[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 93 (Monday, July 18, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: July 18, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                             WELFARE REFORM

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, the Finance Committee held a hearing 
last week concerning President Clinton's welfare proposal. Secretary 
Shalala, Assistant Secretary Bain, and Assistant Secretary Ellwood were 
present to testify.
  President Clinton promised to end welfare as we know it. But this 
plan looks all too familiar. There is no ``there'' there. The 
President's so-called welfare reform reminds me of the story of the 
emperor's new clothes. Everyone will say they are beautiful, but really 
there is nothing there. True welfare reform must do at least three 
things.
  First, it must reduce the rising cost of welfare programs. Second, it 
must address the social crisis of illegitimacy. Finally, it must 
require real work from recipients.
  This plan does nothing to address the dramatic increase in welfare 
cost. In fact it adds to it. The President's proposal has an increase 
of $9.3 billion in spending over the next 5 years. We have no estimate 
of what that cost will be in the out years after the turn of the 
century.
  Statistics show that the current welfare state is projected to grow 
from $300 billion in 1994 to almost $500 billion by the turn of the 
century. The average American working family currently pays $3,800 a 
year to support the existing welfare state. This will increase to 
$7,000 a year by the end of the century when the Clinton plan is fully 
implemented.
  Republican plans, by contrast, cut at least $30 billion in the next 5 
years and take some of the savings to support family tax relief.
  It is crucial that welfare reform cap welfare costs--apart from 
Medicaid--at an aggregate growth rate of 3.5 percent for inflation. 
This allows some programs to grow more, while other programs grow less.
  Another issue that must be addressed in real welfare reform is the 
serious rise in illegitimacy, welfare enemy No. 1. There is almost 
unanimous support across the political spectrum that something must be 
done to address this crisis. The consequences to the child, the mother, 
and society are simply too serious to continue to ignore.
  For over 30 years, we have treated this issue as if it is simply a 
moral question, thus, one in which Government should not become 
involved. Recent studies have shown, however, that children born 
outside marriage are two to three times more likely to have emotional 
or behavioral problems than those in intact families. They have higher 
risks of child abuse and neglect, poor school performance, having 
children of their own as teenagers, having their own marriages end in 
divorce, and six times greater risk of being poor. The absence of 
parents frequently leads to both illegitimacy and welfare dependency 
for a series of generations.
  These consequences are what results from the Government acting as 
father. To continue to ignore these consequences will result in greater 
destruction for children, young mothers and society. The President's 
proposal only requires young mothers to live at home, stay in school, 
and receive contraceptive advice. In fact, while the explanatory 
materials about the President's plan mention abstinence, the 
President's actual bill does not. It simply promotes decisionmaking.
  This does not truly address the crisis of keeping young women from 
having children in the first place. It is simply an attempt to put 
Humpty Dumpty back together again after he has fallen to his own 
destruction. Should not our policies promote the avoidance of these 
costly situations in the first place?
  The administration's plan also allows millions of welfare recipients 
to continue receiving welfare benefits without any requirements at all. 
The work provisions only apply to those born in 1972 or after. What 
about everyone over age 22? Nothing is required of them.
  Not only that, according to the President's own documents, the actual 
number of people required to work will be set by the amount of Federal 
funds allocated to support them, not by any supposed 2-year timeframe.
  When the American people think of welfare reform, they want 
recipients to be required to work for their benefits. All other 
American families go to work to support their families. They get up, go 
to a particular work site, do a day's labor, receive a paycheck, and 
make ends meet to support their families. They expect no less from 
recipients of public assistance.
  We are a compassionate nation. We always have been. People do not 
mind assisting someone in crisis to get back on his or her feet. 
However, they do not expect to have to support that individual for 
years to come. They expect people to take action to help themselves 
also.
  Overall, the plan does not do what the President promised. He 
promised to end welfare as we know it. Unfortunately, his plan looks 
all too familiar. There is no ``there,'' there.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________