[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 6 (Wednesday, January 10, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S113-S114]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     STEALTH VETO OF WELFARE REFORM

  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, in the State of the Union Address President 
Clinton delivered nearly 1 year ago, he said--and I quote--``Nothing 
has done 

[[Page S114]]
more to undermine our sense of common responsibility than our failed 
welfare system.''
  In just a few weeks, President Clinton will deliver another State of 
the Union Address.
  And he will do so with the knowledge that he bears total 
responsibility for the continuation of that failed welfare system.
  America heard a great deal of rhetoric in 1992 from candidate 
Clinton, and a great deal of rhetoric since then from President Clinton 
about ``ending welfare as we know it.''
  But all the words in the world cannot obscure President Clinton's 
action of last night.
  Given his promises, it is no wonder President Clinton used the cover 
of darkness to veto the truly revolutionary welfare reform bill which 
would have kept his commitments.
  This bill was, of course, the result of almost a year of hard work by 
a bipartisan group of Members of Congress, Senators, and, very 
importantly, our Nation's Governors.
  The President may have tried to hide his stealth veto by doing it 
late at night, but he can not hid the message he is sending to the 
American people: a loud and clear message that he will stand in the way 
of fundamental change, and, instead, will fight for the status quo.
  The President's veto means that American taxpayers will enter 1996 
continuing to pour countless millions into a system that has failed, 
according to everyone. The system failed, and failed, and failed. And 
those who are served by the system will enter a new year with little or 
no hope for escaping from a future of welfare.
  What a different 1996--and a different future--it would have been had 
the President backed his words up with action by signing the 
legislation.
  Instead of the status quo where all authority resides in Washington, 
we would have shifted power to our State capitals, and given our 
Governors the ability to create a system that meets the unique needs of 
their States.
  Instead of the status quo, where welfare often becomes a way of life, 
and where some receive Federal; cash benefits just because they choose 
not to work, we would have a system where people are required to work 
after 2 years, and one with a 5-year limit on the receipt of Federal 
benefits.
  Instead of the status quo, where children are rewarded for having 
children and for moving away from home, we would have one which 
recognizes the importance of family--one that discourages illegitimacy, 
and encourages personal responsibility.
  Instead of the status quo, which often allows deadbeat dads to escape 
their financial responsibilities, we would have a system that 
streamlined paternity establishment, that established State registries, 
that made child support laws uniform across State lines, and that 
required States to use the threats of denying drivers licenses to 
parents who refuse to pay child support.
  Instead of the status quo which wastes billions of taxpayer dollars, 
we would have a system that gives our States the authority and 
responsibility to crack down on fraud and abuse.
  I am not claiming that our welfare reform legislation was perfect. 
Nor would it have magically solved our Nation's many social problems.

  But it did put an end to a failed system.
  It was a sharp departure. It was a fundamental change.
  It was a big, big, step in the right direction.
  It did return power to our States and cities, and to our people.
  It did offer hope and opportunity to millions of Americans.
  And we did want to stress work, and not welfare.
  But instead of beginning in 1996 by signing this legislation, the 
President has chosen to begin it by keeping the status quo intact.
  I suspect that in this year's State of the Union Address, the 
President will again talk about how he wants to end welfare as we know 
it.
  But they are words that will sound very hollow to many in this 
Chamber, and to all Americans who pay for, or who are served by, the 
status quo: And that is a failed system that remains intact thanks to 
the President's actions of last evening.
  It seems to me that here is a bill that passed the U.S. Senate by a 
vote of 87 to 12. If one absentee, Senator Hatfield, had voted ``aye,'' 
it would have been 88 Senators--good, bipartisan, strong bipartisan 
support.
  The bill went to conference, and we came back with a fundamental 
Senate bill. And by then it had become politicized again, and it was 
more of a party-line vote, with one exception on the other side.
  We have discussed welfare reform in all of the meetings we have had 
at the White House. But I do not see how the President could veto a 
bill that we were so close to coming together on, one that he praised 
when it passed the Senate, one that he said he can support. I must say, 
if there are any sharp differences in those two bills--our bill and the 
bill that came from conference--they were not major.
  So we will try again. We will try again in 1996. It seems to me, and 
it seems to most of my colleagues--at least the 87 who voted for 
welfare reform--that system has failed. We need fundamental change.
  We are willing to trust the Governors. We are willing to send power 
back to States. Therein lies the problem. Therein lies the problem, 
because I do not think the President of the United States wants that to 
happen, unless the Federal Government determines eligibility and 
determines who is going to be covered and everything else. If you put 
all those regulations on Governors, they will say, ``No, thank you. If 
you don't give us flexibility, we can't save the money.''
  We are talking about saving somewhere in the neighborhood of $60 
billion over 7 years. And $60 billion is a lot of money to the American 
taxpayers. We believe it can be done. We believe it can be done, and we 
can still preserve the benefits for those who need the benefits.
  There will always be some who need help, and we understand that. But 
we will also tighten up the system so those who should be working will 
be working, and the alternative will not be receiving benefits.
  So we regret that the bill has been vetoed. I guess you can say it 
came as no surprise. But in our view we had a good product that should 
have been signed. It seems to me that we will have to take our case to 
the American people and let them make the final decision.

                          ____________________