[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 123 (Thursday, July 27, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10768-S10769]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                             WELFARE REFORM

  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, we had arranged, prior to this morning, 
for the freshman focus to have some time during morning business. Now 
we have that opportunity. I would like to take that time that was 
allocated.
  As you know, there are some unique insights that are brought to this 
body by people who are elected, those who have just come through an 
election who, I think, are perhaps more attuned and more aware of what 
the electorate, at least in our view, was talking about.
  So the purpose of our freshman focus has been to bring that sort of 
insight to this body. And, frankly, I think we are a little more 
impatient. We would like to see things move a little faster than the 
``blinding speed'' we have encountered over the past 6 months. We want 
to talk a little about fundamental change.
  The issue that will come before us soon, hopefully, will be that of 
welfare reform--one of the fundamental changes that obviously needs to 
be made. I think it is fair to say that, for whatever reason, over the 
last 25 to 30 years, there has not been a willingness on the part of 
the Congress to really take a look at fundamental change, to take a 
look at programs to see, in fact, if they are effective in terms of 
carrying out the purpose of the statutes; whether or not they are 
efficient in terms of providing results for the dollars that have been 
spent; or whether the delivery system has worked well; whether or not 
there is an opportunity to bring programs, Government, and decisions 
closer to people by involving the States. Rather, we have had this 
growth of Federal Government without much consideration of 
alternatives.
  We will soon be entering into the year 2000, a new century. We need 
to ask ourselves what kind of a government do we want to pass on to our 
kids and grandkids with respect to spending and with respect to the 
budget? We will be considering, in the next 2 months, an increase in 
the debt of $5 trillion. We will be asking ourselves what are the 
priorities? What should the Federal Government be doing with what is 
inevitably a finite amount of money? We will have entitlements to the 
extent that, in 5 years, we will have nothing to spend except in the 
entitlement programs. I do not think we want to find ourselves there.
  So we have an opportunity now to look at some fundamental change. We 
have done that, I think. I must say that my observation is generally 
that the folks on the other side of the aisle have resisted almost 
everything that has come up here. Always there is this idea that, yes, 
we are for it, whether it be unfunded mandates, line-item veto, or 
balanced budget. But when we get into it, we find that there is an 
effort to maintain the status quo. That is frustrating. I think it is 
frustrating for us, and I clearly believe it is frustrating for the 
voters in this last election.
  It seems to me that one of the measurements of good Government is 
whether there is a response--if there is a response to public outcry 
for change. And I think there has been. So we find ourselves now, I 
think, with the opportunity to take a look at welfare, to look at a 
program that everyone agrees is useful, and that we should help people 
who need help to get back into work and back into the private sector.
  But let me share just one frustration. We seem to be engaged in a 
little bit of a game here of perception. Each time we talk about how do 
we do something better, the argument goes on back to whether you are 
going to do it or not. You know, we talk about Medicare. There is not a 
soul that I know of in here who does not want to continue and 
strengthen Medicare. The choice is not doing away with Medicare or not 
funding Medicare. The choice is how do you do it? The same is true with 
welfare. Nobody wants to do away with the opportunity to help people 
who need it, but we need to find a way to do it in such a way that 
there are incentives to move off of the program and get back into the 
private sector, where there are restrictions and limits to the cost, 
and to develop programs that have some flexibility.
  Certainly, our needs in Wyoming are different from those of my friend 
from Pennsylvania. That is what we are seeking to do.
  So, Mr. President, we have strong feelings about it--I suppose no 
stronger than anyone else--simply because we are freshmen. But maybe we 
do feel a little of the frustration a little more easily. Maybe we grow 
impatient a little more easily,
 and sort of suffer from the movement here. In any event, I think we 
have great opportunities.

  One of the Senators who has done more work in this, I think, than 
most anyone I know and is very knowledgeable, is the Senator from 
Pennsylvania. I am glad to see him here on the floor.


                             Welfare Reform

  Mr. SANTORUM. I thank the Senator from Wyoming for his comments and 
again for his leadership in bringing the freshmen to the floor on a 
regular basis 

[[Page S 10769]]
to talk about the issues that are important to us. I rise to talk a 
little bit about welfare reform.
  I want to start by congratulating the senior Senator from West 
Virginia for his tremendous service in the U.S. Senate. I was in the 
chair at the time and did not have an opportunity to congratulate him 
personally, but I listened very carefully to the words that he spoke in 
receiving the congratulations from the Senate. His talk about the 
civility of the Senate struck me as a pertinent comment as to what goes 
on here.
  I share those concerns, that the body should be a civil body, and 
that we should be able to have a civil discourse as to the issues of 
the day. I also understand that there are certain periods in history 
where there occurs a fundamental realignment of thinking, where ideas 
of great magnitude clash that causes, at times, an uncivil reaction to 
those who are engaged in this ideological struggle.
  I think we are at the beginning of one of those times here in America 
and here in the U.S. Senate. Time will tell whether the election of 
last year, when we were all elected freshmen, and the changes that were 
brought here in the U.S. Senate, will be the beginning of a realignment 
politically in this country and ideologically in this country--a new 
way of governing in the United States.
  We do not know that. I suspect, and in fact, I hope, that is the 
case. We do not know that. I think there are many here who believe that 
is what is going on. Not really that different than what happened in 
the 1960's or what happened in the 1930's during the New Deal where we 
had a fundamental shift of the role of Government, and people here came 
with very different views of the way Government should operate.
  At times, because of the passion which we feel for our positions, and 
the distance between one side and the other, things can get a little 
hot and heated. I hope that we pay attention to what the Senator from 
West Virginia has said, and try to keep our civility, our level of 
civility, and our respect for our colleagues and their thoughts--
although we may disagree--keep that in mind.
  I do not think there is any issue that shows the fundamental 
difference that is going on in this country, as far as the direction of 
Government in our lives, than the issue of welfare.
  I have been working on that issue, as the Senator from Wyoming knows, 
for the past 3 or 4 years. I worked on it in the House of 
Representatives, the chairman of the task force that wrote the House 
Republican bill last year that by and large passed the House of 
Representatives this year.
  To look at what happened in the debate on welfare in the past 2 or 3 
years is an enormous change. Even the bills now being put forward by 
the leadership on the other side have dramatically moved from the 
status quo positions that were being offered just a year or two ago by 
the President.
  I am encouraged by that. I think it does show a difference between 
how we believe on this side--or many believe, not all--to solve 
problems; how we have been doing it over the long period of years; and 
how we have been doing it, really, since the 1960's.
  We have been doing it with Government perhaps out of Washington, DC, 
where we attempt to provide for people who are less fortunate, with 
some Federal direct grant, cash, food stamps, housing, or whatever; but 
it is run out of Washington. It is administered out of here.
  Sure, there are local agencies that actually pass the money through, 
but all the decisions are made here, and then implemented down at the 
lower level where the individual just sort of receives the end product, 
which is usually a check, a stamp, or something tangible--usually not 
an exchange, other than qualifying because you are low income. There is 
no work required, no sense of duty or obligation to the people who have 
provided to give back. In fact, there is discouragement in many cases.
  Many believe that is fundamentally flawed. That a system that 
provides or seeks to provide for the poor, that does not expect 
anything in return, is a system that is doomed to failure. I think we 
have seen that it not only results in the failure of that individual in 
their ability to turn their lives around and come back, but it causes 
the destruction of the community, the family and the like when you say 
to someone that, because of their poverty, they are unable to provide 
for themselves or give or contribute back to society.
  That is what, unintentionally, indirectly, has occurred in our 
welfare system. That is the debate that will occur here in the U.S. 
Senate, I hope, in the next couple of weeks. We will have a bill on the 
floor, I am hoping the last week we are in session.
  We have been working, and I give a lot of credit to Senator Packwood 
who has done an absolutely outstanding job in working and trying to 
pull together the Republicans, with a bill we can come together and 
move forward with, that is dramatic and in sync with the principles I 
outlined.
  I want to commend Senator Dole who has been fostering that dialog; 
Senator Gramm for staking out a responsible position on the issue and 
trying to form the debate.
  We have a lot of good debate going on over here on this side of the 
aisle right now but the debate is not about dollars and cents. It is 
not about how much money we can save on welfare. It is not about how we 
can punish anybody. It is about one thing. That is, how do we give 
people who have less opportunity today, more opportunity, so they can 
live the American dream. That is what it is all about. That is what 
this welfare reform will be about. That is what our plan is going to be 
about.
  I am encouraged by that. I look forward to the debate. I think it 
will be a great one here on the floor of the Senate. I want to thank, 
again, the Senator from Wyoming for reserving this time. I yield the 
floor.

                          ____________________