[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 138 (Thursday, September 7, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S12757-S12796]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                      FAMILY SELF-SUFFICIENCY ACT

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the hour of 10:30 
a.m. having arrived, the Senate will now resume consideration of H.R. 
4, which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 4) to restore the American family, reduce 
     illegitimacy, control welfare spending, and reduce welfare 
     dependence.

  The Senate resumed consideration of the bill.

       Pending:
       Dole modified amendment No. 2280, of a perfecting nature.
       Daschle modified amendment No. 2282 (to Amendment No. 
     2280), in the nature of a substitute.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the time until 3:30 
p.m. shall be equally divided between the managers.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York is recognized.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, it has been understood with my friend, 

[[Page S 12758]]
  the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Finance, that time is 
equally divided, and that should there be no speaker seeking 
recognition, we will suggest the absence of a quorum and the time will 
be charged equally to each side.
  Mr. PACKWOOD. That has been agreed upon.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. I thank my friend.
  Mr. President, in auspicious timing, the Washington Post has a 
splendid editorial this morning entitled ``Welfare: Two Kinds of 
Compromise.''
  It speaks of the compromise that was notably on display when 
Congress, the Nation's Governors, and President Reagan worked out some 
of the better provisions of the Family Support Act in 1988, aimed at 
reforming welfare.

       The parties all agreed on the sensible principles that the 
     Federal Government should help the poor and that the existing 
     welfare program was not doing enough to move people into 
     jobs. The resulting bill was far from perfect and was not 
     adequately financed--that's why welfare reform is still very 
     much a live issue--but it did result in some successes that 
     could be built upon with a new round of reform.

  Mr. President, some time later in our debate, I will offer the Family 
Support Act of 1995, which builds on the 1988 legislation, which passed 
out of this Chamber 96 to 1. I recall that there was great bipartisan 
harmony in the Rose Garden when President Reagan signed it.
  In the Committee on Finance, I offered the Family Support Act of 
1995, and it failed to pass, by 12 votes to 8, which is scarcely an 
overwhelming rejection. It was a party-line vote, I am sorry to say. 
Seven years ago it was very different. But we will have an opportunity 
to discuss it.
  I ask unanimous consent, as we begin this morning, to have this 
editorial printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

               [From the Washington Post, Sept. 7, 1995]

                    Welfare: Two Kinds of Compromise

       There are different kinds of political compromise. The best 
     kind happens when the contending parties find that 
     substantive agreement can be reached without a compromise of 
     principles. This sort of accord was notably on display when 
     Congress, the nation's governors and President Reagan worked 
     out some of the better provisions of the Family Support Act 
     in 1988, aimed at reforming welfare. The parties all agreed 
     on the sensible principles that the federal government should 
     help the poor and that the existing welfare program was not 
     doing enough to move people into jobs. The resulting bill was 
     far from perfect and was not adequately financed--that's why 
     welfare reform is still very much a live issue--but it did 
     result in some successes that could be built upon with a new 
     round of reform.
       But there is a less honorable tradition of compromise 
     involving not a quest for consensus but the artful 
     manipulation of labels and slogans. It is this kind of 
     compromise that is most to be feared as Congress approaches 
     the welfare issue. The debate now seems hopelessly entangled 
     in the rivalry between Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole and 
     Sen. Phil Gramm for the Republican presidential nomination. 
     That was clear when Mr. Dole gave a speech the other day in 
     Chicago promising to fight ``for revolutionary change vote by 
     vote and bill by bill,'' and Mr. Gramm responded rapid-fire 
     at a Washington news conference. ``I see Sen. Dole moving to 
     the right in speeches every day,'' Mr. Gramm said. ``I don't 
     see it reflected in what he's doing in the United States 
     Senate.''
       This is a bad context in which to legislate on a problem 
     such as welfare, where the tough issues will not be solved by 
     a resort to doctrine or slogans. Take a particularly hard 
     question: If welfare is turned into a block grant, should 
     states, in exchange for receiving something close to their 
     current levels of federal aid, be required to maintain 
     something like their current level of spending on the poor. 
     Those spending levels, after all, got them their current 
     allotments of aid in the first place. A small group of Senate 
     Republicans who are trying to prevent Mr. Dole from reacting 
     to Mr. Gramm by doing anything he wants, rightly see this as 
     a central issue. But it's easy to include a provision in a 
     bill labeled ``maintenance of effort,'' as Mr. Dole 
     effectively has, and make it essentially meaningless, as Mr. 
     Dole also effectively has, by allowing states to count all 
     sorts of extraneous expenditures as meeting this 
     ``maintenance of effort'' requirement and having the 
     requirement expire in a couple of years. The provision would 
     give Mr. Dole cover with his party's moderates without really 
     giving them much of substance. It's fake compromise. Much 
     more of that sort of thing could become the rule in the 
     coming weeks.
       Mr. Gramm can make welfare a centerpiece of his campaign 
     against Mr. Dole if he wants to. But the rest of the Senate, 
     not to mention President Clinton, does not need to be 
     complicit in turning a momentous piece of legislation over to 
     the politics of sound bites. Far better no welfare bill than 
     the kind likely to be created in this atmosphere.

  Mr. MOYNIHAN. I see my distinguished friend, the Senator from North 
Dakota, on the floor, and I am happy to yield him 20 minutes if that 
will be sufficient for his purposes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from North 
Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. I thank the Senator from New York for yielding me the 
time to discuss the Daschle amendment on welfare reform.
  A friend of mine the other day described a circumstance in his small 
rural hometown. There was a Lutheran minister who did not make very 
much money ministering to a very small congregation, being paid a very 
small salary. And because a minister in a small town is paid very 
little, his wife gave piano lessons in order to make a few dollars to 
try to make ends meet for him and his wife. These folks were the 
parents of the friend of mine who was referring them to me. He said 
they lived in a very meager house provided by the church and lived on a 
very meager income all of their lives. They contributed to their 
community by ministering at the church and by his wife giving piano 
lessons and teaching Sunday school.
  At the other end of the block, there was a wonderful family, as well. 
This family started a business, worked very hard, made an enormous 
amount of money and were very successful. They were well liked and also 
contributed much to the community.
  The two families had taken different routes. One chose ministering in 
a small rural church where they were never to earn any significant 
amount of money and always lived near subsistence. The other chose to 
pursue an occupation that would lead them to accumulate a substantial 
amount of assets. Both were good families and both contributed to their 
community.
  My friend said, ``I wonder if my parents contributed less to their 
community than the folks down the block who made a substantial amount 
of money.'' I think not. I think they made at least as great a 
contribution. But they ended up with nothing.
  I use that story to illustrate that, for some in this country these 
days, being poor is out of fashion. If you are poor, somehow you just 
did not make it in America and you chose not to spend all of your time 
trying to maximize your income. So you end up in circumstances, after 
age 70 and after having ministered for 40 years in a rural church, 
where you have nothing. And maybe you end up needing some help from 
someone. But that is not disgraceful. It was because you chose to 
contribute in other ways during your lifetime and chose not to spend 50 
years trying to maximize your income.
  The question is, did the minister and his family contribute less to 
our country? No, they did not. They found themselves in circumstances 
of some difficulty--without income, without resources, without assets. 
There are a lot of good people in our country just like them.
  The people I just described are atypical. The more likely and typical 
person in need in this country, with respect to welfare, is a young 
woman in poverty--an increasingly feminine picture these days--who is 
raising children in a household without two parents present.
  One morning at about 6 a.m., I went down to a homeless shelter here 
in Washington, DC, and sat there for a couple of hours talking to the 
people who were there. I have told my colleagues on one previous 
occasion about my visit at the shelter with a 23-year-old young woman, 
whom I believe, had three children, whose husband had left her, who had 
no skills, no high school education, no job, and no place to live.
  She and her children, after having spent the night in a temporary 
shelter, as they did every night, were then put on buses in order to be 
at this feeding center at 6 a.m.
  I sat and visited with this young woman, and I discovered with her, 
as with virtually everyone else on welfare with whom I have ever 
visited, that what she wanted most in life was a good job. She was not 
asking me, can you give me a bigger welfare check? Can you find a way 
to extend your hand with more money, more benefits, more help? That is 
not what she was asking. 

[[Page S 12759]]

  I was asking her what would she really like if this morning she could 
wave a wand and change her life? Her response was that she desperately 
wanted to have a job that paid her a sufficient income so that she 
could save money for a first month's down payment to rent an apartment 
where she could live with her children. She said to me, I want a place 
to live. I know in order to get a place to live, I need to get a job. 
In order to get a job, I have to have some skills. I do look for work 
almost every day and I do get work. And the minute I get work--it is 
occasionally frying a hamburger at some franchise place and always at 
the minimum wage--I lose my health care benefits for my children. The 
moment I try to save $10 or $20 for the first month's rent on an 
apartment so I could get rid of this homeless condition for me and my 
children and find a place to live, the minute I save $10 or $20, I lose 
my AFDC payment or it is reduced by the same amount.
  And as I drove back to the office here on Capitol Hill the morning 
after I visited with her, I thought to myself, I am pretty well 
educated. I have a couple of college degrees. I have done pretty well. 
And I wondered how could I think my way through this problem if I were 
in this young woman's situation? What kind of a solution allows her to 
get off this treadmill, the treadmill of poverty, helplessness, 
hopelessness?
  I honestly, putting myself in her position, could not really think my 
way out of her problem. She cannot get a job because she does not have 
the skills. She cannot save money for a down payment on rent because 
she does not have a job. If she gets a job and starts saving money, she 
loses AFDC payments for her kids. It is an endless circle of trouble 
for someone who is literally trapped in a cycle of poverty from which 
they cannot recover.
  Now, I mention that story because in order to talk about welfare 
reform, you have to talk about two truths. One is often used by those 
of us in public office, regrettably, to talk about welfare. That is, 
the stereotypical notion of who is a welfare recipient. It is some 
bloated, overweight, lazy, slovenly, indolent, good-for-nothing person 
laying in a Lazy Boy recliner with a quart of beer in one hand and a 
Jack Daniels in another hand, with his hand on the television changer 
watching a 27-inch color television set and unwilling to get up and get 
out and get a job and go to work, munching nachos all day long watching 
Oprah, Geraldo, and Montel. That is the notion of the stereotypical 
welfare recipient.
  I suppose that happens. There is, I suppose, a small element among 
welfare recipients who are inherently lazy, unmotivated, unwilling to 
work, and have become institutionalized in the welfare system. This 
small element believes he or she can go on welfare and live on it 
forever, even if they are able bodied. That does happen. It should not 
happen. It is a minority of the people on welfare. We must eliminate 
those people for whom welfare has become an institutionalized way of 
life. We can and will stop these abusers of the system.
  The welfare bill that we have offered--Senator Daschle, Senator 
Moynihan, myself, and others--is a bill that says to those folks, if 
you believe that in this country you can live on welfare as a routine 
matter and you are able bodied, then you are wrong.
  Welfare is temporary assistance. We are willing to give it, we 
believe we must give it. But welfare is temporary and it is 
conditional. Our bill says we will offer a temporary hand if you are 
down and out. But you have a responsibility to take hold of that hand 
and get out of poverty by getting training to help you get a job. Our 
plan is intended to move people off the welfare rolls and on to 
payrolls. That is what our bill says. That is what we say to those 
folks.
  The abuser--the able bodied who are lazy, is a minority in the 
welfare system. The bulk of the welfare recipients are represented by 
the woman I discussed earlier--the young woman living in poverty, a 23-
year-old unskilled woman with three children to raise, and not the 
means with which to do it. She represents the bulk of the welfare 
recipients.
  The question is, What do we do about it?
  Let me give a couple of other facts. It is also a stereotypical 
notion of welfare that we have a lot of people in this country who are 
simply producing large numbers of children in order to get more welfare 
benefits. It probably does happen, but it is not typical.
  The average size of the welfare family in America is nearly identical 
to the average size of the American family. Let me say that again 
because it is important. In public debate we all too often use 
stereotypes, and the stereotype is the notion that there is someone out 
there having 16 babies because producing babies allows them to get a 
lot of welfare. The average size of the welfare family is nearly 
identical to the average size of the average family in our country.
  We spend about 1 percent of the Federal budget on welfare. A 
substantial amount of money is spent in many ways in our country, but 
we spend only about 1 percent of the Federal budget.
  My interest in this issue has to do with two things. First, I would 
like to engage with people from as far right on the political spectrum 
as Pat Buchanan and people all the way to the far left and say we all 
agree on one thing: welfare is temporary. Welfare should not become 
institutionalized for people who are able bodied and believe they ought 
to live off of the rest of the taxpayers for the rest of their lives. 
The temporary nature of welfare assistance is embodied in the Daschle 
bill.
  Second, and more important to me, is an understanding of our 
obligation to America's children. Tens of millions of America's 
children are growing up in circumstances of poverty. They were born in 
circumstances of poverty not because they chose to, not because they 
decided that is what they wanted for their lives, but because of a 
circumstance of birth.
  Two-thirds of the people on welfare in America are kids under 16 
years of age. No one, no matter how thoughtless they may be in public 
debate, would say, I hope, to a 4-, 6-, or 8-year-old child we say: 
``You do not matter. Your hunger does not count. Your clothing needs 
are irrelevant.''
  I have spent a lot of time working on hunger issues as a Member of 
Congress and have told my colleagues before about a young man who made 
an indelible impression with me. I will never forget it. A man named 
David Bright from New York City, who also lived in a homeless shelter, 
described to us on the Hunger Committee when I served in the House, his 
life in the shelter with rats and with danger and so on. He said that 
no 10-year-old boy like me should have to put his head down on his desk 
at school in the afternoon because it hurts to be hungry. This from a 
10-year-old boy telling us in Congress about stomachs that hurt because 
they did not have enough to eat.
  This welfare bill care about our kids in this country. We must 
decide, whatever else we do about welfare, to take care of America's 
children in the right way--to give them hope, opportunity and, yes, 
nutrition, education, and shelter.
  Now, when I talk about children, there is one inescapable fact that 
the Senator from New York has talked about at great length that has to 
be addressed in the context of welfare reform. And that is the epidemic 
of teenage pregnancies in this country.
  There will be roughly 4 million babies born this year in America--
roughly. Over 1 million of those babies will be born in circumstances 
where two parents will not be present at the birth. 900,000 of children 
born this year will never in their lifetime learn the identity of their 
father. Think of the circumstances of that, what it means to a society. 
Nearly 1 million babies born this year will never in their lifetime 
learn the identity of their father.
  The Democratic alternative we are considering today addresses the 
issue of teenage pregnancy and the epidemic that is occurring in this 
country. We address the circumstances where children are growing up in 
homes where the parents are children themselves, and they have no 
information or experience to do adequate parenting.
  What we do in the Daschle amendment is that we want a national 
crusade against teenage pregnancy; we say that teenage pregnancy is not 
something that is acceptable to this country. It is not something we 
should promote or encourage; it is something we should discourage. 
People should have 

[[Page S 12760]]
children only when they are able to care for them.
  What this amendment says to a child who is going to have a child, a 
16- or 17-year-old child who is going to have a baby--which is 
happening all too often in this country--is you are not going to be 
able to live in a separate residence if that happens. You are not going 
to be able to leave school and get public assistance. We say there are 
going to be conditions for receiving assistance. Every teenage mother 
who has a baby out of wedlock has to understand this. If you do not 
stay in school, you will lose all benefits--nothing. Benefits are 
terminated. And you are not going to be able to collect money to set up 
a separate living arrangement for yourself and your baby.
  Our proposal establishes some adult-supervised living homes, where 
teenage mothers will have to live in supervised circumstances and stay 
in school as a condition for receiving benefits. We are saying this 
matters in our country. There is teenage pregnancy epidemic that this 
country must deal with. It is also an epidemic that eats up a 
substantial amount of our welfare benefits to respond to it. Our 
proposal says we can and should do something about it.
  As I indicated, the Senator from New York has done an enormous amount 
of work on this issue. I commend him for it. He was the impetus in our 
Democratic caucus for saying: This is wrong. This is going to hurt our 
country. This is going to disintegrate our society unless we address it 
in the right way.
  This amendment, the Daschle initiative, addresses teenage pregnancy, 
in my judgment, in a very significant way. I am very proud to say this 
is the right way to do it. It is the right way to go about it.
  We also say something else. We say to a young woman who has a child 
out of wedlock, ``If you are going to get benefits, you have a 
responsibility to help us identify who the father is. You have that 
responsibility. If you do not do that, you do not get benefits.'' We 
are going to find out who the father is, and we are going to go after 
deadbeat dads.
  Deadbeat dads have a responsibility to help provide for those 
children. Not just taxpayers, but the people who fathered those 
children have a responsibility to provide some resources to help those 
children. They each have a responsibility to be a parent. But in the 
event they will not do that, we are going to make sure that they own up 
to the responsibility of providing resources for those children.
  Our bill is tough on absent parents who are delinquent in child 
support. Our bill is tough on this issue. When a child is born out of 
wedlock and when a mother says ``I now want benefits,'' we insist that 
mother help us identify the father, and that father help pay for and 
contribute to the well-being of that child.
  I would like to mention two other points about this legislation. I 
have not done this in any necessary order. I guess I could have 
prioritized this welfare discussion a bit more, but I wanted to talk 
about a couple of component parts of it that are important to me.
  First, there is an assumption that if we reform the welfare system, 
there will be enormous savings. Savings of $100 billion over 7 years, 
as I believe was estimated in the budget resolution, are not going to 
happen. The fact is, if we do what is necessary to reform the welfare 
system, to make it really work, we are not going to save money in the 
next 7 years. But we can build a better country and make people more 
responsible and give people opportunity and get people off the welfare 
rolls and onto payrolls.
  The woman in the homeless shelter that I talked about earlier is the 
reason we are not going to save money. In order for her to work and get 
a job, she has two requirements. She has to get some training to get a 
good job. And then, in order to work at the job, she has to have some 
child care. If she does not get the training, she will not get the job. 
And if she does not have child care, she cannot work. Then, when those 
two requirements are met, one other element has to be present. If the 
job that person gets does not provide health care, then we have to have 
some Medicaid transition benefits as well.
  If we do not do those three things, welfare reform will fail. All 
three things cost money in the short term. In the long term, they will 
save money. But there is no way on God's green Earth to believe someone 
who says, if we reform this welfare system--and we should and we will--
and do it the right way, that we will save $100 billion in the next 7 
years. We can put the country on the right track. We can do the right 
thing. We can end dependency on welfare by able-bodied people, but we 
will not save $100 billion and it is time for everyone in this Chamber 
to understand that.
  The second point I would like to make about the financing of welfare 
is the notion embodied in the Republican proposal, that we can solve 
this problem quickly and easily if only we simply aggregate all of this 
money into a block grant and ship it off somewhere and thereby create 
some nirvana by which the welfare problem is solved.
  By and large, block grants are blockheaded. They will, in my 
judgment, if used routinely and repeatedly, as some have suggested, on 
virtually every issue coming before the Congress, result in the most 
egregious abuse and waste of the taxpayers' money we will have ever 
seen.
  Do you want to describe how to promote waste in Government? I will 
tell you how. You have one level of Government raise the money and then 
send it to somebody else and say, ``You spend it. No strings attached. 
We will not watch.'' If you want to promote irresponsible, reckless, 
wasteful, wild, abusive spending, I guarantee you this blockheaded 
approach to block grants is the quickest and most effective way to do 
it.
  So, those who come to us with these simple little placebos, who say 
take this and you can believe it is medicine, whether it is block 
grants or $100 billion savings, it is pretty unimpressive to me.
  What we Democrats have done is put together an alternative. It is an 
alternative that says welfare cannot be permanent. Welfare is going to 
be temporary. Welfare is not unconditional. Welfare is going to be 
conditional. You need help? We are going to give you some help. But you 
have a responsibility in accepting that help. It is your responsibility 
to step up and out and off of the welfare system and become a 
productive member of our society on a payroll somewhere.
  The second element of our alternative piece of legislation that is 
critically important is that we say we are going to protect America's 
children. Yes, we are going to reform the welfare system, but we are 
going to do it the right way, with the right incentives that require 
responsibility for oneself. That is the foundation of our approach. 
But, at the same time, we are also going to protect America's children. 
Our plan leaves no questions unanswered about whether America's 
children will be protected.
  That is why I am delighted to be here to support the Daschle 
initiative. I was part of a large group of people who helped construct 
it. I was not the major architect. I know the Senator from New York and 
others support it as well.
  I have taken slightly more time than I intended, but I appreciate the 
generosity of the Senator from New York.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from New 
York.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, may I thank the Senator from North 
Dakota, Senator Dorgan, for beginning today's debate, today's critical 
debate, in an open, thoughtful, fair-minded manner.
  Could I comment on just one particular point? The Senator raised the 
question of the children born out of wedlock, and he is quite right. In 
1992, 1,224,876 children were born out of wedlock--in some census 
tracts, 80 percent of all children born. Happily, North Dakota has been 
spared--or spared itself. This is something altogether new to our 
experience.
  And 30 years ago, you could not have discussed it on the Senate 
floor. There is a maturity coming to our debates. This was a subject--
the ratio, in 1992, reached 30.1 percent. It is probably almost 33 now. 
It has gone up every year since 1970.
  In 1970, it was 10.6 percent. So it has tripled, the ratio, and the 
number of children have tripled.
  We could not talk about this. We were not sure it was happening. Was 
it 

[[Page S 12761]]
an aberration, just the weather, something like that? There used to be 
theories that when there would be blackouts there would be more 
children conceived. That turned out not to be so.
  We have a social crisis of a new order--not a recession, not a 
drought, not a collapse of farm prices, nor an increase in mortgages, 
the things that have come with some periodicity and consequence to us, 
and which we have learned to understand pretty much and manage. We have 
never had this before, and we have never talked about it before; not in 
the calm, thoughtful way the Senator from North Dakota has done.
  I want to thank him most sincerely for setting a tone which I think 
and I hope will continue throughout this debate.
  Mr. President, I look to my friend on the Republican side.
   Does he wish to speak?

  Mr. PACKWOOD. I do.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. If I may observe, the Senator from Florida is here.
  Mr. PACKWOOD. I apologize. I can wait. I am going to be on the floor.
  The Senator may go right ahead.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. I yield to the distinguished Senator from Florida 15 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Campbell). The Senator from Florida is 
recognized to speak for 15 minutes.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Thank you very much, Mr. President and my distinguished 
colleagues. I appreciate the courtesy.
  I want to talk some about the structure of the welfare reform 
proposal that is before us and some concerns I have as to whether we 
are building a foundation on reality with steel and concrete, or a 
foundation of sand based on theory, hope, and avoidance of 
responsibility.
  I am going to be talking from basically two sources. First, I will 
talk from some statistics that are generic and analytical of the 
legislation before us. I will also be talking from some anecdotes which 
are personal and specific.
  For the last 21 years, I have had a practice of taking an occasional 
job in a different area of interest within my State. In July, I took a 
job with one of the two welfare-to-work programs in Florida, this one 
in Pensacola. This is a program which is very similar to the objectives 
of both the underlying bill and the amendment that is before us. It is 
mandatory; that is, participation is required. It has the goal of 
placing a high percentage of those persons who are currently on welfare 
into employment. It is exploring what are the pragmatic requirements of 
accomplishing that objective, and it is doing so in the community of 
Pensacola, which is very representative of the kind of communities 
across America in which this type of program will be applied.
  I am going to be using some of the information and observations from 
that experience also as the basis of my comments on the plan which is 
before us today.
  Mr. President, I strongly support a serious effort to move people 
from the dependency of welfare to the independence of and self-
sufficiency through employment. That is a fundamentally important 
objective.
  As we start this, I want us to understand almost the moral dimension 
of what we are doing, and I will place that in the context of eight 
women with whom I spent a considerable amount of time in Pensacola who 
are part of this process of making the transition.
  Just to describe these eight women, they were six white and two 
African American women. They were somewhat older than I had 
anticipated. The youngest was in the early twenties, up to the early 
forties. All of them had two or more children. Three of the eight women 
had a child with a serious medical disability. I was initially 
surprised that there would be that high an incidence of medical 
disability. But on reflection, given the fact that these women 
typically had no or very limited prenatal care with their children and 
had limited access to primary care since their children were born, it 
is not surprising that there would be that incidence of medical 
disability.
  These are women who are very committed to a better life for their 
children through the achievement of independence for themselves. Many 
of these women have limited educational backgrounds and, therefore, the 
kind of job training in which they are now engaged in Pensacola, the 
Welfare to Work program, is difficult for them. But they are making a 
maximum effort to be successful.
  In the course of attending one of the programs in which they are 
learning some of the basic skills that will be necessary, one of the 
women broke down and cried. She said: ``This is so difficult for me, 
but I understand the importance of this opportunity that I am being 
given and, if I do not succeed, not only will this likely be my last 
chance but it will fundamentally change the future for my children. I 
want to succeed.''
  Our moral responsibility as a society, Mr. President, is we are 
telling these women that you have 2, maybe 3 years to be successful in 
preparing yourself and securing employment, and securing employment at 
a level that will allow you to support your children. We are making a 
commitment to them that not only are we going to provide them with what 
would be required to do so, but there will be a job there that they can 
secure upon the completion of their preparation. And the consequences 
of their failing to get that job is that they and their children will 
have the level of support that they are currently receiving terminated 
or substantially altered and reduced.
  So there is a commitment on both sides. And it is from that point 
that I would like to draw some observations about the underlying bill 
which is before us today, because I believe it is based on some 
unrealistic assessments of the world in which this proposal will 
actually operate and creates the potential of some serious unfairness 
and a violation of that moral commitment that we are making to these 
Americans.
  First, I believe that the goal of the welfare plan, which is to have 
25 percent of the current welfare beneficiaries employed in year 1 of 
this plan and 50 percent employed in year 5, is unrealistic.
  In year 1, the definition of reaching that 25 percent is a month-by-
month evaluation of how many persons who were on welfare had been moved 
into a work position. And if at the end of the first 12 months of the 
fiscal year, you do not have an average of 25 percent, then your State 
is subject to sanctions. I believe it is going to be virtually if not 
absolutely impossible to reach that 25 percent goal. There is a 
necessary startup period in terms of developing the job placement 
programs, the job training programs, and the support services such as 
transportation, as well as securing child care for the young dependents 
of these women, which makes reaching the goal of a 25-percent objective 
in year 1 highly unlikely.
  Equally as difficult will be to reach the 50-percent level in year 5. 
That is in large part because of whether the jobs are going to actually 
be available. Pensacola, FL, happens to be an area that has a 
relatively growing economy, an economy which is creating a substantial 
number of jobs.
 But even there the administrators of the program stated that it will 
be very difficult to reach a 50 percent placement level within a 5-year 
period. That would be true because of the competition for those jobs 
from all the other people in the community who will be seeking that 
employment--the issue of will there be jobs that will be not just at 
the barest minimum wage but at a level high enough or at least offering 
a sufficient potential to raise a sufficient amount of money to be able 
to support a family of a single mother and two children, which is the 
typical family in Pensacola.

  There are 6,600 welfare families in Pensacola, so the goal is to 
place 3,300 of those in work by the year 2000. That will be a challenge 
for Pensacola. But, Mr. President, let us put that in the context of 
another American city, a substantially larger city, and that is 
Philadelphia. Philadelphia has not 6,600 people on welfare; it has 
500,000 people who are receiving some form of public assistance.
  In Philadelphia, using the statistics provided by DRI McGraw-Hill on 
U.S. Market Review, in 1994 there were 2,149,000 jobs in Philadelphia. 
In the last year of their survey, which is 1997, the projection is 
there will be 2,206,000 jobs in the Philadelphia area, or an increase 
of approximately 47,000 jobs over that period from 1994 to 1997. We do 
not have the statistics to the year 2000, but assuming that that rate 
of increase 

[[Page S 12762]]
continues, we could expect maybe another 20,000 or 30,000 jobs to the 
year 2000, so well under a 100,000-job growth and yet we are saying 
that by the year 2000, half of this population of 500,000 people is 
supposed to be placed in jobs in Philadelphia.
  How is that going to happen? I think we have a level of unreality in 
terms of the scale of the population that we are saying has to be 
trained and placed and their children supported and the number of jobs 
which are going to be created, particularly in those areas of the 
country that are not experiencing the kind of robust economic growth 
that a community such as Pensacola, FL, has experienced.
  My first point is that I think we have a statistical unreality in 
terms of what we are saying has to happen and what, in fact, is likely 
to occur. And for that reason, independent groups such as the 
Congressional Budget Office and the General Accounting Office that have 
looked at this plan, have stated that 44 out of the 50 States will not 
be able to meet the expectations of this legislation--that 44 out of 
the 50 States are going to fall into the category of those that are 
nonperformers and therefore subject to a 5-percent penalty.
  I would suggest that these numbers are so unrealistic in terms of the 
kind of commitments that we are prepared to make that the 5 percent 
penalty will be accepted as a fact of life for many States and that any 
serious effort to meet these unrealistic goals is likely to be 
abandoned.
  It is interesting to me the difference in which we are treating those 
programs that we are about to ship off to the States and say, ``You run 
them,'' such as welfare reform and Medicaid, where we are setting these 
theoretical goals, and then essentially abandoning any effort to do 
those things that will be necessary to make those goals attainable, and 
how we are treating the one big program we are responsible for running 
and that at least as of today no one has suggested be sent to the 
States to run, which is Medicare. There we are saying that Medicare has 
to be treated above politics; that we have to be very, very careful it 
is structured properly because we know we are going to be held 
responsible for how that one is administered.
  With welfare and Medicaid, we essentially are saying we can abandon 
all responsibilities for the pragmatic implementation. That is going to 
be somebody else's responsibility.
  A second level of unreality is in the funding levels and specifically 
in the area of unfunded mandates to the States. It is interesting, when 
we came here back in January with a very expansive and aggressive 
agenda of domestic issues, which issue received primacy, which received 
that special recognition of being Senate bill No. 1. Well, that honor 
was assigned to the legislation that dealt with reducing unfunded 
mandates, that as our No. 1 domestic objective we were going to cease 
the process of having the Federal Government meet its responsibilities 
by telling somebody else, generally a State or local government, what 
to do and requiring them to use their resources in order to achieve 
that national objective.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Can the Senator use another 5 minutes? We want to be 
fair to all Senators.
  Mr. GRAHAM. If I could.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. I would be happy to do it. I am listening to what he 
has to say.
  Mr. GRAHAM. The reality is that this bill which we are about to pass 
will be the grandfather of all unfunded mandates. We are going to be 
imposing significant new responsibilities on the States, without the 
resources to fund those responsibilities, and that as we impose that 
grandfather of all unfunded mandates, we are going to be creating a 
whole series of stepchildren as its consequence.
  Let me just use the example of my State, a family of three typically, 
and in the case of all eight of the women I mentioned earlier, this is 
the case, a single mother with two children. The State of Florida 
provides $303 a month in economic support, cash assistance to that 
mother and two children. That $303 is roughly half Federal money and 
half State money. Under this proposal, it is going to take 75 percent 
of the Federal money that we have been providing for the support of 
that family of three in order to pay for the job training and related 
support activities and the child care of that mother and her family 
while she is preparing to work. There is no proposal to act to fund 
those additional activities.
  In fact, the level of funding at the Federal level will be declining 
over the period of this program. So instead of that family having $303, 
it will see that reduced to approximately $185 a month which will be 
available for economic support because the remainder of the money, 
approximately $135, will be used to pay for these other mandated 
services. So we are saying that this family, which has been living on 
$303 a month, is now going to have to start living on $180 a month 
while the remainder of the money is used to prepare the mother for a 
future job and to provide child care for her dependent children.
  Mr. President, I think that is an unrealistic economic scenario. And 
it becomes even more draconian since we are no longer going to be 
requiring States, at least after 2 years, and even in a very soft way 
during the first 2 years, to provide any continuing match. So 
potentially not $85. If the State of Florida were to decide to abandon 
its local match and not provide any State funds, we could have this 
family living on $35 a month, just that portion of the Federal money 
that is left over after you have met your mandates. I think that is 
highly unrealistic and would defeat not only the goal of moving people 
from welfare to work, but would also undermine our basic American 
humanitarian and compassionate sense of responsibility to all of our 
citizens.
  And finally, the reality of this proposal is in the extreme 
disparities that will exist from State to State under this plan. I 
mention unfunded mandates. In the case of Florida, about 75 percent of 
our Federal funds would be required to meet the unfunded mandates. We 
are better off than Mississippi, where it will take 88 percent of 
Mississippi's Federal money to meet their unfunded mandates, which 
compares to the District of Columbia, that can meet their unfunded 
mandates with only 46 percent of the Federal money.
  Why is there such a great disparity? Because we start off with a 
tremendous disparity in how much Federal money per child is available 
under the proposal that has been submitted by the majority leader. A 
stark difference is right within a mile of where we stand. A poor child 
in the District of Columbia will get three times as much money under 
this proposal of the majority leader as will a poor child across the 
Potomac River in Virginia.
  I think that is not only indefensible and unfair, but undermines the 
basic credibility of this proposal as a means of moving people from 
welfare to work.
  So, Mr. President, in those areas, I think we have a house that is 
being built on a foundation of sand.
  Mr. President, we need to guard against passing legislation which has 
rhetorical mandates and aspirations, but without the practical 
understanding of what it would mean in the lives of people and, 
therefore, virtually assuring that we will have a failure of 
accomplishing our objectives and will have more decades of exactly the 
kind of welfare issue, exactly the kind of continuing dependence that 
we are trying to ameliorate through this effort.
  Mr. President, I urge the adoption of the more pragmatic amendment 
which has been offered by Senator Daschle and his colleagues as the 
starting point for serious, meaningful welfare reform.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I yield myself 5 minutes, if I need that 
much, to thank the Senator from Florida, the former Governor of 
Florida, who knows precisely of what he speaks when Federal formulas 
are involved.
  You heard the striking differences between the jurisdictions of 
Florida, Mississippi, the District of Columbia, and Virginia. I hope 
you also heard the Senator's comment about the city of Philadelphia, 
the number of jobs in the city, the numbers created in recent years. I 
have been trying to make a point, as I said yesterday--I do not know 
that I can persuade anyone, but I can try to make it and I can argue--
which is the point that 30 years ago, we might have considered turning 
this subject back to the States, giving them 

[[Page S 12763]]
block grants of some kind, saying, ``You handle it. Cities, you handle 
it. It makes some sense since local governments are closer to the 
problem. It is not that big a problem.''
  It is today, in one after another jurisdiction, a problem that has 
overwhelmed the capacity of the city and the State.
  The Senator mentioned Philadelphia. In 1993, 57 percent of the 
children living in the city of Philadelphia were on AFDC, welfare, at 
one point in the course of the year. At any given moment, 44 percent--
these are numbers never contemplated. Nothing like that happened in the 
Great Depression. And these children are paupers. They are not from 
unemployed families, where there is a house, an automobile, some 
insurance.
  One of the few regulations the Federal Government does have--the rest 
are all intended you have to waiver for--if you have less than $1,000 
in assets, you are a pauper. The cities cannot handle it. And they will 
not.
  Just as when we began the deinstitutionalization of our mental 
institutions in the early 1960's--at the last public bill-signing 
ceremony President Kennedy had, on October 31, 1963, he signed the 
Community Mental Health Construction Act of 1963. I was present. He 
gave me a pen. I had been involved with this in New York, where it 
began. Transfer license. We were going to build 2,000 community mental 
health centers by the year 1980, and one per 100,000 thereafter.
  We built about 400. We kind of overlapped and folded the program in 
and forgot about the program. We emptied out the mental institutions. 
And we have been hearing about homeless shelters all day.
  I said yesterday, and I will repeat again, in 10 years' time, with 
this legislation in place, with these time limits in place, children 
will be in the streets. Seventy-six percent of the children on welfare 
are on welfare for more than 5 years.
  The Senator from Connecticut, I hope, will keep that in mind--76 
percent. About 40 percent--the remainder come and go quickly and are 
never a problem.
  But if we do this, we will have in my city of New York half a million 
people on the streets in New York. We wonder about homeless people. 
They used to be in mental institutions. Now these children are in 
houses. They are in households. We will wonder where they came from. We 
say, ``Why are these children sleeping on grates? Why are they being 
picked up in the morning frozen? Why are they horrible to each other, a 
menace to all, and more importantly to themselves? Whatever happened?''
  When the homeless appeared in New York, we right away diagnosed it as 
a lack of affordable housing. That is not what it was. It was Federal 
policy in its most perverse mode. Make a great change and do not follow 
through. Make changes you do not fully understand. Those tranquilizers 
were not as good as we thought.
  Here are some other cities. In Detroit, 67 percent of children were 
on welfare at one point or another in the year of 1993; in Baltimore, 
56 percent.
  My time has expired. But I will return to this subject.
  Now I am going to suggest the absence of a quorum for 1 minute to see 
whether the Senator from Oregon wishes to speak--I do not see him on 
the floor--after which it is the turn of the Senator from Connecticut.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The absence of a quorum has been suggested.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. I am happy to yield to my friend.
  Is 15 minutes sufficient for his purposes?
  Mr. DODD. Why do we not try 15. I may need 20.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Twenty, it is.
  Mr. DODD. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. May I record, Mr. President, the Senator from Oregon 
does not wish to speak at this moment. So if the speakers are all on 
our side, it is because we are talking, I suppose, about our bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut, Mr. Dodd, is 
recognized for 20 minutes.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from New York. Before 
beginning, our colleague from Florida asked me to yield to him for a 
minute to raise a question to the distinguished Senator from New York.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Connecticut very 
much. I appreciate his courtesy.
  I want to commend the Senator from New York for the excellent 
statement, and particularly that he brings us back to reality, just 
what are the circumstances of the people that are going to be affected 
by our actions.
  I would like to inject, briefly, for the Senator's information and 
possibly further comment, some good news. I mentioned that in 
Pensacola, there were 6,600 welfare families. I am pleased to say that 
in the first 18 months of the transition program, which is a program 
based on the 1988 legislation that the Senator from New York sponsored, 
that almost 600 of those 6,600 have, in fact, been placed in 
employment, that having occurred because there was a willingness to put 
the resources required to provide the kind of training and support, 
including child care, to those families to allow it to happen.
  It can happen. This is not just a doom-and-gloom scenario. We are not 
consigned to have to deal with this problem in its current form 
forever. But it is not going to be easy, it is not going to be quick, 
and it is not going to be inexpensive if we are going to achieve real 
results.
  I appreciate the constant reminder of the Senator from New York of 
those realities.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. I thank my friend from Florida, and I do particularly 
appreciate his reference to the Family Support Act, which never 
promised a rose garden. We said if you try hard, you will have 
something to show for it. Pensacola does.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut is recognized for 
20 minutes.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, before my colleague from New York departs 
the floor and my colleague from Florida continues, I want to commend my 
colleague from Florida for an excellent statement.
  And, let me just say, the distinguished Senator from New York has 
contributed more to the collective wisdom in this body on the subject 
of welfare reform than anyone. I say that with all due respect to the 
other 99 of us in this Chamber, but the Senator from New York has 
dedicated virtually a lifetime of service focused on this complex 
issue.
  She is no longer with us, but Barbara Tuchman wrote a wonderful book 
called the ``March of Folly.'' It was related to foreign policy 
failures throughout history. What made her book unique is that she 
talked about failures where those responsible for conducting foreign 
policy--from the Trojan Wars to the Vietnam war--knew when they were 
about to do something that, in fact, it was wrong and that there were 
better alternatives. But, they refused to recognize them. She described 
several historical events beginning with Troy, including the American 
Revolution, and several others.
  Were she alive today and were she to write a domestic version of the 
``March of Folly,'' I suspect our current debate on welfare reform 
might be a chapter in that book. My fear is, and I heard my colleague 
from New York express this over and over again, we are missing each 
other in the night as we discuss this subject matter.
  The Senator from New York has said repeatedly we are not engaged in 
reform here at all. What we are engaged in is a dismantling, total 
dismantling of a system with a faint hope that what we are about to put 
in place is somehow going to serve the public in a better way. What we 
are talking about here is reducing our Federal commitment to welfare by 
roughly $70 billion, passing the cost on to the States and localities 
of this country and asking them to assume the responsibility and burden 
of picking up this chore with little likelihood that we are going to 
achieve the desired goals expressed, with all due respect to the 
majority leader's bill.
  I just want to take a moment, before getting into the substance of my 
remarks, and urge my colleagues to 

[[Page S 12764]]
please listen --listen--to our colleague from New York. There is a lot 
of wisdom in what he says. He knows this issue well. Historically, we 
have paid attention to our colleagues, regardless of party, regardless 
of ideology, who brought a special knowledge and experience to a 
subject matter. The Senator from New York is that individual in our 
midst. We ought to be listening to him on this subject.
  So I hope in the coming days, we can get away from a bit of the 
politics of this issue and think about what we are doing and what a 
mess we are likely to create in this country, costing the middle-class 
taxpayers billions of dollars before we are through, all in the name of 
some political debate about who is going to deal with the welfare 
recipient more harshly than the next.
  That ought not to be what this debate is about. It ought to be about 
how we reform our current system to make it work better in a realistic, 
thoughtful, prudent manner. Unfortunately, I do not think that this has 
been the case. I know my colleague from New York has other business to 
attend to, but I just felt very strongly when I came over here to 
address this matter. This is one of those rare occasions when the 
``March of Folly'' seems to be upon us once again.
  Mr. President, I hope we will pay some close attention to the 
proposals that are being offered by the distinguished Democratic leader 
and hope that somehow in the next few days we may come to our senses 
and find some common ground on this issue.
  I read the other day that the distinguished majority leader announced 
in Chicago that there will be no compromises this fall. How does this 
institution function when the leader of our body says there will be no 
compromise on a subject matter that will have a profound effect on our 
country for years to come? We need to seek some common ground and 
thoughtful analysis to deal intelligently and effectively with the 
issue of welfare reform.
  There is no debate about what we are trying to achieve: How do we 
move people from dependency to self-sufficiency? We are now looking at 
grandchildren and great-grandchildren of people who have been dependent 
on welfare without the ability or the fortune of work. How do we move 
people to work in an intelligent way? How do we make it possible for 
them to get there and stay there, so that they have at least the basic 
protection of health care and some safe place to put their children?
  This is not a concept that is terribly difficult to grasp, I hope. 
Every single family in this country ought to be able to relate to this. 
They do. When you go to work, where is your child? Who is watching your 
child? Every single person, from the highest paid chief executive 
officer down to the lowest wage earner in this country, understands 
that critical issue: if you are going to go to work, you need to have 
access to safe, affordable, and quality child care. It ought not to be 
difficult for us to try and come up with some ways to do achieve this.
  The benefit of all of this is not just fiscal, it also has to do with 
the fabric of our country. It has to do with helping to provide people 
opportunities to have a sense of self-worth as we build our 
neighborhoods and communities. It is a critical element. And trying to 
find the ways and the means to accomplish that goal ought to be the 
subject of our discussions. We should not, as I said earlier, outdo 
each other in our rhetoric to indict people, in most cases, who, 
through no fault of their own, are in this situation.
  I left this chart here, Mr. President, because it ought to be in 
everyone's mind. As our colleague from New York has pointed out, two-
thirds of the people we are talking about in this bill are children; 
they are not adults, they are kids. Two-thirds of the recipients are 
America's children. In Baltimore, Detroit, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, 
there are staggering numbers of children who are recipients or 
dependents of families where there is this dependency on public 
assistance of one kind or another.
  I hope, again, we can have an honest and thoughtful debate about how 
we can improve this situation, rather than worsening it by creating a 
race to the bottom. The Washington Post the other day--I do not have it 
here with me today--had a lengthy article about what will happen as 
States race to cut benefits. As some States cut benefits, their actions 
will put great pressure on neighboring States to follow suit, or else 
risk becoming a magnet for families searching for ways to end their 
slide further down the economic ladder. As the race proceeds, it will 
cause great damage to our national commitment to address these 
problems.
  Maybe I am wrong, but I honestly believe when there is a child in 
Pennsylvania, or a child in Colorado, or a child in New York that is in 
trouble, I have an obligation as a Senator to help them. I am a U.S. 
Senator from the State of Connecticut, but my interest and concern 
about children is not limited to the geography that I represent. It is 
the country that I represent. And so when there is a child who is 
hurting in a Western State, an Eastern State, or my own State, I 
believe that, through the constitutional process which creates this 
institution, I ought to bring a concern to this national body to 
grapple with these problems in a way that makes sense for all of us. I 
should not just assume that these problems are Colorado's problem, or 
New York's problem, or Pennsylvania's problem alone. That belief would 
run contrary to our sense of nationhood.
  So the goals of work and independence and self-sufficiency and family 
unity are all things that we ought to be striving for.
  We are going to miss that mark substantially if we do not try and 
find ways to achieve those goals in a realistic way, and make the kinds 
of investments that will need to be made if we are going to be 
successful.
  The tendency to blame and punish is certainly tempting. I understand 
the politics of it. But in the long-term it is not going to help us 
resolve the kind of difficulties that I think we have been asked to 
assume by our election to this body as national representatives--not 
just our own States' representatives but national representatives.
  There is strong evidence that the rise of poverty is, in large part, 
attributable to declining wages. There has been a tremendous amount of 
evidence that over the past 2\1/2\ decades wages have declined, and 
anxiety and fear has grown among our people as a result of that trend. 
I hope we will keep this evidence in mind as we consider this debate on 
welfare reform.
  If we take the view that the only purpose of welfare reform is to 
punish people--as I said a moment ago, those who have been getting 
something for nothing--then we are going to ignore the fact that 
welfare is an unwelcome fate for most recipients.
  More important, we will miss the opportunity, in my view, for any 
kind of real, meaningful reform, because we will ignore what we must do 
to move people from the dependency of welfare to work: First, to 
provide them with education and training. Again, we all know we are 
entering a sophisticated age. There are fewer and fewer jobs where 
little or no education or training is needed. As it is right now, less 
than 1 percent of the jobs in this country are going to be available to 
people with less than a high school diploma. In a few years, it will be 
a college diploma. You are going to have to have those skills if you 
are going to move people to work. The jobs will not exist for people in 
this category without the training.
  Second, you have to ensure that States are partners with the Federal 
government, lest they engage in a race to the bottom that rewards 
States for spending less on moving their people from welfare rolls to 
payrolls. I do not think anyone believes that is a wise course to 
follow.
  Third, and I think most important in this debate, and I have 
referenced it already--is to ensure that parents have the child care 
that they need in order to keep a job in the first place. Child care, I 
happen to believe, is the linchpin of welfare reform.
  No matter what else we do, if a parent cannot find a safe and 
affordable place for their young children during the working day, that 
parent is not going to be able to hold down a job. I do not care how 
you look at that issue or analyze it. That is a fact.
  In my view, the alternative proposal offered by the majority leader, 
Senator Dole, fails to meet this three-part standard. It represents, I 
think, a retreat from the problem and not reform of it. It does not 
even, in my view, deserve to be called reform. All it would 

[[Page S 12765]]
do is package up Federal programs for poor families, cut the funding by 
$70 billion, and ship the whole problem to the 50 States. Is somebody 
going to tell me that is reform? That is just passing the buck and 
asking the middle-class taxpayer to have their property taxes and sales 
taxes skyrocket at the local level--as we wash our hands of it. We have 
reformed the problem. Mr. President, we will have done nothing of the 
kind.
  The acid test of any welfare reform proposal is its impact on 
children, in my view, because they are the majority of the recipients. 
Is a reform proposal going to punish the children for the mistakes or 
bad luck of their parents? It bears repeating time and time again that 
two-thirds of the AFDC recipients are children. More than 9 million 
children received cash assistance in 1993.
  The Republican welfare reform proposal, as it is called, would single 
these children out for extraordinarily harsh treatment. I do not care 
what your ideology or politics are, I do not know of anybody that wants 
to see that happen. Yet, Mr. President, as a matter of fact, that is 
just what happens under this proposal. In my view, the Republican plan 
packages up punitive policies that aim for the parent, but will hit the 
child instead.
  Children should not be penalized because of the happenstance into 
which they have been born. I do not think we want to see that be the 
case.
  We promise the elderly and veterans a minimum level of support in our 
society. Why can we not do the same for children? We need a national 
commitment to see that children are not abused, that they do not go 
hungry, and that their basic needs are being met.
  The Republican proposal, however, fails to provide even the most 
basic minimum standards for our Nation's children. Mr. President, I 
want to stress that these children, I believe, are our Nation's 
responsibility. They are our Nation's responsibility. Whether a child 
lives in Mississippi, California, Connecticut, Colorado, or 
Pennsylvania, we as a nation must look out for the basic welfare of 
each and every one of these young citizens. The American people, I 
think, understand the concept of nationhood. They do not want us to 
pull the basic safety net out from under these children.
  The Republican plan, however, threatens to do just that. If a parent 
is cut off of welfare after a 5-year time limit and is still not 
working, his or her children are the real losers. The Republican 
proposal makes no allowance for these children. If you are a kid in 
that family, you have had it. I do not believe that makes a lot of 
sense, Mr. President. I think you ought to be thoughtful about what is 
apt to happen down the pike here.
  The proposal being offered by the Democratic leader includes a 5-year 
time limit, but it provides a voucher in the amount of the child's 
portion to a third party for families who hit the time limit. So the 
children's portion is held aside. If the family does not make it out of 
welfare in 5 years--you still have something for the kid. As it is 
right now in the Republican proposal, you have nothing for that child. 
Does anybody really believe that is what we should do? Are we going to 
look at the face of that child in 5 years and say, ``I am sorry, your 
parents did not get off of it, you are a loser and you get nothing.'' I 
do not know of a single person in this body that would sit and look 
that child in the face--not the number or the statistic, but that 
child--and say, ``you get nothing because your parents did not make it 
off welfare in 5 years.'' I do not believe that makes any sense. I 
honestly do not believe that is what we will do. Nor do I believe that 
is what the States will do. But, this bill calls for that.
  Changing the welfare rules will not make these children disappear. 
They may very well end up out on the street--as the Senator from New 
York said--solely because of the mistakes or bad luck of their parents. 
We ought to be more creative and more responsible than that.
  Under the Republican plan, 3.9 million children could lose assistance 
under the 5-year time limit. More than twice that number would be 
jeopardized if States move to the 2-year limit, as some have suggested.
  I go back to the point of the Senator from Florida and the Senator 
from New York. In Detroit, 67 percent of the children are on welfare. 
In Philadelphia, it is 57 percent. There are some 500,000 families, or 
people, on welfare in that city alone. Is anybody going to honestly 
tell me that in 5 years, everybody is going to be off? If you are not, 
the kids in that city are going to be the ones to pay the price because 
their parents were not able to find the jobs. That does not make any 
sense, Mr. President. More thought needs to be given to all of this.
  Despite its tough rhetoric, the Republican welfare reform bill is 
empty, in my view, when it comes to putting welfare recipients to work. 
The legislation requires States only to dramatically increase their 
participation rates. They impose this requirement, yet do not provide 
the resources to help States reach this goal.
  Talk about an unfunded mandate. If you do not get it done, if you do 
not meet that requirement in Philadelphia--Philadelphia, with 500,000 
people--in a couple of years, and do not raise your participation 
rates, we penalize Pennsylvania.
  That is an unfunded mandate--no resources to do it. My Lord, that is 
an incredible burden to place on these States and localities as we wash 
our hands entirely of it.
  The proposal being offered by the distinguished Democratic leader 
sends, I think, a different message--not perfect, but certainly one we 
ought to look at as a way to incorporate these ideas. It should not be 
mistaken for defense of the status quo. It is anything but. It ends 
unconditional receipt of assistance. It replaces the entitlement to 
benefits with entitlement to employment services. It would cut off 
benefits to anyone who refuses a job offer, and would require parents 
to sign a parent empowerment contract.
  As the title suggests, the Work First plan makes work a reality for 
people on welfare, and not just simply a promise.
  Our alternative is built on a basic principle that work must be at 
the center of real welfare reform. We would provide job training and 
child care assistance to help welfare recipients find and keep jobs. We 
would back it up with tough requirements and the resources, Mr. 
President, to make that a reality.
  Under the work first bill, existing child care programs are 
consolidated and dedicated to child care. The bill guarantees child 
care for those required to work or prepared for work, ensuring that 
kids will not be left home alone.
  The bill also provides 1 year of transitional assistance with options 
for an extension for an additional year on a sliding scale basis.
  In contrast, the Dole-Packwood bill acts as if the 4.3 million kids 
on AFDC under the age of 6 and the 3.8 million on AFDC between ages 6 
and 13 somehow do not exist.
  Under the Republican proposal, we will have less money in child care 
than we do today, less money before we put all of the welfare mothers 
to work and send them out the door, less money for these kids that have 
to be placed in some sort of a situation where they are safe.
  In the Dole bill, the three major child care programs that serve 
640,000 children disappear. That is a fact, Mr. President. They 
disappear, undermining the Federal-State partnership.
  There is absolutely no requirement under the welfare reform proposal 
being proposed by Senators Dole and Packwood that States continue to 
use the money that they previously dedicated to child care. You do not 
have to do that any longer. You are off the hook. So the States do not 
even have to put a nickel into child care. In the earlier bill, they 
did. They have now taken it out.
  Existing State requirements are gone on child care. If States wanted 
to provide the same level of services as today, they could not, because 
the money supply is simply not there. The level of funding is frozen to 
1994 levels, at the same time we expect many more mothers to go to 
work.
  According to numbers from the Department of Health and Human services 
agencies, an additional $6 billion for child care is needed over 5 
years, over the fiscal year 1994 levels included in the current Dole 
draft, to make the Dole welfare reform plan work.
  The only money dedicated to this critical component of welfare reform 
is 

[[Page S 12766]]
the money authorized by the Labor and Human Resources Committee earlier 
this year for child care, for the child care and development block 
grant. Mr. President, that serves a very small number of families.
  As the author of that legislation, with my colleague from Utah, 
Senator Hatch, 5 years ago, I strongly support the program, Mr. 
President. But it is no substitute, frankly, for dedicated funds 
protected from the budgetary whims of this and future Congresses.
  Furthermore, the program was created, I point out, to help the 
working poor, and is a mere fraction of what is needed. It is clear 
under the Republican proposal the working poor are going to lose, and 
lose substantially, and middle-income taxpayers are going to watch 
their taxes go up at the local level.
  The Dole bill even allows States to use the meager amounts that have 
been dedicated to child care for other welfare programs, so you can get 
rid of it altogether.
  The majority leader modified his bill in August. He gave States the 
option to exclude parents with children under the age of 1 from the 
work requirements. There is no provision, however, for other preschool 
and elementary-age children.
  The bill does not provide adequate funds for child care, and at the 
same time, it is going to penalize and sanction parents who cannot work 
because they do not have the child care or cannot afford it.
  Mr. President, that is a no-win situation we are putting these 
parents in. It is just plain wrong. In my view, it will not work. As I 
read it, this welfare bill says it is OK to leave your children home 
alone. You will go to work, but you figure out how to deal with your 
children.
  In case anyone thinks that there are enough Federal dollars in child 
care under the current system, just look at what has happened. Thirty-
six States, Mr. President, and the District of Columbia have waiting 
lists for child care.
  Listen to the numbers on waiting lists: In Texas, 35,000 children are 
on a waiting list for child care. That is today, now. I am not talking 
about after we pass this bill. Today, 35,000 are waiting. In Illinois, 
20,000 children are on a waiting list. In Alabama, 20,000 children are 
waiting. In Florida, 20,000. In Georgia, 41,000.
  Other States have chosen not to keep a list, but the problem is 
present there, too.
  Now, we are going to require more people to go to work while 
providing less child care resources. With thousands of kids already on 
waiting lists for child care slots, how is that possible?
  Child care is not only a tremendous concern to those struggling to 
get off welfare. Talk to any middle-income family about child care. 
Have a conversation with a family that weekly, if not monthly, goes 
through the anxiety. They are out there working, single mothers trying 
to raise kids, or two-income earners.
  If you want to get an earful, talk to them about child care and the 
problems they have. I am not talking about welfare recipients or 
working poor, but the average family that struggles every week with 
where they are going to place their kids. Is it safe? Will they be OK? 
How much does it cost? Here we are, telling millions of people to go to 
work with no accommodation, no accommodation for child care.
  Mr. President, it is lunacy to think this is reform. It is dangerous. 
As the Senator from New York has said, we will rue the day, we will rue 
the day if we adopt this legislation without accommodating the kinds of 
investments that have to occur if this proposal is truly to work in the 
coming years.
  If we turn our back on this issue--and frankly, Mr. President, I say 
so with the highest degree of respect for the individuals who are the 
authors of the bill--if we do that, we will create significant damage 
in this country. The damage will be similar to those created, as the 
Senator from New York described, to the deinstitutionalization of the 
mentally ill.
  Welfare reform requires far more thought, Mr. President, far more 
thought. No compromise is a great political speech. But, it is not the 
way to address serious, complex, and profound social policy issues.
  Mr. President, I hope in the coming days that we will develop a 
willingness to sit down and work this out thoughtfully. I am hopeful 
that the Daschle alternative will be adopted because it is.
  But, if that is not the case, I will offer amendments with specific 
offsets to improve the Dole/Packwood bill. I will say they will come 
from corporate welfare, I let my colleagues know.
  So, Mr. President, I hope common sense will prevail in these coming 
days and that we will find, as we have historically on issues like 
this, some common ground. The President has urged it. Others have here 
including the senator from New York. I think this no-compromise 
approach is unfortunate. It is not a sound way to legislate, certainly 
not in an area that is as important as this one.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kyl). The Senator from New York [Mr. 
Moynihan] is recognized.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I know the Senator from Pennsylvania 
would like to have a dialog with the Senator from Connecticut. But just 
before he does, may I say I brought to the floor a pen with which John 
F. Kennedy, on October 31, 1963, signed the Mental Retardation 
Facilities and Community Mental Health Centers Construction Act of 
1963.
  The Senator from Connecticut recognizes those pens. This was the last 
public bill signing of the Kennedy administration, and we set about 
emptying out our mental institutions. We said we were going to provide 
for the children, the young people and the older persons who left. We 
were going to provide community care. But we did not provide the 
wherewithal. We almost, for a while, forgot we had ever done it. It now 
seems to be lost with us entirely. We deal with the problem of the 
homeless as if it had no antecedent in our decisions.
  We are on the floor of the U.S. Senate making a vastly more important 
decision. There were a million, almost a million persons in mental 
institutions when this bill was signed. There are about 100,000 today. 
There are 14 million women and children on welfare--14 million. When 
they end up on the streets, I hope somebody will remember that it was 
foretold.
  I wonder.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. Santorum] 
is recognized.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I appreciate the comments of the Senator from Connecticut. In fact, 
with respect to the child care comments he made, I think there are some 
legitimate points he does make. I find myself wondering whether we do 
need to commit potentially more resources to provide for people who are 
going to be required to work so they can have the opportunity to have 
some child care available to them.
  I am hesitant, in fact reluctant, to be for an entitlement for child 
care because I think that could be a slippery slope. I am not too sure 
we want to provide an entitlement to child care for people who are on 
welfare and have people who are working mothers, who need child care 
just as badly, have no entitlement. That, I think, creates a double 
standard that may in fact encourage more people to get on welfare to 
get the child care benefit. So I do have some concerns about that.
  But I think it is a legitimate issue to bring to the floor, to talk 
about how we are going to have single mothers with children work and 
not have the resources available for child care. I think that is an 
issue. I think the leader came to the floor before the recess and 
admitted that that is an area we hope to do some work on.
  We talk about bipartisanship. I think that may be an area where we 
could find some common ground. I think, again, on this side, we are 
going to be stopping short of an entitlement in nature, but certainly 
to provide more day care slots and to provide more funding for people 
to have choices as to where to take day care, that is not beyond the 
pale--at least from this Senator's perspective, that is not.
  One of the things that concerned me, however, about his talk was at 
least the inference, if not the direct assault, that somehow or another 
Republicans are slashing welfare. I think we have to 

[[Page S 12767]]
make this very clear. What we are talking about here, on the Democratic 
bill and frankly on the Republican bill, is not slashing welfare.
  I will give the numbers. Unfortunately, the numbers do not match, 
necessarily, because the Democrats' calculation of what welfare is and 
the Republicans' calculation is a little different. Welfare, from my 
perspective, is obviously not just AFDC, but it is AFDC and food stamps 
and child care and a whole lot of other programs. When you add all 
those programs up, we come up with spending this year of roughly $170 
billion that we will spend on welfare programs.
  On the Democratic side, they add in the earned-income tax credit and 
some other social service programs, and they come up with a figure 
closer to $190 billion. So we start at a different base. But let me 
give what, under the Republican bill, we will spend 7 years from now 
and what we would spend 7 years from now if we did nothing.
  If we did nothing, we would go from spending $170 billion on welfare 
today to, in 7 years, spending $302 billion on welfare. That is if we 
did nothing. We would increase spending by $132 billion, a roughly 77 
percent increase in spending on welfare in the next 7 years. That is if 
we did nothing.
  Now, what does this dramatic slashing, punishing, cruel, blaming-the-
poor, Republican proposal do to welfare expenditures over the next 7 
years? We are not going to spend in the year 2002 $302 billion, that is 
correct. We will spend $289 billion. The increase will be, not 77 
percent over the next 7 years, but 70 percent over the next 7 years.
  I know you can say a lot of things about this program, but cruel 
slashing, cutting, when you are cutting 7 percent of the increase out 
of a program that is going to increase 77 percent over 7 years is 
hardly slashing. It is hardly leaving people out on the street.
  Let us please stick to the facts. This is not a harsh bill. This is 
not a cruel bill. This is not a bill that blames anybody. This is an 
honest attempt to try to solve the problem. And, yes, at the same time 
try to accomplish some savings--hopefully efficiencies, doing things 
better, getting more people off the rolls and back into productive 
society, which will save money in the process.
  Just so you understand what the other side is going to do, under 
their numbers welfare spending is $190 billion today and will increase 
to $333 billion by the year 2002, an increase of $153 billion, a 75-
percent increase.
  So, $189--$190 billion to $333 billion. Again, the Republicans start 
at $170 billion and we go to $302 billion. But they use different 
numbers. Under the Democratic proposal, their spending would increase 
from $190 billion today, not to $333 billion but to $330 billion. So, 
instead of a 75-percent increase, you get a 74-percent increase.
  I would not even call that an adjustment. That is not even--that does 
not even touch the system. The Republican proposal was a modest 
reduction. This does not even meet the standard of reduction, hardly. 
And they are trying to put this up as changing welfare as we know it? 
Reforming the system? Giving not only the recipient a different program 
but the taxpayer a break in funding this system?
  It does not stand up. Either way, their system does not stand up to 
reduce spending significantly and ours certainly cannot be accused of 
slashing and cutting. Ours is a responsible reduction from a very 
dramatic increase.
  A couple of other points I wanted to make about the talk of the 
Senator from Connecticut. He said, as the Senator from Louisiana 
discussed yesterday and the Senator from New York discussed yesterday, 
``How are you going to pay for these programs? You do not have the 
resources. We cannot do it. The Governors won't be able to put these 
work programs in place and there is no way for us to be able to fund 
this program with the number of children and single mothers on this 
program.''
  I would remind the Senator from Connecticut that the Republican 
Governors Association strongly supports the Dole package, strongly 
supports the block grant approach, strongly supports the idea that if 
you give them just what they had this year in AFDC funding, and a 
little growth factor for the growth States which we have provided for 
in this bill, that they will be able to run this program, put people to 
work, get people and turn the system from a maintenance system, a 
dependency system to a dynamic system that moves people out of poverty 
and do it for less money. For less money.
  I will remind you that these Governors, the Republican Governors who 
support the Dole package represent 80 percent of the welfare recipients 
in this country. Eighty percent of the welfare recipients in this 
country are represented by Republican Governors, and they believe they 
can do a better job with less money than what the Federal Government is 
doing today.
  So ask the people who are going to implement the program how they 
will do it and they will tell you they can do it. In fact, they want to 
do it.
  It is interesting that the Senator from Connecticut mentioned and 
focused a lot of his introductory remarks on how we have to change this 
dependency system, and used the word ``dependency'' as it should be, as 
a pejorative term. It is not a good thing. And then later in his talk 
he talked about how cruel and horrible it was to cut people off after 5 
years with nothing. He said, ``We are going to cut them off and there 
will not be any benefits.''
  First off, that is not true. Children, moms with children, will 
continue to receive food stamps, will continue to receive Medicaid, 
will continue to receive housing benefits that they do in any other 
social service. They will lose their cash assistance. Under the 
Democrat bill, they lose their cash assistance also. The only 
difference is they replace the cash assistance with a voucher in almost 
an equal amount--they have a slight reduction--a voucher for them to be 
able to go out and do basically what they did with the cash.
  So in a sense it is not much of a penalty. But we say if you are 
going to end dependency, you cannot continue to keep people on the 
system and pay them virtually the same they are making now on the 
system. You have to end dependency by ending dependency. You cannot 
continue to provide for someone on the system and expect them to leave 
the system.
  I do not say that without the understanding that a lot of people 
leave the system. But a lot of people are trapped in the system because 
of the nature of the dependency of it in which the benefits continue.
  So you cannot stand on the floor and say, ``We have to end 
dependency'' and say, ``We cannot cut them off.'' You cannot be for any 
dependency and not be for some termination of benefits at some point in 
time when the social contract between the Government and the person the 
Government is attempting to help at some point ends, and the person has 
to do it on their own.
  The other point that I cannot more strongly disagree with is the 
Senator from Connecticut repeatedly said, ``This is a national 
problem.'' It is a national problem. As a Senator from Connecticut, he 
cares about the children in Philadelphia and he cares about the 
children in Colorado. The Presiding Officer is from Colorado. I care 
about the children from Connecticut and the children from Arizona. I 
just do not believe that the Federal Government is the best person to 
help them.
  Sure, it is a national problem. But I think what we have found in 
decades of looking at what helps the poor in this country is the 
National Government does not solve the problem. It is a national 
problem that calls for a local solution. Sure, the Federal Government 
has a role to play. We are going to continue. He says we are going to 
wash our hands of it. We are not going to wash our hands of this.
  I will repeat the numbers to make sure the Senator from Connecticut 
understands. We are going to be spending $289 billion under the 
Republican proposal in the year 2002, a 70-percent increase. The 
commitment is there. But what we are suggesting in this bill, which is 
philosophically different and fundamentally different from what the 
Senator from Connecticut and many on the other side of the aisle 
believe, is that we solve problems best when it deals with the poor by 
making it more personal and individual and local in nature; that 
community organizations and individuals solve problems better in 
dealing with people who have troubles in their lives than a system that 
processes checks and papers and maintains people in poverty. 

[[Page S 12768]]

  I think everyone here understands that this is a national problem, 
and that that is why we are having this debate. If this was not a 
national problem, we would not be here debating it. Of course, it is a 
national problem. But does that mean that the Federal Government has to 
solve the problem here, has to have instant solutions here for 
everybody to be treated the same in America? Of course not. National 
problems do not always require national solutions. They at many times 
require solutions to be done and ideas to be grown in the local 
communities or the individual who can help that person get out of 
poverty.
  The Senator from Connecticut also talked about how two-thirds of the 
people on welfare are children. That is a fact. It is very disquieting. 
He talks about how cruel it is, that the Republican bill will in fact 
hurt children and target children for their harsh treatment. I will 
just remind the Senator that over the past 30 years we have tried a 
great experiment as a result of the Great Society programs of the 
1960's. We tried this experiment blindly, with absolutely no idea of 
whether this program was going to work.
  A lot of the criticism on the other side is we do not know whether 
turning this back to the States is going to work. We do not know it is 
going to work. Well, I would suggest to you back in 1965, 1966, or 
1967, in the years in which these programs were enacted in the early 
1970's, that a lot these programs were passed, and they had absolutely 
no idea whether they were going to work. But they thought that it was 
worth a try. In fact, I would say that a lot of the people who voted 
for these programs did so with the best of intentions and with the 
greatest of hopes that this in fact would work. But it has not. I think 
we did answer that question.
  Two-thirds of the people on welfare are children. But more of those 
children are born out of wedlock today than they were in 1965. In fact, 
if you go back to 1960, the out-of-wedlock birth rate in this country, 
the illegitimacy rate in this country, was 5 percent. It is now 33 
percent.
  I think everyone will admit now, both sides of the aisle, both 
philosophical perspectives will tell you that it is a harmful thing for 
our country. More of them are born out of wedlock. More of them are 
born at low birth weights. More are born drug addicted, crack addicted. 
More of them live in unsafe neighborhoods and die violent deaths. More 
of them have less opportunity. More of them have less educational 
opportunities and a chance for success. That is the system we have 
today.
  I sometimes just become amazed that someone could stand up on the 
floor and say that what we are doing is cruel when the system today is 
as cruel as we have ever seen in the history of this country. What we 
are suggesting is not cruel or harsh. What we are trying to do is 
change a system that is surrounded or built on the difficulty of 
maintaining people in poverty.
  I cannot stress this point enough: No one who receives welfare 
benefits as their sole source of income gets rich. You do not get rich 
on welfare. You maintain people. That is what the system does. That is 
what it is built to do--to maintain people at a level of survival.
  It is not a system that you go into with the expectation--people who 
have never been in the business when they think of welfare do not think 
there is a system that people go into and they are transformed into 
productive, working citizens. That is what welfare does in this 
country. Nobody believes that. Nobody thinks of welfare as the system 
that changes people's lives for the better. They think of welfare as 
the safety net where people get caught in it.
  We have to change that. That is what this bill does. It fundamentally 
changes the whole perception of what welfare is all about. The whole 
expectation of someone who now gets onto welfare is not how many are 
going to be provided for whatever the length of time in poverty.
 But how will I be helped to get back on my feet to get out of poverty. 
That we will change the system from one of maintenance and dependency 
to dynamic renewal, that is the challenge. And what many of us believe 
is that that is the challenge best met by people who care most about 
the people involved in the system. And, yes, the Senator from 
Connecticut cares about the children in Philadelphia. He probably cares 
about my children. I will never forget the Senator from Texas, Senator 
Gramm, who suggested that on a talk show a couple of years ago. Ira 
Magaziner was on talking about health care, and Magaziner was saying, 
``I care about your children as much as you do, Senator.'' And Senator 
Gramm shot back, ``Then tell me their names.''

  Yes, I care about children in Philadelphia and Hartford and Bismarck 
and Fargo. I care about them. But that does not mean I am the best 
person to help them. The people in Fargo know better how to solve this 
problem and how to deal with this person, to sit across the table from 
them and say: What can I do to help you get back on your feet and 
going? Not with the eyeshade down, hand out the check and process the 
next number.
  That is the fundamental difference we are debating here today. It is 
a difference between holding on to the past and moving to the future.
  It is a great opportunity, it is a great opportunity we have before 
us to make this system something that we can be proud of, that we can 
look and see experimentation across the country.
  In the Republican bill, we allow nonprofit organizations to get 
involved and be the welfare agency for that community. I know there are 
many communities--the Senator from Connecticut mentioned Philadelphia 
on many occasions. I have been to north Philadelphia and west 
Philadelphia, and the only thing left, the only thing left in these 
neighborhoods--there are no jobs left in these neighborhoods, nothing 
of an institutional setting except the church. Why not let the people 
who care most about these folks, why not let the churches get involved 
in providing welfare services.
  Oh, I know we get real nervous about church and state, but, folks, I 
want to solve the problem. I want to help people. And I know many 
pastors--many pastors--who would absolutely be the best people to work 
in those communities. Sure, they would have oversight, there would be 
Federal oversight or State oversight, but the people working with the 
folks in the community would be people who know, people who care about 
them, people who the folks who end up on welfare trust, know that they 
care about themselves and their families.
  This is different. We are not walking away. We are facilitating a 
different approach. It is one that I know will work, I know will work 
because it has worked in the past and I think it will work better 
because the Federal Government will provide a lot of the needed 
resources that in fact were not there in the past.
  We stand at a very important moment, as we vote on this substitute 
later today, whether we are going to continue to try to micromanage and 
have solutions based out of Washington to run welfare or whether we are 
going to turn away from that approach that we know does not work and 
move to something different, exciting, dynamic, that is going to help 
millions of people leave welfare.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. CONRAD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I have listened to my colleague from 
Pennsylvania and found that I agree with much of what he says in terms 
of where the decisions might be made, but I disagree with him in terms 
of his characterization of the divide that exists in this debate. I do 
not really think it is a question of where should the decision be made.
  In my own welfare proposal that I made before the Senate Finance 
Committee, I left it entirely up to the States. Let the States decide 
what the makeup of the program should be. Let the States decide what 
the eligibility should be. Let the States decide what the time periods 
are. Let the States decide what the sanctions are.
  That was not the divide in the debate. The fundamental difference in 
the debate was, should there be a continuation of an automatic 
stabilizer, a mechanism that allows the State to be assisted by the 
Federal Government if there is a circumstance in which State resources 
are overwhelmed.
  Mr. President, if there is a flood in Mississippi, if there is a 
drought in 

[[Page S 12769]]
North Dakota, if there is an earthquake in California, if there is an 
economic collapse in Pennsylvania, some of us believe just as fervently 
as does the Senator from Pennsylvania that the Federal Government has 
an obligation to make certain the kids in that State do not wind up on 
the street.
  I remember being in the State of California, going down the street in 
San Francisco, in one of the most affluent neighborhoods of that 
beautiful city, and encountering a young mother with two children 
sitting on the curb with a sign that said, ``I'm homeless. Please help 
me.'' I inquired of the woman, who was dressed as a middle-class person 
and her children were well groomed, ``How did you wind up on the 
streets of San Francisco?'' And she said to me, ``My husband left 
without notice, abandoned the family. I could not make the house 
payment. I was just evicted yesterday.'' And here sat this young woman, 
a lovely young woman, with two little kids on the street in San 
Francisco, CA, begging for money to feed her children.
  If, God forbid, we are in a circumstance in which California suffers 
a whole other series of economic calamities or, closer to home, my home 
State suffers through another devastating drought as we did in 1988 and 
1989, there comes a time when a flat level of funding from the Federal 
Government does not do the job, does not protect people who I think 
everyone in this Chamber would want to see protected.
  The fundamental debate here is are we going to preserve an automatic 
stabilizer that says to individual States if they suffer an economic 
collapse or some other calamity, that it will not just be a flat 
funding from the Federal Government and strained State resources that 
are ready to meet the challenge but this country stands together 
united. That is why we are the United States of America. Over and over, 
we have seen this country respond to tragedy. Whether it was the 
bombing in Oklahoma, the earthquakes in California, or the drought in 
my State, we stood together as one nation under God, indivisible, and 
we came to help out, to make certain that a young mother with two 
little kids was not on the street because the husband deserted the 
family and the house payment was not made.
  Mr. President, let me just say, if the American people agree on one 
thing, it is that the current welfare system is broken. Make no mistake 
about it. Both sides are offering dramatic changes with respect to how 
we deal with welfare in America.
  The current system is one that nobody respects. The taxpayers do not 
respect it. Those who are caught in the welfare system do not respect 
it. The current system does not emphasize work. It contains perverse 
incentives that actually break up low-income families. It allows 
parents to abdicate responsibility for raising their children. It 
allows fathers to escape their child support obligations. And it 
subjects 9.5 million children and 4 million mothers to a future of 
hardship and failure. That is why on both sides of the aisle there is a 
fundamental commitment to reforming our welfare system and rebuilding 
it from the ground up.
  Mr. President, in January I began to develop my own alternative 
welfare reform legislation. I called it the Work And Gainful Employment 
Act. I hoped it would foster a bipartisan dialog on welfare. The WAGE 
Act was the first Senate proposal to completely reform our welfare 
system while maintaining an economic safety net for States and 
children.
  It represented a substantial departure from the past. And I am proud 
that many of the concepts included in the WAGE Act are now in the Work 
First proposal offered on our side. Under the WAGE Act States receive 
unprecedented flexibility to experiment. They can develop the methods 
for moving welfare recipients to work. They have complete flexibility 
to design employment programs, determine eligibility criteria, develop 
sanctions, and determine the support that individuals receive. States 
may establish time limits of any duration, but those limits only apply 
to participants who refuse to work.
  The WAGE Act eliminates the unconditional entitlement of AFDC, but 
unlike the blank check block grant approach in the Republican bill, it 
does not abdicate Federal responsibility. Instead, my bill replaces 
AFDC with a new transitional aid program. Under that program, welfare 
recipients must work in order to receive benefits. The WAGE Act also 
creates a block grant to fund child care work activities and includes 
the resources to put people to work. The only part of the current 
system that is maintained by my plan is the safety net for States and 
children. That is where we have a fundamental difference and divide 
between the two sides. My plan assures that as poverty and population 
increase, as recessions occur, and as natural disasters confront our 
States, the Nation will not abandon Americans in need.
  Mr. President, I am disappointed in the partisan nature of the 
welfare debate to this point. I very much hoped that we would approach 
welfare on a bipartisan basis. In fact, Senator Chafee and I authored 
one of the few bipartisan welfare-related proposals, the Children's SSI 
Eligibility Reform Act, which I incorporated into the WAGE Act that I 
offered earlier this year.
  Mr. President, I listened to the majority leader on the floor in 
August when Senator Kennedy questioned him about the lack of resources 
for child care in the Republican bill. The majority leader said he was 
aware of the problem. He said he was discussing possible solutions 
within his caucus. Mr. President, I would say to the majority leader, 
this problem should come as no surprise.
  When the Finance Committee debated welfare, I asked the Congressional 
Budget Office whether the Republican proposal had sufficient resources 
to meet its work requirements. It was a very important point, Mr. 
President and my colleagues. The Congressional Budget Office looked at 
the Republican plan and told us in open hearing that 44 of the 50 
States of these United States would have no work requirement under the 
Republican plan, a plan that puts itself forward as work oriented, 
tough on work. If the Congressional Budget Office said in testimony 
before the Senate Finance Committee that 44 of the 50 States under the 
Republican plan will have no work requirement, that is not tough on 
work. That is not insisting that people go to work. That is no work 
requirement at all in 44 of the 50 States, because the States would be 
better off taking the penalty than actually having the funds necessary 
to require people to go to work.
  Mr. President, that is a fundamental difference between what the 
Republicans hold out as a work-oriented bill and the Work First 
proposal advanced by this side, a proposal that has sufficient funding 
to deliver on the promise of moving people from welfare to work. And 
that ought to be the first test of any bill. No serious effort to 
reform welfare can succeed without child care.
  Shortly before I offered my WAGE Act, Governors Carper, Carnahan, and 
Caperton wrote me in support of my bill. In their letter the Governors 
describe the elements needed for serious welfare reform. The Governors 
said in part:

       The litmus test for any real reform is whether or not it 
     adequately answers the following three questions:
       First, does it prepare welfare recipients for work?
       Second, does it help welfare recipients find a job?
       Third, does it enable welfare recipients to maintain a job?

  The Governors went on to say, and I quote:

       Your bill meets this test because it provides assistance to 
     prepare individuals for work, to help individuals find and 
     keep jobs, and to ensure that work pays more than welfare.

  They went on to say:

       Your bill appropriately recognizes the critical link of 
     child care in enabling welfare recipients to work and 
     emphasizes that both parents have a responsibility to their 
     children with the inclusion of measures to increase paternity 
     establishments, child support collections, and interstate 
     cooperation of child support enforcement.

  Mr. President, while the WAGE Act and Work First Act both recognize 
the critical child-care link, the Dole bill gets a failing grade. Not 
only does it fail to provide child care, but it kicks children off of 
welfare roles if their parents are unable to work because child care is 
unavailable. That makes no sense. It is unconscionable to subject 
children to a time limit regardless 

[[Page S 12770]]
of whether their parents receive the child care they need to become 
employed.
  That is a catch-22 for the kids. But the Dole bill does precisely 
that. Mr. President, not only does the Dole bill include insufficient 
resources for child care and job training--and that is not my estimate, 
that is the bipartisan Congressional Budget Office telling us that that 
is a fact--it amounts to a $16.7 billion unfunded mandate to the 
States.
  We have heard a lot of talk around here about how bad it is to have 
an unfunded mandate for the States. But that is exactly what the Dole 
bill represents, a huge unfunded mandate to the States. It calls for 
more welfare recipients to go to work, but it does not provide the 
money or the resources to make that happen. It calls for child care to 
be provided, but insufficient resources are made available.
  Mr. President, the Republican plan is from the land of make believe. 
You say it and it is true. We are going to move people to work. But the 
resources are not provided to make that happen, so it is all a hoax. It 
is just words. And, again, that is not my analysis. That is the 
Congressional Budget Office telling us 44 of the 50 States will not 
have a work requirement under this proposal. There has been plenty of 
time since the Finance Committee met to get this bill right. But, 
frankly, no serious effort has been made.
  Now, I want this debate to be bipartisan. The American people want it 
to be bipartisan. They do not care whether the solution has a 
Democratic or Republican label. They just want the problem fixed. But 
they want real reform, not false promises, not just words, not just 
rhetoric. They want the reality of changing this system.
  Mr. President, when I set out to develop a welfare reform proposal, I 
started with four principles. One, emphasize work; two, protect 
children; three, provide flexibility to the States; and four, 
strengthen families.
  Mr. President, a reformed welfare system should require people to 
work in order to receive assistance. This is where those of us on both 
sides of the aisle, I think, are in agreement. I believe there is a 
consensus that if people are going to get something, they ought to 
work. If a reformed welfare system does that and enables States to 
experiment, helps keep families together, then the American people will 
have a system worth respecting.
  The proposal I developed meets those tests. The Work First proposal, 
that I am proud to cosponsor with the Democratic leader, does as well. 
But the Republican bill does not.
  Mr. President, both my proposal and Senator Daschle's put work first. 
They take action where the Republican proposal makes promises. Unlike 
the Dole and Gramm proposals, they provide the resources necessary to 
make work a reality.
 And Work First protects children; the Republican plan does not.

  Mr. President, while Work First provides States with unprecedented 
flexibility to develop welfare programs, it also requires States to 
match Federal contributions so they do not get a free ride. The 
Republican plan does not.
  We all agree that State flexibility is important, but there is an 
enormous difference between a flexible program and a blank check. The 
Dole block grant program is a blank check. It divorces who spends the 
money from who raises the money, and that is a profoundly misguided 
principle. We ought not to separate the responsibility of raising money 
from the responsibility of spending that money.
  There are some similarities between the Democratic and Republican 
proposals. Both are significant departures from the status quo. They 
are departures from a system that focuses too much on writing checks 
and too little on promoting work and self-sufficiency. Both junk overly 
prescriptive Federal regulations, and both provide significant 
flexibility for States. But the shortcomings of the Republican proposal 
are a lost opportunity. Without significant changes now, the Republican 
proposal will undoubtedly require substantial future revisions by the 
Congress, and those revisions will come after the Republican plan has 
irreversibly harmed millions of vulnerable children and wreaked havoc 
on State economies.
  Let me highlight a few of the most significant shortcomings in the 
Republican proposal and how our approach differs.
  First, the work requirements in the Dole proposal are hollow. The 
Republican plan provides essentially flat funding for States while 
calling for an increased effort at putting people to work. Work First, 
on the other hand, makes a serious effort to provide the necessary 
resources to put people to work. It uses savings from the welfare 
system to put welfare recipients to work and includes the resources 
necessary to fund work programs.
  I do not disagree with the goal of the Republican proposal, but it 
simply does not add up. If we are going to make an honest effort to put 
people to work, we should remember the words of responsible 
commentators like the Republican Governor from Wisconsin, Tommy 
Thompson, when he testified before the Finance Committee. Governor 
Thompson reminded all of us that it takes an upfront investment to have 
a work requirement. Senator Moynihan recalls that, no doubt. We need to 
provide resources for child care and job training if we are going to 
have a serious work requirement.
  Second, the Republican plan eliminates the safety net for children 
and the automatic stabilization mechanism for States. Whatever the 
faults of the current welfare system, and they are many, it does 
automatically adjust for changing needs.
  I am going to conclude soon, because I have colleagues waiting to 
speak. Under the Republican plan, States are left to face crises on 
their own. Whether faced with a drought in North Dakota, a flood in 
Mississippi, an earthquake in California, or an economic downturn in 
Pennsylvania, the Federal Government ought to help stabilize State 
economies. The Work First plan continues the Federal Government's 
responsibility; the Dole plan does not.
  The Republican bill includes a so-called rainy day loan fund. But the 
funding is simply not sufficient to confront the magnitude of economic 
impacts that occur during State recessions or disasters. Even New 
Jersey's Republican Governor has said the rainy day fund in Senator 
Dole's bill won't get the job done.
  The genius of a national approach to automatically assisting 
individual States that experience recessions, large population 
increases, high unemployment, increases in poverty or natural 
disasters, is that we all support each other in times of need. Part of 
what binds us as a nation is our sense of mutual obligation and common 
purpose. Our entire Nation watched as California struggled to overcome 
the devastation from the L.A. earthquake. The same was true after 
Hurricane Andrew and the Oklahoma bombing. And whenever one State is in 
recession, we provide an influx of national resources through 
unemployment insurance and other Federal programs.
  The current funding structure automatically adjusts to State need. It 
accomplishes automatically what any nation should guarantee to its 
citizens--they will not be abandoned in their time of greatest need. 
But under the Republican proposal, States would have to borrow the 
money and pay it back while they still may be in the midst of a 
recession or other economic emergency. The Dole bill's rainy day fund 
is clearly a second-best approach.
  Third, Mr. President, the Republican bill makes a hollow commitment 
to ensure that teen mothers will receive the adult supervision they 
need to improve their lives and the futures of their children.
  In the Finance Committee, I offered an amendment that would have 
required all teen mothers to live with their parents, some other 
responsible adult, or in an adult supervised setting like a second 
chance home. To my surprise, that amendment failed on a tie 10-10 vote. 
I would have expected overwhelming support for such a provision. But 
every Republican on the committee except for Senator Nickles opposed 
the amendment.
  Now the Republican bill includes the adult supervision requirement 
and another provision I have been advocating for some time--a 
requirement that minor parents stay in school. But again, the rhetoric 
and reality are two different things. First, the requirements are a 
facade because the bill provides no resources. Without sufficient 
resources, infants and their young mothers who have no place to go will 


[[Page S 12771]]
simply be denied needed assistance. Second, the Republican plan fails 
to guarantee that adult supervised living environments will be 
available to young mothers as an alternative to living in an abusive 
household. To be serious, any requirement that teenage parents live 
with a parent or other responsible adult must provide alternatives when 
no such adult is available. Therefore, I plan to offer an amendment 
that will provide Federal resources for second chance homes. Second 
chance homes are adult supervised living arrangements that provide the 
training, child care, counseling, and other resources that teenage 
parents need to learn how to care for their children. And they work.
  When the Finance Committee held its hearings on welfare reform, 
Sister Mary Rose McGeady from Covenant House gave the most compelling 
testimony we heard. She told us that Covenant House works. Covenant 
House takes in teenage parents and helps them build a future for 
themselves and their children. She also told us that Covenant House has 
been extremely successful in preventing second pregnancies among the 
girls it serves.
  We know that 42 percent of welfare recipients gave birth as teens. 
And we also know that the younger a girl is when she gives birth, the 
more likely she will become a long-term welfare recipient. But Covenant 
House and other second chance homes increase the chance that these 
mothers will break out of the welfare failure chain.
  We should not penalize the children of teenage mothers simply because 
of the circumstances into which they were born. Nor should we allow 
their mothers the option of getting a benefit check that is a ticket to 
their own apartment. Rather, teenage mothers should have to finish 
school and learn how to take care of themselves and their children. 
They should learn the kind of responsibility that will not only improve 
their lives, but the future prospects of their children. That will only 
happen it States receive the resources necessary to make second chance 
homes a reality.
  The U.S. Catholic Conference, the National Council of Churches, 
Catholic Charities U.S.A., and many others agree with me that second 
chance homes should be included in reform. We are all concerned about 
the need for strong welfare reform that discourages out-of-wedlock 
pregnancies. I hope my Republican colleagues will work with me to make 
second chance homes a reality.
  But while I see enormous potential for Republicans and Democrats to 
work together on many aspects of welfare reform, there is one 
significant problem. The sponsors of welfare reform on the Republican 
side have shown complete unwillingness to move from their block grant 
approach. They argue that block grants are the only way to provide 
State flexibility. But, Mr. President, that's simply not true. Both the 
WAGE Act and Work First provide States with unprecedented flexibility 
without dumping welfare completely on the backs of State and local 
taxpayers.
  The block grant in the Republican bill is the height of 
irresponsibility. History will prove that fact. We must all recognize 
that the need for a nationwide safety net has nothing to do with 
whether Governors or Members of Congress care more about children. 
Obviously, we all care deeply about our children.
  But ending our Nation's safety net for children is extremely 
dangerous. Neither Governors nor Members of Congress can prevent the 
uncertainties that come from the business cycle, recessions, population 
shifts between States and natural disasters. If we abolish a safety net 
for children, the security of our Nation's children will be left to 
chance, depending solely on where a child lives. It is inconsistent at 
best for those who preach about morality and family values to support a 
plan that undermines those values.
  The Work First plan strikes the right balance. It prohibits any 
unconditional entitlement to welfare benefits. Instead, it requires 
people to work in return for welfare. While it includes a few basic 
requirements for States, it also provides States with significant 
flexibility. It wipes out the 45 State plan requirements that are 
currently in AFDC. Work First replaces the old requirements with only a 
few categories. It provides States with the flexibility to design 
employment programs; provide incentives to case managers for successful 
job placements and retention among the welfare population; determine 
program eligibility; and establish a number of other policies under the 
State work program.
  The last time the Senate acted on welfare reform, we passed a 
bipartisan bill with 96 votes. There are many aspects of welfare reform 
on which Republicans and Democrats can agree. But I am disappointed in 
the block-grants-or-bust approach being taken by the Republican 
majority. There are responsible and innovative ways to address this 
issue without the second-best pure block grant approach.
  I developed the WAGE bill in order to demonstrate that there is, 
indeed, a better way to reform welfare. The Work First Act closely 
parallels my approach. I sincerely hope that my Republican and 
Democratic colleagues alike will support Work First. Work First scraps 
a system that is broken. It uses the best ideas to build an effective 
welfare system that will move people into work and keep families 
together. And it allows States the freedom to try new ideas. I strongly 
believe that Work First offers the best possibility for bipartisan 
welfare reform this year.
  Mr. President, I want to conclude by thanking my colleague, Senator 
Moynihan, who has been a visionary on this question for longer than 
most people have been aware that it was a critical problem facing this 
country. I can remember so well 30 years ago when my colleague from New 
York warned this Nation of what was to come, and he has been precisely 
correct in what he predicted.
  There is no other Member of this Chamber, there is no other academic 
in American society, there is no other expert who predicted with such 
accuracy and such vision what would occur in this country. No one has 
matched the predictive power of the Senator from New York, and I think 
his views are owed special deference because he is the only one here 
who has a track record of accurately predicting what would happen in 30 
years. It is truly remarkable the vision that he has had with respect 
to this issue, and I have listened to and learned from my colleague 
from New York. I hope other colleagues, before this debate is 
concluded, will listen and learn from this very wise man.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague on the Finance 
Committee and my friend from North Dakota for his very generous 
remarks. May I make the point that it was he who asked in the Finance 
Committee, how are you going to provide for the job training provisions 
in the majority measure, and the CBO simply said, ``You can't.''
  It was a clear and concise statement of what we are up against and 
what we are going to do to ourselves if we do not come to our senses.
  I thank the Senator from North Dakota.
  I see my friend from Minnesota is here.
  Mr. GRAMS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, every sports fan in America celebrated 
along with Baltimore's Cal Ripken last night; when he played in his 
2,131 consecutive game and broke a baseball record most thought could 
never be toppled.
  That is an impressive feat; even more impressive when you consider 
that ``The Streak'' represents more than 13 years of dedication, 
sacrifice, and plenty of hard work.
  There is another consecutive streak you should know about, one that 
has not received nearly the attention that Cal Ripken's has, but one 
that affects a lot more people, and imposes an enormous cost on the 
American taxpayers. Worst of all, this streak has gone on unchecked for 
more than 30 years.
  Since the Great Society programs of the 1960's--for three long 
decades--taxpayers have suffered through a consecutive Federal spending 
streak that has taken more than 5 trillion of their tax dollars and 
siphoned them off to fund a welfare system that, frankly, has done more 
harm than good.
  Mr. President, I hope Cal Ripken's streak goes on forever, but the 
uncontrolled welfare spending streak must 

[[Page S 12772]]
come to an end, and it is up to us to stop it. I rise today to remind 
my colleagues of a simple truth, and that is, the people are demanding 
that this Congress take responsibility for our broken welfare system 
and fix it.
  Last year, when I was running for the Senate, I listened to 
Minnesotans as we sat down together in their coffee shops and truck 
stops, in their businesses and in their homes.
  They asked me over and over again: ``What are you going to do about 
welfare?''
  I told them we were going to fix it, and many of my colleagues made 
the same promise.
  As you know, we just returned from a 3-week recess, and like many 
others, I had the opportunity to spend that time traveling my State, 
meeting with people once again and again listening to their concerns.
  But the question this time was not ``What are you going to do about 
welfare?'' The question now was ``What are you doing about it?''
  The people are expecting solutions, not delays, not the attempts we 
are seeing to derail this critically important legislation.
  For three decades, it has been the taxpayers who have paid the price 
for a welfare system that does little but encourage dependency and 
illegitimacy.
  For three decades, the taxpayers have continually turned over their 
hard-earned dollars to individuals instead of bettering their own 
families and helping secure their own futures. The taxpayers have been 
subsidizing hopelessness and despair.
  Congress has attempted to repair this mess before. The last major 
effort was in 1988, with the passage of the Family Support Act. On the 
day that conference report was passed in the House, my good friend, 
Bill Archer, now chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, went to the 
floor with a warning.
  He said:

       My criteria for welfare reform are that after 5 years of 
     implementation we should be able to say to the taxpayers of 
     this country that we have been able to encourage and to 
     remove welfare recipients from the rolls so that it results 
     in a program which has fewer welfare recipients than would 
     occur under the current law. We should be able to say to the 
     working people of this country that the cost of this program 
     will result, after 5 years, in reduced taxes necessary to pay 
     for welfare. This bill fails on both accounts.

  Mr. President, he could not have been more right, and we should have 
listened.
  Today, 7 years later, we have 1.3 million more families on the AFDC 
rolls than we had back in 1988. Seven years later, the working people 
of America are paying more taxes than they have ever paid before--4.5 
percent more than they paid in 1988. We cannot continue to think that 
we will solve the welfare problem by throwing more precious taxpayer 
dollars at it, hoping that they will do some good. And, at last, I 
think we have a Congress that understands.
  Instead of encouraging the status quo, the Republican welfare reform 
legislation offers welfare families a future. It offers hope. Yes, it 
does ask something in return from those who benefit from it. But what 
it gives back is something infinitely more valuable: self-esteem, a 
sense of accomplishment, and a chance to create a better life for 
themselves and their children.
  The first step in creating that better life does not require anything 
more than a commitment. In breaking that long-held baseball record last 
night, Cal Ripken reminded us all that a person does not necessarily 
need to be the strongest, or the fastest, or the biggest player on the 
team to make a lasting contribution. Sometimes those with the most to 
give are simply the folks who show up every day, ready to work, eager 
to make a contribution.
  Taxpayers do that. They show up for work every day, put in 40-plus 
hours a week for their hard earned money. They make a contribution.
  With our legislation, we are encouraging welfare recipients to step 
up to the plate and take their turn at bat, to start lifting 
themselves, with our help, toward something better. We are not 
expecting home runs, but we will expect them to show up at the 
ballpark, ready to contribute. If we can accomplish that, then we 
cannot help but succeed.
  Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to get serious about moving this 
legislation forward. I have heard about the terms of bipartisan support 
and a bipartisan effort. I hope that is what we can come down to as we 
go on with this debate, that we do come to a consensus that this is a 
bipartisan effort. I heard my colleague from North Dakota say we are 
not going to get everything he wants or everything I want, but 
hopefully we can come together with a plan that does meet the needs, 
obligations, and the responsibilities to our taxpayers. And they expect 
nothing less. Thank you, Mr. President.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, may I congratulate the Senator from 
Minnesota not only for the substance of his remarks but for the elegant 
way in which last night's events in Baltimore were used as a metaphor 
for what it was about. Having in my youth watched Lou Gehrig at the 
Yankee Stadium, I had a certain ambivalence about it, but nothing like 
upward and onward.
  I will just say that regarding the substance of what is hoped for in 
welfare, there is a consensus, surprisingly, and it commences with the 
1988 legislation, which redefines a widow's pension as a reality of 
this time. There is no agreement on how you finance--pay for--what 
needs doing.
  Yet, the Senator from Minnesota spoke very properly about the 
prospect of consensus and bipartisanship, and I hope we may yet find 
that. We have done it in the past; why not in the future?
  None speaks more ably and with more of a record in this regard than 
the Senator from Illinois. I see that he has risen. I believe he would 
like to address the Senate in this matter. I ask him how long he would 
like?
  Mr. SIMON. Five minutes.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. In 5 minutes, the Senator from Illinois can say more 
than most of us do in 50. I am happy to yield him the time.
  Mr. SIMON. I thank the Senator from New York. I wish he were accurate 
in that.
  We all want welfare reform. I heard the Presiding Officer at a 
committee meeting this morning talk about the need for that. I do 
regret that we do not have more of a bipartisan effort, not only on 
this but on a lot of things. This has happened gradually over a period 
of years on the Hill, and I think it has not been a healthy thing. So 
when the Senator from Minnesota makes his comments about the need for 
working together, I agree. I heard Senator Ted Stevens make similar 
comments yesterday morning, and Senator Byrd has made some comments 
along that line.
  Real candidly, the principal bill that we have, without the 
amendment, does not deal with the problem of poverty, does not deal 
with the problem of jobs. Whether you have a Democratic Senate or a 
Republican Senate, whether you have a Democratic President or a 
Republican President, one thing is not going to change, one trend line: 
the demand for unskilled labor is going down. Most of those on welfare 
are people who do not have skills. And so to have real welfare reform, 
we really have to be talking about jobs, ultimately. But, in the 
meantime, we cannot let people fall through the cracks.
  I heard what our colleague from North Dakota, Senator Conrad, said 
about Senator Moynihan. Senator Moynihan knows more about welfare than 
all of the rest of this body put together--meaning no disrespect to my 
colleagues here from Arizona and Minnesota, and anywhere else. But the 
reality is that we have, as a Nation, said we are committed to having a 
safety net for people. This bill, unamended, takes out the safety net. 
That is the reality. The State maintenance effort that is now required 
will die. If Arizona wants to do nothing, Arizona can do nothing. And 
if Illinois wants to do nothing, Illinois can do nothing.
  Let me add one other point. The Dole bill takes a bill that emerged 
from the Labor and Human Resources Committee, dealing with job training 
and a number of other things like that, and just drops it wholesale in 
here--a bill that I think most of us on the committee know needs to be 
refined. For example, the Job Corps is just decimated. Now, the Job 
Corps needs to be improved. But 79 percent of the people in the Job 
Corps are high school dropouts. This is not a Sunday school class we 
are picking up and saying we want to help you along; these are people 
who are on the fringes, and the Job Corps 

[[Page S 12773]]
has been a remarkably successful enterprise.
  I will have an amendment, Mr. President, that is identical to a bill 
that Senator Boren and Senator Reid and Senator Wofford and I 
introduced last year, which will call for an experiment--basically, a 
WPA type of program in four locations, to be picked by the Secretary of 
Labor, in which we will say that you can be on welfare 5 weeks--not 5 
years, not 2 years, but 5 weeks--and you have to work 4 days a week at 
the minimum wage. The fifth day you have to be out trying to find a job 
in the private sector. We will give you $535 a month--not much money, 
but at least something. I do not recall the average in Arizona, but the 
average welfare payment per family in Illinois is $367. And then 
projects would be picked by local citizens, and these people will work 
on the projects, as we did in the old WPA.
  Screen people as they come in. If they cannot read and write, get 
them into a program. If they have no marketable skill, then get them to 
a community college.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coats). The time of the Senator has 
expired.
  Mr. SIMON. Could I have 1 minute?
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. The Senator from Illinois can have as much time as he 
desires because he has so much to say and says it so well.
  Mr. SIMON. I thank my colleague from New York. I intend now to speak 
for 2 or 3 hours, but I shall not.
  One other great advantage of the WPA-type of program that I will 
offer in this amendment is we do not restrict it to one person in a 
household. One of the things that we have done through our welfare 
policies is discourage families from sticking together.
  If you can have two people earning an income on a WPA-type of 
project, then, frankly, they would have a chance of not living in 
luxury, but there would be the economic incentive for families to stick 
together rather than families to separate.
  I certainly am going to support the amendment offered by Senator 
Daschle and Senator Moynihan. I hope we do not do real harm to this 
country in the name of welfare reform. Everything that is under a label 
``welfare reform'' is not real good for this country. We have to 
recognize that.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I see the able and learned Senator from 
California has risen. She has asked if she might have 12 minutes. She 
most certainly can, and I look forward to hearing from her.
  Mrs. BOXER. Thank you very much, Mr. President. Thank you very much, 
Senator Moynihan, not only for the time but for your extraordinary 
leadership, your vision.
  I think it should send a chill through this body, whether we are 
Democrats or Republicans, men or women, moms, dads, single people, 
grandmothers, or grandfathers, when you discussed very clearly the 
results of the Republican plan: if it passes and is signed into law, it 
will undoubtedly mean children in deep despair, and in deep poverty. 
Your image of children sleeping on grates across this Nation is one 
which I take very seriously.
  There are few in this Congress and few in this country and I could 
even say, in my opinion, there are none, who have been so correct in 
their analysis of what is happening to the poor in this Nation. We have 
made many mistakes, the Senator from Minnesota is correct, as we have 
tried to deal with this very intractable problem. I hope we would not 
replace some of those mistakes with even deeper mistakes. I, therefore, 
applaud the call for bipartisanship as we deal with this issue.
  Mr. President, I think it is important to note that we are talking 
here about the Nation's children. If you look at my home State of 
California, approximately 70 percent of California AFDC recipients--
that is, those who are on welfare--are children. Let me repeat: in my 
home State of California, 70 percent of those on welfare are children. 
Children who were born into a circumstance not of their own making at 
all--just their circumstance.
  What we do here will impact them greatly. In many ways, we are their 
protectors, Mr. President. We are their protectors. I hope we will not 
abandon them.
  As I listened to the Senator from New York, my leader on this issue, 
I say that he has issued a warning that if the Dole bill passes 
unamended, in fact we will be doing just that. We will be saying that 
regardless of our statements in all of our campaigns--that children are 
the most important thing, that children are our future--that without 
our children getting a break, the country will go backwards. In fact we 
will be walking away from the future. We would be walking away from our 
responsibility.
  Many know I have had the great joy of becoming a grandmother for the 
first time. As I looked at that little child and saw all the love that 
he gets on a daily basis, I know how pleased he is. We can never 
guarantee anyone that they will have that much love in their life.
  But, my goodness, we have to give the basic guarantee to these 
innocents, to these babies, that they will not be left out in the cold. 
At least that, Mr. President. At least that.
  Now, it was President Clinton who brought this issue to our attention 
during his campaign. ``We must end welfare as we know it,'' he said. I 
think that President Clinton has a great deal of compassion in his 
heart for children.
  I know that he agrees with us in the Senate when we say, ``Let us 
reform welfare to benefit the children, not reform it to hurt the 
children.'' We will be judged on how we handle this bill. We will be 
judged in the abstract at first, but we will be judged by the results 
eventually.
  People will know if children are going hungrier, if more of the 
homeless are children. They will know where to point the finger, and it 
will be right here. If we take the Dole approach without amending it--
and I hope in a bipartisan fashion we will amend it--we will be hurting 
our children and we will see the results of that and we will know when 
and where it came from.
  I listened to my learned friend from New York talk about what 
happened to the homeless after we moved to close down mental 
institutions. For all the good reasons--we said, it is better to have 
our mentally ill in smaller institutions, smaller homes throughout the 
country. But something happened on the way to the Forum. We ran out of 
money and we never built those alternatives.
  This situation is worse because right off the top we know in the Dole 
bill we are freezing spending. At least when my predecessors tried to 
reform the mental health system, they had a plan. But this Dole bill is 
no plan. It is an abdication, not a plan. This is very, very troubling.
  Now, one of the things that upsets me perhaps more than any other, is 
that there is no clear way in the Dole bill that we are going to enable 
working moms and working dads to rely on child care.
  Child care is really an incidental in the Dole bill. It is wrapped 
into a job assistance grant. The funds are frozen. In California, we 
have thousands of kids today waiting in line to get into child care. We 
do nothing.
  I hearken this Senate back to the days of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, 
who is often praised by Republicans for his leadership. He knew we 
needed to get women into the workplace. We all know about ``Rosie the 
Riveter.'' Without women going to work and building the machinery of 
war that we had to build in this Nation--and we had to catch up because 
we were so behind in order to fight these battles--women were relied 
upon in the workplace. And Franklin Delano Roosevelt knew a woman was 
not going to abandon her child. She was going to need child care while 
the husband was off at war and she was off in the factory.
  According to Doris Kearns Goodwin in the book ``No Ordinary Time,'' 
which I commend to everyone, nearly $50 million was spent on child care 
before the end of the war.
 And the women blossomed in the workplace because they knew that their 
kids were OK.

  I like the Democratic alternative. I think it makes sense because 
what it says is: You must work, but we will make sure that you do not 
abandon your children. The Democratic plan is respectful of the family, 
is understanding of the family. The Democratic plan puts work first and 
children first. Work first and children first. The Republican plan 
takes us out of the game. It says to the States: Here it is. It is your 
problem. 

[[Page S 12774]]

  The people in our States understand in the end it will be their 
problem, because what is going to happen when there are more helpless 
and more homeless and more desperate people, and people are tripping 
over them in the street and we are out of it?
  We have to balance the budget, and we will. We will not have the 
money for welfare. And it will be the greatest unfunded mandate of all 
time, because people are not going to allow their communities to 
deteriorate.
  So I am very proud to support the Democratic alternative. I think it 
is smart. I think it builds on what success we have had. In California 
we have had success. In Riverside County, for example, and in Los 
Angeles County, we have put a large percentage of welfare recipients 
onto the work rolls because we have really given them what they need. 
But the Republican plan, that is going to lead to nothing but trouble--
trouble in the States, unfunded mandates laid on our State taxpayers, 
laid on our local taxpayers.
  I come from the local end of things. I got elected to the Board of 
Supervisors of Marin County a long time ago. I got calls at home when 
anything was going on in the street. I can assure you, county 
supervisors and city council people and mayors and Governors are going 
to be very upset when these problems appear in their communities and 
the Federal Government says, ``It is your problem.''
  Mr. President, an estimated 70 percent of welfare recipients are 
children and here we are walking away from those children. We do not 
have to do it. Let us be tough on work and kind to children. That is 
what the Democratic alternative does. I hope we will have bipartisan 
support for that. My cities in California are desperate about this. 
Billions of dollars will be lost to the big counties in California with 
the Republican plan--billions. Not millions but billions. And the 
problem will not go away.
  So I stand with the former chairman, the Democratic ranking member of 
the Finance Committee. His vision should not be ignored. We should 
learn from him. We should listen to him. He is the leader in this 
Nation on this issue. He predicted what would happen in the 
communities, the out-of-wedlock births, and the problems that would 
follow in society. And when he says he knows we are going to see kids 
sleeping on grates, and misery, and children who are out of control--he 
knows what he is talking about.
  So I stand with him proudly. I hope we will support the Democratic 
alternative and, if we lose that, that we will come together on 
amending the Dole bill. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, may I express particular personal thanks 
to the Senator from California for her generosity in her remarks, and 
to make the case--just comment--that in the aftermath of the Family 
Support Act, we had considerable successes in places such as Riverside. 
And we also had a continued rise in the number of families headed by 
women.
  The CBO has done the best analysis you can do with these things, a 
regression analysis. It states the caseload increase from late 1989 to 
1992, increases in the number of families headed by women explain just 
over half in the rise of the AFDC basic caseload. A quarter was the 
recession.
  I ask unanimous consent the analysis be printed in the Record at this 
point.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                    U.S. Congress,


                                  Congressional Budget Office,

                                   Washington, DC, August 6, 1993.
     Subject: CBO Staff Memorandum on Rising Caseloads in the Aid 
       to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) Program.

       We are enclosing a copy of ``Forecasting AFDC Caseloads, 
     with an Emphasis on Economic Factors,'' which was prepared by 
     Janice Peskin and John Tapogna in response to a request from 
     the Subcommittee on Human Resources of the Committee on Ways 
     and Means. To understand the upsurge in AFDC caseloads that 
     began during late 1989, the memorandum develops regression 
     models that estimate how various factors affect caseloads.
       The CBO model for the AFDC-Basic caseload indicates that:
       The effect on employment of the 1990-1991 recession--and 
     the relatively weak economy before and after the recession--
     accounts for about a quarter of the recent growth in 
     caseloads; and
       Increases in the number of families headed by women explain 
     just over half of the rise in the AFDC-Basic caseload.
       Looking ahead to the 1993-1995 period, increases in the 
     AFDC-Basic caseload are expected to be sizable. The main 
     underlying causes are growth in the number of families headed 
     by women--especially by never-married mothers--which is 
     expected to continue at a rapid rate, and the relatively weak 
     economic recovery that is forecast.
       We hope you find this report useful.

  Mr. MOYNIHAN. I do not want to go around looking like an Easter 
procession here or something, but to my friend from California, that is 
the pen with which John F. Kennedy, in his last public bill-signing 
ceremony, October 31, 1963, signed the Community Mental Health 
Construction Act of 1963.
  We were going to build 2,000 community mental health centers by the 
year 1980 and 1 per 100,000 population afterwards. We built 400 and we 
forgot what we were doing. We emptied out the mental institutions. The 
next thing you know, the problem of the homeless appears. I was there. 
He gave me this pen. And we said, ``The homeless? Where did they come 
from? It was certainly nothing we did.''
  It was exactly something we did. When you see those children sleeping 
on grates in 10 years time in your city, do not think it will not be 
recorded, thanks to the Senator from California, that you can see it 
coming. Somebody might keep the pen with which this bill is going to be 
signed, if in fact it is signed, for such an occasion.
  Mr. President, I thank, again, the Senator from California. I see the 
Senator from Michigan is on the floor. Would he like to speak?
  The Senator from Michigan asks 15 minutes. The Senator from 
Pennsylvania has nobody wishing to speak.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will advise the Senator from New 
York that the time remaining under the time agreement for his side is 
12 minutes and 45 seconds.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. The Senator from Michigan is accordingly granted 12 
minutes. We will have 45 seconds to wrap up. Is that agreeable?
  Mr. LEVIN. I will be happy to take 10.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. No, we understood this would happen and it has 
happened.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan is recognized.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I thank my friend from New York. I also 
thank him, much more importantly, for the extraordinary wisdom, as well 
as passion, with which he addresses this subject. The experience that 
he has, the institutional and national memory which he carries around 
up there in his head, is unique. I just wish there were more of us like 
him in that capacity, to learn from experience not just what is 
achievable, but also to pass along the lessons of unintended 
consequences for so many things that we do.
  Mr. President, the Nation's welfare system does not serve the Nation 
well. It is broken in a number of places. It has failed the children 
that it is intended to protect. It has failed the American taxpayer.
  I am hopeful the debate in the Senate will result in a constructive 
effort which will finally end the current system and achieve meaningful 
reform. Meaningful reform will assure that children are protected, that 
able-bodied people work, and that child support enforcement laws are 
fully effective in getting fathers to support their children.
  The history of this country's welfare reform is littered with the 
remains of programs that have begun with high expectations but fall 
short in reality. Welfare has too often been a cycle of dependence 
instead of independence. It makes no sense to continue a system which 
contains incentives for people to be on welfare. We have an obligation 
to break this cycle for all concerned.
  The imperative of ending welfare dependency has led me to conclude 
that one component of welfare reform must be time limits on welfare 
benefits, in order to force able-bodied recipients to seek and secure 
employment.
  The Daschle work first bill fundamentally changes the current welfare 
system by replacing a system of unconditional, unlimited aid with 
conditional benefits for a limited time. But it does so without 
abandoning the national goal of helping children. Under the work first 
bill, in order to 

[[Page S 12775]]
receive assistance, all recipients must sign an empowerment contract. 
This contract will contain an individual plan, designed to move the 
recipient promptly into the work force. Those who refuse to sign a 
contract will not get assistance, and tough sanctions will apply to 
those not complying with the contract that they sign. I have long 
believed that work requirements should be clear, strong, and should be 
applied promptly.
 I am pleased that Senator Daschle has accepted a modification at my 
request which adds a requirement that recipients be in job training or 
in school or working in a private sector job within 6 months of the 
receipt of benefits, or, if a private sector job cannot be found, in 
community service employment. The requirement would be phased in to 
allow the States the opportunity to adjust administratively.

  The Dole legislation requires recipients to work within no more than 
2 years of the receipt of benefits. But why wait that long? Why wait 2 
years? Unless an able-bodied person is in school or job training, why 
wait longer than 6 months to require that a person either have a 
private job or be performing community service?
  There is no doubt that there is a great need in local communities 
across the country for community service workers. Last year, the demand 
for community service workers from the President's AmeriCorps Program 
was far greater than the ability to fund them. According to AmeriCorps, 
of the 538 project applications requesting approximately 60,000 
workers, applications for only about 20,000 workers, about a third, 
could be funded. Projects ranged from environmental cleanup, to 
assisting in day care centers, to home health care aides. So it is 
clear that there is no shortage of need for community service and for 
workers to perform community service.
  Mr. President, I have long been concerned about the cycle of 
dependency and the need to return welfare recipients to work. As long 
as 14 years ago, in 1981, I was the author, along with Senator Dole, of 
an amendment which was enacted into law to put some welfare recipients 
back to work as home health care aides, thereby decreasing the welfare 
rolls and increasing the local tax base.
  This demonstration project called for the training and placement of 
AFDC recipients as home care aides to Medicaid recipients as a long-
term care alternative to institutional care and was subject to rigorous 
evaluation of demonstration and the post-demonstration periods.
  The independently conducted program evaluation found that in six of 
the seven demonstration projects, trainees' total monthly earnings 
increased by 56 percent to over 130 percent during the demonstration 
period. Evaluations of the post-demonstration years indicated similarly 
positive and significant income effects.
  Consistent with the increase in employment, trainees also received 
reduced public benefits. All seven States moved a significant 
proportion of trainees off of AFDC. In four of the States, a 
significant proportion of the trainees also were moved off of the Food 
Stamp Program or received significantly reduced benefit amounts.
  Additionally, the program evaluation indicated that it significantly 
increased the amount of formal in-home care received by Medicaid 
clients and had significant beneficial effects on client health and 
functioning. The evaluation also indicates that clients benefited from 
marginally reduced costs for the services that they received.
  As the 1986 evaluation of our demonstration project showed, this type 
of demonstration had great potential in allowing local governments to 
respond to priority needs and assist members of their community in 
obtaining the training necessary to obtain practical, meaningful 
private-sector employment and become productive, self-sufficient 
members of their community.
  So experience has shown that we must be much more aggressive in 
requiring recipients to work. But, as we require recipients to work, we 
must remember that another important part of the challenge facing us is 
that two-thirds of the welfare recipients nationwide are children. 
Almost 10 million American children--nearly 400,000 in my home State of 
Michigan alone--receive benefits. We must not punish the kids in our 
welfare reform.
  I am hopeful that the 104th Congress will get people off welfare and 
into jobs, in the privilege sector, if possible, but in community 
service, if necessary.
  I want to again commend and congratulate Senator Moynihan for his 
decades of work on this issue. I want to congratulate Senators Daschle, 
Mikulski, Breaux, and so many others of our colleagues who have worked 
on the Daschle work first bill, which I am proud to cosponsor.
  The work first bill is tough on getting people into jobs. But it 
provides the necessary incentives and resources to the States not only 
to require people to work, but to help people find jobs and to keep 
them.
  Mr. President, I have focused on making sure that able-bodied people 
on welfare work. That has been a focus of my efforts for over a decade 
now in this body, and I have described one of those efforts, with 
Senator Dole, that we actually succeeded in putting into place over a 
decade ago that had some very positive effects. But there are other 
critically important elements of positive welfare reform. The number of 
children born to unwed teenaged mothers has continued to rise at 
totally unacceptable rates. We all recognize the need to do something 
about this and to remove any incentives created by the welfare system 
for teenagers to have children. I support teen pregnancy prevention 
programs with flexibility for the States in its implementation.
  We also know that the problem of teen pregnancy and unwed teenaged 
parents is not going to be completely eliminated or easily eliminated. 
So I support provisions which require teen parents to continue their 
education and job training and to live either at home with an adult 
family member or in an adult-supervised group home in order to qualify 
for benefits.
  We should not erode the Federal safety net for low-income working 
families and for families who have exhausted their unemployment 
benefits. We frequently forget those families. Working families who 
lose their jobs get unemployment and then exhaust their unemployment. 
These are working people.
  Tens of thousands of people in my home State of Michigan, over 
329,000 nationally, who are working people who have exhausted their 
unemployment benefits have had to move into welfare as a final resort. 
That was their final safety net. And responsible reform must assure 
that in times of economic crisis, funds are available for working 
families who have lost their jobs and exhausted their unemployment 
insurance. And the only way to do this is with a Federal safety net, 
that Federal safety net which the Senator from New York has spent so 
much time analyzing and discussing before this body.
  Child care assistance is an important facet of realistic welfare 
reform as it is for low-income working families who are not on welfare. 
Child care assistance is essential to help recipients keep a job and 
stay off welfare. Assistance is particularly needed in transition 
periods moving from welfare to work. That is why child care assistance 
is such an important feature of the work first plan, not just for 
people on welfare but for low-income people, whether or not they are on 
welfare.
  Another key element of any successful welfare program will be 
assuring that parents take responsibility for their children. So we 
must toughen and improve interstate enforcement of child support. I 
very much support provisions to require welfare recipients' cooperation 
in establishing the paternity of a child as a condition of eligibility 
for benefits, and a range of measures such as driver's license and 
passport restrictions, use of Federal income tax refunds, and an 
enhanced database capability for locating parents who do not meet their 
child support obligations.
  The Daschle amendment which is before us addresses these and other 
problems. It ends the failed welfare system and replaces it with a 
program to move people into jobs, to provide child care, to assure that 
parents take responsibility for the children they bring into the world, 
and it does this without penalizing America's children.
  So I intend to vote for Senator Daschle's work first welfare reform 

[[Page S 12776]]
  program to finally end the current system and achieve meaningful but 
realistic welfare reform.
  Again, I want to particularly single out our good friend from New 
York for the dedication which he has brought to this subject over so 
many decades, and for the wisdom which he imparts, and for the warnings 
which he really gives to all of us that we should do our best to reform 
the system but be aware of those unintended consequences. It is a 
lesson which each of us should heed.
  I thank my friend for the time.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair would advise the Senator from New 
York that he has 25 seconds remaining.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. I will use each of those seconds to thank my 
incomparably learned and capable friend from Michigan who has so 
wonderfully guided us in legal matters through this Congress and who 
has spoken so wisely about welfare and who has spoken generously about 
the Senator from New York.
  Mr. President, if I have 5 remaining seconds, I will retain them for 
some unspecified purpose.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time has expired.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, the majority leader has very generously 
suggested we might have an additional 15 minutes for our side, and the 
Senator from Vermont is present and I give him as much of that time as 
he wishes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont is recognized.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from New 
York and the distinguished Republican leader for the courtesy that in 
my years here I have grown accustomed to receiving from both of them.
  Mr. President, I am concerned about the welfare bill before us, the 
Republican version. I know that a lot of very good Senators on both 
sides of the aisle have been wrestling with the problems we face, but I 
worry about just how that wrestling match may come out.
  Mr. President, the Republican welfare bill is an all-out assault on 
low-income children and families. The bill is anti-child, anti-family 
and it does nothing to get people off welfare and into a job.
  The rhetoric being used to sell this bill to the American people is 
full of false promises. The bill is not reform.
  It boxes up welfare problems and ships them off to the States. On the 
outside of this box there ought to be, in big bold letters, a sign that 
says ``Local taxpayers beware.''
  Sending severely underfunded block grants to the States with no real 
emphasis on work will cost all of us more in the end. The Senate 
Republican plan cuts spending on welfare now, but you can be sure that 
local taxpayers will be picking up the tab later.
  According to the Congressional Budget Office, 44 of the 50 States 
will not meet work participation target rates in the Senate Republican 
bill because this plan fails to provide States with the money needed to 
achieve these rates.
  Here is another unfunded mandate being passed on to the State and 
local taxpayers.
  States must either swallow further cuts in Federal payments to the 
needy--or come up with more money from their own coffers.
  This makes no sense--unless the true purpose of this bill is to turn 
our back on the unemployed and further burden the taxpayer. You have to 
be tax-happy or cold-hearted to like this bill.
  In my home State of Vermont, the Republican bill would cut over $77 
million in cash assistance, supplemental security income, child care, 
and food stamps over the next 5 years.
  Under the Republican block grant proposal there will be no 
adjustments for high unemployment or recession. When the block grant 
money runs out, Vermonters will pick up the tab.
  Helping low-income Americans find a way out of poverty is a 
responsibility of both States and the Federal Government. The 
Republican plan abandons any national involvement in providing for the 
welfare of the Nation.
  States need more flexibility, but that does not mean shedding our 
national responsibility.
  I cannot support the Republican plan, but I intend to vote for the 
alternative proposal offered by Senator Daschle. The Democratic 
leader's plan continues a national commitment to keep families together 
and work their way off welfare.
  Families on welfare cannot get jobs if they do not have adequate 
child care support. They cannot keep their jobs unless there is a 
transition period for child care.
  The Democratic bill not only emphasizes helping people find work--but 
backs it up with the child care necessary to go to work.
  The Democratic alternative is a national commitment to help children 
and families work their way out of poverty. The Republican bill is a 
feel-good, do-nothing charade that takes a walk on the problem of 
poverty.
  There is a welfare scandal in this country that most Republicans have 
been strangely silent about. It is the scandal of corporate welfare.
  As we pause on the brink of slashing food assistance and child care 
to needy families, I wish we would think a little bit about the 
corporations that are receiving benefits from Uncle Sam.
  According to the conservative Cato Institute, the American taxpayer 
spends $85 billion a year on corporate welfare--not including tax 
loopholes that cost many billions of dollars more.
  The reason for this is simple. Low-income children cannot hire high-
priced Washington law firms. Those who can hire expensive law firms are 
spared the reform axe this year.
  The Senate Republican bill takes food, child care, housing assistance 
and assistance for disabled children away from families, but continues 
the practice of letting taxpayers foot part of the bill for wealthy 
corporations to lease limousines.
  We must look at the entire welfare system--including corporate 
welfare.
  Nobody on the Senate floor disagrees that we need to reform welfare 
aid for low-income families. We do. There are too many programs that do 
too little to help people get back to work.
  We need to ask more of those who receive assistance, but we should 
not abandon those who play by the rules. We also need to continue 
programs that reward low-income working families.
  This bill is just the latest attack by Republican leadership in 
Congress on low-income children and families. But families on welfare 
are not the only targets.
  Earlier this year, the Republican leadership announced plans to cut 
back the earned income tax credit [EITC]. This is a tax credit that 
rewards low-income Americans who work. It makes a huge difference for 
families struggling to pay the rent and buy food for their kids.
  Yes, you heard it right. The Republican leadership wants to raise 
taxes for low-income working families.
  The Republican budget resolution also cuts Medicaid by $180 billion 
over the next 7 years. Medicaid provides long-term care for low-income 
seniors, the disabled and health care for low-income children and 
families.
  Following through on the budget resolution, the House just cut 
billions out of next year's appropriations for education programs, Head 
Start and youth work programs.
  At the same time, the House is gearing up to pay for 20 additional B-
2 bombers at $1 billion a pop. A plane that the Pentagon has said it 
does not even want. We need to get our priorities straight.
  The Republican assault on programs that benefit low-income Americans 
comes at a time when census data shows the gap between the rich and the 
poor is greater than at any time since the end of World War II.
  If the present trends continue, the America that our children grow up 
in will look more like a Third World country, with deep gulfs between 
the rich and the poor.
  Programs that keep poor families together, rather than tearing them 
apart and programs that feed children so they can learn, are 
investments in our future. 

[[Page S 12777]]

  These investments will make America more productive.
  Members of Congress have benefited from the opportunities which have 
made America the land of opportunity.
  We have an obligation to make sure that those same opportunities are 
available for the next generation.
  We must work together to make responsible bipartisan changes to 
Federal programs that provide assistance to low-income children and 
families. I fear, however, the public policy is right now being 
overshadowed by Presidential politics.
  I hope that reason will prevail over hysteria as we all take a good 
hard look at how we can make welfare programs work better for all 
Americans.
  Mr. HEFLIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate has finally 
embarked on an earnest and vigorous debate on reforming welfare. Except 
for the balanced budget amendment, this is probably the most important 
legislation we will tackle in this Congress. There is no doubt that our 
current system is failing welfare recipients and taxpayers alike. I 
believe that all Senators recognize the shortcomings that exist in 
welfare and sincerely want to rectify them. Although there are some 
tough issues yet to be resolved, let us not shirk the responsibility we 
have to all citizens of this country to work together in passing 
meaningful welfare reform.
  We have before us various proposals to revise the Federal programs 
that provide assistance to the poor in our Nation. After reviewing the 
different recommendations, I have concluded that the Work First 
legislation authored by Senators Daschle, Breaux, and Mikulski contains 
the best alternatives to the current problems in our welfare system. 
First and foremost, the Work First plan mandates work for welfare 
recipients and an end to government dependency. The AFDC Program would 
be abolished and replaced by a time-limited benefit, conditional upon a 
recipient's signing and complying with a parent empowerment contract. 
Welfare offices would be transformed into employment offices and ensure 
that welfare parents become productive members of the work force as 
soon as possible. Persons receiving temporary employment assistance 
would be required to look for work from day one and would be penalized 
for turning down any legitimate job offer. States would confirm that an 
increasing percentage of their welfare populations are entering the 
work force. Unlike the Republican leadership bill, however, States 
would have access to the necessary resources to fulfill work 
participation rates. Child care assistance would be available to help 
welfare parents successfully make the transition to employment. The 
Congressional Budget Office has stated that the lack of child care 
would make it impossible for 44 States to comply with the majority 
leader's bill. I do not wish to place such an unfunded mandate on the 
States. The Work First plan recognizes that child care is a must for 
States to meet its tough work participation rates. Moreover, only with 
sufficient child care can single welfare parents retain jobs and avoid 
a return to welfare dependency.
  The Work First bill provides greater incentives than welfare. It 
transforms the entire welfare bureaucracy, making it work-oriented. 
States are given the flexibility to administer the Work First 
employment block grant themselves or contract with private companies to 
move temporary employment assistance recipients into full-time, 
private-sector jobs. Senator Daschle's bill is cost-effective. It would 
achieve a savings of $21 billion over 7 years, all of which would go 
directly toward deficit reduction. And while the Work First proposal 
imposes tough time limits for welfare assistance, it contains important 
protections for children, the innocent victims of our current defective 
system.
  There is an urgent need to improve the welfare system in the United 
States. I hope that the Senate will take advantage of this historic 
opportunity to enact legislation to overhaul our flawed programs and 
empower welfare recipients to break cycles of dependency and become 
successful and productive citizens.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. I think at this point we may have a few moments 
remaining, which I would like to reserve for some unanticipated 
purpose.
  Seeing no Senators on this side, I see the Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The absence of a quorum has been suggested.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, we have heard several of our colleagues, 
particularly on the other side of the aisle, talk about the need for 
welfare reform. And I would say that there is unanimous support in the 
Senate and in the country for welfare reform. But I also would say in 
my opinion the Democrat alternative leaves a lot to be desired.
  Let me just make a couple of general comments about welfare before I 
talk about the specific amendment that we have before us today.
  We have a lot of Federal programs, and we are spending a lot of money 
on welfare. It kind of shocks people. I told people in my State this 
past month that we have 336 Federal welfare programs; 336 different 
Federal welfare programs, and they have not been working. We are 
spending lots and lots of money, and it has not been working.
  In 1994, we were spending about $241 billion for welfare programs--
$241 billion--and that figure is increasing dramatically. Most of these 
programs are entitlements. Most of these programs grow. The Federal 
Government defines eligibility, and then we see how much they cost at 
the end of the year. We do not budget them. We do not say, ``Here is 
how much money we are going to spend on welfare.'' They are 
entitlements. People are entitled to these benefits. Whether it is food 
stamps, whether it is housing assistance, whether it is energy 
assistance, you name it, we have a lot of programs where people are 
entitled to the benefit, and we see how much it costs at the end of the 
year.
  It is not too surprising, therefore, we find a lot of people who 
become addicted to these entitlements and then they demand their money; 
they are entitled, as by definition of the Federal Government. So they 
become addicted to Federal programs. They become dependent on the 
Federal Government. We have to break the welfare dependency cycle we 
have in this country.
  One of President Clinton's best lines in his 1992 campaign said, ``We 
need to end welfare as we know it.'' Everyone was applauding. 
Democrats, Republicans, and Independents said, ``Yes, we need to, 
because we realize the system is not working and it has not worked very 
well.''
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a study done by the 
Congressional Research Service that lists the 336 welfare programs and 
their costs be printed in the Record.
  There being no obligation, the study was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

   OVERVIEW OF FEDERAL PROGRAMS AND SPENDING IN EIGHT WELFARE DOMAINS   
                              NOVEMBER 1994                             
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             FY 1994 or 
                                                Number of       1995    
                Welfare domain                   programs  appropriation
                                                           (in millions)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cash welfare..................................          7     * $17,171 
Child welfare and child abuse.................         38         4,306 
Child care....................................         45        11,771 
Employment and training.......................        154        24,838 
Social services...............................         33         6,589 
Food and nutrition............................         10        37,967 
Housing.......................................         27        17,516 
Health........................................         22         5,076 
                                               -------------------------
    Total.....................................        336       125,234 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Figure for FY 1996.                                                   
                                                                        
Note. The figure of $125.2 billion does not include the $87 billion the 
  Federal Government spent on Medicaid or the $28 billion spent on      
  Supplemental Security Income in FY 1994.                              

   Overview of selected Federal cash welfare programs for low-income 
                          people November 1994

                             [In millions]                      FY 1996
        Program                                                spending
AFDC Basic payments.............................................$12,040
AFDC Unemployed Parent payments...................................1,124
AFDC Emergency Assistance...........................................600
AFDC Administration...............................................1,637
JOBS................................................................900
At-Risk child care..................................................300

[[Page S 12778]]

AFDC Transitional child care........................................570
                                                             __________

    Total........................................................17,171

Source. Congressional Budget Office.

Note. All programs are under jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and 
Means. AFDC=Aid to Families with Dependent Children.
  Overview of Federal child welfare and child abuse programs for low-
                      income people, November 1994

                             [In millions]                      FY 1995
        Committee of Jurisdiction and Program            appropriations
Education and Labor Committee (15 programs):
    Abandoned infants assistance..................................$14.4
    Child abuse State grant program................................22.8
    Children's Justice Grant program................................
    Child abuse demonstration and research grants..................15.4
    Demonstration grants for abuse of homeless children.............
    Community based family resource program........................31.4
    Adoption opportunities program.................................13.0
    Family violence State grant program............................32.6
    Family support centers..........................................7.4
    Missing and exploited children's program........................6.7
    Temporary Child Care for disabilities...........................5.9
    Crisis Nurseries................................................5.9
    Grants to improve the investigation and prosecution of child 
      abuse cases...................................................1.5
    Children's Advocacy Centers.....................................3.0
    Treatment for juvenile offenders who are victims of child abuse 
      or neglect....................................................
Ways and Means Committee (13 programs):
    Child welfare services........................................292.0
    Child welfare training..........................................4.4
    Child welfare research and demonstration........................6.4
    Family Preservation and family support program................150.0
    Independent living.............................................70.0
    Entitlement for Adoption (4 programs).........................399.3
    Entitlement for Foster Care (3 programs)....................3,128.0
Judiciary Committee (6 programs):
    Criminal background checks for child care providers.............
    Court-appointed special advocates (CASA) program................6.0
    Child abuse training program for judicial personnel and 
      practitioners.................................................0.8
    Grants for televised testimony..................................
    Victims of crime program........................................
    Grants to Indian tribes for child abuse cases...................
Natural Resources Committee (3 programs):
    Indian child and family programs...............................24.6
    Indian child protection and family violence prevention programs.0.6
    Indian child welfare assistance.................................
Banking Committee (1 program): Family unification program..........76.0
                                                             __________

      Total (38 programs).......................................4,306.1

* Estimated amount of the total $2.8 billion appropriation spent on 
child care.

Source. Congressional Research Service.
Overview of Federal child care programs for low-income people, November 
                                  1994
                             [In millions]

        Committee of Jurisdiction                               FY 1994
          Program                                         appropriation
Committee on Agriculture (1 program):...............................
    Food Stamp program.............................................$180
                                                             __________

      Subtotal......................................................180
                                                               ==========
_______________________________________________________________________

Committee on Education and Labor (25 programs):
    Student financial aid...........................................  -
    Early Intervention grants for infants and families..............253
    Title I (Education for the disadvantaged).......................127
    Even Start...................................................... 91
    Migrant Education............................................... 26
    Native Hawaiian Family Education Centers........................  5
    School-to-work opportunities....................................  -
    Special Child Care Services for Disadvantaged College Students..  -
    Special Education Preschool Grants..............................339
    Vocational Education............................................  -
    Child and adult food program..................................1,500
    Abandoned Infants Assistance Act \1\............................ 15
    Child Care and Development Block Grant..........................892
    Child Development Associate Credential Scholarship..............  1
    Comprehensive Child Development Centers......................... 47
    Head Start....................................................3,300
    State Dependent Care Planning and Development Grants............ 13
    Temporary Child Care for Children with Disabilities and Crisis 
      Nurseries..................................................... 12
    Adult Training Program..........................................  -
    Economic Dislocation and Worker Adjustment Assist. Program......  -
    Job Corps.......................................................  -
    Migrant and Seasonal Farmworkers Programs.......................  -
    School-to-work Transition (overlapping with Education)..........  -
    Summer Youth Employment and Training Program....................  -
    Youth Training Program..........................................  -
                                                             __________

      Subtotal....................................................6,621
                                                               ==========
_______________________________________________________________________

Committee on Ways and Means (11 programs):
    At-Risk Child Care..............................................361
    Child Care for Recipients of AFDC...............................528
    Child Care Licensing Improvement Grants.........................  -
    Child Welfare Services..........................................  -
    Social Services Block Grant.....................................560
    Transitional Child Care.........................................140
    Child Care and Dependent Care Tax Credit......................2,700
    Child Care as a Business Expense................................  -
    Employer Provided Child or Dependent Care Services..............675
    Tax Exemption for Nonprofit Organizations.......................  -
    National Service Trust Program..................................  -
                                                             __________

      Subtotal....................................................4,964
                                                               ==========
_______________________________________________________________________

Committee on Energy and Commerce (2 programs):
    Residential Substance Abuse Treatment for Women.................  -
    Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment Block Grant............  -
Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs (4 programs):
    Community Development Block Grant...............................  -
    Early Childhood Development Program.............................  6
    Family Self-Sufficiency Program.................................  -
    Homeless Supportive Housing Program.............................  -
                                                             __________

      Subtotal......................................................  6
                                                               ==========
_______________________________________________________________________

Committee on Public Works and Transportation (1 program):...........
    Appalachian Childhood Development...............................  -
Committee on Small Business (1 program):............................
    Guaranteed Loans for Small Business.............................  -
Committee on Natural Resources (1 program):.........................
    Indian Child Welfare Act--Title II grants.......................  -
                                                               ==========
_______________________________________________________________________

      Total (46 programs)........................................11,771

\1\ Jurisdiction shared by Energy and Commerce.

Note. Dash indicates indiscernible amount.

Source. Congressional Research Service.
  Overview of Federal employment and training programs for low-income 
                         people, November 1994

                             [In millions]                      FY 1995
        Program                                           appropriation
Guaranteed Student Loans.......................................$5,889.0
Federal Pell Grant..............................................2,846.9
Rehabilitation Services Basic Support...............................
Grants to States................................................1,933.4
JTPA IIB Training Services for the Disadvantaged Summer-Youth 
  Employment and Training Program...............................1,688.8
JFPA Job Corps..................................................1,153.7
All-Volunteer Force Educational Assistance........................895.1
Job Opportunities and Basic Skills Program........................825.0
State Legalization Impact Assistance Grants.......................809.9
JTPA IIA Training Services for the Disadvantaged-Adult............793.1
Employment Service-Wagner Peyser State Grants.....................734.8
Vocational Education-Basic State Programs.........................717.5
JTPA IIC Disadvantaged Youth......................................563.1
Senior Community Service Employment Program.......................421.1
Community Services Block Grant....................................352.7
Adult Education-State Administered Basic Grant Programs...........261.5
Vocational Rehabilitation for Disabled Veterans...................245.1
JTPA EDWAA-Dislocated Workers (Governor's Discretionary)..........229.5
JTPA EDWAA-Dislocated Workers (Substate Allotment)................229.5
Trade Adjustment Assistance-Workers...............................215.0
Supportive Housing Demonstration Program..........................164.0
Food Stamp Employment and Training................................162.7
Upward Bound......................................................160.5
One-Stop Career Centers...........................................150.0
Economic Development-Grants for Public Works and Development......135.4
School-to-Work....................................................135.0
Federal Supplemental Education Opportunity Grants.................125.0

[[Page S 12779]]

JTPA EDWAA-Dislocated Workers (Secretary's Discretionary).........114.7
Student Support Services..........................................110.3
Survivors and Dependents Educational Assistance...................109.1
Vocational Education-TechPrep Education...........................104.1
Miscellaneous*..................................................2,562.0
                                                             __________

      Total....................................................24,827.5

*A total of 93 programs with spending of less than $100 million; an 
additional 31 programs are authorized but had no appropriation for 
1994.

Source: U.S. General Accounting Office. Multiple Employment and 
Training Programs: Overlapping Programs Can Add Unnecessary 
Administrative Costs. (GAO/HEHS-94-80). Washington, D.C. Clarence 
Crawford, 1994.
  Overview of Federal social services programs for low-income people, 
                             November, 1994

                            [In millions]55

        Committee of Jurisdiction                               FY 1995
        and Program                                       Appropriation
Education and Labor Committee (30 programs):
    Community Services Block Grant...............................$391.5
    Community Economic Development.................................23.7
    Rural Housing...................................................2.9
    Rural Community Facilities......................................3.3
    Farm Worker Assistance..........................................3.1
    National Youth Sports..........................................12.0
    Community Food and Nutrition....................................8.7
    VISTA..........................................................42.7
    VISTA--Literary.................................................5.0
    Special Volunteers Programs.....................................  0
    Retired Senior Volunteer Corps.................................35.7
    Foster Grandparent Program.....................................67.8
    Senior Companion Program.......................................31.2
    Senior Demonstrations...........................................1.0
    Demonstration Partnership Agreements............................8.0
    Juvenile Justice Formula Grants (A+B...........................75.0
    Juvenile Justice Discretionary Grants..........................25.0
    Youth Gangs (Part D)...........................................10.0
    State Challenge Grants (Part E)................................10.0
    Juvenile Monitoring (Part G)....................................4.0
    Prevention Grants--Title V.....................................20.0
    Americorps: National Service Trust............................492.5
    Service America................................................50.0
    Civilian Community Corps.......................................26.0
    Youth Community Corps...........................................  ?
    Points of Light Foundation......................................6.5
    Runaway and Homeless Youth.....................................40.5
    Transition Living for Homeless Youth...........................13.7
    Drug Education for Runaways....................................14.5
    Emergency Food & Shelter (McKinney)...........................130.0
    Emergency Community Services Grants............................19.8
                                                             __________

      Subtotal..................................................1,574.1
Banking Committee (1 program): Community Development Grant......4,600.0
Judiciary Committee (1 program): Legal Services Corporation.......415.0
                                                             __________

      Total (32 Programs)......................................$6,589.1

Source: Congressional Research Service.
 Overview of Federal housing programs for low-income people, November 
                                  1994

                             [In millions]                      FY 1995
        Program                                           Appropriation
Section 8........................................................$2,800
Public Housing....................................................7,200
Section 236 Interest Deduction......................................  0
Section 235 Homeownership Assistance................................  7
Section 101 Rent Supplements........................................  0
Home Investment Partnership Program (HOME)........................1,400
Homeownership and Opportunity for People Everywhere (HOPE).......... 50
Section 202 Elderly...............................................1,280
Section 811 Disabled................................................387
Housing Opportunities for Persons with AFDC.........................186
Emergency Shelter Grants to Homeless................................
Section 8 Moderate Rehabilitation for SROs..........................
Supportive Housing for Homeless...................................1,120
Shelter Plus Care...................................................
Innovative Homeless Initiatives Demonstration.......................
Section 502 Rural Home Loans......................................2,200
Rural Housing Repair Loans.......................................... 35
Rural Housing Repair Grants......................................... 25
Farm Labor Housing Loans............................................ 16
Rural Rental Housing Grants.........................................220
Farm Labor Housing Grants........................................... 11
Section 521 Rural Rental Assistance.................................523
Rural Self-help Housing TA Grants................................... 13
Section 523 Self-Help Housing Site Loans............................  1
Section 524 Rural Housing Site Loans................................  1
Section 533 Rural Housing Preservation Grants....................... 22
Bureau of Indian Affairs Housing Grants............................. 19
                                                             __________

      Total (27 Programs)........................................17,516

Note: All programs except the Indian Affairs program are under 
jurisdiction of the Banking Committee; the Indian Affairs program is 
under jurisdiction of the Natural Resources Committee.

Source. Congressional Budget Office.
Overview of Federal food and nutrition programs for low-income persons, 
                             November 1994

                             [In millions]                      FY 1995
        Program                                                Spending
Food Stamps.....................................................$24,750
Nutrition Assistance for Puerto Rico..............................1,143
Special Milk........................................................ 15
Child Nutrition...................................................7,271
Child Nutrition Commodities.........................................400
Food Donations......................................................266
Women, Infants and Children Program...............................3,297
CSFP................................................................107
Emergency Food Assistance Program...................................123
HHS: Congregate Meals...............................................386
HHS: Meals on Wheels................................................ 96
Food Program Administration.........................................113
                                                             __________

      Total......................................................37,967

Source: Congressional Budget Office.
  Overview of Federal health programs for low-income people, November 
                                  1994

                             [In millions]                      FY 1995
        Program                                          Appropriations
Community Health Centers...........................................$617
Migrant Health Centers.............................................. 65
Health Care Services for Homeless................................... 65
Health Services for Residents of Public Housing..................... 10
National Health Service Corps Field Program......................... 45
National Health Service Corps Recruitment Program................... 80
Rural Health Services Outreach Grants............................... 27
Maternal & Child Health Block grant.................................572
Setaside for Special Projects of National Significance..............101
Setaside for Community Integrated Services Systems.................. 11
Healthy Start Initiative............................................110
Family Planning Program.............................................193
Adolescent Family Life Demonstration Grants.........................  7
Indian Health Services............................................1,963
Projects for Assistance in Transition and Homelessness.............. 30
Immunization Program................................................466
Vaccines for Children...............................................424
CARE Grant Program..................................................198
Scholarships for Disadvantaged Student Faculty (3 Programs)......... 37
Centers of Excellence............................................... 24
Education Assistance Regarding Undergraduates....................... 27
Nurse Education Opportunities.......................................  4
                                                             __________

      Total (22 Programs).........................................5,076

Source. Congressional Budget Office.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, Franklin Roosevelt once said:

       The lessons of history, confirmed by evidence immediately 
     before me, show conclusively that continued dependence upon 
     relief induces a spiritual and moral disintegration 
     fundamentally destructive to the national fiber. To dole out 
     relief in this way is to administer a narcotic, a subtle 
     destroyer of the human spirit.

  Franklin Delano Roosevelt was exactly right. We have induced a 
spiritual and moral disintegration of fundamental destructive values, 
and it has been destructive to our national fiber; it has been 
destructive to the family. We have a welfare system that does not work.
  Since President Lyndon Johnson launched the war on poverty in 1965, 
welfare spending has cost U.S. taxpayers about $5.4 trillion. 
Tragically, as Roosevelt predicted, this culturally destructive system 
has heightened the plight of the poor in this country, discouraging 
work and marriage. Today, one child in seven is raised on welfare 
through the Aid to Families with Dependent Children Program. Nearly a 
third of the children in the United States are now born to single 
mothers. The number of children on AFDC has tripled between 1965 and 
1992, even though the total number of children in the United States 
declined by 5.5 percent.
  To fix this system, we must drastically change it. Simply tinkering 
around the edges, as suggested by the White House and regrettably by 
the Democrats' substitute, is not an acceptable solution. Real welfare 
reform must be linked to personal responsibility. It must provide 
incentives for work instead of dependence, incentives for marriage 
instead of children born out of wedlock, and incentives to get a good 
education and save money to buy a home instead of dropping out of 
school and remaining in Government-owned housing.
  The proposal before the Senate fulfills the commitment--and the 
proposal I am talking about is the Dole proposal--fulfills the 
commitment to overhaul the welfare system and is the result of 
important debate among the Senate Republicans in an effort to 
strengthen our proposal. I believe this 

[[Page S 12780]]
proposal should enjoy overwhelming support from both Republicans and 
Democrats, as well as the White House.
  The Dole substitute has strong work requirements to ensure that able-
bodied welfare recipients find a job. It recognizes illegitimacy as a 
serious national problem and stresses the responsibility of parenthood. 
It controls the unlimited spending of welfare programs by capping 
spending and consolidating many overlapping programs.
  The Dole bill also consolidates 95 Federal programs in 3 block grants 
with the option for States to request a block grant for food stamps. We 
may have an amendment to include food stamps in the block-grant 
proposal, and certainly this Senator will support it.
  The Congressional Budget Office scores the Dole proposal as saving 
approximately $70 billion over 7 years, while the Democratic package 
that we will vote on at 4 o'clock today saves only $21 billion. The 
bill also makes reforms in food stamps, housing programs, child support 
enforcement, and SSI.
  The Dole bill has a real work requirement. Any able-bodied welfare 
recipient will be required to find a job, and work means work. Welfare 
recipients will no longer be able to avoid work by moving from one job 
training program to the next. States will also be able to require 
welfare applicants to look for a job before even receiving a welfare 
check.
  I have heard my colleagues talk, and they have a great title for 
their bill. It is called the Work First Act of 1995, and that sounds 
great. But you need to look at the details.
  We now have 155 Federal job training programs. They do not work. Why 
do we have 155? Because in almost every Congress, every time somebody 
is running for President they say, ``The best welfare program is a 
job,'' so we come up with a new jobs program.
  We did not eliminate any of the old ones not working, and we stacked 
on new. We have 155 Federal job training programs. It is ridiculous. 
Under our proposal, we put those together. We basically have one. Let 
the States decide which ones work. Some undoubtedly do work. I hope so. 
We are spending a lot of money. It certainly does not make any sense to 
have 155. That makes no sense whatsoever.
  In regard to the substitute before us, many people have said this is 
a great bill, this is going to help people move into work. I am 
afraid--I am going to call it the Daschle bill--the Democratic 
substitute tinkers with the welfare system instead of rebuilding it. It 
proposes to replace AFDC with a bigger, more expensive package of 
entitlements.
  Again, I want to underline ``entitlements.'' The Republican package 
says we want to end welfare as an entitlement; people will not be 
entitled to receive welfare. We will have a block-grant approach. We 
will say, ``This is how much we will spend.'' It will not be an open-
ended entitlement.
  Not so under the Democratic package. They replace AFDC with a new 
entitlement package that actually increases spending. Spending will 
increase more than $16 billion than projected AFDC costs over the next 
7 years, and that is according to the Congressional Budget Office, not 
just Don Nickles or the Republican Policy Committee.
  The Democratic bill does not impose real time limits on welfare 
benefits. I have heard everybody say, ``Well, we have to have some 
limits,'' and I am glad to see they approached time limits in the 
Democratic bill, but they have exceptions, several pages of exceptions.
  As a matter of fact, they talk about a time limit and say, ``Oh, yes, 
we are going to put a limit of cash payments of 5 years under the 
Democrats' bill,'' but then if you look at page 3 of the bill, as 
modified, we have exceptions. We have a hardship exception. That goes 
for a page. We have exceptions for teen parents. We will not count the 
years they are teens. There are exceptions for child-only cases, and 
other exceptions. In other words, this time limit has loopholes that 
can just be expanded and expanded.
  It exempts families that happen to reside in an area that has an 
unemployment rate exceeding 8 percent. Originally, it was 7.5 percent. 
That means you do not have a 5-year time limit if you happen to live in 
New York City, Washington, DC, Los Angeles, or Newark, NJ. A lot of 
cities, a lot of areas have unemployment rates exceeding 8 percent, so 
they are exempt from the 5-year limitation.
  Does that fix welfare as we know it? Does that meet President 
Clinton's statement, ``We want to end welfare as we know it''? That 
does not end it. It means it will be a lifetime annuity if you live in 
a high unemployment area. That makes no sense.
  We are going to exempt teenagers. If they are 16 years old and have a 
child born out of wedlock, we will not count the first 3 years and we 
will start counting after that. So they can be on for 7 or 8 years.
  Wait a minute. That is not what President Clinton's rhetoric was. As 
a matter of fact, President Clinton said on August 11:

       What do we want out of welfare reform? We want work, we 
     want time limits, we want responsible parenting.

  There is no time limit, not if you live in an area that has high 
unemployment. If you are a teenage mother, that time limit is extended 
substantially.
  So I just want to say I have heard many colleagues on the other side 
making very laudatory comments on the Daschle bill. But the more I 
look, the more exceptions I see. It does not look like a welfare reform 
bill. It is kind of tinkering on the edges.
  Let us talk about the work requirement because, again, President 
Clinton said how important work requirements are. The Dole bill says 50 
percent of the people have to be on work--50 percent of all people. 
Under the Daschle proposal, it requires 30 percent of the cash welfare 
recipients to engage in work-related activities by 1997, and 50 percent 
by the year 2000. It sounds like it is the same. But as with the time 
limits on welfare benefits, these work performance standards are undone 
by the fine print. A substantial number of recipients are excluded when 
calculating the work participation rates--mothers with young children, 
ill people, teen mothers, those caring for a family member who is ill 
or incapacitated. Together, these ``clients,'' as they are now called 
under the Democratic bill, make up 25 percent of the adult welfare 
population, and they are exempt from the accounting of the 50-percent 
requirement.
  Think of that. We will have a welfare population where 25 percent is 
now exempt from the mandate that 50 percent have to be at work. Well, 
if you add that together, that means that when the work requirements 
are fully phased in, 62.5 percent of the adult recipients will not be 
required to work or even get job training under the Daschle approach. 
That means five-eighths of the people will not be required to get a job 
or go into work training because they are exempt. So the time limits 
have all kinds of exemptions--a big exemption if you live in a high-
unemployment area, a big exemption if you are a teen mother. The work 
requirements have big exemptions because we excluded a lot of people--
25 percent of the adult population--from that. That is why I look at 
President Clinton saying, ``What do we want out of welfare? We want 
work requirements and time limits.'' But the bill is riddled with 
exceptions in work requirements and certainly in time limits. It says 
we want responsible parenting. So do we. Maybe we can say we want 
responsible parenting and make that happen.
  Both bills, I might say, have pretty stringent hits on deadbeat or 
delinquent dads or parents. So maybe there is some commonality in that 
area.
  But, Mr. President, my comment is that we need to pass a welfare 
bill. I hope that we will pass a bipartisan bill. I hope our colleagues 
on the other side, after we dispose of this amendment, will look at the 
proposal Senator Dole and myself and many other people have sponsored 
and be very serious. I know there are a lot of amendments. We need to 
dispose of them. Maybe we will pass some and reject some. I hope our 
colleagues that have amendments will bring them to the floor. I hope we 
will consider and dispose of them and, in the next few days, pass a 
significant welfare reform bill, one that eliminates the open-ended 
entitlement, one that has savings for taxpayers and encourages work and 
moves people away from Federal welfare dependency.
  I think that is a big challenge. We have not done it in decades. It 
needs to 

[[Page S 12781]]
be done. The biggest beneficiary--some people think that Republicans 
are trying to do that so they can save some dollars. Some people think 
this is management, or we are just going to give the authority to the 
State. I think the biggest beneficiary of our changes will be welfare 
recipients, because we will be making some changes so they will get off 
the addiction of welfare and they will be able to break away from the 
dependency cycle that so many generations and individuals now are stuck 
on.
  So, Mr. President, I think this is one of the most important pieces 
of legislation this Congress will consider, certainly this year. I am 
hopeful that in the next few days we will be successful in passing it.
  Mr. President, I know that our side is planning on going into a 
conference. I see my friend from Arkansas on the floor.
  Mr. DeWINE assumed the chair.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, if I may address a question. I understand 
that all the time remaining between now and 3:30 belongs to the 
opponents of the Daschle proposal; is that correct?
  Mr. NICKLES. That is correct.
  Mr. BUMPERS. I wonder if I can impose on the generosity of the 
Senator from Oklahoma to yield 5 or 10 minutes to me in opposition to 
his position.
  Mr. NICKLES. I am happy to. I will inform my colleague that we were 
planning on actually--we have a caucus going on at this moment that I 
was hoping to join in. So it is my intention, as I told the Senator 
from New York, to have the Senate stand in recess for some period--say 
until 3 o'clock. I will be happy to give my colleague 5 minutes.
  I yield the Senator from Arkansas 5 minutes.
  Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, can I ask the Senator from Oklahoma, is he 
intending to do that and go into recess at that point?
  Mr. NICKLES. That was my hope.
  Mr. KERREY. I wonder if the Senator will entertain a unanimous-
consent that I speak for 10 minutes after the Senator from Arkansas and 
at that point we go into recess?
  Mr. NICKLES. Yes, but I will withhold putting the unanimous-consent 
request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas is recognized.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I want to make a couple of observations 
and take a slightly different tack on the issue of welfare than that 
which has been debated.
  First of all, I am deeply troubled by the Dole proposal. I do not see 
how I can support it. One of the reasons I cannot support it is because 
there is no comprehensive plan on child care. Any welfare proposal that 
does not consider child care is doomed to failure. Women are not going 
to work unless they have someplace that will take care of their 
children during work hours. There is no added money in the Dole 
proposal for that purpose.
  The Dole proposal also has a number of other shortcomings. For 
instance, the Dole proposal shortchanges States in the Sunbelt, such as 
Arkansas, where immigration is on the increase. The bill provides no 
additional funding to take care of a recession when the number of 
applicants for welfare grow. It seems to me that the proposal is 
fatally flawed in a number of ways. So I am going to strongly support 
the Daschle proposal, which attempts to address these issues. Every 
Member of the Senate wants to vote for welfare reform. If you sit 
around the coffee shops at home, that is about all they will talk 
about. However, we have to reform welfare in a commonsensical manner; 
not the willy-nilly approach taken by the Dole proposal.
  It seems to me that we speak loudly, longingly and piously about the 
children of this country in this debate on welfare. We overtly or 
covertly attack them in this proposal--the most vulnerable among our 
population. Nobody knows for sure what the answer is. However, Mr. 
President, I assure you the answer is not to make children any worse 
off than they already are.
  Let me just make a point about another kind of welfare. This 
morning's Washington Post had a story on the Federal Page indicating 
that the Secretary of the Interior yesterday signed a deed for 110 
acres of land belonging to the American people to a Danish company 
called Faxe Kalk. What do you think the U.S. taxpayers got for that 110 
acres of land yesterday? $275--$2.50 an acre. What do you think the 
corporation Faxe Kalk got? One billion dollars' worth of a mineral 
called travertine.
 It is an aggregate source used to whiten paper.

  Due to the 1872 mining law, still firmly in place, the taxpayers of 
this country, who lament the taxes they pay, saw $1 billion worth of 
their assets go down the tube.
  In 1990, Mr. President, I stood exactly where I am standing right now 
and pleaded with the people of the Senate to impose a moratorium on 
patenting under the 1872 mining law which requires the Secretary of 
Interior to deed away billions and billions and billions of dollars 
worth of gold, platinum, palladium, travertine, whatever, for $2.50 or 
$5 an acre. I lost that year by two votes.
  Mr. President, I wonder if the Senator from Oklahoma will yield 2 
additional minutes?
  Mr. NICKLES. I yield the Senator from Arkansas an additional 4 
minutes, and at the conclusion of his remarks I yield the Senator from 
Nebraska 10 minutes.
  Mr. BUMPERS. I thank the Senator.
  I stood here and pleaded with this body to put a moratorium to stop 
this practice, but lost 50-48.
  Four days later, the Stillwater Mining Co. filed an application with 
the Secretary for patents on approximately 2,000 acres of public land 
in Montana for $5 an acre--roughly $10,000. If the Secretary winds up 
having to deed the land, and he certainly will under existing law, to 
the Stillwater Mining Co., the next story you read in the Washington 
Post will be that the Secretary of the Interior has deeded 2,000 acres 
of land belonging to the people of this country for $10,000 and 
underneath that 2,000 acres lies $38 billion worth of platinum and 
palladium.
  Mr. President, are these my figures? No, they are the figures 
presented by the Stillwater Mining Co. Mr. President, 2\1/2\ years ago, 
Stillwater said they did not know whether they could make that pay off 
or not. They say there is $38 billion worth of minerals under it, but 
they did not know whether they could make it pay off.
  Really? A year ago the Manville Corp., which had jointly formed the 
Stillwater Mining Co. with Chevron bought Chevron out and took 
Stillwater public at roughly $13 a share. Last week, Manville sold its 
remaining interest in Stillwater to a bunch of investors for $110 
million plus a 5-percent royalty based on a net smelter return. Not bad 
for a company that 2\1/2\ years ago said they did not know whether they 
could make it profitable or not.
  A year ago, when Stillwater went public, the stock sold for $13. 1 
year later--how I wish I had invested in this one--the stock is worth 
$23 today. It had been up to $28. We cannot find the money for child 
care in the welfare reform bill, while, at the same time, we deeded 
away $1 billion yesterday, and are getting ready to deed away another 
$38 billion.
  Just before the recess, I offered an amendment on the Interior 
appropriations bill to renew a moratorium on the issuance of patents 
pursuant to the 1872 mining law. However, the Senate defeated the 
amendment 51-46. Instead, my friend from Idaho offered an amendment 
that would require mining companies to pay fair market value for the 
surface of the land in the future, but that is just for the surface, 
not the minerals. So instead of paying $275 yesterday, the Faxe Kalk 
Corp. for $1 billion worth would have had to pay $20,000.
  What a scam. Talk about welfare, welfare for some of our biggest 
corporations, while we beat up on the children of this country and say 
to the mothers, ``No, we cannot give you child care for your child so 
you can go to work.''
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, this amendment unfortunately will probably 
be defeated along party lines.
  I say unfortunately because there is a significant amount of 
enthusiasm in this body to respond to the people's concern about our 
welfare system and to try to change it.
  The Democratic Party, as people have observed and understand, have 
very often had difficulty coming together around change. That is not 
the case with welfare reform. 

[[Page S 12782]]

  We have spent a great deal of time on this side of the aisle--not 
defending the status quo--coming up with a proposal that radically 
alters the status quo with an attempt to pass legislation that will 
respond to taxpayers who say they do not like the current tax.
  They think we are spending money with no results, and perhaps worse, 
spending money and making the problem more serious than it currently is 
to the recipients who do not like the system, since many do not go onto 
welfare by choice but are there as a consequence of divorce or 
separation and find it difficult to get off once they are on.
  Mr. President, even providers today increasingly are saying they do 
not like the current system.
  The Work First proposal is a serious attempt to respond to these 
concerns, an attempt not to reduce the budget deficit, but to reduce 
the rates of poverty and increase the self-sufficiency of Americans who 
are struggling to get out of the ranks of poverty. That is the effort 
that we have before us.
  It changes our system so that we first will have an emphasis on 
finding and keeping a job; second, by providing the support necessary 
to find and keep that job; and third, by providing the States with more 
flexibility.
  Mr. President, I urge citizens to understand that the Daschle 
amendment abolishes AFDC. It replaces it with an entitlement that is 
conditional upon an individual who is able bodied being willing to 
work. Those recipients must sign a parent empowerment contract that 
outlines their plan to move themselves into the work force, similar to 
what many States have already done, including my own, the State of 
Nebraska.
  It provides a stimulus to develop the work ethic by moving from an 
income maintenance program to an employment assistance program.
  Mr. President, beyond that, this bill recognizes that in order to 
keep that job, individuals, parents, need to have other things. In 
particular, it makes certain that every single person that is moving 
into the ranks of the employed has high-quality, affordable child care. 
Otherwise, they will not be able to get it done.
  Now, there is a tremendous differential, Mr. President, between the 
relative cost of child care for somebody who is in the ranks of the 
poor and that of the people who are not poor. Above poverty, American 
families spend about 9 percent of their income for child care. Below 
poverty, it is almost 25 percent of their income.
  This proposal, moreover, says that many Americans are still 
struggling to try to be able to afford the cost of health care. This 
extends the 1-year Medicaid to 2 years and provides a sliding scale. So 
again, there is a requirement of effort for health care.
  Mr. President, this legislation responds to States saying that they 
want more flexibility. It allows States to design their own program and 
encourages States to redesign their infrastructure, to streamline the 
processes.
  It provides incentive for States if the States exceed the required 
job participation rate. It does not freeze the funds in an inflexible 
block grant, but it does say the States are required to maintain some 
effort.
  Mr. President, this legislation by itself will not solve all the 
problems. I still believe that we need to raise the minimum wage. I 
still believe that we need to hold on to the progress that was made 
with the expansion of the earned-income tax credit.
  Perhaps one of the most damaging things that is done in the current 
budget resolution is to reduce the earned-income tax credit. This 
welfare reform proposal by itself will not solve all the problems.
  Indeed, ideally for me, would be to pass the Daschle amendment and 
then include thereafter title 7 and title 8 of the Dole proposal, which 
is essentially the Kassebaum Work Force Development Act that 
consolidates and provides an awful lot more flexibility to States to 
make job training programs work.
 It is a very good piece of legislation. It could give the States the 
kind of flexibility and the power that they need to help people acquire 
the skills necessary to be self-sufficient.

  I have no doubt that, if we were to pass this amendment--and I hope 
my own skepticism about this current division between Republicans and 
Democrats will not be warranted, I hope there will be Republicans who 
will vote for the Daschle proposal--if it is passed, taxpayers will 
like it because they will be getting their money's worth, for a program 
that provides incentives for people to work. The recipients will like 
it because it strengthens child support enforcement, it provides a 
contract that lets them know precisely what they are supposed to do, 
and it offers an alternative approach to the cycle of poverty and the 
cycle of welfare dependency that many are trying to break.
  The people of the State of Nebraska, in my recent campaign, indicated 
strongly they want our welfare rules to be written so work is given 
greater priority than welfare, so it is more attractive than being on 
welfare. This legislation responds precisely to that concern. They want 
the opportunity at the State level and at the local level to be able to 
design their own programs, and this legislation responds to that 
concern.
  It is not being driven solely by the need to reduce the deficit. 
There is not an ideological bent to it that says it has to be one way 
or the other. It is driven by a desire to be able to stand at the end 
of the day and say this thing is working better; that, from the 
taxpayers' standpoint, from the beneficiaries' standpoint, and from the 
providers' standpoint, we have made our welfare system operate in a 
more efficient, effective and, hopefully, humanitarian fashion as well.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, on behalf of the majority leader, I yield 
myself such time as I may consume.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, this is a very important subject, welfare 
reform. I have approached the debate myself by trying to go back to the 
basics. I think all of us have attempted that. That is by asking why we 
have a welfare system at all, what should it do, and, just as 
important, what should it not do? The answers to those questions, I 
think, are simple.
  We now do not have a welfare system just in order to give money to 
poor people. That is not the point of welfare. It is not the point of 
welfare simply to give money to poor people. Neither do we have a 
welfare system to punish and humiliate people, especially children, for 
being poor. The reason we have a welfare system is to help people in a 
tough spot get back on their feet and back to work; to promote with 
compassion the values of work, personal responsibility and self-
sufficiency we all share as Americans.
  The failure of our present system to meet these goals is a national 
tragedy. It is a top concern of Montanans and of all Americans, and 
rightly so. It seems to me very sad that Congress is approaching 
welfare reform in a polarized, partisan way. After spending several 
weeks at home listening, talking to people, I know the American people 
expect better. They expect a serious effort to solve a serious problem. 
And they are right. That is why I have reached out to work with 
Republicans on welfare reform, and it is why I am disappointed to see 
how little effort the majority has made to work with Democrats and how 
little cooperation there is between the administration and the 
Congress.
  If we continue on this course, the country will not get welfare 
reform. It will get a partisan bill, maybe a veto, and ultimately an 
embarrassing failure. So, while we still have time, today I would like 
to urge us all to try a bit harder to work better together, to do what 
we know is right, listen to the people, and get the job done.
  In the past month, I have listened to Montanans I meet along the 
highway. I am walking across my State. I talk to people on welfare and 
people who have fought their way off welfare and into jobs, to teachers 
from Head Start and professionals from State government, county human 
service officers, to advocates for poor people, and to middle-class 
taxpayers who pay for our system.
  As heated as the welfare reform debate can be, I have learned that 
most of us have some basic principles in common. We agree that America 
needs 

[[Page S 12783]]
a welfare system, but one which encourages personal responsibility, 
encourages work and self-sufficiency, lets States like Montana create 
systems that make sense for our own unique problems, is fair to 
taxpayers, protects children, and helps keep families together.
  We agree the present system does not achieve these goals. It is 
broken and it needs dramatic change.
  The Federal Government has administered our major welfare program, 
Aid to Families With Dependent Children, or AFDC, since the 1930's. I 
think it is fair to say that AFDC has failed to live up to these 
principles, and there is no reason to reinforce failure. The best thing 
to do now is not to tinker with the AFDC, or come up with a substitute 
to it; it is to get the Federal Government out of AFDC, turn it into a 
block grant, let the States design different plans, come up with their 
own ideas and try to learn from one another.
  Therefore, it is with some reluctance I will vote against the 
alternative proposal by the Democratic leader. It has some good points: 
a time limit, work requirements, a child care program, and protection 
for children. Those are very important. But the proposal has a 
fundamental flaw. Under the proposal, the Federal Government will 
continue to administer welfare reform. I believe that will continue to 
cause a problem. It will continue to write requirements for States, and 
I believe it will perpetuate a system that has failed. That is why, on 
balance, I prefer the welfare reform bill offered by Senator Dole.
  The Dole proposal makes a clean break with the past. It converts the 
welfare program into a block grant, eliminating red tape and giving 
States the flexibility they need to run their own program. And it does 
some other essential things. It is fair to taxpayers. It does not 
require States to adopt the more punitive approaches of the House bill, 
such as making States deny benefits to families when they have more 
children, or to unwed teenage mothers. And by placing a time limit on 
benefits and requiring work, it moves away from a program which is 
based on benefit checks toward one which is based on responsibility and 
self-help.
  Thus, I hope I will ultimately be able to vote for Senator Dole's 
proposal. But at this point I believe it has some very serious 
problems. They can be fixed, but we cannot evade them.
  These problems fall into three main areas:
  First, failure to provide for child care. First, women and children, 
the people who receive the big majority of AFDC benefits, can only go 
to work if they have a safe, dependable provider of child care, and 
child care is expensive. When a mother comes off AFDC, she is likely to 
start with a pretty low-paying job. So, if we expect welfare recipients 
to work, we must offer some help with child care. But, at present, the 
Dole bill offers no real help with child care. It merely gives States 
the option of exempting families with children before their first 
birthday from the work participation requirements. We have to do much 
better.
  Second, the safety net for families with children. While we must tell 
people they have to go back to work in a reasonable time, we have also 
to protect them when times are really tough: when a father suddenly 
leaves a family, when a wage-earner is killed or disabled in an 
accident, when a business closes, and when a young, single mother 
suddenly loses her job. We cannot and we must not simply cut away the 
whole social safety net.
  So, if the Federal Government is going to turn the welfare system 
over to the States, we need a guarantee that the States will continue 
to provide their part of that safety net.
  We need a guarantee that, under budget pressures as most of them are, 
they will not simply take the money and eliminate most or all benefits 
for people who truly need help.
  The Dole bill does not provide that guarantee. Instead, it merely 
says that for 2 years, States must reach 75 percent or more of their 
present level of spending. After that, all bets are off. That is not 
good enough.
  Third, the Dole bill contains provisions which should not be in a 
welfare bill at all. All these should be removed.
  For example, it turns the Food Stamp Program into an optional block 
grant that was not in the committee bill. It is in the Dole bill. This 
is unnecessary, because the Food Stamp Program on the whole works. No 
doubt it can be improved in some ways, but it provides our families and 
children with the food they need.
  And turning food stamps into a block grant is also dangerous, because 
it threatens the nutrition of poor children. States could eliminate 
nutrition services completely, which would threaten kids' health. Or 
they could turn them into cash grants, which would encourage fraud and 
abuse by recipients.
  In addition, the Dole bill contains a large and controversial job 
training program. This is a very important issue which should be 
considered on its own merits, not simply lumped into the welfare bill 
without debate.


                   america needs a bipartisan reform

  Finally, and once again, my most important criticism applies to the 
whole approach Congress has taken to welfare reform. That is, I believe 
Congress is treating this as a political issue rather than a real 
issue.
  That is wrong. The failure of the welfare system is a serious social 
problem. It is a top concern of the public, and rightly so. It deserves 
to be more than a political hockey puck.
  But today, we have a Democratic bill and a Republican bill. Slogans 
and press releases. All the things that have made so many Americans fed 
up with politics.
  If nothing changes, we will get a partisan bill pushed through with a 
very narrow margin of votes. We will get a veto. It will be sustained. 
And at the end of the year, we will have no welfare reform.
  That does not have to happen. We still have time for serious work on 
a serious problem. We can improve this bill, and ultimately get a good, 
tough, fair reform. I hope my colleagues here will join me.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. I now ask unanimous consent that I be yielded 10 
minutes to speak on the pending legislation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Mr. President, today we begin in earnest to tackle 
the issue of welfare reform. In the next week we will decide if this 
Congress will pass welfare reform legislation that attacks poverty and 
aids recipients to become self-sufficient or if we give in to the 
rhetoric, the hot buttons, the slogans, the wedge issues, ignore past 
economic appearance, and pass shortsighted and, I daresay, 
counterproductive legislation.
  To look first at some of the facts and to suggest a reality check 
about this debate: There are currently some 14 million people in the 
United States receiving aid to families with dependent children 
assistance, known as welfare. But, Mr. President, over 9 million of 
those people are children. The remaining 5 million of those people are 
adults. So let us be clear what we are talking about at the outset. 
When we talk about welfare reform, we are talking about primarily 
children. Nine million of the 14 million people receiving welfare are 
kids; only 5 million are adults.
  Now, of those adults, of those 5 million adults, nearly 4 percent 
overall--these are national numbers--nearly 4 percent have been 
designated by the States--by the States--as incapacitated or physically 
unable to work. Other estimates, Mr. President, which include, among 
other conditions, mental illness, substance abuse and the like, put the 
number of those who are incapacitated and unable the work at about 18 
percent. So 18 percent of the 5 million people are unable to work.
  That means then that somewhere between 4.1 and 4.8 million AFDC 
recipients are able to work, and, Mr. President, I agree that they 
should work. I do not think there is anyone in this Chamber, indeed in 
this country, who would deny that those people who can work should 
work. On this point I think there can be absolute consensus.
  The difference, Mr. President, however, between the Democratic 
alternative, the substitute amendment, and 

[[Page S 12784]]
the underlying bill, between the Democratic and the Republican 
approaches, is that the Democratic approach, I believe, asks two 
critical questions that apparently did not occur or at least are not 
represented in the leadership bill.
  First question: What about the jobs and attendant training and 
education for those 4.1 to 4.8 able-bodied adults? And, second, what 
about the children? Again, 9 million children, what about them? To me, 
I believe that the bottom line of all of this is to ensure that 
children are protected. The question we should ask ourselves when 
evaluating any welfare reform proposal is, what about the children?
  I introduced welfare reform legislation earlier in the year. Every 
provision in that bill, which was developed in conjunction and in 
conversation with the task force of Illinois residents, every provision 
of that bill sought to improve the condition of children through 
economic opportunities for their families and to maintain a safety net 
for them. The whole idea is to keep families and allow families to come 
together to provide a nurturing atmosphere for children and at the same 
time provide those families with an ability to support those children 
while providing a safety net for those children. I believe that the 
Democratic Work First bill, also known as the Daschle substitute, 
builds on those principles of support for families, support for 
children, and an emphasis on work.
  The Daschle plan, the Democratic plan, includes all of the components 
necessary for successful welfare reform. It is tough on work, including 
a guarantee of necessary support services like child care and provides 
funding for job creation, and above all, it protects children. That is 
the reason that I have joined in cosponsoring the Democratic plan and 
support it wholeheartedly.
  First, the Democratic bill provides that critical safety net for 
children. Our bill ensures that no child will go hungry or homeless due 
to the behavior of his or her parents. It affirms the Federal and State 
commitment to aiding poor children. And in that regard, Mr. President, 
I would point out that in this country right now some 24 percent, 
estimated 24 percent, of the children in America fall below the poverty 
level. The highest level of child poverty in the industrialized world 
is in America today. I, therefore, think that we cannot approach the 
issue of welfare reform without addressing the question of child 
poverty, and addressing the question of child poverty has to take place 
in a Federal, State, and local collaborative and cooperative 
arrangement.
  Second, Mr. President, the Democratic alternative, the Work First 
bill, includes critical support services such as child care and health 
care. We know from past experience that the lack of child care and 
health care causes many poor people, many recipients, former 
recipients, to go back into transition and return back to the welfare 
rolls. An individual who is faced with the prospect of not being able 
to afford health care may then have to leave work and go back on 
welfare just to have their health needs attended to. Similarly, a 
mother, a single mother particularly, or single parent faced with the 
prospect of leaving their child alone, underaged child alone, in order 
to go to work will often be forced to leave the work force and go on 
welfare just to provide for child care.
  So, the Work First bill, the Democratic alternative, includes those 
services as a necessary component of welfare reform. The Work First 
bill not only guarantees child care for those recipients required to 
work under it; it also expands and provides for the child care 
development block grant, the existing program that helps low-income 
working families to afford child care.
  As you know, Mr. President, there are a number of people who work but 
who need the financial assistance so they can put their children into 
child care so that they will not be forced back onto welfare rolls. 
This legislation, the Democratic alternative, provides for those 
support services.
  Mr. President, child care for the working poor is critical. It can 
often make the difference between a working parent and a parent 
receiving welfare. In Illinois alone, in my State, we currently have a 
waiting list--a waiting list, Mr. President--of some 30,000 children, 
30,000 kids, children, who need to have slots in day care for which 
there are no slots available. The Democratic leadership recognizes that 
moving from welfare to work requires an upfront investment, and it has 
to be an investment that goes to the benefit of the children.
  The Work First bill provides adequate funding so the recipients will 
have a real opportunity to move from welfare and into the private-
sector work force. And that is why I would encourage all of my 
colleagues to take a good look at the leadership bill and encourage 
their support of it, because only by providing support for child care 
will we be able to accomplish real welfare reform.
  The Democratic plan recognizes no matter how skilled a recipient, if 
there are no jobs or not enough jobs in the community, there still can 
be no work. Again, this job creation is another major element that has 
to be part of any real welfare reform. This bill, the Democratic bill, 
the Daschle bill, provides funding for community-based institutions 
that invest in business enterprises and therefore helps to create new 
private-sector jobs for low-income persons, which then will help us to 
revitalize poor, underserved communities and help us diminish the 
reliance on and the need for welfare.
  Mr. President, the Republican leadership bill falls short in the 
areas that I have just mentioned: work, child care, job creation. And 
above all, it fails children. Two-thirds of those receiving assistance 
are children, and protecting their future should be the goal of reform.
  One of the fundamental errors and problems with the plan before us 
right now--the Republican plan, the leadership plan--is that the plan 
ends the 60-year-old Federal commitment to provide assistance to needy 
children. States are given the option of leaving children to go 
homeless and hungry. It is unconscionable to me, Mr. President, the 
Senate would ignore the plight of children and allow that to happen.
  During one of the hearings on welfare reform in the Finance 
Committee, I asked a sponsor, frankly, of the Republican bill, who 
supported the total dismantlement of the safety net, ``What about the 
children? What if this bill results in children being homeless and 
hungry?'' And the response that I got was, ``Well, if that happens, we 
will just have to come back in a couple years and fix this.''
  Mr. President, I submit that we cannot be that generous with the 
suffering of children in this country and that we ought to start off 
fixing this problem now. And that is why I support the Daschle 
alternative.
                               child care

  Under the Dole bill, work requirements and participation rates are 
increased but funding for child care is not. Illinois alone will have 
to increase child care by 383 percent to meet the work requirements in 
the Dole bill. Funding for recipients required to work will siphon off 
dollars from low income families. In a State that already has a waiting 
list of 30,000, the impact of the Dole bill could be devastating.
  This is a misguided approach if the aim of reform is long term self-
sufficiency.


                              job creation

  On the jobs issue the Dole bill is silent. There is no recognition 
that job creation and economic development are critical to communities 
that are plagued by both high unemployment and high poverty rates.
  The bill assumes that recipients will be able to find jobs after the 
5-year time limit, which could be less at a State's option, but does 
not provide funding for job creation or provide adequate funding for 
support services that will aid recipients to obtain and keep private 
sector jobs. In many poor communities jobs do not exist and those that 
are available are not easily accessible. This bill buys into the 
``Field of Dreams'' theme of: If you kick them off they will work.
  In many poor areas in Chicago, unemployment is between 20 and 40 
percent. 80 percent of black youth between the ages of 16 and 19 are 
unemployed in Chicago and 55 percent of the 20 to 24 year-olds are out 
of work. It will be nearly impossible to move recipients into permanent 
private sector jobs if there is no effort to create jobs.

[[Page S 12785]]

  Under the Dole bill States will have to increase the number of 
persons participating in work-job preparation activities by over 161 
percent by the year 2000. To use my State as an example: Illinois will 
receive $444 million less in AFDC funds, but will be required to 
increase by 122 percent the number of recipients participating in work-
job preparation activities.
  This will be a tremendous burden on Illinois. Our current caseload 
exceeds 700,000 people and 64 percent of the entire caseload resides in 
one county. In the year 2000, Illinois will be forced to use 73 percent 
of its block grant allocation to meet the Dole bill requirements. That 
leaves almost no funding for cash assistance or other programs 
supporting family stability. In addition, the State and the city of 
Chicago will have to create tens of thousands of jobs to absorb former 
welfare recipients who will have reached the 5-year time limit.


                            unfunded mandate

  What this means is States and localities will be forced to pick up 
the tab, which means the cost will be passed along to all of us through 
higher State and local taxes.
  This leads me to my last point--the Dole will is an unfunded mandate.
  Welfare reform is not easy and it is not cheap. What we have learned 
from successful State experiments like those in Michigan and 
Wisconsin--is that moving recipients into jobs can be done but it is 
expensive, labor intensive, and time consuming.
  Even Tommy Thompson, Governor of Wisconsin, acknowledges the need for 
an initial investment. He has stated that ``every time you change a 
system you are going to have an up-front investment, more 
transportation, more job training, more day care. And those who think 
that you can just change the system from one based on dependency, where 
you receive a welfare check once a month, to one in which you require 
people to go to work, are going to be sadly mistaken when you first 
start the program. Because there is an up-front investment.''
  In order to meet the work and child care costs associated with the 
Republican bill, States will have to spend an additional $16.7 billion. 
That is a very large unfunded mandate.
  It is no wonder that the Congressional Budget Office has predicted 
States won't be able to meet the work and child care requirements in 
the Dole bill. It is easy to see why CBO assumes that 44 States will be 
unable to meet the bill's requirements, preferring to risk penalties 
instead.


                               conclusion

  We all want reform so that the welfare system works better. But we 
must keep in mind that the system serves real people--the majority of 
whom are children. Welfare should not be a wedge issue--it is a people 
issue.
  The Work First plan provides a real solution to the problems of 
poverty; the Republican plan ignores poverty.
  We live in one of the richest countries in the world, we have a $7 
trillion economy and a $1.2 trillion Federal budget, and yet we lag 
behind every other industrial nation in child poverty. Yesterday, this 
body voted to give the Department of Defense $7 billion more than they 
asked for. Clearly, we have the wherewithal to do better by this 
Nation's children. What this next week will show is whether or not we 
have the will.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. I will continue to express myself on this subject 
in the coming hours of this debate. Thank you.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from 
Missouri.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Abraham). The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from 
Pennsylvania. I want to raise a question for my colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle as to whether the proposed Daschle amendment would 
deal with a very disturbing situation we found in the State of 
Missouri.
  Under the current law, and this is one of the reasons people are 
going nuts with welfare today, we have had an innovative program in 
Sedalia, MO, where the president pro tempore of the Missouri State 
Senate worked with the Division of Family Services, which administers 
AFDC, to try to find employees for a major employer coming to the 
Sedalia area, bringing 1,500 to 1,600 jobs.
  They had the very simple idea that if they would bring qualified AFDC 
recipients to the employer, then they might help solve the problems of 
the people who did not have jobs and meet the needs of the employer for 
workers. They sent over a number of workers. Some of the workers have 
accepted employment, and the system seems to be working very well for 
them. Some of them chose to find other jobs because they did not like 
this employer, and that is a good result. Those two classes of people 
found work.
  A third class of people was turned down for jobs. They continued to 
receive AFDC. Another class of workers who refused to show up for jobs 
could be cut off, but they could only be cut off of the AFDC rolls for 
2 months--jobs for which they were qualified, well above the minimum 
wage, and they were cut off, but they could only be cut off for 2 
months.
  No. 1, would that restriction continue under the proposed Daschle 
amendment?
  No. 2, and this is probably the most troubling part, two of the AFDC 
recipients who went to the employer failed the mandatory drug test. 
Since they failed the mandatory drug test, they were not offered jobs. 
They went back to the Division of Family Services and continued their 
AFDC checks. They could not be cut off, as we understand in Missouri 
the requirements of AFDC, even though they failed drug tests.
  As I see it, if this is the effect of existing law or the Daschle 
amendment, then there would be an incentive for people who wanted to 
stay on AFDC simply to take drugs to prevent them from passing a drug 
test.
  I invite Members who are supporting the Daschle amendment to tell me 
if those two very important requirements would be changed under the 
Daschle amendment.
  I thank the Chair, and I thank my colleague from Pennsylvania.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. SANTORUM. I yield such time as he may consume to the Senator from 
Colorado.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado is recognized.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I want to thank the Senator from 
Pennsylvania.
  I rise in strong support of the welfare reform effort and to express 
several concerns about the effort to amend it, which is before the body 
now. First of all, a very distinguished Member has just noted her, I 
know, genuine concern that families could be cut off without 
assistance. Let me assure her and other Members who may be listening to 
this debate that this bill is not about cutting people off who are 
genuinely in need and genuinely in need of help. As a matter of fact, 
what this bill does is continue the program in a significant fashion. 
What it does do that is different, in its main point, is give States 
the discretion to run that program, and it has some big differences in 
this area.
  The first and biggest difference is that we take money that is now 
sent to the Federal bureaucracy to administer this program and put that 
money into programs to help the needy and help the State level 
administer the program.
  What we are doing with this effort is saying that it is no longer 
going to be a Federal bureaucracy that dictates to the States and the 
counties how to run their programs. We are going to give many of the 
decisions and administration of programs to people on the line, and the 
resources of the program will be diverted away from the bureaucracy 
toward those people in need and toward those people who actually run 
the program. It does make a difference. It puts more resources in the 
hands of the people who can make a difference and help those in need.
  The second thing it does, I think, that is so important and why I 
think it would be a mistake to turn back to the past is this: In the 
past, we have precluded people from being able to develop effective, 
viable programs on the local level. I will simply give an example in 
Colorado. My own county, Weld County, had a program that had the impact 
of reducing welfare rolls by a substantial amount during the first 
month of operation. It was an experimental program. 

[[Page S 12786]]

  It ended up with a substantial number of people having viable, 
substantive jobs that improved their lot in life and set them on the 
path toward getting out of poverty. It was one focused on job placement 
and opportunity, not subsistence and welfare.
  Those who truly needed the assistance got it, but those who had the 
ability to work and the desire to work were delighted to have the 
opportunity to work, and that is what the program did.
  What happened to that program? It was shut down, and it was shut down 
because it did not satisfy the demands of the Federal bureaucrats that 
ruled.
  That is what this bill is all about. This is about giving your local 
counties and cities and States the ability to design programs that 
really work. If you believe Washington has all the answers, you will 
not want to do that. If you believe in centralized planning and 
decisionmaking in the few hands of people in Washington, DC, that they 
can make a better decision than the people on the line, why, you want 
to oppose the Dole amendment, you want to oppose the Republican 
proposal. What is at stake in this measure is the ability to give the 
States and the cities and the communities where these programs are run 
the ability to change welfare.
  I do not think there is anyone in this Chamber who would come forward 
and say they are proud of the results of the war on poverty. Men and 
women, Democrats and Republicans, liberal and conservatives all look at 
the numbers and they know that the number of people in poverty has gone 
up under the war on poverty, not down. They know that in spite of 
spending hundreds of billions of dollars, literally trillions of 
dollars since the war on poverty started, that poverty is a bigger 
problem today than it was when it started. Part of it is because the 
kind of programs we designed have made people dependent on Government 
instead of being designed to help make them independent and give them 
opportunity. That is what this bill is all about.
  To go back to central planning, I think, would be a mistake, and that 
is why this bill is a good one, because it gives broader decisionmaking 
to a greater number of people and gives flexibility to the States. It 
redirects the resources so that more of it goes to the recipients and 
the people who run the program and less to bureaucrats.
  Third, Mr. President, I want to make a point I think is very 
important when people cast their vote on the amendment that is going to 
be before us. One of the things that sabotaged welfare reform in 1988 
was some amendments that were added at the last minute. Those 
amendments involved an effort to outlaw referrals to work. I know most 
Members are going to say, ``What, making it illegal to refer people to 
work?'' But that is literally what the law did.
  I think most Members of the House and the Senate would be surprised 
if they knew those measures were in it. I remember the battle very 
well, because I was in a position of the ranking Republican on the Ways 
and Means Committee that worked on that. There were three provisions 
added to the bill in the House that restricted referrals to work.
  One, the most damaging, literally says that a State may not refer 
someone to a job in the municipal government or State government unless 
that job is an entirely new program. In other words, if they simply 
just have a vacancy in a program where they have a real job that 
performs real services for real pay and you have a welfare recipient 
who is able to fill that job, they are not allowed to put that welfare 
recipient to work in that job.
  What it has done is sabotage much of the efforts to turn this program 
around. You can look in the Green Book that catalogs the welfare 
programs. If you will look at the rhetoric of the 1988 bill, the line 
was that we have required either work or education or training, the 
emphasis being on work. But when you look at the results, what we find 
is that only 4 percent of the people on welfare in the JOBS Program are 
in a job or work activity. What you literally have done is create a 
program that was sabotaged by that prohibition on work.
  Now, Mr. President, the major focus of the Dole amendment and the 
Republican bill that has come out of committee, the No. 1 item that I 
think has value over and above everything else, is the repeal of the 
prohibition on work; the repeal of that statute that makes it illegal 
to refer welfare recipients to existing job openings. It is a tragic 
mistake that was incorporated into our laws in 1988. It is a tragic 
mistake that has sabotaged our efforts to help those who are poor among 
us turn their lives around. Tragically, the amendment before us does 
not fully correct that error. In other words, if you vote for the 
Daschle amendment, you will be voting to continue some of the 
prohibitions on work.
  Right now, the Finance Committee bill, and the Dole amendment, repeal 
the prohibitions on work. If you wipe those out with this weaker 
amendment, you wipe out the major tool that I think can turn the 
welfare system around.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. BROWN. Yes.
  Mr. SANTORUM. I want to make sure I am clear on this. In current law, 
the Senator is suggesting that if there is a job opening which a 
welfare recipient could qualify to do, and someone wants to hire the 
welfare recipient in a work program for that position, they cannot 
refer that person for the job; is that correct?
  Mr. BROWN. The statute is very clear. They cannot refer them to it 
unless it is an entirely new job, a new organization, a new department, 
or new bureaucracy.
  Mr. SANTORUM. If I own a company, a small business, and I want to 
hire a welfare recipient, they cannot refer that person unless it is a 
newly created job?
  Mr. BROWN. They can if it is a private company. But they cannot with 
regard to a city or State job.
  Mr. SANTORUM. A city or State job. If you have a job available in the 
highway department holding a sign up--we have all seen that--and you 
want to refer a welfare recipient to that job, you cannot do that 
today; is that right?
  Mr. BROWN. Under today's law, you could not.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Under the Daschle proposal, could you refer that 
person?
  Mr. BROWN. My understanding is--and perhaps Members will correct me 
if I am wrong--in that amendment, they do not fully change that 
prohibition. On its face the amendment appears to repeal the 
prohibition, but it in fact continues it in a more subtle form.
  Mr. SANTORUM. ``Where are the jobs,'' I hear. We are not allowed to 
refer them to the jobs. Under our bill, we would create the opportunity 
for those referrals. Under their bill, they prohibit job placements.
  Mr. BROWN. They keep in place a major impediment to placing men and 
women on those jobs.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Would the Senator like a response?
  Mr. BROWN. Yes.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. The Daschle Work First provision says that you 
cannot fire an individual who is working in order to replace that 
worker with someone currently receiving public assistance. That is 
correct. So your reference to a new job means the job is not currently 
held by a worker, a person already in the private work force.
  Mr. BROWN. I appreciate that. Let me say I agree with the Senator 
that somebody should not be fired to be replaced by a welfare 
recipient. But the statute on the books now--and that is repealed by 
the committee proposal--is one that makes it illegal to refer someone 
to an existing opening. Now, the purpose of that might be to protect 
somebody from being fired--I have no problem with that--so that you 
could replace them with a welfare recipient. I assume the concern is it 
might cost less. I have no problem with that.
  I have a problem with the tragedy that has occurred since 1988, and 
that is prohibiting people from being referred to those jobs which are 
normally open, saying the only ones you can refer them to are brand new 
agencies or bureaucracies. That is the basic concern I have about the 
amendment before us, which I believe is the No. 1 item that was a 
problem with the 1988 bill.
  I will mention that I offered an amendment on the floor of the House 
to instruct the conferees to repeal from the bill those prohibitions on 
work. 

[[Page S 12787]]
That measure passed by a large majority in the House of Representatives 
at the time. It was a measure that, unfortunately, though, the 
conference committee in 1988 chose to retain in the bill, and it has 
had continuing devastating affects on the abilities of young men and 
women to turn their lives around from poverty.
  It seems to me that what we ought to be doing with the welfare reform 
bill is looking for ways to help people get out of poverty, instead of 
having a program that keeps people in poverty. What we have done to 
people under the existing program is create a program that makes it 
very difficult to get out of poverty, to leave it, to turn their way of 
life around. What we have done in some States is create a level so 
people have to take a pay cut if they go to get a job. Tragically, 
sometimes the bureaucracy in these areas has chosen not to refer people 
to baseline jobs, beginning jobs.
  The Denver welfare office, which I have visited several times, is a 
large office that employs over 1,000 people working on welfare-related 
programs at one location. Obviously, Denver is not as big as many of 
the cities represented here on this floor right now. But the attitude, 
tragically, in many of those areas is that you should not start at some 
of the basic jobs, that you should only refer people to jobs that start 
at $8 or $9 an hour, or $10 an hour.
  Mr. President, let me mention that I think it is terribly important 
for people to understand that the way you do well in our economy is you 
start off on the ladder, and you climb it rung by rung by rung. You do 
not start off at the top. You do start off and work your way up by 
doing a good job in each responsibility that you have. One of the 
things I did while in high school was work 40 hours a week. I worked as 
a gardener, a busboy, and a janitor. Those jobs were jobs that helped 
me get better jobs. I think around this country, what men and women 
find is an opportunity--work means an opportunity for them to improve 
their way of life.
  What we have had is a welfare program in the past that has sought to 
isolate people from an opportunity to get started. What we need more 
than anything else in the way of welfare reform is a program that 
understands its purpose and its function, and its focus ought to be to 
help people get out of poverty, not keep them in it. It ought to be one 
that has a different image of people. It ought to recognize that some 
people do need help, and we will provide that. But many people want, 
more than anything else, an opportunity. They want, more than anything 
else, a way to find a job, to prepare for the skills, and help to begin 
that process.
  I am proud that in the welfare reform bill that came out of the 
Finance Committee, there are many ingredients that I think will help 
turn this around. The biggest one, other than repealing the prohibition 
on work, is allowing our communities to take a hand in running and 
designing these programs. Pueblo County in Colorado designed an 
outstanding program that showed superb results. Unfortunately, it was 
shut down by Federal regulators because it did not fit their idea of 
what would work and what would not work. I know San Diego County in 
California has done a number of experiments that were successful in 
helping people turn their lives around. Unfortunately, they could not 
be continued because they did not fit the Federal role model and 
guides.
  We have seen Jefferson County in Colorado come forward with a very 
progressive program. I am proud to say that I think many of the bills 
talked about here will give them the flexibility to move ahead with 
that. But part of this is understanding that central planning, 
centralization of decisions, centralization and controlling all welfare 
programs, does not work. The package that has been put together since 
the war on poverty began has increased poverty, not reduced it. It has 
reduced opportunity for people. So we have an opportunity, in this next 
week, to pass what I think will be the single most important bill we 
will consider in this session of Congress, and that is one of changing 
welfare, changing it from a program that locks people into poverty to a 
program that is designed to help people out of poverty.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may use. I 
thank the Senator from Colorado for his excellent remarks. I thank him 
for the great work he has done on not only this legislation but really 
in getting us here. He mentioned that he has been the ranking member on 
the Subcommittee on Human Resources of the House Ways and Means 
Committee, which is a position I was fortunate enough to serve in for 2 
years. I know on that committee he worked to set a lot of groundwork 
for us to work on welfare reform that we did in the House, which became 
H.R. 4, that passed, and added tremendously, even in last year's 
debate, by introducing his own bill last session
 to reform the welfare system and again move the ball forward on this 
subject.

  I want to pick up on this issue of worker displacement because I do 
not think we got the full answer. I am reading from the bill, section 
485 of the bill. Subsection (C) talks about nondisplacement.
  ``In general, no funds provided under this Act shall be used in a 
manner that would result in the displacement of any currently employed 
worker''--I accept that as meaning maybe someone who would be fired--
``or the impairment of existing contracts for services or collective 
bargaining agreements.''
  Well, what does that mean? It means that if you have any position 
that is a part of a collective bargaining agreement or contracted 
service, which just about every city and State position is part of a 
collective bargaining agreement, you cannot fill that. Any unionized 
employee whose position is vacant cannot be filled by a welfare 
recipient. This is a blatant bow to organized labor, saying we will not 
take that person who holds that sign on the construction project that 
says ``stop'' and ``slow,'' that is in most cases a contracted service, 
an existing contract for service; that is a position that is filled by 
the contractor for the State government and cannot be filled by a 
welfare recipient; someone who works in the State bureaucracy, who is a 
member of a union. I imagine you could do this if you became a union 
member and got off welfare, but if you are in a work program, you 
cannot fill that job. You cannot be referred for that job under the 
Daschle-Breaux position.
  It is a fancier way of saying--I know they were very uncomfortable 
with coming out and saying we do not want to allow people to be 
referred, because I got a lot of heat on that, but this is a backdoor 
way of accomplishing the same thing.
  So I think we should tell it like it is. It is very clear here that 
almost all city and State jobs, which are almost all unionized jobs 
with the exception of political appointments, what we are talking about 
here is not allowing to replace vacancies.
  I think that is, as the Senator from Colorado very eloquently stated, 
one of the biggest impediments to moving people off welfare into jobs 
in which they can later become productive, is this prohibition. It 
remains in the Daschle bill. I think it is a serious flaw in the 
legislation.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. SANTORUM. I am happy to yield to the Senator.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Section 486 of the bill does provide for the 
placement of people in employment. I wish to correct the statement. I 
hope the misimpression that was given that the Daschle substitute 
prohibits people from being placed in public-sector employment--it does 
not prohibit welfare recipients from being placed in public-sector 
employment. What it does provide, as the Senator correctly noted, is 
that it has to be done according to the rules, and the rules which are 
collective bargaining agreements and others. It does not prohibit the 
placement of welfare recipient in the public sector.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Reclaiming my time, it did not, except there are no 
public-sector jobs other than the jobs we are talking about in which 
you could be placed. It sort of is giving with one and taking away with 
the other. The end result, there will not be public-sector jobs the 
welfare recipients will be referred to. That is a very serious flaw in 
this amendment that is being put forward by the Democratic leader.
  I am happy to yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Virginia. 

[[Page S 12788]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 4 minutes remaining on the side of 
the Senator from Pennsylvania and 2 minutes remaining on the Daschle 
side.
  Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I ask unanimous-consent that I be recognized 
for 12 minutes to speak on the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. According to the unanimous-consent agreement, 
at 3:30 there is to be 15 minutes available to the Democratic leader 
followed by 15 minutes available to the majority leader.
  Mr. SANTORUM. I am happy to yield the remaining 4 minutes on the 
Republican side to the Senator from Virginia and he can use the 
remaining time.
  Mr. ROBB. I ask that I be recognized until such time as the leaders 
come to reclaim the time under the unanimous-consent agreement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ROBB. Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Work First plan offered 
by our Democratic leader, Senator Daschle. I am pleased to be an 
original cosponsor of this important legislation because I believe it 
both establishes firm boundaries to combat welfare dependency and 
provides beneficiaries with genuine economic opportunity.
  George Bernard Shaw once said, ``The greatest of our evils and the 
worst of our crimes is poverty.''
  And it is unconscionable, Mr. President, that in America today we 
have nearly l6 million children living in poverty. In l993, almost 30 
percent of all children under age 3 lived in poverty and almost 50 
percent of all African-American children were poor.
  Between l989 and l993, the number of children receiving food stamps 
increased more than 50 percent and in l994 25 percent of our Nation's 
homeless were children under 18.
  For the world's greatest democracy (where the value and the freedoms 
inherent in each individual citizen are unparalleled anywhere on earth) 
these statistics portray both a moral dilemma and an economic burden of 
enormous consequence.
  We have not only an obligation to improve the quality of life of 
generations of innocent children shadowed by poverty, but also a 
responsibility to our taxpayers to both improve our welfare system and 
to reduce the billions of dollars in lost productivity incurred each 
year as a result of current poverty levels.
  Mr. President, there are infrequent moments in time where 
constructive and meaningful solutions can be found to otherwise 
intractable problems. I honestly believe we have before us such a 
moment, and I hope we do not let this opportunity slip from our grasp.
  At a minimum, we do not want to let politics, or public opinion 
polls, or fears of 30-second sound bites on the evening news prevent us 
from doing what is right.
  And to do what is right, Mr. President, we have to rethink our 
Nation's social policy. We have to restructure our welfare system to 
foster greater upward mobility, to reconnect the poor to the mainstream 
job market, to reward self-discipline and hard work, to encourage 
families to stay together, and to restore to the poor and the 
dispossessed both the benefits and the obligations of citizenship.
  I believe the Work First plan meets those objectives.
  With a 2-year time limit on benefits for adults--and a 5-year 
lifetime limit--this bill transforms welfare into the short-term safety 
net it was meant to be. It contains the funding necessary to allow an 
individual to both sustain a family in the short-term and secure and 
keep a job in the longer term. That is the definition of real welfare 
reform, Mr. President.
  In reality, single mothers need child care to work, and the Work 
First plan guarantees that child care. In reality, families need 
extended Medicaid coverage to bridge the gap created by entry-level 
jobs with little or no benefits--and the Work First plan makes Medicaid 
available for an additional 12 months.
  By addressing the practical obstacles to independence which so many 
poor families encounter today, the Work First plan provides incentives 
to shatter current barriers and allow individuals to move up the 
economic ladder.
  And very importantly, Mr. President, those who cannot find a private 
sector job under the Work First plan are put to work as well, either 
through workfare or community service. In fact, within 7 years of 
enactment, nonexempt individuals are required to participate in 
community service jobs just 6 months after joining the welfare rolls.
  Two years ago, Mr. President, I joined our former colleague from 
Oklahoma, Senator Boren, in supporting legislation similar to the old 
Works Progress Act, which placed into public service jobs AFDC 
recipients who had completed the JOBS Program and still remained 
unemployed. Requiring that those individuals work for their benefits 
appeals to my sense of what the shared contract between a society and 
its people should encompass.
  Only by providing useful work--and the values and discipline 
associated with work--can we offer the poor and the disadvantaged a 
permanent way out of poverty. I believe everyone benefits from the 
sense of self-worth that earning wages and contributing to his or her 
community engenders.
  When we require beneficiaries to work we give them job experience--
job experience that can open doors and bridge the gap between 
dependency and genuine economic opportunity.
  The Work First plan is tough medicine, Mr. President, but I believe 
it establishes a pragmatic, compassionate process to lift many of our 
poor citizens out of poverty and into the economic mainstream.
  And while I believe the Work First plan moves us firmly in the right 
direction, I have some serious concerns about the alternative plan 
offered by the Majority Leader.
  First, it guarantees neither adequate child care nor extended health 
benefits. How can we require poor women to go to work without ensuring 
that their young children are watched over and protected?
  Second, CBO estimates that States will need to collectively spend an 
additional $5 billion by the year 2000--$5 billion above what they are 
paying now--to meet the work requirements in the alternative bill. 
Where will States get that $5 billion, Mr. President, if federal block 
grants are frozen for 5 years at current levels? And what is more 
vitally important to successfully improving our welfare system than 
effectively moving people into jobs?
  Finally, Mr. President, I am concerned that the alternative bill 
fails to require States to continue to contribute their historic share.
  As a former Governor, I know that reduced State support could mean 
financial disaster for many cities and counties. On June l5, the U.S. 
Conference of Mayors unanimously adopted a resolution opposing the 
Senate Finance Committee bill and endorsing the Work First plan, 
stating that it would ``provide significantly greater assistance--to 
facilitate the transition from welfare to work.''
  The transition from welfare to work--that is our goal. That is the 
purpose, the spirit, the driving force behind the Work First plan.
  Mr. President, every time a welfare recipient earns a living wage, at 
least one more child in America moves out of poverty.
  Every time a welfare recipient earns a living wage, at least one more 
child in America sees their role model go to work in the morning, earn 
a salary, pay their bills, believe a little more in their own ability 
and their self-worth, and live in a world that is infinitely stronger 
because they contribute to it.
  And every time a welfare recipient earns a living wage, at least one 
more child in America escapes from what could become a cycle of 
dependency and hopelessness that is inherently unAmerican--and for 
which we have an obligation today to begin to break.
  The moment, Mr. President, is before us. We have an opportunity--
indeed, a responsibility--to help many of our most vulnerable people 
better attain the priceless gift of economic freedom. And we will make 
our country stronger in the future.
  This does not have to be a partisan battle, Mr. President. Rather, it 
should be a bipartisan effort to identify tough, effective solutions.
  As Franklin Roosevelt said during his second inaugural address, ``In 
every land there are always at work forces that drive men apart and 
forces that draw men together. In our personal ambitions we are 
individuals. But in our seeking for economic and political 

[[Page S 12789]]
progress as a Nation, we all go up, or else we all go down, as one 
people * * *.''
  I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join together in 
support of the Work First amendment.
  Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, as an original cosponsor of the Democrats' 
Work First welfare reform plan, I urge my colleagues to join us in 
supporting this proposal. Welfare reform needs to be done now.
  Work First does what all of us want to do--it requires people 
receiving welfare to get to work as quickly as possible. It does this 
while also protecting those children at risk and dependent upon the 
welfare assistance system through no action on their part.
  This spring, I came to the Senate floor to discuss the need to reform 
our welfare system. I related what I had learned after spending an 
entire morning at one of the busiest welfare offices in Las Vegas, the 
West Owens District Welfare Office, observing an eligibility 
determination interview, and meeting with welfare eligibility workers. 
I later also visited a welfare office in Reno. The need for extensive 
and immediate reform of the current welfare system was brought home to 
me most vividly during these visits. I believe Work First gets us to 
that needed reform.
  The Work First alternative is self-explanatory. It puts the focus of 
the welfare assistance program where it must be--on getting people to 
work as quickly as possible. All able-bodied recipients go to work 
immediately. Those who work receive the help they need to get on their 
feet--they get an additional year of Medicaid health care coverage, and 
they get child care assistance. And for the working poor, those trying 
to go it on their own, they get a 5-year child care phase-in to help 
ensure they can permanently join the work force.
  Work First does this, while at the same time showing compassion for 
those in dire straits, and for those children who are at risk. It is 
too easy to forget in the heat of debate on this very important issue 
that there are people, and particularly children throughout this Nation 
who desperately, and very legitimately need welfare assistance. We want 
a welfare assistance system that will be there for those truly in need, 
yet ensures that they get on their own two feet as quickly as possible.
  My State of Nevada is the fastest growing State in the Nation. Rapid 
growth States like Nevada benefit tremendously from the current 
entitlement status of the Federal welfare assistance system. Today, if 
a person meets the eligibility criteria, he or she is entitled to 
assistance. The entitlement protects States like Nevada which are 
experiencing incredible population increases. As needy people move into 
these rapid growth States, the Federal funding follows the population 
shift.
  Work First limits the entitlement to welfare assistance. People who 
need assistance only get it if they are eligible, and only if they meet 
their responsibilities. It is a time limited and conditional 
eligibility. For the needy, assistance is there, but only if they do 
what is necessary to get to work. No longer can welfare assistance 
become a lifestyle.
  Work First provides States with the incentive to create welfare 
systems that will put people to work as soon as possible. If a State 
does not meet its target for putting welfare recipients to work, it is 
penalized. If a State exceeds the target, it is rewarded through a 
funding bonus.
  Work First, unlike the Republican proposal, does not use the block 
grant approach. As a former Governor, I very much understand the 
attraction of block grants for Governors and their States. Quite often 
it can be a better approach.
  But the notion that somehow block grants are, in and of themselves, 
the answer to every problem we have with the current welfare program is 
disingenuous. Particularly when the Republican block grant proposal 
asks States to do more with less.
  If States are deprived of the funding necessary to do the job the 
Federal Government is sending to them through a block grant, all of the 
flexibility in the world will not enable the States to do the job--let 
alone do it better.
  Under the Republican proposal, all States are held to their fiscal 
year 1994 cash assistance level of Federal funding for the next 5 
years. How can rapidly growing States like Nevada possibly provide for 
their increasing number of people in need based on yesterday's funding 
levels? And into the next 5 years?
  And how does the block grant proposal help States face economic 
recessions? Economic slowdowns impact welfare assistance programs 
immediately. Working families lose their jobs through no fault of their 
own, and it can be a long time before a job is available again. These 
people need help. And yet Nevada and the other States are expected to 
provide for these people on an already inadequate level of Federal 
funding.
  Work First also recognizes that the inability to pay for child care 
is a major hurdle for the many single mothers with children who want to 
work. It is also a problem for low-income working couples who are at 
risk of losing their jobs because they cannot afford to pay child care 
on the wages they receive.
  Earlier this year, I observed a welfare eligibility determination 
interview which involved a young woman, who was working, and married 
with two young children. Both she and her husband had jobs paying above 
the minimum wage, yet they could not provide a living wage for their 
family of four.
  Her employer kept her work hours to no more than 20 hours per week, 
so she was ineligible for job provided health care benefits. One of her 
children had a preexisting medical condition, so medical care was a 
necessity. The cost of child care for the two children was making it 
impossible for both her and her husband to continue to work, and still 
have enough earned income left to live on. Here is a couple trying to 
make it on their own, and they cannot.
  Work First recognizes the vital importance of child care assistance 
to help welfare recipients get off welfare and get to work. It also 
recognizes that the many working poor, like the family I just 
described, also need child care help--for awhile--to enable them to 
stay in the workforce.
  The Republican welfare reform proposal, however, deals with this 
issue by repealing child care assistance programs which today serve 
approximately 640,000 children. There is no guarantee that any State 
will provide funds to implement a child care assistance program.
  If it is truly our goal to get people into the workforce permanently, 
then we must give these people the help--for a limited time--that will 
enable them to get there. Repealing the very programs that provide this 
assistance is not the answer.
  This June, I introduced my Child Support Enforcement Act legislation 
modified from my bill last Congress to help further strengthen our 
ability to get dead beat parents to responsibly provide for their 
children. I am pleased Work First includes many of the same provisions.
  No one who shares the responsibility for bringing children into this 
world should be allowed to shirk that responsibility later by refusing 
to admit paternity or by failing to pay child support.
  We all lament the increasing number of unwed teenage girls who have 
children. This situation is particularly disheartening when these young 
mothers are themselves mere children. But too often in the past, our 
public policies to try to stem this increase have focused solely on the 
mother and ignored the responsibility of the father. Those fathers, who 
many times have already walked away before their children are even 
born, must face the reality of their parental and financial 
responsibilities.
  Although Nevada is the fastest growing State in the Nation, its 
population is comparatively small with about 1.6 million people. Yet 
its State Child Support Enforcement Program had 66,385 cases in fiscal 
year 1994, and collected $62.7 million of child support. Unfortunately, 
the total owed was almost $352 million, leaving an uncollected balance 
of almost $290 million. Already by April this year, Nevada's caseload 
had grown to over 69,000 cases.
  These cases represent only those children whose families are 
receiving Aid to Families with Dependent Children, or who are using the 
services of the county district attorney offices to enforce child 
support. The many Nevadans using private attorneys are not 

[[Page S 12790]]
included. This scenario is repeated in every State across the country.
  The facts are simple. Nationally, one in four children live in a 
single-parent household. But one of the most startling statistics is 
that only half of these single parents have sought and obtained child 
support orders.
  This means 50 percent of these single mothers either have been unable 
to track down the father, have not pursued support, or are unaware of 
their legal child support enforcement rights.
  Of the parents who have sought out and obtained child support, only 
half receive the full amount to which they are entitled. This means 25 
percent of the single parents who have child support orders actually 
receive nothing at all.
  These facts should concern us. It is all too true that many single 
parents must seek public welfare assistance in order to be able to 
support their children. When we taxpayers are asked to lend a helping 
hand to these children, we should be assured every effort is being made 
to require absent deadbeat parents meet their financial 
responsibilities to those same children. Public assistance should not 
be the escape valve relied upon by those parents who want to walk away 
from their children.
  My child support enforcement legislation and Work First provide the 
means to help shut that escape valve. Both provide States the authority 
to withhold or suspend occupational and professional licenses; Work 
First also includes drivers' licenses. Both allow the denial of 
passports to noncustodial parents for nonpayment of child support. Both 
provide for the reporting of child support arrearages to credit 
bureaus. Both require custodial parents cooperate with paternity 
establishment and enforcement of child support as a condition of 
receiving cash assistance. The authority to collect child support from 
Federal employees and members of the Armed Services is enhanced by both 
measures. Full faith and credit of child support orders is improved, 
and States are required to adopt laws to void fraudulent transfers by a 
person owing child support.
  Work First also allows States to prohibit noncustodial parents--the 
parents who owe the child support--from receiving food stamp 
assistance. So much of our efforts to establish and collect child 
support fall on the custodial parent--the parent who cares for the 
children and tries to make ends meet. This provision provides another 
way to find noncustodial parents and ensure they meet their child 
support obligations.
  We must give our courts and law enforcement agencies the tools they 
need to crack down on delinquent parents. The goal is not to drive 
those who want to meet their obligations to their children away, but 
rather to make sure those ignoring their children understand that 
society will not tolerate their irresponsible behavior.
  We must assure taxpayers who lend the helping hand to impoverished 
single mothers and their children that every effort is being made to 
get deadbeat parents to pay up. We must ensure the children receive 
adequate and consistent child support, so they are able to have the 
opportunity to become successful, productive, and healthy adults. For 
many single parent families, if they could receive the child support 
payments they are entitled to, it would make the difference between 
being able to maintain their financial independence, and having to seek 
welfare assistance.
  I do support the Republican welfare reform requirement that all food 
stamp recipients, both the custodial and the noncustodial parent, 
participate in child support enforcement efforts as a condition of food 
stamp eligibility. This requirement to participate in child support 
enforcement efforts needs to be extended to all welfare and public 
assistance programs.
  During my visits with Nevada eligibility workers, over and over again 
I heard about problems with the Food Stamp Program eligibility 
criteria. Work First deals with those problems. People eligible for 
food stamps, without children, are required to work or get training to 
work as a condition of receiving benefits.
  Although the Food Stamp Program is criticized, it has provided the 
most basic safety net--food--for those in need, particularly in times 
of recession. The Republican proposal, however, would give States the 
irrevocable option to put their food stamp funds into a block grant. 
This option requires States spend 80 percent of these funds on food 
assistance. The other 20 percent is left to the States to use as they 
wish. Again States are held to the higher of either their fiscal year 
1994, or the average of their fiscal year 1992-94 expenditures as their 
funding level under the block grant approach. How can this option 
possibly provide a dependable minimal safety net for those who are most 
vulnerable to economic downturns? food stamp funds should go for food; 
that is too basic a human need to play with.
  Good as Work First is, there are some problem areas of the current 
welfare system that it does not address. I will be proposing a welfare 
fraud amendment to prohibit welfare recipients who commit welfare fraud 
from being unjustly enriched because of that fraud. There are times 
when an individual, whose benefits are reduced because of an act of 
fraud, games the system by using his reduced monthly income to generate 
additional benefits from other assistance programs. When welfare 
recipients are overpaid benefits, we need to allow the welfare system 
to intercept Federal income tax refunds to recover such benefit 
amounts.
  We need a welfare system that does not allow people to think that 
receiving welfare assistance is an option they can choose to take when 
it is convenient. We all read in the Washington Post of the young, 
unmarried, working woman who made a conscious decision to have a child, 
voluntarily left her job, and then applied for and received welfare 
assistance. Her rationale was that she had worked, and now the system 
owed her support while she stayed home to care for the child for its 
first 3 years.
  Millions of single mothers get up every morning, get their children 
ready for school or child care, and go off to work, and we should 
expect no less from those receiving welfare assistance. No one should 
ever think welfare assistance is going to be there for them because 
they voluntarily leave their jobs, or decide to have a child and want 
to stay home to care for it.
  Americans are a compassionate people. They are always there to help 
people who are genuinely in need. They care deeply about our country's 
children. The outpouring from the hearts of Americans across this 
country in response to the Oklahoma Federal building bombing verified 
that compassionate nature a thousand fold.
  But most Americans are a hard-working lot, too. The vast majority of 
Americans are out there every day going to work--doing their best to 
provide for their families on their own. And many of these hard-working 
Americans are single mothers who are the sole breadwinner for their 
children, who pay for their own child care, and who struggle to make it 
by themselves. It should come as no surprise when these hard-working 
people feel a bit taken advantage of when they see able-bodied people 
relying on the welfare assistance program.
   The welfare system must be substantially changed. On that we all 
agree. We all agree too that there will always be people who will need 
the safety net welfare assistance provides at some time in their lives. 
But the net should be there only for a limited time, so people get back 
on their feet and permanently into the workforce.
  Work First will change the welfare system. It lets hard-working 
Americans know that we recognize their frustration with those who abuse 
the welfare system. It lets Americans in need know that conditional, 
time-limited assistance is there to help them if they meet their 
responsibilities to get to work as soon as possible. And it does this 
compassionately by protecting our most vulnerable citizens. Work First 
may not have all the answers, but it will get us well down the road to 
a more fair welfare assistance system.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate is finally 
debating welfare reform. And, I want to take a few minutes to discuss 
my views on the matter.
  It is obvious to almost everyone--including those on welfare--that 
the current welfare system is broken.
  Too many welfare recipients spend far too long on welfare and do far 
too little in exchange for their benefits. Many of those who manage to 
get off the welfare rolls only end up back on 

[[Page S 12791]]
them after a short period of time. And, for some, generations have made 
welfare their way of life.
  This is unacceptable. And, I believe that trying to fix the problem 
through patchwork solutions is no longer an option--it will only fall 
short of what needs to be done. Instead, we need to end the current 
welfare system--scrap it and start over. And, the new program must have 
as its fundamental premise one basic thing: work.
  Back in 1987, I proposed a work requirement for all welfare 
recipients. And, many of those ideas were embodied in the Family 
Support Act of 1988--the bipartisan legislation crafted by Senator 
Moynihan. It was a good first step. But, it is evident today that the 
1988 law did not go far enough.
  It is time--it is long past time, really--for us to require welfare 
recipients to work for their benefits.
  We must make it unmistakably clear that welfare recipients have an 
obligation to make every effort to end their dependency. Citizenship is 
more than just a bundle of benefits. It is also a set of 
responsibilities. And, the primary responsibility is to provide for 
yourself and your family by working.
  Now, when I say ``work,'' let me be clear about what I mean. I mean 
work. I do not mean participation in bureaucratic programs. I do not 
mean participation in ``work activities.'' I mean real work. I mean a 
job.
  And, if a private sector job cannot be found, welfare recipients 
should still be required to work, giving back to the communities where 
they live by doing community service work.
  In short, the new rule of the game must be this: In exchange for a 
welfare check, you do something for your benefits. You work. The 
government will help with child care and some job training, if needed. 
But, all adults on welfare should be working. The culture of welfare 
must be replaced with the culture of work.
  Let me be specific.
  First, we should require all welfare recipients to sign a contract in 
which they agree to work in exchange for their benefits. Those who 
refuse to sign should not get benefits.
  Then, welfare recipients should have to look for a job immediately. 
They should have up to 6 months to find a job in the private sector. 
Six months, period.
  Those who refuse to look for work should not get benefits. And, those 
welfare recipients who are not working at the end of 6 months should 
work in a public sector job or do community service work--or give up 
their welfare benefits.
  No more free lunches. No more free rides.
  And, Mr. President, there should be no more permanent claim on public 
aid. Working for a welfare check--and everyone should work for their 
check--must be temporary. Welfare recipients must eventually work for a 
paycheck.
  Do not get me wrong. Temporary assistance is the right and humane 
thing to do. We should not abandon welfare entirely. All Americans must 
be secure in the knowledge that if something unexpected happens to 
them--the death of a spouse, the loss of a job, the burning down of 
their house--that help will be there.
  But, welfare must no longer be a way of life. We do no favors--
including for the welfare recipients themselves--by keeping people on 
welfare indefinitely. We must get people off of welfare--and keep them 
off. Welfare dependency must be replaced with self-sufficiency and 
personal responsibility.
  So, we should limit adults to 5 years of welfare, returning the 
welfare system to its original intent--a system of temporary 
assistance.
  Mr. President, a mandatory work requirement and a 5-year time limit 
sound tough. And, they are. It is time for some tough measures.
  But, in the process we must be realistic. If welfare is truly to 
become a two-way street--if our goal is to move welfare recipients into 
work and not just out onto the streets--then we cannot ignore the issue 
of child care.
  For a family living in poverty, the costs of child care can eat up 
almost 25 percent of their income. Expecting welfare recipients to 
work--demanding that they work--will not work without child care. The 
work simply will not pay. Welfare recipients will either go to work and 
leave their children alone --or not go to work at all. No one--no 
matter how poor--should be asked to choose between their job and their 
children. Not only is child care the right thing to do--but, without 
it, welfare reform will fail.
  In creating a new welfare system, we must recognize this reality by 
making sure that child care is available for the children on welfare 
when their mothers are working. In addition, we must recognize that 
many of those who leave welfare only to return later do so because they 
cannot afford child care. We should allow States to provide 2 years of 
child care assistance for those who have left welfare. And, we should 
make all low income working families eligible for child care 
assistance--regardless of whether they had ever been on welfare.
  Mr. President, let there be no doubt. We must be strict with the 
adult recipients of welfare. But, at the same time, we must be 
compassionate toward the children.
  Two-thirds of those on welfare are children--and we should not blame 
them or punish them for being born into poverty. More than one in every 
five children in America today is born poor. That's one poor child born 
every 40 seconds. And they were given no choice in the matter. 
Abandoning these children--and they are all of our children--is 
tantamount to abandoning our future.
  That is why I believe we must guarantee child care. And, that is why 
we should, while limiting adults to 5 years of welfare, keep the safety 
net for children.
  If a parent is kicked off of welfare, the children--the innocent 
children-- should continue to receive assistance for food, housing, and 
clothing. But, that assistance should be provided for the children 
through a voucher to a third party--not cash to the parents. In other 
words, adults should not be able to live off of their children's 
benefits.
  The point here is that we should provide nothing for adults who do 
not work, but we should protect the children who are not to blame.
  Finally, in all of this talk and debate about welfare mothers, let us 
not forget that there are two adults involved in creating a child. 
Those who bring children into the world should support their children--
and that includes the deadbeat parents, who are mostly dads.
  They should be forced to pay child support, and tough child support 
enforcement must be a part of any welfare reform effort. Getting tough 
on the deadbeat dads must be as high a priority as getting tough on the 
welfare mothers. Remember, every dollar not paid in child support is 
another dollar the Government may have to pay in welfare benefits.
  Since 1992, when I was appointed to a Senate Democratic task force on 
child support enforcement, I have argued that fathers who do not work 
and do not pay child support should be required to take a job--just as 
welfare mothers should be required to work. Absent parents who have 
failed to pay child support should be given a simple choice. They could 
start paying what they owe their children. Or, they could take a 
community service job in order to earn the money they owe their 
children. Or, they could go to jail. But, what they should no longer be 
able to do is to abandon their children.
  Mr. President, I am absolutely committed to passing a tough welfare 
reform measure that emphasizes work and personal responsibility--but 
protects children in the process and maintains a safety net for all 
Americans who need temporary help.
  In evaluating the options, I believe that Senator Daschle's 
proposal--the Work First Act--comes closest to meeting my goals. The 
Work First plan strikes an appropriate balance. It requires work and 
imposes a 5-year time limit. It guarantees child care and a temporary 
safety net for all Americans. It is tough on both welfare mothers and 
deadbeat dads.
  I believe that the Daschle proposal is real welfare reform. And, I 
urge my colleagues to join me in voting for this important, 
significant, and long overdue overhaul of our welfare system.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, as we continue the debate on welfare 
reform I would like to begin by restating some things that I talked 
about before we recessed in August.
  I believe it is important for people to understand that there is 
agreement on one issue here--the need to reform the welfare system. We 
may have differences of opinion about the best way 

[[Page S 12792]]
to accomplish it, but on the central issue, there is agreement.
  There is not a single member in this Chamber who believes that 
welfare system is a success. It is failing the taxpayers and it is 
failing the people who rely on it.
  I had great hopes that we would be debating welfare reform 
legislation that enjoyed broad bipartisan support. In fact, I had 
written to the two leaders asking that a bipartisan task force be 
appointed to find our common ground.
  Mr. President, neither party has cornered the market on good ideas 
and sound solutions. Only by having voices from all segments of the 
political spectrum, can we arrive at sound legislation developed by 
using common sense.
  Unfortunately, the Dole amendment was negotiated behind closed doors 
within the Republican caucus. The result is legislation that is strong 
on ideology, and short on true reform. Without changes, I fear the 
Dole-Packwood proposal may well replace one failed, dependency inducing 
welfare system with many varieties of the same.
  Unfortunately, I vividly recall the last prolonged economic downturn 
that gripped Iowa during the farm depression and accompanying deep 
recession in agricultural States and communities. The economy began to 
sour in 1981 and did not truly begin to turn about for the State until 
about 1987. That experience has forever changed the economic landscape 
of Iowa. Good jobs are gone and will never return.
  Those were very difficult years, but contributions provided by a 
partnership with the Federal Government allowed my State and others in 
the Midwest to recover. One of the most serious shortcomings of the 
Dole amendment is that it severs this important partnership.
  Mr. President, today, we are debating an alternative that has been 
proposed by the Democratic leadership. Unlike the pending Dole 
amendment, the Daschle Work First Act will, in fact, truly reform the 
welfare system. And in the process, will reduce the deficit by $20 
billion.
  The Work First Act abolishes the current giveaway welfare system and 
replaces it with a conditional, transitional benefit. Let me repeat 
this since many seem to misunderstand--a conditional, transitional 
benefit.
  This proposal is not tinkering as some suggest. It is true, 
comprehensive, real reform
 of an obsolete, failed system.

  Welfare as a way of life will no longer exist. There will be no more 
unconditional handouts. Parents will be required to responsibility from 
day one and must do something in return for the welfare check. Failure 
to do so, will have consequences.
  The Democratic leadership proposal starts with the following goal--to 
get welfare recipients employed and off of welfare. And then develops a 
comprehensive plan to make it happen.
  You can't accomplish the goal unless you do certain things. That's 
just common sense. First, you have to take care of the kids. Second, 
you have to make sure that people have the skills and education 
necessary to get and keep jobs. Finally, there is no free ride, no more 
government hand outs.
  We will provide a hand-up. But individuals on welfare must accept 
responsibility from day one and grab on to that helping hand. If not, 
then there will be no check.
  A central element of the Daschle bill is the requirement that all 
families on welfare must negotiate and sign a contract that spells out 
what they will do to get off of welfare. Failure to meet the terms of 
the contract will result in the termination of the cash grant.
  A binding contract, like that included in the Daschle bill, is 
currently in place in Iowa. And it works.
  Over the past 22 months I have met with a number of individuals about 
the Iowa Family Investment Program. Time after time I hear welfare 
recipients say that no one ever asked them about their goals. No one 
sat down and talked with them about what it takes to get off of 
welfare.
  Welfare recipients rightfully assumed that no one cared if they 
stayed on welfare indefinitely. That was the message of this obsolete 
system which kept welfare moms at home, while most other moms were 
employed outside the home.
  There is a new message being delivered in Iowa now. Welfare is a 
transitional program and people must be working to get off the system.
  And the welfare picture is changing in Iowa. More families are 
working and earning income. There are fewer families on welfare. And 
the State is spending less for cash grants.
  But we can't get from here to there without recognizing the magnitude 
of the problems facing most of the families on welfare. No skills. No 
education. No one to take care of the kids.
  At a hearing on the Iowa welfare reform program, Governor Terry 
Brandstad said, ``There has been much recognition that welfare reform 
requires up-front investments with long-term results. * * * ''
  Iowa has begun to make those investments, in partnership with the 
Federal Government. And those investments are beginning to yield fruit 
in the form of reduced expenditures for AFDC grants.
  The Work First bill also recognizes that child care is the linchpin 
to successful welfare reform. We cannot require welfare recipients to 
work, if there is no place to put the kids. Placing children in harm's 
way in order to make the parents work in unacceptable. The Daschle bill 
recognizes this reality.
  Instead of simply slashing welfare and dumping all of the 
responsibility and all of the bills on to States and local taxpayers, 
the Daschle plan represents real reform and real change.
  Like the Iowa plan, Work First demands responsibility from day one. 
And it ends the something-for-nothing system of today with one that 
truly turns welfare into work.
  It is built on the concepts of accountability, responsibility, 
opportunity, and common sense. It will liberate families from the 
welfare trap.
  And it will strengthen families and help today's welfare recipients 
finally walk off the dead end of dependence and on the road to self-
sufficiency.
  The Daschle Work First bill is a pragmatic, common welfare reform 
proposal and should be adopted. I urge my colleagues to vote for the 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, first let me commend the distinguished 
Senator from Virginia for his excellent statement and the support he 
has provided this legislation. His input and his participation has been 
invaluable on this issue, as it has been on so many others. I am very 
grateful for that.
  Let me reiterate my gratitude as well for the assistance and 
leadership provided by the distinguished senior Senator from New York, 
and the Senators from Maryland, Louisiana, and so many other Senators 
who have had a vital role to play in bringing us to this point. As we 
have said now for the last couple of days, our intent in offering this 
amendment is to hold out the hand of partnership to Republicans in 
bringing forth a proposal that Democrats as well as Republicans could 
support to bring about meaningful welfare reform. That is our goal.
  There are four fundamental aspects of that goal that we view to be 
very important. First and foremost, we expect, we want, we propose real 
reform.
  Second, we recognize that real reform is not possible without an 
appreciation of the need to provide more opportunities for work than 
are provided today.
  Third, we must protect children. We understand that we cannot provide 
opportunities for work, we cannot truly engage in any kind of effort to 
encourage people to leave their homes, we cannot ask a mother to be 
separated from her children, without also ensuring that her children 
are going to be cared for.
  Finally, all of us must recognize that South Dakota is different from 
New York, is different from Michigan. There ought to be, first, 
flexibility, and, second, the realization that the last thing we want--
given that this Senate has put itself on record in opposition to 
additional unfunded mandates--is to ask States to do things without 
adequately ensuring that the funding is there to get them done right.
  Those are the four goals: Real reform, work, children, and 
flexibility through an opportunity to sensitize people to the needs and 
the resources necessary in the States themselves. 

[[Page S 12793]]

  We have had a good debate in the last couple of days about many of 
these goals and how they relate to each other. The reality is different 
than the rhetoric we have heard on many occasions during this debate.
  First, there is a fundamental difference between our approach and the 
Republican approach with regard to work. The Work First plan 
fundamentally redefines welfare as we know it by putting a great deal 
of emphasis on ensuring that the skills can be provided, but ensuring 
as well that we have the resources to do the job.
  The Republican plan, on the other hand, simply boxes up the problem 
and ships the current system to the States. It tells the States, ``You 
do it. You find a way to ensure that we can come up with some magical 
solution to all these goals, but we are not going to allow you the 
resources adequate to get the job done.'' Boxing up the plan and 
sending it out is no solution. Providing the necessary infrastructure, 
providing the resources, and ensuring a partnership between the Federal 
Government and the States truly is.
  Second, we recognize, as I said in articulating the goals of our 
amendment, that we need to ensure that mothers have the capacity to 
work, that young mothers in particular have the resources--and from 
that the confidence--that they will need to go out and seek jobs, to go 
out and obtain the skills, to go out and get the counseling, to go out 
and get the education to ensure that at some point in their lives they 
can be productive citizens with the full expectation that they are 
doing this in concert with those of us who want to work with them to 
see that the job gets done right.
  We recognize that if we are going to reach this goal of putting 
people to work, if we are going to ask a mother to leave the home, if 
we are going to ask a young mother in particular to leave her children, 
then, my heavens, how long does it take for every Member of this 
Chamber to realize as well that child care is the linchpin to making 
that happen? Protecting children is what this is all about; if we do 
not protect children, if we do not ensure that the children are cared 
for, there is no way they are going to leave home.
  So it seems to me this is exactly what we have to produce in this 
Chamber prior to the time we finish our work on welfare reform: A 
realization that protecting children, caring for those kids as mothers 
leave for work, is an essential element of whatever welfare reform we 
pass.
  The Republican plan ignores 9 million children. It has been aptly 
described as the ``Home Alone'' bill, because there simply are not the 
resources, the infrastructure, the mechanism, the will on the part of 
many on the Republican side of the aisle to address this issue in a 
meaningful way.
  We simply cannot be willing to leave child care as the only aspect of 
our need to address the cares of children. We must also recognize, as 
the distinguished ranking member of the Finance Committee has said on 
so many occasions, that we must address the problem of teenage 
pregnancy. While we do not have all the answers to teenage pregnancy, 
we must recognize that there is a need there. We must try to address 
the problem in a meaningful way. There is a responsibility for us to 
care in whatever way we can, ensuring that teen parents get some 
guidance, ensuring that teen mothers are given an opportunity to work 
through the challenges they face as young mothers. We do that in the 
Work First proposal.
  We do not claim to have all the answers to teen pregnancy. No one 
does. No one can possibly tell you, unequivocally, here is how we are 
going to stop teenage pregnancies. But we can say that teen mothers 
have to begin taking responsibility. We can say that we have some 
initial steps in providing them with an infrastructure and with a 
mechanism by which they can be productive mothers first, workers 
second, or students third. This amendment does that. This amendment 
addresses the realization that unless we begin to put the pieces 
together in working with teenage pregnancy, recognizing we do not have 
the answers, we are never going to solve the problem at all.
  The Republicans have used quite a bit of their time to say that, 
somehow, this is a plan run out of Washington. Nothing could be further 
from the truth. The truth is that the Work First plan is specifically 
designed to give States the flexibility that they need to do whatever 
it takes in their States, to recognize that in South Dakota we have a 
different set of circumstances than we might have in Florida or 
California.
  You heard the charge that somehow our plan is weaker on work than the 
one proposed on the other side, but the truth is the Work First plan is 
stronger than the current Dole bill as it has been proposed. Our 
amendment requires community service after 6 months. The Republican 
plan calls for no work until after 2 years. Our amendment provides for 
resources to help mothers go to work. The Republican plan is $16.5 
underfunded. They say our plan may have too many exemptions from the 
time limit. The truth is that both plans have exemptions. The 
Republican plan has a 15-percent exemption, arbitrarily set.
  As I said last night, if we use every one of the criteria specified 
in our amendment, including mothers who have young children, disabled, 
those people who work in high-unemployment areas, if we have in some 
way used up all of that 15 percent and still find young mothers who 
have children, are we then to say to them, ``I'm sorry, we have 
arbitrarily set the line at 15 percent. You happen to be in the 16th 
percentile. You have to go to work?'' I do not think anyone wants to 
say that. That is why we believe using selective criteria makes a lot 
more sense, why giving States the flexibility makes a lot more sense. 
So, indeed, that is what we have attempted to do, to recognize that 
States need flexibility, but to recognize, too, that there are certain 
categories of people who simply may not be required, because of the 
extreme circumstances in which they find themselves, to fit the neat, 
defined descriptions that we have laid out in this amendment concerning 
the time limit.
  So, Mr. President, the Work First proposal is real reform. The Work 
First amendment goes beyond rhetoric and meets the reality of reform. 
The Work First amendment does what we say is important if indeed we are 
going to redefine welfare. It provides the opportunity for work. The 
Work First amendment provides for child care and child protection in 
ways that are essential to the well-being of the future of this 
country.
  Mr. President, the Work First amendment recognizes that we are not 
going to do a thing unless States have the resources, and unless we 
share those resources in a meaningful way, giving maximum flexibility 
to the States to decide how to use them.
  Maybe that is why the U.S. Conference of Mayors has endorsed one 
welfare reform proposal. They have endorsed Work First because they are 
the ones who are going to be charged with the responsibility of 
carrying out what we do here. So the mayors understand all of this. 
They have said, on a bipartisan basis: We want the Work First plan. 
Local officials have also endorsed one plan. Local officials have 
indicated they, too, understand the consequences of no funding, 
understand the importance of child care, understand the importance of 
providing maximum flexibility, understand the importance of funding and 
real work. And they, too, support the Work First proposal.
  Organizations of all kinds have come forward to say this is the kind 
of legislation they want us to pass. The Democratic Governors have said 
again, as late as this morning: This is what we want; this is what we 
need. This will do the job.
  Mr. President, it has been a good debate. I am hopeful that, as so 
many have expressed on the Senate floor in the last couple of days, we 
truly can find bipartisan solutions to the challenges we face in 
passing meaningful welfare reform. This is our best good-faith effort 
to accomplish meaningful reform, to reach out to our Republican 
colleagues and say join us, to reach out across the board to Democratic 
and Republican Governors alike and say join us, to reach out to all of 
those people currently on AFDC who want to find ways out of the boxes 
they are in and say join us. We are providing new opportunities, new 
solutions, and even new hope for people who need it badly.
  Let us hope as a result of the passage of this amendment this 
afternoon that we can begin our work in earnest to ensure that the 
reality of welfare reform 

[[Page S 12794]]
can be realized at some point in the not too distant future.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, may I inquire about how the time is divided 
at this point?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. At this point, all time has expired. But 15 
minutes of time has been set aside at 3:45 for the majority leader 
under a previous unanimous-consent agreement.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, while the distinguished majority leader is 
on his way, I understand I can take a couple of minutes of his time to 
make a brief statement.
  I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to do that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, our time for debate on this amendment is 
running out. So I will keep these remarks brief and to the point.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against the Daschle-Breaux substitute. I 
do not question the good motives behind it. I consider it a thoughtful 
attempt to break out of the welfare status quo--something which all of 
us want to accomplish.
  But I do not believe it does the job, at least not the way the 
American people want it done.
  For starters, it retains authority and decisionmaking about welfare 
right here in Washington. And it does so at a time when the States are 
seizing the initiative with far-reaching experiments and demonstration 
projects. Instead of fostering that process, by returning both 
authority and resources to State and local taxpayers, the Daschle-
Breaux amendment would retain the whole mechanism of Federal 
micromanagement.
  The substitute amendment talks a good fight on two fronts: with 
regard to work requirements and a time limit for receipt of welfare. 
But in both cases, there are so many provisos and loopholes and 
conditions and exceptions that we couldn't expect significant progress 
over the status quo.
  We have had work requirements on paper before, with impressive 
participation rates mandated by various times certain. What we need now 
is sufficient flexibility for the States to reach those goals in their 
own ways. The substitute amendment does not give it to them.
  Nor does it offer hope of turning the tide against illegitimacy. That 
may be its most important shortcoming. There is already a national 
consensus that illegitimacy is the key factor that drives the growth of 
welfare. It is the single most powerful force pushing women and 
children into poverty.
  A welfare bill that does not frontally address that issue--that does 
not make reducing illegitimacy rates a central goal--is simply not 
credible as welfare reform.
  Another touchstone of true welfare reform is whether a bill removes 
or retains the entitlement status of welfare. It seems to me that the 
Daschle-Breaux substitute merely replaces the current AFDC entitlement 
with a new, or newly designated, entitlement, supposedly time limited.
  That is not even incremental change, and it cannot get us where the 
Nation needs to go in modernizing, streamlining, and reforming our 
programs of public assistance.
  I hope that our colleagues who, for one reason or another, plan to 
vote for the substitute amendment will, thereafter, keep an open mind 
and open options about the Republican welfare bill this amendment seeks 
to replace.
  It is a large package of very comprehensive welfare reform. But I 
think it can significantly improve our present system and move us 
toward genuine welfare reform. It points the way toward the radical 
change that is needed.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against Daschle-Breaux and let us move 
toward the adoption of the Dole welfare reform package.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 2 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Dole approach 
on the welfare bill. We must restore workfare to our welfare program. 
The system of welfare that we have in this country was set up in the 
early 1960's. I remember well the war on poverty, and the intentions 
were good. But the result has been our inner cities have had 
generational welfare. The same thing has happened on our Indian 
reservations. We all want to help people who need help. But we must 
restore the principle of workfare. That is what the Dole bill does.
  Also, we must turn over to our States more of this responsibility, 
because the States can judge who deserves welfare better. We now have 
all these Washington bureaucrats with the entitlement programs, 
situated in Washington, DC, making judgments on who should be on 
welfare in South Dakota or California. Under this new legislation, 
under this reform, there will be workfare and the States will decide 
who gets welfare. That will save the taxpayers money. But more 
importantly, it will reform our welfare program so we will have a real 
welfare program that helps the people who need it and requires people 
to work who are able to work. It is time for reform in welfare.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized under the 
previous unanimous consent agreement.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I want to thank all my colleagues for their 
work, and my friend from New York, Senator Moynihan, chairman of our 
committee, Senator Packwood, the Senator from Pennsylvania, Senator 
Santorum, who spent a lot of work on the floor just in the past few 
days and who has done a great job helping us a lot in the conferences 
that we have had in an effort to resolve some of the differences on our 
side.
  I am prepared to say I think most of the differences have been 
resolved on our side because we have tried to base our bill on three 
principles: Creating a real work requirement, returning authority to 
the States, and restraining welfare spending.
 These principles are key to reaching our goal of dramatic reform that 
provides work, hope, and opportunity to Americans in need.

  The amendment before us proposed by the Democratic leader fails to 
meet these principles. The Democrats call it Work First, but in fact, 
it is ``weak first''--weak on work, weak on limiting welfare 
dependency, weak on State innovation, weak on savings, weak on real 
reform.


                         real work requirement
  Let me just say, any bill that comes before us that is going to pass 
the Congress and, hopefully, any bill signed by the President is going 
to have a real work requirement in it which requires able-bodied 
welfare recipients to find a job, not stay at home and not stay in a 
training program forever, because when it comes to escaping poverty we 
know the old American work ethic is true. Work works. And States, not 
the Federal Government, must provide the work requirements. However, we 
must hold them accountable.
  Our bill requires--and even there are some on our side who think our 
bill does not go far enough, but our bill requires 50 percent of all 
welfare recipients to engage in work in fiscal year 2000. And that is a 
fairly high barrier to cross when you consider the young people and 
elderly and disabled unable to work.
  Our colleagues on the other side put a number of loopholes ahead of 
real work. The Federal Government would exempt 25 percent of all 
welfare participants and only 50 percent of the remaining 75 percent of 
the welfare caseload would be expected to work by fiscal year 2000. The 
bottom line is the Democrats' plan requires only 37 percent of able-
bodied recipients to work in fiscal year 2000.
  By comparison, the Republican plan requires 50 percent of all welfare 
recipients to work in fiscal year 2000. We leave the business of 
exemptions to the people who know best, the closest to the problem. 
That is the States, the Governors, the State legislators.
  We believe States should design and run their own work program. And 
one thing is certain about welfare reform. No Federal bureaucrat will 
ever come up with a blanket program which works equally well in all 50 
States. Through block grants to States and not waivers, the Federal 
Government can provide resources to fight poverty without imposing the 
rules and regulations that ban innovation. 

[[Page S 12795]]

  I am reminded of a statement by the distinguished Governor of 
Wisconsin, Governor Thompson, when he was speaking with seven or eight 
of our colleagues in my office here, oh, maybe 4 or 5 weeks ago, and 
some were insisting that we continue to add strings. Whether they are 
conservative strings, they are strings. And the Governor said, I think 
maybe in a little bit of frustration, that he was also an elected 
official; he was elected by the same kind of people we are, and that 
nobody in the State of Wisconsin was going to go without food or 
medical care.
  We have to give the Governors credit for some integrity and ability 
and a willingness to do the right thing when it comes to welfare. And I 
think that is generally the case, whether it is a Democrat or 
Republican Governor, a Democrat or Republican State legislature; they 
are closer to the people.
  We have not tried this. There probably will be some horror stories. 
There always are going to be a few cases where maybe a few things will 
go awry, but they go awry now.
  We give the States broad latitude to adopt the programs to meet the 
varied needs of their low-income citizens. The other bill does not 
allow States to take over welfare programs. It replaces one set of 
Federal rules and regulations with new ones, and States that want to 
innovate must continue to come to Washington, ask for a waiver, wait, 
wait, wait, and finally get a waiver. We do not think that should be 
necessary. We believe States ought to be able to innovate; there ought 
to be a lot of flexibility. And I tell you that we have confidence in 
the Governors, again, in both parties.
  Local welfare administrators and caseworkers must get recipients off 
welfare and into the workplace. To encourage results, the Republican 
bill imposes a State penalty for failure to meet participation rates. 
There would be a 5-percent reduction in the State's annual grant. Under 
the Democrats' bill, a first-time State failure to meet the 
participation rate would simply require the HHS Secretary to make 
recommendations to the States for improving them.
  The local welfare administrators and caseworkers need to focus on 
getting welfare recipients into the mainstream and not focus on 
unnecessary Federal bureaucracy and regulations. Therefore, the 
Republican bill delivers welfare dollars to the States directly from 
the Treasury and reduces the Federal welfare bureaucracy.
  Able-bodied recipients must work to support themselves and their 
families. To accomplish this, we require recipients to work as soon as 
the State determines that they are work ready or within 2 years, 
whichever is earlier. Moreover, our bill imposes a real 5-year lifetime 
limit on receiving welfare benefits.
  Our colleagues on the other side have a work ready provision with 
many exemptions. Moreover, their bill fails to impose real lifetime 
limits on welfare benefits by offering even more loopholes. For 
example, a welfare recipient who has three children while on welfare 
can get up to 7 years of benefits before reaching the 5-year limit. 
Even then, that recipient would still remain on the welfare rolls 
entitled to certain benefits and receiving vouchers, without a time 
limit, in place of cash benefits.
  The Democrat bill even provides exceptions to these weak time limits, 
turning major cities into welfare magnets. If a welfare recipient lives 
in an area with an unemployment rate exceeding 8 percent, none of the 
time spent on welfare counts toward the so-called 5-year limit. That 
would turn cities that have relatively high unemployment rates like New 
York, Los Angeles, Washington, Philadelphia, Detroit, and many others 
into time-limit-free zones.
  But I think the most important thing is that we want to return 
authority to the States. And we believe there is an opportunity to do 
that. We want to give the States the flexibility. The Governors want 
that. Republican Governors want that, and I think many Democratic 
Governors want that. And that is why the majority of the Nation's 
Governors on the Republican side want that.
  I noticed Governor Wilson yesterday disagreed with our bill. He was 
not at the Governors' meeting. Had he been there, I think he might have 
endorsed it. I have written him a letter to explain the bill so he will 
better understand it because he has it all confused with some of the 
others. But I think 28 or 30 of the Governors, with the exception of 
Governor Wilson, support our bill, and we believe it is a step in the 
right direction.
  I hope that after the bill of the distinguished leader on the other 
side, Senator Daschle, is disposed of, we can then start debate and 
finish action on this bill no later than 5 o'clock Wednesday. We 
believe there will be amendments on each side. We have some amendments 
we cannot work out. The ones we cannot work out we will bring up and 
have a vote and determine what happens. So it seems to me that we are 
on the right track.
  The Republican leadership plan eliminates the individual entitlement 
and replaces it with a capped block grant of $16.8 billion a year.
  I would say, finally, the Democrat plan proposes to replace AFDC with 
a bigger, more expensive package of entitlements costing the taxpayers 
over $14 billion more than AFDC over the next 7 years, including 
subsidies to families with incomes as high as $45,000 per year.
  The Republican bill no longer will continue the burdensome rules and 
requirements that accompany the old jobs program. The Work Opportunity 
Act repeals the jobs program and lets the States design real work 
programs.
  The Democrat plan keeps many provisions of AFDC and the jobs program 
as a Federal entitlement and renames it the ``Work First Employment 
Block Grant.''


                       restrain welfare spending

  No program with an unlimited budget will ever be made to work 
effectively and efficiently. Therefore we must put a cap on welfare 
spending.
  The Republican bill saves $70 billion over 7 years. The Democrat bill 
saves only $21.6 billion over the same period of time.
  Mr. President, because it is weak on work, weak on limiting welfare 
dependency, weak on State innovation, weak on savings, weak on real 
reform, the Democrat bill fails the test to real reform. I urge my 
colleagues to vote against it.
  So I think overall, although I know there is a desire of everybody in 
this body to do something about welfare, we know it has failed. 
Notwithstanding the best efforts of many to make it work, it has not 
worked, and it is time that we take a hard look at dramatic reform. 
That is precisely what we intend to do. The Work Opportunity Act of 
1995, in my view, is a step in that direction.
  I will indicate to my colleagues that following the vote on the 
Democratic substitute, we will ask consent at that time that all 
amendments that people might offer, they notify the managers today and 
then, if we can get the consent, those amendments would have to be 
offered by 2 o'clock tomorrow.
  I have had a discussion about this with the Democratic leader, 
Senator Daschle. I have not made the request yet, but I do not believe 
he disagrees with our intent. Our intent is to move as quickly as we 
can to complete action, giving everybody all the time they want for 
debate, offer the amendments they wish to offer, but, hopefully, 
conclude action on next Wednesday afternoon.
  I would say that initially we had about 70 amendments on this side of 
the aisle. In my view, that would have probably boiled down to about 10 
or 12 amendments that may require rollcall votes. I am not certain the 
number of amendments on the other side. But it is my hope that we can 
reach some agreement so it would not be necessary to file cloture, that 
we go ahead and debate the bill, then finish the bill at the earliest 
possible time and go on to something else.
  I yield back the remainder of my time.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Faircloth). Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.


                Vote On Amendment No. 2282, As Modified

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the Daschle 
amendment No. 2282, as modified.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.

[[Page S 12796]]

  Mr. LOTT. I announce that the Senator From Alaska [Mr. Murkowski] is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--45 yeas, 54 nays, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 400 Leg.]

                                YEAS--45

     Akaka
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Graham
     Harkin
     Heflin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Johnston
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Wellstone

                                NAYS--54

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brown
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Faircloth
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Nickles
     Packwood
     Pressler
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Murkowski
       
  So, the amendment (No. 2282), as modified, was rejected.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, what is the pending business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending business is the Dole amendment No. 
2280, as modified.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator 
from Oregon, Senator Packwood, be recognized for 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________