John Breaux

Mr. BREAUX

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

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President and my colleagues, this is the amendment that has been referred to as the so-called voucher amendment which we have authored. I would point out that the legislation which originally came to the Senate from the House was much more reasonable in this area than the bill that is now before the Senate, which is the reason for this amendment. What we are basically talking about is the situation of what happens to children after we cut off a parent from a welfare program. Everybody wants to cut the parent off if they are not doing what they are supposed to be doing. We want to really be tough on parents. We are really going to be tough about work. We want to put work first. But we should not put children last. That is what I am trying to get at. I do not think there is a lot of difference between the position of my Republican colleagues and Democrats on this issue. We have time limits on the bill. Everybody agrees we ought to have time limits now. At least most people agree we ought to have time limits. We said in this legislation there was going to be a maximum period of time someone could be on welfare, and after that, they are off. A State under our legislation can pick a time limit of shorter than 5 years. They can make it 24 months. My State is probably going to do that. Many other States are going to make it a lot shorter than 5 years. So we are saying to parents, we are going to be very tough on you; we are going to make you realize that welfare is not forever, that it is temporary. We want you to get a job. We want you to go to work. We want you to earn a check and not just get a check. That is what all of this debate is basically about, trying to get people off welfare into the work force. I agree with that. I think most people in this body share that desire as well. Let us face it. Most people on welfare are not parents. Most people on welfare are children. And the majority of those children are young children. The majority of those children cannot get a job. They cannot work. Most of them do not even go to school because they are too young. So the point is, when we get tough on parents, fine, but how many people want to get tough on innocent children who did not ask to be born? I think we as a Nation have a responsibility to make sure that while we get as tough as we can on parents, we do not harm innocent children at the same time. Here is the problem. Under the Republican plan that is now pending before the Senate, if, after 5 years, a person is taken off welfare, there can be no assistance to children. There cannot be any vouchers to children. There can be no noncash assistance to children after 5 years. They are gone. I can agree that the parent may be gone as far as Federal assistance or State assistance. I do not agree that a young, innocent child, maybe 2 or 3 years old, should be neglected and forgotten by their country. That is the principal problem, because it forbids any type of assistance even to children, which are the majority of the people on welfare. Two-thirds of all people on AFDC assistance are children. In my State of Louisiana, 34.5 percent of all children are living in conditions below the poverty line--34.5 percent of the children living in Louisiana are at the poverty level or lower. So why should I as a Senator say that after the parent is taken off welfare, I am also for taking the child off any help or assistance? Is that what America is all about? I suggest it is not. We ought to be talking about putting children first in what we are trying to do for the future. The Republican plan, if the State takes a 2, 3 or 4-year period, allows them to give assistance but does not require it. And this is Federal money. In my State, the State puts up 28 percent, and the Federal Government puts up 72 percent. Should we not, as managers of the money we raise, say to the States they should use those funds to take care of innocent children? So the Breaux amendment which is now pending says to States, after 5 years, they can use funds that they are getting in their block grant to help children, and it requires the States to do that if they pick a period to cut off the parent in a period shorter than 5 years. Let me tell you what we do with the amendment. It is absolutely, totally flexible in what it would allow. No. 1, the State, as they do when they select people on welfare, does an assessment. They do an assessment that determines whether this family should be on welfare. They know what the income level is; they know if they have a house or a car or truck or clothes or what have you. They make an assessment. They decide whether the person is eligible for welfare assistance or not. They know things about the family already. What my amendment simply says is that a voucher under conditions that we have set out--for instance, mandating it if the period is less than 5 years--shall be based on the State's assessment of the needs of the child. The State makes the determination that the child is needy. If they make a determination that the child is in need, then that State will pay to third parties, for shelter, for goods, for services, clothing for the child if they need clothes, diapers if it is an infant and they cannot afford diapers in the family, a crib or medicine. How many people want to say we are not going to provide medicine for an innocent child because we kicked the child off welfare? How many people want to say we do not want to pay for medicine you need to survive? Or how many people want to say if the child wants to go to school and has no money to buy school supplies, that we, as a nation, are going to say to the children of America we are not going to help you buy school supplies to go? That is all we are saying. We are telling the State: You make the assessments. You determine if there is a need. If you determine there is a need, for heaven's sake, let us make sure we take care of the child. Not with cash. There is no money here. We are talking about in-kind vouchers so they could go to a third party: Maybe it is a Wal-Mart, maybe it is the local drug store, maybe it is a grocery store to get the food, but to take care of the child. The parent does not get the cash. There is no cash. The third party would get it, under my amendment, payable directly to third parties. The third party gets the money and uses those funds to take care of the children who did not ask to be born, who are innocent victims here. And we better start treating them better or we are going to have more people on welfare, not less. Are we going to allow children to get sick and just neglect them? Some say there is Federal money available under title 20. Great, $2 billion a year and it goes to the elderly and goes to programs like Meals on Wheels and child care and everything else. Some will say this title 20, they can use it for that. ``There ain't no money left.'' There is no money in title 20. It has been frozen practically since we instituted the program. If they have food stamps, then the State determines that if the child is getting food stamps they do not need any of this. Really, what we are saying is let us be fair and treat children fair in this country. Let us be as tough as we possibly can on the parent who refuses to work. But for heaven's sake, we as a nation owe something to the children of America. The Breaux amendment, I think, would do just that. I reserve any time I may still have left.

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act, I move to waive all applicable points of order under that act for the purposes of the Breaux amendment. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, let me just make a couple of comments. I do not want to belabor this point. When the Senate votes tomorrow, it is going to be faced with the question of how do we do welfare reform? Do we do welfare reform by being tough on parents who refuse to work? Or are we going to be tough on kids who do not have a choice in life? I think this country, as strong as we are, should be as tough as we possibly can on deadbeat parents or parents who do not want to work or refuse to work, whatever the reason. But we should not take it out on innocent children who did not ask to be born. This amendment simply says that, after a family has been taken off AFDC assistance, we should at least allow the States to use their block grant money they already get to pay for vouchers to give to third parties to provide for the needs of children whose parents have been kicked off AFDC assistance. This is a child, and most of the people on welfare are children. Over two-thirds are children, and those children are poor children. I am merely saying with my amendment that we should at least allow--and the Republican bill says it is forbidden--at least allow a State to use its block grant money to aid a child with in-kind assistance, not with cash dollars to the parent, not with cash money to the child, but in-kind contributions to help that child survive, in many cases in terms of getting food, in terms of getting clothing, in terms of getting diapers, yes, or in terms of getting medicine. The Republican bill forbids it. This amendment says we allow the State to do it. It simply says, if the State is going to cut them off after a shorter period of time, we ought to require them to do that. The State makes a determination whether there is a need. The State makes a determination what kind of benefits they get, how much and for how long. This is truly in keeping with the block grant concept that the States should have the maximum flexibility in this particular area. The National Governors' Association endorses this, and a majority of them are Republicans. They said, ``Don't prevent us from doing this if we want to do it.'' That is the NGA position. They have sent a formal, written letter to those of us on the committee which says, ``Please do not prohibit us from helping children if we want to help children.'' The Republican bill is absolutely contrary to the NGA position. Even more, it is contrary to what this country is about, and that is give an opportunity for children to survive. I think without this amendment we make a very strong statement that we are going to be so tough we are going to step on the rights and futures of the children of this country. That is not what this Congress is about; that is not what this country is about. I suggest this amendment be adopted.

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, how much time do we have remaining?

Mr. BREAUX. I do not think so.

Mr. BREAUX. It would be. Would it take unanimous consent to amend it?

Mr. BREAUX. I wonder under the unanimous-consent agreement whether the Senator's amendment would be amendable.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. I also answer to the Senator, for clarification, the work first also has a voucher plan for children in it.

Mr. BREAUX. That is correct.

Mr. BREAUX. I think the Senator is correct.

Mr. BREAUX. The question the Senator is posing is an incorrect statement in the sense it does not require the State to give a voucher to a child whose parent has been cut off from welfare for less than 5 years. It would only require it if the State first makes a determination that the child has a need. The State makes that determination.

Mr. BREAUX. That is incorrect.

Mr. BREAUX. I will answer the Senator, who has a distinguished career as Governor back in his State, it says that a State, based on their determination of the need, if the child does not need it under the State determination, the State does not have to do it, if it is a 2- year time limit, 3 years or 4. But if the State, in their determination, sees a child who has a need that is not being met, then the State must have a voucher. If the State finds that child is being taken care of with other programs or through a parent, aunt, uncle or grandfather, there is no need there. The State makes the determination.

Mr. BREAUX. Yes, I yield.

Mr. BREAUX. All this should be about putting work first but not children last.

Mr. BREAUX. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I think a lot of this is getting far more complicated than it deserves. It is a serious issue, but it is not that complicated. I think the work first amendment that has been offered by the distinguished Democratic leader, Senator Daschle, is a very good compromise. It is fair, it emphasizes work, and it sets time limits for people on welfare. It also, I think, however, is good for children. It is tough on work, but it is good for kids. Welfare reform must be about getting a check by working as opposed to getting a check by not working. We all agree with that. Democrats have said very strongly that we believe that there should be time limits; that people should be required to work; that an unmarried mother should be required to live with an adult, in an adult family, with her own family, if that is possible, but with adult supervision; that we should have a time limit on how long someone can be on welfare. It cannot be forever. Our amendment says there is a lifetime limit of 5 years, and a State has the option under our bill to set shorter limits if they want. My own State of Louisiana has been approved to set time limits for welfare as low as 24 months, 2 years. But what I am talking about when we are talking about these vouchers for kids is that all of us believe that while we are being so tough on a parent, that we should not be tough on an innocent child and an innocent victim who did not ask to be brought into this world. What good do we do by telling a 2-year-old that we are going to throw him or her out without any help or assistance? The voucher proposal which I have as an amendment to be offered later on simply says that if a State determines to terminate a person on welfare assistance in a period shorter than 5 years, that that State must use the Federal and State money that they have to help pay for essential needs of a child. My amendment says that the State shall do an assessment of that child. They still determine the need of that child. The child may need diapers, the child may need medicine, the child may be older and need book supplies, good gosh, to go to school, which we all should support, or may need food because they are hungry and the Food Stamp Program is not adequate. The State makes the determination of the need of that child, and then after they have made the determination, they determine vouchers for that child's benefits. The parent does not get it. Everybody wants to penalize the parent. The voucher does not go to the parent under my amendment. The voucher would go to the third party who is going to provide the essential needs for the child. Maybe it is a food supply organization, maybe it is a school, maybe it is a drugstore for medicine for the child. They would get the voucher under the State program, and they would take care of the needs of that child as determined by the State. Is it too much for us in Congress to say to a State that we are giving most of the money to that you have to use those moneys to take care of children who are innocent victims while we are being so tough on the parent? I support time limits of parents. I support making them go to work. I support making them be responsible and live with an adult if they are going to receive AFDC assistance. My gosh, can't we be, in this great country of ours, with the economic benefits that we all participate in, strong enough also to say we are going to somehow protect the needs of innocent children? We are close on this. It should not be a big disagreement. After 5 years, we say we allow the State to do it, but the Republican proposal forbids it. Why, if the State wants to do it, can they not use the block grant money they get to do this? If the State sees a child that they think is in need, why should we not at least allow the State, under this wonderful block grant concept, to provide vouchers for children after 5 years if the State wants to do it with the block grant money that they get? Yet, the Republican bill forbids it. I think that is too extreme. Let the State make the decision. If the State wants to forbid it, all right, let them do it. But if the State wants to do it with the block grant money they are getting, allow them to do it. Then, if it is less than 5 years, if they want to cut off the assistance to a parent in 2 years or 3 years or 4 years, we think that the moneys that Washington and the States are providing together should at least be used to take care of the child while we are being tough on the parent.

Mr. BREAUX. If it is less than 5 years and the parent is cut off, the child, as determined by the State, has to receive a voucher to provide the subsistence needs of that particular child.

Mr. BREAUX. Or a child 3 years old who cannot work.

Mr. BREAUX. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Kristen Testa on my staff, a fellow in my office, be granted floor privileges for the duration of the debate on this bill.

Mr. BREAUX. I yield myself an additional 5 minutes. Mr. President, the point of the vouchers for children is to say to States, ``Look, if you want to have a 5-year cutoff of an AFDC recipient, you can do that now and you ought to have authority to provide vouchers for kids after that 5-year period, if you cut off a family or a recipient sooner than 5 years, say maybe 2 years.'' In my State, we will do exactly that, which has been approved, a 2- year time limit. But when a State does that, we have a responsibility to say that you should be required to provide at least noncash vouchers out of the money you are getting for the innocent children. We are giving the State the absolute maximum amount of flexibility on designing that program. The States will be able to decide just about everything with regard to how that voucher is going to be handled and how it is going to be awarded. My own State has the highest percentage of children in poverty in the Nation. Mr. President, 34.5 percent of all the children in my State are in poverty. I think we on the Federal level have an obligation to say that they should be taken care of after the parent is told that there will no longer be any cash assistance to that parent. We are not talking about any additional spending by the State or any additional money by the State, we are talking about the money the State is going to get under this new block grant. The Federal money and State money can be combined to provide these vouchers for children, which I think are very, very important. We are talking about giving the State the absolute maximum degree of flexibility on designing how this program would work. The State would assess the needs of the child. They would set how much that child will be able to get and in what form it would be able to be given. They would set the amount. They would set the type of assistance, but I just do not think that we, as a Nation, can walk away from children who are innocent victims of circumstances that they have absolutely no control over. The Food Stamp Program is going to be addressed. We need to make sure, from a Federal level, that it is a responsibility, as it always has been, to design a Food Stamp Program that provides certain guarantees in terms of economic downturns by the various States. I think it is incredibly important that the Chafee-Breaux amendment, dealing with the Medicaid guarantee, will be addressed in a positive fashion. If we can do something positively on the vouchers for children, I think we can come together on a true, real welfare reform bill that this President will be happy to sign. We have to decide whether we want a political issue or whether we want a real bill. There are some Democrats in Congress who say, ``We do not want any bill; we'll do anything we can to stop it, because it is not to our liking 100 percent.'' I think there are some on the Republican side who also want to send the bill to the President as bad as they can make it to make sure he vetoes it and then blame him for vetoing it. There is a growing number in the Senate that wants to work together and come up with something that is doable. So I summarize my points as let us be as tough as we can on the parents, let us have time limits, and let us have work requirements, and let us give a maximum degree of flexibility to the States to do what they want, but at the same time let us make sure we protect the children who are the innocent victims in this entire exercise. Privilege Of The Floor

Mr. BREAUX. How much time remains?

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, let me start off by saying I support the effort of the Senator from New Mexico and chairman of the Finance Committee to separate this welfare reform legislation from the Medicaid reform effort that has been worked on by the Members of this body. I say that for just very pragmatic reasons. We need to reform Medicaid. We need to reform welfare. But if we have an agreement on one, do not mess it up with another item we do not have an agreement on. This body is not in agreement on what to do with regard to Medicaid. I think we are close to reaching an agreement on how to reform the welfare programs in this country, so let us proceed together, hopefully, to try to come up with a welfare reform bill that makes sense, that both sides of the aisle can support, and, hopefully, one that the President will be able to sign. So, I support the effort to separate the two, and, of course, now that is exactly what has occurred. We are now going to be dealing with welfare reform this afternoon and hopefully finish it up in a timely fashion. I think the people of this country--I know the people of Louisiana-- certainly know welfare in this country today does not serve well the people who are on it, nor does it serve very well the people who are paying for it. It is clear the American people, particularly those outside of Washington, are saying to the Congress that we want realistic welfare. We want a welfare reform bill that emphasizes work, a real welfare reform bill that is more about getting a job and less about just getting a check. They want a welfare reform bill that is fair, that emphasizes work, that has time limits, but a welfare reform bill that is also good for children. As President Clinton has always said, he wants to reform welfare as we know it. He wants to be tough on work but good for kids. I have said you can say the same thing and come to the same conclusion saying that welfare reform is really about putting work first, but it is also about making sure we do not put children last. I think, in a bipartisan fashion, we should be able to come together and reach those separate but, I think, mutually agreeable goals. While Congress has not been able for over a year now to come to an agreement on welfare reform, the administration has really not waited for us. If you look at what the administration has done, working with the States, you will see they have really left the Congress behind, because we have not been able to agree. President Clinton and his administration team has really been working with the States. They have now approved 67 welfare reform plans in 40 different States. Welfare reform is occurring, and it is occurring without Congress. It is time that Congress get on the wagon, get on the ball and write a national program so we do not have to have 67 separate welfare reform programs in 40 different States, many with different types of standards and different emphases on what should be done. We should come together and write a national welfare reform bill. It is important the Federal Government be involved. In my own State of Louisiana, the State puts up 28 percent of the money, approximately. The Federal Government puts up 78 percent. Should not the Federal Government be involved in welfare reform? If we are raising 78 percent of the money that is going to the people of my State, of course, we should be. It is not a question of who does it, it is a question of making sure everybody does it. It is not a question of whether it is run in Washington or whether it is run by the States, it should be run in partnership between the States and the Federal Government, giving the States the maximum amount of flexibility, but also having some national standards because national funds are being contributed to the welfare reform program in all of the various States. So, Mr. President, I think we ought to all agree reform is needed. We ought to agree we can come up with something the President can sign. We, on this side, will be offering what we now call a ``Work First'' welfare reform bill. It meets the principles of what people in this country want. No. 1, they want it to have time limits. Welfare should not be forever. It should be about getting a job. It should have time limits that are real and realistic. The amendment that we will be offering says that at most, people will be able to be on welfare for a total of 5 years in their lifetime. Then we give the States authority to make it less if they think it is right for their State. We give the State the flexibility to do that. Our bill requires work. It is an absolute unconditional requirement that people on welfare move into the work force. There is no more unconditional assistance. The goal of welfare reform, under our proposal, would be to get people into the private sector and get them a real job. Instead of just getting a check for not working, get them a job and then the check will be for working. Our bill says the States should have the maximum amount of flexibility. What is good in my State of Louisiana may not work in New York or in any other State in the country, and vice versa. So our legislation gives the States maximum amount of flexibility. What does that mean? It means the States set the benefit level for the people in that State. They will decide how to get people off welfare into a job. It is a State decision. The State will set the sanctions, or the penalties, if you will, for those who refuse to go to work. We give the States the flexibility that they need. I think that, however, in many instances, our bills are very similar. The Senate Finance Committee, under the leadership of Senator Roth, has moved in a major way toward a middle ground, a middle proposal. He is to be congratulated for that. It is an indication of good faith on his part in working with some of us on our side of the aisle to produce a better bill. What we have to do is to make sure that our goal is to put work first but without putting children last. That is a very important standard for us to meet. We should be as tough as we possibly can be on parents, because they have a responsibility and are old enough to understand what that responsibility should be. But there are a lot of innocent children involved who did not ask to be born and are here because of perhaps, in some cases, the fault of their parents, but they are here not because they want to be here necessarily. They are innocent victims of welfare problems in this country. Therefore, it is very important that we make sure that we protect children while we are as tough as we possibly can be and should be with regard to parents. I also point out that our legislation is going to make sure parents who are on welfare or AFDC assistance are eligible for health care in this country. I cannot imagine anybody standing up and saying, ``I'm tough on families, but I want to knock them off health care.'' The bill this Congress passed before, by an 87 to 12 margin, guaranteed AFDC recipients would continue to receive Medicaid. This bill does not do that. It is a major change. It says if you knock them off AFDC assistance there is no guarantee they will get health care. I think that is wrong. We are going to have a bipartisan amendment to correct that. This body should adopt that. I also want to point out that in trying to make sure we protect children, we ought to take into consideration what happens if we are being tough on parents and we say that you are off after 2 years, no more assistance, you should be working, what are we going to tell a 2- year-old child of that parent? Are we going to tell them they are not going to have any more help? Are we going to tell the 2-year-old they should go out and find a job? These are the innocent victims who I think we should work together to try and help. Be as tough as we can on parents, but let's make sure that the innocent child, in many cases almost a baby, is protected. I have an amendment that I will be offering to the bill that says we should have vouchers for children. After the family has been take off of AFDC assistance, do not just throw the child out into the street. Our amendment is going to provide for noncash vouchers for innocent children of families who have had welfare terminated. I heard the distinguished Senator from New York talking about providing diapers for children. If anybody ever had small children, diapers for children happen to be a pretty important thing in raising a child in a healthy environment. Yes, they could use the noncash assistance for diapers, but they could also use it for clothes, they could use it for school supplies, they could use it for medicine, they could use it for food so that a 2-year-old baby does not go hungry because they have a parent who is not responsible. Again, the emphasis should be as being as tough as we possibly can be on the parent, but let's not in this body in this prosperous country say we are not going to take care of the innocent child. So our vouchers for children will say just that.

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I yield myself 10 minutes.