[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 177 (Thursday, November 9, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S16940-S16941]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                                WELFARE

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I did not want to take a long time, but 
there are a couple of matters I want to address, and I will do that at 
this time. The first concerns a series of discussions that have been 
held now over the last several days about reports relating to welfare 
reform.
  A recent report discussed in this morning's Washington Post relating 
to a study undertaken by the Department of Health and Human Services 
compares the welfare bills passed by the House and Senate and proposed 
by Senate Democrats. It examines the income distributional effects of 
the Republican budget, and it estimates how many children will be put 
into poverty by the various welfare plans.
  The report uses two different definitions of poverty, the official 
poverty measure and an alternative. It is under the alternative, not 
the official measure, that over 1 million children are put into 
poverty.
  The report represents a range for the Democratic alternatives because 
the Office of Management and Budget did not have the time to develop a 
full model of the effects of that plan.
  Mr. President, I think it is very important to note that the 1.2 
million figure is reached using an alternative definition of poverty 
never before relied upon by the Federal Government.
  When people say ``poverty,'' they usually mean the official poverty 
measure, which counts only a family's cash income such as AFDC and SSI 
and Social Security checks they receive.
  Using the official measure of poverty, the Senate-passed bill would 
increase the number of children in poverty from 15.5 million to about 
15.8 million, or an increase of 1.9 percent. Under the official poverty 
measure, the Senate Democratic alternative would not increase poverty 
at all.
  Let me repeat that, Mr. President. Under the official poverty 
measure, the measure that we have used for decades, the Senate 
Democratic alternative would not increase poverty at all.
  The alternative measure counts cash and in-kind income, such as food 
stamps and EITC, as well as AFDC, SSI, and Social Security, which 
exaggerates the poverty effect of the bill.
  So while the numbers released concern me, I do not think that they 
ought to argue that somehow we ought to turn our backs on welfare 
reform. We simply cannot keep the status quo. We need to restructure 
our welfare system. We need to require people on welfare to work, and 
be responsible parents. We need to remember that the current system 
keeps 9 million children in poverty. That is the status quo, Mr. 
President. Nine million children today live in poverty as a result of 
the programs, the framework, and the institutions that we have in 
existence.
  I want to make a couple of more points with regard to the numbers.
  First, we should note that the statement that the Senate bill will 
put 1.2 million more children in poverty is based on an alternative 
definition, and that definition has never been used before.
  Second, and perhaps more importantly, more children will be put into 
poverty only if the welfare system that we are proposing fails.
  So I believe that we need to recognize four points, Mr. President, as 
we consider welfare reform.
  First of all, the apples and oranges comparisons that the data makes 
is something that everybody ought to completely appreciate prior to the 
time we come to any conclusion. The fact is, using official poverty 
definitions, the Senate-passed bill does not increase the level of 
poverty for children at all.
  We can say, regardless of whether one uses the official or the new 
alternative definition of poverty, that the Democratic bill is vastly 
superior to the Senate-passed bill, and the Senate-passed bill is at 
least four times superior than the House-passed bill.
  So, as we have articulated all the way through this process, the Work 
First proposal that Democrats laid out that we debated, that we voted 
for unanimously, is by far the best version of all.
  Second, I think it ought to be emphasized that no one said that this 
was the 

[[Page S 16941]]
last word on welfare reform. I do not know of a colleague on this side 
of the aisle who is content to say, all right, we have now done welfare 
reform, and there is nothing else to do. I think it is critical that 
everyone understand this is the first installment. This is the first 
opportunity for us to build a new infrastructure, to take what we have 
done, to analyze it, to see how well the States work with it, and to 
come up with ways in which to make it better in subsequent years. There 
is not one program that we have not done that with.
  I submit that regardless of what happens on welfare, we are going to 
revisit this issue again and again.
  So it is critical, it seems to me, that everyone understand. We want 
to build a new system, and we do it one step at a time. What we have 
attempted to do with the Senate-passed bill, with the Democratic bill 
in particular, is to provide the foundation.
  Third, I think it is fair to say that it is vastly superior to the 
status quo. That was what we said before. I think the study confirms 
that it is better than the status quo now. What we have attempted to do 
is to improve upon the status quo, to create a new system, a new 
infrastructure, an emphasis on work, trying to get people off of 
welfare and into work, creating welfare opportunities in offices that 
will become work opportunities once this legislation passes.
  So we are not satisfied with the status quo. We need to build upon 
it. We recognize the importance of creating new opportunities to do 
that. We do not want people on welfare. We want people to find new 
opportunities in work, in education, and in creating new lives. That is 
what this is designed to do.
  Finally, I think it is very important that we know that much of what 
we did a couple of months ago as we considered welfare reform we did 
with an expectation that the other pieces of the safety net will still 
be there, that we will have an earned income tax credit that makes work 
pay, that we will do all we can to ensure kids are adequately cared for 
with regard to their nutritional needs, that we ensure everyone has at 
least a minimal amount of health care as a result of Medicare and 
Medicaid, that we do not gut the program today, to provide for 
meaningful housing. That safety net, regardless of what we do in 
welfare, is critical, if we indeed are concerned about not moving 
people back into poverty.
  So I would only reiterate that we are beginning a process that will 
take some time to complete. We hope that we have created an opportunity 
for a lot of people at long last to make work pay, to find new ways to 
ensure that they will not be dependent upon welfare as they have in the 
past, recognizing that the status quo is unacceptable, and encouraging 
in as many ways as we can with new mechanisms so people can go out and 
find the jobs and find the opportunities that we hope will be there as 
a result of what we are attempting to do now.

                          ____________________