[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 101 (Tuesday, June 20, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Page S8655]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                             WELFARE REFORM

  Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, let me applaud the Senator from North 
Dakota for his comments and his statement on the open-container 
legislation but particularly on the remarks that he just made about the 
welfare reform debate that is now underway in this country and, 
hopefully, soon to be underway in the U.S. Senate.
  I really believe that welfare reform should not be a partisan issue. 
I think it is clear that, if we make it a partisan issue, we will not 
get anything done. We as members of the minority party do not have 
enough votes to pass a welfare reform bill without our Republican 
colleagues' participation. I would suggest to my Republican colleagues 
that they do not have sufficient votes to pass Republican-only welfare 
reform without the participation of Democrats, certainly not one that 
can be signed into law or perhaps even one that can pass the Senate.
  So I think it is certainly clear that we have to work together if we 
are going to get anything done. To insist on a political issue is 
insisting on failure as far as welfare reform is concerned. We as 
Democrats have worked very hard to come up with a bill that makes 
sense, that is true reform, that recognizes that the problem is big 
enough for the States and the local governments to work together in 
order to solve the problem. It is not a question of whether the Federal 
Government should solve it or the States should solve it. The real 
answer is the Federal Government and the States and local governments 
have to work together if welfare reform is ever to occur. It will not 
be done just by the States or just by the Federal Government.
  So those who argue that we should give all of the problems to the 
States I would suggest miss the real solution to this very large 
problem. I have called the so-called block grant approach analogous to 
putting all the welfare problems in a box and shipping that box to the 
States and saying, Here. It is yours. And when the States open up that 
box they are going to see a whole lot of problems and not enough money 
to solve those problems. That is not reform. That is shirking the 
responsibility that we have as legislators who raise the money for 
welfare in this country. To just shift the problems to the States is 
not reform. It does not solve anything. It just says that we are so 
confused and we are so incapable of coming up with a solution that we 
are going to send the problem to the States, and maybe they will not 
resolve the problem.
  The States are starting to recognize and the mayors of this country 
are starting to realize that the plan that has been reported out of the 
Senate Finance Committee by the Republican majority will freeze the 
amount of money available to the States at the 1994 level for 5 years 
and will tell all of the States that you are going to get the same 
thing you got in 1994. If you are a fast-growing western State or a 
low-income State like mine in the South, you are going to be frozen at 
the 1994 levels and not take into consideration any growth and people 
moving to your State or any increase in poverty problems that may occur 
in your State. That makes no sense whatsoever, and it certainly is not 
real reform.
  The Republican plan, in addition, says that for the first time we are 
going to break the joint Federal-State partnership. We are going to 
tell the States you do not have to spend any money on it if you do not 
want to. You can take the money that you were spending on welfare 
reform and you can use it to build bridges or build roads or to give 
everybody in your State a salary increase if you would like to use it 
for that purpose.
  Where is the partnership? Where is the sense of those States and 
Federal officials working together to solve the problem?
  In addition, it is not reform if you are weak on work and tough on 
kids. One of the deficiencies I see in the Republican plan is that it 
says we are going to measure the success of the plan based on how many 
people get put into programs. That is the last thing we should measure 
our success by in welfare reform. The real solution to welfare is the 
standard by which reform must be judged, not how many people we put in 
programs, but how many people we are able to put into jobs. Our 
suggestion is that we should measure the success and reward States that 
put people in private sector jobs, not by putting people in more 
programs run by bureaucrats.
  The bottom line on all of this is that I am calling for our 
colleagues on the Republican side to be willing to join with us in a 
bipartisan fashion to craft a welfare reform bill that does not focus 
on which party benefits but whether we can jointly find long-term 
solutions. It is clear, if we continue on the present track, that what 
we will have done is to produce perhaps short-term political gains but 
long-term guaranteed failures for the people of this country.
  Why should we be afraid to meet together and talk about this problem 
and come up with solutions that are bipartisan in nature?
  I think what we have crafted makes sense. I think it is a good plan. 
It is not to say that it cannot be modified or improved. We are willing 
to listen to our colleagues' suggestions in this particular area. It is 
clear, in my opinion, that the only way we come up with welfare reform 
that is real reform is to do it in a bipartisan fashion, and I would 
suggest that is something that the American people want us to do. If we 
do that, there would be enough political credit for everyone. If we 
fail to do that, there will be more than enough blame to go around. And 
this should be something that we do as quickly as possible.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. FORD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I ask for 2 minutes as if in morning 
business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________