[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 131 (Monday, August 7, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11800-S11802]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                      FAMILY SELF-SUFFICIENCY ACT

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, few debates have had greater importance 
than the one we have begun this week. A number of us have been working 
now for many months in preparation for this debate. I want to thank 
Members on both sides of the aisle for the work that has been done thus 
far, and let me in particular commend the ranking member of the Finance 
Committee, Senator Moynihan, for his leadership and the continued 
effort he has made to bring us to this point.
  I also feel the need to, again, reiterate my gratitude to Senators 
Breaux and Mikulski for the leadership they have given our caucus on 
the issue of welfare reform; Senators Dodd and Kennedy for all of the 
help they have given us with regard to the need to consider children as 
we deal with this issue; and Senators Moseley-Braun and Conrad on the 
Finance Committee for their efforts.
  Let me also cite the tremendous cooperation and support that we have 
been given from the administration, Democratic Governors, and local 
officials. For many months now, all of them, and many more within our 
caucus, have come forth to give us their best ideas and to produce what 
we hope will be one of the best work products that we have had since 
this Congress has begun.
  Mr. President, the result of that effort has been a remarkable degree 
of unity within our caucus about the need for welfare reform and about 
the way we bring it about. We support a new concept which we call Work 
First, a concept which incorporates many very critical principles that 
we as Democrats feel strongly about, that we as Democrats can unite on 
and reach out to our Republican colleagues and hope that, working 
together, we can achieve meaningful welfare reform on a bipartisan 
basis this year.
  First and foremost, as we consider those principles, Mr. President, 
our belief is that the emphasis needs to be put on work; that we end 
welfare as we know it; that we abolish the old infrastructure; that we 
create the incentives and the opportunities that must be created if, 
indeed, we are going to put work first.
  So we begin by requiring that all able-bodied people go to work, get 
jobs, obtain the skills, do what is necessary to ensure that they break 
their dependency on welfare.
 We recognize that in order to do that, we have to provide tools that 
do not exist today. So as we abolish the AFDC Program and the old JOBS 
Program, we recognize that new tools must be put in place if indeed we 
are going to give people opportunities and the real hope that they can 
break that cycle of dependency, that they can go out with confidence 
and get the jobs that they need to get.

  We also recognize that even though it may not be a part of welfare 
reform, it is very difficult to tell anybody today that they are to go 
out and get a minimum-wage job, work 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year, 
and still be below the national poverty level. That is unacceptable.
  If we are going to make work pay, we have to provide not only the 
economic incentives, but the opportunities and the confidence necessary 
so that indeed we can break the cycle of poverty, as well as the cycle 
of dependency. Breaking the cycle of poverty, hopefully this year, will 
mean an increase in the minimum wage, to ensure that men and women can 
work 40 hours or more a week and not be condemned to poverty in spite 
of their best efforts.
  The second principle, Mr. President, is a recognition that there are 
impediments to ending welfare as we know it and to getting those jobs 
that exist today. We must address those impediments if indeed we are 
going to get the job done. Our belief is that the two most critical 
impediments are the fear of losing their health insurance and the lack 
of adequate child care.
  First, they fear that once they get a job, especially if it is a 
minimum-wage job, they will lose their health insurance, they will have 
no protection for themselves or their children, because Medicaid will 
no longer be provided.
  They also know that they have a Hobson's choice of getting a job or 
staying on welfare and taking care of their children. They do not want 
to be in a position of saying, I want to get that job, I want to go out 
into the private sector and obtain a good, meaningful, good-paying 
job--but I do not want to leave my children at home unattended. What am 
I going to do with my kids? How many families would be willing to leave 
their young children at home while they went out to get a minimum-wage 
job, which is, in part, what we are asking people to do today. That, 
too, is unacceptable. We cannot ask a young parent to do that. We have 
to find a way to ensure that their legitimate concerns are addressed in 
terms of health care, as well as in terms of child care.
  So what we do in our Work First plan is extend Medicaid for another 
year to give people the opportunity to create the financial means to 
buy their health insurance. We do the same thing with child care. We 
tell them, look, we are going to care for your children, we are going 
to find a way, working with the States, to create the infrastructure 
necessary to see that your children are cared for. We are not going to 
effectively force you to leave them at home. We are not going to make 
you leave them unattended. We recognize how many problems are created 
at home when there is no adult supervision. That is the second 
principle--recognizing the impediments to work today and dealing with 
them.
  The third principle is to ensure the safety net for children 
continues. Children should not be required to pay for the problems 
created by their parents. If we are going to break the cycle of 
dependency, it ought to be the goal of every Senator to strengthen the 
child, to give them the care, the direction, the nutrition, the 
protection that they need so that they never find themselves on welfare 
in the first place. Creating that mechanism of ensuring that children 
are protected has to be a fundamental principle of welfare reform, 
regardless of what else we do with their parents looking for work.
  A fourth principle is to recognize today that we actually penalize 
husbands for staying at home and staying 

[[Page S 11801]]
married. We actually penalize them for living at home and playing the 
role of father. Today, if a welfare recipient is married, that person 
is ineligible for the full benefits created through the welfare system. 
That is wrong. So we eliminate the penalty for married welfare 
recipients. We say we want to encourage families to stay together. We 
want the mother and father in that house together. We want to do 
everything we can to preserve the family unit.
  We require tough child enforcement mechanisms and expand job 
placement and training for absent fathers. We have had the opportunity 
to consult with scores of people from around the country, and the word 
we get time and time again from virtually every expert is that if 
indeed you really want to stop welfare dependency, if you want to break 
out of the problems we have today, you have to find ways to keep the 
family together. We want to do that. We do that by eliminating the 
penalty for married welfare recipients, strengthening child support 
enforcement, encouraging absent fathers to stay home and to get the job 
skills they need, without penalizing them.
  Fifth, Mr. President, we recognize, as so many people have alluded to 
today, that if we are going to do this, we recognize the big 
differences between and among States. Ohio and South Dakota are 
dramatically different in many respects. South Dakota's largest city is 
about 125,000 people. We have only 10 communities with more than a 
thousand people, and 300 communities with fewer than a hundred people. 
We recognize that welfare in South Dakota is vastly different from 
welfare in other parts of the country. So we must give States the 
flexibility and the opportunities to create new mechanisms that adapt 
to the problems, needs, and concerns of people within each State. We 
recognize that the current system is too constrained, is too 
prescriptive, is too dictatorial in coming up with ways to allow States 
the opportunity and the freedom and flexibility to do what they know, 
in many cases, has to be done to combat the problems in the welfare 
system.
  Next, we want to combat teen pregnancy. Here, too, there is no 
secret, magical, one-size-fits-all solution. We realize, as Senator 
Moynihan and others have spoken about many times, we have no way of 
knowing for sure what we can do to break the cycle of illegitimacy, to 
ensure that teen parents will not continue in the practices and the 
direction they often take at an early age. We want to stop children 
from having children. We want to create whatever mechanisms are 
necessary to ensure that children are children first and parents 
second. To do that, we require that teen mothers, if unfortunately they 
become pregnant, stay in school and stay at home; and that, in those 
cases where home is not the appropriate place, they be given second-
chance home opportunities, living in an environment that is loving, 
caring, protective, and reassuring. Second-chance homes can do that.
  We believe very strongly that whether it is at home or whether it is 
in a new home, teen mothers cannot be put by themselves, cannot be 
forced to take all of the responsibilities that comes with rearing a 
child, with little or no resources, and expected to rear that child 
properly. That does not work.
  So once a child has a child, and that child has a child, and that 
cycle goes on and on, it is no wonder we have the incredible 
delinquency problems and the problems with childhood abuse and the many 
serious problems that come with it.
  Finally, we recognize that there are many loopholes in the Food Stamp 
and SSI Programs that we believe have to be addressed. We clamp down on 
waste and abuse and recognize there are ways not only to save money but 
to administer these programs much more effectively. So we believe that, 
through all of these principles, we can enact a substantial degree of 
reform and bring about a change in welfare to the degree that it has 
never been brought about before. We are optimistic that in working with 
these principles, we can do a great deal to change the direction of 
welfare as we know it in this country.
  I believe that, in many cases, the Work First plan stands in contrast 
to the bill offered by many of our Republican colleagues. The latest 
version of the Republican bill is a significant improvement over the 
Finance Committee draft that passed a couple of months ago. But I would 
cite among the many differences between Work First and the current 
Republican plan four fundamental differences that I think have to be 
addressed.
  The first has to do with work. We both recognize that work has to be 
a priority. We both recognize that we have to put new emphasis and a 
new direction to the opportunities there are for work. The big 
difference, of course, comes in resources. Both of us have a 
requirement that, by the year 2000, 50 percent of those people on 
welfare will be required to work. Fifty percent.
  I am told today that about 10 percent of those people on welfare 
ultimately get jobs. So we are asking for a 5-fold increase in our 
success rate in the next 5 years. A 5-fold increase, from 10 percent to 
50 percent. I am not talking about ``participation.'' I am talking 
about actual work.
  Today we judge our success largely by participation. That is, if you 
come into the office and you demonstrate you are looking for a job, you 
can qualify for all the welfare benefits that may be provided.
  We say participation is not good enough anymore. Now what we want to 
do is say you really have to have a job before we consider this case 
closed. You have to be out there working prior to the time we are 
willing to call this particular case a success.
  The problem is that, to obtain that 5-fold increase in the next 5 
years, I believe we will need resources to do it. It is not just going 
to happen. We are talking about providing skills. We are talking about 
education. We are talking about a new infrastructure which will make 
welfare offices employment offices.
  If we are going to do that, the States and the Federal Government 
must work in partnership to ensure that we can accomplish all that we 
know we can accomplish in a very short period of time. A five-fold 
increase in real jobs is a major responsibility.
  The difference between the Democratic bill and the Republican bill is 
that over the next 5 years, the Republican bill will cut $70 billion in 
the assistance to be provided to the States to do just that.
  What we are telling the States through the Republican bill is that we 
want you to get the job done, but we will cut $70 billion in resources 
before you are given the chance to do it.
  Mr. President, I do not see how that is possible. If, over the course 
of this debate, we can figure out how we can ask the States to 
accomplish five times what they are doing today with $70 billion less 
in resources, that explanation, I think, is one the Governors will want 
to hear for themselves.
  The second major difference between the Republican plan as it has 
been presented and the democratic Work First plan is our emphasis on 
children. There are about 14 million welfare recipients today. Mr. 
President, 9 million of the 14 million are children. We believe if 
those children are going to be cared for, if those children are going 
to get out of this incredible dependence they find themselves in as a 
result of being born into welfare families, then indeed we have to 
ensure that they are nourished, they are given the education, they are 
given the loving care they need and deserve. If they are given all 
those things we had when we were growing up--we had the encouragement, 
we had the nutrition, we had the education, we had the loving care--
then maybe they will have a fighting chance. The reality is that these 
children are too often born into situations where none of that exists.
  Mr. President, I think it is very critical if we want to ensure that 
those children have a chance, then it seems critical to me that we 
create and ensure that the safety net continues for those children, so 
they never have to face what their parents are facing.
  Second, as I said a moment ago, it is so important that if we are 
honest and serious about telling mothers they have to get a job--
telling young mothers and fathers, for that matter--it is not going to 
be enough to be dependent upon welfare in perpetuity, if that is going 
to happen, we have to realize that 60 percent of all AFDC families have 
at least one child under the age of 6. Mr. President, 60 percent of all 
AFDC families today have one child at least under the age of 6.
  In a recent study, these families said that the biggest reason they 
cannot go out and get a job is because there is no one there to take 
care of that child. We do not want a bill that says we are going to 
have to leave them at home if indeed you want benefits at all. This 
ought not be what we call the home-alone bill. We do not want to see 
children left without protection and care.
  The big difference here is how do we handle child care? In addition 
to the safety net, not punishing children, how do we ensure that those 
children are taken care of when the parents leave in the morning to go 
to work? No one can tell me that we will ever solve this problem if we 
do not resolve that one. Child care and welfare reform are inextricably 
linked. We cannot have one without the other. People need to understand 
that. It is too much to ignore. We must have some realization of the 

[[Page S 11802]]
essential connection between child care and welfare reform.
  The third big difference, Mr. President, has to do with funding. I 
mentioned earlier that there is a $70 billion reduction in the 
availability of funds. The Republican bill freezes funding at 1994 
levels for the next 7 years. We are told that is a $70 billion 
reduction. That is just the beginning. It is not just the amount of 
money but how that money is provided.
  There is no needs determination in the Republican bill. That is, 
there is no system by which the more severe the situation, the greater 
the resources. It is all done on a formula. That formula is really 
based on a first-come-first-served theory.
  A block grant is sent out based upon this formula. Whether or not it 
is enough, the money is there so long as it is available. If there are 
more people than there are funds, it will be up to the States to decide 
who gets it. There is no match requirement. States are not required in 
any way, shape or form to come up with a reciprocal amount of money--
some supplemental amount, some pool of resources--that would enable 
them to benefit from the resources provided at the Federal level.
  No needs determination, no match whatever. A formula that is 
determined in Washington, not based on severity, not based on the 
number of people on welfare, not based on the degree to which there are 
imaginative approaches being employed.
  Mr. President, there is a very significant difference in the approach 
used by the Republican plan and the approach incorporated in the Work 
First plan.
  Our view is that need ought to determine availability; that in some 
cases there is a greater need, regardless of population, for a lot of 
different reasons. We ought to take that into account prior to the time 
we arbitrarily make some formula decision that may or may not help some 
States.
  Finally, there is also a big difference with regard to the 
availability of assistance for teenage pregnancy. The Republican bill 
makes assistance to be provided for curtailing teenage pregnancy simply 
an option to the States. They can do it or not. Regardless of their 
choice, there is no funding available to the States to do whatever it 
is they may do. Whatever they do, they are on their own. One can guess 
what choice most States will make under such circumstances.
  There is encouragement to use second-chance homes. There is 
encouragement to require that teenagers be required to stay in school 
or at home, but there is no funding. No availability of additional 
resources to see that might be something we should look at.
  Mr. President, at least on those four principles, we have some 
fundamental philosophical differences that I think have to be addressed 
if, indeed, we are going to succeed in breaching the differences in 
arriving at a bipartisan bill some time this Congress.
  Let me make two final points with regard to welfare reform. First of 
all, as we can see from the debate already today, and for that matter 
last Saturday, this ought to be a lively debate, a spirited debate, a 
debate in which very good points are raised--likely on both sides. I 
sincerely hope that Members of the Republican caucus will look at the 
Work First bill. I have every expectation they will consider even 
voting for it, at some point, given the significant new concepts 
incorporated in it.
  I hope we can have a good debate but I hope we do not arbitrarily 
decide this thing can be resolved--this whole debate can be resolved--
in a matter of a couple of days. I do not think it can be. This is one 
of the most consequential debates we will be taking up this year. It 
has broad ramifications. And if we do it right we may not have to visit 
this issue again for a long time to come, at least as it relates to our 
infrastructure. So I do not think we ought to be rushed into final 
passage. I do not think our success ought to be judged by how few days 
we actually take to resolve these differences and debate these points 
and come up with the best piece of legislation. So I sincerely hope we 
can have a good debate and not arbitrarily come to any conclusion as to 
how long a good debate may take.
  Finally, let me say I hope it can be a bipartisan effort. I do not 
see it as necessarily a Democratic or a Republican issue, but it is 
going to be hard to be bipartisan if Republicans engage, once again as 
they did earlier this year, in negative political attacks when the 
debate has barely begun. It is wrong and deeply disappointing that 
Republicans would attack five Democratic Senators who have participated 
in the debate, who have made significant contributions to this effort, 
who may differ in some cases with Republicans on how we resolve these 
outstanding issues--but in good faith participate in the debate--and 
then be attacked politically simply because they may disagree. I would 
add that they have been attacked erroneously. Some of the attacks now 
being leveled against five of my colleagues in the Democratic caucus 
are wrong. They are outright fabrications. I hope the media take the 
time to look into the claims and then check the facts, because if they 
do they will find that not only are these attacks wrong and 
shortsighted, but they simply do not represent the facts or the voting 
records of those who have been the subject of these unfortunate attacks 
in the last couple of days.
  We can do this either way. I recall vividly some of the criticism 
Republicans had last year, for the partisan nature of some of the 
debate on health care. I recall how unfair they thought it was when 
some of the debate was politicized. On the other side, there was great 
concern about the Harry and Louise ads. We heard a lot about targeted 
ads in States and districts around the country. Both sides raised a lot 
of questions about whether or not that was the right way to debate an 
issue as important as health care was.
  It was wrong then and it is wrong now. It is wrong now to politicize 
this debate at the very beginning of what I hope will be an opportunity 
for us to deal with this issue in a productive, meaningful way, coming 
to some resolution sometime this session of Congress to one of the most 
important and challenging issues of our day--welfare reform. I believe 
we can do it. I believe we can work together and, in spite of some of 
our deep differences philosophically, overcome those differences and 
come up with a plan that works a lot better than the one we have today.
  That is not going to happen if we contaminate the debate with sharp 
political attacks against Members on either side. So I hope cooler 
heads will prevail, and I hope those responsible for those ads will 
have second thoughts and the good common sense to pull them before it 
is too late.
  Mr. President, noting no other interest in debate, I yield the floor.

                          ____________________