[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 6 (Wednesday, January 10, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S115-S116]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     THE PRESIDENT'S VETO OF H.R. 4

  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, as he had indicated he would do, the 
President has now vetoed H.R. 4, the Personal Responsibility and Work 
Opportunity Act of 1995. As the bill passed the Senate, December 22, 
1995, with a margin of only 5 votes, 52-47, there can 

[[Page S116]]
be no question of a veto override. Hence, the judgment of Robert Pear 
of the New York Times that ``The President's action concludes a 4-year 
drama that began when Mr. Clinton, as a Presidential candidate in 1992, 
promised to `end welfare as we know it.' ''
  Last September 19, essentially the same bill, indeed H.R. 4, passed 
the Senate 87-12, with only 11 Democrats opposed. In the interval 
Elizabeth Shogren of the Los Angeles Times and Judith Havemann and Ann 
Devroy of the Washington Post reported that the Department of Health 
and Human Services had submitted an analysis of the bill to the White 
House. Owing largely to the 5-year time limit, it would throw some 1.5 
million children into poverty. No one could have wished this, and 
Democrats were especially bound to take into account this assessment of 
a Democratic administration. And so, in the end, 45 of 46 Democrats 
voted against the measure, Republican Senators Campbell and Hatfield 
joined us.
  On the day of the final Senate vote, the 11 Democratic Senators who 
had been opposed from the first, wrote President Clinton to warn 
against including any ``broad welfare measure * * * in the end of 
session budget agreement.'' This was not something, we judged, to be 
concluded in a matter of days by a small group under great pressure.
  However, we now learn that on Saturday, January 6, as part of a 
balanced budget proposal offered by the President in those talks, a 
section ``Welfare Reform Savings''--$46 billion over 7 years--includes 
this:

       Cash Assistance: AFDC would be terminated and replaced by a 
     new conditional entitlement of limited duration. There would 
     be a 5-year maximum time limit with a state option for 
     vouchers at the end of that period to assist children.

  Thus, the administration seemingly proposes to deliver the same 1.5 
million children into poverty.
  Why is this happening? I can think of two partial explanations.
  First, it is widely assumed that AFDC is a Federal entitlement that 
the Federal Government can restrain without relinquishing. It is not. 
There is no Federal entitlement to welfare for individuals. Each State 
devises its own program. The Federal Government provides a matching 
grant. Abolish the matching grant and you can reasonably expect a race 
to the bottom.
  Second, even as we deplore welfare dependency, we do not seem to 
grasp just how serious it really is. A quarter--24 percent--of American 
youth just turned 18 have been on AFDC. Half--46 percent--of the 
children in Chicago will be on AFDC in the course of a single year. Of 
children on AFDC, three-quarters are there for more than 5 years. 
Hence, a 5-year limit invites chaos and ruin.
  In particular, liberal-minded persons must proceed with care. For 
decades now there has been a liberal tendency to understate, even to 
deny the welfare problem. Now, of a sudden, a liberal administration 
proposes a repeal measure that would have been unthinkable just a few 
years back. Both positions have the common fault of underestimating how 
serious and dangerous this problem really is.
  Even so, let us all be ready for a careful, bipartisan exploration of 
the issue in the 105th Congress. It was, I think, a close call. But as 
Churchill remarked, there is nothing so exhilarating as to be shot at 
and missed.
  Mr. SPECTER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania is recognized.

                          ____________________