[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 157 (Sunday, November 9, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S12228-S12230]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




           WELFARE, HEALTH CARE, AND CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I wanted to take this time Sunday 
afternoon as we approach the end of this session to talk about some 
unfinished business for the Congress and I think for the Nation. I 
really was moved, and I do not usually use that word, by the eloquence 
of my colleague, Senator Durbin, from Illinois. As I came in, I heard 
Senator Durbin talk about children and talk about early years and talk 
about early childhood development and talk about whether or not we as a 
nation are going to make a commitment to affordable child care.
  I want to talk about a really difficult issue for the Senate, for the 
Congress, and I think for the White House, and when we come back for me 
this will be one of the first items of business. I want us to have 
discussion and I would like to see whether or not we would be willing 
to perhaps take some important action.
  I am talking about the bill that was passed which was called welfare 
reform. Mr. President, some of what was in that bill represented over 
$50 billion of cuts in the name of deficit reduction in the major food 
nutrition program in the country, food stamps--20 percent cut for 
families, most of them working families, most of the recipients 
children. And the other part was the cuts in benefits to legal 
immigrants, some of which has been corrected, some of which has not.
  What worries me--and I have traveled the country and spent quite a 
bit of time in low-income communities. I haven't just focused on 
welfare, but I have been to the delta in Mississippi with Congressman 
Bennie Thompson; I have been to eastern Kentucky, to Letcher County, 
Whitesburg, KY; I have been to Chicago in housing projects, and, of 
course, I have been in Minnesota, both urban and rural, and I have been 
to L.A., East L.A., and Watts. One of the things that worries me is 
that I see in many articles and too much of the media coverage and 
certainly too much of what I hear from both Democrats and Republicans 
in Washington that welfare reform has been a success as defined by 
reduction of caseload. Any Democrat, any Republican, or any fool can 
knock people off the welfare rolls. That has nothing to do with reform. 
The only way reform can be defined is not by reduction of caseload but 
by reduction of poverty. Are these families, in the main headed by 
women and children, better off?
  I heard my colleague from Illinois talk about child care, and if my 
colleague was here I would tell him about some just very emotional 
experiences that I have had, meeting with some of the women who have 
now been told they are to work, and they work. But their concern is 
about what happens to their children. You know, just because they are 
poor, just because they are welfare mothers, doesn't make them, or 
doesn't make their children, any less worthy, any less important.

  In Los Angeles, for example, in L.A., one city, they have a waiting 
list of 30,000 families for affordable child care. That is before the 
welfare bill. The question I ask colleagues is, where are these 
children? Fine, the mothers are now working. Do we know where the 
children are? Where are they? Who is taking care of them? Is it 
developmental child care? Is it just custodial? Or are they even in 
harm's way? We don't know. But we should know. We passed the 
legislation.
  I met a woman, and this story of this one mother unfortunately is the 
story of other mothers. She said to me, ``I want to work.'' By the way, 
almost all the people I meet want to work. That's a big thing to people 
in our country, to be able to work and make a decent wage and support 
your family. And also to be able to give your children the care you 
know they need and deserve. But I am meeting some of these mothers. We 
told them we would sort of delegate this to the States and they would 
work.
  Here is what they say to me, what this one mother in L.A. said. I 
then visited actually where she lived, public

[[Page S12229]]

housing in east L.A. She said to me: ``I want to work but I am so 
frightened because my first grader goes home alone every day. I worry 
about what happens to her from the time she leaves school to when she 
gets back to the apartment''--public housing. ``There are gangs, there 
is violence. I tell her to go into the apartment, lock the door, and 
don't take any phone calls.''
  I would like to ask Senators, how many of you would like for your 
first graders, whether they are your children or your grandchildren, to 
go home alone? Actually, to go home to wherever you live, much less in 
the neighborhoods and communities that are so dangerous. In the debate 
that we had on welfare reform, did anybody ever talk about these 
children? I never heard a word.
  We talk a lot about early childhood development, which is very 
important. We talk a lot about after-school programs for teenagers, 
which is critically important. But what about these first and second 
graders? I think there are too many children in our country right now, 
because of what is happening around the country, who are in danger. And 
I think it is our responsibility to know what is going on. Speeches do 
not suffice.
  When I was in Letcher County, KY, I spent quite a bit of time with 
Carroll Smith, who is the county executive, Republican--county Judge, 
which is like the county executive; just a great, great guy. It was 
interesting, though. He and others were saying to me, did anyone ever 
mention the word ``rural'' when you all passed that bill? Because in 
the absence of access to capital and our seeing economic development in 
our community, we don't know where the jobs are going to be.
  The Wall Street Journal had--I haven't even had a chance to read the 
article from cover to cover--a very long, extensive piece about Delta, 
MS, where lots of people can't find jobs, or have to drive 60, 70 
miles. Again, you have two things going on here. No. 1, there are not 
the jobs where people live in rural America. No. 2, the jobs that quite 
often these women are getting maybe pay $6 an hour. They are going to 
be worse off than they were before, because there will not be health 
care after a while, and they don't know what to do by way of child 
care.
  It seems to me that one of the things that we need to do is at least 
call on the States to provide us with an evaluation, maybe every 6 
months or every year, on how families are doing toward attaining the 
goal of economic self-sufficiency. Because if we don't do that, 4 years 
from now all these families are off all assistance. Don't you think, 
before we have some tragedy, we ought to at least know what is going 
on? I am going to have an amendment, a piece of legislation which I 
will bring to the floor of the Senate and we will have that vote.
  Mr. President, I go to the communities. It has been very moving. I 
hope to get a chance to write a long piece about what I have learned 
from people. But I don't find that the issues that people in low-income 
communities are talking about are really different than issues that 
other working families are talking about. The first question is: Where 
are the jobs that pay a decent wage? This is still one of the most 
important challenges for most families in our country. It is an 
important challenge in poor communities: Where are the jobs? And we are 
going to have to have an urban jobs program if we are serious about 
reducing poverty and making sure that families have a chance. Also, we 
are going to have to do a lot better by way of making sure that, if 
people work 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year, they are not poor. If 
people play by the rules of the game and they work hard, they ought not 
to be poor. That is where child care fits in. That is where health care 
fits in. And not just for low-income families, but for the vast 
majority of families in our country.
  I heard my colleague from Illinois speak. I was so pleased to hear 
what he said. But I would like to challenge both Republicans and 
Democrats, because I think that what is going on here is we have a 
debate that, in a way, may take us nowhere, or at least certainly not 
connect very well with a lot of people in our country.

  On the one hand my friend Jeff Faux has written a very interesting 
piece where he argues this. I will take a piece of what Jeff says. On 
the one hand, for example, we have the majority party, the Republican 
Party, which argues--at the risk of getting the Chair angry at me--
which argues, when it comes to some of these most pressing issues, for 
example affordable child care, there is nothing the Government can or 
should do. My argument is that is a great philosophy if you own your 
own large corporation and you are wealthy, but it doesn't work for most 
of the people in the country. On the other hand, you have the 
Democratic Party that says we are all for the children, we are all for 
education, we are all for job training. But, do you know what? 
Politically there is not anything we can do either. We just have to cut 
taxes because politically that is the only way we can make it. In which 
case neither party has a whole lot to say to the very families we are 
talking about, at least if you get beyond speeches and conferences.
  We have had enough speeches. We have had enough conferences. The 
question is whether or not we are going to go beyond the speeches and 
the conferences and dig into our pockets and make the kind of 
investment that we need to make as a nation. I think the question for 
all of us is how can we renew our national vow of equal opportunity for 
every child in America? That is the goodness of our country. That ought 
to be the central goal of public policy here in the Congress. I make a 
commitment, as a Senator from Minnesota, to bring that kind of 
legislation out on the floor, working with others, with the financing, 
with the investment, so this isn't empty rhetoric. We ought not to 
separate the budgets we introduce from the words that we speak.
  Finally, let me make one other point. My training is as a political 
scientist--I was a college teacher before I became a U.S. Senator--not 
as a political economist, although I am interested in political 
economy. There is something very interesting and very important going 
on in our country, which is now we have reports about record low levels 
of unemployment. The GDP looking great. Productivity is up. But real 
wages of most families are down. The economy of American families is 
not measured by GDP, it is not measured by all these official 
statistics. It is measured by real family income. It is measured by 
whether or not people can purchase the things that make life richer in 
possibilities. It is measured by opportunities. It is measured by 
security or insecurity. And it is measured by our expectations for our 
children and our grandchildren. And by that criterion, a whole lot of 
families could be doing better and we could be doing better as a 
nation.
  One of the issues that I think is a living-room issue in America, a 
kitchen-table issue, that we are going to have to have the courage to 
take on, is health care. We can have patient protection--I am all for 
that. We can have provider protection--I am all for that. We can try to 
control some of these large insurance companies that own and control 
most of the managed care plans--I am all for that. But the fact of the 
matter is, we have now moved from 40 to 44 million people or 
thereabouts without any health insurance since we first started talking 
about this 3 years ago; more than twice that number of underinsured, 
and the vast majority of people in the country, not just low-income--
either people are not old enough for Medicare, and Medicare doesn't 
cover prescription drug costs, it doesn't cover catastrophic expenses, 
or people aren't poor enough for medical assistance and they are not 
lucky enough to be able to work for an employer who provides them with 
good health care coverage.
  We ought to have humane, dignified, affordable health care for every 
man, woman, and child in our Nation. For me, next session, that will be 
my priority--with the financing, clear with people in the country how 
you pay for it. But I am telling you, large insurance companies don't 
like it. And there are a whole bunch of other powerful interests that 
don't like it. But the majority of people in this country know that 
this system is in big-time crisis. It is time we get back to this issue 
as a Congress.
  I really do think that, as we think about what we have done and what 
we have not done--I will just talk a little bit about what we haven't 
done in the

[[Page S12230]]

few minutes I have left. I think these standard of living issues are 
the critical issues. I think, unfortunately, Jeff Faux is right, 
neither party is telling the story that gives people any confidence 
that much is going to happen that is good for them. And I think we 
could do better, all of us.
  And in addition, the one other issue that we did not get the job done 
on, and it is critically important, is campaign finance reform. When I 
go into cafes in Minnesota, this is one thing I don't gloat about. I am 
not even pleased to say it, but it is true. Because it is aimed at me. 
It is aimed at all of us. The vast majority of people I talk to in 
cafes believe both parties now--they just sort of view the Government 
as being controlled by wealthy financial interests. They just feel 
locked out. They feel like it is for big players and heavy hitters. 
And, you know what, all of us have to raise money. That's what we have 
to do. That's not the point. I did. We all do. That's the system right 
now.

  We should change this. We didn't, not this time. We come back to it 
next year. But this is a real important issue and it is not that people 
don't care about it. They care about it deeply and desperately. And I 
think they want to believe in the political process. They want to 
believe in Government. But we are going to continue to see a tremendous 
amount of cynicism and apathy and disengagement and disillusionment 
unless we get as much of this money out of politics as possible. We 
know what the criterion is. We have talked about it enough. It is time 
to really move forward. It can't just be like a piece of legislation 
where we maybe do one thing but then all the money shifts somewhere 
else. Then people will just be even more disillusioned. I think this is 
a core issue.
  There are a lot of good things all of us could do here. A lot of good 
things get trumped by big money in politics.
  Mr. President, I will conclude--how much time do I have left?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 1 minute and 41 seconds.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Let me just conclude by thanking all the conferees on 
the Labor, Health and Human Services appropriations bill, especially 
for all the women and men in the Parkinson's community who worked so 
hard to make sure that we have some clear directive to NIH about making 
sure that there will now be some real investment of resources in 
research to find the cure to Parkinson's disease. It has been one of 
the greatest lobbying efforts I have ever seen here. It was citizen 
lobbyists, people who struggle with this disease, who once upon a time 
were kind of embarrassed to be public and be out and about. People have 
been there.
  All of you in the Parkinson's community, you have set a really good 
model for the Nation. Because if we had more people like you coming to 
Washington, DC, it would be a better Congress.
  We need to get a lot more ordinary citizens coming to Washington or 
meeting with us back in our States. I just hope more and more people 
will be like that. It was a really fine victory.
  Mr. President, I presume then there will not be an opportunity--my 
colleagues are on the floor as well--we are not going back to fast 
track, is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Correct.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. And there is not an opportunity to offer amendments? I 
ask the majority party as to when I might have an opportunity to offer 
an amendment to fast track? I will do it later--I see my colleagues on 
the floor--but will there be an opportunity?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. As was indicated to the Senator, the Chair 
does not think that has been arranged, and it will depend upon the 
instructions from the leader.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I yield the floor.

                          ____________________