[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 185 (Thursday, October 21, 2021)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7145-S7146]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                                Welfare

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, a little over 25 years ago, a Democrat 
President and a Republican Congress came together, to quote former 
President Clinton, ``end welfare as we know it.''
  On a bipartisan basis, Congress passed, and President Clinton signed 
into law, a bill called the Personal Responsibility and Work 
Opportunity Reconciliation Act. Amongst other things, this landmark law 
established the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families--what we go by 
here in Washington, called the TANF Program. That program was replacing 
the previous family assistance program.
  TANF was specifically designed to promote work and to help struggling 
parents back onto their own two feet. It was very successful--about 40 
percent less people on welfare than before 1996.
  The new program did this by creating work requirements and promoting 
skill development through education and job training. While critics at 
the time contended dire consequences would result--particularly for 
single mothers--in the end, all these critics were proven fantastically 
wrong. Welfare reform immediately led to a precipitous decline in 
welfare caseloads and usage. At the same time, the single mother labor 
force participation rate rose, and their incomes climbed--a step toward 
getting out of poverty.
  A recent research shows the gains were not only short term but led to 
an improvement in the material well-being of single mothers throughout 
the following decades. Additional studies show welfare reform has 
contributed to higher education attainment and improved food security 
for the following generation.
  The 1996 welfare reforms helped families to enjoy the dignity of 
self-sufficiency. It helped end the cycle of poverty. It gave parents 
the hope of seeing their children grow up to be better off than they 
had been--exactly what every parent dreams of for their family, 
particularly for their children.
  This was achieved thanks to a Democrat President and a Republican 
Congress working together for the benefit of those that were elected to 
serve.
  Now, President Biden and Senate Democrats want to effectively end 
welfare reform as we know it and reconstitute failed policies of the 
past--in other words, end helping people in poverty by helping them get 
out of poverty--guaranteeing a life in poverty, rejecting a successful 
reform, signed by Democratic President Clinton.
  So you can understand why they don't want to tell the American people 
that is what they are doing. They know that trying to sell their 
proposal as the largest expansion of welfare history isn't going to fly 
with the American people who know how well the 1996 reform has worked 
up to and including now.
  As an end-run around welfare reform--and in an attempt to garner 
broad public support--they want to co-opt a popular tax program for 
their own political ends or what they ideologically believe in; that 
the government ought to assume a more prominent role in people's lives 
and in the economy.
  That program that they are co-opting is the child tax credit. This 
credit was established on a bipartisan basis in 1997 as a complement to 
welfare reform, with the idea of assisting parents as they left the 
welfare rolls to go to productive employment.
  Since then, Republicans have taken the lead in improving the credit 
as an anti-poverty tool that partially offset the burden of payroll 
taxes on the working poor. And remember, payroll taxes on the working 
poor is a regressive tax.
  In 2001, as then-chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, I worked 
with

[[Page S7146]]

fellow Republicans to increase the credit that was set in 1997 at $500 
to move it to $1,000. Moreover, the credit was made partially 
refundable for the very first time.
  This made low-income working families eligible to receive a tax 
refund, even if they had paid no income tax--though they paid the 
payroll tax. And, obviously, the child tax credit helped offset the 
regressive impact on the working--low-income working people.
  Then, in 2017, Republicans went even further in improving this credit 
because we doubled the credit, and we increased the amount that those 
who pay no Federal income tax can receive a tax refund. But a key 
feature of the child tax credit through these 25 years has always been 
that it is a work incentive.
  In order to benefit them, the tax filer must have at least a minimal 
amount of earned income, which basically means wages from employment. 
As you earn more, a larger share of the credit becomes refundable, 
partially offsetting the payroll taxes.
  So, now, this is what the Democrats have in mind: They want to turn 
this broadly popular, this bipartisan, this pro-work tax incentive into 
a government assistance program akin to the old, pre-Clinton welfare 
program.
  What Democrats propose can no longer be considered a tax credit in 
any traditional sense of the word. The benefit is entirely divorced 
from the tax system in every way except how the tax system is going to 
give out the benefits.
  To qualify, no one in the household needs to work, needs to have 
income, or needs to pay any sort of Federal tax at all. Now, even more 
alarming, there are no job search requirements, no job skill 
development assistance, and no educational assistance--the foundation 
of the welfare reform of 1996, when the whole idea was to help people 
help themselves by either schooling or productive employment.
  All the requirements then that apply to those receiving TANF under 
the 1996 welfare reforms would be gone. In other words, their proposal 
provides no help to getting struggling parents back on their feet or to 
tackle the root causes of generational poverty.
  The bipartisan 1996 reform bill--everything I just said they propose 
is contrary to that basic Federal reform of 1996. In other words, this 
is a big step back to encouraging people into a lifetime in poverty. I 
fear the Democrats' proposal will be a poverty trap for far too many 
needy families.
  We would be reversing the gains made since we had this bipartisan 
welfare reform of 1996 signed by a Democratic President. That is 
exactly what a recent University of Chicago analysis of the Democrats' 
proposal suggests will occur.
  According to this study, the Democrats' child tax credit proposal 
would result in 1.5 million parents leaving the workforce at a time 
when everybody is crying that we need to get people back into the 
workforce if you want to keep inflation under control, if you want to 
keep the supply chain moving smoothly.
  This analysis directly contradicts Democrats' claims that their 
proposal will cut poverty in half. In fact, according to the University 
of Chicago authors, ``deep child poverty would not fall at all.'' I 
will bet the Democrats are trying to sell this on the proposition that 
it is going to reduce child poverty, but not according to the 
University of Chicago scholars. In fact, it might even make things 
worse.
  That is exactly why Democrats and Republicans came together to reform 
welfare in 1996, because it became self-evident that child poverty 
could not be solved simply through money alone.
  If money alone is a solution, why are my Democratic colleagues 
willing to settle for only reducing child poverty by half?
  Why don't they simply dedicate more of their foreign $4.2 trillion 
tax-and-spending spree to completely end child poverty?
  Is it that they believe subsidizing individuals to buy electric 
vehicles, as their bill would do, is more important than eradicating 
child poverty?
  I fully support lending a hand to families in need of support, but 
our policies must be focused on providing a hand up, not a handout. 
Providing assistance untethered from any work or job promotion 
requirement or education or work training requirement is not a 
compassionate approach to helping people. You want to help people get 
in the world of work because only in the world of work can you work 
yourself up the ladder and get out of poverty. But being on government 
programs is a certainty of a lifetime of poverty.
  No, it is not compassionate. It is just the opposite. It sets up a 
generation of Americans being trapped in soul-crushing government 
dependencies.
  I urge my colleagues to abandon their ill-conceived, ``no strings 
attached'' child tax credit proposal. They would get a lot of 
Republican support--bipartisan support--for improving the child tax 
credit, but not this way. Do not yank away the ladder of opportunity 
from struggling Americans. Take a page out of former President 
Clinton's playbook. Work with Republicans to find a bipartisan solution 
that will actually help low-income families together.