John Breaux

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I ask that the pending amendment be set aside so I may ask unanimous consent to offer four amendments en bloc.

Mr. BREAUX. I send my amendments to the desk.

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I ask that the reading of the amendments be dispensed with.

Mr. BREAUX. I ask unanimous consent that the amendments be temporarily set aside until it is appropriate that they be considered.

Mr. BREAUX. Thank you, Mr. President. Privilege of the Floor

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Lisa Aikman, a congressional fellow in my office, be granted floor privileges through the end of our consideration of the Work Opportunity Act of 1995.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. I thank very much the ranking member for giving me some time. I, too, was a little confused when the Senator from Iowa was talking about the situation in his State. I have heard many, many times in many forums the success of Iowa in being innovative, in creating new programs and ideas of how to solve the problems of welfare reform in their particular State. And those accomplishments really were accomplished under the Family Support Act that was passed in this Congress in 1988. That bill, which passed this body by a vote of 96 to 1, allowed States to be creative, allowed States to put in new ideas and new programs. Iowa took advantage of that and I think made some great progress. I think they should be proud of it. But it also is a result of actions that this Senate, this body took when we enacted the Family Support Act of 1988, the principal author of which was the ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, the senior Senator from the State of New York. Is it perfect? Of course not. Is anything we do ever perfect? Of course not. But it has allowed for great progress in permitting States to be innovative in creating programs that best fit the needs of their particular State. In keeping with that, I wanted to share the experience of my State of Louisiana. The headline in the Monroe News Star World of August 14 of this year: ``Project Independence Trims Welfare Rolls Across State.'' This is good news. This was done under the existing program, under the Family Support Act of 1988. There is good news in the land, in many States that have done substantially positive things in getting people off welfare. I read from the article. It says: ``In Louisiana, welfare reform is nothing new. Since October of 1990, the number of Louisiana residents receiving Aid to Families with Dependent Children has dropped 20 percent,'' said Howard Prejeau, Assistant Secretary for the Office of Family Support. ``Since 1990, it has dropped 20 percent.'' The article further continues: ``That decrease,'' he said, ``is due in large part to Project Independence, a program that helps AFDC recipients find jobs and increase their education.'' Project Independence was created under the Family Support Act of 1988. As of June 1995, 11,260 participants received jobs with 8,332 making enough money to get off welfare completely, according to a report released by the Department of Social Services. A program in my State provides child care and transportation, absolutely essential ingredients if we are going to have real reform for those looking for work. Also it helps build up self-esteem by teaching the value of working and showing them their own self-worth. Project Independence also has programs to help participants receive their GED's or high school diplomas, receive associate and 4-year degrees or job-skills training and build resumes through community service work. A report issued by the Public Welfare Association in 1994, Louisiana ranked last in AFDC caseload growth in the country for 1989 through 1993. Mr. President, it is not a coincidence that this achievement and this accomplishment for my State of Louisiana was produced as a direct product of the Family Support Act of 1988 offered by the distinguished Senator from New York, Senator Moynihan. We should recognize and congratulate success where it has occurred. And under this program there have been outstanding examples of real success. We should not ignore it. I yield the floor. Mr. GRASSLEY addressed the Chair.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. No one is in charge of time?

Mr. BREAUX. We changed the date.

Mr. BREAUX. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. BREAUX. I would say this is one of the areas that perhaps we agree on, State flexibility, because the State would have the flexibility to make that determination on what best fits the people in their State, would have the flexibility to determine the conditions and the time restraints that would be effective in their particular States. Some States may be different than others.

Mr. BREAUX. Hopefully, we will see the merits of each other's approach before the day is over and reach an accommodation that does get the job done.

Mr. BREAUX. If the Senator will yield for a comment, I appreciate the Wizard of Oz analysis. I am afraid it is more like an Alice in Wonderland approach.

Mr. BREAUX. Will the Senator yield? It is 8 percent.

Mr. BREAUX. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. BREAUX. I think the discussion is good. What our Work First bill says is we require people to go to work. We know that if you live in a high unemployment area--we pick 8 percent because that is the same number that applies in the food stamp program. That is why we adjusted it to 8 percent. But we do not think it makes any sense to push a young mother out into the street if there are no jobs available in that area. These people, however, would operate under the same rules as everybody else. They are expected to engage in job search. And if, after 2 years, even in this high unemployment area, they are not working, they are then expected to perform workfare, community service in return for their welfare benefits. So when we are saying there are some areas where there are not any jobs available, these people still have to engage in job search. And then, after 2 years, if they are unable to find a job, they have to perform community service or engage in workfare in their local community. They still have to do something, in other words, to get the benefits.

Mr. BREAUX. It is a legitimate question. The short answer is yes, it is a requirement that after the 2 years, they have to engage in community service, workfare programs, located in that community. In other words, what we are saying is there is no free lunch. They are not going to be able to continue receiving benefits for not working if they are capable of working.

Mr. BREAUX. The point I make in response is that in the high unemployment areas, the 8 percent or above, they have to go to work. I mean, that is a requirement. They would have to engage in workfare or community service or whatever.

Mr. BREAUX. Twenty hours. It actually goes into effect not after 2 years; it goes into effect after 6 months. So that is a requirement that starts from the very beginning of the program after 6 months, not after 2 years. The community service, the 20 hours of community work or workfare in their local community, is something that is kicked in very early in the program, not after 2 years, but after 6 months.

Mr. BREAUX. I am not sure I understand the direction the question is leading to in the sense that----

Mr. BREAUX. If I can respond to the Senator, I think the Senator may be misreading the amendment that is pending with regard to participation.

Mr. BREAUX. I think the Senator will find what we are trying to do in both our bill and his is similar in that regard. We are talking about participation rates. We are talking about really work rates, not participating in a program. We feel we have enough programs out there. We are not judging the success of our bill on people participating in programs, but on participation in actual work. We go from 20 percent up to 50 percent in actual work, in jobs, in earning their benefits that they are receiving--not participation in the sense of participating in a job training program, but actually require working; they move from 20 percent up to 50 percent in a work program, actually working.

Mr. BREAUX. That is correct. That is working; not in a program, actually working.

Mr. BREAUX. That is correct.

Mr. BREAUX. Very similar to the Republican proposal.