[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 116 (Thursday, August 1, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9337-S9341]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY AND WORK OPPORTUNITY RECONCILIATION ACT OF 
                        1996--CONFERENCE REPORT

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the conference report.
  Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.


                      Unanimous-Consent Agreement

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, at the request of the minority, they 
desire one block of time, instead of rotation, between 12 and 1. I 
checked with our side. We are willing to do that provided that, for 
instance, they go from 12 to 1 and then from 1:15 to 2:15 we have a 
block of time. We assume that while this is the welfare bill that the 
minority intends to speak on a related subject--the economy and the 
current economic news. And we would like from 1:15 to 2:15 to speak to 
that same subject. I will control that 1 hour and be here myself with 
other Senators.
  I ask unanimous consent that we proceed now to Senator Bond, 10 
minutes; Senator Kohl, 3 minutes; if Senator Hutchison arrives, she 
takes 7; if not, we rotate and have a Democrat; then at the hour of 12 
o'clock the Democrats have 1 hour under the control of whomever they 
designate for discussion on the floor of the Senate; and, then at 1:15 
the Republicans have 1 hour until 2:15. That means there are 15 minutes 
in between. Let us just say we will fill that in with Senators who 
desire to speak. I propose that as a consent request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank the Chair.
  I begin by expressing my sincere thanks and appreciation to the 
managers of the bill, particularly to my good friend, the Budget 
Committee chairman, the Senator from New Mexico, Senator Domenici. The 
fact that we have this measure before us today reflects not only all 
the practice we have had in passing welfare bills but reflects the 
great skill, the compassion, and the wisdom that he has exercised 
throughout this process. I think all of us are deeply indebted to the 
tremendous skill he has shown in keeping us on track to bring us to 
this day.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. BOND. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I ask whatever time I use be added to his time.
  Does the Senator recall the hours spent in the Budget Committee 
putting together the first balanced budget resolution in 30 years, and 
then the floor debate which lasted for the entire time allowed, and 
then all of the amendments at the end? We did them all with 1 minute 
intervening, and then a reconciliation bill. We did all that was 
required to get a balanced budget.
  Mr. BOND. I recall it as it if were yesterday.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I also managed them both, and I spent more hours on the 
floor of the Senate and more votes occurred than any period in modern 
history of the Senate. I might say from time to time--you would agree, 
would you not--that we had thought perhaps that work was all in vain, 
at least for this year, but, as a matter of fact, in only a year, we 
have welfare reform doing away with the 60 years when people have been 
imprisoned by this system. It was all worthwhile.

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I say that I well remember that. It only 
heightened my admiration for the Senator from New Mexico. It was a 
wonderful experience which I hope not to have to go through again but 
it was only because of his skill, good humor, wisdom, and kind judgment 
that we were able to accomplish that work. And it is truly a credit to 
his ability and his leadership.
  Mr. President, today the Senate will take another historic step in 
trying to curb the size of Government and provide for new approaches to 
help families in poverty. I am enthusiastic about this welfare reform 
legislation which we will pass today because it will basically take 
control from the impersonal inefficient Washington welfare 
bureaucracies and the dead hand of Congress and return that to State 
and local governments who are closer to the people, giving them the 
freedom to implement new ways to fight poverty.
  There can be no doubt that the current system is a failure. That 
should be the one thing that is agreed upon by Republicans, Democrats, 
liberals, conservatives, and anyone else who is concerned about their 
fellow man today. It is cruel to adults who are treated like numbers 
when they need public assistance. It is even crueler to the children 
because it encourages a lifetime of dependency and they are raised in 
an atmosphere without hope. The current system discourages work but it 
encourages illegitimacy. The current welfare

[[Page S9338]]

system does not punish poor behavior--even behavior which threatens 
children, like not sending them to school, or not seeing that they 
receive their immunizations. The current welfare system does not even 
punish drug abuse among parents who may be welfare recipients.
  I am pleased that this conference report contains a provision which I 
authored that deals with an outrageous problem that came to my 
attention as a result of some efforts by the good folks in my home 
State of Sedalia, MO. In Sedalia, a private employer was trying to hire 
workers at a $6.50 per hour wage to process food. The employer worked 
with the local Family Services Division office and had some welfare 
recipients come out and get jobs. That was a win-win for those folks 
who got jobs, and for all of us in Missouri as taxpayers. Some of the 
recipients were interviewed and then hired. They now have good paying 
jobs. They are paying taxes. They are not living off the Government. 
They are contributing members of society. They can take pride in what 
they are doing for themselves and their families.
  However, a few folks did not get a job because they failed a 
mandatory drug test. They were not hired, unbelievably and terribly 
unfortunately, because of Federal rules and regulations. The State of 
Missouri cannot sanction those welfare recipients even though they were 
known to abuse drugs. They simply met their obligation by showing up 
for the work interview with drugs in their systems, and as a result of 
the Federal requirements they were sent back to get their food stamps 
without having to take a job.
  Mr. President, what kind of perverse incentive is that? That is the 
incentive we have seen too many times in the welfare system today. The 
people of Missouri are fed up with it. They know it is not working. It 
is costing money, and not helping the people that it should help. This 
is an absurd result. It harms the recipients because no one forces them 
to be responsible for their actions. It certainly harms the children of 
the drug users because their parents have no incentive. They need not 
get off drugs to continue to get their assistance. Of course, I would 
say on a much broader scale it is unfair to all of us as taxpayers who 
have to finance those habits and provide support for those who are 
using drugs.

  I think this is just one example that shows clearly that the 
Washington bureaucracy, the congressionally mandated and controlled 
scheme, cannot serve the needs of the millions of poor people in this 
country. The fact is in States like Massachusetts, Indiana, Wisconsin, 
and Utah where Governors have been able to take a tougher approach, 
welfare rolls have dropped, recipients have found jobs, and deadbeat 
dads have been forced to take responsibility for their children. Those 
are the results that we hope to duplicate throughout the country in 
this reform of welfare.
  I am pleased that President Clinton has decided to join us, and I 
think the overwhelming number of Americans who really want to end 
welfare as we know it. Countless Americans and I have been terribly 
disappointed. I felt cheated--not just once but on two previous 
occasions--when we worked very hard in this body and with overwhelming 
bipartisan support passed meaningful welfare reform. Those measures 
were vetoed, protecting the welfare system and its bureaucrats as it 
exists. Apparently the President has decided to give the American 
people what they want--real welfare reform.
  For some reason, an old story just came into my mind about a 
politician back home who had held a position for some time. When the 
clamor of the people got too great, he changed his position. A friend 
of mine went up to him and said, ``Congratulations. I see you finally 
have seen the light.'' He shook his head sadly, and said, ``No. I just 
felt the heat.'' But for whatever reason, the change was welcome in 
that situation.
  It has been said on this floor to those of us who support this 
welfare reform, ``How can you dare call it welfare reform?'' How can we 
dare call it reform? And they contend it would lead to more poverty. It 
was said that the evidence is irrefutable.

  Yes, Mr. President, the evidence is irrefutable. What the current 
system has done is to force more and more families and more and more 
children into welfare dependency. It has deprived the children and the 
families of the responsibility that each and every American citizen has 
the right to enjoy and the obligation to use. Those who oppose change 
in the current system must explain and defend the system that has 
forced so many more families and their children into poverty.
  With this great federally controlled, congressionally mandated, 
Washington-bureaucracy-run poverty system, we have seen the number of 
families and children in poverty skyrocket. Those who take a poverty 
tour and want to go out and look at the faces of the welfare 
recipients, I tell them I have seen those faces, and I have felt the 
shame that the current system we have is not getting them off welfare.
  When you go out and look at the people who are trapped in the system 
today, remember, it is the current system that has trapped them. Their 
plight is the direct responsibility of the system that we are here 
today to change, to give them an opportunity, to give them an 
incentive, to give them some encouragement to get off welfare, to help 
them reestablish themselves as responsible, contributing members of the 
community, able and willing to take care of their children.
  To say, as has been said on this floor, that we are abandoning 
children because we are turning back to the States the opportunity to 
devise, revise, improve and implement a welfare system is to ignore 
reality.
  I had the opportunity to serve on the other side of this 
intergovernmental program for 8 years as Governor of Missouri. As we 
tried to implement the Federal programs handed down from Washington, we 
found time and time again that what may have been well-intentioned and 
what sounded like a good idea when it was expounded upon in this body 
and in the other body, when great ideas from Washington came down as to 
how we were going to improve the system, what they did was hamstring 
our ability to shape a system that would serve our people and help them 
get off welfare.
  Too often we have been tied up in red tape and bureaucracy. This now 
is an opportunity to let the States that do care and that are concerned 
about those in poverty develop means of getting them off welfare and 
into work.
  I urge my colleagues to support this measure, and I thank those who 
have worked so hard for its passage.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. KOHL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. KOHL. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, today, the Senate will take what is perhaps its most 
significant action in my years in this body. Today, we will send to the 
President a bill that abolishes the failed Federal welfare program. We 
will send to the President a bill that gives hope to more than 12 
million mothers and children who have too long been left alone in a 
culture of despair and poverty.
  I want to make clear a point that may have been lost in the partisan 
politics that has surrounded this legislation. This bill is not about 
punishing welfare recipients. This bill is not about turning our backs 
on families that have been broken and impoverished for too long. This 
bill is about hope. It is about giving hope to mothers who want to 
provide a better life for their children. It is about giving hope to 
children who do not deserve to be imprisoned in a life of crime, hunger 
and despair. It is about giving hope to communities that want to see 
their tax dollars go to build their neighborhoods up and not to tear 
local families down.
  As a result of bipartisan input, there are many positive changes in 
this bill that improve upon previous welfare bills. Child care funding 
is increased by $4 billion, while health and safety standards for child 
care facilities are preserved. The School Lunch Program is maintained. 
The Food Stamp Program remains a guarantee. Programs to prevent child 
abuse and neglect are continued, and, perhaps most importantly, basic 
Medicaid health coverage is retained.

  There are also provisions in this legislation that I cannot support 
and I will work to change. We will not turn our backs on the people in 
communities this legislation is meant to help. As the States submit 
their plans and as the provisions in this bill take effect, we will 
continue to monitor them. We

[[Page S9339]]

will make sure that our new welfare system pulls people and communities 
up, gives them hope, gives them opportunity and makes them strong.
  Yes, today is the beginning of the end of welfare as we know it, and 
it is good news for the families who have been trapped too long by 
hopelessness. Today begins a new commitment to bringing the poorest 
members of communities a new beginning, a chance to build their 
families, an opportunity for their children's future. This legislation 
is not about hate. This legislation is about hope. And so I urge my 
colleagues to support the conference report.
  I thank the Chair.
  Mr. KERREY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. KERREY. I understand there is unanimous consent for Senator 
Hutchison, who is not here, to speak. I ask unanimous consent to be 
allowed to speak for 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Ashcroft). Is there objection? Without 
objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, many good and honorable Senators will vote 
for this bill today, and their votes and the signature of the 
President, in my judgment, in no way takes away from their good 
intentions to make this welfare system better. I do not intend to say 
or suggest that they are mean-spirited or they are heading in the wrong 
direction, or anything of the sort.
  I come to the floor intending to vote against this bill and would 
like to explain why. I think this piece of legislation in the context 
of our budget and the context of our economy will not make things 
better. Those who believe this new law will make life better for poor 
Americans who depend upon Government payments for family support, for 
food stamps, for supplemental security income, the earned-income tax 
credit, child nutrition, foster care, and the social service block 
grant, have offered at least three, as I have heard them, three 
principal arguments with which I strongly agree.
  First, I agree that our current welfare system has failed because it 
penalizes work and rewards behavior which is contrary to the core 
American values of family, personal responsibility and self-discipline.
  I agree that States need far more flexibility and authority in 
designing systems which are appropriate for their varying needs and 
circumstances.
  And I agree that deficit reduction will help low-income Americans by 
promoting growth and job creation.
  My decision to vote no on this piece of legislation is based upon 
disagreements, strong disagreements with some of the ideas I have heard 
promoted in favor of this legislation.
  First, I do not agree that income support all by itself promotes 
self-destructive dependency, lazy behavior, out-of-wedlock births, and 
many other things that I have heard offered on this floor.
  I have been dependent on a generous Government check from the 
taxpayers of this country for 27 years since I was injured in the war 
in Vietnam. That check has not made me lazy. I have not had one child 
out of wedlock. I am not dependent upon the Government. I am grateful 
to my country and willing to give it back in kind.
  My motivation predated the decision by a generous nation to say that 
if you are disabled in the war, we are going to provide you with 
monthly income support, and we are not going to torment you and 
constantly challenge you and require you to come in and justify your 
existence to a Government bureaucrat every single time we think that 
maybe we do not like what you are doing.

  I do not agree that increased welfare spending has caused many of the 
societal problems we face, nor do I agree with the corollary argument 
that is oftentimes made that we spend a disproportionate amount of our 
GDP on the poor.
  First, as to welfare causing problems, Mr. President, I would like to 
read just a few of the economic changes that have occurred in the last 
30 years and ask my colleagues to consider what their impact could have 
been.
  Thirty years ago, most communities had laws that said that you could 
not open your business on Sunday. But as a consequence of a desire to 
do more business on Sunday, that seventh day that was reserved for the 
Sabbath, we now have in every community not only stores open on Sunday 
but open 24 hours a day. Guess who is working in those stores? Not 
those of us who make over $100,000 a year. We are shopping. We are 
playing golf. But it is those lower income families who are out there 
working.
  You could make a much better case, Mr. President, that that change in 
the law has been destructive of families, has been hurtful of 
communities. I do not make this argument, by the way, but there is no 
question there have been significant changes in this country as a 
result of changing our Sunday closing laws.
  And consider these economic facts. In 1945, 75 percent of the world's 
GNP was in the United States; in 1970, it was 50 percent; in 1992, it 
was 25 percent; in 1995, it was down to a fifth. In 1969, 9 of the 10 
largest banks in the world were in the United States. Today, the top 
U.S. bank is No. 30. In the auto market, the U.S. share was 90 percent, 
today it is 55 percent. For manufacturing wages versus the rest of the 
world, we were No. 1 in 1969. In 1994 we are No. 5, after Japan, 
Germany, France, and Italy.

  We have shifted from a manufacturing to a service economy over the 
last 30 years, and a worker out there, who is not protected as a 
consequence of being a Member of Congress, a worker out there has to 
compete against all of those people in the world. He has to compete 
against people in India who are willing to work for 40 cents an hour, 
against people in China who are willing to work for 36 cents an hour, 
against many nations who are willing to pay their people who work 50 
cents to a dollar an hour. This has put a tremendous pressure upon 
people who have lower wages. Mr. President, nearly 30 million people in 
the work force earn less than $7 an hour.
  Rather than merely focusing our attention on how to get people off of 
welfare, it is far more important for us to ask ourselves the question: 
In an age when we have an international economy, where we have that 
kind of pressure upon wages, where we have that kind of pressure on 
skills--and by the way, I would likely vote for this proposal if it had 
more money in there for education. We have title 1 students today who 
are not being taken care of. In Nebraska we have 30,000 students who 
qualify based upon their income, another 30,000 who qualify based upon 
math and science skills. We have 12,000 black students in the Omaha 
Public School System. Only 25 percent of those who graduate have a 
proficiency in mathematics. We are not fully funding Head Start. We do 
not say to all Americans, ``Don't worry about it, you will be able to 
go to college.'' In Nebraska, working families take out a second 
mortgage on their homes in order to be able to send their kids to the 
land grant college--a college that was supposed to make it possible for 
everybody to be able to go to school.
  If we had money for education in this legislation, if it was said we 
are going to do those things we know work--we know Head Start works, 
particularly title 1--at a cost of $800 per child per year. And to half 
of the people who need it, based upon their performance in math and 
reading, we say we do not have the money for you.
  When it comes time to build the next generation of attack fighter, we 
have the money for that. We have another $30 or $40 billion to build 
the Harrier, because we are afraid of God knows what. Actually, we are 
afraid of countries to whom we have sold F-16's. All of a sudden we are 
building a great fear of a new threat out there. We are not afraid, but 
we ought to be afraid, of what happens when our graduates from high 
school, in an international economy, cannot read, cannot write, cannot 
do multistat mathematics, cannot do the things that all of us know in 
an international economy they have to be able to do if they expect to 
earn the living that we would like to see all Americans be able to, in 
fact, earn.
  Another presumption I hear is we are spending too much on the poor. 
These programs we are addressing--I understand we have Medicaid and it 
is about $25 billion just for acute care for the poor. And we have some 
housing programs, some are low and moderate, some just for the poor. 
But just for these programs themselves we are going to spend 1.4 
percent of the GDP. We have a $7 trillion GDP right now. These programs 
represent about $102 billion.

[[Page S9340]]

  We are not going to address Social Security, Medicare, or benefits 
that go to people like me who have substantial income but still receive 
a Government check. We are not going to do any of that. We are going to 
go after people who have low incomes and we are going to say: You are 
really the problem. We have to take our deficit toll upon you. Mr. 
President, 1.42 percent, going to 1.5 percent of the Nation's economy.
  By the way, for my colleagues, I believe there is a relationship 
between our economy and what we can afford. I am an advocate of 
economic growth, I want our tax, regulatory, and spending policies to 
promote growth. Our wealth does determine how much we are able to give 
to those who are less fortunate, whose lives have been affected by some 
disaster or another, who are struggling to compete in this economy of 
ours. But, for gosh shakes, 1.5 percent is hardly what I would call an 
excessive tithe. Indeed, under this proposal instead of going from 1.42 
and adding 8 hundredths of a percent, we are going to go from 1.42 to 
1.38.

  You have not heard me come and say I think these cuts are draconian 
and people are going to be foraging in the street for food. But I do 
not think a generous Nation that has our children in the classroom 
saying we are ``one Nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and 
justice for all,'' can look at this and say 1.4 percent of our GDP 
going to poor Americans is excessive and it is something we are not 
able to afford.
  In addition, I make over $100,000 a year. I have not heard anybody 
come down and say, ``Bob, this is what we think your contribution ought 
to be for deficit reduction.'' I have not heard anybody come to me and 
say, ``We think you ought to give up a little bit, too.'' I think 
concerns about equity when we are doing deficit reduction are 
legitimate and need to be surfaced.
  I hope, in the aftermath of this bill's passage and signing, we are 
able, in 1997, as we look at our budget, to adjust not just our 
entitlement programs, and those entitlement programs that are going to 
upper-income American, and say we are going to try to provide 
additional discretionary money for education and for low-income people 
so we can deal with many of the underlying problems that both the 
supporters and opponents of this legislation have addressed. I do not 
believe we can have a liberal democracy and a free enterprise system of 
capitalism, I do not believe we can say to our people you have to 
compete in a global society and we are going to try to keep the trade 
barriers as low as possible, I do not believe that any of that works 
unless we are willing to do those things that we know work. We are not 
doing them today. We are saying we are short for Titler 1, we are short 
for Head Start, we are short for college loans, short for all these 
other things. I think it will, indeed, come back to haunt us.
  We do know what we can do as a follow-on to this legislation. As I 
indicated, if there were more resources here for education, for 
training, for those things that would actually provide what I would 
consider to be a reasonable safety net in an international economy, I 
would likely support it.
  Let me give one final example. The previous occupant of the chair, 
Senator Inhofe, introduced a piece of legislation dealing with limbs 
for low-income working families. He identified a very important 
problem.
  The problem is this. We spent $1 billion for all prostheses in 
America, arms and legs. That is about a fourth of what we spend on 
antacids to cure our stress, half of what we spend to feed our dogs and 
cats--hardly what I call an excessive expenditure. But if you are a 
working family that does not have health insurance and have an income 
of $15,000 a year and your 10-year-old daughter loses her leg above the 
knee and you go to your prosthesist and find out the prosthese will 
cost $12,000, what do you do? You cannot afford it. So you consider 
trying to do the same sorts of things that are being done for Third 
World nations. Can we use used parts to try to assemble a limb and an 
arm for this 10-year-old child to be able to make life better?
  I mention this only because all the arguments about wanting to 
provide an incentive for work are not going to be effective unless we, 
as a follow-up to this legislation, not only provide in the 
appropriations process the money needed to educate our people, but also 
as a follow-up, we consider this fundamental question: What kind of 
safety net do we want to provide for the citizens of the world's 
strongest economy and the world's most successful democracy?
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I inquire of the Chair, what is the order 
of business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Democrats control the time between now and 1 
o'clock.
  Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, under that agreement, I yield myself 10 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.
  Mr. BREAUX. Let me start by acknowledging that following my good 
friend from Nebraska, who is indeed a close friend, I have a great deal 
of respect for his opinions, even though we disagree on the merits of 
the welfare legislation that will pass the Senate today as it passed 
the House yesterday.

  There is a great deal of second-guessing about the President's 
decision yesterday to sign the welfare bill. We have had statements by 
various Members as to whether it was a good idea or a bad idea. I think 
his decision was the correct decision, and it also, at the same time, 
is a very courageous decision. I know it was tough, but I think, 
ultimately, in signing the bill, the President will be doing the right 
thing.
  I think one thing that is clear, certainly when you get outside of 
Washington, is that the American people know that the current welfare 
system does not serve very well the people who are on it, who it was 
intended to help, nor does it serve very well the people who are paying 
for it: the American taxpayer.
  It simply is not working when you see generation after generation of 
families who have been on welfare assistance continue to be on welfare 
assistance. The goal of any welfare reform is to end welfare, not to 
continue it, not to perpetuate it.
  Since 1935, we have seen families really who have been locked in a 
prison of welfare dependency and have been shackled by the concepts 
that have continued generation after generation and decade after 
decade. The question is not should we change the system but how we 
change it. I think the President was absolutely correct in setting out 
the priorities. Welfare reform should be tough on work but good for 
kids. While that is a simple and catchy phrase, it also is the basis 
for the legislation that we are going to adopt.
  This bill is tough on work, but it says welfare is not going to be 
permanent, that it should be temporary, that it is a maximum of 5 years 
in a person's lifetime, and States can come up with a shorter period if 
they want.
  The goal of making work part of welfare reform is that we should be 
turning welfare offices, that for too long have only been an office 
giving out a check, into an office that helps people find a job. It was 
interesting this morning, a local TV station was interviewing a number 
of people who were actually on welfare, mothers with small children, 
who said they agreed with this legislation. They did not want to be on 
welfare for the rest of their lives. They wanted the welfare office to 
be a workfare office. They wanted the welfare office to be a job 
placement office. They wanted the welfare office to help them get off 
welfare. I think this legislation will do exactly that.
  The bill, I think, is very important in some of the things it does 
do, such as child care. This legislation provides about $14 billion for 
child care, particularly for mothers with small children, so that child 
care will be available so they can go to work. That is about $5 billion 
more than under the current law and $4 billion more than in the bill 
that the President was forced to veto because it was not good for 
children. This bill, in fact, is good for children.
  I was interested in some who have said, ``Well, after 5 years, we're 
just going to abandon families.'' There is nothing further from the 
truth. We were looking over the various programs that would still be 
available after the 5-year period is reached. There are some 49 Federal 
programs that are available for families and would continue to be 
available for families after they have reached their time limit of 5 
years.

[[Page S9341]]

  This country, as strong as we are, is not going to be deserting 
families, is not going to be deserting children of families who have 
exceeded the time limit. There will still be a large number of programs 
that will provide direct assistance to these families after they have 
reached their time limit.
  This bill, I think, goes a long ways to correcting problems that the 
President addressed when he first vetoed the welfare bill. For 
instance, we maintain health care coverage through Medicaid for all 
those families who are eligible today, even though a State may change 
their welfare program. We clearly say that families that are on AFDC 
today will continue to be eligible for health care, and this, indeed, 
is very important.

  In addition to the child care, the President had very strong concerns 
about just arbitrarily block granting the Food Stamp Program, which is 
a Federal program, to the States. This bill guarantees that additional 
benefits will be available when need increases, such as during a 
recession. The program would still essentially be a Federal program. It 
would not be block granted to the States.
  I think, on balance, the President of the United States was 
absolutely correct and being courageous in saying, ``Yes, we are going 
to change the system; yes, we are going to try something different. 
And, yes, we are going to be tough on work for people who can work and, 
yet, at the same time, do good for children of those families.'' I 
think that is incredibly important.

                          ____________________