[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 195 (Friday, December 8, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S18262-S18264]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                             WELFARE REFORM

  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, there are alarming signals coming from the 
White House that President Clinton may veto welfare reform. Instead of 
ending welfare as we know it, the Administration apparently intends to 
continue politics as usual.
  From the early days of his administration, President Clinton promised 
welfare reform to the American people. On February 2, 1993, he told the 
Nation's Governors that he would announce the formation of a welfare 
reform group within 10 days to work with the Governors to develop a 
welfare reform plan. At that meeting, the President outlined four 
principles which would guide his administration to reform welfare.
  The first principle as outlined by the President is that ``welfare 
should be a second chance, not a way of life.'' In further defining 
what these means, the President stated that people should work within 2 
years and that, ``there must be--a time-certain beyond which people 
don't draw a check for doing nothing when they can do something.'' On 
July 13, 1993, President Clinton went even further and told the 
National Association of County Officials that a 2-year limit could be 
put on welfare. He said, ``you shouldn't be able to stay on welfare 
without working for more than a couple of years. After that, you should 
have to work and earn income just like everybody else.'' He went on to 
say, ``And if you put the building blocks in, you can have a 2-year 
limit on welfare as we know it. You would end the system as it now 
exists.''
  Mr. President, that is a strong statement and a bold challenge. H.R. 
4, the ``Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act of 1995,'' 
meets this first principle. We require people to work after 2 years and 
place a 5-year limit on the receipt of Federal benefits. Let me repeal 
this. We provide not a 2-year limit on benefits, but a 5-year limit. 
And, I might add, the conference report on H.R. 4 allows the States to 
exempt up to 15 percent of their caseload from this limit.
  The President's support for time limits, by the way, is one of the 
many ironies throughout the welfare reform debate. A good deal of 
attention has been focused on the analysis done by the Department of 
Health and Human Services on the impact the various welfare bills would 
have on families and children. The single greatest reason families 
would become ineligible for benefits is the 5 year limit. It is a bit 
inconsistent for the President to embrace a time limit but invite 
criticism of our proposal for a 5-year limit on benefits.
  The second principle, as outlined by the President, is ``we need to 
make work pay.'' The President indicated, that through the earned 
income credit program, ``we ought to be able to lift people who work 40 
hours a week, with kids in their home, out of poverty.''
  The Republican balanced budget plan is consistent with this second 
principle outlined by the President. Under our plan, the EIC continues 
to grow. We are targeting the EIC program to those most in need.
  The administration has criticized the Balanced Budget Act for its 
provisions on EIC. But I believe it is both fair and accurate to point 
out that in expanding the EIC, the Clinton administration and the 
Democratic 103d Congress went far beyond the President's stated goal as 
well as beyond the original goals of this program. For example, they 
expanded the credit to individuals who did not have children at home.
  We have found unacceptable levels of errors, abuse, and waste in this 
program. Spending for the EIC is quite simply out of control. We have 
proposed a responsible and reasonable reform of the EIC program 
separate from H.R. 4. Our welfare bill does not conflict with the 
President's principle on work.
  The third principle of welfare reform outlined by President Clinton 
some 34 months ago is that tougher child support enforcement is needed. 
H.R. 4 fully meets this principle. In an October 18, 1995 letter, the 
Director of the Office of Management and Budget informed the majority 
leader that:

       The Administration strongly supports bipartisan provisions 
     in both the House and Senate bills to streamline paternity 
     establishment, require new hire reporting, establish State 
     registries, make child support laws uniform across State 
     lines, and require 

[[Page S 18263]]
     States to use the threat of denying drivers' and professional licenses 
     to parents who refuse to pay child support.

  Clearly H.R. 4 meets the President's position on child support 
enforcement.

  The fourth principle outlined by the President was his commitment to 
encourage experimentation in the States. To his credit, his 
administration has approved a number of waivers to allow the States the 
flexibility to experiment. But waivers are not enough as the President 
himself, as a former Governor, realizes.
  When he spoke to the Governors again this year on June 6, in 
Baltimore, the President told the Governors,

       You could not design a program that would be too tough on 
     work for me. You could not design a program that would give 
     the States any more flexibility than I want to give them as 
     long as we recognize that we . . . have a responsibility to 
     our children and to that in the end, our political and 
     economic policies must reinforce the culture we are trying to 
     create. They must be pro-family and pro-work.

  At the same time, President Clinton also told the Governors that, 
``we can save some money and reduce the deficit in this welfare area.''
  Then, on July 20 this year, he told the National Conference of State 
Legislatures that ``what I want to do in the welfare reform debate is 
to give you the maximum amount of flexibility, consistent with some 
simple objectives. I do think the only place we need Federal rules and 
welfare reform * * * is in the area of child support enforcement 
because so many of those cases cross State lines.''
  The President went on to say, ``so I am going to do my best to get 
you a welfare reform proposal which gives more flexibility to the 
States and doesn't have a lot of ideological proscriptions * * * and 
just focuses on one or two big things that need to be done. I think 
that is the right way to do it.''
  Mr. President, we will provide the opportunity to make good on these 
words.
  The President has told the Governors he wants to protect the States 
even when there is an economic downturn. We have done this with an $800 
million contingency fund and a $1.7 billion loan fund. President told 
them he wanted funding for child care. H.R. 4 provides $17 billion for 
child care for welfare and low-income families. This is over $700 
million more than under current law. He told the Governors the problem 
with a block grant was that States would cut their own funding and 
therefore he wanted requirements for States to maintain their own 
funding. H.R. 4 imposes such requirements. Furthermore, the conference 
agreement provides $3.5 billion in more funding for the block grants to 
States for temporary assistance for needy families than under the 
Senate bill which passed 87-12.
  The President indicated his interest in a performance bonus which 
forces the bureaucracy and recipients to focus on work. Establishing 
performance standards is a subject which I have personally worked on 
for years. H.R. 4 includes work-based performance standards.
  It is clear we have responded positively to all of these concerns.
  The President also indicated he was willing to give the States more 
flexibility in child nutrition, adoption, and child protective 
services. H.R. 4 protects the current entitlements of foster care and 
adoption assistance maintenance payments. Between 1995 and 2002, 
funding for foster care will increase by nearly 80 percent. Funding for 
child nutrition will increase from less than $8 billion in fiscal year 
1995 to over $11 billion in 2002.
  These are the fundamental principles the President outlined to the 
Governors and to the Nation. Congress will shortly send a welfare 
reform bill which meets these principles. It would be regrettable if 
the President walks away from all of these things which he so recently 
pledged.
  The need to reform the welfare system is as critical today as it was 
nearly 3 years ago when the President took office. The number of 
children receiving AFDC increased nearly threefold between 1965 and 
1993. By comparison, the total number of children in the United States 
aged 0 to 18 declined by 5.5 percent during this period.
  In 1965, the average monthly number of children receiving AFDC was 
3.3 million; in 1970, it was 6.2 million; in 1980, it was 7.4 million; 
and in 1993, there were nearly 9.6 million children receiving AFDC 
benefits.
  The Department of Health and Human Services has estimated that 12 
million children will receive AFDC benefits by the year 2005 under 
current law. If he vetoes welfare reform, President Clinton will be 
accepting the status quo in which another two and one-half million 
children will fall into the welfare system.
  If the President vetoes welfare reform, he will be preserving a 
system which costs and wastes billions of taxpayers dollars. The 
General Accounting Office has estimated, for example, that nearly $1.8 
billion in overpayments were made in the Food Stamp Program in 1993 
alone.
  A critical point of welfare reform is to give the States both the 
authority and the responsibility for efficiently, compassionately, and 
effectively administering these programs. As a former Governor, the 
President surely knows well the duplication in the delivery of 
benefits. It costs over $6 billion just to administer the AFDC and Food 
Stamp Programs. When you include the cost of errors, fraud, and abuse 
in these two programs, another $3 billion is wasted.
  We have therefore proposed an optional block grant for the Food Stamp 
Program. At a town meeting this past June, the President told the 
people of New Hampshire that his administration has given 29 states 
waivers to use food stamps and welfare checks to employers as a wage 
supplement. If it is good policy as a waiver, it is good policy to 
allow Governors to accept an optional block grant.
  Another important area of reform is the Supplemental Security Income 
Program. The SSI Program was established 21 years ago principally to 
provide a welfare retirement program for aged and disabled adults who 
were unable to contribute enough into the Social Security system. With 
this purpose in mind, one would think that the cost of this program 
should at least be stable as the elderly SSI population has actually 
declined by more than one-third since 1974.
  Instead, SSI is the largest cash assistance program for the poor and 
one of the fastest growing entitlement programs. Programs costs have 
grown 20 percent annually in the last 4 years.
  The SSI reforms in H.R. 4 are designed to slow the growth in the two 
populations which have seen tremendous increases in recent years, 
noncitizens and children. In 1982, noncitizens constituted 3 percent of 
all SSI recipients. In 1993, noncitizens constituted nearly 12 percent 
of the entire SSI caseload. From 1986 through 1993, the number of aged 
or disabled noncitizen recipients grew an average of 15 percent 
annually, reaching nearly 700,000 in 1993. Today, almost one out of 
every four elderly SSI recipients is a noncitizen. GAO calculates that 
noncitizens are actually more likely to receive SSI than citizens. The 
majority of these elderly noncitizens, 57 percent, have been in the 
United States less than 5 years.
  In total, our reforms directed at noncitizens will save the taxpayers 
more than $20 billion. If President Clinton vetoes H.R. 4, these 
savings will be lost.
  According to the General Accounting Office, the growth in the number 
of disabled children receiving cash payments under SSI was moderate 
before 1990, averaging 3 percent annually between 1984 and 1990. Then, 
from the beginning of 1990 through 1994, the growth averaged 25 percent 
annually, and the number tripled to nearly 900,000. Their share of the 
disabled SSI population grew from about 12 percent before 1990 to 22 
percent in 1994. The number of children who are disabled and receive 
benefits has increased by 166 percent just since 1990.
  I would remind my colleagues that the changes in the definition of 
childhood disability included in H.R. 4 was adopted on a bipartisan 
basis.
  The conference agreement maintains the commitment to children who are 
disabled. All children currently receiving SSI benefits will continue 
to receive the full cash benefit to which they are entitled through 
January 1, 1997.
  The conference report increases Federal spending on welfare programs. 
Expenditures for the programs under H.R. 4 totaled $83.2 billion in 
1995. Under 

[[Page S 18264]]
H.R. 4, they will increase by one-third to total $111.3 billion in 
2002. Between 1995 and 2002, total expenditures for these programs will 
be $753.7 billion.
  The conference report also provides support for other areas in which 
the President has indicated support. The President has called for 
action to prevent teen pregnancies. We provide $75 million for 
abstinence education.
  The President has called for tough child support enforcement. Our 
welfare reform bill includes significant improvements in child support 
enforcement which will help families avoid and escape poverty.
  The failure of an absent parent to pay child support is a major 
reason the number of children living in poverty has increased. Between 
1980 and 1992, the nationwide child support enforcement caseload grew 
180 percent, from 5.4 to 15.2 million cases. The sheer growth in the 
caseload has strained the system.
  There have been improvements in the child support enforcement system 
as collections have increased to $10 billion per year, but we clearly 
need to do better. The House and Senate have included a number of child 
support enforcement reforms. These include expansion of the Federal 
Parent Locator Service, adoption of the Uniform Interstate Family 
Support Act--UIFSA--use of Social Security numbers for child support 
enforcement, improvements in administration of interstate cases, new 
hire reporting, and reporting arrearages to credit bureaus. Our 
conference report provides increased funding for child support data 
automation.
  As I have already mentioned, these provisions have been endorsed by 
the administration. Let me also note that I recently received a letter 
from the American Bar Association in which the ABA states it ``strongly 
supports the child support provisions in the conference report.'' The 
letter goes on to say, ``If these child support reforms are enacted, it 
will be an historic stride forward for children in our nation.'' If the 
President vetoes welfare reform, he will forfeit this historic 
opportunity.
  On January 24, 1995 President Clinton declared at a joint session of 
Congress, ``Nothing has done more to undermine our sense of common 
responsibility than our failed welfare system.
  Mr. President, vetoing welfare reform will seriously undermine the 
American people's confidence in our political system. The American 
people know the welfare system is a failure. They are also tired of 
empty rhetoric from politicians. Words without deeds are meaningless. 
The time to enact welfare reform is now.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. McCONNELL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.

                          ____________________