[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 130 (Saturday, August 5, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11556-S11557]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                             WELFARE REFORM

  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise to congratulate our leader, the 
chairman of the Finance Committee, Senator Packwood and others, who 
just went above and beyond the call of duty to bring together, I 
believe, a consensus welfare reform package here on the Republican 
side.
  The leader, in a few minutes, is going to lay down that package for 
us to begin debate next week. Second to our efforts to balance the 
budget, I think this is the next most important issue that we can deal 
with in the Senate and one that I think is at the top of the minds of 
not only the people of the United States who pay for the welfare system 
but the people in it.
  I think this is a bill that addresses the concerns of both those who 
are in the system and those who are paying for the system. The people 
who are paying for the system are going to get more results, more 
value, for their tax dollars that they are contributing, and more 
people are going to be helped into productive mainstream life in 
America. That is a value to the people who are paying and, obviously, a 
tremendous value to the people who find themselves dependent on 
welfare.
  What the leader has done, I think, is truly extraordinary. In a very 
difficult arena where we are trying to give authority back to the 
States, you run into problems such as, What is fair? How much do you 
give? And to what State based on what formula? We were able to, through 
the tremendous work of the Senator from Texas, Senator Hutchison, 
overcome that and come up with a formula that I think works for 
everyone. It does not disadvantage any State and provides growth 
opportunities for those States who are really up against it with 
burgeoning populations of not only the overall population but of the 
poor in our country.
  We have been able to handle the tough problems of how we are going to 
get work requirements and how many requirements. How many do we turn 
over to the States and how much do we retain here? In that partnership 
we seek to establish how much do we allow the States to innovate and 
how much do we want to oversee and require?
  And I think the leader's proposals, again, struck the proper balance 
of a true partnership, not one that the current administration would 
have you believe is a partnership where we will make all the decisions. 
You come to us when you want to change anything, and we will tell you 
if we think it is OK to do that, in everything you do. That is not a 
partnership, no more than a student asking the teacher for permission 
to go to the bathroom. If the teacher says, ``No you've got to go back 
to your seat.'' It is the same thing. If the State wants to improvise, 
and the President says, ``No, you have to go back to your seat,'' that 
is not a partnership. To call that a partnership is absurd.
  What we do is truly give authority, truly give discretion and give 
dollars, in some cases with strings, other cases 

[[Page S11557]]
without. But it is a partnership. And it was carefully crafted, and I 
think wonderfully done. And I am hopeful when we have this debate--
there will be debate--there will be amendments on the Republican side 
and amendments on the Democratic side to craft this bill over the next 
week.
  I think there will be a great debate here about the direction this 
country is going to take and the future of the role of Government in 
solving people's problems.
  Actually, one of the more innovative proposals that is in the 
leader's bill--also in other bills here--is to allow community groups 
to be the welfare agency, allow churches and community organizations 
and nonprofits who work in those neighborhoods to actually be the 
conduit agency to help and provide support for the poor in those 
neighborhoods--a radical concept of getting the government completely 
out and going to the people who care most, the neighbors, the pastors, 
the community activists. It is a wonderful concept. It is a breath of 
fresh air in what seems to be a hopeless cycle of dependency that we 
created in this Federal Government welfare policy. It is dramatic 
reform.
  You will hear, I am sure, some say, well, it does not go far enough, 
not radical enough, does not change enough. And I am sure you will hear 
many come to the floor and tell us how we are going to destroy 
neighborhoods and create mass homelessness and starve millions of 
children and, you know, the sky will fall. You will hear it from both 
sides. Usually, when that is the case, you get a pretty good feel you 
have a good bill because you have not satisfied the far extremes of 
either side.
  What we have done is taken a responsible approach, one I am very 
proud to be associated with. And before we got this debate underway, I 
wanted to congratulate the leader in his ability to forge this 
compromise, which I truly believe will get overwhelming support on the 
Republican side and get substantial support on the Democratic side of 
the aisle. Because I know there are many on that side of the aisle who 
see the problems in the current system and see this as a responsible 
remedy to that problem.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. DOLE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. DOLE. I know we are going to start this, but I want to thank the 
junior Senator from Pennsylvania, who comes from the House, who did a 
lot of work on the House side putting together welfare reform. And we 
have been fortunate on this side of the aisle to have Senator 
Santorum's daily, hourly assistance on a very important piece of 
legislation, bringing people together with diverse views. It is not 
easy. It is all about leadership. And I congratulate and commend the 
Senator from Pennsylvania for his extraordinary effort. And because of 
that, largely because of that, I might add, I will be introducing the 
bill here following disposition of a number of amendments by our 
colleagues in reference to the DOD bill.
  I thank the Senator from Pennsylvania.

                          ____________________