[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 132 (Tuesday, August 8, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11888-S11890]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


      WELFARE REFORM: COMMON SENSE SOLUTIONS TO THE WELFARE CRISIS

  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, when the Senate returns from recess, it will 
begin the process of fundamentally changing our Nation's welfare 
system. While this is one of the most important things we should do 
this year, I believe we must acknowledge, as Bill Bennett has said, 
that most of our problems are cultural, and ``cultural problems demand 
cultural solutions.'' In other words, the problems that we seek to 
influence at the margins with governmental programs can only be 
permanently and effectively dealt with by changing our culture.
  After trillions of dollars spent on welfare, it is obvious that 
Federal dollars alone will not solve the problems. All over this 
country, people need to be involved on a personal level to make the 
kinds of changes that will reverse the devastating social trends that 
have taken hold of so much of our land. We desperately need to overhaul 
our Nation's welfare system, yes. But, change in Federal policy alone 
will not resolve the underlying causes of this crisis. It cannot be 
solved without individual commitment and personal responsibility. 
Everyone has to be willing to answer to his or her own behavior and 
decisions.
  The challenge is to help those people with no hope to a new life of 
responsibility, productivity and happiness.


      The Ineffective, Costly Federal Welfare Bureaucracy Must End

  As we work toward effective welfare reform, I believe it would 
benefit the Senate to first recognize publicly the failure of the 
current system. We cannot expect different results if we continue to do 
the same things. 

[[Page S 11889]]

  It has become painfully clear that we cannot solve our welfare 
problems by expanding the bloated and detached Federal bureaucracy or 
by increasing Federal dollars with entitlement status. Since President 
Johnson declared his ``War on Poverty,'' the Federal Government, under 
federally designed programs, has spent more than $5 trillion on welfare 
programs. But, during this time, the poverty rate has increased from 
14.7 to 15.3 percent.
  The average monthly number of children receiving Aid to Families with 
Dependent Children (AFDC) benefits has increased from 3 million in 1965 
to over 9 million in 1992. That increase occurred as the total number 
of children in the United States decreased by 5.5 percent.
  This means, at a minimum, the Great Society system has not worked; 
and, at worst, it has actually contributed to the problem by 
discouraging work, penalizing marriage, and destroying personal 
responsibility and, oftentimes, self-worth.
  Limited success in reforming welfare has occurred when States and 
localities have been given the opportunity ``to go their own way.'' 
Under a State work-based initiative in Wisconsin, for example, 
individuals have been diverted from ever getting on welfare, and under 
a local initiative in Riverside, CA, individuals on welfare are staying 
in jobs permanently. In both Wisconsin and Riverside, welfare rolls 
have been reduced. Additionally, in Wisconsin, unemployed, non-
custodial parents not meeting their child support obligations are 
required to actively look for work or work in a public or private 
sector job, or they are faced with jail time.
  Since States are designing programs that work and since the Federal 
Government has clearly failed, the administration and design of most 
welfare related programs should fall under State and local control. 
Arizona's efforts at reform are a good example of why reform is needed. 
Arizona applied in July of last year to implement a new State welfare 
program, EMPOWER. It is based on work, responsibility, and 
accountability. It took the Department of Health and Human Services 
bureaucracy a full year to approve the waiver. What State wants to 
waste its time and resources preparing a waiver request knowing full 
well that the Federal Government might put up roadblocks or simply not 
act on it for years?
  That is why block grants to States make sense. By allowing States to 
design their own programs, decisions will be more localized, and the 
costs of the Federal bureaucracy will be avoided. I support proposals 
to block grant AFDC, child care, and job training programs, and 
perhaps, to block grant additional programs, such as food stamps.
  This having been said about block grants, there are two fundamental 
driving forces behind welfare dependency that require some Federal 
commitment: nonwork and nonmarriage.
  While I am totally skeptical about Government's ability to legislate 
cultural solutions, I do believe that certain fundamental principles 
are worth reinforcing. In other words, as long as Federal tax funds are 
being used, they should be spent in a positive, not a negative way. For 
example, it is wrong for Federal policy to penalize work and marriage. 
Instead, work and marriage should be rewarded because they are integral 
to the fabric of our society.
  Nonwork and illegitimacy are key underlying causes of our welfare 
crisis and, even with the effective elimination of the Federal welfare 
bureaucracy, they will remain as its legacy if we choose not to address 
them. Responsibility is integral to a successful life--so Federal tax 
funds should be given only to those willing to work and willing to 
raise children responsibly. People will never get out of the dependency 
cycle if Federal funds reinforce destructive behavior.


                                  Work

  Everybody knows that incentives to work are one integral component of 
any successful welfare solution.
  Let us deal with the facts: To escape poverty and get off welfare, 
able-bodied individuals must enter and stay in the workforce. As Teddy 
Roosevelt said, ``The first requisite of a good citizen in this 
Republic of ours is that he shall be able and willing to pull his own 
weight.''
  Let us look at another cold, hard fact: The JOBS program that passed 
as a part of the Family Support Act of 1988 is not moving welfare 
recipients into work. Less than 10 percent of welfare recipients now 
participate in the JOBS Program. In fact, the JOBS Program does not 
require work, but simply participation in a job readiness program.
  Once again: the Federal solution has been a failure. States can 
probably do better. States should be given the flexibility to determine 
how they will increase the number of welfare recipients engaged in 
work--and I mean real work. A number of studies, including a study 
recently released by the Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation 
(MDRC), indicate that getting a welfare recipient into work is more 
likely than any other factor--more than training or education for 
example--to result in the recipient leaving welfare for good.
  And so, in my view, requiring States to adhere to tough definitions 
of work and to meet realistic, but tough, work participation rates will 
help States move toward what should be their primary goal: self-
sufficiency among all their citizens.
  S. 1120 provides a beginning toward these goals. Under S. 1120, 
welfare recipients must enter work no later than 2 years after 
receiving their first welfare payment. By the year 2000, 50 percent of 
a State's welfare caseload, with no exemptions, will be required to 
work. I am pleased that an agreement has been reached to add to S. 1120 
a requirement that States must lower welfare benefits on a pro rata 
basis for individuals who fail to show up for required work. I will 
continue to work for a bill that will bring more individuals into the 
workforce.


                              Illegitimacy

  Our Nation's illegitimacy rate has increased from 10.7 percent in 
1970 to nearly 30 percent in 1991. Eighty-nine percent of children 
receiving AFDC benefits now live in homes in which no father is 
present.
  As the senior Senator from New York, who has worked on these issues 
for 30 years, said this week, if we do not do something to reverse this 
trend we may simply not make it as a society. And, as the senior 
Senator from Texas and others have said as well, to do anything less 
than radically change the system that has created this trend would be 
suicidal for our country. Clearly, the issue of illegitimacy is not a 
partisan issue, and it is one that demands immediate attention.
  We must appreciate the role that the breakdown of the family, that 
fatherless families, have played in our societal and cultural decline. 
This is not really even a debatable point. The facts support the 
devastating reality. According to a 1995 U.S. Census Bureau report, the 
one-parent family is six times more likely to live in poverty than the 
two-parent family. And, according to a study conducted in 1990 by June 
O'Neill--now director of the Congressional Budget Office, a young male 
is twice as likely to engage in criminal behavior if he is raised 
without a father.
  Robert Lerman of the Urban Institute stated it well in an op-ed in 
the Washington Post on Monday. He says that even the best set of 
employment and training programs will still leave children in one-
parent families living ``near the edge.'' Mr. Lerman goes on to explain 
that growing up in a family with only one parent ``increases the 
child's risk of dropping out of school, becoming an unmarried parent 
and having trouble getting and holding a job.'' As the op-ed clearly 
states, the engagement of fathers in parenting is the most important 
factor in helping people leave the welfare rolls and escape poverty.
  I will, therefore, support measures to combat illegitimacy, including 
an amendment to provide incentives to States for reducing illegitimacy 
rates. I will also support initiatives to limit increases in cash 
assistance for mothers having additional children while on welfare. If 
the rules of welfare are stated clearly to a mom from the beginning, 
and if allowances are made for noncash essentials like diapers and 
other items, then I do not believe such a welfare rule is unfair. In 
the end, if such a rule reduces out-of-wedlock births, it may turn out 
to be more fair than most other aspects of welfare.


                        Private Sector Solutions

  Although most State solutions to welfare are more effective than 
Federal 

[[Page S 11890]]
solutions, no Government program can replace private sector charities 
and civic contributions. States can do it better than the Federal 
bureaucracy, but communities and individuals will ultimately have to 
solve this crisis. For instance, if given $10,000 to spend on a welfare 
programs of their choice, most Americans would choose to contribute to 
the local homeless shelter or Salvation Army over some Government 
welfare program because they know the private sector will be more 
effective.
  During this welfare debate, it is my hope that we can discuss ways to 
end what John Goodman of the National Center for Policy Analysis has 
called, the ``Federal Government's monopoly on welfare tax dollars.'' I 
support the provision of S. 1120 that allows States to contract with 
private charitable organizations--including religious organizations--to 
meet the needs of recipients within their State.
  I also believe that allowing taxpayers to claim a credit on their 
Federal tax returns for dollars or hours donated to a qualified charity 
will give taxpayers the opportunity to decide how their welfare tax 
dollars are spent and will promote private sector involvement. I will 
support efforts to establish such a tax credit; I will also support 
efforts to change sections of the Tax Code that provide disincentives 
to marriage.
  Mr. President, I would ask my friends on both sides of the aisle to 
recognize the urgency of our task. I respect the intentions of those 
who disagree with our proposals for more fundamental reform. But the 
bureaucratic responses to the problem have failed. It is time for 
something else. The status quo of the past 30 years will no longer 
suffice. As candidate for President Clinton said, ``we must end welfare 
as we know it.''
  The most compassionate thing we can do for those on welfare is to get 
them off of welfare. The measure of our success will not be by how many 
people we cover, but how few we need to cover. Our current system has 
the effect of enslaving human beings to lives of dependency. Mr. 
President, let us end the bureaucratic welfare state; let us create an 
opportunity society.


                          ____________________