[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 19 (Tuesday, January 31, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1796-S1798]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                         WELFARE REFORM SUMMIT

  Mr. BREAUX. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I would like to take 
this time to comment on the event that occurred this weekend on 
Saturday and congratulate the President of the United States for 
calling, for the first time, a bipartisan summit on the issue of 
welfare reform.
  The President of the United States, President Clinton, spent almost 5 
hours sitting in an all-day meeting at the Blair House, and in that 
meeting were Republican Governors, Democratic 
[[Page S1797]] Governors, Republican Members of the House, Democratic 
Members of the House, Democratic Members of the Senate, as well as 
Republican Members of the Senate. It was truly a bipartisan effort to 
discuss, I think, one of the most pressing problems that is facing this 
Congress today; that is, how do we fundamentally reform a system that I 
think everybody agrees is fundamentally flawed.
  I think everyone in that room agreed that welfare as we know it today 
does not serve well the people who are on it nor does it serve very 
well the people who are paying for it, the taxpayers of the United 
States.
  I think that we found in that meeting that there was a great deal of 
common agreement about some of the things that we should embark upon to 
try to fundamentally reform welfare. I think the Governors said 
essentially, ``We would like to have more responsibility. Let us be 
innovative. Let us try to suggest things that work in a particular 
State,'' like my State of Louisiana that may not work in Vermont or in 
Mississippi or in California or any other State in the country. ``Let 
us be innovative. Let us come up with solutions to welfare that fit the 
people in our respective States.''
  I think there is a common sense of agreement around that particular 
proposition.
  There was also, I think, common agreement that there should be time 
limits; that people should not be able to be on public assistance 
forever if, in fact, they are able to perform work in the private 
sector or even in the public sector.
  But I think, Mr. President and my colleagues, that something has 
happened, particularly since the November election. I think we have 
lost the proper focus of what welfare reform should concentrate on.
  We have heard wonderful speeches about illegitimacy and the problem 
that it is, and it is. We have heard speeches about crime related to 
welfare. We have heard speeches about the breakup of the family which 
is a result of welfare programs. We have heard speeches about teen 
pregnancy and what we should do to try to eliminate it in the problem 
areas in which we see it occurring.
  But I think the fundamental focus of welfare reform should be work. 
The fundamental focus should be how do we get a person who is a welfare 
recipient into a job, because I believe that the best social program 
that we could ever write is a good job.
  You could talk about how to solve the problems of illegitimacy and 
crime and breakup of the family and all of these other very important 
issues, but the fundamental focus, I think, has to be on how do we 
refocus our attention on work and how do we get that person from 
dependency into the work force.
  Now, the President's first proposal in this area was a good start. He 
said, ``Look, there should be a time limit on welfare. It should be no 
more than 2 years. And then we should increase the opportunities for 
education and training.'' But he did not provide the missing link, 
which is: How do we, after we reach that point, get the person from 
welfare into the work force?
  One of the first Republican proposals really just suggested a time 
limit--2 years, and that is it--but it did not address the fundamental 
problem of getting the person on welfare after that 2 years into the 
work force.
  The latest Republican proposal seems to say, ``Let's have block 
grants and give it to the States.''
  I addressed the Governors Conference this weekend, both the 
Democratic Governors and the National Governors Conference. I suggested 
to them to be careful. Do not let Congress put all of the welfare 
problems in a box and send the box to the States and say, ``Here, it's 
yours.'' And then, when the Governors and the legislators on the State 
level open up that box, they see a lot of problems, but they do not see 
any solutions and they do not see any money to help them solve the 
problems. I suggest that is not a solution. That is passing the buck 
through a block grant to the States.
  What I think we have to do is recognize that we on the Federal level 
who raise taxes to pay for these programs have a fundamental 
responsibility to see to it that these tax dollars are used in a way 
that truly improves welfare as we know it, that provides real answers 
and suggestions on what should be done. Yes, of course, maximize the 
flexibility to the States. I support that very strongly. But also work 
with the States. Do not walk away from our responsibility as Federal 
legislators, who have a responsibility to the Federal tax dollar to see 
that it is used wisely and not wasted, who have a real responsibility 
to come up with some ideas and suggestions as to what needs to be done.
  Let me suggest one approach that has been developed by myself, along 
with others, including the Progressive Policy Institute of the 
Democratic Leadership Council, which spent a great deal of time working 
on this effort, together with Republicans who have commented on it. The 
Hudson Institute, essentially a Republican think tank, is one, I 
believe, that likes this idea.
  I have discussed this with my colleague from Colorado, Senator Hank 
Brown, who I believe will hopefully be joining with me as a cosponsor 
of this effort.
  Here it is: I suggest that there is a missing part of the puzzle, 
there is a missing link, if you will, between the welfare recipient and 
the job. How do we get this person into this position, which I happen 
to think is the best social program that we could ever devise. I 
suggest that we consider taking existing welfare subsidies and use them 
to create job placement vouchers.
  When a welfare recipient comes into his State welfare office seeking 
assistance, he enters into a contract arrangement with the State 
welfare office and receives a voucher that is good for payment. He gets 
a list of organizations, both public and private, that are in the job 
placement business. That welfare recipient enters into a contract 
arrangement with one of these corporations to help them find a job.
  Some of these organizations will interview this welfare recipient and 
say, ``They are ready to go into the workplace right now. They have the 
training. They are just down on their luck. We can find this person a 
job tomorrow.'' And they put that person in that job the next day.
  Others will look at a welfare recipient and say,

       No, this person needs more training or education or on-the-
     job training. We know just the job that fits this person's 
     ability. We are going to put them in it because that job has 
     on-the-job training, on-the-job skill training and education 
     that will fit this particular welfare recipient's needs. We 
     can put them in this job next week.

  Others will look at the welfare recipient and say,

       No, this person really needs to brush up on reading and 
     writing and arithmetic and basic English skills. They are 
     going to have to have 6 weeks or 6 months of training, but 
     then I know exactly where I can place that person after that 
     particular period of time.

  Now, the essential feature of this is that we are talking about 
privatizing the job placement portion of finding a welfare recipient a 
job. There are a number of institutions that are doing this right now.
  Let me refer you to America Works, which has programs in New Jersey 
and New York. Let me talk about Cleveland Works, which has a similar 
program in the city of Cleveland. The Goodwill Industries work program 
in the State of Florida and also in the State of Louisiana is this type 
of program.
  Here is the good feature about this particular suggestion. That 
private sector corporation, when they enter into that contract with the 
welfare recipient and receive a voucher to find them a job, only is 
going to get paid when that welfare recipient gets the job, No. 1, and 
stays in that job, No. 2, for a certain period of time. Somewhere 
between 7 months to 1 year has been suggested.
  Let me tell you what that does to both parties. It creates a 
tremendous incentive for that job placement service to find that 
welfare recipient a job that is a good job and one that they stay in, 
because they know they do not get paid unless they put that person in a 
job situation that meets their skills and allows them to stay in it for 
a year or more.
  Many of our welfare recipients will take a job, they will stay there 
2 days or 2 weeks, and they quit. They are back on welfare, because 
they have not been put in the right circumstances that meets their 
ability to perform.
   [[Page S1798]] But this job placement voucher system, really, I 
think, provides the missing link or the missing part of the puzzle 
between a person who is on welfare and the job they need to be put 
into.
  If you tell a company that they are only going to get paid if they 
find that welfare recipient a job that they stay in for a year, then 
one important thing happens. They pay a lot of attention to getting 
that person into the right job, because they know if they put them in 
the wrong job and that only lasts for 1 week, they are not going to get 
paid.
 So they make sure that the person has the proper skills and training 
to fit into a particular job that will allow them to stay in that job 
for a year or more.

  I would suggest, Mr. President, that in places where this type of 
program has been tried, a number of good things have happened. No. 1, 
we have saved the State a lot of money, because if a person gets into a 
job position, he is earning a salary, paying taxes and is no longer on 
welfare. The State who has contracted with these private placement 
centers are paying the private placement center a lot less than they 
are paying the welfare recipient when he or she is on welfare.
  Therefore, the concept of privatizing the missing link between the 
welfare recipient and the job that he or she needs is provided by this 
concept that we are suggesting today.
  Mr. President, I think that welfare should not and cannot be a 
partisan issue. If it is, we will never solve it. We have to reach out 
to our Republican colleagues, and they to us, to sit down and come up 
with real solutions to a very serious problem in this country.
  All of these other problems that I talked about--illegitimacy and 
teen pregnancy and breakup of the family, the increase in the crime 
rate--I think if we resolve the welfare issue in this country we will 
have created the best social program that we could ever create: That 
is, a good job. And a good job brings about responsibility and creates 
opportunities and helps solve the other tangential problems which are 
very, very serious indeed.
  I am suggesting that the missing part of the puzzle can be replaced 
with a job placement voucher. We will be introducing such legislation 
that still allows the State maximum discretion that they need to tailor 
the needs of their respective State. I think if we move in this 
direction, we will have taken a giant step toward doing what the 
American people would like Members to do.
  Mr. LEAHY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I see the distinguished manager of the bill 
rising. What I was going to do, I will tell the Chair, I was going to 
speak on the balanced budget, but I see the distinguished Senator from 
Minnesota. I was going to speak a few minutes and yield to him, to 
accommodate a scheduling problem I have. I do not want to interfere 
with the prerogatives of the chairman. I have to be at another place in 
about 6 or 7 minutes.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, are we on the amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. I have not called for House Joint Resolution 1 
yet. The manager can do that at this time. The hour has arrived.
  Mr. HATCH. I move that we move to it.
  Mr. LEAHY addressed the Chair.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, would the Senator yield for a short 
statement without losing his right to the floor.
  Mr. LEAHY. I would yield.
  Mr. HATCH. I was hoping we could go back and forth, and then go to 
the distinguished Senator from Arizona. I hope we will have comity 
here, can speak and then whoever is next. If we can go back and forth, 
I think it would be a good thing.
  Mr. LEAHY. Then I ask, Mr. President, unanimous consent that when I 
am finished, I be able to yield to the Senator from Arizona and then be 
able to yield to the Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. REID. Could someone restate this unanimous-consent request?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The unanimous-consent request was that after 
the Senator from Vermont is finished the Senator from Arizona would be 
recognized and then the Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. HATCH. We may be able to solve this problem. The distinguished 
Senator from Arizona has 3 minutes unrelated. He wanted to do it in 
morning business. We have kind of jumped the gun.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I was trying to accommodate the 
distinguished manager and I thought this might do it. I think we are 
going to do it quickly. If we went on this we would probably take less 
time than asking for the unanimous consent.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, it is my understanding that the Senator from 
Arizona wants to speak 3 or 4 minutes in morning business, is that 
right, and then we would go to the constitutional amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That would be the regular order of the 
unanimous-consent request.
  Mr. REID. I just want to understand what is going on.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, an objection to 4 minutes of morning 
business, and then going to the bill, is that the question?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is the request.
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KYL addressed the Chair.
  The Senator from Arizona is recognized for 4 minutes.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I thank the Chair and the Senator from 
Vermont for accommodating my request.
  (The remarks of Mr. Kyl pertaining to the introduction of legislation 
are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')


                          ____________________