[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 102 (Thursday, July 11, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7680-S7682]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
FAMILIES-FIRST AGENDA
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to talk about
the agenda. We discussed it some yesterday. I want to discuss it
additionally today. Senator Reid, from Nevada, and myself were asked by
the Democratic leader to begin work with our caucus to develop an
agenda. It is easy to discern quickly in this Chamber what someone
stands against, what someone opposes, what a party opposes. That takes
very little skill, to oppose anything. It takes very little skill to be
negative. So the political system and the give-and-take of politics has
those who are proposing things and those who are opposing them.
Again, it is easy to discern quickly who opposes what. The question,
however, for us in our country, is not what do we oppose; the question
is, really, what do we support? What is it that we believe can be done
to advance the interests of this country?
As I indicated yesterday, the standard by which we ought to judge
that is, at the end of the day, have we done things in this country, in
the public and private sector, to increase the standard of living in
America? Do we have people who have an opportunity for better jobs at
better pay? Are their children going to better schools? Are we driving
on better roads? Are we able to acquire better products?
The most important ingredient in all of that, the thing that is the
linchpin of opportunity, is: Do we have an economy that is growing? Do
we have an economy that is producing new jobs and is capable of
producing new jobs at a decent income at a sufficient pace to keep
abreast of the increase in population and to keep the American people
understanding there is an opportunity and hope ahead?
As I begin discussing the families-first agenda that we have put
together, let me say the first and most important element of what we
stand for as Democrats is economic opportunity and economic growth. It
is the legacy of the Democratic Party. We have been the party that
pushes insistently to expand this country's economy and therefore
expand opportunities, not just for some, but for all in America.
I must say, my own view of the current economic situation is, while
this administration has done a remarkable job in a range of areas, it
has not had the kind of cooperation I would like to see from those who
construct monetary policy at the Federal Reserve Board. It certainly
has not seen much cooperation from Wall Street.
We have, it seems to me, an economic strategy, especially in the area
of monetary policy, that shortchanges our country today. As Mr. Rohaytn
from New York says, the minute you get some prevailing wind, we see a
Federal Reserve Board decide to drop anchor.
It makes no sense to create a false choice, saying we must choose
between either inflation or growth. It makes no sense to believe if we
have decent growth that provides decent expansion and therefore more
jobs at better income, that we will necessarily stoke the fires of
inflation. That is nonsense. Inflation is down. It has been coming down
5 years in a row. If you believe Mr. Greenspan, that the CPI overstates
inflation by a percent and a half, then you have to conclude there
is almost no inflation in America today. If that is the case, why do we
see this rate of economic growth targeted at an artificially low rate,
which means the false choice is answered, by those who provide answers,
that we will continue to fight an inflation that does not exist? The
cost of fighting that inflation will be lost opportunity for American
families and lost jobs and a less bright economic future.
I am going to talk about the families-first agenda, but I will come
to the floor and talk about this at some length. Last week, what did we
see? We saw a news report at the end of last week that said
unemployment is going down again, unemployment has dropped. What did
Wall Street do? What did the bond market do? What did the stock market
do? It had an apoplectic seizure. Good economic news for Wall Street
means bad times.
What on Earth is going on? Is there a cultural divide here somewhere,
that good economic news, good news for American families, creates
seizures on Wall Street? Do they not connect with this country at all?
Dropping unemployment is good news. When unemployment goes down, you
would expect people on Wall Street to celebrate a bit. When economic
growth rates are up, you would expect Wall Street to believe that is
good for our country.
Get a life, would you, in New York City. Get a life about these
things. Why is it every time we get a piece of good news, the folks on
Wall Street have a seizure? Why is there a chasm between Wall Street
and Main Street about what Wall Street believes is a fundamentally
unsound policy for them? I want to come and speak about that at some
length, because it seems to me this is out of step with what we need
for our country in terms of economic growth and opportunity. If every
time we begin to see some progress in creating the kind of economic
growth we need, not 2.2 percent a year, not 2.5 percent a year, but
more robust economic growth that produces the jobs and opportunity--if
every time that happens we see the bond market go into a pretzel stance
and have a seizure of some sort, there is something fundamentally wrong
with what is going on in this country. But if the first obligation and
the first important fight for us as Democrats is to create an economy
that expands and grows and provides opportunities for working families,
we have a range of other policies that we believe are important that
help accomplish that.
We put together, with the help of a lot of people over a period of a
year in the Senate and then working together with Members of the U.S.
House, and then with the White House, an agenda that is called
``families-first.'' It is called families-first because, when
everything is settled, when all the dust begins to settle and the day
is done, the question of whether we have been successful as a country
is measured by whether we have done something that improves the lives
of American families. Have we increased the standard of living in this
country?
First, we believe, in a families-first agenda that there is a
responsibility for Government. Government has a responsibility to
balance the budget, pay for what it consumes, not leave a legacy for
its grandchildren to pay for what their grandparents consume.
There is a right way and a wrong way to balance the budget. We
believe the budget ought to be balanced with hard choices, the right
way. The budget deficit has come down very, very substantially in the
last 3 years, and that is because a lot of folks in this Chamber have
been willing to make tough decisions. We would reach out and hope for
cooperation with others, to say, yes, balancing the budget matters, and
it is one of the first items on our agenda.
Second, economic opportunity: We stand for helping small businesses
thrive and create jobs in our country, and pursue policies to make that
happen. People who risk their economic livelihood, go to work in the
morning, keep their businesses open all day, and who are trying to make
a profit, they matter to this country. They provide jobs in this
country. And we want policies that are friendly to that kind of
investment and that kind of commitment that Americans make in creating
jobs and building businesses.
Investing in our communities, in the infrastructure, building the
roads, building the infrastructure this country needs, repairing the
infrastructure,
[[Page S7681]]
building schools, those are the kinds of things that need to have
attention as well, and that is in our families-first agenda.
We talk about individual responsibility: welfare reform. Senator
Breaux will speak this morning, and no one has worked harder or longer
on welfare reform than the Senator from Louisiana. Our approach has
been called work first. We believe those who are able-bodied have a
responsibility to work. We want to put them from the welfare rolls over
to the payrolls.
We also believe that deadbeat dads ought to take responsibility and
pay for the care of their children. Why should the dads out there have
children and then abandon them and then say to the other taxpayers of
America, ``You take care of those kids.'' Our proposal says to deadbeat
dads, ``It is your responsibility as well to take care of those kids.''
Our agenda calls for a national crusade to end teenage pregnancy in
this country, which causes a whole series of other social problems.
That is something Americans could and should unite against and decide,
in a massive education program, that teenage pregnancy retards, rather
than advances, the interests of this country.
Personal security. It is hard to feel like your country is advancing
if you and your family do not feel safe. We believe putting more cops
on the street is good public policy, and President Clinton's proposal
is now in effect and there are more cops on the street, more police on
the beat. We would continue to enhance that.
Keeping kids out of the streets and out of gangs and a whole series
of policy initiatives to do that are important.
Cleaning drugs out of our schools is important. We believe that
everyone on parole and probation in America ought to be drug tested
while on parole and probation.
We propose in the families-first agenda retirement security, pension
reform and protection, allowing people to take their pensions with them
when they change jobs, stiffer penalties for those who abuse the
pensions and crack down on companies who use pension money
inappropriately, money people have saved for their retirement that the
companies would then misuse. There would be tough penalties in those
circumstances.
We would expand pension coverage, including expanding opportunities
for IRA investments.
Health care security. The Kennedy-Kassebaum bill, which we have now
passed 100 to 0 in the Senate but is not now law, is a central part of
what we ought to do. And a kids first health plan which we believe
ought to be advanced.
Educational opportunity. Our party has always stood for education:
$10,000 tax deductions for college and job training and a Project Hope
scholarship project, 2 years of college for kids with good grades.
Mr. President, the families-first agenda is an approach that talks
about the requirements of all levels of government and all Americans to
join together to do the things, the sensible things, that will make
this a better country.
We are not talking about spending substantial amounts of new money.
That is not what these programs are about. These programs are about
trying to determine how we advance this country's interests so that at
the end of the day, the American people can say our country is growing,
it is moving, it is providing hope and opportunity for our family and,
yes, for every family. That is what the families-first agenda is about.
Mr. President, I yield the floor and yield to my colleague from
Louisiana, if he is ready to speak.
Mr. BREAUX addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
Mr. BREAUX. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I will start by
congratulating the Senator from North Dakota for his comments in
outlining what I think is a realistic and doable agenda; that is, the
families-first agenda. I think that we as Democratic Members can be
very proud of putting forth an agenda that is realistic, it is doable,
it is not slogans, it is not pie in the sky, it is not sound bites, it
is not ideas that have been proposed by public relations firms after
doing polling when they look forward to concentrating on the next
election, as opposed to trying to look at the real needs of real
Americans in the real world.
I think the families-first agenda is, in fact, an agenda that talks
about real problems and coming up with real solutions that are
achievable, because while we can talk about slogans and goals, our
business in this body is to legislate in a way that has a real effect
on people.
I think that some of the early statements we have had in this
Congress about things that should be done have been received by many
people with a great deal of concern as to whether they are really ever
going to happen. As we move to the end of this Congress, I think a lot
of Americans have said, ``Well, you know, I heard about contracts and I
heard about proposals to amend the Constitution and to do all types of
things, and it never happened.'' The reason it never happened is
because they were unrealistic goals in the first place.
What we have to deal with is what is doable, what is accomplishable
and how to take those step-by-step efforts to reach the goals that
people expect us to achieve. That is why I think the agenda that the
distinguished Senator from North Dakota has outlined is one that is
realistic. It is one that the average family, when they sit around the
dinner table at night talking about their concerns and what they would
like to see happen, are items they talk about: security, a reasonable
paycheck, reasonable health insurance, a reasonable opportunity to send
their children to college.
They are not talking about philosophical ideas. They are not talking
about major amendments to the Constitution, which has served us very
well for over 200 years. They are talking about real-life problems that
they face every day, and they just wish that Congress could work
together in getting some of these things done.
I think progress is being made. The minimum wage legislation that was
passed, I think, was very positive. We continue to work on the so-
called Kennedy-Kassebaum health care program, which would be a major
accomplishment and one that I think is very doable.
I am pleased to say that I think we can get something done on that
legislation in this Congress. We are very, very close and optimistic
about it. It is going to take some compromise on both sides, but I
think the end result will be much better in having something done than
it will be in not accomplishing it and just blaming the other side for
failure, which we do far too often around here.
I would like to concentrate on one of the items that is part of the
families-first agenda, and that is real welfare reform. One of the
problems, I think, that has prevented us from accomplishing it so far
is the insistence by many on the Republican side of trying to put
together a piece of legislation that we basically are close to agreeing
on, welfare reform, and tying it to something we do not agree on, and
that is Medicaid. By doing so, we guarantee that nothing will happen on
either one of the two bills, as far as getting something adopted.
I was encouraged to see this morning in Commerce Daily the fact that
there has been what is reported as a general consensus by House
Republicans to push ahead on welfare reform by itself. I think that is
something that our colleagues in the Senate should also consider.
If we are very close to reaching an agreement on one major reform of
an entitlement program, why not go ahead and accomplish it, why not go
ahead and do it, why not give the American people a real welfare reform
package that we all can say we joined hands and came up with an
agreement that makes sense?
There are some, I think a diminishing minority, who say, ``No, we're
going to have to tie welfare reform to Medicaid reform.'' Why? I do not
know. Perhaps some want to do that just so they will have the President
veto it and then have a political issue.
But I do not think there is a great deal more to be gained by blaming
each other for our failures. I think most people in this country
outside of Washington would like to see both sides work together and do
what we can agree on, set aside what we cannot agree on for later
debates and later
[[Page S7682]]
work, even into the next Congress, if necessary.
So I think that the suggestion by House Republicans in growing
numbers and apparently being discussed by a number of Republican
Senators on this side to do what we can do, that being welfare reform,
and doing it separately makes a great deal of sense. I am absolutely
convinced that if we are able to come to the Senate floor on a welfare
reform package, that we can reach an agreement. I think we are very,
very close, and I think that is something that clearly should be done.
We all know that Government cannot provide all the solutions to all
of our problems all of the time. That is why I think that the consensus
that is developed on welfare reform makes so much sense. We all agree
that welfare reform requires work. The goal of welfare reform should be
getting people off welfare. The goal of welfare reform should be ending
welfare and putting people into jobs in the private sector and, when
necessary, with some Government help and assistance.
First of all, we can all agree that real welfare reform is about
work. We also, I think, all agree that welfare cannot be forever, that
there has to be a time limit, there has to be a termination. I think we
all understand that, if people think there is no end to what they may
be receiving, in fact there will not be the incentives to move into the
private sector in the work programs.
So, first, I think welfare has to have time limits. It has to be
about work. But it also has to be, Mr. President, about protecting
innocent children. I do not think there is anyone in this body who
would say that we want to be so tough on work that we adversely affect
innocent children who did not ask to be brought into this world. They
are here in many cases as innocent victims. We ought to make sure that
any reform also protects children while it is very tough on work
requirements and very tough on the parents.
So I think we have a consensus that is right here. It is right at our
fingertips. And there is no reason why we should not go ahead and do
what is doable and what we can accomplish and then we can all take
credit for it politically. This is an election year. I think that when
we go back home and say that together Republicans and Democrats have
worked out a plan to end welfare as we know it, the American people
will say, ``Thank goodness. They have gotten something accomplished.''
I think there is a great deal of agreement on how to go about doing
it. It is not total agreement. There are still major items that need to
be worked out. But I think that it is very clear that we can accomplish
this. I think every indication is that the President wants to sign a
welfare reform bill but knows that the current Medicaid plan is not yet
ready.
We have Republican Governors who just, apparently, yesterday, in
talking with their Republican Senate colleagues, talked about the fact
that they are very displeased with the Medicaid plan that has come out
of the Senate Finance Committee, on which I serve. So if you have
Democratic Governors saying, ``Look, I don't think this is ready yet.
We don't like it,'' and you have Republican Governors who have to run
the program saying, ``No, we don't think this product is what we
want,'' that sends us a message. Let us set that aside, continue to
work on it, but go forward with that which we can agree on. And that
means the welfare plan.
I think, if we were able to separate it, we could get that
accomplished. If we tie them together, we are dooming welfare reform to
defeat. Maybe some people think that is a good idea politically because
then we can blame the other side. They will blame us and everybody will
blame each other. The American public outside Washington will say,
``What are they talking about? They should be talking about getting
something done, not blaming the other side for failure.'' Failure is
not politically acceptable in the area that I come from. I think we do
much better when we get something accomplished.
The Work First Act that we have, as Democrats, offered as part of
this package, I think, is a major step in the right direction. Can it
be further improved? Probably. I am willing to work in that regard. But
I think it makes some principal points that I think are the essence of
real reform. Assistance is conditional. It is not really an
entitlement. People have to be able to move into the work force or
perform community service. That is real reform. It is limited. There is
an actual time limit on how long a person or their family can be on
welfare. The general consensus is that 5 years is an acceptable amount
over a lifetime. We know it cannot be forever, and our bill says that.
It requires teen parents--which is a major problem--to live at home
or live in an adult setting. Children who are having children cannot be
left on their own without adult supervision. Our legislation requires a
teen parent to live at home and to attend school as a condition to
receiving welfare benefits. But we also say that to the innocent child,
and many of them are babies out there, that we are going to guarantee
that there be child care and health care for those children.
I want to be as tough as I possibly can on the parent because they
are the ones who brought the child into the world. They have a
responsibility. They have to live up to it. But there are the innocent
children that we, as a society, have to say we are going to reach out
to and make sure they are given child care so the parent can go to work
and they are going to have health care so they can remain healthy and
growing children.
We also want to make sure that at times when there is a recession
they are not left high and dry, that funding will be available for
child care and for health care. We want to give the States all the
flexibility they need. What works in my State of Louisiana may not be
acceptable in California or New York or Florida or any of the other
States. What they do in their States may not fit my State. So we want
to give the Governors in the States a tremendous amount of flexibility.
I think the bottom line in all of this is that we have a program that
can change the welfare system in our country to bring about real reform
and at the same time save a great deal of money. Our plan is projected
to save nearly $50 billion. That is real reform. At the same time, it
protects the needs of innocent children. So we have a good program.
So I urge today that as part of the family-first agenda that we have
put out on the table--one ingredient is the welfare reform package--but
my plea to our colleagues is to not let other issues doom welfare
reform to defeat, do not tie welfare to things that we do not have an
agreement on. I think that would be a very, very serious mistake.
I think our Finance Committee has done some good work, quite frankly,
in a bipartisan fashion. The chairman of the committee, Senator Roth,
was able to work with those of us on the Democratic side to add some
amendments to the package that make it a better package, one that is
more acceptable to the administration and one that can actually become
law with a few additional minor changes.
But the only way we can fail in this effort is to desire failure. I
think, unfortunately, there are some in the Congress who would like to
see that happen. I suggest that that is not the way to go. So let us
get on with what we can accomplish, do what we can do, and then I think
the American public will be able to say that Congress had the
opportunity to do what was right, met that challenge, and did exactly
that in welfare reform, a good place to start. Mr. President, I yield
the floor.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 10
minutes in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. COVERDELL. I reserve the right to object. Parliamentary inquiry.
It is my understanding that at 9:40--no objection.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, is it all right to proceed?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for 10 minutes.
____________________