[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.

                          ____________________