[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 137 (Wednesday, September 6, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S12707-S12710]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




[[Page S 12707]]


                      FAMILY SELF-SUFFICIENCY ACT

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I do not have the experience of the 
Democratic manager of this bill, the senior Senator from New York. On 
this occasion, and others, I heard him talking with President Nixon and 
President Kennedy on matters of importance dealing with measures that 
are now before this body. He has written numerous articles. He has 
written books dealing with welfare, so I cannot match that.
  But as I told the Senator from New York, I have done something he has 
not done, and that is, I have spent a night in a homeless shelter in 
Las Vegas. Truly one of the remarkable experiences of my life--I do not 
know if ``remarkable'' is the right word--but interesting and 
educational experiences of my life.
  And I just want to confirm what the Senator from New York has said on 
a number of occasions--that the homeless problem did not come about 
accidentally.
  The homeless problem came about as a result of the Federal 
Government, in effect, emptying what we used to refer to as the 
``insane asylums,'' mental institutions, as we now refer to them. We, 
in effect, emptied them. There were prescriptive drugs, and the 
Presiding Officer, who is a medical doctor, knows more about the 
different compounds that were developed to allow us to get people out 
of these institutions. But as part of the program, after having gotten 
them out of the institutions, we were to provide community health 
centers where these people would have the opportunity to come back and 
get new medicine and be evaluated and, in effect, not make them 
homeless people wandering the streets, as we see so often now.
  Mr. President, one of the things we have to be aware of as we begin 
welfare reform, which we all acknowledge is needed, is that we do not 
create more problems, like the problems created when we decided to 
empty the mental institutions. The Senator from New York is concerned 
that 10 years from now, we are going to have a half a million children 
on the streets competing with the adult homeless. I hope he is wrong.
  I think that almost every Member of this body agrees welfare reform 
is needed. The question is, How should we reform welfare? We all 
acknowledge that we must do something to change the present system. The 
current system, in many respects, is out of control. In fact, today, 
Mr. President, the name ``welfare'' itself invokes certain perceptions 
of which we are all aware. Presently, it is assumed that people on 
welfare are lazy, that they do not want to work and are simply looking 
for a handout. Our current system tends to foster these perceptions, 
however invalid they may be. I think what we need to do is to go back 
to the original intent of the welfare system.
  We have had welfare systems in this country that are legendary in 
their success: the WPA, Works Progress Administration. When I do town 
hall meetings in Nevada, many times I take pictures of what the WPA did 
around Nevada: built schools, built roads, planted trees, built 
bridges, helped with grasshopper infestations. And I, with these 
pictures, tell my constituents that here is a Government program that 
was a success and, yes, a Government welfare program that was a 
success.
  I was born and raised in Searchlight, NV, a small mining town when I 
was growing up there of a couple hundred people. Not much in the way of 
mines but it was a mining town. At that time, the gold was about gone.
  But all around the area of Searchlight we had evidence, when I was 
growing up, and it is still there, of the welfare recipients having 
been to Nevada. They did not know they were welfare recipients, but 
they were. They were part of the Civilian Conservation Corps. They came 
to the deserts of southern Nevada. They came to all over Nevada, but 
the deserts of southern Nevada I am familiar with. They came to all 
over southern Nevada.
  What did they do? They built corrals, watering holes, fences. They 
built trails. There is still evidence of these welfare recipients' work 
in Nevada. This was a welfare program that was successful. So because 
we have a welfare program, it should not mean that it is demeaning, 
that it is bad, that it is negative. There are reasons we have welfare 
programs.
  This great society of ours must help those people who need help. We 
know that welfare covers the infirm, the blind, the handicapped. Who 
would say we do not need welfare programs to help people who, for 
whatever reason, find themselves in that condition or position? There 
are also people who are able-bodied that, for reasons, need help.
 And that is what this welfare reform is all about--to do something 
about people who are down on their luck and need help.

  There is no reason that welfare should foster a perception of people 
being lazy and worthless. We need to go back to the original intent of 
the welfare system. Welfare was initially developed as a temporary 
assistance, not a way of life. I believe that we all agree on this. 
Reform of the current welfare system should be as bipartisan as we can 
make it. Both sides of the aisle, I hope, have the same goal: to make 
welfare temporary and to move people currently on welfare into jobs.
  The bill that the Democrats have sponsored, the Democratic 
alternative, of which I am a cosponsor, recognizes this intent. It 
clearly recognizes this intent and has a prepared plan, tightly 
tailored, to not only succeed in moving people off of welfare and into 
jobs but to keep them in those jobs. The Democratic substitute 
streamlines the current system and addresses the problems people now 
face. It addresses the major barriers to getting a job, keeping a job, 
and getting off welfare. In contrast, while the Dole bill has the same 
objectives, it falls short in its plan on how to achieve these goals.
  I must say, Mr. President, that the Dole bill is a moving target. It 
has changed many, many times. I am doing my best to understand the Dole 
bill and to give it as fair an interpretation as I can.
  I have a number of problems with the Dole bill. I am going to focus 
today on block grants. As U.S. Senators, we deal with Federal dollars. 
That is the way it should be. We cannot simply hand the States a fixed 
amount of cash with no direction or requirements. I think this would be 
irresponsible. Welfare is a national concern. That is why we are here 
today debating reform of the system. It is important that the Federal 
Government have some control over the funds it disburses.
  Mr. President, under the majority's legislation, there is going to be 
a race to the least. Who can get to give the least the quickest? Who 
can provide the least amount of benefits? Because who does that is 
going to win the battle because they are going to have no money to do 
anything else with.
  A favorite criticism of the Democratic Party by some is that we throw 
money at projects. That is exactly what the Republican block grant does 
in this legislation. It throws money at the problem. It throws moneys 
to the States and tells them to deal with the problems without giving 
them sufficient money. That is, the irresponsibility is compounded by 
the fact that the money States are going to get in the block grants is 
significantly insufficient. Many of the Senators on the other side of 
the aisle who have spoken on behalf of the Dole plan have emphasized 
that block grants allow the States to decide how and where to spend the 
money it is given, the logic being that the State knows best where they 
must focus the money. I do not disagree with the basis of that 
argument. Individual States should know where their weaknesses lie and 
what their States need. However, those speaking on behalf of the 
underlying bill have failed to emphasize that there are Federal 
requirements States must meet in order for the States to receive these 
block grant moneys. They are not automatic. States, for example, would 
be required to double their participation rates. Yet, they will not be 
given the necessary resources to carry out this work.
  The Republican block grant plan is not truly a block grant plan, but 
an unfunded mandate to the States. One of the first bills we worked on 
in this Congress, and one of the first we passed--and there was 
agreement with the Contract With America--is that we should not have 
unfunded mandates. We agreed with that. Here is an unfunded mandate. In 
fact, the head of the U.S. Conference of Mayors, which 

[[Page S 12708]]
is bipartisan, called the Republican plan ``the mother of all unfunded 
mandates.'' This is not something I dreamed up or the Democratic Policy 
Committee came up with in some cute little phrase. This comes from the 
U.S. Conference of Mayors, which is a bipartisan group. He called the 
plan ``the mother of all unfunded mandates.''
  For example, in order for States to meet the new work requirements 
prescribed in the Republican bill, by the year 2000--fiscal year 2000--
the Congressional Budget Office analysis estimates that the States 
would have to find up to $4.3 billion extra--more than the current 
State and Federal expenditures--to meet the new child care costs alone. 
Overall, the unfunded work requirements would result in $35 billion in 
additional cost to the States over the next 7 years; $35 billion. 
Everybody within the sound of my voice should understand that this is a 
lot of money that is going to be picked up by State and local 
governments. For the State of Nevada, the unfunded mandate will result 
in costs upwards of $110 million, as we now see it, at least.
  Finally, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that a majority of 
the States will not be able to meet the work requirements included in 
the bill. In fact, CBO assumes that given the cost and administrative 
complexities, States would choose to accept a penalty of up to 5 
percent of the grant rather than implement the requirements.
  My primary concern with the underlying bill and the block grant plan 
in it is its unfairness and insufficiency. The plan simply shifts the 
problems of the current welfare program to the States, with limited 
Federal funding. This plan is inadequate for high-growth States like 
Nevada. In fact, Nevada may be the best example of how unfair a block 
grant frozen at fiscal year 1994 will be--frozen for 5 years. Nevada is 
the fastest-growing State in the country, with the fastest-growing city 
in the country, Las Vegas. It will not take long for high-growth States 
like Nevada to run out of money. And then they will be forced, under 
the terms of this bill, to borrow money from a so-called ``emergency 
loan fund'' which this plan provides. The loan is limited to 10 percent 
of the State's grant, and the State is required to repay the loan, with 
interest, within 3 years.
  Of course, if the State does not have the money to repay the loan, 
what happens? We know what happens. The costs will be shifted to the 
State's residents in the form of increased taxes. There is no other 
alternative. This plan has a very real potential of forcing States into 
playing a catch-up game that they will never win. This is not my 
definition or, I think, anyone's definition of State flexibility. It is 
the definition of State destruction.
  To add to this disturbing scenario is the fact that the underlying 
bill cuts back on welfare funding in order to give $270 billion of tax 
cuts. The block grant method proposed is particularly harsh on a State 
like Nevada. Nevada, I repeat, is rapidly growing. From 1993 to 1994, 
Clark County, NV, which is Las Vegas, grew by 8.2 percent. That is 
tremendous in 1 year.
  This equates to about 75,000 new people coming to Las Vegas in 1 
year. Our growth rate is on the rise and shows no sign of slowing. The 
growth rate in Clark County is expected to increase 23 percent over the 
next 5 years. We are going to have moneys frozen at the 1994 level for 
5 years?
  Meanwhile, this block grant under this underlying bill would freeze 
funding, as I said, at the 1994 fiscal level. As Nevada's population 
soars, the funding for welfare will remain fixed with no consideration 
of changing it under conditions of population growth or even inflation. 
This rationale simply does not make sense and is not fair.
  I have been listening to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle 
speak about giving the States flexibility and that one size does not 
fit all. Well, I agree. States should have flexibility, but the plan 
that is now being debated here, that is, the underlying Republican 
plan, does not allow this flexibility. They provide an insufficient 
amount of money to the States expecting to fill the requirements tied 
to that money. This is not flexibility. This is an unfunded mandate. I 
agree that one size does not fit all. We do not live in a static 
society. Each State is changing rapidly.
  The City of Las Vegas grows 75,000 a year. Why does this Republican 
plan keep the funding level at the 1994 level for 5 years? Block grants 
are not fair and they do not make sense.
  Some would have us believe that this block grant program is some new 
idea. We are going to do the right thing, and we have come up with the 
great idea of block grant. I do not know when block grants first 
started, but in the Nixon years they had block grants. We tried them in 
a number of different areas. Most of them we got rid of, for reasons 
just like I talked about, because block grants are an easy way to do 
things.
  It is like we talked about balancing the budget. It is easy to 
balance a budget if you use welfare, Social Security moneys, and do not 
make some of the hard choices we have been forced to make this year 
with the balanced budget resolutions that now have passed. Those are 
tough decisions.
  Block grants are an easy way, a buck passer for the Federal 
Government. Bundle up all the problems in a nice little bundle and ship 
them to the States. That is what we are doing with welfare.
  Another primary concern of mine is the so-called child exclusion 
provisions. Under the majority's plan, States would have the option to 
deny assistance to unmarried minor parents and their children. States 
would also be given the option to deny additional assistance to 
families who give birth to a child while on assistance or who have 
received assistance any time during a 10-month period.
  These provisions directly punish and hurt children for merely being 
born, over which they of course have no control. The concept behind 
these provisions seems to be that if women know they will not receive 
money for additional children, they will not get pregnant.
  This simply is not the case. To quote the Senator from New York, 
Senator Moynihan, ``Anyone who thinks that cutting benefits can affect 
sexual behavior does not know human nature.''
  The family cap provisions were enacted in New Jersey, I think in 
about 1992. After a study of mothers who are penalized if they had more 
children while on welfare, a Rutgers University study recently found 
there is no reduction of birthrate of welfare mothers attributable to 
the family cap. Further, last month New Jersey officials announced that 
the abortion rate among poor women has increased since the passage of 
their policy.
  I do not know the precise cause of this increase, but I think common 
sense dictates that it could be a result of the message which is sent 
to poor women under these provisions which is, ``Do not get pregnant. 
But if you do, you better do something about it because you will not 
get any money to feed that child.''
  Obviously, many young people will turn to abortion rather than having 
a child that they will not be able to feed and clothe. Withholding 
welfare benefits to prevent pregnancy is not the answer to illegitimacy 
problems.
  The Democratic proposal does deal with teenage pregnancy--and we will 
talk about that a little later--in a firm, concise, and compassionate 
way.
  Furthermore, the family cap provisions are focused on the actions of 
women. What about the father of these illegitimate children? Should we 
talk about them at all? Should they be part of this major legislation 
reform? Of course they should be.
  National Public Radio this morning had on its program Prof. Richard 
Moran of Mount Holyoke College. Now, I ask my learned friend from the 
State of New York, is this a New York institution, Mount Holyoke?
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Massachusetts.
  Mr. REID. Thank you. Professor Moran stated what most believe is 
simply common sense. He said if we can change the behavior of adult men 
who father illegitimate children, we could make a substantial dent in 
the rate of teenage illegitimacy. Instead of trying to limit teen 
pregnancy by reducing welfare benefits for the girls, public policy, 
according to Moran, should focus on holding adult males financially 
responsible for their children.
  I think that is pretty sound reasoning. It is common sense and our 
bill does that.
  Professor Moran went on to explain that 25 years ago, two-thirds of 
expectant teenage mothers married. Today, 

[[Page S 12709]]
less than a third marry. Of course, no one is saying that early 
marriage is a solution to out-of-wedlock births.
  A new national study indicates fully one-half of the fathers of the 
babies born to mothers are adults. This is not a situation of teenagers 
having sex. The facts are that these young girls are being impregnated 
by adult males, and they should be held responsible for their actions. 
They should pay.
  These statistics show that the problem of illegitimacy is not going 
to be solved in an easy fashion. We must focus on the family and do it 
in a way that is intelligent.
  The Democratic Work First program is called Work First--that is the 
amendment pending before the body at this time--because that is what it 
is about. The Democratic Work First welfare plan will change the 
current welfare system dramatically by replacing the current system 
with a conditional entitlement program of limited duration requiring 
all able-bodied recipients to work, guaranteeing child care assistance, 
and requiring both parents to contribute to the support of their 
children.
  The Work First plan is a plan where assistance is continual. 
Assistance is time limited. I think it is important that after 2 months 
we recognize clients who have signed the contract, the Parent 
Empowerment Contract, are working toward objectives and can continue to 
receive assistance.
  After 2 years, if the individual is not working, States will be 
required to offer workfare or community service. Again, tough sanctions 
arise to those who refuse to participate in this welfare program.
  The Democratic plan requires work and establishes the Work First 
employment grants if States focus on work, providing the means and the 
tools needed to get welfare recipients into jobs and to keep them in 
the work force. All able-bodied recipients must work.
  There are successful programs now. We do not know how successful; 
they have not been in existence long enough. We have a great program in 
Riverside, CA. They have sorted clients into two streams. Most programs 
put everybody in the same stream. What they have done is they sort 
clients into two streams: one, those that need educational assistance; 
and those that are job ready.
  It is a program we can look to see if it will have long-term 
benefits. We have a program in Iowa that has received some rave 
reviews. It is a family investment type program designated to move 
families off welfare into self-sufficient employment. The State of 
Oregon has a program. There are a lot of programs that States, if they 
have resources, which will be given in this bill that we have submitted 
in the form of an amendment, States can do some type of innovative 
programs.
  Our program does not say, States, you must do it this way. But we are 
saying people must work and that we are going to give you some 
financial assistance so that you can accomplish some of these things.
  I repeat, States are provided resources for the work requirement. 
Under our plan, States are given the resources so welfare recipients 
not only get a job but remain in the work force. See, getting a job is 
not the key to everything because you have to keep them in the job. 
States have the flexibility that I have outlined before.
  One of the key facets of the Democratic proposal that is not in the 
Republican proposal is child care. That is, to help recipients keep a 
job, child care assistance will be made available to all those required 
to work or prepare for work. There are three current child care 
programs. They would be consolidated into one program. We have had good 
work by Senator Dodd and Senator Hatch on this in years gone by. I 
conducted hearings in the State of Nevada on child care and how 
important it was. I learned firsthand, in hearings I held in Reno and 
Las Vegas, how critical it is, if we are going to have a successful 
welfare program, to have some child care components.
  We also have to encourage clients to stay in jobs by making 
employment more attractive than welfare. We have talked about the 
importance of child care. We also have to talk about the importance of 
health care. Under our program, an amendment we will vote on tomorrow 
afternoon at 4 o'clock, Medicaid coverage will be extended by an 
additional 12 months beyond the current 1-year transition period. It is 
needed. If you are going to give people incentives to keep working and 
save the Federal Government money, then they must have the ability to 
have child care and health care.
  Also, we have to make sure the statistics are not phony. Our program 
counts actual work. As I have indicated earlier, the underlying bill is 
kind of a moving target because it keeps changing for reasons we have 
all read about in the newspapers. But we must have a work performance 
rate that is a real work performance rate.
  I have talked about fathers, how they also must be part of the 
program if we are going to do something about absent parents. The 
burden has been on women. We have to divert the attention to make it a 
responsibility of parents, and parents includes the man. That is 
usually the one who avoids responsibility. Absent parents who are 
delinquent on child support payments, under our legislation, must 
choose to enter into a repayment plan with the State, community 
service, or try jail. That is in our legislation, and I think that it 
is fair.
  Under our legislation, we are going to try to keep families together. 
Unlike the current system under which women and children receive more 
assistance if parents are separated or divorced, the Work First plan 
encourages families to stay together to work their way off welfare. Our 
plan eliminates the man-in-the-house rule, which prohibits women from 
receiving benefits if they have a spouse living in the same house who 
is working full or part time. Let us have this a family friendly 
welfare package.
  We have talked about teen parents. Under our plan the message to teen 
parents is clear: Stay at home and stay in school. Stay at home and 
stay in school. No longer will a teenage parent be able to drop out of 
school and establish a separate household, creating the cycle of 
dependency that is difficult to break. Custodial parents under the age 
of 18 would be required to live at home or, if there is some reason 
because of an abusive situation or whatever other reason that is 
meritorious that they should not live at home, then there would be an 
adult-supervised group home where parenting skills would be taught, 
where there would be employment opportunities available.
  I say to my friends, a program like this is not impossible. A few 
months ago I went to Fallon, NV. Fallon, NV, is about 60 miles from 
Reno. It used to be an agricultural community and it still is. The 
largest naval training facility for airplanes in the world is there, 
Fallon Naval Air Training Center. It is a great facility.
  I had been asked to visit a Lutheran Church in Fallon, because it was 
part of the AmeriCorps project. I went there and met with the priest 
who had moved to Fallon several years before. He was contacted first by 
the school across the street from his church, saying we have all these 
teenage pregnancies, could you help us? He did not know how to help. He 
said, ``I cannot. I do not know what to do.'' Then he was contacted by 
the State Welfare Department. Finally, somebody said, ``We have this 
AmeriCorps project. Why do we not make a grant and see if we can get a 
program to help teenage pregnant girls.'' They made an application. 
There is an AmeriCorps project there.
  It brings tears to your eyes to go there. Mr. President, there is not 
a single person now on welfare who has been through this program. It is 
right across the street from the high school. The pastor, who came 
there to care for his flock, has now become devoted. His whole church 
is involved in taking care of these teenage girls who become pregnant. 
They are being educated. They are getting their high school diplomas. 
There are people who are working in the program, earning money so they 
can use the money to go to college. It is a wonderful program.
  There are programs we can come up with to help teenage pregnant 
girls. But these programs require funding.
  So I ask everyone to take a close look at our bill. It is a good 
bill. If this amendment is defeated tomorrow afternoon at 4 o'clock, I 
hope we will have an opportunity to vote on an amendment dealing with 
child care and the many other problems involved in 

[[Page S 12710]]
welfare reform, which are not properly addressed by the Dole bill.
  The Democratic plan addresses the problem of teenage pregnancy by 
including grants to States for design and implementation of teen 
pregnancy prevention programs. I will not go into more detail right 
now, but it is extremely important.
  Paternity establishment is in our bill. We cannot let these men 
escape their responsibility, as they very often do. Child support 
enforcement is in our legislation.
  Also, I want to talk a little bit about the provision in our 
legislation dealing with food assistance reform--food stamps--major 
provisions. We have one strengthening compliance, reducing fraud and 
abuse. It is an effort to clamp down on the egregious abuses of the 
program. The Work First Program provides the following:
  The Secretary of Agriculture may establish specific authorization 
periods so that stores have to reapply to continue to accept food stamp 
coupons and may establish time periods during which stores have their 
authorization revoked or, having had their application for 
authorization denied, will be ineligible. Stores may be required to 
provide written verification of eligibility. The Secretary shall be 
required to issue regulations allowing the suspension of a store from 
participation in the program after the store is initially found to have 
committed violations.
  Now they commit violations and, in effect, thumb their noses at the 
authorities because nobody can stop them from taking food stamps. Our 
bill changes this.
  Stores that are disqualified from the WIC Program shall be 
disqualified from participation in the Food-Stamp program for the same 
period of time. Retail stores are disqualified permanently from the 
Food-Stamp Program for submitting false applications. There are other 
things that are important to strengthen this provision: enhancing 
electronic benefit transfer, strengthening requirements, and penalties. 
There are a number of things that really make this legislation more 
important.
  I want to close by talking about a couple of things, in effect, to 
set the record straight. People who oppose this amendment charge that 
the Work First plan is weak on work. This claim comes from the same 
people who only a short time ago approved and reported a plan out of 
committee with no participation requirements.
  So I say in response to that charge that their plan was not even 
about workers; it was about shoveling people from one program to 
another with no emphasis on work, with no emphasis, no work requirement 
at all, and now they have dropped their participation requirements and 
instead have adopted our work standards, the standards in this 
amendment pending before this body. So try to explain to me how the 
Democrat plan is weak on work when the underlying Dole amendment picks 
up our plan.
  There is also a charge that the Democratic substitute is weak on 
State innovation. The Democrat Work First plan provides States 
unprecedented flexibility. The States set benefit levels. States set 
allowable asset limits. States set income. Disregard policies. States 
design their own work programs. In fact, there is a lot of similarity 
here between the Democratic and Republican plans. So why do they charge 
Work First as being weak on State innovation? It simply is not true.
  Another charge: The Democrat plan is weak on savings.
  Mr. President, the Democratic Work First plan saves over $20 billion. 
It is not weak on savings. The Breaux-Mikulski plan saves as much as 
the Republican plan, or as close. But it also does not include a $23 
billion unfunded mandate to the States; that the States are going to 
rue the day that this underlying legislation passes. They will rue the 
day. As the Conference of Mayors said, this will be the ``mother of all 
unfunded mandates.'' The Democratic plan will result in deficit 
reduction without unfunded mandates to the States.
  Let me close by saying, yes, we should change the present way welfare 
is handled. But we should not throw the baby out with the bathwater. We 
have to do a better job of being compassionate but also have a bit of 
wisdom in what we are doing with so-called welfare reform.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. DeWine). The Senator from New York.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, may I first thank the Senator from 
Nevada for a careful and a thoughtful and, to this Senator, a wholly 
persuasive argument.


                          ____________________