[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 67 (Tuesday, May 20, 1997)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E986-E987]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                            KEEP THE PROMISE

                                 ______
                                 

                        HON. GERALD B.H. SOLOMON

                              of new york

                    in the house of representatives

                         Tuesday, May 20, 1997

  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, we all remember the promise President 
Clinton made to end welfare as we know it.
  But when given a chance to do so, in the form of a sound program by 
Texas Governor Bush, the President did everything possible to scuttle 
the plan. The plan would have meant a savings in welfare administration 
costs of 20 to 35 percent for the people of Texas.
  This is not the first promise this administration has broken. I 
suggest members read the Wall Street Journal editorial in today's 
Record as a reminder:

                     [From the Wall Street Journal]

                            Clinton Promises

       Trying to provide better health care coverage for some 
     150,000 needy children, Texas

[[Page E987]]

     Governor George W. Bush wants to generate some savings by 
     spending less on welfare administration. After nine months of 
     stalling, the Clinton White House has just turned him down.
       This is the same Bill Clinton who famously promised ``to 
     end welfare as we know it.'' This is the same Bill Clinton 
     who has been pressing to expand health coverage for poor 
     children, insisting that the budget agreement with Congress 
     earmark $18 billion for that purpose. This is the same Bill 
     Clinton who during last year's election campaign signed a 
     welfare reform bill supposedly giving wide discretion to the 
     states. In the end, though, this same Bill Clinton overruled 
     his own Cabinet to side with his reactionary union allies.
       The story is worth recounting simply to show what it's like 
     to negotiate with our present President, but also because it 
     has huge potential implications for welfare reform 
     nationwide. The administrative costs that Governor Bush wants 
     to pare in Texas cost federal and state governments a 
     whopping $28 billion a year--to deliver $250 billion a year 
     in welfare benefits. Several governors are convinced these 
     administrative functions could be privatized, with likely 
     administrative savings of 20% to 35%.
       Many states are already experimenting with contracting out 
     parts of their welfare apparatus. Thirty states use Lockheed 
     Martin to collect child Support payments, for example, and 
     the company also runs the federal computer to find deadbeat 
     dads. Maximus Corp. of McLean. Va., which helps run local 
     welfare offices for states, has doubled in size in the past 
     year. Wisconsin is allowing both private companies and 
     nonprofits such as Goodwill Industries to bid on screening, 
     training and placing welfare recipients in jobs. California 
     and Arizona have plans similar to that just vetoed in Texas.
       Paring state bureaucracies, of course, is anathema to 
     public employee unions: to them the loss of state jobs spells 
     smaller union dues and less political clout. When Governor 
     Bush and Texas legislators decided to contract with private 
     firms to set up one-stop assistance bureaus that would allow 
     recipients to apply for all their benefits at once, the 
     unions went ballistic. Their radio ads featured the sound of 
     exploding bombs; ``Texas is under attack. They're coming 
     after us,'' an announcer intoned. ``The guys who brought us 
     the $3,000 toilet seat are trying to take over public 
     services for families, children and seniors.''
       Worried that Governor Bush's plan would create a bandwagon 
     effect in other states, the unions helped convince the White 
     House to sit for nine months on his request for a federal 
     waiver. On March 28, President Clinton met at the White House 
     to discuss the Texas welfare plan with four union leaders, 
     including AFL-CIO President John Sweeney.
       In April, a memo to the President warned that ``we must 
     give Texas an answer immediately.'' The memo--signed by 
     Health and Human Services Secretary Donna Shalala, 
     Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman and White House domestic 
     policy adviser Bruce Reed--observed that ``the state has 
     engaged in good faith discussions with various agencies for 
     more than nine months, and state officials are now publicly 
     criticizing the administration.'' It suggested the White 
     House approve a compromise plan, giving Texs leeway on 
     administration of income supports while barring private 
     workers from the food stamp and Medicaid programs, on which 
     the welfare reform bill provided tighter federal regulation.
       ``As you know, labor leaders would like us to refuse the 
     Texas request entirely,'' the memo read. ``They see even 
     limited privatization as a dangerous precedent and have made 
     clear they view this decision as critically important to 
     public employee unions.'' On May 5, Governor Bush fired off 
     an angry letter to Secretary Shalala complaining about 
     ``double talk and runarounds.'' And last Friday, Governor 
     Bush finally got his answer: No.
       Mr. Clinton rejected not only the Texas waiver, but also 
     the compromise proposed by his own Cabinet officials. At a 
     news briefing Ms. Shalala explained that only state employees 
     could determine eligibility for federal programs. Governor 
     Bush's office criticized the White House for ``letting its 
     waiver policy be determined by the AFL-CIO.''
       For all the Clinton welfare promises, and all the ballyhoo 
     about the welfare reform bill, the Clinton White House is now 
     fighting a rear-guard action to save welfare as we know it. 
     We have to wonder what this says about whether the White 
     House will make a good-faith effort to honor the federal 
     budget agreement now being ballyhooed as welfare reform was a 
     year ago.

     

                          ____________________