[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 75 (Friday, May 24, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5642-S5643]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                             WELFARE REFORM

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, before we leave for the Memorial Day 
recess, I wanted to make a couple of comments if I could with regard to 
the current situation on welfare reform. I did not hear all of his 
remarks, but I know that the Senator from South Dakota just made a 
reference to welfare in the budget. A number of colleagues on both 
sides of the aisle have addressed the issue this morning--Senator 
Breaux, and I believe, the majority leader did so as well. I think it 
is fairly clear that Democrats and Republicans want welfare reform. I 
do not know of anyone who supports the status quo.
  There has been a lot of talk about reform principles over the last 
several months. The President reiterated the basic principles just last 
weekend. And on Tuesday, my colleague, the majority leader, announced 
his principles. The legislation to reform welfare has come a long way 
in the last 12 months. Senator Breaux and Senator Chafee have worked 
over the course of the better part of a year now to achieve a 
bipartisan compromise on welfare reform, and frankly I applaud them for 
their effort and for the contribution they have made to this debate.
  On the House side, Representatives Tanner and Castle have done much 
the same thing, and for them, too, there has been a good deal of 
attention for the work product they have produced. On Wednesday, 
Republican House and Senate Members introduced legislation very close 
to those bills. So in large measure, many of the extreme provisions of 
the legislation offered in 1995 are no longer evident in the welfare 
reform proposals that are currently being considered. If you look at 
the proposals, what is remarkable is the degree to which there is 
common ground. That common ground is really based on a number of 
principles that apparently are shared now by the vast majority of 
Republicans and Democrats.
  First, able-bodied welfare recipients ought to work. I do not think 
there is much disagreement about that. Second, welfare receipts ought 
to be limited in time. Now, there is some disagreement with regard to 
the length of time perhaps, especially on my side of the aisle, but I 
do believe there is a broad, bipartisan consensus in the middle that 
there ought to be a time limitation. Adequate funds for child care need 
to be provided as well. You cannot ask a family to go take that new 
job, to leave the security of the welfare infrastructure and then to 
expect them to leave children in the living room unattended. We talk 
about making sure that families have the ability to be families, to 
take care of their children. If they are going to work, somebody has to 
take that responsibility while they are gone.
  I also recognize, and I think most colleagues do, that there is a 
broad consensus about how we treat illegal noncitizens. They should not 
receive welfare, period. I do not think there is much disagreement with 
regard to welfare receipt for illegal noncitizens. Child support 
enforcement laws need to be strengthened. There are still too many 
deadbeat dads out there who ought to be sought out and ought to be made 
to live up to their responsibilities.
  We need to provide more flexibility to States. The President has 
provided now, I am told, over 60 waivers in States across the country. 
No greater level of flexibility has ever been given by any 
administration to States to find ways to address the welfare issue from 
their perspective more effectively than has this administration.

  Finally--and I think there is some disagreement on this--there is a 
growing consensus that children, infants, and toddlers especially, 
those most vulnerable, need to be protected; that welfare reform should 
not be about punishing kids. It ought to be about giving them as much 
empowerment, as much opportunity to be cared for, to be educated, to be 
fed, to be clothed, and housed in a way that will ensure that they are 
not on welfare someday. We need to break this generational linkage. The 
only way we are going to do that is to empower children and find ways 
to ensure that they are not punished as we continue to find a more 
viable approach to our welfare system.
  The President said yesterday that he would like to enact welfare 
quickly. In fact, he said he would like to see it happen before the 
majority leader leaves the Senate.
  Mr. President, I think there ought to be bipartisan agreement to that 
effect. Let us try to do that. I listened carefully to the speech by 
the majority leader in Wisconsin, and he said, ``When I say real 
welfare reform, I mean requiring every able-bodied welfare recipient to 
find work within 2 years.''
  The Republican bill introduced yesterday goes beyond that particular 
requirement for work, and it is something we are going to have to be 
able to address. There are no exceptions, except for mothers with 
children under age 1. What about disabled people? Should they be 
required to find a job in 2 years? What about those caring for a 
disabled child? What about those who are caring for a disabled spouse? 
Do we require the same of them that we require for able-bodied people 
in normal circumstances?
  That is something I am sure in a bipartisan way we can resolve to 
everyone's satisfaction, but clearly those are a series of questions 
that in our view have to be addressed in a way that will allow us to 
pass meaningful legislation sometime soon.
  I do hope we can act on it soon, but we also need to read the 
legislation that has been introduced. It was not available yesterday. 
We do not know if it will be available today. There may be other areas 
in the bill where the provisions do not match the principles that 
appear to be the common ground that binds Republicans and Democrats. 
But clearly there is a desire, and I think that desire is becoming more 
pronounced, more articulate in a more specific way than at any time in 
recent memory.
  I agree with much of the majority leader's speech in Wisconsin, not 
just the quote to which I just made reference. He did not speak as an 
extremist partisan leader. He spoke of, and I quote, ``The American 
ideals of freedom and human dignity, opportunity and personal 
responsibility.'' He is right.
  The President has articulated in much the same way what this ought to 
be about. Now it is our responsibility to ensure that welfare reform 
does not aim at the mother but hit the child.
  Much has been said about reform. Little has been said about 
protecting children. We all want to make sure that they are protected, 
that they do not pay for the mistakes or the circumstances of their 
parents. Somehow there ought to be a way to protect children as we 
attempt in a positive way to construct a welfare infrastructure that 
allows us to make fundamental change.
  If our Republican colleagues are serious about welfare, then we ought 
to schedule it. We ought to schedule it quickly. We could agree today 
to take that legislation up before the Senate as

[[Page S5643]]

early as June 4 when we come back. Let us set aside this so-called 
Defend America Act. Let us bring welfare reform to the floor and let us 
begin to address it. We can compare our provisions. We can agree on 
principles. We can decide how we answer the questions that I have 
addressed, but let us move it.
  Let's drop the partisan ploy to combine welfare and Medicaid. There 
is no consensus on Medicaid. There is a consensus on welfare. Not 
proceeding on June 4 means that perhaps there are some who are not 
serious about whether or not we ought to move in an expeditious way, 
that we may not be able to get this bipartisan consensus in a timeframe 
that will allow the majority leader to demonstrate his leadership as he 
has in the last couple of days.
  So I hope that we could get some agreement to take up welfare reform 
at the earliest possible date. I would be prepared to work with the 
majority leader to find a way to ensure that Senators have an 
opportunity to voice their objectives and their goals as well as their 
opposition to specific ideas that may be debated. That is what a good 
welfare debate is all about.
  But I can guarantee this. There would not be any long, unnecessary, 
extended debate. We could resolve this matter. We could send it on to 
the President. We could find the President and the majority leader in 
agreement, and move on to other issues that may separate us and 
continue to require the debate that I know they will. Medicaid and 
Medicare may be two examples. But we can do welfare. We can do it the 
week we get back. We can do it in a matter of a limited period of time. 
That is possible. I hope we could find a way, in a bipartisan 
agreement, to make that happen sooner rather than later.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. BAUCUS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The senior Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, what is the pending business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. We are in morning business with Senators 
allowed to speak up to 5 minutes.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I thank the Presiding Officer, my colleague from Montana.

                          ____________________