, there is no way that we would
have had any opportunity to pass a bill. And to those who are critical
of the reform, let me say that no bill is perfect, but to continue
business as usual, as if all is well, would have been a kind of
conspiracy, a conspiracy to continue to keep our people on that
narcotic. Absolutely not acceptable.
I have to tell you, if you want to get this economy going, then we
have to give educational opportunity a helping hand and move people who
have become dependent, dependent upon that welfare narcotic, that drug,
that drug that President Roosevelt warned us about, off of the welfare
rolls into a system of work.
To those of my colleagues who have legitimate concerns that there may
be some imperfections, we will deal with those. We have the ability to
fix them. We have the ability to make the bill a better bill. But to do
nothing, to sit back, to languish in the bureaucracy of entrapping
people, keeping people from meeting the opportunities that this country
has of freedom, real freedom, freedom to participate, freedom to
undertake a challenge, is morally destructive and is wrong. This change
is long overdue.
So if there this is anything good that comes from those elections and
the partisanship back and forth and the bickering, I say this welfare
reform, in my mind, would never have taken place--never, never have
taken place were it not for this election.
Mr. President, I am pleased to have worked for this program.
Workfare, not welfare, is long overdue.
Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from New Hampshire for 5
minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I wonder if the Senator from New York could
make that 10 minutes?
Mr. D'AMATO. I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from New Hampshire.
Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise in very strong support of the
welfare reform bill, H.R. 3734, that is before the Senate at this time.
This is historic legislation that the Senate later will be passing by
an overwhelming majority--a bipartisan majority, I might add. There
will be some who will be voting for this today because they are caught
up in the wave of welfare reform and there will be others of us who
will be voting for it because we caused the wave. But it really does
not matter because the result will be the same. This Republican
Congress has gotten it done. After all the years and years of talk, we
have finally gotten it done. We sent the President two bills. He vetoed
both of them. This is the third attempt. He now says he will sign it.
The Senator from New York has already quoted President Franklin
Roosevelt who, in 1935, talked about what welfare, or in those days
they called it relief, does to a society and does to a family. It does
destroy the human spirit and it is a violation of the traditions of
America, as Franklin Roosevelt correctly said in 1935.
Mr. President, in terms of welfare, we did declare a war on poverty,
and poverty won. That is the problem. This program has not worked. When
something does not work, we have to try something new. It does not mean
we say we have all the answers, but it does mean we have to try.
In 1965, per capita welfare spending was $197. By 1993, per capita
welfare spending was $1,255. That is a 600-percent increase. For all
this increased spending, have we seen a corresponding drop in poverty?
No, we have not. In 1965, 17 percent of Americans lived in poverty. In
1993 it is a little over 15 percent, barely a change. So we need to try
something new, which is why this Republican Party has fought so hard to
make these changes.
This is historic because it ends a 60-year status of welfare as a
Federal cash entitlement. As a result, once this bill becomes law, no
person will be able to choose welfare as a way of life. And no person
will be entitled to cash benefits from the Federal Government simply
because he or she chooses not to work.
It is amazing some of my colleagues can defend this failed system,
where people who make $18,000 or $19,000 a year, working hard with
their bare

[[Page S9354]]

hands to make just enough money to put food on their tables and pay
taxes, we should ask those people to continue paying forever for
somebody who won't work. Won't--not can't, won't. Because that is what
welfare is all about.
Yes, there are some who cannot and they are not going to slip through
the net. It is the ones who won't work. Yet, time after time after
time, speaker after speaker after speaker in this body has defended
this system, saying people who work hard for a living, trying to put
food on the table, trying to pay their mortgages, trying to get their
kids through college, working hard, paying their taxes--honest, hard-
working Americans--should continue to pay for people who won't work.
We are changing it. That is why this is historic. The President, in
announcing he was going to sign this bill, kind of apologized for
signing it, if you listen to his remarks. But again, the result is the
same. He is going to sign it. We will get the results. So I give him
credit for signing it. It took him a little while to get there, but he
is there.
As the Senator from Texas said a few moments ago, ask yourself this
question. Would we have welfare reform, would we have workfare today,
were it not for people in a Republican Congress who pushed and pushed
and pushed to get it through this Congress and into the White House
where the President can sign it? I think the answer is: Obviously, no,
we would not have. By dramatically cutting the Federal welfare
bureaucracy and replacing it with block grants to the States, this bill
recognizes the best hope for making welfare programs successful lies in
shifting major responsibilities for their administration to a level of
government where innovation and experimentation can flourish. This is a
giant step toward reinvigorating federalism in our system of
Government.
I heard the Senator from Massachusetts, Senator Kennedy, earlier in
the debate, talking as if somehow all these people were going to slip
through the safety nets because the Federal Government no longer is
assuming responsibility. We all know that we have 50 Governors out
there, frankly, Democrats and Republicans--I have confidence in those
people. I do not think any Governor in any State in the Union is going
to put a starving child on the street. I will believe that when I see
it. That is not going to happen and we all know it. It is an outrage to
define this welfare reform in those kinds of terms.
Governor Steve Merrill, the Governor of New Hampshire, using my State
as an example, is a compassionate, decent man and a good Governor. He
is not going to let that happen. I want him to have this program. I
want him to be able to administer this program, this block grant,
because in the State of New Hampshire, Governor Merrill and the
legislature and the others who work every day in these welfare
programs, know who the needy people are. They also know how to help
them find work. That is compassion and it is compassion at the local
level, where it should be. Because people in Washington, DC, do not
know all the answers, in case you have not figured that out yet.

No Governor is going to let a child starve and it is an outrage and
an insult for anybody to even insinuate it rather than say it. Our
Governors have been leading the way, from both parties. President
Clinton, when he was Governor, talked about welfare reform and as a
Presidential candidate said he would end welfare as we know it. He knew
then as a Governor it was not working, which is why he spoke out about
it. This is landmark legislation. This is dramatic. This is the kind of
thing that I have been working on for all the years that I have been in
Congress, and I am so happy just to see it come to fruition.
I am going to be pleased and proud to work with Governor Merrill and
see that this program is administered properly to help the people in
the State who need help.
This is a huge accomplishment just to get this bill through this
Senate and the House and on the President's desk.
Mr. President, this bill transforms welfare from a handout that
fosters dependency into a temporary helping hand for those who fall on
hard times. It places a 5-year lifetime limit on receiving welfare
benefits and requires able-bodied adults to work after 2 years.
Surely after 5 years, an able-bodied individual can find a job. Of
course, they can find a job, if you want to find a job. But you are not
going to want to find a job if somebody is taking care of you all the
time.
When I was a kid, I had a favorite uncle, Uncle George. He used to
sell toys, and I used to look forward to Uncle George coming around
with toys. My family at sometime would say, ``If Uncle George keeps
coming around, we won't have to buy toys for little Bobby,'' because
they expected it.
Where is the respect for the people who are paying the bills? It is
not the Federal Government paying these bills for people who will not
work. It is the taxpayers. It is the hard-working men and women across
America who work hard for a living. There is no reason why this is an
entitlement for somebody who does not work.
There is not a person out in America today who does not have the
compassion in their heart to help somebody who needs help. We see it
every time there is a tragedy. Whether it is the TWA bombing, a flood,
earthquake, American people are always stepping forward in a
compassionate, helpful way to help their fellow man. It happens every
day. It is happening now, and it is not going to stop because we pass a
bill that says people who will not work cannot get benefits for the
rest of their lives.
Mr. President, another very important point here is that this bill
cracks down on the so-called deadbeat dad by requiring that father to
pay child support, and it mandates that welfare applicants must assist
in establishing the paternity of their children in order to qualify for
their benefits.
What is wrong with that? That is responsibility, Mr. President.
I am also pleased that this bill takes a number of steps toward
ending the abuse of the welfare system by those legal immigrants who
come to America, not to go to work but to go on welfare. That is not
true with every person who comes to America, it is not true with most
people who come to America, but it is true with some, and they ought
not to be getting welfare benefits if they are not an American citizen
while Americans who are working hard, trying to pay their bills are
providing it. That is simply wrong. It ought to stop, and this bill
does stop it. But it also provides when you are sponsored, the sponsor
can assume some responsibility for you. If they want to bring you to
America, they can assume some responsibility. That is what built this
country--responsibility, not running away from it.
Deeming is a good policy. Noncitizens, after all, remain, by
definition, citizens of other countries. They should not, in all
fairness, expect to be supported by Americans who are not their fellow
citizens.

Finally, Mr. President, H.R. 3734 provides a total of $22 billion to
help the States provide child care for parents who are participating in
work and job training programs. It also provides additional grants for
States that experience high unemployment or surges in their welfare
populations.
Mr. President, I commend those among my colleagues in the Senate who
have worked long and hard to make this such a strong, landmark welfare
reform bill. I also commend a former colleague--Senator Bob Dole--for
working tirelessly since the beginning of this historic 104th Congress
to deliver landmark welfare reform for the American people.
Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.
Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I yield 7 minutes to the Senator from
Maryland.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from
Nebraska.
Mr. President, a number of my colleagues have talked about their very
deep concerns about various aspects of this legislation, including the
estimates that go as high as 1 million more children being thrown into
poverty, the very harsh cut in food stamps that is contained in this
legislation, the limitation on the time period for receiving food
stamps, which will hit workers who have been laid off and their
families very hard in the years to come, the extreme cuts in benefits
for disabled children and the treatment of legal--not illegal, but
legal, and I stress

[[Page S9355]]

that--legal immigrants coming into the country. These are people who,
under our laws, are legitimately in the country, and yet, if they
encounter personal disaster financially, we are not going to provide
any help to them. All of these factors constitute a valid basis for
voting against this bill.
I am not going to go back over those issues. They have been discussed
at some length by others. There is another matter I wish to discuss,
another dimension to this legislation which I think is another strong
reason to oppose this legislation which I intend to do. And that
dimension is the situation we will confront in times of economic
downturn and recession. All of the discussion here is about the
limitations and constraints that are being placed upon existing
programs in the context of current economic circumstances.
Current economic circumstances are a 5.3-percent unemployment rate
across the country. But we must consider the question of what is going
to happen when we have a downturn in the business cycle. People are
discussing this legislation almost as though the business cycle has
been repealed and is not going to happen again.
This legislation provides block grants to the States. The size of
those grants does not vary with such factors as unemployment or the
poverty rate, and, therefore, in recessions, States will face rising
caseloads and corresponding large gaps in funding for assistance
programs.
The bill has a contingency fund of $2 billion, but it is completely
inadequate--completely inadequate--it fails to address this issue. Let
me just give you an example. In our Nation's most recent recession
during the Bush administration in the period from 1989 to 1992, the
Federal share of welfare spending increased 36 percent--an additional
amount of $7.2 billion over the four years--that is, almost four times
the contingency fund.
There was a 35-percent increase in the number of children in poverty
over those years. This was a period when the unemployment rate rose
from 5.3 percent to a high of 7.7 percent.
What are the States going to do under this legislation when a
recession hits and more and more people slip into poverty, people lose
their jobs, they are out of work? Under the current system, the Federal
Government assures to the States additional money for each of the
additional persons who are placed into dire circumstances by a
worsening economy. Under this bill, no such support. This bill
essentially gives the State a block grant based on 1994 figures, and
that's it.
Much of the discussion has been about the difficulty of handling the
situation under current economic circumstances and the problems are
very real and severe. What happens when you get an economic downturn
and the number of people showing up in the poverty category on the
unemployment rolls is on the increase, rising very substantially? Are
the States then going to come up with more money in order to handle
this problem?
Our experience to date is every time a recession strikes the States
come in and say, ``We need help. We're constrained. We can't deal with
this recession. Look what this recession has done to our sources of
revenue. Our sources of revenue are down. We can't handle the
situation.''
That is what they say today when the Federal assistance is
automatically adjusted. What are they going to say next year or the
year after and the year after that when a recession comes along, when
people are added to the unemployment rolls, out of a job, families go
into poverty? Where are the resources then going to come from?
Under the current system, the Federal Government, since President
Roosevelt, assumed an obligation to provide help to the States to help
them work through this situation. Now the Federal Government
automatically steps in when a recession hits. That will not be the case
in the future under this legislation.
It is true there is a contingency fund. But as I said, it is totally
inadequate for any recession of any consequence, let alone a very deep
recession as we experienced under President Reagan in the early 1980's,
or just the recession we experienced in the early 1990's during the
Bush administration when the unemployment rate went from 5.3 to 7.7
percent. That was its peak, 7.7 percent, contrasted with the Reagan
recession where it went just shy of 11 percent unemployment.
In the Bush recession in the 1990's, the fact of the matter is that
there was about a 40-percent increase in the Federal expenditure on
welfare during that recession period. This bill fails to address the
consequences of such an economic downturn.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator yield me 1 more minute?
Mr. EXON. I am glad to.
Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, this bill does not do that. The Federal
Government is out of it in terms of assuring the States that the full
burden of recession will not fall upon them. In the last recession,
when the unemployment rate went close to 8 percent, millions of
Americans lost their jobs and had a difficult time finding new jobs.
What is going to happen in the next recession? Does anyone
realistically believe that the States will step in and pick up the
burden? Even now with additional Federal assistance the States come in
during a recession and say, ``We can't handle our situation because our
revenues have been impacted by the recession.'' What is going to happen
is you will have literally millions of people affected by the economic
downturn and without any support. No additional Federal assistance as
now, because of the block grant provision. We will pay dearly for
failing to provide a fail-safe mechanism against an economic downturn.
The consequences will be such that we will rue this day.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. SARBANES. I yield the floor.
Mr. EXON addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
Mr. EXON. Will the Chair kindly advise the Senator when I have used
15 minutes? I yield such time as is necessary to myself.
Mr. DOMENICI. I think we rotate.
Mr. EXON. Before the chairman came in, we had three Republicans in a
row. I thought that we would proceed----
Mr. DOMENICI. They were part of the 1 hour where you had 1 hour and--
--
Mr. EXON. No, they were not. They were after that. I yield the floor.
Mr. DOMENICI. I ask Senator Nickles, do you need 15 minutes?
Mr. NICKLES. Yes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, first, I wish to congratulate and
compliment our colleague from New Mexico for his leadership on this
bill. In addition, I compliment Senator Roth, Chairman Archer in the
House, and Chairman Clay Shaw for putting this bill together, as well
as Chairman Kasich in the House. I would like to go back a little
farther and also compliment Senator Dole and Speaker Gingrich for
laying the groundwork for fundamental welfare reform, fundamental
welfare reform that is long overdue, fundamental welfare reform that
today will have bipartisan support. I am very pleased with that and I
am pleased the President said he would sign this bill.
He is correct in making that decision. I know he agonized over it. He
was not sure what he was going to do. That is evidenced by the fact he
vetoed two similar bills earlier. He actually vetoed a bill in January,
a bill that passed the Senate with 87 votes. I thought that veto was a
mistake. I thought that veto was a repudiation of his campaign
statement when he said we need to end welfare as we know it.
When candidate Bill Clinton made the statement, ``We need to end
welfare as we know it,'' I applauded it. I thought he was exactly
right. Unfortunately, I think welfare had become a way of life for far
too many families. Maybe that was their fault, maybe it was Congress'
fault. I think most of the welfare programs that we have were well-
intentioned, but many have had very suspect results.

In addressing the issue of welfare, on January 4, 1935 Franklin D.
Roosevelt said that:

[[Page S9356]]

That was in his second annual message to the country. He was right.
Maybe he was a little bit prophetic because, if you look at what has
happened in our welfare system, we now have under the Federal
Government 334 federally controlled welfare programs.
The Federal Government determines who is eligible, for how long, and
for how much they will receive. We have 156 job training programs
stacked on top of each other, all with good intentions but a lot with
results that are not very desirable, results that in many cases have
not helped a lot of the intended beneficiaries and certainly have not
helped taxpayers.
This Congress has done several historic things. I have been around
here now for 16 years. This Congress, for the first time, has actually
passed some reform and some curtailment of the growth of entitlement
programs.
We passed it in the Balanced Budget Act, but the President vetoed it
so that did not become law. We passed it in the welfare bill, but the
President vetoed that and it did not become law. We passed entitlement
reform in the farm bill, a historic rewrite of decades of farm policy.
That was a good bill. The President signed it. I compliment him for
signing it.
Now we are passing welfare reform. Is the bill perfect? No. But it is
a good, giant step in the right direction. I am pleased the President
will sign it.
Mr. President, this bill does change the way we do welfare. The so-
called AFDC, aid to families with dependent children, will no longer be
a cash entitlement. We are reforming its entitlement status. The
current program says that if you meet eligibility standards--in other
words, if you are poor--you can receive this benefit for the rest of
your life. There is no real incentive to get off. There is no real
incentive to go to work. We are really falling into exactly what
Franklin Delano Roosevelt said. We are destroying human spirit. So now
we have a chance to fix that in this bill today. This is a giant leap.
Again, I mentioned that I am pleased President Clinton is signing
this bill. But if you look at the bill he introduced, his bill was a
continuation of the entitlement of aid to families with dependent
children. They would go on continually. It was a continuation of an
entitlement.
Today we are breaking that continuation. We are going to say that we
trust the States. I have heard some of my colleagues say, ``Wait a
minute. What about the kids?'' What we are doing is taking this money
and we are going to give this cash welfare program to the States and
let them determine eligibility. I happen to think that the States are
just as concerned, maybe even more concerned than we are about kids in
their own territory.
What makes people think that the source of all wisdom comes from
Washington, DC, that Washington, DC, should determine who is eligible
and who is not? Who can make the best determination of those
requirements? I believe the individual States can.
In this bill we have work requirements. We have time limits. We have
a 5-year lifetime limit. I think we have taken some big steps in the
right direction.
So I want to compliment Senator Roth and Senator Domenici, Senator
Dole, and others.
Also, I would like to make a couple of other comments. I have heard
the President say we have cut too much in food stamps. In this bill we
require able-bodied adults age 18 to 50 with no dependents, no kids, to
work 20 hours a week, with the exception that they have 3 months in a
3-year period when they can receive food stamps. Other than that they
are going to have to work at least 20 hours a week. That is real
reform. I know my colleague from North Carolina thinks that is right.
Under current law you can receive food stamps forever. Eligibility is
pretty easy. If you meet these income requirements, you can receive
food stamps. There is not a time limit. Under this bill we are telling
able-bodied people, now you are going to have to get a job.
There are now going to be work requirements in order to receive
welfare. You are going to have to get a job. We turn the money over to
the States, yes, but it is a transition. We call it temporary
assistance for needy families. It is temporary assistance; it is not a
way of life. It is not a system that we are setting up where people can
receive this income forever, as many families do under the current
system.
There was an investigation in areas of my State that had drug
problems and crime problems, and I learned a little bit about the drugs
and the crime. But I probably learned a little bit more about welfare.
This area had a very high incidence of crime and drug problems but had
an even higher incidence of welfare dependency.
As a matter of fact, I talked to a young person who had a couple of
kids and found out that, yes, she had been on welfare for a few years
and her mother had also been on welfare for several years. I was
thinking, we have to break this cycle. What about the kids? I looked at
her kids, and I really felt sorry for them, and they were growing up,
now the third generation of a welfare family. We have to break that
trap of welfare dependency.

This bill will help give people a hand up and not just a hand out; to
where they will be able to go to work; where we provide job training;
where we have child care; where we have an opportunity for people to
climb up out of this welfare dependency cycle. This is a giant step in
the right direction.
With the old system, if they met the income standards, then they kept
getting the cash. There is no limit whatsoever. So this bill is, again,
a very positive step in the right direction toward rewarding work,
encouraging work, encouraging people to become independent, and not
dependent on taxpayers. I compliment Senator Dole and others who are
responsible.
I want to correct some misstatements that have been made by the
President and other people. The President stated yesterday that the
reason why he is signing the bill is that it allows States to use
Federal money for vouchers for children and for parents who cannot find
work after the time limit has expired. The President says he lobbied
for this. To clarify, we did not put money in specifically under the
welfare bill, but we have said they can use money under title XX, the
Social Services Block Grant, for those purposes. That is the same
policy we had in the bill H.R. 4, that unfortunately the President
vetoed. There was not really a change in that area.
President Clinton made a statement saying the congressional
leadership insisted on attaching to this extraordinarily important bill
a provision that will hurt legal immigrants in America, people working
hard for their families, paying taxes and serving in our military.
Well, the President is wrong. Just to state the facts, noncitizens who
work for their families, pay taxes, can become eligible for welfare in
two ways under this bill. First, they can become citizens. If they
become citizens, they can qualify for any benefits any other American
can. Second, even if they decide not to become citizens, they can
become eligible for welfare by working and paying Social Security
payroll taxes for 40 quarters, basically 10 years.
Third, and this is most important, noncitizens who serve in our
military are eligible for welfare under this bill. The bill explicitly
exempts them from the bans on welfare to non-Americans. It is in the
bill.
I was surprised by the President's statement. His statement was this:
``You can serve in our military, you may get killed for defending
America, but if somebody mugs you on a street corner or you get cancer
or get hit by a car, or the same thing happens to your children, we are
not going to give you assistance anymore.''
Mr. President, President Clinton is wrong. As I mentioned, people who
serve in our military, veterans and their dependents all continue to be
eligible for assistance under this bill, this is title 4, page 5. So
are refugee and asylees and people who pay Social Security taxes for 40
quarters, title 4, page 5. People mugged on a street corner or hit by a
car, whether or not they are citizens and whether or not they work and
whether or not they are in the country legally or illegally, qualify
for emergency medical assistance under this bill.
I think it is important we stay with the facts. President Clinton
also said yesterday, ``I challenge every State to adopt the reforms
that Wisconsin, Oregon, Missouri, and other States are proposing to
do.'' Fact: On May 18, President Clinton spoke favorably of

[[Page S9357]]

the welfare waiver application submitted by the State of Wisconsin:
``Wisconsin is making a solid welfare reform plan. I pledge my
administration will work with Wisconsin to make an effective transition
to a new vision of welfare. States can keep on sending me these strong
welfare proposals, and I will keep on signing them.'' That was May 18.
Guess what? Wisconsin's waiver was proposed on May 26, over 2 months
ago, and he has not signed it yet.
President Clinton, before a speech of National Governors' Association
in 1995, told the Governors he would act on their waiver application
within 30 days, some of which have taken well over a year, some almost
2 years. It has been 60 days since the Wisconsin waiver. We tried to
put the Wisconsin waiver into the bill to make it applicable. We get a
message, according to Speaker Gingrich, that if it is in the bill, the
President will veto it. At the same time he was bragging on Wisconsin's
waiver and their new approach yesterday on national TV, he was telling
us if we put it in the bill, he would veto the bill.

Mr. President, I could go on. I think it is important we not try to
scare people, that we stay with the facts, that we do try to do what is
right.
Let me make a couple of other comments. I heard the President and
other people saying this bill is too hard on noncitizens, on legal
aliens. We eliminate benefits for illegals; what about noncitizens who
are legally here? We make some changes. The President and others say we
went too far.
Let's look at what we did. Our legislation has a priority that says
fundamentally we should take care of Americans. When aliens come to
this country, their sponsors pledge to support them and they sign a
statement that says they will not become a public charge. People come
to this country voluntarily. If noncitizens want to stay in this
country, they sign a statement saying they will not become a public
charge. We will start holding them to that statement and hold their
sponsors who also signed the statement saying, ``We will make sure they
do not become a public charge; we will make sure they do what they
committed to do.'' I think that is very important.
I might mention a couple things about taxpayers. If you look at the
number of noncitizens currently receiving SSI, Social Security
supplemental income, in 1982 there were almost 128,000 noncitizens
receiving SSI; in 1994 that number had increased by almost sixfold, and
there were 738,000 noncitizens receiving SSI. The program has exploded
since 1982--almost six times as many.
What happens is a whole lot of people determine they can come to the
United States not asking for a land of opportunity to grow and build
and expand, they come to the United States for a handout. What did they
do? They received SSI and Medicaid. They received a lot of Government
assistance. Thank you very much, taxpayer, and the sponsors who signed
statements saying, ``We will take care of them and make sure they do
not become a charge to the Federal Government.'' But who have not done
their share, they have not held up their side of the bargain when they
said they would not become a charge to the American taxpayers, and they
did.
We are saying they have a couple of choices. If they want to become
citizens, they will be eligible for benefits. If they do not become
citizens, that is certainly their option, but they do not have the
option to say, ``Yes, take care of us, taxpayers.'' If they pay taxes
for 40 quarters then they could become eligible for benefits.
A couple of other comments. We deny noncitizens from receiving food
stamps until they become citizens or pay taxes for 10 years. We did the
same thing with food stamps. Why should someone come to the United
States as a noncitizen and say, ``Give me food stamps''? Some people
have criticized this by saying, ``Wait, cuts in food stamps are
draconian.'' We spent $26.2 billion this year in food stamps. In the
year 2002, if you listen to some of the rhetoric, you would think we
cut that in half. That is not the case. In the year 2002, 6 years from
now, we will spend over $30 billion in food stamps. So we are spending
more money in food stamps every year, but we are saying to the people
who are noncitizens who come to the United States, they are not
automatically entitled to continue receiving benefits forever.
Mr. President, I have several charts to be printed in the Record, and
I compliment my friend and colleague from New Mexico for his
leadership. I mentioned food stamps, and I will mention SSI, the growth
rates in SSI.
In 1980, SSI cost the taxpayers $6 billion; in 1996, it costs $24
billion, four times as much. This program is exploding. The growth
rates in SSI for the last 5 years are 10 percent, 14 percent, 21
percent, 18 percent, and 20 percent. The program has exploded in many,
many cases because noncitizens have said this is a good way to get on a
gravy train. We need to close that abuse. We do that under this bill. I
think that is positive reform.
I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record charts to
substantiate these facts.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

FEDERAL SPENDING ON MAJOR WELFARE PROGRAMS
[Current law in billions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Growth Growth
Year Outlays (dollars) (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FOOD STAMPS

1980............................ 9 ............ ...........
1981............................ 11 2 24
1982............................ 11 (0) -3
1983............................ 12 1 7
1984............................ 12 (0) -2
1985............................ 12 0 1
1986............................ 12 (0) -1
1987............................ 12 0 0
1988............................ 12 1 6
1989............................ 13 1 4
1990............................ 15 2 17
1991............................ 19 4 25
1992............................ 23 4 21
1993............................ 25 2 11
1994............................ 25 0 0
1995............................ 26 1 4
1996............................ 26 0 1
1997............................ 28 2 7
1998............................ 30 2 6
1999............................ 31 1 5
2000............................ 32 1 4
2001............................ 34 1 4
2002............................ 35 1 4

FAMILY SUPPORT*

1980............................ 7 ............ ...........
1981............................ 8 1 12
1982............................ 8 (0) -2
1983............................ 8 0 5
1984............................ 9 1 6
1985............................ 9 0 3
1986............................ 10 1 8
1987............................ 11 1 6
1988............................ 11 0 3
1989............................ 11 0 4
1990............................ 12 1 9
1991............................ 14 1 11
1992............................ 16 2 16
1993............................ 16 0 3
1994............................ 17 1 6
1995............................ 18 1 6
1996............................ 18 0 2
1997............................ 19 0 2
1998............................ 19 1 3
1999............................ 20 1 3
2000............................ 21 1 3
2001............................ 21 1 3
2002............................ 22 1 3

SSI

1980............................ 6 ............ ...........
1981............................ 7 1 11
1982............................ 7 0 6
1983............................ 7 1 7
1984............................ 8 1 12
1985............................ 9 0 6
1986............................ 9 1 8
1987............................ 10 1 6
1988............................ 11 1 13
1989............................ 11 0 0
1990............................ 13 1 10
1991............................ 14 2 14
1992............................ 17 3 21
1993............................ 20 3 18
1994............................ 24 4 20
1995............................ 25 1 2
1996............................ 24 (1) -4
1997............................ 28 4 16
1998............................ 30 2 8
1999............................ 33 2 8
2000............................ 38 5 17
2001............................ 35 (3) -9
2002............................ 40 6 17

CHILD NUTRITION

1980............................ 4 ............ ...........
1981............................ 4 0 0
1982............................ 3 (1) -14
1983............................ 3 0 10
1984............................ 4 0 9
1985............................ 4 0 3
1986............................ 4 0 3
1987............................ 4 0 5
1988............................ 4 0 8
1989............................ 5 0 7
1990............................ 5 0 9
1991............................ 6 1 12
1992............................ 6 0 7
1993............................ 7 1 10
1994............................ 7 0 6
1995............................ 8 1 13
1996............................ 8 1 7
1997............................ 9 0 6
1998............................ 9 1 6
1999............................ 10 1 6
2000............................ 11 1 6
2001............................ 11 1 6
2002............................ 12 1 5

EARNED INCOME CREDIT

1980............................ 1 ............ ...........
1981............................ 1 0 0
1982............................ 1 (0) -8
1983............................ 1 0 0
1984............................ 1 0 0
1985............................ 2 0 38
1986............................ 2 0 25
1987............................ 2 0 1
1988............................ 4 2 91
1989............................ 6 2 47
1990............................ 7 1 11
1991............................ 7 0 8
1992............................ 11 4 51
1993............................ 13 2 23
1994............................ 16 3 20
1995............................ 19 4 22
1996............................ 23 3 18

[[Page S9358]]

1997............................ 24 2 8
1998............................ 25 1 3
1999............................ 26 1 4
2000............................ 27 1 4
2001............................ 28 1 4
2002............................ 29 1 3

TOTAL

1980............................ 27 ............ ...........
1981............................ 31 4 14
1982............................ 30 (1) -2
1983............................ 32 2 7
1984............................ 34 1 5
1985............................ 35 1 4
1986............................ 37 2 5
1987............................ 38 1 4
1988............................ 43 5 12
1989............................ 46 3 7
1990............................ 51 5 12
1991............................ 59 8 15
1992............................ 72 13 22
1993............................ 81 9 12
1994............................ 89 8 10
1995............................ 96 7 8
1996............................ 100 4 4
1997............................ 108 8 8
1998............................ 114 6 5
1999............................ 120 6 5
2000............................ 129 9 8
2001............................ 129 0 0
2002............................ 139 10 7

------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Family Support includes AFDC, child care, child support enforcement,
and JOBS.

Sources: CBO & OMB.
Prepared by the Office of Senator Don Nickles.

Mr. NICKLES. I thank my colleague from New Mexico and my colleague
from Nebraska for yielding.
Mr. DOMENICI. First, I am not sure everyone that has sent the message
down that they want to speak will speak, but without wrap-up by our
leader and without any wrap-up by me, there are 14 Senators on our side
who have requested some time to speak.
I ask the Parliamentarian, how much time remains on the Republican
side under the 5 hours?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Approximately 2 hours and 15 minutes.
Mr. DOMENICI. That still means with 14 Senators, we clearly will not
be able to give 20 or 25 minutes to everyone. We hope we can keep
everyone to somewhere around 10 minutes or less.
Having said that, Senator Exon has not even spoken today. He is next,
and he will choose as much time as he wants, obviously. Following him,
my understanding is that Senator Specter of Pennsylvania will speak on
our side. Who will speak on your side?
Mr. EXON. Senator Moseley-Braun, who was here at 9:30 this morning
trying to speak, will follow me.
Mr. DOMENICI. Senator Faircloth will be next.
Mr. EXON. Following Senator Moseley-Braun, Senator Bradley.
Mr. DOMENICI. All right. We know that many other Senators on this
side want to speak. Since Senator Grassley is here, I am going to say
that, on our side, he will follow Senator Faircloth. Senator Chafee
wants to speak, also. Where would the Senator go next on the Democratic
side?
Mr. EXON. Mr. President, may I inquire from the Chair, are there 2
hours left on the Republican side? I thought when I inquired a half an
hour ago, at that time there were 2 hours on the Republican side and 2
hours 20 minutes on our side. Now I understand that the Chair said the
Republicans had 2 hours 15 minutes left.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kempthorne). The Republicans have
approximately 2 hours 15 minutes remaining. The reason is that there
was an inadvertent addition that was made on the time allowed.
Mr. EXON. How much time do I have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Two hours twenty-one minutes.
Mr. EXON. I thank the Chair.
Mr. DOMENICI. Can we go beyond that and get a couple more sequenced
in? Who was the last one?
Mr. EXON. Senator Bradley. I have 8 or 10 other speakers. I do not
have a scenario beyond Senator Bradley.
Mr. DOMENICI. On our side, when the time arrives, the next Senator
would be Senator Chafee, and then Senator Gregg is after the Senators I
had previously announced. If any other Senators have difficult times,
call us and we will try to put them in sooner. As soon as we can
schedule you in, we will. Come down and tell us.
So the order on our side is Senators Specter, Faircloth, Grassley,
Chafee, and Gregg.
Mr. EXON. Mr. President, many of my colleagues have given very
thoughtful and rigorous descriptions of the economic growth of our
Nation under the dedicated leadership of President Clinton. Much of
that growth is due to the deficit reduction in the President's 1993
budget that we passed with strictly Democratic votes, and not a single
Republican vote in either the House or the Senate. The Federal Reserve
Chairman, Alan Greenspan, agrees. He said, earlier this year, that
President Clinton's budget was ``an unquestioned factor in contributing
to the improvement in economic activity that occurred thereafter.''
Mr. President, we have been on the right course since we passed the
1993 deficit reduction plan. At that time, dire predictions were made
on that side of the aisle. If anybody is interested in those, I would
be glad to supply the doomsday forecast if that became law--which it
did--from that side of the aisle.
In 1992, the deficit was $290 billion, the highest dollar level in
history. Today, thanks to the President's budget, it has been cut more
than in half, to $117 billion. That is living up to both your promises
and the promises that have been emphasized so often in debate here.

I don't customarily use charts, but I want to put up a chart that may
have been used before, which drives this point home. I suggest, Mr.
President, that this may be the best kept secret in America.
In 1980, when President Carter was President of the United States, we
had a deficit of $74 billion for that year. That was an awful lot of
money. I remember how concerned we were about that. Several years
later, after 1980, in the intervening 12 years of Republican
Presidents--first Ronald Reagan and then George Bush--and supply side
economics, that deficit loomed from a high $74 billion, we thought, to
$290 billion. When President Bill Clinton became President of the
United States, look what has happened since then under his leadership.
That deficit has been more than cut in half, to the 1996 projection of
$117 billion.
I don't know what tells the history of success in this particular
area more than a chart like this, which is factual. I ask anyone to
challenge it. The Republicans like to carp a lot about the President's
1993 budget. A distinguished Republican said that President Clinton's
taking credit for deficit reduction is like a rooster crowing very
loudly at sunrise. I say to my Republican friend that the President has
every right to crow, if you want to use that word. He has every right
to lay claim to reducing the deficit, because that he has done.
That enormous fiscal egg laid by the previous two Republican
administrations had to be attacked by someone, and President Bill
Clinton did the job. Facts are facts. He has cut it more than in half.
As much as I am gratified by the economic and fiscal performance of
the current administration, I am deeply concerned with what is being
said by the Republican campaign to challenge this administration. The
same folks who were part of the fiscal wrecking crew in the 1980's, and
who voted against the only real deficit reduction plan in the 1990's,
are now ready to sabotage the 21st century with billions of dollars in
new tax cuts, which they don't pay for. That is more of the supply-side
economics that got us into this mess in the first place.
Mr. President, I ask my colleagues here, and I ask the people of the
United States, why on Earth would Bob Dole change his mind from a
strict and sound fiscal conservative and become the Willy Loman of
supply-side economics and perhaps destroy the economy by going back on
this track?
Mr. President, the lessons learned in the 1980's through the 1992
period are very clear: You can't grow your way out of tax breaks of
this magnitude. That is why President Clinton came into office, saddled
with a $290 billion deficit. Supply-side economics, or so-called
dynamic scoring are, at best, a toss of the dice.
To gamble the fiscal integrity of our Nation on such speculation is
totally irresponsible. It is shameless. It is truly shameless. Only it
is a way of disguising the true costs of tax cuts.
How did they make up for them with the supply-side economics, or
voodoo economics, to use a Republican phrase, from the period 1980 to
1992 that caused this?
Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan said, ``We must avoid resting key
legislative decisions on controversial estimates of

[[Page S9359]]

revenues and outlays.'' We sure did that from the period 1980 to 1992.
I find it curious, Mr. President, that the advocates of supply-side
Dole tax cuts seem to be trying to cash two fiscal dividends at the
same time. And it will not work. On the one hand, they want to take
credit for the fiscal dividend that the Congressional Budget Office
said we will get from the conservative fiscal policies needed to
balance the budget. On the other hand, they want to simultaneously take
credit for a fiscal dividend that would come from the stimulative
fiscal policies of a tax cut. We have a record to show what happens
when you go down that road.
I hope the American voters will find out quickly what the Dole
medicine show is really trying to sell. It is pure poison, and it
hurts. The American people reject out of hand the heartless reductions,
indeed, in the latest Republican 7-year budget plan. I tell my fellow
Americans that these needs pale in comparison to what may lie ahead if
we follow their lead to supply-side economics once more. Those
reductions from real need will be twice as bad if we have to pay for
the total tax breaks that are about to come.
That is right, Mr. President. That is right, and all should
understand that President Clinton cut the deficit in half, as evidenced
by this chart. Bob Dole wants to double the amount that the Republicans
are taking from ordinary Americans to pay for his $600 billion or so in
tax breaks for the wealthy. The American people know and the American
people understand who is heading in the right direction, and it is
President Bill Clinton.
Mr. President, an important part of all of this--to keep the promises
that were made during the campaign--is the matter of the welfare reform
bill that is presently before the body.
Mr. President, the conference report that is before us in the Senate
today is not the best possible welfare bill, but it may be the best
welfare bill that this divided and weary Congress can pass.
I salute my good friend, the chairman of the Budget Committee, for
doing his able best, and he did a lot to smooth over the rough edges of
the House measure, and there were many.
I also want to compliment the tenacious and effective work of the
Senator from Rhode Island, Senator Chafee, in the conference committee.
This is a better bill for their efforts.
Throughout the consideration of this bill, my primary concern has
been with our Nation's children. A hungry child should be an affront to
all men and women of good will.
I am at a loss to understand why the Republican leadership felt it
necessary to force their caucus to vote against allowing States to
provide noncash vouchers for children's food and clothing under the
State's block grant. The conference report allows States to use another
program for that purpose, but provides no additional funds, and has
even reduced that program by 15 percent below the baseline.
It is certainly not the intention of this Senator to throw more
children into poverty, or to create more want in our land of plenty.
Should this legislation become law, I would hope that we monitor its
effects very carefully. We are giving the States more powers and
flexibility; with that will come new responsibilities. A midcourse
correction may be needed 2 or 3 years hence, if the critics are right
and the number of children living in poverty swells.
I am heartened, however, that the conference moderated some of the
very worst of the welfare bill and retained many of the improvements
added by the Senate. For example, there was the Kasich food stamp
amendment that was cruel and heartless in the extreme. It limited
unemployed people without kids to only 3 months of food stamps in their
adult lifetime. Thank goodness cooler heads prevailed. Eligibility has
now been modified to 3 months for any 3-year period, with an additional
3 months if one is laid off.
I was also most gratified that the conference retained the Chafee
amendment maintaining current eligibility standards for Medicaid, as
well as the Conrad amendment eliminating the food stamp block grant.
These two amendments were critical to this Senator's support of the
conference report. Removing them would have been tantamount to pulling
the keystone from an arch. Bipartisan support for this bill would have
collapsed.
I and many of my Democratic colleagues will vote for this conference
report today. We do so with some misgivings, but also with the sincere
hope and desire that we are helping our fellow citizens to reclaim the
dignity and pride that comes from work and providing for one's family--
no matter how humble the calling. I hope our efforts prove worthy of
both those we are trying to help and the American people who have asked
for reform.
I hear a great deal these days about ending welfare as we know it.
But to this Senator, that does not mean ending our responsibility to
our fellow man. It does not mean just cutting off the welfare check,
and then cutting and running on our poor.
Mr. President, our responsibilities do not end with this bill. Quite
the contrary. As we ask those who have been in welfare's rut to become
breadwinners, it is our responsibility to provide them with a living
wage through an increase in the minimum wage.
Since few minimum-wage jobs offer it, we must also help them find
affordable, available, and accessible health care, especially for their
children. We must assist too with education and job training to help
them get and hold better jobs.
Mr. President, one final observation. I believe that this will be
the sole reconciliation bill of the three promised by the Republican
majority to make it to the President's desk.
Their grotesque Medicare and Medicaid bills are being locked up in
the attic, out of sight of the electorate. The tax breaks may, however,
be a different story. We hear rumors that, if Bob Dole's numbers
plummet any further, we may see some tax breaks shoot up to the front
of the legislative agenda. I am deeply concerned that the Republican
majority may try to use the welfare savings we achieve today to justify
their tax breaks. Some things never change.
Other things certainly have changed. Senator Bob Dole once scorned
supply-siders, but Candidate Dole is now a fellow traveler. He has
jettisoned the hard, dirty work of cutting spending, and now peddles
comforting tales about tax cuts that pay for themselves.
They did not pay for themselves in the 1980 to 1992 period, and they
will not pay for themselves between now and the turn of the century and
thereafter.
These policies that they are trying to invoke once again evidently
broke the bank in the 1980's. We will repeat this foolhardiness again
under the new name of dynamic scorekeeping and supply-side economics. A
rosy scenario is a rosy scenario by any name. I pray for the sake of
our children and grandchildren that the Republican majority reclaims
its wits.
The bill before us today asks those who receive a helping hand to
take responsibility for their lives and to find work. I will vote for
the bill. In the same vein, I ask those who have been entrusted with
the fiscal responsibility of the Nation not to fritter it away. Face up
to your responsibilities. Do not pander. Do not promise what cannot be
delivered. Do not hide behind economic fairy tales. It will take hard
work to balance the budget. It is high time that we get back to work
with the rest of America and do our job right.
Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.
Mr. SPECTER addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. EXON. Mr. President, one further item for insertion into the
Record.
The President yesterday delivered a statement indicating he would
sign the welfare bill when it is presented to him. I ask unanimous
consent that a copy of that statement be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the statement was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

The White House,

July 31, 1996.

Statement by the President

The President. Good afternoon. When I ran for President
four years ago, I pledged to end welfare as we know it. I
have worked very hard for four years to do just that. Today,
the Congress will vote on legislation that gives us a chance
to live up to that promise--to transform a broken system that
traps too many people in a cycle of dependence to one that
emphasizes work and independence; to give people on welfare a
chance to draw as paycheck, not a welfare check.
It gives us a better chance to give those on welfare what
we want for all families in

[[Page S9360]]

America, the opportunity to succeed at home and at work. For
those reasons I will sign it into law. The legislation is,
however, far from perfect. These are parts of it that are
wrong, and I will address those parts in a moment.
But, on balance, this bill is a real step forward for our
country, our values and for people who are on welfare. For 15
years I have worked on this problem, as governor and as a
President. I've spent time in welfare offices, I have talked
to mothers on welfare who desperately want the chance to work
and support their families independently. A long time ago I
concluded that the current welfare system undermines the
basic values of work, responsibility and family, trapping
generation after generation in dependency and hurting the
very people it was designed to help.
Today we have an historic opportunity to make welfare what
it was meant to be--a second chance, not a way of life. And
even though the bill has serious flaws that are unrelated to
welfare reform, I believe we have a duty to seize the
opportunity it gives us to end welfare as we know it. Over
the past three and a half years I have done everything in my
power as President to promote work and responsibility,
working with 41 states to give them 69 welfare reform
experiments. We have also required teen mothers to stay in
school, required federal employees to pay their child
support, cracked down on people who owe child support and
crossed state lines.
As a result, child support collections are up 40 percent,
to $11 billion, and there are 1.3 million fewer people on
welfare today than there were when I took office. From the
outset, however, I have also worked with members of both
parties in Congress to achieve a national welfare reform bill
that will make work and responsibility the law of the land. I
made my principles for real welfare reform very clear from
the beginning. First and foremost, it should be about moving
people from welfare to work. It should impose time limits on
welfare. It should give people the child care and the health
care they need to move from welfare to work without hurting
their children. It should crack down on child support
enforcement and it should protect our children.
This legislation meets these principles. It gives us a
chance we haven't had before--to break the cycle of
dependency that has existed for millions and millions of our
fellow citizens, exiling them from the world of work that
gives structure, meaning, and dignity to most of our
lives.
We've come a long way in this debate. It's important to
remember that not so very long ago, at the beginning of this
very Congress, some wanted to put poor children in orphanages
and take away all help for mothers simply because they were
poor, young and unmarried. Last year the Republican majority
in Congress sent me legislation that had its priorities
backward. It was soft on work and tough on children. It
failed to provide child care and health care. It imposed deep
and unacceptable cuts in school lunches, child welfare and
help for disabled children. The bill came to me twice and I
vetoed it twice.
The bipartisan legislation before the Congress today is
significantly better than the bills I vetoed. Many of the
worst elements I objected to are out of it. And many of the
improvements I asked for are included. First, the new bill is
strong on work. It provides $4 billion more for child care so
that mothers can move from welfare to work, and protects
their children by maintaining health and safety standards for
day care. These things are very important. You cannot ask
somebody on welfare to go to work if they're going to neglect
their children in doing it.
It gives states powerful performance incentives to place
people in jobs. It requires states to hold up their end of
the bargain by maintain their own spending on welfare. And it
gives states the capacity to create jobs by taking money now
used for welfare checks and giving it to employers as income
subsidies as an incentive to hire people, or being used to
create community service jobs.
Second, this new bill is better for children than the two I
vetoed. It keeps the national nutritional safety net intact
by eliminating the food stamp cap and the optional block
grant. It drops the deep cuts and devastating changes in
school lunch, child welfare and help for disabled children.
It allow states to use federal money to provide vouchers for
children whose parents can't find work after the time limits
expire. And it preserves the national guarantee of health
care for poor children, the disabled, pregnant women, the
elderly and people on welfare.
Just as important, this bill continues to include the child
support enforcement measures I proposed two years ago, the
most sweeping crackdown on deadbeat parents in history. If
every parent paid the child support they should, we could
move 800,000 women and children off welfare immediately. With
this bill we say to parents, if you don't pay the child
support you owe, we will garnish your wages, take away your
drivers license, track you across state lines and, as
necessary, make you work off what you owe. It is a very
important advance that could only be achieved in legislation.
I did not have the executive authority to do this without a
bill.
So I will sign this bill. First and foremost because the
current system is broken. Second, because Congress has made
many of the changes I sought. And, third, because even though
serious problems remain in the non-welfare reform provisions
of the bill, this is the best chance we will have for a long,
long time to complete the work of ending welfare as we know
it by moving people from welfare to work, demanding
responsibility and doing better by children.
However, I want to be very clear. Some parts of this bill
still go too far. And I am determined to see that those areas
are corrected. First, I am concerned that although we have
made great strides to maintain the national nutritional
safety net, this bill still cuts deeper than it should in
nutritional assistance, mostly for working families with
children. In the budget talks, we reached a tentative
agreement on $21 billion in food stamp savings over the
next several years. They are included in this bill.
However, the congressional majority insisted on another cut
we did not agree to, repealing a reform adopted four years
ago in Congress, which was to go into effect next year. It's
called the Excess Shelter Reduction, which helps some of our
hardest pressed working families. Finally, we were going to
treat working families with children the same way we treat
senior citizens who draw food stamps today. Now, blocking
this change, I believe--I know--will make it harder for some
of our hardest pressed working families with children. This
provision is a mistake, and I will work to correct it.
Second, I am deeply disappointed that the congressional
leadership insisted on attaching to this extraordinarily
important bill a provision that will hurt legal immigrants in
America, people who work hard for their families, pay taxes,
serve in our military. This provision has nothing to do with
welfare reform. It is simply a budget-saving measure, and it
is not right.
These immigrant families with children who fall on hard
times through no fault of their own--for example because they
face the same risks the rest of us do from accidents, from
criminal assaults, from serious illnesses--they should be
eligible for medical and other help when they need it. The
Republican majority could never have passed such a provision
standing alone. You see that in the debate in the immigration
bill, for example, over the Gallegly amendment and the
question of education of undocumented and illegal immigrant
children.
This provision will cause great stress for states, for
localities, for medical facilities that have to serve large
numbers of legal immigrants. It is just wrong to say to
people, we'll let you work here, you're helping our country,
you'll pay taxes, you serve in our military, you may get
killed defending America--but if somebody mugs you on a
street corner or you get cancer or you get hit by a car or
the same thing happens to your children, we're not going to
give you assistance any more. I am convinced this would never
have passed alone and I am convinced when we send legislation
to Congress to correct it, it will be corrected.
In the meantime, let me also say that I intend to take
further executive action directing the INS to continue to
work to remove the bureaucratic roadblocks to citizenship to
all eligible, legal immigrants. I will do everything in my
power, in other words, to make sure that this bill lifts
people up and does not become an excuse for anyone to turn
their backs on this problem or on people who are generally in
need through no fault of their own. This bill must also not
let anyone off the hook. The states asked for this
responsibility, now they have to shoulder it and not run away
from it. We have to make sure that in the coming years reform
and change actually result in moving people from welfare to
work.
The business community must provide greater private sector
jobs that people on welfare need to build good lives and
strong families. I challenge every state to adopt the reforms
that Wisconsin, Oregon, Missouri and other states are
proposing to do, to take the money that used to be available
for welfare checks and offer it to the private sector as wage
subsidies to begin to hire these people, to give them a
chance to build their families and build their lives. All of
us have to rise to this challenge and see that--this reform
not as a chance to demonize or demean anyone, but instead as
an opportunity to bring everyone fully into the mainstream of
American life, to give them a chance to share in the
prosperity and the promise that most of our people are
enjoying today.
And we here in Washington must continue to do everything in
our power to reward work and to expand opportunity for all
people. The Earned Income Tax Credit which we expanded in
1993 dramatically, is now rewarding the work of 15 million
working families. I am pleased that congressional efforts to
gut this tax cut for the hardest pressed working people have
been blocked. This legislation preserves the EITC and its
benefits for working families. Now we must increase the
minimum wage, which also will benefit millions of working
people with families and help them to offset the impact of
some of the nutritional cuts in this bill.
Through these efforts, we all have to recognize, as I said
in 1992, the best anti-poverty program is still a job. I want
to congratulate the members of Congress in both parties who
worked together on this welfare reform legislation. I want to
challenge them to put politics aside and continue to work
together to meet our other challenges and to correct the
problems that are still there with this legislation. I am
convinced that it does present an historic opportunity to
finish the work of ending welfare as we know it, and that is
why I have decided to sign it.
Q. Mr. President, some civil rights groups and children's
advocacy groups still say that

[[Page S9361]]

they believe that this is going to hurt children. I wonder
what your response is to that. And, also, it took you a
little while to decide whether you would go along with this
bill or not. Can you give us some sense of what you and your
advisers kind of talked about and the mood in the White House
over this?
The President. Sure. Well, first of all, the conference was
not completed until late last evening, and there were changes
being made in the bill right up to the very end. So when I
went to bed last night, I didn't know what the bill said. And
this was supposed to be a day off for me, and when I got up
and I realized that the conference had completed its work
late last night and that the bill was scheduled for a vote
late this afternoon, after I did a little work around the
house this morning, I came in and we went to work I think
about 11:00.
And we simply--we got everybody in who had an interest in
this and we went through every provision of the bill, line by
line, so that I made sure that I understood exactly what had
come out of the conference. And then I gave everybody in the
administration who has there a chance to voice their opinion
on it and to explore what their views were and what our
options were. And as soon as we finished the meeting, I went
in and had a brief talk with the Vice President and with Mr.
Panetta, and I told them that I had decided that, on balance,
I should sign the bill. And then we called this press
conference.
Q. And what about the civil rights groups--
The President. I would say to them that there are some
groups who basically have never agreed with me on this, who
never agreed that we should do anything to give the states
much greater flexibility on this if it meant doing away with
the individual entitlement to the welfare check. And that is
still, I think, the central objection to most of the groups.
My view about that is that for a very long time it's hard
to say that we've had anything that approaches a uniform AFDC
system when the benefits range from a low of $187 a month to
a high of $655 a month for a family of three or four. And I
think that the system we have is not working. It works for
half the people who just use it for a little while and get
off. It will continue to work for them. I think the states
will continue to provide for them.
For the other half of the people who are trapped on it, it
is not working. And I believe that the child support
provisions here, the child care provisions here, the
protection of the medical benefits--indeed, the expansion of
the medical guarantee now from 1998 to 2002, mean that on
balance these families will be better off. I think the
problems in this bill are in the non-welfare reform
provisions, in the nutritional provisions that I mentioned
and especially in the legal immigrant provisions that I
mentioned.
Q. Mr. President, it seems likely there will be a kind of
political contest to see who gets the credit or the blame on
this measure. Senator Dole is out with a statement calling--
saying that you've been brought along to sign his bill. Are
you concerned at all that you will be seen as having been
kind of dragged into going along with something that you
originally promised to do and that this will look like you
signing onto a Republican initiative?
The President. No. First of all, because I don't--you know,
if we're doing the right thing there will be enough credit to
go around. And if we're doing the wrong thing there will be
enough blame to go around. I'm not worried about that. I've
always wanted to work with Senator Dole and others. And
before he left the Senate, I asked him not to leave the
budget negotiations. So I'm not worried about that.
But that's a pretty hard case to make, since I vetoed their
previous bills twice and since while they were talking about
it we were doing it. It's now generally accepted by everybody
who has looked at the evidence that we effected what the New
York Times called a quiet revolution in welfare. There are
1.3 million fewer people on welfare today than there were
when I took office.
But there are limits to what we can do with these waivers.
We couldn't get the child support enforcement. We couldn't
get the extra child care. Those are two things that we had to
have legislation to do. And the third thing is we needed to
put all the states in a position where they had to move right
now to try to create more jobs. So far--I know that we had
Wisconsin and earlier, Oregon, and I believe Missouri. And I
think those are the only three states, for example, that had
taken up the challenge that I gave to the governors in
Vermont a couple of years ago to start taking the welfare
payments and use it for wage subsidies to the private sector
to actually create jobs. You can't tell people to go to work
if there is no job out there.
So now they all have the power and they have financial
incentives to create jobs, plus we've got the child care
locked in and the medical care locked in and the child
support enforcement locked in. None of this could have
happened without legislation. That's why I thought this
legislation was important.
Q. Mr. President, some of the critics of this bill say that
the flaws will be very hard to fix because that will involve
adding to the budget and in the current political climate
adding the expenditures is politically impossible. How would
you respond to that?
The President. Well, it just depends on what your
priorities are. For one thing, it will be somewhat easier to
balance the budget now in the time period because the deficit
this year is $23 billion less than it was the last time we
did our budget calculations. So we've lowered that base $23
billion this year. Now, in the out years it still come up,
but there's some savings there that we could turn around and
put back into this.
Next, if you look at--my budget corrects it right now. I
had $42 billion in savings, this bill has about $57 billion
in savings. You could correct all these problems that I
mentioned with money to spare in the gap there. So when we
get down to the budget negotiations either at the end of
this year or at the beginning of next year, I think the
American people will say we can stand marginally smaller
tax cuts, for example, or cut somewhere else to cure this
problem of immigrants and children, to cure the
nutritional problems. We're not talking about vast amounts
of money over a six year period. It's not a big budget
number and I think it can easily be fixed given where we
are in the budget negotiations.
Q. The last couple days in these meetings among your staff
and this morning, would you say there was no disagreement
among people in the administration about what you should do?
Some disagreement? A lot of disagreement?
The President. No, I would say that there was--first of
all, I have rarely been as impressed with the people who work
in this administration on any issue as I have been on this.
There was significant disagreement among my advisers about
whether this bill should be signed or vetoed, but 100 percent
of them recognized the power of the arguments on the other
side. It was a very moving thing. Today the conversation was
almost 100 percent about the merits of the bill and not the
political implications of it. Because I think those things
are very hard to calculate anyway. I think they're virtually
impossible.
I have tried to thank all of them personally, including
those who are here in the room and those who are not here,
because they did have differences of opinion about whether we
should sign or veto, but each side recognized the power of
the arguments on the other side. And 100 percent of them,
just like 100 percent of the Congress, recognized that we
needed to change fundamentally the framework within which
welfare operates in this country. The only question was
whether the problems in the non-welfare reform provisions
were so great that they would justify a veto and giving up
what might be what I'm convinced is our last best chance to
fundamentally change the system.
Q. Mr. President, even in spite of all the details of this,
you as a Democrat are actually helping to dismantle something
that was put in place by Democrats 60 years ago. Did that
give you pause, that overarching question?
The President. No. No, because it was put in place 60 years
ago when the poverty population of America was fundamentally
different than it is now. As Senator Moynihan--you know,
Senator Moynihan strongly disagrees with me on this--but as
he has pointed out repeatedly, when welfare was created the
typical welfare recipient was a miner's widow with no
education, small children, husband dies in the mine, no
expectation that there was a job for the widow to do or that
she ever could do it, very few out-of-wedlock pregnancies and
births. The whole dynamics were different then.
So I have always thought that the Democratic party should
be on the side of creating opportunity and promoting
empowerment and responsibility for people, and a system that
was in place 60 years ago that worked for the poverty
population then is not the one we need now. But that's why I
have worked so hard too to veto previous bills. That does not
mean I think we can walk away from the guarantee that our
party gave on Medicaid, the guarantee our party gave on
nutrition, the guarantee our party gave in school lunches,
because that has not changed. But the nature of the poverty
population is so different now that I am convinced we have
got to be willing to experiment, to try to work to find ways
to break the cycle of dependency that keeps dragging folks
down.
And I think the states are going to find out pretty quickly
that they're going to have to be willing to invest
something in these people to make sure that they can go to
work in the ways that I suggested.
Yes, one last question.
Q. Mr. President, you have mentioned Senator Moynihan. Have
you spoken to him or other congressional leaders, especially
congressional Democrats? And what was the conversation and
reaction to your indication?
The President. Well, I talked to him as recently, I think,
as about a week ago. When we went up to meet with the TWA
families, we talked about it again. And, you know, I have an
enormous amount of respect for him. And he has been a
powerful and cogent critic of this whole move. I'll just have
to hope that in this one case I'm right and he's wrong--
because I have an enormous regard for him. And I've spoken to
a number of other Democrats, and some think I'm right and
some don't.
This is a case where, you know, I have been working with
this issue for such a long time--a long time before it
became--to go back to Mr. Hume's question--a long time before
it became a cause celeb in Washington or anyone tried to make
it a partisan political issue. It wasn't much of a political
hot potato when I first started working on it. I just was
concerned that the system didn't

[[Page S9362]]

seem to be working. And I was most concerned about those who
were trapped on it and their children and the prospect that
their children would be trapped on it.
I think we all have to admit here--we all need a certain
level of humility today. We are trying to continue a process
that I've been pushing for three and a half years. We're
trying to get the legal changes we need in federal law that
will work to move these folks to a position of independence
where they can support their children and their lives as
workers and in families will be stronger.
But if this were an easy question, we wouldn't have had the
two and a half hour discussion with my advisers today and
we'd all have a lot more answers than we do. But I'm
convinced that we're moving in the right direction. I'm
convinced it's an opportunity we should seize. I'm convinced
that we have to change the two problems in this bill that are
not related to welfare reform, that were just sort of put
under the big shade of the tree here, that are part of this
budget strategy with which I disagree. And I'm convinced when
we bring those things out into the light of day we will be
able to do it. And I think some Republicans will agree with
us and we'll be able to get what we need to do to change it.
Thank you.
The Press. Thank you.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico is recognized.
Mr. DOMENICI. I understand Senator Specter is next, and I might ask,
will the Senator yield me 1 minute without losing his right?
Mr. SPECTER. I do.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, if I was representing President Clinton,
as my good friend from Nebraska has, I would be trying to divert
attention to what Senator Dole might do. I would be diverting attention
away from Senator Dole who might cut taxes for the American people
because, speaking of a dismal record, the President seeks to hide
behind a statistic that says we have had great economic growth. But the
big fairy tale, to borrow a word from my friend from Nebraska, is that
we have had the second lowest productivity growth in 50 years; real-
wage growth is the lowest in 32 years; stagnant family incomes like we
have never seen; tax burdens have risen sharply, almost 1 whole percent
more of tax burden on the American people.
That is why they do not think we are doing very well. That is why
they say: What is happening to our salaries and our wages?
Now, having said that, clearly if I had that record, I would be
worried and trying to set up a smokescreen as to what Bob Dole might do
when they do not even have the slightest idea what Bob Dole is going to
do; he has not told anyone. We anxiously await a plan which will
dramatically improve these kinds of economic facts. That is what we
hope for.
I thank the Senator for yielding time to me.
Mr. SPECTER addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time to the Senator from
Pennsylvania?
Mr. DOMENICI. I have already yielded to him in sequence. I stated it,
but I did not state how much time.
Mr. SPECTER. I may be able to do it in less than the 20 minutes I
request. I will try to.
Mr. DOMENICI. I hope the Senator will try. The Senator is yielded up
to 20 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania is recognized.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I support the welfare reform bill with
substantial reservations. I support the welfare reform bill because I
think it is our best chance to break a pattern which has existed for
decades where people rely upon welfare and find themselves dependent
upon welfare and have no way to break out of the welfare cycle, the
welfare chain to find jobs. I believe this legislation, while far from
perfect--it does not contain many amendments that I voted for--is the
best chance to do it at this time.
This legislation has advanced to this stage with substantial
bipartisan support; 23 of 46 Democrats voted for this bill. The
President of the United States has stated his intention to sign the
bill when it reaches his desk if the conference report is passed. It
seems to be a very high probability.
One of my colleagues on the Republican side has voted against the
bill because it is not tough enough, not strong enough in limiting
welfare benefits. Those are some of the indicators that this bill
perhaps is, if not balanced, about as good a job as we could do given
the problems of our society and given the problems of a campaign year.
I think it does not advance our cause at all to talk about Bob Dole
and Willy Loman or to talk about a Republican majority coming to its
wits, but, instead, to try in a bipartisan way to fashion welfare
reform which will serve the American people, which will help take those
on welfare off welfare, because I think it is certainly true that
people on welfare would much rather have a job and not be on welfare,
and to try to take away the burden of this entitlement on our society.
The issue of welfare reform is something which this Senator has been
concerned about for a long time. In the 99th Congress, I cosponsored S.
2578 and S. 2579 with Senator Moynihan, those bills being directed
toward improving the welfare system. In the 100th Congress, I
introduced similar legislation on a bipartisan basis with Senator Dodd,
and then worked closely with Senator Moynihan on the legislation that
first became comprehensive welfare reform on the 1988 Family Welfare
Reform Act, which was signed by President Reagan.
This year, after welfare reform had faded from the picture, after the
President's vetoes, I joined my colleague from Delaware, Senator Biden,
on June 12 in introducing bipartisan legislation captioned S. 1867,
which was an identical bill to a bipartisan bill introduced by
Congressman Castle and Congressman Tanner in the House.
The Biden-Specter bill was not successful, nor was the Chafee-Breaux
proposal successful, both of which would have eased the problems for
children and eased the problems for immigrants, and I think made for a
more orderly transition on welfare reform.
I regret very much that Senator Breaux's amendment did not pass,
Senator Breaux's amendment being directed to provide vouchers for
children beyond the 5 years. Senator Ford's amendment did not pass. It
was a narrow vote. I supported it. It would have provided noncash
benefits after 5 years.
We have crafted a bill here which takes out a good bit of the
inflexibility which was presented in the legislation by the House of
Representatives and comes somewhat close to the bill which passed the
Senate last year by a lopsided vote of 87 to 12.
Mr. President, this bill does provide an opportunity for those who
are on welfare to take a job which they would have never taken before
because there are many jobs which pay less than their welfare benefits.
Why would someone take a job which pays less than their welfare
benefits? They stay on welfare.
This legislation, going to a core issue, will provide an opportunity
for someone to take a job which pays less than welfare, which that
individual would not now take since welfare pays more, because there
will be flexibility to add a supplement, so that there will be a
supplement from welfare funds, which means the welfare payment is less
and the individual will be getting more with his lower wage in the
private sector and the welfare supplement, and will have the benefit of
Medicaid where the employer does not pay health benefits. So there is
an opportunity to move from the welfare roll to the payroll.

This legislation provides that able-bodied individuals will be
limited as to how long they can be on welfare, receiving 2 years of
assistance if they are not working; lifetime benefits are limited to a
maximum of 5 years, but the States do have flexibility to provide a
hardship exemption up to 20 percent of the State's caseload if those
requirements are not met. This, I think, is realistically calculated to
encourage able-bodied men to work.
With respect to finding jobs, there is job training provided and
flexibility to the States, and the States are given substantial
incentive to take individuals off the welfare rolls.
This legislation also moves to a core problem of teenage mothers who
are on welfare with the requirement that they live at home unless there
is some showing that there is brutality at home or something which is
incompatible with living at home. But the teenage mothers are required
to live at home. They are required either to be in school or on jobs or
in job training, and there is a very substantial amount of funding in
this bill for child care so that mothers can realistically do that.
There are some provisions in this legislation which I think should
have been

[[Page S9363]]

corrected. I think the amendments offered to leave noncitizens on the
welfare rolls and apply the limitations only to the future would have
been more sensible so people who come into the United States would have
notice that they are not going to have the benefits. I think the
moratorium which was suggested on Medicaid benefits would have been
sensible.
This bill provides for tough enforcement measures for child support,
so parents have an obligation to support their children.
When you take a look at this legislation in its totality, it is a
step in the right direction. It has been crafted in a contentious
political year where there are deep political divisions in the
Congress, so there is a substantial block of Democratic support--23
Democrat Senators having voted for it; an equal number on the other
side. The President, a Democrat, has stated his intention to sign the
conference report. There is very substantial support on the Republican
side, with one Republican Senator having voted against it because it
gives too much to welfare recipients. But there is a real need to move
ahead, to try to give people an opportunity to have jobs.
During my tenure as district attorney of Philadelphia, I saw many
people in that big city trapped in the welfare cycle. I think, when
they have an opportunity to take a job which is a low-paying job, they
are not going to take it today if they lose medical benefits under
Medicaid and they get less on the low-paying job than they have on
welfare. But, when you have flexibility with the States--and there are
many examples where the States have moved ahead on a flexible system,
Wisconsin, illustratively, Michigan, illustratively, and other States.
Governor Thompson is ending welfare, not just talking about it but
ending welfare in 1997--this welfare bill goes a substantial distance.
I know it is going to result in some holes in the safety net. But we
will have an opportunity to revisit those issues. But taken as a whole,
my view is it is a significant step forward, and that is why I am
supporting it.
I yield the remainder of my time and yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time to the Senator from Illinois?
The Senator from Illinois is recognized.
Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Mr. President, I understand the Senator from
Nebraska is not on the floor as yet.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator may yield herself time.
Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. I will do so.
Mr. EXON. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. I yield to the Senator from Nebraska for a
question.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I thank my colleague for yielding. Before
she starts in on her speech, which I assume is on her objection to the
welfare bill, but she may be talking about economics because she has
been very much involved in things that we need to do to shape up
America, I want to ask her a question. Did the Senator hear when the
Senator from New Mexico made quite a point in answer to my dissertation
on supply-side economics and skyrocketing deficits that have been
corrected and turned around by President Clinton? He was complaining
about the productivity of America.
If we want to look at the productivity of America, I think we ought
to put that in terms that people can understand: not productivity, but
job growth. The percentage of change on an annual basis during the
Reagan/Bush years--and I think it is consistent because I talked about
the Reagan/Bush years and the skyrocketing deficits that were created
then--all during those Reagan/Bush years, the private sector job growth
was 1.6 percent. Under President Clinton it is 2.9 percent. That says
something about productivity, does it not?
Does that not say also something about jobs and job creation, which
is what the economy is all about?
Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. It certainly does.
Mr. EXON. I thank my friend from Illinois.
Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Mr. President, I say to my colleague from
Nebraska, my colleague referenced the fact that I am kind of an
armchair economist. I like these issues. But I must tell you, I find it
more than a little ironic on a day on which we are talking about how
well the American economy is doing, we are declaring defeat and failure
on our response to poverty and throwing in the towel on poor children
in America.
I point out, in the first instance, I have heard a lot of discussion
about the numbers pertaining to this welfare ``reform'' debate, about
how much money is being spent. For the general public, it sounds like
an awful lot of money because that is what we do here. We talk about a
budget that is almost $2 trillion. So the numbers associated with
welfare, which impacts very dramatically on the lives of the most
vulnerable people in our society, sound like an awful lot of money.
Still, all told, those numbers relate to about--well, actually less
than 1 percent of the Federal budget. It is 1 percent of the Federal
budget, but that has an impact on Americans, particularly American
children who are poor, greater than the other 99 percent that we spend.
I just want to put that in context.
Mr. President, the French have an expression, if I may in my broken
French, ``plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose,'' and it means
essentially the more things change the more they remain the same. The
fact of the matter is, this bill no more warrants the title ``reform''
than any of its predecessors. This bill is still an abomination, which
is what I called the previous bill, and I intend to vote against it for
precisely that reason--and I keep coming back to the question, and no
one has answered the question: What about the children? What happens to
them when all is said and done, with all the cuts and the changes that
we are making in this legislation?
When I talk about the children, I talk about them in the context
that, again, welfare is simply a response to poverty. The system is
broken. It needs to be reformed and fixed. The problem, however, is
that, that is not what this bill does. Welfare reform should not be
about pushing people, and pushing children particularly, into poverty.
The Urban Institute has concluded that 1.1 million children will be
thrown into poverty by this bill. Estimates for previous welfare bills
passed by the Congress were 1.5 million children thrown into poverty.
Now 1.1 million is less than 1.5 million, but it is still too many. The
earlier Senate bill would have cut off 170,000 children in my home
State of Illinois because their families had reached the time limits.
That is about 28 percent of the children presently receiving the AFDC
subsidy in my State.
I want to talk about AFDC again, the misconceptions and the welfare
mythology, because there has been a whole lot of conversation about how
this system is broken, let us turn it over to the States, let us let
them do it. That is where I come back to the notion that we have ``been
there, done that.'' This is called ``back to the future.''
I have to mention that the Presiding Officer and I worked together,
when we first got here, on the whole question of unfunded mandates and
the relationship between State and Federal Government. But it is
precisely that relationship that is at the base of the debate going on
here. For those who do not know the history, I want to refer my
colleagues to the history of what happened before we had a national
safety net for poor children in this country.
I have referenced previously this issue, I am looking at the spring
1995 issue of Chicago History magazine. I want to read the title of the
article, ``Friendless Foundlings and Homeless Half-Orphans.'' I never
read the first line, which I think I will share with my colleagues. It
says:

In 19th century Chicago, the debate over the care of needy
children raised issues of Government versus private control
and institutional versus family care.

Mr. President, that is exactly the argument I have heard all day long
on this welfare debate in this Senate today. So we are facing some of
the same issues and some of the same questions that came up in our
country 100 years ago.
Let me show you what State flexibility got us last time, Mr.
President. The last time we had State flexibility, we had children
sleeping in the streets, which was the first poster.

[[Page S9364]]

Here is another one. This is another part of the experiment, again,
the history that people maybe have forgotten. The fact is, they were
scooping children up from the alleys in New York, shipping them to
Rockford, IL, and auctioning them off. This is what happened with poor
children.
This is the ``Asylum Children'':

A company of children, mostly boys, from the New York
juvenile asylum will arrive in Rockford, IL, and remain until
evening. * * * they are from 7 to 15 years of age. * * *
Homes are wanted for these children with farmers. * * *''

This is the response States came up with before we had a national
safety net.
I have another poster which another response by states called the
orphan trains. To be candid, maybe Speaker Gingrich really had studied
the history when he talked about we will just have to put these kids in
orphanages. That is what happened at the turn of century. They took
children from the alleys of New York, put them on trains and took them
out West to give them homes. Some are still living and can give
testimony to what happened before we had a national safety net for poor
children in this country, and getting rid of that safety net is what
this so-called welfare reform is all about. We are rending that safety
net apart just because it has not worked.
Mr. President, I submit to you, it may not have worked, but we can do
better by way of reforming it. This is not reform. Real welfare reform
would mean we give people jobs, we give them some way to work, we give
them some way to take care of themselves, we give them some way to take
care of their children. That would be real welfare reform. That is not
what this legislation does.
Mr. DOMENICI. I wonder if the Senator will yield for a question.
Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Only if it will not take from my 20 minutes.
Mr. DOMENICI. I ask it be on my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DOMENICI. In all those cases you described, 1900 in Chicago, 19th
century, do you have any idea how much the States and the National
Government was spending on these kinds of poor people then?
Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. It depended on the State. In fact, I commend the
article to my colleague. What they say here is depending on the State--
some States had better programs for handling poor children than
others--in fact, one of the tragic things about it, and I was kind of
ashamed, my State of Illinois did not do well with poor children.
Mr. DOMENICI. I was wondering if you knew how much we were going to
be spending on these programs, including food stamps, which is an
entitlement. One-hundred thirty billion dollars.
Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. I say to my colleague, I am prepared to debate
this with you, but, in the first place, again, that is less than 1
percent of the budget. We spend that much in an afternoon on some other
programs that I know my esteemed colleague supports. But I also point
out to my colleague that this bill cuts $54 billion from these programs
over the next 6 years in the name of welfare reform, with most of the
cuts coming out of food stamps and coming out of help for legal
immigrants.

The real problem, Mr. President, is that this bill is not designed to
move people from welfare to work. There is not an adequate investment
in child care, in job training or in job creation, factors which are
critical to moving people into the work force.
Instead, this bill is arguably about saving money. The $54 billion
cut simply represents, and I again go back to unfunded mandates, a
shift in funding from the Federal to the State and the local
governments. Poor people are not going to go away the day this
legislation goes into effect, and in light of the fact we have failed
to provide for any employment, we have failed to create any jobs, we
have failed to provide adequate child care funding, we have failed to
address the fundamental causations of poverty, the fundamental reasons
they are poor to begin with, e.g., they do not have a job to take care
of themselves. And, we are talking about the able-bodied people.
Unfortunately, the fine print of this bill also has an effect on non-
able-bodied people as well.
Nonetheless, the fact is, with regard to able-bodied, anybody who can
work should work, and anybody who can work ought to take care of their
own children. But this bill makes no provision for that, and that is
the fundamental problem. On October 1, the effective date of this
legislation, there still will be areas in this country with excessive
poverty and excessive unemployment. Those people, Mr. President, are
not going to go away.
I point out that the Congressional Budget Office has said that most
States will not and cannot meet the work requirements in this bill.
That alone should tell us that something is wrong with this picture. If
the work requirements are not met, and that means the people do not
have jobs and families then get cut off because of the time limits in
the bill, then what happens? What do these people do with their
children?
Do we put them on trains and send them out West? Do we scoop them out
of alleys and auction them off? What are we going to do with the
children? That is the essential question that has not been answered:
What happens to the children once the time limits are reached, once the
assistance is cut off?
There is no provision for them. Even assuming for a moment the 20-
percent cushion that is given in here, the kind of hardship exemption
that States can use or the title XX funding, the entire program along
with the title XX funding are cut about 15 percent in this bill. This
entire thing is predicated on cutting money. So you are talking about
less money for a problem that is going to result in the great
unanswerable about what it is we do with children.
Are we going to have the State and local governments pick up the
costs associated with the children of the jobless poor? Or are we going
to then say, ``Well, private charities can pick it up''? What do we do
about these children?
And then, Mr. President, and this is where we get to Speaker
Gingrich's remark about orphanages, what do you do when you have
someone who has reached the time limit, has children, still does not
have a job and cannot feed those children? Do we then start child
custody cases in the State courts of this Nation? Do we then put them
in orphanages, as the Speaker suggested? No one has answered that
question.
Mr. President, I have a friend who is a juvenile court judge back in
Illinois, and she tells me that she already is seeing cases that come
in as child neglect cases which really are a reflection of people who
do not have enough money to take care of their children. She is seeing
that happen already.
Mr. President, this legislation that we are calling by the misnomer
of ``reform'' is going to exacerbate that problem. This bill does not
provide enough money for people to go to work. It does not provide any
job training, it does not provide any jobs, it does not provide any
education, it does not provide adequate child care, and we are going to
see an increase in costs passed along to State and local governments.
On the child care question, are we now going to also see an increase
in latchkey kids and ``home alone'' children, because the bill requires
for those who do get employed that they go work. So if you are able-
bodied and can find a job, you must, under this legislation, come off
welfare, you have reached the limit, you have to go to work. What if
you have a 3-year old child? Where does that child go? There is
inadequate money, as the Presiding Officer, I know, is well aware,
inadequate money to pay for child care.
The Governors and the mayors will discover that this bill, which in
the beginning looked like it offered them something significant, is
really a Trojan horse. We are going to deliver to the Governors and the
mayors the responsibility for masses of poor children that we, as
national legislators, do not want to face.
I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter from
the National Association of Counties urging us to vote against this
welfare bill because, and I quote, ``counties will bear the brunt of
the cost shift and will be left with only two options: to cut essential
services, such as law enforcement and fire protection, or to raise
local taxes.''
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

[[Page S9365]]

National Association of Counties,

Washington, DC, July 30, 1996.
Dear Senator: The National Association of Counties (NACo)
urges you to vote against the conference agreement on welfare
reform (H.R. 3747). If this bill is enacted, counties will
bear the brunt of the cost shift and will be left with only
two options: to cut essential services, such as law
enforcement and fire protection, or raise local taxes.
Counties are already developing more efficient welfare
programs, but there is no way we can absorb the federal
government's costs all at once.
NACo has long standing policy supporting the entitlement
nature of Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) and
opposing funding caps including those in the legislation.
Ending the entitlement for AFDC essentially dismantles the
federal safety net for children.
We also oppose the denial of benefits to legal immigrants.
NACo has consistently opposed denying Supplemental Security
Income and Food Stamps to this population. These provisions
will disproportionately affect counties in states with large
immigrant populations. The California State Association of
Counties estimates that the legal immigrant exclusions will
cost California counties more than $10 billion over six
years.
Counties are also deeply concerned about the legislation's
work requirements. Because of the funding cap, the bill lacks
the sufficient funds to meet these requirements and operate
welfare to work programs efficiently and could result in
substantial unfunded mandates. Minnesota counties alone said
that they would need to spend about $44 million to meet the
work requirements for FY 1997. Since the participation rates
increase every year, this cost will increase as well. Able-
bodied individuals should be expected to work, but effective
programs require substantial initial investments and counties
cannot be expected to pick up the full costs.
The bill will ultimately shift costs and liabilities,
create new unfunded mandates upon local governments, and
penalize low income families. NACo therefore urges you to
vote against the conference agreement.
Sincerely,
Michael Hightower,
President.

Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Mr. President, no one is here to argue that the
current welfare system is a wonderful and perfect response to poverty.
It is not. We do want to encourage independence. We do want to
encourage family structure. We want to discourage illegitimacy, give
people an opportunity to come together, create families, raise their
children and take care of them themselves.
We want to inspire hope in our people. We want to lift Americans out
of poverty. Poverty should be something we have conquered in this great
Nation with such a healthy economy as we heard tell about today. But we
have not gotten there.

As we tinker with this situation, as we try to work this situation,
we cannot just say we are going to slash the money, cut the money, send
it to the States and try to do reform on the cheap, which is what this
bill does. Governor Thompson--and it has been talked about as the great
welfare experiment out of Wisconsin--Governor Thompson acknowledges
that welfare reform has to encompass jobs, child care, and creation of
real opportunity for people. That costs money. You cannot do it on the
cheap. And that is not what is in this legislation.
Believe it or not, Mr. President, I actually pray that this approach
is going to work. I mean, it is hard to say. I pray it will because,
quite frankly, I do not want to see the harm that this history suggests
that we are about to visit again. I do not want to see this happen to
anybody, particularly poor children in a country as great as ours.
But I have to tell you something. I believe that it is a
fundamentally flawed premise that if you simply stop giving people
assistance, if you stop helping them with their subsistence, they will
go to work and stop having babies. If this bill cures illegitimacy,
dependency, joblessness and hopelessness, I will congratulate my
colleagues who support this legislation. However, Mr. President, I tell
you it is not likely to happen.
For all of the rhetoric about reforming the welfare system and
helping the poor take care of themselves, this bill provides nothing--
nothing--to help them get there. Cutting the income of the poorest
Americans will not reduce the number of poor babies. It will not. It is
not likely that we will cure the problem of dependency by just cutting
people off and telling them their children's needs can just fall off
the edge of the Earth. That is why the legislation is so flawed.
Mr. President, I also question whether or not the savings in this
bill coming from food stamps and the elimination of benefits for
illegal aliens is going to help move people from dependency to
independency. I doubt this legislation is going to do anything about
providing protections for children after all title XX, the social
services block grants, are cut in this legislation by some 15 percent.
So we are doing, I think, great harm to children. There are some, Mr.
President, who suggest that this bill is not perfect, that we can fix
the flaws later. I do not think, Mr. President, that it is appropriate
for us to play games and to be so generous with the suffering of the
poor, with the potential and the effect on their lives this legislation
suggests. We do not have the luxury of guessing in this area and making
policy based on mythology and not on fact. This system may be broken,
but the fact is that it affects the lives of real people.
We have been talking in this Chamber about the States and their
interests, about the system and how it operates or does not operate.
The fact is, they are real people, real lives and real faces and real
feelings and children who deserve a chance in this, the greatest
country on the planet.
We are not giving them this chance, Mr. President, with this
legislation. That is why I do not believe that we can call this reform
in good conscience. I believe that, unfortunately, this is again back
to the future, to the politics of 100 years ago, where we saw this
happen before in history. They were not any more or less compassionate
than we are today.
This Senate does not hold a monopoly on vision or compassion or
political will. The fact of the matter is, we are responding, this
legislation is a response to the same political will that existed at
the time.
We have met the challenge of poverty, and we have declared failure,
and we have declared retreat. I think that is a real ironic situation
for us to face in light of the good economic news that was given today.
In closing, Mr. President, I say to you this. I hope that the
political calculation that says that we can experiment like this based
on the vulnerability and the lack of political clout of people who do
not vote or who cannot vote, I believe that that is political
expediency. It does a disgrace to the well intentions of the Members of
this body.

I know this bill is going to pass. It has the votes. And this is my
third time giving a speech on this subject. But I can tell you, Mr.
President, we are going back to the future. This is history repeating
itself. And all we can do is pray that the harm to the children does
not become what everything tells us it is likely to be. I yield to the
Senator from Washington.
Mr. GORTON addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Based on a previous agreement, the next
Senator to be recognized would be the Senator from North Carolina. The
Senator from Washington, as the floor manager, is recognized.
Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, that is correct. I think we do have an
agreement to go back and forth. And just simply for----
Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Except, I say to my colleague from Washington, I
believe, Mr. President, I had 20 minutes allocated to me. I do not
believe I have used up the 20 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. All time has expired? All right. Thank you.
Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, just for Republican purposes, the next
four Republicans listed in order are Senators Faircloth, Grassley,
Chafee and Gregg in that order. But, as I understand, we go back and
forth. So after Senator Faircloth, the Democrat will be--is that
Senator Bradley or Senator Boxer? Senator Bradley.
I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from North Carolina.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair may clarify. The Democratic order
would be the Senator from New Jersey, then the Senator from North
Dakota, the junior Senator from the State of Washington, and then the
Senator from Montana.
Mr. BRADLEY addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, it is my understanding that after I
speak,

[[Page S9366]]

then it would be the Senator from California. I know the Senator from
New Jersey speaks after the Senator from North Carolina. The Senator
from North Carolina shall speak, and then I will speak.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina is recognized
for 10 minutes.
Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Mr. President, I had asked for 15 minutes. I see I was
allocated 10. I think that will probably handle it. But I had been
granted 15.
Mr. GORTON. If the Senator would yield, we are beginning to run out
of time. The next three Republicans are even going to get 10 minutes.
So we hope the Senator can do it in that.
Mr. FAIRCLOTH. I hope I run out of speech before I run out of time.
Mr. President, I said many times, and many times over, that in this
welfare debate we have not addressed the root cause of welfare, and
that is illegitimacy. The root cause of welfare dependency is
illegitimacy. Until we address that, we will not have addressed the
root cause of welfare. And my belief has only been strengthened by what
I have seen during this year of welfare debate.
Some of the weaker points in the welfare bill have been strengthened
by the conference. The conference report contains a provision for work
for welfare recipients, a concept known as pay for performance. If you
have ever heard of anything ludicrous, it would be being paid not to
perform work. Only in the Federal Government, only in the welfare
system could anybody conceive of not having to work to get paid, where
that would be an unusual concept that you had to require pay for
performance. It is incomprehensible to me that anybody would be paid
that did not perform.
To truly reform welfare, we have to reverse the current welfare
policies which subsidize and promote self-destructive behavior and
illegitimacy. These policies are and have destroyed the family.
This conference report will serve as a good starting point for
changing welfare in a culture that is based entirely on a system of
personal responsibility. That is where we need to return to--a system
based on personal responsibility.
I have heard several times here today that we could correct the
mistakes in this bill at a later date. I think by correcting mistakes,
they meant make it a softer, weaker bill. I hope we will correct the
mistakes by making it a stronger, better bill and put more emphasis on
personal responsibility.
I had hoped this bill would contain, like a previous conference
report, a provision known as the family cap. In plain language, the
family cap says that if you are a welfare recipient drawing AFDC and
have more children, you do not get more money for having more children.
We did not put that in this bill. We absolutely should have. It is
one of the glaring weaknesses of it, that you can continue to have
children and continue to be paid by the taxpayers. The middle class
American family that wants to have children has to prepare, to plan, to
save, to accept, to take on the responsibility of having children. At
the same time, we are taking their tax money to support these people
who are not accepting personal responsibility and having children, on
and on and on. We are taxing the working people that plan to have
children. We are taking their money to pay for this irresponsible
behavior.

Today, more than one in every third child is born out of wedlock, and
in many communities it can go up to 85 percent. Children born out of
wedlock are three times more likely to be on welfare when they become
adults, and children raised in single-parent homes are six times more
likely to be poor and twice as likely to commit crimes.
It is clear that the cost of this has become an extreme burden on the
American people. Each year, half a million children are born to teenage
mothers. Over 75 percent of these occur out of wedlock. The estimated
cost to the American people, our taxpayers, are $29 billion to care for
society's part in child-bearing adolescents under 18. That is the
stated cost to the American people.
I commend the conferees who were able to restore an important
provision of the bill. This is the funding for the abstinence education
program which I initially offered as an amendment to our first Senate
bill. Abstinence education has worked in those counties, cities, and
States that have put it in. It has done as much or more to break the
cycle of out-of-wedlock pregnancies and teenage welfare recipients as
anything we have done. I plan to continue to promote this program and
to introduce it again in later bills.
After 30 years of the so-called Great Society, we are on the verge of
passing legislation that will return welfare to what it was supposed to
have been 50 or 60 years ago. Actually, when it was first began, it was
temporary help for responsible individuals who had fallen on hard
times. It is no longer that. We have converted it to a way of life in
which generation after generation after generation receive welfare. It
is not temporary help for those people who have had a hard time. No, we
have taxed these people; we have spent $5.2 trillion to create the
worst system that was ever made. Nobody likes it. It is long since time
that we change what we have been doing. It is not designed for people
on hard times. It is designed as a way of life for people who choose
not to work.
With the $5.2 trillion we put into it--$5.2 trillion is very close to
the exact amount of our national debt--we have more poverty than we had
when we started. When we started this program of AFDC about 33 or 34
years ago, less than 7 percent of the children were born out of
wedlock. By subsidizing illegitimacy, we now have it to over 37 percent
of the children, and it is rapidly rising. It is even agreed by the
President that it will soon exceed 50 percent of the children in this
country.
It is long since time that we do something about it. This bill makes
a start. This bill makes a start. We are going to see the States that
fully implement the work requirements, that fully implement the
requirements that people work for their welfare, they are going to see
such a great response and reduction in their welfare rolls until they
will be applauded, and the other States will attempt to emulate and
copy what they are doing.
I hope most of the States will take advantage of the opportunity
given them to cut their welfare rolls, and they will see a dramatic
reduction and the other States will attempt to emulate.
The real test ahead will be changing the lives of today's welfare
recipients by helping them become self-sufficient and ensuring that
fewer and fewer people will come to need welfare. That is the real
purpose of what we are trying to do, bring people to accept personal
responsibility. I believe this bill will do it. I intend to support it.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thompson). The Senator from New Jersey.
How much time does the Senator yield himself?
Mr. BRADLEY. I yield myself 9 minutes.
Mr. President, this conference report on welfare reform is a
politician's dream, a poor person's nightmare, and a continuing source
of anger and frustration for the taxpaying public that wants real
welfare reform.
First, what about the politician's dream? Welfare, AFDC, $15 billion
out of a $1.5 trillion budget has been a political football in this
country for generations; in some cases, a racialized political
football, as politician after politician created in the mind of the
public the idea that black women had children so they could collect $64
per month for that third child in New Jersey. This bill allows those
politicians, those Federal politicians, to end welfare and claim they
will end poverty and illegitimacy and mind-numbing bureaucracy with one
stroke. You can send a signal to multiple constituencies under this
welfare reform bill.
Mr. President, this bill is a poor person's nightmare. The Urban
Institute says, as a result of this bill, there will be 2.6 million
more people in America living in poverty, 1.1 million more children
living in poverty, and they will be living 20 percent deeper in
poverty. The gap between their income and the poverty level will be 20
percent lower.
We say to send it back to the States and they can take care of it.
Mr. President, you have an economic downturn in the States, and they
have a fixed amount of this money in a block grant. There is nothing
that prevents them from cutting this poor person's grant

[[Page S9367]]

more, cutting benefits, saying you cannot go beyond 3 years, 2 years, 1
year. There are no requirements that we put in this bill. It is a poor
person's nightmare.
Mr. President, it is a continuing source of anger and frustration for
our taxpaying public that wants real welfare reform. When the public
hears ``end welfare as we know it,'' they think ``end welfare.'' When
people hear that people are going to have to work for welfare, they
believe what politicians say--beware. If you believe what politicians
say in this bill, that you have to work for welfare, imagine how
surprised those individuals who have believed the politicians' rhetoric
about work and welfare, imagine how surprised they are going to be when
they find out that States can pay about a $50 bounty per person instead
of putting money up to put people to work.
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office says that most States
will simply ignore the request to put people to work and instead pay
the 5 percent, $50 penalty for the failure to meet the work
requirements. It will pay them to do that.
Just taking one example, the biggest city, New York City, which
operates the largest work program in this country. Only 32,000 welfare
recipients are in it out of 850,000 New Yorkers on welfare. The reason?
Not because they do not want to do it--lack of money to create jobs.
The mayor of New York City said that to meet the work requirements in
the bill, the city would need $100 million more than it will receive in
this block grant. It can't do it, and so it will pay less, pay the $50
bounty per person, to get out from under that work requirement. The
politicians who claim the bill will put people to work will suddenly
discover a lot of people are not working.
Imagine, there are those who think this bill will promote marriage.
This bill will not promote marriage at all. This bill will not promote
two-parent families. This bill will not promote reward for marriage.
This bill will not promote reward for work or penalties for additional
children. This bill will not change the face of the bureaucrat that
sits in his or her State office listening coldly to whatever is said,
responding in a way that is at least insensitive and often demeaning.
This bill will not change that.
Imagine you are a taxpaying citizen in a State that has tough
economic times. The State will have a lot more people on welfare, and
their block grant may not cover them. The only way you are going to get
more is by raising taxes. Imagine how you would feel when a State three
or four States over from you is in good times and it gets its block
grant and only has to deploy 80 percent to welfare and can use the rest
to give its citizens tax cuts. That is why you need a national program,
not a program of block grants.
For those who believe in this remarkable federalism, anybody who
thinks the State legislatures in Trenton, Albany, Sacramento, or
wherever, are going to be more sensitive to issues related to people
who are poor or to children who are poor than national legislators, I
have a bridge I would like to sell you shortly after I finish speaking.
Mr. President, why is this bill such a mistake, in addition to the
points that I have made? Well, when I left a small town on the banks of
the Mississippi in Missouri, outside St. Louis, and went to college in
New Jersey--a decision that changed my life--in St. Louis, 13 percent
of the kids born that year were born to single parents. In 1994, 63
percent were born to single parents, and 85 percent of the black
children were born to single parents. If we were honest about this, Mr.
President, we would admit that no one knows what will change this
around. No one knows what combination of incentives and penalties and
values will begin to change this. That is why what we need is a Federal
commitment and State experimentation, with a lot of different kinds of
combinations of programs. Then maybe we can get the mix that will break
this rising number of children in this country born into single-parent
homes.
But what this bill creates is State chaos, not State experimentation.
What this bill does is simply pass the buck from Federal politicians to
State politicians; one group of politicians take the pot of money and
give it to another group. Let us have a baseline. What is the
illegitimacy rate in cities in this country? What is the poverty rate?
What is the unemployment rate? What is the violence or crime rate? In 5
years, let us see whether this bill has miraculously changed all those
statistics for the better because, deep down, that is the claim of this
kind of legislation, built on generations of using this issue as a code
word for a lot of other things in American politics.
Mr. President, welfare was not the cause of these rising illegitimacy
rates, and so-called welfare reform in this bill will not be the
solution. The silver lining--if there is a silver lining in this bill--
is the child support enforcement provisions. They are the provisions
that say that if you father a child, you have an obligation to support
that child. I strongly support those parts of this bill. But, Mr.
President, I regret to say that the rest of this bill is sorely
lacking. I admit that it is a politician's dream, a message to multiple
constituencies. But it is a poor person's nightmare, and it is a source
of continuing anger and frustration for the taxpaying public that wants
real welfare reform and will not get it in this bill.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the senior Senator
from Iowa.
Mrs. BOXER. Will the Senator yield for a unanimous consent request?
Mr. GRASSLEY. If it doesn't come off my time.
Mrs. BOXER. I ask unanimous consent that following Senator Grassley,
I be allowed to address the Senate for 9 minutes on another subject.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. COATS. Mr. President, are we following an order of going back and
forth?
Mrs. BOXER. I am on the Democratic list.
Mr. GORTON. Yes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is a suggested list, but it is not
formally agreed to.
Mr. GRASSLEY. First of all, Mr. President, we all should thank
President Clinton for keeping his campaign promise of 1992 to end
welfare as we know it. He announced yesterday that he would sign our
legislation. After two vetoes of very similar welfare reform
legislation that we passed last year, we were beginning to wonder
whether or not he was serious about that campaign promise of 1992. We
are glad now to know, after 4 years of talk, that he is serious about
ending welfare as we know it and that he won't be stonewalling anymore
and that he will be doing what he, as a Governor, said ought to be
done--return more authority over to the States. So we thank him.
We also know that Congress has made a very serious effort to reform
welfare. The last was in 1988. Such welfare reform was supposed to move
people from welfare to work, to save the taxpayers money, to reduce
those on the rolls, to move people to self-sufficiency. All of those
things were proclaimed in that 1988 legislation that passed 96 to 1.
Now, 8 years later, we see 3 million more people on the welfare
rolls. We see billions of dollars more being spent, and we also
conclude that reform of the system, regardless of our good intentions
and the reform that we were wanting to enact, did not happen.
The current welfare system has failed. The programs were well-
intended, but they proved to be inefficient, they proved to be unfair
and, most importantly, they proved to damage those they were meant to
help. We are concerned about the children. Our present welfare program
was passed decades ago out of concern for children. But after six
decades, we find that our children are the POW's of the war on poverty.
This has not helped our children. It has not strengthened our
families. And we are insistent, in this legislation, upon making up for
those wrongs of the past. In other words, to help our children.
I said that the last time Congress tried reform we failed. We built
upon what we had been doing for 60 years--to have everything run from
Washington; to micromanage everything from Washington. But now, as we
change the approach for the first time in 6 decades, it is not as,
Senator Bradley tried to imply, just some casual effort to send it back
to the States to solve all of our problems. No. We send it

[[Page S9368]]

back to the States because we have seen the States succeed where we
have failed. I said that we wanted to move people from welfare to work.
We wanted to save the taxpayers' money. We wanted to make people self-
sufficient. We have failed.
But we have seen States succeed.
My own State of Iowa in 3 years of reforms has 12 percent less people
on welfare; that is 4,000 less people on welfare. The monthly checks
have gone down from $371 to $335, not because we want to spend less to
help families, but because there are more families working and earning
income. And as a State we have seen the highest percentage of welfare
recipients in the Nation in the work force at over 33 percent. Under
the waiver Iowa received, we have a control group which is still under
the old program. And in that control group under the old program, only
19 percent of the people have moved from welfare to work. Of those in
the new program, over 33 percent of the people have moved from welfare
to work.
So my State, Wisconsin, Michigan, and many other States, have a track
record of succeeding on welfare reform where the Congress in our last
attempt in 1988 has failed.
These local and State solutions can be--and are--more innovative and
targeted. They promote new opportunities. I think they are doing what
every welfare reform intends to accomplish--moving people from
dependency to self-sufficiency, building self-esteem, moving people
from welfare to work, saving the taxpayer dollars, and, most
importantly, ending the hopelessness that welfare recipients have
experienced.
In the process of passing this legislation--we are saving the
taxpayers' over $55 billion. We are limiting the amount of time that
people can be on welfare to a 5-year lifetime limit. We are helping
recipients find jobs because they have to do this within 2 years of
joining the program.
States can do better if they want to. We are turning over the
management of these programs to the States because they do a better
job. We do it by block grants to give the States more freedom to use
their money. We are still going to have food stamp programs and child
nutrition programs. But these programs as well are going to be
reformed.
Most importantly, individual people have a responsibility, other than
the taxpayers, to take first and primary care of their own families.
Absentee dads are required to do better in providing for their kids.
This in the end will do a better job than our giving government aid to
the children in need.
We are going to get more for our money. Yet, we also provide for
growth in this program at 4.3 percent annually. What we are hoping for
here is to make sure that we provide hope for the future. Families that
want self-esteem but do not have it will have the opportunity to
restore it again as they work off a system that is a dead end.
Part of the hope of the future is not only that we pass this welfare
reform and do good for people who are on welfare, but we hope that we
are able to energize this economy so that there are more jobs not only
for those who are leaving welfare for work but for people who have
never been on welfare. We need to create jobs and good paying jobs at
that.
We have seen during this administration a 2.4-percent growth, the
slowest growth of any administration since World War II except the
administration of President Nixon. If we had been experiencing the
growth on average that other Presidencies have had, we would have had
many more jobs created. And we would not have the situation where
productivity growth has averaged a meager six-tenths of a percent per
year under President Clinton's tenure compared to the 1 and one-tenth
percent average pace that we have had since 1973. That productivity per
worker is going to mean more wages, more job opportunities, and more
take-home pay.
I yield the floor.
Mrs. BOXER addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. Thank you, Mr. President.
First, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a number
of editorials from newspapers in my home State of California in
opposition to this welfare reform bill.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

[From the Fresno Bee, July 27, 1996]

Backward Welfare Reform

Bills passed by Congress go too far; the president should
use his veto pen and demand a better legislative effort.
Once again, Congress has passed welfare bills that are more
about saving dollars and winning votes than reshaping lives.
As much as Americans may want to reform welfare, they don't
want a system that goes from a hand-out to the back of the
hand.
The House bill passed last week and a similar bill passed
Tuesday by the Senate would end the 60-year-old federal
guarantee of assistance to poor children. In its place, the
bills substitute block grants to the states, which would have
wide power to set eligibility rules for assistance, but would
be required to cut off recipients after two years if they did
not find work. Aid over a lifetime would be limited to five
years.
There's a wide consensus that welfare needs to be converted
to a jobs-oriented system. But moving welfare recipients,
many of whom lack a high school diploma or marketable skills
is a complex and expensive business. The most serious of the
state workfare reforms, put forward by Republican governors
in Michigan and Wisconsin, recognize that reform must make
upfront investments--in things like job training, child care
and transportation--if long-term welfare recipients or teen-
age mothers are going to move into jobs and achieve self-
sufficiency.
But the bills passed by Congress are more punitive than
supportive. The House bill aims to save $60 billion over the
next six yeas. That means many states will not receive
adequate federal funds to move welfare recipients into work
or to provide expanded assistance in times of recession, when
job losses push more families into need.
Welfare reform doesn't require shredding the safety net for
children and workers; the House bill attacks it with a
cleaver. It cuts food stamp dollars and removes eligibility
for adults after three months if they aren't working. That
means people who worked a lifetime would be left in hunger
after three months if severe unemployment, such as California
has recently endured, prevented them from finding jobs. The
bill would also deny food stamps to legal immigrants,
regardless how hard they work.
Moderate Republicans and Democrats tried to add protections
for children and working families with amendments that
provide vouchers for services to children whose parents can't
find work after the time limits. But the GOP majority
defeated them.
Now the last line of defense for decency is once again
President Clinton's veto pen. Having twice vetoed bad welfare
bills, the president's political advisers are pushing him to
sign any welfare bill that looks like it will redeem his 1992
pledge to reform welfare. But Clinton has already proved his
welfare reform credentials by approving federal waivers for
state reforms. He's already ushered in a new era in social
policy around the country.
It isn't necessary to sign a bad bill to ``end welfare as
we know it''; Clinton should demand a bill that replaces
welfare with something more promising than a stingy plan that
would put a million more kids in poverty, strap local
governments and take the safety net away from millions of
working families.
____

[From the Los Angeles Times, Aug. 1, 1996]

It's Welfare Reform at California's Expense

When President Clinton signs the compromise welfare bill,
as he says he will, the financial brunt will fall on
California, home to more immigrants than any other state.
This is unfair to California taxpayers. Immigration is a
national issue and its effects should be shouldered evenly.
But that's not what's going to happen.
At least 40% of all legal immigrants live in this state,
and half of those in California reside in Los Angeles County.
When needy noncitizens lose their federal benefits under the
welfare reform most of them obviously will turn to the
counties and the state for assistance. They cannot legally be
denied. But how to pay for it?
State and county governments are required to provide aid to
all needy legal residents. Expect lines of elderly, blind or
disabled immigrants at relief agencies, for they will no
longer be eligible for federal benefits. Needy noncitizens
will also lose access to federal food stamps. All this adds
up to general relief at local expense.
Immigrants have been popular scapegoats in Congress and
were especially so in negotiations on welfare reform. Though
the immigrant poor account for a mere 5% of federal social
spending, cuts in their benefits are expected to produce 60%
of the planned welfare savings. For California, that load off
the federal budget could stick state taxpayers with more than
$1 billion in new bills.
The punishing elements of this welfare reform distract from
the positive provisions of the bill, such as greater
flexibility for states in designing their own programs to put
welfare recipients to work, a major theme of the national
reform.
Another key compromise allows states to provide non-cash
vouches for diapers and other child-care items to welfare
mothers who have exhausted the five-year limit on cash
benefits under the bill.

[[Page S9369]]

American children, however, will no longer be entitled to
federal subsistence aid simply because their families are
poor. The national safety net established by President
Franklin D. Roosevelt in the 1930s is, in essence,
evaporating. The changes could plunge an estimated 1.1
million children deeper into poverty. Poor parents will be
able to receive benefits for two years. A time limit is
certainly appropriate, but should recipients be cut off if
they are responsibly looking for work?
Some of these changes are shameful, but it is the political
will of a Congress determined to decentralize the system,
partly in response to the pressure of a presidential election
year.
The threat to legal immigrants, people working and living
in the United States under a green card or other protection,
is the most obvious fault of the legislation. President
Clinton says he believes, as do most Americans, that welfare
should be a second chance, not a way of life. But legal
immigrants won't get even temporary federal aid, even if they
had paid taxes for years before losing a job, losing a limb
or losing the income provided by spouse.
By signing the welfare reform legislation, Clinton will be
able to say he fulfilled a key campaign promise to ``end
welfare as we know it.'' But he won't be able to say that he
lived up to his more recent assertion that children ``need to
come out ahead.''
____

[From the Sacramento Bee, July 30, 1996]

Clinton's Welfare Test

Bill Clinton, the man from Hope, ran for president as the
candidate who would do something for children and the
forgotten working families who played by the rules but found
themselves falling behind in the economic race. But that
promise won't mean much if he does not veto the misshapen
welfare reform bill headed for his desk.
No American leader has spoken more passionately than has
Clinton about how the declining wages of workers in the
bottom half of the job market have dragged millions of full-
time workers and their families into poverty and raised child
poverty rates to levels unseen anywhere else in the
industrialized world. Yet instead of offering hope and
assistance to those struggling families, Congress' pending
welfare reform bill delivers them a cruel body blow.
Lost in the attention lavished on the bill's overhaul of
Aid to Families with Dependent Children, the grant program
that goes primarily to single, nonworking mothers of poor
children, are the totally unnecessary cuts the legislation
would make in food stamps, the key safety net program for
low-income working people. According to the Congressional
Budget Office, nearly half the $61 billion the bill cuts
would come from nutrition programs.
Those cuts spell more suffering for families and children.
An analysis by the Urban Institute projects that the changes
would push 2.6 million more people below the poverty level,
1.1 million of them children. Altogether more than 5 million
working families would lose an average of $1,000 a year in
income if the bill becomes law.
There's a widespread consensus that welfare must be
reformed to reduce long-term dependency and encourage work
and personal responsibility. But the current bill,
underfunded and overly punitive, ignores everything we have
learned over the last decade about moving welfare recipients
into the job market.
More than half of welfare recipients lack a high school
education at a time when labor markets put a premium on
education and skills. Two-thirds live in central cities,
places from which employers have fled. At their most
successful, past efforts to move welfare recipients into
jobs, such as the GAIN program in Riverside County, have
reduced welfare rolls by only 10 percent and incomes of
welfare recipients by a few hundred dollars a month.
Yet the welfare bill requires states to move half of all
recipients into jobs, even though, according to Congress' own
experts, the bill falls $12 billion shy of full funding for
the work program. Even if one heroically assumes that two-
thirds of welfare families would find permanent employment,
the bill's five-year lifetime limit on benefits would leave 1
million families--adults and children alike--without any
source of income.
The president knows welfare reform doesn't require the
sacrifice of millions of young lives. If Clinton doesn't have
the gumption and leadership skills to stand up and explain to
the country the difference between real welfare reform and
Congress' act of callousness, what differentiates him from
his Republican opponents?
____

[From the Fresno Bee, Aug. 1, 1996]

Clinton's Welfare Surrender

President's reasoning for acquiesing on reform bill,
despite ``serious flaws,'' is barely credible and clearly a
political calculation.
President Clinton eloquently explained Wednesday the flaws
in Congress' welfare reform bill. It will punish hundreds of
thousands of low-income working families by cutting back
their food stamps, he said. It will take away the federal
safety net from legal resident workers who have paid their
taxes and played by the rules. It will leave vulnerable poor
children whose parents can't find jobs within the bill's
five-year time limits.
And after explaining all the reasons why this bill is
wrong, Clinton announced he would sign it. It was the least
principled act of a presidency in which principle has often
run a poor second.
Clinton's rationale for signing the bill, despite its
``serious flaws,'' is barely credible.
No one doubts that the welfare reform core of the bill,
which turns welfare from a federal entitlement into a block
grant for state-designed programs to assist needy families
and move them into the workplace, could be passed again by
this or subsequent Congresses. There's widespread consensus
that the current welfare system is broken.
But if Clinton truly believes be can fix the flaws in this
bill, he belongs to a very small church. In an era of sound
bites and attack ads, what Congress, Democratic or
Republican, will soon dare to restore federal safety net
programs for legal immigrants, no matter how needy or
deserving? At a time of growing budget stringency, what are
the chances that Congress, once having slashed food stamp
spending, will reverse course and come to the aid of the
working poor?
No matter how hard he tries to decorate his action with
policy arguments, Clinton's decision to sign this bill came
down to a brutal political calculation born of a failure of
leadership on this issue.
Had Clinton made welfare reform a top priority in 1993, he
could have shaped the national debate and produced a new
system that protected children even as it enforced our values
about work and personal responsibility. Instead, he left the
issues to be defined by a GOP Congress more intent on budget
savings than shaping a humane and workable welfare
alternative. He thus put himself in a political position
where opposing a bad bill could be made to look like
opposition to reform.
And now, for his failure of leadership and political nerve,
children and the working poor will pay.
____

[From the San Francisco Chronicle, July 22, 1996]

Welfare Bill Too Harsh

Members of the U.S. Senate had a chance Friday to maintain
a valid 60-year federal commitment to help the truly needy
while still moving toward a work-oriented welfare program.
They didn't take it, and unless the lawmakers significantly
change direction this week, President Clinton has an
obligation to veto the third welfare reform bill that comes
before him.
Clearly, Clinton wants desperately to sign an election-year
bill that will allow him to say he made good on his 1992
campaign promise to ``end welfare as we know it.''
And the American public is squarely on the side of both the
president and the many members of Congress who want welfare
to become a work program and not remain in never-ending
handout.
But the Republican bill as currently constituted goes way
too far in taking away the federal government's duty to see
that children do not go hungry or homeless.
History shows that states do not always take care of the
neediest among us, even when they make the best possible
effort to find work. The federal government should maintain
authority over welfare programs, a responsibility that would
be taken away with the Republican plan to give states welfare
money in block grants.
On Friday, the Senate turned down Democratic amendments
that would have altered the Republican plan to ensure that
children could continue to receive federal help even after
their parents were cut off.
For that reason alone, the bill should be rejected. While
the culture of welfare as entitlement clearly must change,
wholesale abandonment of the most helpless is not acceptable.
The Clinton administration has been liberal in its granting
of federal waivers to allow states to try their own get-tough
welfare-to-work programs, and the president has said he would
continue to allow creative state initiatives.
Democrats are going to try again this week to amend the GOP
bill. But so far, administrative directives, not legislation,
offer the best hope for welfare reform.
____

[From the San Francisco Examiner, July 24, 1996]

Punishing the Poor

The Dictionary defines ``reform'' as ``to make better'' and
``welfare'' as ``the state of being or doing well,'' It's a
pity that corruption of the language hasn't been added to the
federal Penal Code. Otherwise, members of the 104th Congress
would be sentenced to an afternoon in the stocks, splattered
with rotten vegetables.
Bad enough that they have produced a package of kick-the-
poor legislation that is callous, cruel, marble-hearted and
mean spirited. Worse, this vote-pandering measure has been
given a supremely cynical label, ``welfare reform.''
The richest nation on Earth, with a military budget of $260
billion, is led these days by politicians who assert with a
straight face that federal funds for public assistance and
support services are causes, not symptoms, of what's wrong
with our society.
In its latest version, the welfare bill would shop federal
funds to each of the 50 states in the hopeful expectation
that their governors and legislators can come up with
effective programs that will end poverty as we know it. This
is not a joke.
Conservatives say they want to end the propensity on
liberals to throw money at the poor without doing much to
beak cycles of dependency. And yet, given the punitive

[[Page S9370]]

rhetoric by well-fed politicians of both parties, we're not
surprised that the expulsion of families from welfare is not
accompanied by funds or mandates for training, schooling or
child-care programs.
Sure, let's get able-bodied men and women off the dole. But
let's remember that 9 million children are among the 14
million people who now get monthly survival checks under the
federal-state programs called AFDC, or Aid of Families With
Dependent Children. Most AFDC parents are single moms, few
with job skills or work experience. Perhaps their problems
will go away if state bureaucrats replace federal
bureaucrats, but we doubt it.
It's one thing to want to fix the enormous disappointments
and dilemmas of the nation's 60-year-old programs of federal
aid to the poor, but it's another for Congress to dump the
responsibilities on the states in the name of ``reform.''
This is particularly galling for California, because
``welfare reform'' proposals included a cutoff of social and
health services for the state's legal immigrants. And we'll
have to make up the difference.
``Reform'' is supposed to make things better, not worse. It
doesn't make sense from any viewpoint, including the cry for
governmental thrift, to create a terrible situation where
children will be forced into orphanages or jails at many
times the expense of AFDC. Sen Daniel Moynihan, D-N.Y. says
the ``reform'' amounts to ``legislative child abuse.''
____

[From the Los Angeles Times, July 18, 1996]

Passing the Buck on Welfare

Tucked into the Republicans' welfare reform package in
Congress is a wrongheaded proposal to cut benefits and social
services to most immigrants who are legally in the United
States but who have not yet become citizens. Under the
proposal, Washington, which is seeking ways to finance
federal welfare reform, would shift billions of dollars in
costs to states and counties. The provision should be
rejected.
Sen. Bob Graham, a Florida Democrat, plans to offer an
amendment to the bill to strike out restrictions on public
benefits to legal immigrants. a host of eligibility issues
ranging from student aid to Medicaid for legal immigrants
already is part of a separate immigration bill now in
conference committee. There is no logic in including those
matters in a welfare bill. The two issues should be handled
separately.
The welfare bill now proposes to help finance the costs of
reform by cutting $23 billion over six years in benefits to
legal immigrants, including children and the elderly. This
would be an unfair and punitive move against legal immigrants
who have played by the rules.
The bill would make most legal immigrants now in the
country ineligible for Supplemental Security Income (SSI) and
food stamps. Future legal immigrants (except for refugees and
asylum seekers) would be ineligible for most other federal
means-tested benefits (including AFDC and nonemergency
Medicaid services) during their first five years in the
country.
The cutbacks would disproportionately hit California,
Florida, New York and Texas, the states with the biggest
immigrant populations. California alone could lose $10
billion, or about 40% of the proposed $23 billion in benefit
reductions. Those ineligible for such benefits would have to
turn elsewhere for aid. In Los Angeles County, for example,
if all affected SSI recipients sought general assistance
relief instead it would cost the county $236 million
annually. The cost shifting could have potentially disastrous
results for the already fiscally strapped county.
The immigration bill now under consideration already
includes $5.6 billion in savings from tightening eligibility
requirements for legal immigrants on a variety of federal
programs, including Medicaid. the attempt to use welfare
reform to slip through further curbs on public assistance to
legal immigrants should be called what it is--a deplorable
money grab by Washington that can only hurt California.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, thank you.
Mr. President, I am putting in the Record a number of editorials.
From the Fresno Bee in the conservative heartland of my State that
says:

Once again, Congress has passed welfare bills that are more
about saving dollars and winning votes than reshaping lives.

The Los Angeles Times wrote:

The financial brunt will fall on California, home to more
immigrants than any other State. This is unfair to California
taxpayers. Immigration is a national issue and its effects
should be shouldered evenly.

In another L.A. Times editorial:

Passing the Buck on Welfare. U.S. provision affecting
immigrants would hit States and counties.

The one from the San Francisco Examiner:

Punishing the poor.

San Francisco Chronicle:

Welfare Bill Too Harsh. Wholesale desertion of the most
helpless is not acceptable.

And they go on.
So, today I stand here for welfare reform but against this bill. I am
voting no, because I am not for punishing kids, and I am not for
punishing California or other States that have most of our legal
immigrants.
Saying that I am for welfare reform but against this bill is not
inconsistent. My desire for reform was expressed by my vote for the
Senate welfare bill last year in the two Democratic leadership welfare
reform proposals. Mr. President, those bills were tough on work,
compassionate to children, and cracked down on parents who were
irresponsible.
It was interesting to note the Senator from Iowa talking about how
this bill goes after deadbeat dads. Well, I want to note that my
deadbeat parent amendment which unanimously passed in the Senate bill
last year is gone from this bill. My amendment would have cut off
benefits to deadbeat parents who refuse to pay their overdue child
support. I think the proponents of this bill seem to be more interested
in getting tough with the kids than their deadbeat parents.
The provisions to cut assistance to legal immigrants will cost
California an estimated $9 to $10 billion over the 6 years of the bill.
Of all the legal immigrants in the United States on supplemental
security income, which is help to the aged, blind, and disabled, and of
those on AFDC, which is help for families with children, 52 percent
live in my home State of California. Among those who would be cut off
are elderly immigrants who are too disabled to naturalize and young
legal immigrant children.

Let us face it. For every move we make, there is a counter move. For
every action we take, there is a reaction. And speaking as a former
county supervisor from the County of Marin, I can tell you at the
bottom line it will be California's counties that will feel the brunt.
When your county supervisors come in to see you to tell you about the
increase in homelessness and helplessness, I hope then at least you
will be ready to take some action.
In Los Angeles County, the effects will be staggering. Senator
Feinstein and I have been contacted by their elected officials. In Los
Angeles, 190,000 legal residents could be cut off of AFDC; 93,000 legal
residents will lose SSI, which is assistance for the aged, the blind,
and the disabled; 250,000 legal residents will lose their food stamps;
and 240,000 legal residents could lose their Medicaid.
Los Angeles County could be faced with a cost shift of $236 million
per year under this bill. And if the State of California opts to bar
Medicaid coverage to legal immigrants, it could shift an additional
$100 million per year to the County of Los Angeles.
The conference report will place California at serious risk of a huge
negative impact on health services. Again, for every action there is a
reaction. Our public hospitals and our children's hospitals that got
reimbursed for these medical costs will no doubt have to downsize, shut
down, cut back, and shift costs. And the bottom line is, if legal
immigrants cannot receive Medicaid, all Californians and all Americans
will be placed at greater risk of communicable diseases because these
people will not be treated.
Senator Feinstein and I worked hard on an amendment which said this
very simply. This is a massive change of law. Let us phase in the
changes to our legal immigrants. Many of these legal immigrants came
here escaping persecution. Many of them do not have sponsors to pick up
the tab. They have no one else to turn to. If we are going to change
the rules, Senator Feinstein and I said, make it prospective.
Unfortunately, the conference report did not move in that direction.
It really amazes me to think about the message we are sending to an
asylee or a refugee who risked their life to get to this country. Many
of them are working. Many of them are paying taxes, and doing well. If
they fall on hard times, they are out. They are out of luck. And the
costs will be shifted to the counties.
Many of these legal immigrants are children. We profess to care about
children. Look in the eyes of a child before you cast this vote,
because this bill will subject even more children to poverty.
I have to tell you, the Urban Institute says more than 1 million
children will be thrust into poverty under this bill. I hope that we
can move quickly after this bill passes and is signed--and we know that
is going to happen--to soften the blow on children.

[[Page S9371]]

I could not believe when this Senate turned down the Breaux-Chafee
amendment. The Breaux-Chafee amendment did not get the 60 votes it
needed. Do you know what it said? That if little children are cut off
because for some reason their parents cannot find work within the
mandated time period, children cannot get any help to get diapers; they
cannot get any help to get special medicine, school supplies, or other
necessary items.
This is the United States of America. We know that a nation is judged
by how it treats its most vulnerable people. And I do not think it asks
very much of very healthy U.S. Senators with big fat paychecks, big fat
paychecks, to provide for vouchers for a baby who is unfortunate enough
to be in a family with a mom who, even if she tries every day, cannot
land a job. That was it for me.
I thank my colleagues very much for bearing with me. This bill is not
fair to my State. That is clear. That is why nearly every major
newspaper in California has said it is wrong. This bill is not fair to
innocent children. For that reason, I stand here for welfare reform and
against this bill which will bring harm to children and which will
bring harm to my State. I hope we can mitigate its ill effects.

I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.
Mr. GORTON addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Mr. GORTON. I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Rhode Island.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I would appreciate it if I could be
notified when I have 1 minute remaining.
I am pleased today to speak in behalf of the welfare proposal which
came from conference. It is a good bill, and while there are areas
which still could be improved, overall I think it is a positive first
step toward real welfare reform. Indeed, it does represent a
compromise. The administration had some thoughts they contributed.
Obviously, the House did, and clearly, of course, the Senate did.
We can no longer continue the current welfare system. I think that is
clear. This system has encouraged long-term dependency, and that has
been addressed several times this afternoon and this morning. There is
one thing we all know, that the surest prescription for a life of
poverty is to be born to young, to unmarried, and to poor parents. It
is time to give the States a chance to improve the lives of all these
poor families.
This bill does that. It turns the AFDC Program over to the States and
allows them, the States, to create programs suited to the needs of the
residents of those States. We are doing this with very few restrictions
on the States. Indeed, we can practically rattle off the restrictions.
The States will be required to impose time limits on benefits. The
States will have to meet tough work participation rates. But how they
achieve these goals is left almost entirely to the State and to the
local government.
I would like to see more Federal oversight of the program. I was on
the conference. I presented my views but did not prevail in that
particular area.
The Governors insist that they will do the right thing and we ought
to have confidence in them. I am hopeful, indeed optimistic, that they
will, but I certainly will be keeping a close eye on the progress in
this area.
While we are giving the States maximum flexibility, there are several
important protections in this bill. First, we have ensured that
families who lose cash benefits because of changes in the State's cash
assistance program, those families will still be entitled to receive
Medicaid. If the State goes down, lowers the level at which an
individual can qualify for cash assistance, the families still receive
Medicaid based on the old formula. This is the critical provision for
the success of welfare reform.
In the last 2 years, in the Finance Committee welfare reform
hearings, one thing we heard over and over is that we cannot pull the
rug out from beneath these poor families. In order to be able to
support themselves, they must have Medicaid coverage. I am very pleased
that this bill includes the amendment Senator Breaux and I sponsored to
continue Medicaid coverage for these individuals.
Earlier versions of welfare reform included block grants in several
child welfare and foster care programs. I have long believed that
despite the name ``child welfare''--that is a misnomer, Mr. President.
Child welfare is not a cash or an in-kind assistance to poor families.
Child welfare programs deal with abused children. It deals with
neglected children regardless of their income. It does not have
anything to do with a poor child. Child welfare programs deal with
neglected and abused children regardless of income.
So, child welfare has no place in a welfare reform bill, and I am
pleased we were able to have those block grants removed. We stay with
the present entitlement system in the child welfare program.
The present welfare bill has also made more cuts to the children's
SSI program than I would have liked to have seen. That is the way it
started off, with rather severe cuts. This bill is much less damaging
in that area. It does tighten the eligibility for participation in
children's SSI programs, but retains cash assistance for those children
who remain eligible. This is the right thing to do. These families are
under enormous strains, families with SSI children, and they need the
benefits, the cash assistance that comes so they can care for those
children. I want to pay special tribute to Senator Conrad, who worked
with me and others to achieve this compromise.
Welfare, as we know, has always been a shared responsibility between
the States and the Federal Government. That will continue under this
bill. It is true that States ought to have a financial incentive to
reduce the welfare caseloads. We all agree with that. However, when
they are reducing these caseloads, they should benefit from it, but
also the Federal Government ought to benefit from it, too. That is why
we provide that, if the States reduce their spending below a percentage
mark, Federal dollars will be reduced likewise. In other words, the
Federal Government will share in the savings.
There is one thing that does bother me about this bill, and that is
the denial of benefits to legal immigrants. I think the bill is harsh
in that area. We made some improvements, in other words we made it less
harsh, because we allow States to decide whether to extend Medicaid
coverage to legal immigrants. In other words, the States still have the
option to extend Medicaid coverage to legal immigrants.
I had hoped during the legislative process, consideration here and
the conference, we might have mitigated some of the harsher provisions,
especially those affecting currently elderly and currently disabled
recipients. I think it is very tough to take away some of the benefits
of those individuals that they are currently enjoying.
In closing, I congratulate those who worked so hard to reach this
agreement. Former Senator Dole deserves a lot of credit for laying the
groundwork for this bill. Senator Roth picked up after Senator Dole
left and helped steer this bill through the Senate. On the other side
of the aisle, my colleague from the centrist coalition, my colleague
Senator Breaux, did splendid work to forge a compromise between the two
parties.
On the other side of the Capitol, Congressman Shaw and Congressman
Archer were dedicated to this cause for some time and deserve a lot of
credit. So my congratulations to each and all, and to all here who
worked hard to make this bill a success, the success I believe it can
be. It is not perfect. We all recognize that. But there are a lot of
very fine provisions in this bill.
I yield the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, the time is on the other side now.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise today to indicate that I will
support this welfare reform legislation. I do it with some
reservations. I think anybody who has been deeply involved in this
process understands that there are weaknesses in this legislation and
that there are risks. But, make no mistake, there are risks in sticking
with the status quo. The status quo cannot be defended. The current
system does not work and is unlikely to work in the future.

I have visited with literally dozens of welfare recipients and with
people who

[[Page S9372]]

work in the current welfare system. I cannot find anyone who believes
the current system is a good one. I cannot find taxpayers who support
it, who believe in it. I cannot find welfare recipients who believe in
it. I cannot find the people who work to deliver the services who
believe in it. Without exception they say to me, ``There has to be a
better way.'' I do not know if we found the best way in this welfare
reform legislation, but I do know it is time to try something
different.
I have concluded from my conversations with welfare recipients that
there is very little question that the current system is encouraging
children to have children. I do not know how one can conclude
otherwise. When we set up a system in which we say to a young woman, in
many cases a child, that if you leave home, we will see that you have
an apartment, that you get assistance, the precondition is that you
have a child, what kind of system have we set up here? I talked to one
of my colleagues who met with a number of welfare mothers in the last
several weeks. He asked them the direct question, ``Did the fact that
there is a welfare system that you knew would support you and provide
an apartment to you encourage you to have a child?'' About half of them
denied that it contributed to their decision, but about half of them
said, ``Yes, Senator, it did contribute to my making the decision to
have a child, because I knew I could get an apartment, I could get
assistance, and that I could move away from a family situation.'' In
many cases that family situation is not a very pleasant one.
That does not make sense for our society, to have structured a system
that encourages children to have children. That is a disaster. I say to
my colleagues who have talked about their concern for children, and in
every case I believe they are well motivated and feel deeply that we
need to protect children, I share in that belief. The question is, how
we do it? It is not in children's interests to be born to children.
That is a disaster. We know what happens in those circumstances. In
case after case it leads to more poverty, more crime, more abuse.
Children are not prepared to have children. We need to take away the
incentive that is in the current system for that to occur.
There are many parts of this bill that concern me. I believe the
percentage that is allowed for hardship cases, and therefore exempt
from the time limits, is unrealistic. I think that is going to have to
be revisited in the future. I personally believe there are marginal
people in our society, people who, either because of mental disability
or physical disability, simply are unable to hold full-time employment.
A 20-percent hardship exemption is not sufficient to cope with the
percentage of our population that simply will never be fully
employable. I think we are going to have to revisit that issue.
But there has been much done to improve this legislation from where
it started. I was very pleased my amendment to maintain a Federal
safety net in the food assistance programs was adopted here on the
Senate floor and was kept in conference. I think that is critically
important. That provides the food safety net for millions of Americans,
one that adjusts automatically for natural disasters or severe economic
downturns.
I also think the provisions that were adopted that were offered by
Senator Chafee and Senator Breaux to maintain the Medicaid coverage was
critically important to this legislation.
I salute my colleagues, Senator Chafee and Senator Breaux, for their
amendment. That was maintained largely intact in conference and was
critically important.
So, Mr. President, there are defects here. I think we all recognize
that. I think we all understand that this is going to have to be
revisited. But we have also heard from the Nation's Governors. They
have told us, ``You can trust us, we are going to be responsible with
this charge.''
I say to them, we will be watching, we will be watching very
carefully what you do, and we urge you to step forward and shoulder
this responsibility with great seriousness.
They have insisted there is not the flexibility and the resources to
address the problems of poverty and welfare without these changes. They
have assured Congress and the American people they care as much about
the well-being of children and other vulnerable populations as Federal
representatives and that they are in a better situation to target these
resources. We take them at their word. They have pledged to protect
these populations, and Congress is going to hold them to their word.
While this bill gives States flexibility they insist they need to end
the problems associated with welfare, I want to be clear. Congress
maintains the right and the duty to intervene in the future if States,
in fact, do not live up to their word and run their programs in an
arbitrary or capricious manner.
We are counting on the States to live up to this responsibility. I
take them at their word, and I have confidence that in each of the
States, the Governor and the State legislature will step forward to
shoulder these obligations in a serious and responsible way.
I am confident that in my home State of North Dakota that will be the
case. I conclude by saying to my colleagues, in looking at the risk
associated with any change, clearly there is a cause for concern, but
the status quo cannot be defended. It is time for a change. The time is
now. We will have other opportunities to address shortcomings in this
legislation. I intend to support this bill.
I thank the Chair and yield back any time I have remaining.
Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the junior Senator
from Indiana.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
Mr. COATS. Mr. President, with the passage of this welfare reform
legislation, I think we can confidently state that the New Deal is old
news. As we all know, this legislation will end the Federal
Government's entitlement to welfare, an entitlement created 6 decades
ago during the New Deal. Yet, the reason that it must be overturned is
found in the reasoning of Franklin Roosevelt himself who said, ``When
any man or woman goes on the dole, something happens to them mentally,
and the quicker they're taken off the dole the better it is for them
the rest of their lives.''
He added: ``We must preserve not only the bodies of the unemployed
from destitution, but also their self-respect, their self-reliance, and
courage and determination.''
The welfare reforms that we will pass today are designed not just to
save money and reduce waste, although those are important goals, but
they are also designed to help restore certain basic values: self-
respect and self-reliance.
Some critics have claimed that these welfare reforms will lead to
catastrophe. Mr. President, I suggest the catastrophe has already
arrived. It is obvious in an exploding population of fatherless
children, rising violence in our cities and streets, suburbs and rural
towns, endless dependence and fractured families. No one can honestly
defend the current system as compassionate. No one can be proud of the
results of the last 30 years. We are tired of good intentions and
dismal results. We need to take another path.

This legislation that we are proposing is not experimental nor it is
not untested. It is rooted in proven principles of American tradition.
It transfers powers to the States where that power should have belonged
all along. It emphasizes the dignity of work. It shows compassion, but
it also expects individual responsibility, and it begins to encourage
private and religious institutions as partners in social renewal.
Mr. President, I am pleased that the personal responsibility
agreements that I authored, along with Senator Harkin, are part of this
final welfare package. States like Indiana and Iowa have used these
agreements as effective tools, moving thousands of citizens from
welfare to work. The welfare bill we are passing today gives States the
options to include those personal responsibility agreements in their
welfare programs, and I hope they will follow the examples of Indiana
and Iowa.
I have argued in the past, Mr. President, that devolution of power to
the State governments is necessary but not complete. Such devolution
encourages innovation, but State government is still government, prone
to the same problems of ineffective bureaucracy and red tape that we
see in Washington, and that is why I am glad this legislation gives
States the opportunity

[[Page S9373]]

and the option to contract with faith-based organizations without
forcing those institutions to compromise their spiritual identity.
This, I believe, is the beginning of an important idea.
It is also important to remember that the reforms that we are passing
today directly affect human lives. That is the only measure of our
achievement. I am convinced on the evidence of 3 decades that people
need independence, work, responsibility and hope far more than they
need endless checks from the Federal Government.
Our current system treats the disadvantaged as merely material, to be
fed and forgotten. We need to be treating them as human beings with
high hopes and high potential. When you expect nothing of an
individual, you belittle them. We must stop belittling the able-bodied
poor in America with low expectations.
Mr. President, I argue that there is a next step to welfare reform, a
step that this Congress and this President, or whoever occupies the
Presidency, needs to address in the next Congress. We need to go beyond
Government. We need to begin to encourage and strengthen, nurture and
expand those mediating institutions of family, community, volunteer
associations of charity, of church, faith-based charities--those
institutions that offer real solutions and real hope.
We need to begin to look at transforming our society by transforming
lives one at a time inside out. For the most part, this is work that
cannot be done by institutions of government. Government can feed the
body and help train the mind, but it cannot nurture the soul or renew
the spirit. This is the work of institutions outside of government.
This shift of authority in resources can be accomplished in many
ways, but we need to recognize tradition and the time-honored practice
of reaching out to the poor in effective ways, giving them renewed
hope, renewed spirit, a renewed place in American society. It has not
been accomplished in an effective way by institutions of government but
can be effective by institutions outside of government.

How do we make this transition? Because it will be a transition, and
normally the problem is such that it will require a significant
increase in the involvement of these institutions. But it is important
because they are the institutions that bring about the real solutions
and bring about real hope.
I propose the charity tax credit as a means of beginning this
process, a way in which the taxpayer can designate on a joint basis up
to $1,000 of taxes otherwise due the Government as charitable
contributions to institutions that have dedicated themselves to the
proposition of alleviating or preventing poverty.
Who wouldn't rather give $1,000 of their hard-earned money to
institutions like Habitat for Humanity, rather than Housing and Urban
Development, if you really care about providing decent, affordable
housing to low-income individuals?
For those concerned about fatherless children, who wouldn't believe
that $1,000 of their money would be better served through Boys and
Girls Clubs or Big Brothers and Big Sisters or other mentoring
organizations, rather than giving it to ``Big Brother'' in Washington?
For those concerned about the homeless on our streets, who wouldn't
rather support the gospel missions and church feeding programs,
Catholic Charities and other organizations that reach out to those in
our local communities, rather than turning the money over to HHS,
where, by some estimates, over two-thirds of the money fueled by the
Federal social welfare system never goes to the poor? It goes to those
above the poverty line; it gets eaten up in bureaucracy,
administration, fraud, and abuse. It has created a compassion fatigue
in this country where people have no faith that their tax dollars,
sometimes generously given and well-intended to help those most in
need, ever reach those most in need.
This is a stark alternative that can be provided to the individual
without the constraints of the first amendment. They can give it to
secular or nonsecular institutions, faith-based institutions which have
proven and demonstrated their capability of providing services to the
poor far more effectively, with far better results, at a fraction of
the cost of Government.
These are the institutions that we need to strengthen. And this, I
hope, will be the agenda of the next Congress as we move to the next
step of welfare reform, to defining compassion in an effective way, the
spirit of the American people, which has always been generous, which
has always reached out to help those in need, which responds to
emergencies time and time again, which provides and allows grain
farmers from the Midwest to ship grain down to famine areas and drought
areas of other areas of our country, which cause people to jump on
planes and trains and buses and go to the latest hurricane area or
ravaged area to pitch in, on a volunteer basis, to help their fellows
Americans.
We are a country of generous spirit, yet a country that has lost
confidence in the ability of Government to effectively deliver
compassion to those in need. So let use energize, renew and strengthen
and nourish and encourage those institutions in our own communities
that are making a difference in people's lives.

Community activist Robert Woodson makes the point that,

. . . every social problem [in America], no matter how
severe, is currently being defeated somewhere, by some
religious or community group. This is one of America's great,
untold stories. No alternative approach to our cultural
crisis holds such promise, because these institutions have
resources denied to government at every level--[the resources
of] love, spiritual vitality, and true compassion. It is time
to publicly, creatively, and actively take their side in the
struggle to recivilize American society.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mrs. MURRAY addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I yield myself 10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, it is clear that most Americans agree we
need to change welfare as we know it. Our current system does not work,
not for those on public assistance and not for those who pay for it.
The American people feel strongly that personal responsibility has to
be a part of this country's welfare system. I could not agree more.
Mr. President, for nearly 4 years I have spent countless hours
examining the current welfare structure, talking to participants and
listening to the frustrations of both reformers and people on public
assistance.

This Senate has debated many ideas for welfare reform. I have worked
with my colleagues to do everything possible to help create a welfare
bill that will move able-bodied adults off welfare and into work. The
transition from welfare to work is the core of this policy debate. But
my concern is this. We are creating a system in which people will not
get a welfare check, but they will not be able to get a paycheck
either.
If people leave welfare, but are not qualified or cannot find work,
they are faced with one fundamental problem: The grocery bill is still
there, and there is no way to feed their kids.
My vote on this final welfare bill is one of the most difficult I
have had to cast. There are no easy answers. I want welfare to be
reformed. I hear from those recipients who complain that the current
system does not work. There is too little job training. There is too
little child care. And the programs try to fit every single welfare
recipient into one single mold.
As this bill worked its way through the Senate and House, I have
sponsored and cosponsored numerous amendments to protect the well-being
of children, from preventive and emergency health care, nutritious
meals, safe child care, illiteracy, issues that are important because
they affect the ability of parents to move successfully from welfare to
work while they are still taking care of their own kids.
I agree with President Clinton that this welfare reform bill makes
significant strides toward ending welfare as we know it. It will help
put some people back to work and end the cycle of dependency that this
system is accused of breeding. It will give more flexibility to the
States and allow for more local decisionmaking authority.
But I also agree with President Clinton that this bill has serious
flaws.

[[Page S9374]]

Nine million children will be cut off from services. Legal immigrant
children will be ineligible for almost all Federal and State services,
other than in an emergency, leaving them hungry, uneducated and
desperate on our streets.
One-half of the $60 billion cut in spending will come from nutrition
programs. It will have a dramatic impact on the very individuals who
need the most help today in this country, and that is our children.
It has been clear for quite some time that this bill is going to be
passed by an overwhelming majority and signed by the President, but I
realize that I cannot in good conscience support a bill that will put
so many of our children in jeopardy.
Mr. President, I am the only former preschool teacher to serve in the
U.S. Senate. I have looked into the faces of 2- and 3- and 4-year-olds
who are hungry every single day. I have worked as a parent education
instructor with adults who have lost their jobs. Food stamps provided
the only chance they had to feed their children while they desperately
were looking for work. I knew immediately when a child in my class was
unable to learn and felt frightened because of tough financial times at
home, and I saw the effects those kids had on all the other kids in my
classroom.
Many times I have sat and listened to young women whose lives have
been devastated. They have been left alone to care for young children.
They have no job skills and no ability to go to work because their
full-time job was being a mom.

For me, the bottom line in the welfare reform discussion is, what
will happen to our Nation's children? What will happen to those
children I held in my lap in my preschool? For me, it is a risk that I
am not willing to take.
It is vital that parents return to work. But we have to help ensure
that our children receive adequate health care, nutrition, and are not
left home alone or, worse, to wander on our streets.
When this welfare reform proposal passes, we have to ask, what is
next? This bill only tells people what the Federal Government will not
do anymore. In its place will come 50 different experiments in 50
different States. It may help some people, and it most certainly will
hurt others. But whether it works or not, from this day forward I
believe that we have to begin a national commitment to our children and
to give them a fair chance, every one of them, at succeeding in life.
We all want a country where every child is secure, where every person
can be a contributing member of our society and our economy, and where
the world around us is a healthy and safe place to live. No one
disagrees with that. To make sure it happens, we have to start a
discussion in every single community and neighborhood and every single
dinner table in this Nation. We have to ask, what is important to us as
Americans? Are we going to be a compassionate Nation? When push comes
to shove, are we going to help our neighbors when they need it? And if,
as I suspect, the answer is yes, we are going to have to say how. In
the aftermath of this welfare reform bill, these are the questions that
every one of us as adults in this country will have to answer.
I am not going to dwell on changes brought about in this welfare
reform. Instead, I am going to aggressively seek answers to the
questions I have raised, and I will reaffirm my own commitment to
children. I will work for constructive solutions to problems that arise
in the future.
I have already formed a bipartisan working group within the Senate to
help develop and create ideas to help adults find more time to spend
with our young children. And I formed an advisory group at home in
Washington on youth involvement to help support this effort. Hopefully,
the people of this country will ultimately work to create the kind of
communities that we can all be proud of.
But, Mr. President, one good thing will come out of this for sure
that will happen as a result of us passing welfare reform. Finally, we
will no longer, either here on the floor of the Senate or in living
rooms across this country, be able to blame welfare as the cause of our
Nation's problems. After today, instead, perhaps, we can all sit down
and work to agree on what we can do to keep our young children in this
country healthy and secure and educated and growing up in a country
that we are all proud of.
I yield the floor.
Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from New
Hampshire.
Mr. GREGG. I wish to rise in support of this welfare proposal, and I
congratulate the Members of the Senate who have worked so hard.
I want to mention three reasons why I think this is an appropriate
action to take. First, this is one of the five major programs which is
weighing down the Federal budget and which is causing us to careen
towards bankruptcy as a Nation in the beginning of the next century if
we do not address the Federal spending patterns. The other four are the
farm programs, the Medicare and Medicaid Programs, and Social Security.
We have addressed the farm programs. Now we are addressing the
welfare programs. That is two out of the five major entitlement
programs that will be addressed as a result of this bill by this
Congress. That is a major step forward. If this were a game of Myst--
which it is not, but it is as complicated as a game of Myst--we would
have gotten through two levels. We have three levels to go and,
hopefully, we will continue to pursue those aggressively.
The bill involves returning to the States significant flexibility
over managing the welfare accounts. This means better services for our
citizens. It is that simple. There is a certain arrogance in this town,
a certain elitism in this town that tends to believe all the ideas, all
the feelings of goodness, all the compassion is confined within the
corridors of Washington. Well, it is not true. The fact is, in our
States at our State legislative level and in our cities and at our
county level, there is not only great compassion but there is an
extraordinary knowledge. That knowledge and compassion would be brought
to bear on the welfare programs of this country as a result of this
bill.
I know, for example, that in New Hampshire we will get a lot more
services for actually less dollars, and our people will be better taken
care of as a result of this flexibility being returned to the States.
Third, there is the cultural issue. This represents a significant
cultural change in the way we address the issue of welfare in this
country. We are no longer creating this atmosphere of dependency. We
are no longer undermining generation after generation of individuals
relative to their own self-worth. We are saying to people: ``You are
important, you do have self-worth, you should have self-respect, you
should be working and taking care of yourself and your families and
obtaining the personal respect and confidence that comes from
undertaking that approach.'' It is a cultural shift.
Obviously, it will not impact the entire culture. Obviously, there
are a lot of people on welfare who deserve to be there. For some
percentage, and it will not be a dramatic percentage, I admit to that,
they will be moving off the welfare rolls because they will have to go
to work, something they have not done before. That will be very
positive, I think, for them and for this society generally.
So I believe this is a very good bill and something that takes us in
the right direction in the area of fiscal solvency, in the area of
managing government policy through flexibility at the State level, and
in the area of how we approach the cultural issue of caring for people
who are less fortunate or in hard times.
I also want to address today just briefly, because it is a topic that
I am intimately involved with as chairman of the Commerce, State, and
Justice Committee, the issue of terrorism--one minor area, a secondary
point to what is going on here today, but I want to raise this point at
this time.
We just reported out of the full Appropriations Committee a bill, the
Commerce, State, Justice bill, which had a major initiative in the area
of terrorism, countering terrorism, trying to get some comprehensive
planning into the issue of how we approach it as a Federal Government,
and beefing up those projects that are going on in those agencies, such
as the FBI, that are trying to counter especially international
terrorism. It is a major step

[[Page S9375]]

forward. We have actually been working on this for months. It is ironic
it came to fruition today, so soon after the Atlanta bombing, but it is
a very important step.
Second, we cannot do all this at the Federal level. The issue of
countering terrorism cannot entirely be accomplished by the Government.
There has to be a change of attitude within our population as to how we
approach the terrorists.
I made a proposal today which I think moves along that issue a little
bit--not dramatically, but a little bit--but it is important. We see on
the Internet today a massive amount of information about how to make
weapons, how to make bombs, how to use instruments of death. Now, the
Internet is a Wild West of information. I have no interest in
regulating it. I think that would be a mistake. There are, today,
developing a whole series of industries that develop the information
and information access in the area of Internet, people like America
Online, Comp USA, Yahoo, Netscape, Magellan--the list goes on and on.
What I have done today is write a letter to the CEO's of these
various organizations and asked them to exercise a little common sense
and a little community value and to expunge from their database access
capability of items which are clearly directed at creating bombs. I had
my staff quickly run the Internet. I wanted to do it quickly, so I had
my staff do it. They came up with, on their first test under the
question of ``explosive,'' they came up with an identification of how
to make a bomb, which was followed by ``leaving your bomb in your
favorite airport and Government building.''
That is the type of information that should not be accessed easily
through some sort of accessing agency. So I have asked the leaders of
these various industries to think about it, to think about putting into
their processes some sort of self-voluntary block that eliminates the
ability to easily access this type of information which is so patently
inappropriate. I hope they will take such action.
I yield the floor.
Mr. DODD. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. GREGG. I am happy to yield to the Senator.
Mr. DODD. I commend my colleague from New Hampshire. I hope everyone
listens to his last remarks on this subject matter and that people will
heed his advice. This is a serious matter.
Our colleague from Arkansas, Senator Bumpers, yesterday I think, made
similar comments and brought to the floor the documentation that came
off computers on this information. I think his advice is extremely
worthwhile.
Mr. GREGG. I can show the Senator a copy of the letter and have him
be a cosponsor, as well as any other Senators.
Mr. BAUCUS. I yield myself 5 minutes.
I first want to very much thank my colleague from California, Senator
Feinstein, and Senator Dodd of Connecticut for very generously and
graciously yielding me their time and allowing me to proceed ahead of
them. I thank the Senators.
Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of welfare reform. The
welfare reform debate is emotional, we all know that. It is complex,
that is clear. But I must say I find almost universal agreement that
today's Federal welfare program does not do what we would expect of a
welfare system.
It does not help people get back on their feet and back to work. It
does not promote worth or promote personal responsibility or self-
sufficiency. Most of us envisioned a different system, a welfare system
that encourages personal responsibility, one that encourages work and
self-sufficiency, one that lets States like Montana create their own
systems that make sense to their State's own unique problems, one that
protects children, helps keep families together, prevents communities
from deteriorating, and is fair to taxpayers.
The Nation's welfare problems took a long time to develop, and they
will take some time to solve. Our solutions will not come overnight. We
have to work on them. I believe this proposal is a clean break with the
past and a good start for the future. It is based on two essential
elements that encourage work and self-sufficiency.
First, there will be a time limit on welfare assistance to make sure
that people have an incentive to leave welfare and move to work;
second, we will remove some obstacles that now deter people on welfare
from moving to work. They will have more help available for child care,
and Medicaid will still be there to provide basic health care.
I might add, Mr. President, that the imminent passage of the increase
in minimum wage will be a big boom, will be a big part of the solution
to welfare reform.
On the whole, I believe this effort reflects the views and values of
Montanans and of Americans. Undoubtedly, it is not perfect, and we can
learn from experience. We can and will improve it as time goes by.
However, it is a good start and a step we have to take.
Finally, I am glad that the President has chosen to sign it. It was
not an easy decision. But it is time that the system reflects the
consensus now existing in America for welfare reform. I believe this
bill is a good start. It is not perfect. Nothing is perfect. But we
cannot let perfection be the envy of the good. It is a good start, and
I believe we will have many opportunities to improve upon it as days,
months, and years go by.
I yield the floor.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. I yield myself up to 10 minutes.
Mr. President, this is landmark legislation, and it is a pivotal
point in our Nation's history and future. What it does, this bill
before the Senate, it does, indeed, change welfare as we know it.
This is what the hard-working American people have been asking
Congress to do for years. It limits welfare to 2 years for able-bodied
individuals, and there will be a 5-year lifetime on welfare for any
individual in our country.
Mr. President, this sends a message to the working people of our
country that, yes, we understand how hard it is to make ends meet. All
Americans work hard. Welfare recipients should not be an exception. If
we have uniform requirements for work, we will then say that this
Nation is a Nation that has a work ethic and values people who are
trying to be productive citizens.
This bill requires all able-bodied welfare recipients to work within
2 years, or lose their benefits. States will be required to have 50
percent of their welfare recipients working by 2002. And to ensure that
child care is available for a single parent, this bill provides an
additional $4.5 billion more than current law for child care. So we are
making sure that there is a safety net, while at the same time we are
going to save the taxpayers of our country $58 billion.
Now, I want to put this in perspective just to show what the American
people are seeing in our welfare system as it is today. In many States,
welfare systems provide the most perverse incentives. In 40 States,
welfare pays more than an $8 per hour job. In 17 States, it pays more
than a $10 per hour job. In six States, and in the District of
Columbia, welfare pays more than a $12 per hour job--more than two
times the minimum wage. In nine States, welfare pays more than the
average first-year salary of a teacher. In 29 States, it pays more than
the average starting salary for a secretary. In the six most generous
States in this Nation, benefits exceed the entry-level salary for a
computer programmer.
Mr. President, no wonder our welfare system is broken. No wonder the
American people are saying that we must have relief from a system that
would pay more to people who do not work than a teacher, a computer
programmer, or a person making $12 an hour that is getting up every
morning, putting their lunch together, and walking out the door to make
a living for his or her family.
Mr. President, what we are doing here tonight is saying that those
people have a value in our society. And people who can work, but won't,
will not be any better off than the person who gets up, puts his or her
lunch in a box, goes to work, and is a productive citizen of this
country.
This is indeed landmark reform. It is fair. It will stop a system
that has become a cancer on our society. It will give self-worth to the
people who will now have to work for any benefits they receive. And it
will say to hard-working Americans that are struggling to make ends
meet, ``You have a value and we appreciate you in this country, and you
will not have to work to support someone who can work, but chooses not
to.''

[[Page S9376]]

Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the remainder of my time.
Mr. DODD addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, will the Senator from Nebraska yield me up
to 15 minutes?
Mr. EXON. Yes, I yield the Senator 15 minutes.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, let me begin by saying that I respect those
who support this legislation, and I respect the President for making
the decision he did. But may I also begin by saying that I respectfully
disagree with their decisions.
Mr. President, I have served now in this body for almost 18 years. I
served in the Congress for 22 years. I have dedicated a good part of my
service in the U.S. Senate, as many of my colleagues know, to issues
affecting children. In fact, one of the first things I ever did as a
part of the Senate was form the first children's caucus, along with
Senator Specter from Pennsylvania. Dan Coats of Indiana and I were the
authors of the family and medical leave legislation. It took 7 years to
adopt that. It went through two vetoes before being signed into law by
President Clinton in the early days of his administration in 1993.
Senator Orrin Hatch and I were the authors of the child care block
grant, which is a subject of much discussion here today.

I note, with some irony, that when I offered amendments a year ago to
increase the child care funding in the early welfare reform proposals,
only two Members of the majority party supported the increase for child
care funding. Nonetheless, I am delighted to hear such strong, ringing
endorsements for the child care block grant, considering it took us so
many years to bring it the support it has now. There are numerous other
pieces of legislation over the years that I am proud to have been
associated with that affect children.
While there are certainly significant deficiencies, in my view, in
this legislation, affecting legal immigrants, affecting working adults,
I want to focus my remarks, if I can, Mr. President, on children. I say
that because the overwhelming majority of the people who will be
affected by this legislation are children. We are a Nation of some 275
million people in the United States--a very diverse and rich people. Of
the total population of this country, it is worthwhile, I think, to
note that we are talking about 13 million Americans out of 270 million
Americans who receive some form of aid to families with dependent
children from the U.S. Government. There are local welfare programs.
And there are State programs. But the Federal Government's commitment
to welfare affects 13 million Americans. Of the 13 million Americans,
almost 9 million are children under the age of 18, and 4 million are
adults. Of the 9 million who are children, 80 percent of the 9 million
are under the age of 12, and 50 percent of the 9 million are under the
age of 6.
So we are talking about 4 million adults and 4 to 5 million infants
and young children, in effect, who will be affected by this
legislation. We also know that roughly 2 million of the 4 million
adults are unemployable under any situation. They are either seriously
ill, or disabled, and will not be affected by this legislation because
they cannot work.
So our goal is to put 1 to 2 million of the 4 million adults on AFDC,
who are able-bodied and can work, to work. This is 1 to 2 million
people out of a nation of 270 million people. My concern is that, in
our efforts to do that, we are placing in jeopardy, and at significant
risk, for the first time in a half-century, the 9 million children in
this country who are also the recipients of public assistance.
So it is with a great deal of sadness, Mr. President, that I rise
today, knowing that in less than 2 or 3 hours from now, America's
national legislature will vote overwhelmingly to sever completely its
more than one-half century of support for the most vulnerable of our
people--our children.
For over 60 years, Mr. President, through 10 Presidents, hundreds of
U.S. Congressmen and Congresswomen, Senators, Democrats, Republicans,
liberals, moderates, and conservatives, we have tried to improve the
opportunities for all Americans. Certain issues were always in
conflict, and I suspect they always will be. But with regard to one
constituency, one group of Americans, there was never any serious
division. We in America take care of our children.
There is a national interest, I argue, and there has been for
decades, to protect the most innocent and defenseless in our society.
Whether you were a child from Eastport, ME, or San Diego, CA, if all
else failed, your National Government, your country, would not let you
go hungry, would not let you be denied medical care, and would not deny
you basic shelter. No matter how irresponsible your parents may have
been, no matter how neglectful your community or State, your country,
America, would absolutely guarantee, as a last resort, a safety net of
basic care.
In less than a few hours, Mr. President, we will end, after half a
century, that basic fundamental guarantee to these children.
Am I opposed to reforming welfare? Absolutely not. But let us put
this issue in perspective. We are talking about 9 million children--
many of whom have no other protection at all because of the
circumstances in which they are raised--who count on their Government
as a last resort to be of help.
Let me be starkly clear about what this legislation does. Under this
bill, States can cut off benefits. They cannot provide work
opportunities. There is no requirement for them to do so. They can set
shorter and shorter time limits, if they so desire. They can cut off
families completely without making any accommodation for their
children. And no matter how draconian these measures may be, this
National Government will stand by and do nothing.
It is worth noting that virtually all religious groups in this
country and their leaders oppose this piece of legislation. Let me
share with you the views of Bishop Anthony Pilla on behalf of the
Catholic Bishops:

The test of welfare reform is whether it will enhance the
lives and dignity of poor children and their families. The
moral measure of our society is how we treat the least
amongst us. This legislation fails these tests and fails our
Nation.

What is more, we are considering this legislation with the benefit of
data showing that the bill will push at least 1.1 million children into
poverty in this country and worsen the situation of children already in
poverty by 20 percent.
Let us consider, if you will, for just one moment that instead of
dealing with welfare reform here, we were dealing with a piece of
legislation affecting American businesses. And assume for 1 minute, if
you will, that we were provided data by credible sources that said as a
result of this bill, if it were to become law, 1 million business
people would fail as a result of your actions.
I would just inquire: How long would that legislation last on the
floor of the U.S. Senate? We would not be told that it is a ``minor
inconvenience'' and somehow ``we may fix that later.'' We would not
spend 1 minute considering a piece of legislation that would cause 1
million business people to fail. And, yet, when 1 million children may
fail and already poor children will be pushed into even more difficult
circumstances, we are told over and over again that somehow we will fix
that down the road.
I cannot support a piece of legislation that would take 1 million
innocent children and push them into poverty with a vague hope that
some day we may do something to correct that situation.
These numbers should make all of us take pause and seriously consider
the dire implications of our actions. I know many people argue that the
current welfare system does not serve our children well. I do not
disagree. But replacing a system in need of reform with a worse system
is no solution at all. In fact, it is irresponsible. There is no
justification, in my view, to try something different at any cost;
namely, abandoning a national commitment to children for the sake of
change.
Again, I applaud the improvements that were made in this bill, and
they have been recited by others. It, certainly, is better than what
was considered a year ago in a number of aspects. But despite those
improvements, there are still elements in this legislation which make
it fundamentally flawed.
The Congressional Budget Office estimates that between 2.5 and 3.5
million

[[Page S9377]]

children would be affected by the 5-year cutoff of benefits in this
bill. I have no objection to setting time limits on adults. In my
State, it is 2 years. Experiments like that make sense, to see if they
work. What I do not understand is that no matter how difficult you want
to be on the parent, how do you look into the face of a 6-year-old
child who, through no fault of their own, are born into difficult
circumstances and say that regardless of the flaws of their parents,
the irresponsibility of their parents, they must pay the price? I do
not understand that logic or that thinking.
It seems to me that if we know this welfare bill will increase the
number of poor children, we should, at the very least, make some
provisions for children whose parents have reached the time limit and
are cut off from assistance. But this bill prohibits--and I emphasize
this--this bill prohibits even providing vouchers to children whose
parents have hit the 5-year time limit. In fact, it does not even grant
the State the option to provide noncash aid to infants and toddlers.
This is not only a step backward, but, in my view, it is an
unconscionable retreat from a 60-year-old commitment that Republicans
and Democrats, 10 American Presidents, and Congresses have made on
behalf of America's children.
Some will argue that the conference agreement says that States can
use the title XX social services block grant to provide vouchers for
these families and children. But I ask my colleagues to look at the
provisions of the bill that cut this block grant by 15 percent. We are
reducing the very block grants we are now telling States they can use
to provide for these benefits.
I truly believe that if we were serious about ensuring the safety net
for children in this bill, we would do it outright and not come up with
fancy accounting methods that provide no guarantees for children
whatsoever.
This legislation does not provide enough funds, quite frankly, to
meet the work requirements of the bill. This bill has the goal of
putting welfare recipients to work. I applaud that. Yet, it fails to
provide adequate funds to reach that very growth.
We are setting ourselves up for a failure. The Congressional Budget
Office estimates that this bill is $12 billion short of funds needed to
meet the work requirements--$2 billion more than the shortfall of the
Senate bill which was passed last year. The same Congressional Budget
Office says that most States will not succeed in meeting the work
requirements. They will just accept the penalty of reduction in funds.
Do our friends here who support this legislation think that millions
of jobs for welfare recipients will simply appear out of the air? Will
millions of welfare recipients, most of whom want to work, I would
argue, magically find jobs? Not unless they receive the assistance, the
training, and the educational help which leads to job creation. In this
bill, they will receive no such help at all.
While we see movement on child care--again, I applaud that--this
conference agreement retreats on a critically important child care
provision.
Let me emphasize this point. Both the House and Senate bills contain
provisions that prohibit a State from sanctioning a family if the
mother could not work because she could not obtain nor afford child
care for children age 10 and under. The conference agreement, which we
are about to vote on, moves that age threshold from 10 years of age to
5 years of age, at the request, I am told, of some Governors.
Currently, approximately 2.4 million children on AFDC are between the
ages of 6 and 10. The families of these children could lose all of
their benefits as a result of a work sanction because the parent could
not find adequate child care for a 7-year-old, an 8-year-old, or a 9-
year-old. This bill encourages parents to go to work and leave a child
at home, without supervision, at a time when we are talking about
family values and parents caring for their children. We put these
parents in the catch-22 situation, either they lose benefits or leave
their child--a 6- 7- or 8-year old at home alone. I do not understand,
again, the logic of that kind of thinking.
I know that the Governors have argued that the protection for
children 10 and under would make it hard for them to meet the work
requirements in the legislation. But that sort of argument points out
flawed thinking in this bill. I think all of us understand the need for
child care. Latchkey children are a serious problem in our society. I
fail to understand how Governors who argue that a provision which
protects kids who are 6- 7- and 8-years old would impede their ability
to meet work requirements. Governors, at the very least, should be able
to guarantee to children age 10 and under that they will not be left at
home without care.

Additionally, the food stamp cuts in the conference agreement are
deeper than last year's vetoed welfare bill and deeper than last year's
Senate-passed bill. The conference agreement would cut food stamps by
about 20 percent. Families with children--not single adults--families
with children will bear the greatest burden. Two-thirds of the cuts in
food stamps will hit families with children.
Additionally, the bill limits food stamps to unemployed adults not
raising children to just 3 months in a 3-year period with no hardship
exemption whatsoever. If we were in a period of high unemployment in
this country, with people being laid off from jobs through no fault of
their own, how do you explain to someone who has worked for many, many
years and finds himself without a job, that he will be cut off from
some basic necessities to allow him to exist? And there's no exemption
whatsoever to account for economic difficulties.
The Congressional Budget Office estimates that in an average month,
under this provision, 1 million poor, unemployed individuals who are
willing to work and have worked in many cases and would take a workfare
slot, if one were available, would be denied food stamps because they
cannot find work.
Finally, Mr. President, I want to mention the treatment of legal
immigrants in this legislation, which I know is of great concern to our
colleagues from California and Florida and New York and others.
This bill, in my view, is a repudiation of the legacy of immigration
that has defined our country for more than 200 years. We are talking
about legal immigrants now.
It is this influx of immigrants from diverse cultures and distant
lands that has made this country a shining example to the entire world.
That is why millions of people across the globe have come to our
Nation.
To say to legal immigrants who pay taxes, who get drafted and serve
in our military that we are going to deny them basic protections after
we have invited them to come here in a legal status because they do not
vote and they are an easy target I think is a mistake.
It was the promise of the American dream that brought my family to
this country from Ireland. And it was the desire for a better life that
brought millions of other immigrants to America, whether they came over
on the Mayflower or if they came to our land in just the past few days.
The fact is, nearly every Senator in this body is a descendant of
immigrants.
The attack, in this legislation, on legal immigrants is mean-spirited
and punitive.
This bill is more interested in reducing the deficit than maintaining
our commitment to legal immigration.
This bill bans legal immigrants--children and the disabled--from food
stamps and SSI. When people lose SSI, they lose their health coverage
under Medicaid.
I fear that we'll see people who have paid taxes wheeled out of
nursing homes as a result of this bill.
The legal immigrant provisions of this bill will shift substantial
costs on to local governments.
In the words of Mayor Guiliani of New York:

By restricting legal immigrants' access to most Federal
programs, immigration, in effect, becomes a local
responsibility. Welfare reform should not diminish Federal
responsibility for immigration policy or shift cost to local
governments.

But that's exactly what this bill does.

conclusion

In closing, let me say, Mr. President, that welfare reform is by no
means easy. If we are to change the cycle of dependency and encourage
work among welfare recipients, we must make tough decisions.

[[Page S9378]]

But, in the end, those decisions must always be weighed against their
effect on poor children. Our success will not be judged by how much we
reduce the welfare rolls, but how we help those who are left behind.
This bill fails that test--on both accounts.
President Franklin Roosevelt once said that: ``The test of our
progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have
too much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too
little.''
For those in our Nation who have too little, we are providing only
crumbs.
If welfare recipients are to revel in the hopes and aspirations of
the American dream then they must be provided with the tools and
opportunities to make those dreams a reality.
This bill fails those Americans and it fails our commitment to the
most vulnerable and poorest citizens in our Nation.
I know this is a futile effort, but I urge my colleagues in the
remaining few hours to consider that we are about to sever the lifeline
to 9 million children in this country for the sake of putting 1 to 2
million adults to work. This incredibly misguided policy is not in
balance and ought to be defeated.
Mr. SHELBY addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the conference
report to the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act of 1996.
The American people I believe have demanded welfare reform, and I am
pleased that the Congress has not yielded in its commitment to pass
much needed and long overdue comprehensive welfare reform. Our current
welfare system is a death sentence. It is a death sentence to the human
spirit, the family, and the hopes and dreams of millions of children in
America. The welfare system today encourages dependency, facilitates
the breakdown of the family, demoralizes the human spirit, and
undermines the work ethic that built our Nation. For a third time this
Congress has delivered legislation to address the failures of the
welfare state and provide reforms that I believe will free the poor
from being trapped in a cycle of dependency. This bill is the boldest
statement we can make in the current political environment, and I am
pleased that the President has finally pledged to keep his promise to
end welfare as we know it.
Mr. President, the imperative for welfare reform is manifest. The
American taxpayers have spent more than $5.4 trillion since President
Johnson declared a war on poverty. But after spending this massive sum,
we are no closer to having a Great Society than if we had done nothing.
In fact, the poverty rate in America has actually increased over the
past 28 years. The reason for this is simple: Welfare has become a way
of life. The modern welfare State is rife with financial incentives for
mothers to remain unmarried. Eighty percent of children in many low-
income communities in America are born in homes without a father. It is
virtually impossible for a young unwed mother with no work skills to
escape the welfare trap as we know it today. This has done nothing to
stop the ravaging of our cities and the skyrocketing of violent crime.

People have become dependent on welfare because it completely
destroys the need to work and the natural incentive to become self-
sufficient. For more than 30 years the message of the welfare state is
that the Government will take care of you. It is a punitive form of
assistance. It punishes those who want to work and want to succeed. It
punishes those mothers who want to get married and have a husband to
help raise the children.
Where is the compassion in this present welfare program? It is not
there. Only the beltway establishment would dare suggest that providing
monthly benefits is more compassionate than fostering the natural
inclination in every human being to reach your full potential. However,
with the enactment of this bill, Congress will require welfare
recipients to work in exchange for benefits for the first time. By
imposing a 5-year lifetime limit on welfare benefits, the message of
the reformed welfare state is that we will provide temporary assistance
to help during hardship as you return to self-sufficiency.
The bill we vote on today begins to repair a very badly broken
welfare state in other ways. It puts healthy incentives in our welfare
system. The generous package of welfare benefits available in America
is a magnet for literally hundreds of thousands of legal and illegal
immigrants. I do not believe this is just, and this bill properly
denies welfare to noncitizens.
Also, the Government will no longer tell young women, ``If you have
children you are not able to support and you are willing to raise them
without a father the Government will reward you and pick up the tab.''
That is the wrong message. This legislation allows States to end
additional cash payments to unwed mothers who have additional children
while collecting welfare. The bill also permits States to deny cash to
unwed teenage mothers and instead provide them with other forms of
assistance. It is good for children to see both their parents in the
morning, and this bill provides the mechanisms that will make this the
norm, not the exception.
This legislation represents real welfare reform. The monster that was
created over the last 30 years will not change overnight, but we take a
significant step today. This bill ensures that welfare finally will
benefit, not harm, its beneficiaries. I urge all my colleagues to adopt
this landmark legislation.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Thank you, Mr. President. I ask to be recognized for
13 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I would like to read you an excerpt
from an editorial in yesterday's Sacramento Bee which, I believe, sums
up the bill we are about to vote on

There is a widespread consensus that welfare must be
reformed to reduce long-term dependency and encourage work
and personal responsibility. But the current bill,
underfunded and overly punitive, ignores everything we have
learned over the last decade about moving welfare recipients
into the job market.
More than half of the welfare recipients lack a high school
education at a time when labor markets put a premium on
education and skills. Two-thirds live in central cities,
places from which employers have fled. At their most
successful, past efforts to move welfare recipients into
jobs, such as the GAIN program in Riverside have reduced
welfare roles by only 10 percent and incomes of welfare
recipients by a few hundred dollars a month.
Yet the welfare bill requires states to move half of all
recipients into jobs, even though, according to Congress' own
experts, the bill falls $12 billion shy of funding for the
work program. Even if one heroically assumes that two-thirds
of welfare families would find permanent employment, the
bill's five-year lifetime limit on benefits would leave 1
million families--adults and children alike--without any
source of income.

Mr. President, I am very disappointed that I must oppose the welfare
reform bill as presented to this body by the House-Senate conference
committee. I had hoped that the bill that emerged from the conference
committee would be one that California could live with, because, I
think it is clear that, with 32 million people, no State in the Union
has as much to gain or as much to lose from welfare reform.
Unfortunately, this bill remains one in which California loses, and
loses big.
California is being asked to foot the bill for changing welfare as we
know it--and that is wrong. One-third of the estimated $55 billion
savings in this bill comes from one State: California. California faces
a loss of more than $16 billion over the next 6 years as a result of
this bill, more when you add reductions in State funds under the new
rules and potentially much more if our welfare caseload continues to
increase at the current pace.
The losses to California are staggering: Up to $9 billion in cuts to
Federal aid for legal immigrants, $4.2 billion in cuts in food stamps,
and as much as $3 billion in AFDC funds over the next 6 years.
Not only is this bill unfair to California on its face, it is
seriously flawed in a number of critically important areas.
The contingency funds provided in this bill--$2 billion--are too
little. California alone, I predict, can and will need the entire
amount.
Work requirements are an impossible goal. The heart of this bill,
moving

[[Page S9379]]

people from welfare to work, rests on the unknown and probably the
impossible. No state, to my knowledge, in 6 years has been able to move
50 percent of its welfare caseload into jobs, as this bill requires.
California will have an impossible hurdle to move the required 20
percent of its welfare caseload into jobs in 1 year, let alone 50
percent in 6 years. In order to meet the 20 percent work requirement in
this bill, California would have to find jobs next year for more than
166,000 current adult welfare recipients. But, in the last 2 years, the
State added an average of only 300,000 people total to payrolls in
nonfarm jobs. How do we possibly create enough jobs to increase
employment by another 50 percent--especially for a work force that is
largely unskilled and under educated? California is a State that has
all but lost its production base and is now producing either high-
skilled jobs or hamburger flippers at minimum wage.
In order to move people into work, there must be affordable child
care for parents. This bill does not provide anywhere near enough
funds. The child care block grant in this bill is awarded to States
based on their current utilization of Federal child care funds. In
California, there are approximately 1.8 million children on AFDC.
California currently provides child care subsidies and/or slots to
approximately 200,000 children. The Child Care Law Center estimates
that under the welfare reform bill, as more parents are required to
work, as many as 418,000 additional preschool children and 650,000
children aged 5 to 13 may need child care. This would be a 600 percent
increase in need for child care slots.
This bill does not come near the amount of child care dollars that
would be needed in California to do this job.
The conference bill is actually worse than the Senate bill in
handling America's ultimate safety net: Food Stamps. The conference
bill cuts food stamps by 20 percent. California loses $4.2 billion.
Last year, an average of 1.2 million households--more than 3.2
million people--in California relied on food stamps each month.
California's unemployment rate is still high at 7.2 percent--2
percentage points above the national rate of 5.3 percent. 1,117,000
people are out of work today--more than the entire populations of nine
States. This bill would limit food stamps for an able-bodied adult with
no children to a total of 3 months over a period of 3 years. If that
person becomes unemployed, they would only be able to receive an
additional 3 months of food stamps in that same 3-year period. This
bill would also bar all legal immigrants from receiving food stamps--
there is no exemption for elderly, disabled, or children.
The shelter deduction in this bill is a case in point which
demonstrates that, however well intentioned this bill might be, it
lacks a fundamental foothold in reality when it comes to California.
The shelter deduction allows families with children to deduct a
maximum of $247, with an increase to $300 in the year 2001, from their
income level when applying for aid--ostensibly to compensate for the
cost of housing.
In the vast majority of the population centers in California,
particularly in urban areas, you can not find a place to rent for that
amount of money. In San Francisco, the average rent is between $750 and
$1,000 per month.
So this deduction is so low that it is virtually useless in
California.
California is not the only loser in this welfare bill. America's
children lose as well. In a rush to deliver a welfare reform bill--any
welfare bill--before the November elections, this bill is the moral
equivalent of a dear John letter to our Nation's needy children.
Under this bill, 3.3 million children nationwide and 1.8 million
children in California could lose AFDC after the 5-year limit. Children
of undocumented immigrants would not even be allowed to buy federally
subsidized school lunches. Recent studies by Children Now and the Urban
Institute estimated that this welfare plan would thrust an additional
1.1 million children into poverty conditions in the United States. The
Senate rejected moderate amendments sought by the White House as well
as members of both parties to provide noncash assistance to children
whose parents lose their benefits in the form of vouchers for food,
clothing and other basic necessities.
The voucher language included in the conference report is an empty-
handed gesture allowing states to rob Peter to pay Paul because it adds
no new funds to provide basic necessities to children whose parents
lose benefits.
The major cost shift to California comes from the elimination of
Federal assistance for legal immigrants, most of whom are elderly,
blind, and disabled--all of them poor--who came to this country under
terms agreed to by the Federal Government. And yet, the Federal
Government will not bear the cost of changing the terms of that deal--
the cost of this policy shift will be forced onto States and counties.
Let me be clear: I am all for changing U.S. immigration policies to
hold sponsors of legal immigrants legally bound to provide financial
support to their sponsees. But to change this policy on those already
in this country--retroactively--and thus summarily dropping hundreds of
thousands of elderly and disabled immigrants from Federal support
programs like SSI, food stamps, and AFDC onto already overburdened
county assistance programs, is not only an abdication of Federal
responsibility--to me it is unconscionable.
The impact of this cost shift to California counties could be
catastrophic.
An estimated 722,939 legal immigrants in California--many of whom are
aged, blind, and elderly--would lose SSI, AFDC, and food stamps under
this bill.
Los Angeles County--the most impacted area nationwide--estimates that
93,000 noncitizen legal immigrants will lose SSI under this bill, at a
potential cost of more than $236 million each year in county general
assistance funds.
Los Angeles also estimates that the restriction on future immigrants
receiving nonemergency Medicaid services would result in $100 million
in additional costs--much higher unless the State comes up with the
funds to provide coverage to noncitizens.
San Francisco County estimates that the cost of county funded general
assistance could increase $74 million under the legal immigrant
provisions in this bill--an increase of more than 250 percent.
Other counties in California are studying the impact of this
legislation and coming up with similar financial horror stories. Twelve
of the top twenty metropolitan areas in the country that are impacted
most severely by this bill are in California.
The State of California indicated by its budget that it has no
ability or intention of stepping in to fill the funding gap this bill
creates. Governor Wilson's State budget for fiscal year 1996-1997
assumes the immigrant provisions in this legislation will pass and
legal immigrants will no longer be eligible for assistance.
California's legislative analyst's report indicates that Governor
Wilson's budget:

. . . assumes enactment of federal legislation barring most
legal immigrants from receiving SSI/SSP benefits starting
January 1, 1997. The budget assume savings of $91 million
from this proposal.

That is from the ``Legislative Analyst's Report, 1996-97 Budget.''
While we in Washington sit in our ivory tower and pat ourselves on
the back for changing welfare as we know it, the real impact of this
bill will land on real people who are too old or too sick to care for
themselves, and whose families--if they have one--have no ability to
help them.
Let me put some faces and names on this welfare bill for you:
A 73-year-old woman who asked not to be named came to the United
States as a refugee from Vietnam in 1981. She sold everything she owned
to pay for her passage on a boat for her and her mother. Her mother
died on the trip over. She moved to San Francisco in 1985 and fell ill
with kidney disease. She currently depends on SSI and Medicaid to pay
for dialysis and other medical care. Her only relative in the United
States is a goddaughter who cannot afford to care for her. She has
applied for citizenship, but may not pass the English proficiency exam.
Maria, who lives in Los Angeles, came to the United States in 1973
when she was 62 years old to live with her daughter. In 1984, her
daughter had a stroke at work which rsulted in two cerebral aneurysms.
Following the stroke, her daughter was unable to

[[Page S9380]]

work and therefore unable to support Maria as she had done for the
previous 11 years. Maria received both SSI and Medicaid. Neither Maria
nor her daughter would be able to survive on her daughter's disability
income alone.
Thank you, Mr. President. I yield back the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I yield 7 minutes to myself.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia is recognized for 7
minutes.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, like so many of my colleagues, I have had
the opportunity to actually visit--this time Norfolk, VA a few days
ago--a center which is providing job training for welfare recipients.
The first thing I was impressed with was a collection of about 12
rooms. It was absolutely spotless. The staff of this nonprofit
organization had many volunteers who came in to work with their welfare
clients. In this instance I only saw welfare mothers, or some perhaps
who did not have children, and largely minorities. All was neat and
clean, and they showed up meticulously on time at this center with a
spirit of ``can do--we will overcome our handicaps if only you will
reach out and give us a helping hand.''
That is what this bill does. It should be called the helping hand
bill. Each of us in our lifetime has experienced periods when you had
to reach out a helping hand. Most have the opportunity to do it
regularly. I can remember at one point serving in the U.S. military
with men, in this instance, who could not read and write, but they
received a helping hand and quickly learned those military skills, that
they could at that learning level, and became key members of fighting
teams, in this instance, in the Navy. I will never forget that. All
they asked for was a helping hand, and that is what this bill is
designed to do and will do if we will just give it a fair chance.
I regret to hear, largely from the other side of the aisle, these
cries that we have done a wrong. We have not done a wrong. We have
listened to the American people. Sixty-five percent of the American
people, or higher, agree that the system in Washington has not worked.
It was given a fair chance. It was given an enormous sum of money. One
piece of paper says we have spent, as a nation, more money on welfare
than the cost of all military actions in this century. This is a
substantial amount of money.
Yet, the casualties in terms of the families, particularly the
children, have been very high. Why not give the States and the local
communities the opportunity now to make this system work? We all know
that there are persons less fortunate than ourselves, and all they want
is a helping hand. Reach out, that is what we should do.
As this bill goes forth--the President has now indicated, for reasons
of his own, after two vetoes he will sign this one--let's send it forth
in a spirit of can do, like the people I met in the welfare center in
Norfolk. We do not want it to arrive on the doorstep in the several
States, down in the small towns and villages of my State and your
States with a message, ``It isn't going to work.'' But it is there, so
let's send it in the spirit of give it the best shot.
I ask, are not the people in the communities, large and small, all
across this Nation as well qualified as the innumerable army of
bureaucrats here in the Nation's Capital who, for half a century, have
worked with this? Are they not as well qualified? I say absolutely yes,
and let's give them a chance to make it work.
I am not satisfied with every provision in this bill. I sided with
the Senator from Louisiana, John Breaux, to give more funds and support
to the children. I was concerned. I voted against a majority on my side
of the aisle. There is not a person in this Chamber who is not
concerned as to exactly what will happen to children. But let me tell
you, in the communities in my State, and I say in the communities in
your States, they are not going to let the children be injured,
irrespective of however the law is written. They will find a way to
make it work and protect those children far better than we can as
bureaucrats in Washington. They will make it work.
If there are legislative changes needed, I assure you, the citizens
of my great State will come to my doorstep very promptly and say,
``Senator, we're trying to make this bill work, but we need a change
here,'' or a change there. And I am confident I will step forward, as
will others on both sides of the aisle, and make those changes to make
this piece of legislation work.

Families living side by side, one receiving welfare, one getting up
and going to work--the friction between them, the discontent right in
the same street in the same neighborhood--is intolerable. We have to
stop that. We are providing a disincentive for those who are getting
out of bed and trying to go to work. Within the welfare ranks, we may
be taking a gamble, but I will bet that there are a substantial number
on welfare who want to come forward and, with a helping hand, make this
piece of legislation work.
It is incumbent on those welfare people to have a willingness to
break out of the system. They may be shy, they may be reticent, and we
will be patient, but they have to go to work. There are able-bodied
people in all these communities--and I have seen them and you have seen
them--who will step forward and gently but firmly and decisively extend
that hand to make it work and to quickly come back if children or other
aspects of this program are not working and inform the Members of
Congress so we can fix it.
Mr. President, this is a great day for our country. We have come to
the realization that one of the major entitlement programs has not
lived up to its expectations. It has created scenes in every town in
America which are totally unacceptable in this day and time. Let's make
this piece of legislation work. Let's send it out of here and praise
the efforts that we have made in response to the direct plea of the
American people to fix this system by sending it from Washington back
to where it belongs--hometown USA.
I yield the floor.
Mr. SIMON addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bennett). The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I yield myself 7 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.
Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, let's face it, our choice is: hurting poor
people and gaining some votes in the process, or appearing to stand for
something that we all know needs change and losing votes but not
hurting poor people.
My friend from Virginia, for whom I have great respect, says this is
a helping-hand bill. The Urban Institute says we are going to put 2.6
million more Americans into poverty, 1.1 million more children. That is
not the kind of helping hand we need. We already have 24 percent of our
children living in poverty. No other Western industrialized nation is
anywhere close to that, and we are compounding the evil.
I am supporting Bill Clinton for reelection. In many ways, he leaves
a good legacy. But let no one make any mistake about it, he is marring
his legacy by signing this bill. He may gain a few more votes on
November 5, but he is hurting history's judgment of what he is doing as
President.
This is not welfare reform. This is political public relations.
I heard one of my colleagues, for whom I have great respect, say we
have to change the system of children having children. Of course we
have to change the system of children having children. But this bill
does not do one thing in that direction. And it should be added that
the birthrate among people who have welfare is going down, and going
down significantly.

Second, I say to you, Mr. President, we have about a million teenage
pregnancies each year, about 400,000 of which end up in abortions,
incidentally. What we know is those who are high school dropouts are
much more likely to be involved in teenage pregnancies. You want to do
something about that? Let us put some money into education, not this
phony bill that is going to cause great harm.
Will Durant and his wife have written great histories:
``Reformation,'' ``The Age of Napoleon,'' and so forth. But Will Durant
wrote a small book called ``The Meaning of History.'' In that small
book, in ``The Meaning of History,'' he said: ``This is the history of
nations, that those who are more fortunate economically continue to
pile up benefits, and they press down

[[Page S9381]]

those who are less fortunate until those who are less fortunate
eventually revolt.''
What are we doing here in this session of Congress? We are giving the
Pentagon, this fiscal year, $11 billion more than they requested. We
are going to have some kind of tax cuts that particularly benefit those
of us in this Chamber who are more fortunate economically. And with
this bill, for the next 6 years, we will be cutting back $9.2 billion a
year from poor people.
I am for genuine welfare reform, but genuine welfare reform requires
providing jobs for people of limited ability and providing day care. I
have a bill in that says you cannot be on welfare more than 5 weeks--in
some ways, tougher than this--but then the Federal Government has a WPA
type of job available. We screen people as they come in, and if they
cannot read and write, we get them into a program. If you have no
marketable skill, you get them to a technical school or a community
college. That would be genuine welfare reform.
But as Gov. Tommy Thompson has pointed out--a Republican,
incidentally--if you are going to have welfare reform, you are going to
have to put in more money upfront, not less money.
I like Senator Feinstein's remark that this is the moral equivalent
of a ``Dear John'' letter to the poor people of the Nation. She is,
unfortunately, right.
In October--the Presiding Officer is someone who has a sense of
history--in October, we have Roosevelt History Month because we thought
at that point we would dedicate the Roosevelt memorial. It looks like
now it will not be ready then. But we will celebrate, that month, when
we had a great national leader who lifted the poor people of this
Nation. Two months prior to that, we are going to celebrate by pushing
down the poor people of this Nation.
Let us be very practical. A woman who lives in Robert Taylor homes in
the south side of Chicago, desperately poor, lives in a public housing
project, has three children, and with this bill--and she has very
limited skills because she went to poor schools, probably can barely
read and write--with this bill we are saying to her, you can at the
most stay on welfare 5 years, maybe only 2, but we are not going to
provide any job for you, we are not going to have any day care for your
children.
What does that woman do if she wants to feed her children? Does she
take to the streets in crime? Does she become a prostitute? I do not
know, nor does anyone else in this Chamber.
Let me pay tribute to two people here, one who just spoke against
this before, Senator Chris Dodd, who is the Democratic national
chairman and who is interested in votes. But despite being Democratic
national chairman, despite the stand taken by President Clinton, Chris
Dodd stood here and said this is bad for the children of America. And
Paul Wellstone, up for reelection, showing great, great courage.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. SIMON. I yield myself 30 additional seconds.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.
Mr. SIMON. When my friend from Virginia, Senator Warner, said the
States will protect people, I think of the bill we finally passed when
I was over in the House to protect children who wanted to go to school
who had disabilities. The States said, ``If you're in a wheelchair, if
you're blind, if you're deaf, sorry, we're not going to force education
for them.'' The majority of the mentally retarded were not being given
any help by our public schools. The Federal Government came along and
said, ``You are entitled to this.'' The Federal Government protected
people with disabilities, and the Federal Government should protect
poor people in this Nation. We are not doing it with this legislation.
Mr. GRASSLEY addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. GRASSLEY. I yield to the Senator from Ohio 8 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. DeWINE. Thank you, Mr. President.
This legislation that we will pass in the next 2 hours is truly
historic. It recognizes, literally for the first time in 60 years, that
when it comes to lifting people out of poverty, Washington does not
have all the answers. In fact, I think most of us know Washington has
really few answers in this area, because the true innovation, the true
changes that we have seen in the last decade in regard to welfare
reform has come from the States. That is what this bill will foster.
That is what this bill will allow.
Mr. President, there has been a great deal of controversy about many
parts of this bill, but I believe what unites just about everyone in
this debate is a realization that the current system simply is not
working, that the status quo is unacceptable. We disagree about what
should replace that system.
That is why one chief merit of this bill is that it gives the States
the flexibility to reinvent welfare, to find out what works, what does
not work, and once we find out what works, to build on that. That
experimentation has already started in the States. The only thing that
is holding it back, frankly, is the Federal Government. And this bill
allows for more experimentation, it allows for new ideas.
Mr. President, compared to the current system, a failed, top-down
system that fosters the cycle of dependency that blights so many parts
of America, this is a huge improvement. And there are other
improvements, Mr. President, in this bill as well.
This bill reestablishes the connection between work and income, the
time-honored idea that people should work to get income. The current
welfare system cut the nexus between working and making money. This was
one of the great mistakes of our social welfare policy. People do need
a hand up. They need help. And this welfare bill gives them a hand up.

I am also very pleased, Mr. President, the bill includes a ``rainy
day'' contingency fund for the States. As a former Lieutenant Governor,
I know how vulnerable a State's budget is to an economic downturn. Many
States, such as my home State of Ohio, are required by law to balance
their budget every single year, no matter how hard the economic times
are. We need to make sure that the poorest Americans are taken care of
when that contingency arises, thus the contingency fund in this bill.
That is why, Mr. President, I offered the amendment for the
contingency fund last year. I applaud the conferees and the leadership
for the decision to include that contingency fund in this package as
well.
I also think this bill's crackdown on unpaid child support is a
terrific idea and long overdue. As a former county prosecutor, I dealt
with these child support cases all the time, and I can tell you that
when child support goes up, the welfare rolls go down. It is as simple
as that.
One provision in this bill that I am particularly proud of is one I
proposed as an amendment to last year's welfare reform bill. It has
been included in this bill as well. It would give States added tools in
their efforts to track down the bank accounts of deadbeat parents.
Mr. President, in this bill, we are strengthening the States as they
attempt to go after the delinquent and deadbeat parents. It is
absolutely essential that we strengthen the ethic of personal
responsibility in this way. We need to make it absolutely clear--
America demands that parents be responsible for their children.
Deadbeat parents cannot be allowed to walk away from their
responsibilities. In this bill, we deal with that.

We also provide a strong safety net at the same time, a strong safety
net for people who need help. The bill passed the House by a broad
bipartisan vote, 328 to 101. I expect it will pass the Senate
overwhelmingly later this evening. I applaud the President for his
decision to sign this bill. My only regret is that we lost time. We
lost a year. Last year, the President had welfare reform before him. He
decided to veto the bill. This bill is no different, not significantly
different in any way. I am pleased to see that the President has
changed his mind and that he now intends to sign the bill.
Today, the American people can be proud of this legislative process.
We are about to pass a bill in a couple of hours that offers the best
hope in our lifetime for breaking the cycle of poverty. It is a bill
that provides hope, hope for the people on welfare, and hope for the
idea that we can change

[[Page S9382]]

welfare, change the system that clearly has not worked. It has been a
system that has kept people down, a system that has promoted
illegitimacy, a system that has not given people hope. Today we take a
major step to change that.
Mr. President, let me conclude by stating that we have heard a lot of
comments today on this floor about children. I think we should not fail
to realize that the chief victim of the current welfare system, the
chief victims, are the children. If anyone doubts that, talk to
families who are on welfare. Talk to the children. I believe the chief
benefit of this bill, quite frankly, is the hope it holds for these
children.
I thank the Chair and I yield the floor.
Mr. ABRAHAM. In the absence of a speaker on the Democratic side, I
yield myself up to 10 minutes to speak at this time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, as we come to the conclusion of this
debate, I think we should be proud of the efforts of the Senate and of
the Congress. For the better part of 2 years we have now been working
toward, I think, a very positive conclusion to the debate on how we
assist those in our society who are the most needy.
It is clear from an examination of the past 25 to 30 years that the
so-called war on poverty has been, at least up until now, won by
poverty. Although trillions of dollars, over $5 trillion, has been
spent during this past 25 to 30 years to try to fight that war, we find
today virtually the same percentage, if not a greater percentage, of
Americans below the poverty line than was the case when the war began.
We have spent, as I say, a lot of time debating in this Congress and in
previous Congresses why that is the case.
It is quite clear, and I think acknowledged now by virtually
everybody who has been involved in this debate, that the process, the
welfare system in this country, is a principal reason why the war has
not been won. Some would say, yes, there is a problem, but we have yet
to come to the proper solution to that problem. However, I disagree.
Indeed, we have worked very hard for, as I say, almost 2 years in
this Congress, building on work done in previous Congresses, to find
the solution. I believe this legislation, although maybe not ideal from
the perspective of any single Member, including the one from Michigan,
is, nevertheless, a major step in the right direction.

I believe this approach will work, Mr. President. It will work for a
variety of reasons. First, it will work because it vests far more
flexibility and far more decisionmaking and far more authority in the
50 States. There may have been a time in this country when some States
and communities did not step up to their obligations to assist those in
need. That is certainly not the case today. I do not know of one person
in this Senate who has stood up here and said: ``My State will fail; my
State will not take care of people; my State cannot meet the challenge;
my State is less compassionate than the National Government.'' I have
not heard one Member say that. That is because not one Member could say
that, Mr. President.
The States are as compassionate and as capable and more knowledgeable
about the problems confronted by their citizens than bureaucrats in
Washington. This legislation gives those States the chance to translate
their compassion and their insight and their expertise into the action
it will take to assist people in need to move out of poverty and on to
the economic ladder.
This legislation works, also, Mr. President, because it changes the
incentives. Yes, we place some tough standards in this legislation,
incentives to people to get out of the welfare dependency role and on
to and into the work force. We put time limits. We put the kind of
tough standards that will cause people to understand that poverty is
not the way of life, that welfare is not the way of life, and to seek
the assistance of government at all levels to obtain the training and
the assistance and the help it will take to move into productive work.
It changes the incentives in the right direction.
The legislation is important, also, Mr. President, because for the
first time it allows us to begin addressing one of the most important
problems we confront in this country, the problem of the rising rate of
illegitimacy, of out-of-wedlock births in America. We provide in the
legislation incentives for States to find ways to solve the growing
number of out-of-wedlock birth situations, incentives in the form of
more dollars for the various problems if States can address effectively
these issues and these problems, and do so without increasing the
abortion rate at the same time.
Finally, this legislation makes sense, Mr. President, because it
means less bureaucracy. In my State of Michigan, we think we have a
pretty darn good formula for addressing the problems that confront our
most needy citizens. Too often, however, Washington bureaucracy and red
tape make it impossible to accomplish our objectives.
Just to put it in perspective, when we talk to people in our Family
Independence Agency--it used to be called the Department of Social
Services; we tried to change the title to change the philosophy as to
our objectives in that agency--the front-line case workers, the people
who are supposed to be out there at the front line assisting folks to
get out of poverty and on to the economic ladder, two-thirds of their
time is not spent helping people get off welfare. Two-thirds of their
time is spent filling out paperwork, almost all of it coming from
Washington. We believe in our State, for example, that we can take what
is now a 30-page form that must be filled out by folks who are going to
go on to assistance programs and reduce it to about 5 pages, one-sixth
the size of the form that currently is used. The time the case worker
would have spent filling out the other 24 pages can now be spent
helping the recipient figure out what training programs and what
strategies will work to give them an opportunity to be productive and
to get on the economic ladder. We think we should have the flexibility
to get rid of the bureaucracy and to get rid of all that paperwork and
concentrate on the true challenge that we have.

For these reasons, I think the program that we are about to pass
tonight is a sensible approach. I think it will do two things. I think
it will help the people who need help and give confidence to people who
have lost it in our system, the people who pay the bills, the
taxpayers, who are frustrated by what they see as a losing war on
poverty, confidence we are moving in the right direction. I think that
will translate, Mr. President, into more support for social agencies
across our States and in our communities, for charitable organizations,
for other types of approaches that will assist government in getting
the job done.
Finally, let me conclude with a comment about one particular topic
that has been discussed at great length during this debate. That is the
issue of children. We all have different perspectives on this, of
course. As I look back at the last 30 years, as I hear story after
story from the people in our social service agencies about families in
a cycle of dependency, about kids without hope, of rising crime rates
among young people, of increased drug usage rates, of kids having
kids, I can't help but think that what we have today has to be changed
if we really care about helping kids. If we really want to help the
children, we certainly should not, in any sense, continue this legacy,
continue the system that has created so much unhappiness and so much
hopelessness.

Let us replace the hopelessness with hope, Mr. President. Let us
finally put all the words and all the rhetoric of many years of
campaigns and Congresses into action. Let us do it tonight. Let us
finish the job and move in a new direction. Let us solve the problem.
Let us help our most needy citizens in the best way possible.
I yield the floor.
Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I yield 7 minutes to the Senator from
Massachusetts.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. Last year, I voted for
the bill that the Senate passed 87-12 that went to conference
committee. The conference committee moved significantly back, so much
so that the President saw fit to veto it. I voted for the bill that
came back. I voted for the bill that went to the conference committee
this year. I listened very carefully to

[[Page S9383]]

the comments today of my colleagues about this bill that comes back
from the conference committee.
This bill that returns to the floor contains a number of important
improvements from the bill that was vetoed last year. The agreement
before us assures that almost all categories of citizens who are
willing to work who are now eligible for Medicaid will continue to be
eligible for health care in the future. The bill increases child care
funding levels by $4 billion over that which was vetoed. It doesn't
include the optional food stamp block grant, so our Nation will
continue to have a national nutritional safety net that is below that
which I think is necessary. The new bill also maintains the child care
health and safety protections contained in the current law and
reinstates a quality set-aside.
Additionally, whereas the vetoed bill block granted administration
and child-placement services funding, this bill before us retains the
current law on child protection entitlement programs and services. And,
finally, compared to the vetoed bill, this new bill increases the
contingency fund from $1 billion to $2 billion to provide States with
more protection during an economic downturn.
Perhaps most important in the new bill is the child-support
enforcement measures. These enormously significant changes will result
in the most sweeping crackdown on deadbeat parents in history. As the
President said yesterday, with this bill, we say to parents that if you
don't pay the child support you owe, you are going to have your wages
garnisheed, your driver's license taken away, and people will be chased
across State lines and tracked, and, if necessary, people will have to
work off what they owe. That is a monumental shift in attitude and
culture; although, ultimately, I believe without equivocation, that we
will have to go further toward a national system, because one-third of
all child-support cases are interstate cases. The measures contained in
this bill will dramatically improve the child-support system so
children can get the support they need and deserve.
Notwithstanding these good advances, Mr. President, I have also
listened carefully to my colleagues on the floor, those who oppose it.
There is not one of them who has not expressed legitimate concerns,
legitimate fears. I respect those concerns and those fears, and I do
not believe that there is one of them who does not want welfare change
in this Nation. But I do believe we are voting today on a fundamental
decision about change and what we are going to try to do. The fact is
that we are really codifying what 40 States are already involved in,
because there are waivers all across this land. And we are codifying
something for a period of 5 years, a 5-year experiment, during which
time, the 5 years, the full amount of time that people have before they
would be cut off, will not have yet expired. We will be reconsidering
it before that date comes.

I believe that my colleagues who have cited problems that still
remain with this bill are correct. But there is no way to a certainty,
Mr. President, to say what the interaction will be with those who will
go to work, those who will benefit from the increased minimum wage,
those families that will benefit by increased purchasing power from the
combination of work and minimum wage, and therefore less need for food
stamps. There is no way to say to an absolute certainty what the impact
of a new culture will be on children or the relationship of family.
What we do know is that it will be new, and what we do know is that
it carries risks. Mr. President, we also know some things to a
certainty. I agree with the President and colleagues who come to the
floor that, although we made great strides to maintain the fundamental
nutritional safety net, we do cut deeper than necessary in this bill.
And I am disappointed in the bill's provisions on legal immigrants.
Legal immigrants are people who pay taxes, they can be drafted, and
they are in this country completely legally. The harmful provisions
that are in this bill have nothing to do with welfare reform. They are
fundamentally a savings mechanism. I will do everything in my power,
Mr. President, to see that we change those measures as rapidly as
possible to adjust.
But as the President said yesterday, immigrant families with children
who fall on hard times through no fault of their own should be eligible
for medical and other help when they need it. If you are mugged on a
street corner or are in an accident or you get cancer or the same thing
happens to your children, we are a society that should provide some
assistance. I will do everything in my power to fight for that.
Finally, I was also disappointed that we weren't able to have the
vouchers for children as a matter of automatic. But, Mr. President, as
I balance the equities of this bill, the need for change, against those
things that we can remedy and against the experiment that is already
taking place in this country, it is my belief that the bill before us
will ultimately provide a leverage for change that will also change the
dynamic of the debate in this country, and that is why, ultimately, I
choose to vote for the change and choose to vote for this bill.
For years now, the poverty rate for children has already been going
up in America. We have the highest poverty rate of any industrial
nation in the world. But when we come to the floor of the U.S. Senate
to try to do something for children, we are told, well, now, wait a
minute, their parents don't want to work, or it is the welfare system
that created the problem. In fact, the welfare debate that has been so
adequately distorted in so many regards obscures the real debate about
children and about how you put people to work.
Mr. President, I am convinced that by taking that off the table, we
are, in fact, going to begin the real debate in this Nation today about
how we adequately take care of those kids.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
Mr. KERRY. I ask for 1 additional minute.
Mr. EXON. I have exactly 1 minute left. I yield that 1 minute only to
the Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KERRY. Thank you. Mr. President, I believe that, by taking this
away, providing we are vigilant and providing we all mean what we say,
providing we are prepared to do what we ought to do in conscience, we
will now begin to focus on the children of this country and we will
begin to focus on the real work of how you put people to work. I
believe that is the most important debate that the country can have and
take away from it any demagoguery or artificiality that is placed in
front of us about welfare or stereotypes with respect to it. I believe
it is an important change.
Yes, people ought to work. Hard-working American citizens should not
be required to carry people. But we also have to be honest about the
difficulties of some of our population trying to actually find that
work. We should not hurt children.
I want to spend every ounce of energy I have, Mr. President, on the
floor of the Senate to stop the business of the Senate, if necessary,
to guarantee that we fulfill that commitment as we judge how this works
over the next months and years.
I thank the Chair.
Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from
Arkansas.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
Mr. BUMPERS. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank the distinguished
floor manager from Nebraska.
Mr. President, let me say, first, that nobody knows better than I
that our welfare system does not work very well. Everyone who is going
to vote against this bill today said they do not like the system, that
it is broke. There is a lot of truth in that.
There are a number of reasons I am going to vote against this bill.
First, the bill is not going to address those deficiencies we all know
exist in the system. Second, I am going to vote against it because it
discriminates against my home State of Arkansas in a massive way.
Children in my State will get $390 a year. Children in Massachusetts
will get $4,200 a year; in Washington, DC, $2,200 a year. You tell me
why a child in Arkansas is worth $390 a year and $4,200 in
Massachusetts. You expect me to vote for a formula like that, one that
does not even take into consideration how many poor children are in
your State?
Everybody hates welfare. I am not too crazy about it myself. But I
will tell you one thing. I have seen it firsthand. I have been in the
ghettos of my

[[Page S9384]]

State in the Delta. I can tell you it is not a pretty picture. Mr.
President, I find it rather perverse that 535 men and women who make
$133,000 a year will be voting on whether children are going to eat or
not, whether their mothers are going to eat or not.
Never has such an important piece of legislation been crafted in such
a highly charged political environment. Everybody understands precisely
what the politics of this whole thing are. The election is coming up.
So we have to do it. I said the other day that there ought to be a rule
in the Congress against considering bills like this during an election
year. The American people detest welfare. I understand that. But there
ought to be a rule against considering these kinds of bills that affect
the very fiber of this Nation in an election year.
This is the first time in my lifetime we have deliberately and
knowingly and with some elation turned our back on the children of this
Nation. I still believe those Methodist Sunday school stories I heard
about ``blessed are the poor.'' I used to be one of them.
We are going to kick people off welfare and tell them to get a job. I
would like to invite all of my colleagues to go to the Arkansas Delta.
I will pick out a dozen communities for you to visit, and then you tell
me after you have kicked these mothers off welfare where they are going
to get a job; 50 percent of these mothers will be kicked off the
welfare rolls after the first 2 years. There are no jobs.
We could not even find it in our hearts to provide vouchers for
mothers so they could provide diapers, medicines, and other necessities
for children. We wouldn't even give them a voucher to buy nonfood
products for their children. I can't vote for this.
We have one out of every five children in this country in poverty.
You think of it. One out of every five children in this country, 20
percent, now live in poverty. Every single study of this bill says
there will be a minimum of 1 million to 2.5 million children added to
those rolls within 5 years.
Oh, Mr. President, I could go on and on about why I am not going to
vote for this bill. Simply, I just can't find it in my heart to vote
for a bill that I consider to be punitive. Punitive toward whom? Not
just some lethargic person on welfare, but innocent children. If you
are a legal alien and the school district wants to take your child,
that is their business. We are not going to pay for it. So if you are a
legal alien, you have a right to be here, you work here, you pay taxes
here, and you send your child down to the school. They may take your
child, but they will not let him go to the lunchroom because the
Federal Government pays that bill, and ``We ain't paying.'' We are not
going to pay it. I have heard it said that 47 members of our Olympic
team are legal aliens, or children of legal aliens. Tonight, instead of
honoring them during the Olympics, we are turning are backs on them.

So, Mr. President, I admit I am soft-hearted. I am very compassionate
toward children and women. So I just simply cannot vote for this bill.
I wish everybody well, and I hope it works. I do not believe it will.
I yield the floor.
Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I yield myself 15 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania is recognized.
Mr. SANTORUM. Thank you, Mr. President.
Mr. President, I speak as someone who has worked on this issue for
now 4 years. This is a very meaningful thing for me personally. But I
think, as I look at this legislation and as I look at the process it
has been through, I can't help but think what we are doing here is
probably the most significant piece of social welfare legislation that
we passed maybe since the mid-1960's, and I would even suggest possibly
since the 1930's. So it is a very significant day. We are making
monumental decisions here that are going to affect millions of people.
I understand that the passions run very high on both sides of the
aisle on how desperately we need these changes, as some suggest, and
how erroneous these decisions are by others who oppose the bill.
If I can for a moment, because I know there has been a lot of debate
about why we need to make these changes and what the bill does or does
not do, or should or should not do, let me talk for a minute as to how
this bill got here.
I think, if you look back at the genesis of this proposal, you have
to go back to the House of Representatives. A task force was put
together by Newt Gingrich, a task force on welfare reform when we were
in the minority over in the House back in 1993. He asked me, as the
ranking member on the Ways and Means Subcommittee of Human Resources,
to chair a task force of members of the subcommittee and other people,
including the former Governor of Delaware, Michael Castle, the Governor
from Missouri, and a few others, to sit down and try to put together a
bill that would follow through on ending welfare as we know it.
We got all sorts of testimony from people. We talked to literally
hundreds of people all over the country about the problems in the
welfare system and listened to all of the experts and pseudoexperts on
the issue of welfare--frankly, not just from conservatives but from
across the spectrum--as to the pitfalls that we might encounter.
Let me first state that this was an extraordinary thing to do. We
actually took this very seriously. When you are in the minority, when
you work on a major issue like this, most people do not pay much
attention to what you do. ``You are not going to pass this bill. It is
not going to become law.'' So there is sometimes a feeling, ``Well,
let's just sort of put together what we can, sort of patch together
some popular ideas, throw it out, and it will get a story for 1 day and
no one will pay much attention to it after that.''
I can tell you that myself, Nancy Johnson, Clay Shaw, Michael Castle,
and a whole lot of other folks who were in the House last term took
this as a real serious responsibility. We met literally for, I think, 6
or 7 months, every week, hours upon hours each week, just over every
single item in the legislation.
It was a wonderful experience for me. But I think it was a great
experience for all of us to see the real complexities of what we are
dealing with. I think we got a real understanding of some of the
concerns that Members have expressed here.
We came out with a bill in November of 1993. It addressed for the
first time issues like the paternal establishments which are in this
bill. The provisions we wrote in this bill almost 3 years ago are
almost identical. In fact, I suggest they maybe are identical to the
provisions that are in the bill today that we addressed--the issue, for
the first time ever, of immigration and benefits to legal aliens. It
was the first time the bill had come up and addressed that issue. And
those provisions are in this bill today.
We addressed the issue of illegitimacy. Again, that was a word that,
frankly, we were not supposed to use anymore. It was a politically
incorrect word. You were supposed to use the word ``out-of-wedlock
birth.'' We addressed that issue for the first time and really brought
the attention of the welfare debate on this scourge in our Nation.
I know it has been cited here before, but in 1965, the illegitimacy
rate in this country was about 5 or 6 percent. Today a third of the
children in this country are born out of wedlock. I am not saying that
welfare is the sole cause of that. It certainly is not. But it
certainly is a contributing factor, in my mind and, I think, in other
people's minds. We were trying to come up with ideas, some of which
were included, and, frankly, a lot were not. But we pushed the envelope
for the first time. We put this in the forefront and made it an issue
of debate. Yes; we had time limits on welfare. Yes; we had work
requirements--real work requirements. And those time limits of 2 years
without having to work and 5 years total on welfare are in this bill
today.
If you go back and look at that original draft, I think you are going
to see a lot of similarities in child support enforcement and a whole
host of other areas that are in the bill today. And I think it is a
remarkable compliment to the men and women who worked in that group
that their hard work, seemingly fruitless at the time because we were a
minority, had absolutely no hope that we would ever be in the majority
but cared enough--I think that is the point I am trying to make--we
cared enough about this system and the destruction that the system was

[[Page S9385]]

causing, we cared enough to spend hours and hours of time to put
together a bill that we felt truly would change welfare and end the
despair and the dependency that this system has created.
So I congratulate my friends in the House who made a tremendous
contribution to the original bill, and I congratulate others for the
successor bills, the bills that were introduced in the Senate by
Senator Packwood and in the House subsequently by Clay Shaw, who was a
member of that original working group. They took the next logical step
and moved the ball forward on a few issues, fell back a little bit on
others, but that is how the legislative process works. We tried to meet
the concerns of, frankly, both sides of the aisle. And I know when
Senator Packwood, and then subsequently when Senator Roth took over the
Finance Committee, we actually crafted a bill here on the Senate floor
last year that got 87 votes and then recrafted another bill, very
similar to the bill that passed last year, and got 74 votes, and I
suspect we will get maybe even a few more than that this time around.
They did the same thing in the House and continued to get more
bipartisan support as we worked through some of the difficult issues of
welfare reform.
The core of those bills remains the same, and that is that we are
going to do something about illegitimacy. There is an incentive now
sponsored by Senator Abraham, one of the improvements to the bill, for
States to reduce their illegitimacy rates, and there is a cash bonus
for States that are able to reduce that statistic, that cruel statistic
to children. And I say cruel because go through all of the evaluation
criteria: Children who are born to single-parent households are more
likely to be poor, are more likely to be on welfare, more likely to do
poorer in school, more likely to be victims of crime. You can go on
down the list. We are doing no favors to children when fathers are told
that they are expendable.
In the welfare system that we are creating here today, fathers are no
longer expendable. Fathers are going to be required to be responsible
for the children. Mothers are going to be required to cooperate with
the Government in establishing paternity--two things that were in the
original bill that we drafted 3 years ago that have stood the test of
time and scrutiny in both Houses of Congress, because it is the right
thing to do. We have stood up and said families are important under
this bill. We have stood up and said communities are important.
Senator Ashcroft, in another good addition to this bill, said that
religious, civic, and nonprofit organizations in the local communities
are going to be much more able to be part of the system of welfare, of
support of the poor than they are today, are going to be eligible for
more funds and more opportunities to help the poor, which they do much
better, much more efficiently, but, frankly, even if they did not do it
more efficiently, they do it more compassionately. They do it with love
for their neighbors and the people in their communities, not out of
some sense of duty because it is their job.

We have changed welfare in this bill, and we have done it over a long
process. Those who would suggest this is just something that was thrown
together at the last minute before an election do not know the work, or
either choose not to recognize the work that has been put into this
bill, the time and the debate, the hours of the debate here on the
floor and over in the House, in the conference committees, to try to
come up with a carefully crafted bill that is truly compassionate and
not compassionate in the sense that the Federal Government is going to
go out and take care of every person's need who is poor.
I think we have shown that that system is truly not compassionate
because when the Federal Government comes in and takes care of every
aspect or every need that even a child has, then the Federal
Government, in fact, becomes the replacement for the others whose
responsibility it truly should be to take care of that child. We have
said to the father, again, you are not necessary. We have said to
mothers, you do not have to work; we will provide--some distant
bureaucrat will send a check to provide for you.
That is not compassion. Compassion is having a system that builds
families so there is an environment there for children to flourish.
Compassion is a system that supports neighborhoods and civic
organizations, mediating institutions that Dan Coats talks about so
often that provide the values and community support for families that
they need to help take care of children, to create the neighborhoods
where children are no longer afraid to go out and play on the
playground because they could step on some drug-infected needle.
No, this bill is all about creating a community, creating a support
network and environment at the level most important to that child as
opposed to that bureaucrat sitting behind the bulletproof window
passing out the check every month, saying to that person on the other
end receiving that check that you, because of your poverty, are unable
to provide for yourself and your children and you need to be dependent
upon us for your life.
The Senator from Arkansas said it is a tragedy that one in five
children in this country are in poverty, and I agree it is a tragedy.
And he said it is going to get worse. I suggest he is wrong. I suggest
the tragedy is as bad as it is going to get, and there are plenty of
organizations as a result of this bill that are going to get the
opportunity to step forward, including the family.
I feel very good about what we are doing here, and I would say, as my
friend and colleague in the House, Clay Shaw, said many times, I am not
suggesting this bill is perfect. I grant you this bill is not perfect.
No bill is perfect. But I can guarantee you that this is a dramatic
step forward that this country has asked for and is getting from a
Congress that is listening.
Yes, we will make mistakes. Unlike those who crafted the current
system in the thirties and in the 1960's, we are going to be willing to
come back here and look at those mistakes. We are going to be willing
to come back and face those problems, because we understand, unlike
those who crafted the last system, that we do not have all the answers
here, that we do not have the omnipotence here to decide what is best
for everyone.
This is a grand experiment, one that we must take if we are going to
save children in this country and, more importantly, to save the fabric
of America for the next and future generations.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. EXON addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I advise Senators on both sides of the aisle
that we have 11 minutes remaining. I am about to yield 7 minutes to the
Senator from Florida. There will be 2 minutes to Senator Heflin and 2
minutes to Senator Ford.
I yield 7 minutes to the Senator from Florida.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, when we voted on this matter a few days
ago, I voted ``no.'' Today, I am going to vote for the conference
report, and I wish to explain why I am taking that position.
As I assessed the conference report, it seemed to me that we had
basically two options. One option was to wait until there was a better
point at which to commence and continue our effort at welfare reform
and be prepared to accept the status quo until that second opportunity
presented itself. I felt that was likely to be a long time from
tonight.
The second option is to accept a clearly less than perfect bill, I
would say, accept a flawed bill, but one which represents a step in a
multistep process leading toward a fundamental transition from a
welfare system that has focused on providing for the needs of a
dependent population to a welfare system that provides the ladder by
which people can move from dependence to independence. I believe it is
more appropriate to take that second road. I believe this is the time
to take that leap of faith.
To use some statistics from my State of Florida, 3 years ago, in
1993, we had an unemployment rate of 7 percent. We had 254,000 persons
who were on the AFDC caseload. That is 254,000 families that were on
AFDC. Today, in 1996, we have a 200,000 AFDC caseload, a reduction of
54,000 in 3 years. That says that we are in a period of a strong
economy, creating jobs, providing people with the opportunity within
the current system to get off welfare and to get a job.

[[Page S9386]]

I think that is the ideal environment in which, now, to have this new
system which will be giving to the 200,000 who are still on welfare the
means by which they can get a job and end dependence. If we cannot make
this transition work under the economic conditions that exist in my
State and most of the States of America in the summer of 1996, then I
doubt we will see a time in the foreseeable future when we could make
this system work.
It is for that reason that our Governor has announced his support for
this program. It is for that reason our legislature has passed its own
version of welfare reform, building on important demonstration projects
in our State which have tested out what is going to be required in
order to make this new system achieve its objective.
I stated candidly that this is a bill which is far from perfect, and
which has some flaws. That presents, as I believe the Senator from
Pennsylvania just stated, the agenda for our action in the future. I
suggest two areas in which I think that attention should be focused.
One of those is on the basic financial arrangement between the Federal
Government and the States. We start this in a period of prosperity. We
know the business cycle has not yet been repealed. There will be times
when we will return to the circumstances of the early 1990's, when we
had unemployment rates ranging from 7.4 to 8.3 percent. We need to
relook at our financial relationships to assure that we have the
flexibility, the elasticity in order to protect States during those
downturns.
We need to also look at the issue of fairness of allocation. I
continue to be distressed at the fact that we are using the old method
of allocating Federal funds, the formula that we developed for the
system we are now rejecting as we move into the new system. I suggest
that is inappropriate, an inappropriate bit of baggage we are carrying
with us and it is going to be a heavy piece of baggage, in terms of
achieving the objectives of moving people from welfare to work,
particularly in States such as Arkansas, which start this process as
very low beneficiary States and are therefore restricted in the amount
of funds they will have available.
The second area in which I believe we need to focus our attention is
on the issue of legal aliens. It confounds me as to why legal aliens
were brought into this bill, which has, as its title, welfare reform.
That has very little relationship with the severe cutbacks in benefits
for legal aliens. These are our parents and grandparents of just a
generation or two ago, who came to this country seeking the freedom of
America. Now, those who have followed them in that 200-year quest for
those values of America, we are now putting into a second-class status.
There is no relationship to the goals we are trying to achieve in
welfare reform. It has a lot to do with the fact this is a voiceless,
vulnerable population, from which we can seek some additional resources
in order to meet our budgetary goals.

Let us be clear, this is a budget issue, not a welfare reform issue
as we speak of legal aliens. And it is going to be a major budget issue
for those communities which have sizable numbers of legal aliens who
will now become an unpaid charge to the local public hospital. So that
area will also require our attention.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I conclude by saying it is with a leap of
faith that we undertake this initiative. I think we are doing it at a
time which gives us the greatest hope and expectation that faith will
be justified.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, Senator Simpson is next. I believe he
has asked us for 10 minutes? Up to 10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I thank Senator Domenici, always, for his
courtesy, his kindness and his generosity in what he does for all of
us; and to recognize once again how hard he works. And, also, Senator
Exon, who came here to this body when I did. I do not think anyone
realizes the task of the chairman and ranking member of the Budget
Committee and what they do. Through the years I have watched with awe,
as they deal with every single issue that confronts us and do it with a
steadiness and skill that is enviable. I do mean that.
I think we have a good measure here. It has certainly been through
the grinder. We have all looked at it carefully. There is nothing new
in it. I support it. I served on the Finance Committee. I listened to
the hearings. I tried to add my own dimension of activity and support
to it in its passage. So I commend those who have worked so hard on
this issue. I commend the President who has indicated he will sign the
bill.
There are some troubling things in there for me. One especially,
because I did not have any real active participation in it, and that is
with regard to the benefits to legal immigrants of the United States.
There is a great difference between an illegal immigrant and a
permanent resident alien. We should not be making distinctions on
permanent resident aliens, in my mind, to the degree here. I did not
participate in any aspect of that because I felt it would detract from
what I was trying to do with legal and illegal immigration--which we
have dealt with, and legal immigration, which we did not deal with.
Next year, when legal immigration goes up from 900,000 to 1 million
people, the people of America will wonder what we did in this Congress.
But I think we will deal with the issue of illegal immigration. We are
not far from resolving that.

____________________