[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 74 (Tuesday, June 14, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: June 14, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
              PRESIDENT CLINTON'S WELFARE REFORM PROPOSAL

  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Madam President, today in Kansas City, President 
Clinton is unveiling his long-awaited proposal to end welfare as we 
know it. Without question, the current welfare system has helped 
sustain the lives of millions of American children. It is also without 
question that we have done so at enormous expense.
  The real tragedy of our present welfare system is not merely its cost 
to taxpayers--important as that is. Rather, it is that the present 
system is failing millions of children and families. Welfare was never 
intended to be a way of life, but in too many cases that is the reality 
we face. I believe there is a growing feeling in this country that the 
costs of welfare--financial and human--have grown too large.
  After 60 years and hundreds of billions of dollars, Federal welfare 
efforts have never come close to winning the war on poverty. Today, one 
out of five children live in poverty. Five million families, including 
ten million children, receive welfare assistance. Each year, half-a-
million children are born to unwed teenage mothers, the vast majority 
of whom will end up on welfare.
  That is why I believe the stakes in welfare reform are extremely 
high. Our failure or success will determine, to a large extent, whether 
millions of children get a fighting chance to lead healthy, 
responsible, productive lives.
  President Clinton has proposed several changes which have the 
potential for improving the Federal welfare system. The provisions 
which permit State flexibility in the design of the Aid to Families 
with Dependent Children [AFDC] Program are good. They include a mixture 
of expanded State options for the most widely used State waiver 
requests and continuance of the waiver process. This flexibility will 
permit each State to tailor programs to the particular needs of welfare 
recipients in that State.
  Provisions dealing with teen mothers and out-of-wedlock births 
emphasize the need for both parents to contribute to the support of 
their children. I share the administration's belief that teen mothers 
should be required to reside with a parent or other responsible adult. 
Additionally, the child support clearinghouse can help with the 
enforcement of interstate child support, which has been a continual 
problem in current child support enforcement efforts. Today's 
technology will enable us to track and monitor noncustodial parents who 
fail to support their children.
  However, some provisions in the proposal do not live up to the 
rhetoric that we have heard since the campaign. What is being billed as 
``two years and out'' by President Clinton is not really a time limit 
on the receipt of Government assistance. First, it only applies to 
youngest age group of AFDC recipients--about one-third of the current 
AFDC caseload. Second, after 2 years the benefits will not end. Rather, 
the recipient will be required to work at a created job. Most, if not 
all, of these jobs will be in the public sector. With any make-work 
program there is a great danger that little productive work will be 
done.
  Few would argue with the proposition that moving people from welfare 
dependency to work should be the guiding principle of any effort to 
restructure welfare. However, I believe that the first basic question 
to be addressed is not how to reform welfare, but who should do the 
reforming. My main reason for focusing on this question is simple. I 
believe a critical flaw in the present system is not only a lack of 
personal responsibility--it is a lack of responsibility at every level 
of government.
  Our largest welfare programs today are hybrids of State and Federal 
funding and management. The States do most of the administration while 
the Federal Government provides most of the money. The result is a 
hodgepodge of State and Federal rules and regulations, conflicting 
eligibility and benefit standards, and constant push-and-pull between 
State and Federal bureaucracies.
  In this joint system--which is continued in the Clinton proposal--no 
one has real power to run any welfare program, and no one is ultimately 
responsible for any result. This may suit the needs of Government 
bureaucracy. It clearly is not meeting the needs of children in 
poverty.
  That is why I introduced the Welfare and Medicaid Responsibility 
Exchange Act of 1994, S. 1891. This so-called swap bill would transfer 
full responsibility for welfare and nutrition programs to the States in 
exchange for Federal responsibility for the Medicaid Program.
  All of the innovation in welfare reform has originated at the State 
and local level. States throughout the country are passing welfare 
reform legislation. Although the methods differ from State to State, 
they are aimed at moving people from welfare to work, ending the cycle 
of dependence on public assistance, and encouraging personal 
responsibility.
  These State efforts can draw upon the unique strengths of each area 
and focus their resources on specific barriers hindering the transition 
from welfare to work. How does a Federal one-size-fits-all welfare 
system deal with the problems the decades of poverty in Appalachia or 
the unemployment caused by the economic recession in parts of New 
England?
  The choice of Kansas City, MO, was not an arbitrary one by President 
Clinton. The Missouri Legislature passed a major welfare reform package 
this year. The Commerce Bank, in whose lobby the President is 
delivering his speech, has been at active participant in the Futures 
Program and the Women's Employment Network--two initiatives designed to 
help people make a successful transition from welfare to work.
  Since 1991, the Futures Program, a public-private partnership, has 
placed 240 welfare recipients into private sector jobs. The Women's 
Employment Network, operating since 1986, is a private nonprofit 
organization, receiving little Government funding. It has served 1,500 
women and placed 785 in private sector jobs.
  I believe that a major factor in the success of these programs has 
been the level of commitment and responsibility engendered by local and 
State ownership in the design of the program--something which cannot be 
instilled by the Federal Government, even with an extensive list of 
options and waivers.
  We must face the fact that Washington does not have a magic answer to 
the welfare problem. Our experience over the past two decades suggests 
that when the Federal Government takes over a problem, local 
responsibility begins to wither, local concern fades away, and local 
initiative is stifled.
  Genuine and effective welfare reform will require a great deal more 
than money and ingenious legalisms. True welfare reform will require a 
renewal of local and State responsibilities for children and families 
in need. That can only happen if the Federal Government steps aside and 
allows States to get on with this work.

                          ____________________