John Ashcroft

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, in that event I would be pleased to accept a voice vote.

Mr. ASHCROFT. I would be happy to reduce the time. But I would prefer to have the votes, and I would object to the unanimous-consent request.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, it is the thrust of this amendment that if you are on welfare and you have not completed your high school diploma the best way to get a job and keep a job is to achieve a level of education that our society expects of all adults, and that is a high school education. So this amendment would allow States to require individuals to get a high school education or its equivalent. This amendment is permissive, and it states that if you are a 20- to 50-year-old welfare recipient who does not have a high school diploma, you must begin working toward attaining a high school diploma or a GED as a condition of receiving benefits. An exception is made for people who are not capable. Job training will not equip welfare recipients to work if they have not achieved the basic and fundamental proficiency in education skills. How can we expect to train someone to work as a cashier if they cannot add, subtract, multiply, or divide? The facts are indisputable. A person over 18 without a high school diploma averages $12,800 in earnings; with a high school diploma, averages $18,700 in earnings. Mr. President, $6,000 is the difference between dependence and independence; between welfare and work. This is permissive to the States.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, this amendment highlights the value which is at the very heart of our culture and our nature--the importance of education and learning. This amendment really says that if you are on welfare----

Mr. ASHCROFT. Thank you, Mr. President. As I mentioned earlier, education is the key to breaking the intergenerational cycle of welfare dependency. This amendment would allow States to require that parents on welfare be responsible for ensuring that their minor children are in school. It would be this simple. If you are on welfare, your children should be in school. If we care about breaking the vicious intergenerational cycle of welfare we should care about making sure that individuals who are on welfare accept the responsibility of sending their children to school. We must look to the long-term in reforming welfare. We must look at what we can do to save the future of our children. Every child in America can attend school. Every child can earn a high school diploma. It costs nothing but commitment. Too often education is ignored and trashed because it is devalued by our welfare culture. Teen dropout rates soar. They skip classes. We should not pay parents to encourage lifestyles of dependency on and off welfare and in and out of minimum-wage jobs. States should be able to give children on welfare a fighting chance. Mr. EXON addressed the Chair.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, that is consistent with my understanding of where we are. I am pleased to agree with the ranking member.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, we need to change welfare from a condition in which people live to a transition from which people go; a transition from dependency to independence. Under this bill we allow most people to spend 5 straight years on the welfare rolls. Without really going to work in 5 years, think what can happen in terms of building habits, self-esteem, skills, and motivation. If you do not use a muscle for 5 weeks, it gets weak. If you do not use it for 5 months, it atrophies. If you do not use it for 5 years, it disappears. It is forever useless. This amendment says that 2 years in a row--24 months--is long along enough for able-bodied recipients without infants or children to be able to receive welfare without starting down a path of work. We need to change the character of welfare from the condition of welfare to a transition toward independence and work. Mr. President, 5 straight years on welfare only reinforces a dependent lifestyle that we are trying to change.

Mr. ASHCROFT. In moving to waive the Budget Act, the point of order regarding the charitable organizations, I yield 30 seconds to my colleague from Indiana.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, there is a real reason to employ the services of nongovernmental charitable organizations in delivering the needs of individuals who require the welfare state. Despite our good intentions, our welfare program and delivery system have been a miserable failure. Yet, America's faith-based charities and nongovernmental organizations, from the Salvation Army to the Boys and Girls Clubs of the United States have been very successful in moving people from welfare dependency to the independence of work and the dignity of self-reliance. The legislation that we are considering is a provision that was in the Senate welfare bill that passed last year. It passed the Senate by an 87 to 12 margin. President Clinton's veto of that bill last year was not related to this measure. I spoke to the President about it personally. In his State of the Union Address, just a few weeks later, he indicated the need to enlist the help of charitable and religious organizations to provide social services to our poor and needy citizens. Based upon the record of this Senate, which voted 87-12 in favor of such a concept last year after a thorough debate and consideration, based upon the support of the Executive, based upon the record of welfare as a failure and the need to employ and tap the resource of nongovernmental, charitable, religious, and other organizations, I urge the Senate to pass this motion to waive the Budget Act. Mr. EXON addressed the Chair.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. ASHCROFT. That is correct.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk, and I ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Yes. I would prefer to have the amendment. Amendment No. 4944 to Amendment No. 4941 (Purpose: To provide that a state may sanction a family's TANF assistance if the family includes an adult who does not have, or is not working toward attaining, a secondary school diploma or its recognized equivalent)

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, there are three basic thrusts that are undertaken in these amendments. They are the conversion of a system from being a system of conditioning people to be dependent to transitioning people to be at work. The first thrust is that we would have a 24-consecutive-month limit on welfare for those who refuse to work or get training at the end of the 24 months. It seems to me that is something that the President of the United States called for last week and which we ought to have. The second component of this strategy is to say that those who are on welfare should have their children in school. It is not something that is unknown or mysterious. The fact of the matter is that high school dropouts average $12,809 a year, a poverty-level standard of living for a family of three. For an individual who has a high school degree, the average is $18,737, a 46-percent higher income than the average for dropouts. Half of those arrested for drug violations in 1995 did not have a high school diploma. And the preponderance of all crimes, 40 percent of all crimes, were committed by those who did not finish high school. It is time for us to ask those who are involved in the welfare system by way of receiving benefits under temporary assistance to needy families to make sure that their children are in school. A high school degree is a key to escaping from the welfare trap. Statistics show that it keeps kids out of jail. Every parent has a principal and primary responsibility to make sure their children receive the kinds of fundamentals that will allow them to fend for themselves. Every child can attend school in America. Every child can earn a high school diploma. It costs nothing but commitment and responsibility. Too often this opportunity is ignored--even trashed. Teens drop out of school, grade school, or skip classes. This is a tragic waste of a precious resource, one on which our culture must rely. All of our Government institutions should do everything possible to ensure that children go to school and earn a degree. Government should certainly not be paying parents to let their kids play hooky and skip school. If you are on welfare, your kids should be in school. Parents should not be coconspirators in perpetuating their children in a lifetime on and off of welfare, in and out of minimum-wage jobs, and irresponsibility. Children must go to school in order to break the cycle of dependency, to change welfare from being a long-term condition into being a transition. The amendment that I propose allows States--I repeat, allows States-- to sanction welfare recipients of the temporary assistance to needy families that do not ensure that their children are attending school. It also allows States to sanction food stamp recipients who do not send their children to school. Children who graduate from a welfare system should be armed with a degree rather than with a habit of dependence. It is the key to self-reliance and success. We have watched, as the Nation has watched, the Olympics. We need our full team on the field whenever we play. Even ``The Dream Team'' would have a tough time if they did not have the entire capacity of the team available as a resource. And yet we allow our citizens sometimes to ask for our help and to persist in receiving it without equipping themselves, without making a commitment to themselves. The last component of my amendments is really a way of saying if you are going to be on welfare, you have to have or be working toward a high school diploma so you can work for yourself and help yourself. It is no mystery. States may require that temporary assistance to needy families and food stamp recipients work toward attaining a high school diploma or its equivalent as a condition of receiving welfare assistance. This requirement would not apply if an individual was determined in the judgment of medical, psychiatric, or other appropriate professionals to lack the requisite capacity to attain a high school diploma or GED. During the debate this year in the Senate, Senator Simon once said, ``We can have all the job training in the world, but if we do not face the problem of basic education, we are not going to do what we ought to do for this country.'' I cannot agree more with that statement. It does not pay us to provide job training upon job training upon job training when welfare recipients have not achieved proficiency in the fundamental underlying skills of mathematics, English, and reading which provide people with the tools to benefit from job training and to assimilate changes in the job market. We do not have jobs and crafts that do not change. They all have new processes and new procedures. As technology marches on, it is important to make sure that individuals cannot only get the right kind of job training but they possess the fundamental characteristic of being educated in order to be able to take advantage of job training when it comes along. A person over 18 without a high school diploma averages $12,800 in earnings; with a high school diploma, $18,700 in earnings. A $6,000 difference is the difference between dependence and independence, the difference between self-reliance and reliance on Government. The U.S. Sentencing Commission determined that 40 percent of the individuals who commit crimes are individuals without high school diplomas. The Commission also found that these individuals are responsible for 50 percent of all drug violations. If people are going to receive welfare benefits, they should at least be working toward the fundamental equipping, enabling, freeing achievement of having a high school education. Mr. President, I would be pleased together with the opponents of this amendment on the other side of the aisle to yield back the remainder of the time.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Yes, I am.

Mr. ASHCROFT. No problem at all.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk for consideration.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Thank you, Mr. President. I will make a few remarks about the amendment which I proposed. I want to reinforce again the concept that we need to change the character of welfare. We need to change welfare from being a condition in which people exist to being a transition from dependency--not only from dependency but long-term dependency--to independence, to work, to growth, and to opportunity. If we are going to do that, we should not acquiesce to a 5-year limit which allows people to go onto welfare and just get on it and stay for 5 years without doing anything. We should require of individuals--or at least provide that States require of individuals--that a number of things be done. One, we should say no longer can you stay on welfare for more than 24 months in any one stretch without going to work or preparing for work by taking work training and getting an education. Second, we should say never can you stay on welfare if you do not fulfill your responsibility to send your kids to school. If you are going to be on welfare, your kids ought to be in school. Children who are in school are less of a burden to individuals on welfare than children who are allowed to stay home or otherwise avoid their responsibility. Third, if we expect people eventually to become self-reliant in their own setting, we are going to have to ask those individuals to have fundamental educational qualifications as well. In my judgment, that is the reason we ought to allow States to require that individuals who are seeking to continue to receive welfare benefits either have or be in the process of attaining the kind of educational qualifications that would come with a high school diploma or a GED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that all time be yielded back on the amendment.

Mr. ASHCROFT. The Senator will be pleased to send a copy of the amendment to the Senator from New Mexico. The Senator from Missouri inquires, should we be operating under a time agreement here?