[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 106 (Thursday, July 18, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8070-S8076]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY, WORK OPPORTUNITY, AND MEDICAID RESTRUCTURING
ACT OF 1996
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate shall now
proceed to the consideration of S. 1956, which the clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 1956) to provide for reconciliation pursuant to
section 202(a) of the concurrent resolution on the budget for
fiscal year 1997.
The Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, we are now ready to go to the reconciliation
bill. The chairman of the Finance Committee, the Senator from Delaware,
Mr. Roth, is here, the chairman of the Budget Committee, Mr. Domenici,
is here, and we have the ranking member, the Senator from Nebraska, Mr.
Exon, here also. So we are ready to begin the debate.
I hope we can make progress and reach some agreement on limiting
time. We need to complete this legislation by noon tomorrow. We have 20
hours of debate under the rules, plus amendments that could be voted on
even after that 20 hours. So we have a lot of work to do between now
and 12 o'clock tomorrow. But if we can continue to cooperate as we have
been doing this week from both sides of the aisle, I am convinced we
can do it, and that is what we should do. We have the distinguished
ranking member of the Finance Committee here, the Senator from New
York, Mr. Moynihan, here.
I ask unanimous consent that the time between now and 1 p.m. be
equally divided for opening statements only and that the majority
leader be recognized at 1 p.m.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LOTT. I yield the floor, Mr. President.
Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, first let me say to the distinguished
majority leader, we will be working together with the Agriculture
Committee and Finance Committee leadership, and we will try to live up
to the Senator's desire that we finish this bill by noon tomorrow. I
want to say, frankly, I do not see why we cannot.
When the majority leader gets the floor, I assume one of the early
items of business will be to strike the Medicaid provision. That might
be debated, but there is an hour limit even on that, and then the bill
will be a welfare bill.
I think everybody should know that we have not seen very many
amendments. Neither has the distinguished chairman of the Finance
Committee. But this is a reconciliation bill, so it is not so easy to
put an amendment together that meets the test of an amendment to a
reconciliation bill. For those who have them, the sooner we can see
them, the sooner we can analyze them from the standpoint of points of
order, or we may be helpful in some respects. So that is how I see the
ensuing time. I thank the majority leader very much.
Having said that, I want to publicly first thank the two
distinguished chairmen, the chairman of the Finance Committee, Chairman
Roth, and the chairman of the Agriculture Committee, Chairman Lugar,
and the ranking members. These two chairmen and their committees have
crafted the legislation that meets the spending requirements given in
the 1997 resolution adopted earlier this spring. Both of these chairmen
will be here during the consideration of this legislation and will help
manage amendments that might be offered in their respective parts of
the bill.
I also thank Senator Exon, ranking member of the Budget Committee,
who voted with all the Republicans on the Budget Committee on Tuesday
to report this bill from our committee to the Senate floor. I am fully
cognizant of the qualification he attached. That was that in fact the
Medicaid provisions were going to be stricken. I have, just once again,
to the best of my ability indicated we are pursuing that. The Senate
will have to vote nonetheless, and the Senate will make that
determination. I assume it will be almost unanimous that we do that;
perhaps not unanimous, but overwhelming.
Mr. EXON. If I may speak there for just moment?
Mr. DOMENICI. Certainly.
Mr. EXON. I thank my friend for his kind remarks. I think it is
important we move this matter along. I would like to add my plea to
those on this side and those on the other side as well, to please give
us the amendments that you have in mind as early as possible, hopefully
maybe before noon. If we can get a list of the serious amendments that
are going to be offered, then we are going to be in a better position,
not only to fashion this bill that may eventually receive a substantial
number of votes if some amendments can be agreed to, but also expedite
the process. So I pledge my cooperation to every extent I can to the
chairman of my committee, the chairman of the Finance Committee, and
the ranking Democrat on the Finance Committee. I think the four of us
working together with our usual understanding and cooperation can move
this matter along. That is my desire.
Mr. DOMENICI. I thank my colleague.
Finally, I want to thank our former colleague and former Republican
leader of the Senate, Senator Dole, who tried not once, not even twice,
but three times in this Congress to get welfare reform enacted. I
believe his leadership will be felt even in his absence from the
Chamber today, as this legislation moves forward and, hopefully, this
time secures the signature of the President of the United States after
these earlier vetoes by the President of the United States.
First, for those who may be watching this process, let me briefly
explain what we are about to do today. After the President vetoed the
Balanced Budget Act of 1995 last winter, and after the failure to find
common ground on a plan to achieve balance in our budget, the process
moved on and Congress again put together another budget blueprint that
achieved balance in 2002. The blueprint, known as Concurrent Resolution
on the Budget for Fiscal Year 1997, was adopted early in June. The
budget resolution does not go to the President for his signature, but
rather directs the action of the authorizing and spending committees on
how to proceed for the remainder of the year to come into compliance
with that budget blueprint and resolution. The budget blueprint also
included instructions to 11 Senate committees to make changes in
legislation in entitlement programs within their jurisdiction to cause
fundamental reform of these programs, but also at the same time to slow
the spending and achieve the deficit reduction envisioned in that
budget plan.
Today we begin debate on the first of three reconciliation bills that
were prescribed by that budget resolution. The reconciliation bills are
very special because they have protections and procedures that the
Budget Act established for their consideration. And because of the need
to have them enacted to implement that budget blueprint, they receive
some very special consideration and are immune from some of the rules,
and some of the privileges
[[Page S8071]]
that Senators have are denied with reference to these kinds of bills.
This first one addresses two major areas of public concern, welfare
and the escalating costs of Medicaid. The bill before us at this moment
makes very needed and fundamental reforms to our welfare system, a
system that has clearly failed not only the American public as
taxpayers, but also the very individuals and families and children that
the system was supposed to help. Obviously, much more will be said by
distinguished Senators on both sides of the aisle as to how that will
be done in this bill.
The bill before us also makes many needed changes in the escalating
Medicaid Program, but obviously that will not be long before the Senate
for, hopefully early this afternoon, since it is the wish of the
majority and the leadership here, it will be stricken by will of the
Senate.
Federal spending under this bill before us today will still increase
for both Medicaid and welfare from nearly $270 to $350 billion. That
might surprise some. If we were to enact both of them, both of those
programs would increase over the next 6 years from $270 to $350
billion. But compared to what would happen without these reforms, the
bill would save the American taxpayers $126 billion. We are not going
to get all of that because the portion that would be forthcoming under
Medicaid will be stricken, but I believe there would be $56 billion
left--Senator Roth?
Mr. ROTH. That is correct.
Mr. DOMENICI. As the savings over the projected costs of the welfare
program in all of its ramifications as contained in this bill.
So, as we begin this debate, let me remind my colleagues that,
because this is a privileged measure, a bill whose consideration is
governed by rules established in the Budget Act, the amendments are
limited both in time and scope. The total time on the bill under the
statute is 20 hours. I would say right up front we, on this side, do
not think we should use 20 hours. In fact, we do not believe we need
much of our 10 hours allotted under this bill.
First-degree amendments get 2 hours, and second-degree amendments 1
hour, which is equally divided regardless of how much time is left on
each side--an anomaly, but that is how it is. So if we had only an hour
left and an amendment is forthcoming, we get half the time on the
amendment. That is the way the timing is done on these amendments. We
intend to move this along, but not to deny Members the opportunity to
get their case before the Senate.
Also, I should remind everyone--and we will hear more about this as
the debate unfolds--that amendments may not violate the Byrd rule,
named for our distinguished colleague from West Virginia. This rule is
very restrictive and is designed to maintain reconciliation bills as
truly budget-focused bills. So I ask that Senators work with the
leadership and Budget Committee staffs to determine if amendments
violate the Byrd rule. If they violate the Byrd rule, you can offer
them, nonetheless they would be subject to a point of order and that
means you would have to get 60 votes of the U.S. Senate to pass them
over the Byrd rule, which limits their adoption.
I should also say, the Budget Act does provide for the waiver or any
point of order that might lie against a nongermane amendment, and that
is a very, very heavy-handed test in this case, or an amendment that
violates the Byrd rule. But that waiver requires 60 affirmative votes,
as I have just indicated.
Shortly, I will discuss some of the substantive provisions, but I
will not do that on this bill until the distinguished chairman and the
ranking member on the Budget Committee have had a chance to talk about
it. I am hopeful most of the substance can be handled by the committee
chairmen. I will be here to help them move this along and to make sure
we are as fair as possible with reference to the many procedural
implications of a reconciliation bill.
I yield the floor.
Mr. EXON addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
Mr. EXON. Mr. President, if I understand the unanimous-consent
request, there is 1 hour equally divided between the two sides up to 1
o'clock; is that correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Two hours ten minutes equally divided.
Mr. EXON. Mr. President, at this time, I yield myself 12 minutes of
that time. Following my remarks, I yield the remaining time, up to the
1 o'clock time, to my friend and colleague from New York, the ranking
member of the Finance Committee. We will be working jointly on the
various amendments. I am grateful that both he and the chairman of the
Finance Committee will be working jointly with us on this matter today.
Mr. President, as the Democratic leader on the Budget Committee, I
come to the Senate floor today with some truly mixed emotions. I am
most relieved that the Republican majority has decided that they will
strike the Medicaid language from the reconciliation bill. It was with
that understanding that I joined my colleague and chairman, Senator
Domenici, in reporting out this bill to the floor.
Obviously, cooler heads in the Republican fever swamp prevailed. I
trust this will be reflected in the vote. I salute my friend, the
distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee, for his role. Might I
suggest that Senator Domenici's good counsel had much to do with the
decision to seek a more productive and less combative path. But I say
somewhat wistfully that I wish his voice of reason had not been drowned
out earlier in the budget process.
For all their fluster and bluster, the Republican majority will walk
away from the 104th Congress with precious little deficit reduction to
show for it. There is no bipartisan 7-year budget plan. Far from it.
Republicans made a lot of noise about balancing the budget. In the end,
the Democrats made a lot more sense.
At this time, I renew a plea that I have made oftentimes, and that
is, in view of the fact that we have an economy today that is moving
ahead progressively and well, with little or no inflation concerns, I
simply hope in due time, maybe sometime in the next couple of weeks,
the Federal Reserve Board will recognize the situation and maybe begin
to ease at least slightly the interest rate problem which continues to
bother many sectors of America, including the stock market.
I do not think our decisions should be directly made here on what
happens in any certain phase of our economy. But the facts of the
matter are, as I just alluded to the fact we have no 7-year balanced
budget plan. We do not have that because the Republican majority and
their leadership in the House and the Senate have refused to meet with
the President to see if we cannot come up with a bipartisan compromise.
I have said time and time again, and I am not sure that Americans
totally understand it--sometimes I wonder if the news media understands
it from the reports I have been reading--that both sides have agreed
basically to make the cuts that are necessary to balance the budget in
7 years. It can be done, it should be done, and I appeal, once again,
now that the Republican leadership of the House and the Senate have
come out of their cocoon, to recognize this is the time to strike.
Let's get together. Let's let the Republican leadership in the House
and the Senate take up the offer of the President of the United States
to meet and come up with a 7-year balanced budget plan.
I know there is a great deal of haste right now, Mr. President, to
get out of town, to leave things here because we want to go about
campaigning. Certainly, I believe that there is nothing that could
better serve the United States of America--the great two-party system
that has served us, with all its warts, quite well over the years than
if we can, before we leave here, have a balanced budget agreement. It
is clearly within our grasp if we would just get on, put aside some of
the egos and come to some kind of understanding. I make that plea once
again.
Mr. President, I believe that the Republican majority had little
choice but to yank the Medicaid portion of this bill out, as we and the
President had suggested. One did not have to read the tea leaves to see
that it was certainly headed for a veto without that change. It was a
plan hatched by the far right that reneged on the promises of providing
health coverage to low-income Americans and those most in need of it--
the elderly, children, and the disabled. Many of the Governors could
not
[[Page S8072]]
accept the plan because funding did not automatically adjust for
changes in enrollment. I am glad that this unreasonable scheme has been
laid to rest.
Now that the shackles of the Medicaid plan have been released, we
have a good opportunity to work together and fashion a bipartisan
welfare reform bill that will win not only the approval of the Congress
but the signature of the President as well and I believe would have a
good chance of receiving near universal support from the American
people as well.
I compliment the majority for making some substantive and key changes
in their previous welfare plan. For example, child care resources that
were woefully lacking in their earlier efforts have been shored up, at
least some. But the majority should know also that those of us on this
side do not plan to spend the next 20 hours singing hosannas to their
bill. We intend to offer amendments that we believe could significantly
improve this bill and make it acceptable to a broad spectrum of
Senators on both sides of the aisle.
I add, I would have preferred to deal with welfare reform outside of
the reconciliation bill. Welfare reform is a policy issue, not a
budgetary matter. In fact, there are no budgetary savings. I emphasize
again, Mr. President, there are no budgetary savings from what most
people believe as welfare. I, of course, reference aid to families with
dependent children. The savings in this bill come from food stamps,
child nutrition, denying SSI and food stamp benefits to most legal
immigrants.
I hope in the future the majority will not feel the need to hide
behind reconciliation skirts when every tough issue comes down the
pike. I point out, too, that last year, we were able to come to a
bipartisan agreement on welfare reform outside of the context of the
budget reconciliation.
I emphasize once again, Mr. President, I think that while we are
going to do this, making this part of the budget bill and the
reconciliation process is not the way that this should have been
handled. It should have been a freestanding bill. It should have come
out of the Finance Committee which, I think, would have been the proper
course of action. But, obviously, for many reasons that was not to be.
Mr. President, we have heard a great deal in this Congress about
returning power to the States. Under the rubric of devolution, we have
seen some thoughtful proposals, such as restrictions on unfunded
mandates and others that are played bad, like the Medicaid plan.
But the clear signal we are getting from the townhall meetings and
the State houses is the need for greater flexibility in dealing with
these problems. I believe the Democrats answered that challenge in our
updated ``Work First'' welfare plan that will shortly be offered as an
amendment to this measure. It gives the States the flexibility to
consolidate and streamline welfare operations yet protects children and
saves $50 billion in the process.
As a former two-term Governor of Nebraska, I have more, Mr.
President, than a passing acquaintance with the problems that are faced
daily by the Nation's Governors. I have done my able best to help them
where I could. I was an original cosponsor of the unfunded mandates
bill. But as sympathetic as I may be to our Governors, we must ensure
that welfare reform does not just meet their needs, their needs being
the Governors. It must continue to meet the needs of the innocent
children who have become pawns, unfortunately, in this debate.
In this regard, there are still areas of concern about the Republican
package. I will not address all of them today. I am not wedded to any
particular amendment, but I do want to touch upon a few concerns today
that have a common thread. That common thread, that important thread,
is kids in need. Children should not be an afterthought in welfare
reform. Protecting children should be right up there with requiring
able-bodied men and women to earn their keep.
The first issue in the voucher program is important. The Republican
measure prohibits--prohibits, Mr. President--any assistance once a
parent has been on the welfare rolls for a time limit to be determined
by the individual States. This, Mr. President, could be anywhere from
60 days at a minimum to 5 years at the outside.
Under the Republican bill, no vouchers would be allowed for families
reaching the time limits set by the individual States. They would be
locked in to whatever State they were a resident of. In my book, this
is draconian. We should not cut and run on our poor kids. Depriving a
child of the bare necessities in life, such as food and clothing and
shelter, serves no useful purpose. The Government is not punishing the
parents; it is the children who would suffer. We should not visit the
sins of the parents upon their children. I see no reason why we cannot
design some sort of a voucher or noncash aid for these children. Under
the Democratic work first plan, the States would provide a minimal
safety net. That would be an enormous improvement to this bill.
My second criticism involves the inflexibility of the Republican plan
during hard economic times. This bill cries out for more flexibility
during recessions. Under the preferred Democratic proposal, children
are entitled to assistance based on their household incomes, not
whether the States have exhausted their funding due to increased needs
during a recession or other uncontrollable events. This would be a
reasonable and a desirable addition to the welfare reform package and
something that I hope the Senate will accept.
My third concern, Mr. President, revolves around the food stamps and
the optional block granting of the program. It is a good idea to
encourage electronic benefit transfers and to reduce fraud and abuse in
the Food Stamp Program as is called for in the Democrat work first
plan. We should throw the book at violators, but I cannot say that I am
as understanding about the Republicans' insistence on block granting
food stamps.
It is evident to this Senator that States devote radically different
levels of effort to our needy children. They do not treat them with the
same level of compassion. By removing the Federal entitlement and block
granting food stamps, we could knowingly exacerbate these differences.
I am also concerned that block granting does not completely take into
account the changes in the caseloads or regional economic trends.
Mr. President, many thoughtful observers have also suggested that the
instigation of block granting would trigger a so-called race to the
bottom. Let us understand that term. We are very much concerned that
the way this is written now, it would almost guarantee a so-called race
to the bottom among the States seeking to lower services to the poor so
as not to attract more of them. Even worse, some States may reject the
dwindling block grants and drop the whole burden on to the narrow
shoulders of the counties and the local governments below them. We
should not be abetting such a shirking of responsibility if it should
happen.
Mr. President, there are, of course, many other issues, bones of
contention, in this legislation that we will be addressing. Senators on
both sides of the aisle will be talking about them and, undoubtedly,
offering amendments. But I do believe that, with a few modifications,
we could have a bill that sits well with both sides and with the
American people. To pass their test, it will have to be a bipartisan
effort that requires work while still protecting children. Those are
the tricky waters that we still have to navigate over the next few
hours. I trust that we will be successful.
Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time and yield it, as I
have previously indicated, to the Senator from New York.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gregg). Who seeks recognition? Who yields
time?
Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I think, in the interest of symmetry and
the fact of seniority and the overwhelming presence of the
chairmanship, that the Senator from Delaware should speak now. In any
event, I would like to hear him in the hopes that I might think of
something to reflect upon.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is the Senator from Delaware seeking time?
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may take.
Mr. President, this is the beginning of the end to the lengthy debate
in the
[[Page S8073]]
104th Congress about the current welfare system. The issue of welfare
reform has been frequently and passionately debated over these past
months, and rightly so. The effects and consequences of the welfare
system in some way touch us all.
Mr. President, it would be difficult to estimate exactly how many
thousands of hours the Congress has devoted to this issue over the past
months. The various committees in the Senate and the House of
Representatives have taken testimony from Governors, Members of
Congress advocating their own particular brand of reform, Cabinet
officials, outside experts, advocacy groups, and so forth.
But of all of these, perhaps the clearest message for welfare reform
I have found comes from a newspaper article about Sharon Stewart, a 33-
year-old single mother who has been on welfare for nearly 12 years. In
a Richmond Times-Dispatch article last month, Ms. Stewart was quoted as
praising Virginia's new 2-year time limit on welfare benefits. She
said, ``I feel like I can actually accomplish something again. This is
something I'm doing and nobody else is just giving me a handout.''
With simple eloquence, Ms. Stewart told the Times-Dispatch, ``this
program should have been in effect when I [first] went on AFDC. It
means people''--it means people--``are going to be independent. At
first they're real scared and kind of back off, but I believe it will
help in the long run.''
In the same article, Tracy James, a mother of four children, also
voiced her support for the time limit on benefits. She summed up the
situation better than any of the experts when she stated, ``The old law
was too easy. I settled for it. [Now] it's either get yourself together
or you're just stuck.''
Eloise Anderson, the very distinguished director of the California
Department of Social Services, recently responded to a reporter who
asked whether time limits were a form of ``tough love.'' Miss Anderson
responded, ``It's the real world.''
Mr. President, this is the fundamental philosophy upon which our
welfare reform package is based. We will help families through the
crisis which forced them into poverty. But that assistance is only
temporary, and they must again help themselves.
Welfare reform will restore the dignity to families who want more
than to ``just settle'' for what the welfare system will give them.
The current AFDC program, as it was designed in the 1930's, abandoned
many families long ago as a statistic of long-term dependency in
contemporary society. The current welfare system has failed the very
families it was intended to serve. Look at the record. The record
speaks for itself. Unfortunately, in 1965, something like 3.3 million
children received AFDC benefits. In 1990, more than 7.7 million
children received AFDC. This growth occurred even though the total
number of children in the United States had declined--I underscore
``had declined''--by nearly 5 million between 1965 and 1990. In 1994,
nearly 9.6 million children received AFDC. Last year, the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services estimated that 12 million would
receive AFDC benefits within 10 years under the current welfare system.
I think it is clear that the present system has not worked. To the
contrary, rather than giving a lifting hand and helping people back to
work, back to the mainstream, we find the record is consistently an
increase in the number of families, the number of children, caught in
the web of welfare.
If the present system was working well for children, we would,
frankly, not be here today. I do not think anyone wants to make a claim
that the existing system is good for children.
While the present welfare system is full of excuses, the welfare
reform legislation being presented to the American people today is a
bold challenge. While the present system quietly accepts the dependency
of more than 9 million children, our proposal speaks loudly to them and
insists they, too, are among the heirs to the blessing of this great
Nation.
The key to their success will not be found in Washington, but,
frankly, in the timeless values of family and work.
Mr. President, 90 percent of the children on AFDC live without one of
their parents. Only a fraction of welfare families are engaged in work.
The current welfare system has cheated these children of what they need
most.
The reason the States will succeed in welfare reform where Washington
has failed is because State and local officials see the faces of their
neighbors, while Washington only sees caseload numbers. The bureaucracy
in Washington is too detached, too removed, too far out of touch to
reform the welfare system.
The opponents of welfare reform believe the States lack either the
compassion or the capacity or both to serve needy families. They are
wrong.
We understand that there is not a singular approach to welfare
reform. We believe if families, if children, are going to escape from
the vicious cycle of dependency, they must be enabled to find their own
way out. Welfare reform is not simple because human beings are complex.
The goal of welfare reform for all families is for all families to
leave welfare. The path on how they get there is not necessarily a
straight line. Nor, under our approach, must all families follow the
same path.
In contrast, this is precisely why Washington will never be able to
end welfare as we know it. The existing system is designed more for the
convenience of the bureaucracy than for the needs of the individuals.
Washington wants to put its one shoe on every foot. That simply does
not work. In the tradition of scientific management, everything must be
reduced to bureaucratic rules, procedures, and mathematical equations.
This is why, if we are truly seeking the answer to end dependency,
Washington is the wrong place to look.
The causes and cures of poverty involve some of the most intimate
acts in human behavior. What many families on welfare need cannot be
sent through the mail or reproduced in the Federal Register. There is
no flaw in admitting we do not understand how or why individuals will
respond to the various incentives and sanctions present in everyday
life in modern society. The mistake is believing, especially after 30
years of evidence to the contrary, that Washington does know how to
apply these incentives and sanctions to the lives of millions of
people.
Under the present system, welfare dependency is allowed to become a
permanent condition. This is one of the cruelest features of the
welfare system because it saps the human spirit.
Welfare reform will help free families from the present welfare trap
and save future generations from its affect. To do this, we must give
the State and local governments all of the tools they need to change
the existing welfare system. What works in Delaware may not work in
Virginia or New York and the States that demonstrated that it is time
to move beyond the waiver process.
One of the basic flaws in the existing system is, while State
officials have the responsibility to administer these programs, they do
not--I emphasize the word ``not''--have the authority they need to
effectively run the program. That authority is dispensed by Washington
one drop at a time, and this is no longer acceptable. Waivers are no
substitute for an authentic welfare reform.
Since President Clinton vetoed welfare reform for a second time, we
worked with the Nation's Governors to construct a comprehensive welfare
reform package, which, of course, included Medicaid. And a compromise
last February was supported by the most liberal Governor and the most
conservative Governor and everyone in between. No one liked everything,
but there was something for everyone. That is the essence of
bipartisanship.
When this legislation was marked up in the Finance Committee, I
included more than 50 Democratic amendments. Nearly half of all the
Democratic amendments were incorporated into the legislation. Those
changes still did not gain Democrat support in committee. And, of
course, the administration still refused to compromise on Medicaid. So
we are now separating Medicaid from the rest of the welfare package.
Let me say, Mr. President, although I am supporting and have
supported the separation, it is a matter that I personally believe need
not happen. The President, on several occasions, in addresses to the
Governors, stated that many, many people on welfare would
[[Page S8074]]
not take themselves off the rolls because they were fearful that they
would put their children at risk, that they would not be covered by
Medicaid. I think there is great truth in that statement. But, for that
reason, it seems to me critically important that we deal with welfare
and Medicaid as a package. That is what the Senate Finance Committee
did, and that is what we have before us. But, as I stated earlier, we
will be separating Medicaid from the rest of the welfare package.
Mr. President, we have a bipartisan bill. There is no need to look
any further than the measure before us. Frankly, this legislation will
look very familiar to my colleagues, as it closely resembles H.R. 4, as
it was passed by the Senate last September by a vote of 87 to 12. In
other words, it is basically similar legislation which received broad
bipartisan support when they voted for H.R. 4 last September. With
regard to such issues as work requirements and time limits, this
legislation is nearly identical to the Senate-passed bill.
Mr. President, it has been 41 months since President Clinton outlined
his welfare reform goals to the American people. Welfare reform was not
enacted in 1993 or in 1994. Welfare reform is not about claiming
political credit. We need to enact welfare reform for families like
those of Sharon Stewart, Tracy James, and their children. If we do
nothing, more children will fall into the trap of dependency. That is a
certainty of what the current system will bring.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
(Mr. ASHCROFT assumed the chair.)
Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I yield to myself whatever time I may
require. I will express, once again, my admiration and gratitude for
the tone of thoughtful inquiry which the chairman brings to these
discussions. We will not agree today. We have not in a whole year in
this regard, but we certainly are trying to lay out arguments and
information as best we understand it. I think we know where we are
going today, but it does not preclude us from one last effort. There is
still hope. You may yet change your mind, but I do not think so today.
Mr. ROTH. Will the distinguished Senator yield?
Mr. MOYNIHAN. I am happy to do it.
Mr. ROTH. I want to say what an honor and privilege it has been to
work on these matters with the distinguished Senator from New York.
There is no one on either side of the aisle who brings greater
knowledge, understanding, and depth than Senator Moynihan. Now,
frankly, sometimes his conclusions are wrong, but that is
understandable, and that is what makes for the democratic process. But
I do want to say that working with them, in an effort to bring a
solution, to be compassionate, to take care of the needs of the many
children who are without is our common goal. I know he seeks that with
all his intelligence and being.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, as I rise today, I find myself thinking
of the passage with which Hannah Arendt begins her classic work, ``The
Origins of Totalitarianism.'' She speaks of the disasters of the First
World War, and then the Second World War, and now the prospects of a
third, final encounter between the two remaining world powers. She
says, ``This moment of anticipation is like the calm that settles after
all hopes have died.''
If I sound subdued today, I hope it will be taken in that light,
rather than any diminished sense of the importance of what we are about
to do, because we are all somehow subdued today. The Senate floor is
all but empty. I see four Senators.
The lobbies are empty. There is no outcry against what we are doing.
Two fine editorials appeared this morning in the Washington Post and
the New York Times saying, ``Do not do this.'' But those are rare
voices at this moment.
We learn in the press that the President is concerned that there be
vouchers made available for diapers. This is commendable, but scarcely
a suggestion that something fundamental is about to happen. What is
about to happen is we are going to repeal title IV-A of the Social
Security Act, the provision established in 1935 in the act, aid to
families with dependent children.
This will be the first time in our history that we have repealed a
core provision of the Social Security Act. Further, we are choosing to
repeal the provision for children. It is as if we are going to live
only for this moment, and let the future be lost.
I said that there were few voices. Actually, there is one unified
voice: that of every national religious group and faith-based charity.
But we seem unable or unwilling to listen. They all oppose ending the
entitlement. Catholic Charities USA and the Catholic bishops,
especially, the National Council of Churches, Bread for the World, have
persisted in this matter. Other organizations, as I say, are once again
silent. Having briefly aroused themselves, they have sunk back into
apathy, or resignation--or agreement with what is about to be done. We
will not know if we do not hear.
Yesterday, Members of Congress received a letter from Father Fred
Kammer, president of Catholic Charities USA, who wrote:
The welfare reform proposal before you reflects ignorance
and prejudice far more than the experience of this Nation's
poorest working and welfare families. This bill would end the
basic guarantee of protection to our neediest families, and,
in the words of Milwaukee's Archbishop, Rembert Weakland,
OSB, nullify ``America's 60-year covenant with its poor
children and those who nurture them.'' It would also punish
children born to welfare parents, legal immigrants, and
desperately hungry citizens.
Welfare reform is acutely needed in this country, reform
which is designed genuinely to move people who can do so from
welfare to work. Today's proposals are largely a sham
designed to appease the ignorant and to pander to our worst
prejudices in an election year. There is little here to
recommend to believers, for whom Jesus of Nazareth said,
``Whatever you do to the least of my sisters and brothers,
you do to me.''
And then Father Kammer says:
Please stop this so-called ``welfare reform'' now lest
election and budget politics shred the fabric of this
Nation's protections and supports for its most vulnerable
families.
Again in the words of Archbishop Weakland, ``This is not
welfare reform, but welfare repeal.''
The Nation, its historians, and its poorest families will
little remember what you say here, but they will long
remember what you do here.
Sincerely, Fred Kammer, S.J. President, Catholic Charities
USA.
This is an extraordinary statement by the president of one of the
Nation's leading charities. But then he knows too well the profound
impact this legislation will have on poverty and on children.
It is children we are talking about. I have been trying for most of
this Congress to describe the consequences for children in ending
support after 5 years. The average AFDC recipient will receive benefits
for 13 years.
Ten months ago, as the distinguished chairman has observed, on
September 19, 1995, the Senate passed a welfare bill providing just
that. That bill, H.R. 4, as amended, was, as the chairman just said,
nearly identical to the bill now before us. Again, to quote the
chairman, ``It was basically similar legislation.'' At that time, we
had no data before us to give us a sense of what we were doing. There
were 11 Democrats who voted against that bill--11. I hope one day we
might see their names listed in a place of honor.
A few weeks later I learned that there was, in fact, in the
Department of Health and Human Services, as you would expect, an
analysis of H.R. 4 that addressed itself to the poverty impact of the
bill.
Then on October 24, at the first and only meeting of the House-Senate
conference on the legislation, I put it this way. I said:
Just how many millions of infants we will put to the sword
is not yet clear. There is dickering to do. In April, the
Department of Health and Human Services reported that when
fully implemented, the time limits in the House bill would
cut off benefits for 4,800,000 children. At that time, the
Department simply assumed that the administration would
oppose repeal. But the administration has since decided to
support repeal. HHS has done a report on the impact of the
Senate bill on children, but the White House will not release
it. Those involved will take this disgrace to their graves.
During the following 2 days, the administration denied the existence
of the HHS report. But then, on October 27, on the front page of the
Los Angeles Times, there was an article by Elizabeth Shogren entitled,
``Welfare Report Clashes with Clinton, Senate.''
It began:
A sweeping welfare reform plan approved by the Senate and
embraced by President Clinton would push an estimated 1.1
million children into poverty and make conditions
[[Page S8075]]
worse for those already under the poverty line, according to
a Clinton Administration analysis not released to the public.
A subsequent administration analysis of the conference report on H.R.
4, after the House and Senate provisions had been reconciled, estimated
that it would plunge 1\1/2\ million children into poverty.
On December 22, 1996, when the conference report on that bill came
back to the Senate, every Democrat save one voted ``no.''
Now, with these facts in front of them, Senators on our side--and not
only on our side--voted almost unanimously against the bill.
I should point out that in some ways the bill before us, although
basically identical to last year's legislation, as the chairman of the
Finance Committee has said, is even worse in that it provides for very
harsh measures against legal immigrants who are noncitizens. The
Congressional Budget Office makes this point in its report on the
measure. It says:
Chapter 4 would limit the eligibility of legal aliens for
public assistance programs. It would explicitly make most
immigrants ineligible for SSI and food stamp benefits.
Savings would also materialize in other programs that are not
mentioned by name.
This must be noted as a regression of genuine importance. In the
beginning of this century, Western nations began the practice, and
after a while, by treaty, international labor conventions, and such
like, of extending social services available in a particular country to
legal visitors or immigrants from another country. It was seen as a
part of the comity of nations, part of the standard civilization which
we had attained.
Now, sir, I had the opportunity to speak with our distinguished
Secretary of Health and Human Services this morning, the Honorable
Donna E. Shalala. She tells me that this bill will cut off some 200,000
legal immigrants currently receiving supplemental security income
because of severe disabilities--cut them off. It will cut off women
receiving services in battered women clinics, said Dr. Shalala. Things
that civilized nations do not do, save perhaps when carried away, as
Father Kammer said, by ignorance and prejudice.
Now to the present legislation. I recall the long and difficult
effort to get the executive branch to follow its normal practice of
providing a report on legislation saying this is what this legislation
will do, this is why we support it or do not support it, or whatever.
Since May of this year, Representative Sam Gibbons, ranking member of
the Committee on Ways and Means, and I have been asking for a similar
analysis of the poverty impact of the new Republican welfare bill. We
asked for the poverty effects because they have a clarity for Members
that perhaps more diffuse issues, such the operation of time limits. It
is a usage with which we are familiar. Last winter, when Democratic
Senators found out what the effects of H.R. 4 were, having voted for
the bill, they turned around and voted against it. The President,
having indicated he would support the bill, turned around and vetoed
it.
So, since May of this year, Representative Gibbons and I have been
asking for a similar analysis of the effects of the new Republican
welfare bill. Despite three separate written requests, no report has
been forthcoming. But we did receive a letter on June 26 from Jacob L.
Lew, the Acting Director of the Office of Management and Budget, in
which he wrote:
As you recall, the administration's analysis of the
conference report on H.R. 4 estimated that it would move 1.5
million children below the poverty line. Based on that
analysis, it appears that improvements in the Roth/Archer
bill would mean that somewhat fewer children would fall below
the poverty line. But many of the factors that would move
children below the poverty line remain the same in both
bills.
So we have before us a bill that in the administration's own judgment
would impoverish over 1 million children. But I remind you, Mr.
President, we do not have an analysis, and we read in this Sunday's New
York Times, by Robert Pear, an eminently respected reporter in this
area, that the White House had given instructions to HHS that there was
to be no report. I had not ever thought I would be standing on the
Senate floor stating my understanding, that an administration has said
we will not tell the Senate what it is doing. If we knew what it was
doing, we would not do it. That is precisely what happened on our side
of the aisle, and not just on our side of the aisle, between September
and December of last year. If we knew what we were doing, we would not
dare to do it, and therefore the information is being withheld.
I would say that Dr. June O'Neill, Director of the Congressional
Budget Office, has been very forthcoming, but that is an institution
within our ranks, as it were, and with which we have normal
cooperation.
I talked about the problems of poverty, but I would like to make the
point that this is not really the issue here.
Most children on AFDC are already poor. Those who are above the
poverty line are part of that portion of the AFDC population which
works part of the year, loses jobs, goes on welfare, goes back. Time
limits would drop them completely below poverty because there would be
no available income when they were not working.
Might I say we have an AFDC population that is made up of roughly
three groups. One is a sizable number in which adult, mature families
break up, and a mother finds herself with children and needs income for
a relatively brief period. It is the equivalent of the mill closing and
men out of work. Within 2 years' time, they are back on their own. They
do not need any advice, they do not need any counseling. It is income
insurance for them, and it works.
There is a second, middle group which cycles on and off: Works, finds
the work does not work out--jobs are lost, plants close and that kind
of thing--then they go back onto welfare. Work comes along, they go
off. And it is back and forth.
Then there is another group. In overall terms, it is much the largest
group. This group is on welfare for a very long, continuous time.
Thirteen years is the average.
The essential problem with this legislation is that it imposes time
limits without any real provision for the heroic efforts that are
required to take people who have been on welfare for a long while, get
them off and keep them off.
I have no problem with that proposition, that work is what we should
seek, independence is what we should seek. Some years ago, I wrote a
long book on this subject, which began: ``The issue of welfare is the
issue of dependency. Whereas most people stand on their own two feet,
dependent persons, as the buried image of the word implies, dependent
people hang.''
This very week Time magazine chose, on its page called ``Notebook,''
to reproduce a cover of Time from July 28, 1967. It is called, 29 Years
Ago in Time: DOGGED CONSISTENCY. There is a picture of the Senator from
New York, and I am arguing the case--this is at a time when I was
director of Joint Center for Urban Studies at MIT and at Harvard--that
we have a crisis in our cities and it was getting worse.
I am quoted:
We are the only industrial democracy, he told a Senate
subcommittee, that does not have a family allowance. And we
are the only democracy whose streets are filled with rioters
each summer. The biggest single experience anyone has is
working.
No one argues that. But to put a time limit on, when you do not have
provision for seeing that people have work, is to invite an urban
crisis unlike anything we have known since the 1960's. It may be it
will bring us to our senses. But it will be a crisis.
Here are the numbers. The Congressional Budget Office, in the cost
estimate of the bill, said it would cut Federal welfare rolls by 30 to
40 percent by the year 2004. If we follow the estimates of the Senator
from Delaware, and they are quite accurate, of course, by the year
2005, we will have over 10 million children on AFDC. Cut off 40
percent, and you have 4 million children dropped.
CBO estimates that, under the bill we are dealing with, we will cut
off 3.5 million children by the year 2001. By the year 2001--5 years
from now.
That would be an unprecedented experience, and its impact would be
quite disproportionate in racial and ethnic terms. Two-thirds of those
affected would be minorities: 49 percent black, 19 percent Hispanic.
I said in the Finance Committee, in March of this year, that to drop
these
[[Page S8076]]
children from our Federal life-support system would be the most
``regressive and brutal act of social policy since Reconstruction.''
Think of what it means for our cities. Remember, not all these
children will be 4 months old or 4 years old. Many will be 14 years
old. In 5 years' time, you will not recognize Detroit, Los Angeles, New
York. These are cities where a majority of births are out of wedlock.
The average for our largest 50 cities is 48.0 percent.
What is going on is a profound social change which we do not
understand, just as we could not comprehend the problem of unemployment
in the first part of this century, and ended with the crisis of the
world depression, which almost destroyed democracy. It was a very close
thing. Now, we are putting the viability of our own social system at
risk.
This year the National Center for Health Statistics reported that the
nonmarital, out-of-wedlock ratio of births in the United States has now
reached one-third, 32.6 percent. That was for 1994, so it is a third
today. In Detroit, that number is 75.3 percent; in Los Angeles, it is
50.1 percent; in New York City, 52.3 percent; in Chicago, 56 percent;
in New Orleans, 64 percent. I think Detroit and New Orleans are
probably the highest. No society in history has ever encountered this
problem. These numbers a half century ago were 4 percent. New York
City, 4 percent half a century ago, 52 percent today; Manhattan, 54
percent.
Nobody understands. Something like this is going on in Britain, in
Canada, in France, in Germany. We are undergoing an enormous social
change which we do not understand. Although it does not happen at all
in Japan. Ratios were 1 percent in 1940 and 1 percent today.
Yet, we are acting as if we do understand. The basic model of this
problem in the minds of most legislators, and most persons in the
administration, is that since we first had welfare and we then got
illegitimacy, it must be that welfare caused illegitimacy. And they may
be right. I do not know. But neither do they.
I have stood on this floor and argued for the Family Support Act,
which one Senator after another invokes as a measure that works,
getting people out of dependency, into jobs. It could continue to work.
But not this sharp cutoff--bang, 2 years, you are off; 5 years, you are
off forever. That invites the kind of calamity which it may be we are
going to have to experience in order to come to our senses.
I said on the floor last September that we will have children
sleeping on grates if this becomes law. I repeat that today. I hope I
shall have been proved wrong. I hope.
We will have a chance to track it. In the Social Security Act
Amendments of 1994, I was able to include a small, but significant,
provision to try to get us some accumulation of information and then
perhaps theoretical knowledge about this situation. We enacted the
Welfare Indicators Act of 1994. It requires the Secretary of Health and
Human Services to start producing an annual report based on the
Economic Report of the President, which derives from the Employment Act
of 1946.
We will have the first interim report due October 31 of this year. It
takes a long time for these institutions, if I can use that word, to
mature, but we will have documentation of what this legislation did. We
will know, unless we are reduced to concealing the truth, which we are
getting very close to in this debate. Administration officials saying,
when asked for the report, ``There is no report''; when the report is
published saying, ``Well, I guess there was a report''; then saying,
``No more reports.'' We are standing here on the Senate floor with no
report from the administration. Shame.
One of the comments I have made throughout this debate, over the last
year and a half, is that it has been conservative social analysts who
have been most wary of what we are doing. They have consistently warned
us that we do not know enough to do this. They have asked us to be
conservatives and not take this radical step, putting at risk the lives
of children in a way we have never done.
After we allowed a system to develop in which children are supported
in this manner, to suddenly stop that support based on some very vague
notion of human behavior--that if you are going to suffer awful
consequences, you will change your behavior. We will be making cruelty
to children an instrument of social policy. Lawrence Mead of NYU said
you don't know enough to do this. Lawrence Mead, no liberal he; a
career telling the liberals they were letting this situation get out of
hand.
But 52 percent of the children born in the city of New York are to a
single parent. John J. Dillulio, Jr., at Princeton saying,
``Conservatives should know better than to take such risks with the
lives of children.''
And then George F. Will. George Will of unequaled authority as a
commentator on the difficulty of social change and the care with which
it is to be addressed. He wrote of the vote last September:
As the welfare debate begins to boil, the place to begin is
with an elemental fact: No child in America asked to be here.
No child is going to be spiritually improved by being
collateral damage in a bombardment of severities targeted at
adults who may or may not deserve more severe treatment from
the welfare state.
I end on that proposition. No child in America asked to be here. Why,
then, are we determined to punish them?
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, how much time remains?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico has approximately
36 minutes remaining.
Mr. DOMENICI. I yield 15 minutes to the Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SANTORUM. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank the chairman.
____________________