John Breaux

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Will the Senator yield at that point?

Mr. BREAUX. We allow the States flexibility because we believe, again, in maximum flexibility, but we have exemptions that are exemptions with which I think most people would agree. You are talking about people who are ill, incapacitated, someone with a child under 12 months old. There are certain exemptions we feel should be there and spell those out, but we still have the work requirements from 30 to 50 percent. That is locked in with some exemptions.

Mr. BREAUX. Well, it is 20 percent. That is correct. It would start from 20 percent up to 50 percent.

Mr. BREAUX. On the work rates; the Senator is correct on the work rates.

Mr. BREAUX. Will the Senator yield on that point?

Mr. BREAUX. Does not the Republican bill have an exemption for moms with children under 1 year old?

Mr. BREAUX. Will you disagree with that being a viable exemption?

Mr. BREAUX. Will the Senator yield? Apparently you made some decisions that exemptions from the national level are acceptable.

Mr. BREAUX. I respond to the Senator by saying under our bill, we are even tougher on those who are capable of working, because we are requiring by the year 2000, 50 percent are required to work. That is 50 percent of those eligible. The Senator from Pennsylvania is saying his 50 percent is looking at the whole broad range, a larger group saying 50 percent of them. We are saying that when you find the people who are able to work, let us make sure you get them to work. I think we are even tighter than you are on that particular point.

Mr. BREAUX. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. BREAUX. I think what we are establishing by our conversation, and I think it is helpful in understanding the two approaches, is that we both have requirements of people who are now on welfare to go into the work force. Even the percentages, I think, are ultimately the same: 50 percent by a date certain. We both have exemptions as to who should not be forced to work. Ours are more broad. We have people who are incapacitated, mothers with children under 1 year old. You have fewer exemptions. I think the key point that needs to be made here is that we require these people to be put to work, and we are going to help the States fund the programs that put them to work. The concern that I and other Democrats have about the Republican proposal is that it is an unfunded mandate in the sense you are telling the States they have to meet these goals, but not providing them any financial assistance in order to meet it. That is a bigger question, and I think is a legitimate question for discussion: How are the States going to meet these goals with less help than they are getting now?

Mr. BREAUX. Here is my problem with the Republican proposal. We both have the requirement that States put 50 percent of the welfare recipients into work by the year 2000. We are the same on that essential provision. But the difference is that your proposal does not provide the States with the funding to do that. Here is my concern. It is that if they do not have the funding to do that, they are not going to be able to meet that target. Your response to that, as I understand it, is that we are going to eliminate the redtape we now have imposed upon the States. Now, my question is, what type of redtape are we going to be eliminating that would give the States the extra funding that they need in order to put 50 percent of the recipients to work? What type of redtape elimination is going to add up to those type of dollars in order to meet the 50 percent requirement that we both agree is an appropriate target?

Mr. BREAUX. If the Senator will yield on that point, Governor Thompson, who I think has done a good job of trying to reform welfare in Wisconsin, when he testified before the Finance Committee, made the point very clearly that some States are able to do some of these things because they have the financial wherewithal to do it. But there are an awful lot of States, when they face a 50-percent requirement of putting people to work with less money coming from the Federal Government, they are simply not going to be able to do it. That is why the concept of a partnership, where the Federal Government puts up a certain amount and the States put up a certain amount, a requirement that the States participate financially, is so important. I think the discussion is good. I think there are some areas for us to meet in the middle. When I talk about a compromise, I am talking about not just agreeing with the Dole bill. A compromise is your side moving a little over to the middle of this aisle and our side moving toward the middle on some of these things--we have some common goals and we are close, I think--in order to reach an agreement that the President can sign and that will ultimately be reform. I hope to continue to work with the Senator from Pennsylvania to reach that goal.

Mr. BREAUX. Will the Senator withhold?

Mr. BREAUX. I ask the Presiding Officer, what is the order of the day at this point?

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I will take this time in order to make some comments about where we are and what I hope the ultimate result will be. I want to start off by saying there is no disagreement that the welfare situation in this country is a mess. There is no argument from any Democrat that I know who would stand up on the floor of the Senate and say welfare programs are just fine and we should not do anything to change any of them. I think most Americans, whether they be independents, Democrats or [[Page S 12692]] Republicans, would agree with the statement that welfare does not work very well for those who are on it, nor does it work very well for those who are paying for it. It is a program that really cries out for major reform. I think that is what this body is charged with doing, coming up with a reform package that we can send to this President that he will sign, so when this Congress draws to a closure, we can say one thing that we did that will benefit future generations and the very stability of this country is that this Congress, when we had a chance, was able to come together in a bipartisan fashion to reform the current welfare system, which we all agree does not work. It does not work, as I said, for the people who are on it nor for the people who are paying for it. Therefore, there is no disagreement on the fact that we have a major problem facing us and that we should do something about it. Then, of course, the question that divides us is how do we go about reforming the system? Some have said we in Washington, working with the States in the past, have not solved the problem so we are going to give it all to the States. We are just going to walk away from the problem. Let us think of a phrase we are going to call it. How about block grants? That sounds pretty good. People like that term. Let us say welfare reform is going to be a block grant. I think most Americans would say, ``What do you mean?'' They will say, ``The Federal Government has not solved the problems, so we are going to let the States do it.'' I guess most people would say that makes sense. The Federal Government has not solved it so let the States do it. Let me talk for a moment about that. This is a problem that cannot be solved by the Federal Government here in Washington by ourselves, nor can it be solved by the State governments, nor the county governments nor the city governments, nor in my State of Louisiana by the parish governments by themselves. This is a problem that cries out for all branches of government, Federal, State and local, working together, to come up with a real solution. Block grants are like taking all the problems that we have with the welfare program and putting them in a box, then wrapping it all up, tying a bow around it, and then mailing that box of problems to the States, saying: Here, it is yours. It is a block grant. It is a block grant of problems with less money to help solve those problems. That, I think, is not a solution. It is an additional problem. The real solution is to say that each State, of course, is different. I have heard my Republican colleagues say that. I totally agree with that. States should have the authority to be innovative. What works in my State of Louisiana may not work well in the State of California. What works well in New York may not work well in Florida or Louisiana or any other State. So, clearly, each State has an absolute right and a need to be able to be inventive and to be able to come up with solutions to the problems that are unique and will work in that State that may not work in some other State. But that does not mean the Federal Government walks away from any responsibility to participate in solving the problem. What some would suggest is that a block grant means we in Washington are going to have to raise the money and pass the taxes and then ship the money to the States and say, ``Do what you want with it, it is a block grant; no restrictions, almost no guidelines, and spend it as you want.'' That is an abdication of our responsibility as legislators who are looking after the interests of the American taxpayer. I admit we in Washington have certainly not solved the problem by ourselves very well. I admit the States have not solved the problem by themselves. Therefore, I would argue that any solution has to be a joint venture, if you will, a partnership, if you will, between the States coming up with their best ideas about what fits and the Federal Government coming up with our ideas and the financial help in order to solve those problems. It has to be a partnership. It cannot be a walking away and shipping the problem to the States. That is the first point I want to make. The second point is that the States have to participate. We use this phrase, ``State maintenance of effort.'' There are some, particularly my Republican colleagues, who advocate we are going to let the States pretty well do what they want with this block grant but then we are not going to require them to put up any money. States have always, in the true partnership, had to participate in solving the problem. That means raising local money through their tax system, putting up a portion of the money going into the welfare program so it can be used to help solve the problem, matching it with Federal funds. The Republican proposal, as I understand it, says no, we are not going to do that. The State does not have to put up anything if they do not want to. They can just walk away from the problem financially and say, ``We are going to take all the money from the Federal Government. We are going to do what we want with it. And, by the way, the money we used to spend on welfare, maybe we will pave the roads this year, or maybe we will give all the State employees a raise this year. Maybe we will build some bridges this year. But we are not going to use it for the people who are in poverty in our own State.'' That is not a partnership. That is an abdication of the responsibility that I think that we have, as Federal legislators and State legislators, to work together to solve the problem. There should be a clear maintenance of effort by the States. We in Washington cannot say you have no obligation to do anything. That is a defect that I think is very clear in their proposal which needs to be worked on. We will offer amendments to say the States have to be able to participate in helping us solve the problem. We cannot be responsible for raising all the money and the States have no requirement to do so and expect that to solve the welfare problem in this case. In addition, one of the other concerns I have is that the legislation the Republicans are proposing takes middle-income job training programs and makes them into welfare programs. Why, I ask, is it appropriate for programs that work to help dislocated workers, to help in vocational- technical training schools that train people, students in this country, programs that are used for dislocated workers who everyday are finding their job is taken away from them through downsizing, and we have programs to help retrain and relocate those people--why are we taking those type of programs, which are basically programs that have done a wonderful job to help middle-income families in this country, and make them into welfare programs? I think that is a serious, serious mistake. Do we need to reform those programs? Do we need to consolidate them? Absolutely. But we do not need to turn job training programs into welfare programs. It does not fit. It cannot be forced to fit. You cannot put a round peg in a square hole no matter how hard you push, without doing grave damage to the block that you are trying to push it into. And the same thing, I think, happens here. Their proposal tells middle-income families that have had to get retraining because of dislocation and being laid off that all of a sudden those programs that were meant for you are going to be used by welfare recipients and you are going to be left out. What about the middle-income families that those programs were designed for when they find out these programs all of a sudden are going to be turned into welfare programs? I think it is bad policy. It needs to be corrected. It is not a solution to the problem. In fact, it aggravates the problem, and it needs to be addressed. Child care is another concern I have that I think we have to address very seriously. How do you tell a teenage mother with two children, we are going to make you go to work but, by the way, there is no money for child care? There is not a Governor that we have talked to, Republican, Democrat, independent, or maybe not certain what they are, that has not said that this is a very serious problem. It is a serious defect in the Republican proposal, to require the States to put three times more people to work but to give them less financial assistance in order to make it happen, to give them less money or in fact no additional money whatsoever to pay for child care. [[Page S 12693]] What is going to happen to the children? Who is going to take care of a 2-year-old or a 1-year old if we put the mother into a job, which I think is absolutely essential? The best social program we can pass is a good job. But with that requirement that someone goes to work, there is going to be an obligation somewhere that somebody does something with the children. Are they going to be left home alone, unsupervised, getting into trouble, or causing more problems from the standpoint of health than they were before? So they have a very serious defect in the sense that the child care provisions are very deficient. It is one thing to say we are going to put three times more people to work. But you cannot do that unless you address what is going to happen to the child care provisions. That needs to be addressed. It needs to be worked on. It cannot in fact be a real reform bill unless child care is addressed. Another issue is the so-called family cap. I have heard some Members give speeches that it is time for people who have been riding in the wagon to get out of the wagon and start helping pull the wagon. That is a nice little phrase, and it sounds pretty good. But when you are talking about throwing babies and children out of the wagon into the street, that is not what America is all about. That is not what this country stands for. Sure, make the people who can afford to pull the wagon, who are strong enough to pull the wagon, go to work. There is no problem with that. But do not throw babies and children out of the wagon into the street and say that is welfare reform. That is not. Children and babies do not ask to be born. They did not ask to come into this world. There is a parent somewhere--in fact, two--that had something to do with bringing that child into this world. Punish them. Require them to go to work. Require them to take training. Require them to be responsible. Force them to live in adult supervision. Force them to live with their parent or parents if there are some. But do not penalize the innocent child who did not ask to be born. What kind of a country are we that we are going to say if you are a teenage mother and you have another child, you are not going to get any help for the child? Why penalize the child? That is creating more problems, not solving any problem. So I suggest that this is a major defect with the Republican proposal that has to be addressed. I cannot imagine any Member of this institution saying they are going to reform welfare by telling a newborn baby that it is not going to get any help because its mother made a mistake and it has been born into this world, and they cannot afford to take care of it. So it is out of luck. Go into an orphanage, or be put up for adoption. I think we have to be wiser than that in seeking solutions to what welfare reform ultimately has to be all about. So that does not solve the problem. That is a defect in their proposal to say that we are going to solve the illegitimacy problem in this country by terminating any assistance to people with babies who are born into this world. That does not stop illegitimacy. That does not help solve the problem. It creates more problems, not less. It absolutely has to be addressed. While I said what I think is wrong with the pending Republican proposal, I do think that there is a recognition in a bipartisan fashion that we have to do something. Our plan is called Work First. It abolishes AFDC. It starts off by saying there is no more AFDC. Every time a person comes into a welfare office, they have to sign an employment contract in order to receive any benefits. That contract is going to require them to do certain things. It is going to start moving them into the work force. We put time limits on how long someone can be on welfare assistance in this country, but we protect the child. We protect the children. We protect the babies who are born into this world. Require the mother to live at home, or require the mother to live in an adult-supervised home if there are no parents. Require them to move into the work force. Put on time limits. Yes, do all of those things. But, yes, also provide child care as we require people to move into the workplace, as we do that. So it is one thing to sound tough and to talk tough. But as we all know, talk is cheap. It does not solve the problem. This problem is not going to be solved on the cheap. It is going to be solved only with thoughtful ideas and tax dollars being spent more wisely than we have spent them in the past in a recognition that we do need to make some dramatic changes. I want to say something else, too. I will conclude with this: As I said in the beginning, this is a problem that the Federal Government cannot solve by itself and the States cannot solve by themselves. This is a problem that Democrats cannot solve by ourselves and Republicans cannot solve by themselves because we do not have enough votes, quite frankly, to pass our bill without some help from the other side. On the other hand, I suggest that the Republican Party does not have enough votes to pass this bill that will be signed into law without our participation. So we are sort of joined together because we have to be. We have a choice here. We can start talking to each other. We can start cooperating on some of these key issues that I mentioned. We can see where we can come together and devise a proposal that makes sense that can be adopted. It may not be everything that I want or the distinguished senior Senator from New York, Senator Moynihan, the manager of the bill, wants; or it may not be everything that the Republican leader or Senator Chafee, who is on the floor, wants. But I think there is enough common ground here to help address these differences in a way that we get a compromise that works. By the way, compromise is not a dirty word. It is a coming together of different opinions in order to accomplish something that makes sense. Therefore, when we talk about fair compromises in the interest of solving the ultimate problem, that is what this body is supposed to do. Very few times in this world in anything do we get our way all the way all the time. And this legislation, welfare reform, which is so important, is an area that cries out for some bipartisan cooperation, working out our differences, because I am afraid that if we do not do that, we will do nothing. If we are not willing to meet somewhere in the middle on these difficult problems, we will have accomplished absolutely nothing. Some will say, ``But we have a good issue for the next election.'' I suggest that the best issue for all of us is passing a real welfare reform bill that gets the job done. I think all of our colleagues on this side are ready, are willing, and I think we are able to sit down in the sense of compromise and come up with a proposal that in fact gets the job done. With that, at this time, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I was hoping to obtain clarification from the distinguished Senator from Alaska with regard to language on page 191 of Senate Report 104-124, under the heading ``Mission recorders.'' This language implies that a digital version of the AN/USH-42 recorder is currently in use by the Navy.

Mr. BREAUX. Thank you.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. I thank my colleagues who have been participating in this debate this afternoon. Let me start by commenting on the comments of the Senator from Pennsylvania about the SSI Program and to commend him for pointing out what he has, in fact, stated. The problem is severe and it is serious. Also, I want to point out that there is no disagreement, essentially, between Democrats on this side of the aisle and our Republican colleagues on that side of the aisle about this issue. President Clinton appointed our former colleague from Kansas, James Slattery, to a commission to study in detail this very problem that the Senator spoke of, the problem of some parents in some parts of the country utilizing SSI programs in order to qualify children who, in the minds of both experts, should really not be considered to be disabled and entitled to benefits. They made some strong recommendations about how those determinations should be made in order to protect children who are legitimately disabled, who have mental disabilities, who have physical disabilities, who truly qualify as disabled. There is no argument that those children deserve our care and those children deserve our help and assistance. Those recommendations, I think, are in the Republican proposal. They are in the Democratic proposal. The question of SSI benefits, cash benefits, going to people who somehow get qualified because of being a drug addict or an alcoholic, there is no basic disagreement in the provisions of both bills. The Dole bill and the Democratic alternative clearly says that a person will not be able to be eligible for cash benefits because they are a drug addict or because they are an alcoholic. That is not to say that they should not get medical attention. Drug addicts and alcoholics and drug abusers who do not get medical attention, I suggest, become a much more serious problem to society if they are not treated, if they do not receive medical help and medical care. That is different from giving them cash benefits. Our legislation clearly says that they would be entitled, if they qualify, for Medicaid assistance but not for any cash benefits. I think in those areas we are in substantial agreement. Let me talk about the basic proposals that are pending before the Senate dealing with so-called welfare reform. I do not think there is a Senator in this body, whether he or she be a Republican Member or a Democratic Member, who would argue that welfare as we know it and see it and experience it today is not broken and does not need fixing. There is no disagreement on that. There is no one on this side of the aisle who says that we should, in fact, not make any changes, that everything is working perfectly, when, in fact, we all know that welfare does not work very well for those who are on it, nor does it work very well for those who are paying for it. There is no disagreement with regard to that proposition. We all agree that major changes should be made. How we go about bringing those changes are where some may have differences, which is the subject of legitimate debate on this floor. I am concerned that it seems that the argument portrayed by some is an argument that suggests who should be responsible for solving the problem. Some would suggest that, well, the States ought to solve the problem because the Federal Government has not done a very good job. Some may suggest, although I have not heard that, that, no, the Federal Government should do it, because we know best. In truth, the argument and the real question that I think should be before this body is not whether the Federal Government should do it or whether the State government should do it, but rather, how do we both, working together in a true partnership, solve this problem. I suggest that this problem is too big for the Federal Government to solve it by ourselves. We cannot know what is best for every State in the Union here in Washington. I do not know what works best for States I may never have been to or where I have not spoken to welfare recipients or welfare administrators in that particular State. Being here in Washington does not give me some type of intelligence that is better or smarter than anybody on a State level. I reject the argument, if anyone would make it, that welfare reform should be a Washington program. I also reject the argument that the States should do it by themselves, because I think the States do not necessarily have the financial ability to do it by themselves. And if you are going to have major Federal contributions to the programs, there should also be substantial standards on how those national Federal dollars, in fact, will be spent. Therefore, I argue and I suggest that the answer is not the Federal Government versus the State government but truly a partnership between the Federal officials and the State officials in trying to craft a program that puts the best of both together and comes up with a program that truly solves the [[Page S 11776]] problem and ends welfare as we know it today. Now, for 60 years we have had a partnership. For 60 years the Federal Government has put up some of the money, and for 60 years we required the States to put up some of the money. That has always been the partnership arrangement that has existed. It is like that in every other program, Mr. President, if you think about it. In the highway program, the Federal Government puts up some of the money, the States put up some; on water projects, the Federal Government puts up some of the money, the States put up some of the money. There is a reason for that. It binds and ties the concept that it is a partnership. It reinforces the fact that both of us have to work together to solve the problem. What disturbs me in the Dole proposal, in the Packwood proposal, is that it breaks that partnership for the first time in 60 years, because for the first time it says the Federal Government will put up the money and the States, if they want, have to put up nothing. That is not a partnership. That, if anything, is the Federal Government being responsible for all of it. The Republican plan eliminates the requirement that the States contribute. How many times have we heard proposals from the Republican side of the aisle that have talked about copayments in health care being extremely important because copayments from a person who has health insurance establishes in that person's mind that he is contributing or she is contributing to the solution, and therefore they are going to be more careful in how they use their health insurance? Without any kind of a copayment requirement, they do not have a connection with the cost, they do not have a connection with the solution to the health care problem. Therefore, time after time I have heard Republican colleagues argue about the necessity of even increasing copayments. But for the first time--for the first time in my years in the Congress, in this body and in the other body, we have a proposal from our Republican colleagues that eliminates the requirement that the States put up their share to solve problems that their citizens and their partners are experiencing by being on welfare assistance. We have called it the maintenance of a State effort, a State maintenance of effort to get the States to do something so they can see that this problem is not one that can be solved without this partnership. I think that is wrong. Poorer States have always had to put up less. My State of Louisiana is probably one of the lowest, but we contribute, I think it is, about 28 percent. The Federal Government puts up 72 percent, my State of Louisiana contributes 28 percent for the welfare program in my State. In some States the State has to put up as much as 50 percent, where it is dollar for dollar; the Federal Government puts up a dollar, the State puts up a dollar. But there has always been this partnership requirement. The States who are helping to solve the problem also have to be responsible for contributing financially to that solution. We all know it is a lot easier to spend somebody else's money. I am concerned this will happen if the Republican proposal is adopted. If all of a sudden they see a pot of gold coming down from Washington and we say, ``Here, spend it pretty much like you like, and, by the way, you do not have to put up anything; you can use the money that you used to put up for anything else you want because the Federal Government will continue to send the same amount,'' States, for instance, could take the 50 percent or the 28 percent they had to put up in the past and say, ``All right, if the Federal Government tells us we are not going to have to do it anymore, I am going to take that money I was putting up for welfare and I am going to use it to get maybe more highway funds. I will use the 28 percent of the dollars that I raise on the State level to do the welfare program, and I am going to use it instead to match to get more highway funds, to build more bridges and more roads. Let the Federal Government take up the entire tab for welfare in my particular State.'' An even worse example than that, what about a State that says, ``All right, if I do not have any maintenance of effort, if I do not have to do anything, if this partnership is terminated, I will take the money that I used to put into the welfare program and, guess what, I am going to use it to build a new building so the Governor will have a new set of offices. Or, better yet, I am going to use it to give raises to all the State employees. Let me use the money for that.'' Is that really solving the welfare problem as we know it? Of course not. Some States may even think like this. Listen to this example. The Food Stamp Program is 100 percent federally funded. When a person's income goes lower and lower, they qualify for more and more food stamp assistance because their income is less. So if a State decides not to make a contribution to the welfare program, reducing the amount of money an individual gets, the Federal Government is going to have to increase the amount of food stamps that the same family gets. Is this what our Republican colleagues want? Is this what they are trying to establish in their proposal? Are they seeking to make the Federal Government spend more money than we are spending now on the Federal Food Stamp Program? I suggest that is not a good idea at all. Therefore, what I am arguing for is a partnership between the Federal Government and the States. Give the States a great deal more flexibility, absolutely. I am not suggesting that not be done. I support that. Give them the maximum degree of flexibility that they can. But I, as a taxpayer in Louisiana, want to know that when my citizens are taxed for this program that people in New York and people in Oregon and people in all the other 49 States are going to spend my tax dollars with some degree of national responsibility, some degree of national goals and guidelines in partnership with the other States that will be receiving money from my State as well. One of our colleagues, I think it was Senator Faircloth from North Carolina, when he testified before our Finance Committee, made a wonderful point which I agree with. ``If you want to block grant the Federal welfare program to the States and just give it to them with no strings attached,'' he said, ``you ought to cut any Federal assistance going to that State. If there is not a national interest in how we spend welfare dollars on this program, if there is not a Federal interest, then there is no Federal need or responsibility for the Federal Government contributing any money to the State.'' Let me repeat that, because this concept came from Senator Faircloth from North Carolina, and I agree with him. I am not disagreeing at all. I am complimenting him for pointing out something I agree with. Let me say one more time what he said. He said, ``If you are going to give it all to the States with no strings attached, there is no reason why the Federal Government should give them anything. Let the State raise the money if they want to spend it any way they want.'' And I agree with that. But I think there is a national responsibility when we start paying the tab to make sure that there are some national parameters and national goals and national standards that are going to be followed, with a maximum degree of flexibility to the States to devise the program that best fits the needs of their State. It should not be written in Washington, but it should be a program that has national goals and national standards. That is what we are talking about. Therefore, my point No. 1 is that: If we have a Federal program, we ought to have a partnership, a State maintenance-of-effort requirement that the States also contribute something to be partners in this program and not just to be receivers. A partnership is absolutely, incredibly important. I think we ought to work together. Let me tell my colleagues something. We cannot pass this by ourselves. But you cannot pass it by yourselves. You do not have the votes to pass it without us, and we do not have the votes to pass it without you. So we have a decision to make as to whether we are going to cooperate and work on this together--or make political points and get nothing done. That is an option. But if that option is exercised, I suggest the real losers are the [[Page S 11777]] American public and the American taxpayer. We will make short-term political points for short-term political gain. But in the long run, the real losers will be the taxpayers and those who are on welfare who will not have had an opportunity to have a program passed in a bipartisan fashion. One of the things about the Republican plan, the second thing that gives me a great deal of concern, is the question of mandating to the States that they double the number of people who are on welfare that are working. That sounds great. But talk is cheap. Talk is cheap. You cannot just say we are going to tell the States that they are going to double the number of people in their State who are now on welfare who are going to be working without helping them create those jobs and pay for those programs that create those jobs. Recently we passed an unfunded mandate bill. Everybody on both sides of the aisle, really, talked about how wonderful it was. No longer are we going to tell the States to do something and not help them pay for doing it. This legislation, when it tells the States that they have to double the number of jobs for people that are on welfare in their State boundaries under this program and does not give them financial assistance in order to do it, is the largest and biggest unfunded mandate that this Congress will have ever passed. We will be saying to all of the States that Washington is going to tell you to put people to work. But we are not going to help you provide the money to put those people to work. Does anybody think that is somehow going to happen with magic? There has not been a Governor that has come before this Congress through our committee systems that has ever said that goal can be accomplished without additional financial help from the Government here in Washington or from a greatly increased tax burden on their citizens. Without the partnership that I talked about, the Republican plan is the largest and biggest unfunded mandate to have ever been adopted, if it were to be adopted, in the history of this Congress. The ink is not dry on the legislation outlawing unfunded mandates, and this bill hits the floor with the largest unfunded mandate I think in the history of this Congress. You cannot require States to double the number of people working and do it by freezing the amount of money they get at the 1994 level. That is what this bill does, and that is the second reason why I think it needs to be changed and modified. The third reason that I have great concern with their proposal is what it does with child care and what it does for children. Children cannot be punished for the mistakes of their parents. There are innocent victims in this country who did not ask to be born into this world but are here in many cases because of mistakes of their parents and perhaps, yes, they were unwanted children. But they are here. They are alive and they are humans, and they deserve the attention of this Congress and this Government. I have heard our colleague from Texas, Senator Gramm, talk about, ``Well, you know, it is just time that the people who have been riding in the wagon get out of the wagon and start helping to pull the wagon.'' And that is great rhetoric and everybody has a little mental picture of what that must look like. But his proposal takes innocent children and babies and throws them out of the wagon into the street because it is clear that without help a 3-year-old or a 12-year-old or a 4-year-old little boy or little girl cannot pull the wagon. They are not old enough. They are not strong enough. They are not smart enough. And this is America which has a concern about innocent children. The legislation to say that when a child is born to a teenager who is not married and we are somehow going to deny that child the benefits of what that child needs to survive is un-American, it is unfair, and by and large it is totally absolutely unworkable. That proposal punishes a child who did not ask to be born. That proposal is misdirected in that it does not do what we should be trying to do, and that is to punish the parent. Our bill, on the other hand, says the parent has to live at home; if there is no home--which is the case in many cases--that teenage mother has to live with adults in adult supervision, that teenage child who had that baby has to go to school, has to be in a work program, and there are requirements against the parent but not requirements against the child. The Dole bill treats it a little differently. The leader's bill says, ``Well, the State can have an option to do that if they want.'' That is back to the national responsibility, the national partnership, that we should be concerned about if we are raising the money for the program. I cannot believe that our colleagues would agree that it is perfectly acceptable to have the benefits cut off to the child. That is one option that I think States should not be able to do when they in fact are using tax dollars that have been raised throughout this country. Having said what I have said, I also want to repeat that we are not going to be able to pass a welfare reform bill unless we work together. I will say here today that I think that can be done. The differences that I have outlined I think, while substantial, are not that complicated to fix. I think the requirement that States have to put up their share, a maintenance of effort by the States, can be fixed--and should be fixed--came close with an amendment that I offered in the Finance Committee of fixing it. We still can fix it. The work requirements requiring people to work and helping the States to pay for that work can be fixed. Finally, I think treating the child, who is an innocent victim, fairly also can and must be fixed. There are some other things that need to be addressed. The SSI that I mentioned I think we are very, very close, and almost substantial agreement with what needs to be done in that particular area. So, Mr. President, my colleagues, I look forward to engaging our Republican colleagues in debate. I hope that our ``Work First'' legislation, which has been put together with a number of our colleagues working very, very hard, drawing on the experience of our distinguished ranking member of this committee, the Senator from New York, Senator Moynihan, who has probably forgotten more about this issue than most of us know. We have drawn on his experience and his knowledge and his legislation that he has put forth in the past on this effort, and we are delighted to have him and proud to have him managing this bill. I know that it is going to be a better product because of his involvement. But now is the time for us to be involved together in an effort that is going to affect every single American for a generation to come. I hope we can do it. I am confident we can. I yield the floor.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I congratulate the Senator from Maryland for the excellent job she has done. As a former professional social worker, when Barbara Mikulski speaks about welfare reform, she does not speak from having read a book about it; she speaks from having led a life of trying to improve the conditions of lives of people who have had the great misfortune of being on welfare. Mr. President, I will be very brief. Today is an important day because today the Democratic leadership, with a number of cosponsors, a majority of all Democrats, have introduced our Work First welfare reform bill. It is a major document. It is a major document because it makes major changes in the current welfare system that we, as Democrats, and I think most Republicans would agree welfare as we know it today simply does not work. I know of only a few people who may stand up anywhere and say the system we have is a good system. It does not work well for the people who are on it and it does not work well for the people who are paying for it. I think there is a general consensus that we have to make major changes. How we make those changes is the subject, I think, of legitimate debate. There are a lot of different suggestions about what should be done to make it work better than it has worked in the past. I suggest that any program that is tough on work, any program that is good for children, is a movement in the right direction as to what we as a Congress should be doing. It was an issue at the last Presidential campaign. I hope it will not be an issue in the next Presidential campaign, because I hope by that time we will have adopted a real bipartisan program that is good for all Americans. We, as Democrats, could not do this by ourselves. I suggest that our Republican colleagues, by themselves, cannot do it either. Therefore, this is a subject that will have to have bipartisan agreement. We are going to bring a real welfare reform bill to the President's desk, one that he can sign in this Congress. That should be the goal of all of us, Republicans or Democrats. Let me just suggest that the bill that we are introducing today, the Democratic Work First Program, is an excellent vehicle. I wish all of our colleagues would join and we could pass it unanimously. I know that that is not likely. I do think that it presents a document in a package of principles that we can all agree on and then tinker around the edges to make it a politically acceptable document to all of our colleagues. Our bill starts off by recognizing that the current system does not work. We abolished the Aid to Families with Dependent Children, the AFDC program, which has been around for so long. We are saying that in the 1990's it does not work. Not only does it have to be changed a little bit, it has to be changed a lot. Not only does it have to be changed, it should be abolished, and start off with a new program. That is what we have in our document. We replace Aid to Families with Dependent Children with a temporary employment system that requires people, when they walk into the welfare office, to sign a contract. That contract is going to get them starting to look for a job from the first day. If they do not follow the terms of the contract, their benefits can be reduced. I think that is something that is incredibly important. They start from the first day they walk in the office looking for a job. The best social program that this Congress can pass is a good job, not another Federal program, but a good job for someone who currently is under welfare assistance in their particular State. The program that we are offering abolishes the current system, starts over with a temporary employment program from the very first day. There are penalties and there are time limits. We are saying that people cannot be on welfare assistance forever. There is a 2-year time limit, and a total of 5 years in a person's life that they would be eligible for welfare assistance. We also, I think, protect children. We also say to States that we are not going to give you an unfunded mandate to do things without helping you pay for those programs. One of my concerns about the bill that came out of the Finance Committee was that we froze the amount of money going to the States at 1994 levels, yet we are telling States they have to do a lot more with a lot less. That is not real reform. I suggest that plan is like putting all the welfare problems in a box and then mailing that box to the States and say, ``Here, it is yours. We are washing our hands of the problem. You take it. We will give you less money to fix it.'' That is not reform. That is passing the buck. That is not what we should be doing in this Congress. Our program is real reform. We should not be arguing, I suggest, as to whether the Federal Government should do it or the State should do it. The fact is we both should do it. The Federal Government should work with the States and give them more flexibility, and the Federal Government should be there as a partner--not as a supervisor, not as a big heavy hand from Washington, but as a partner--with the States to work on what is best for a particular State. Our bill does that. It gives great flexibility to the States to devise the proper system that works in their State, to design what is best for the State of Mississippi, the State of Louisiana, Maryland or California, or whatever State is involved. Let the States design the program. We, as Federal officials who raise the money to pay for those programs, should not be unconcerned with how those funds are spent. There should be some national standards. There should be some national parameters. We, for instance, feel that States should not be able to tell children who are innocent victims, who did not ask to be born, that they somehow will lose any benefits that they have to live because of the mistakes of their parents. We think that is hard. We think that is cruel. We think that should not be the policy of this country. We think, however, parents should be penalized when they make mistakes. We think parents who refuse to work should be penalized for not wanting to work. Our bill does that by reducing the benefits to adults who refuse to live by the terms of their contract. I think that is good. We do not say in our bill to an innocent baby who did not ask to be born that because your parent is a teenager, we are going to penalize your life and make it more difficult for you to be a functioning citizen in this society. Mr. President, our bill may not be perfect. We are not saying it is. We are not saying that perhaps it cannot be improved by amendments, because perhaps it can be. What we are saying is that our Work First Program is a solid package that is going to arrive out [[Page S 11328]] with a lot of debate, a lot of discussion, where liberals and moderates and conservatives within our party have been able to come together and join hands and introduce this as a work first welfare package, which I think makes a great deal of sense. We encourage our Republican colleagues, we challenge our Republican colleagues, to introduce your bill, to start the debate --not in an adversarial relationship, because this is something that truly should not be Republican or Democrat. We should be looking for an American solution to a uniquely American problem. We all agree it does not work today. We all agree it needs to be fixed. We should come together and work together and get the type of program that this President is willing to sign and that we all can be proud of the ultimate results. I yield the floor.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I thank the Senator. I congratulate the Senator for bringing this to our attention, not only to the Members of this body but hopefully to the Members of the other body, as well as to the attention of the American public. Do any of us remember the big public display and the big publicity gathering they had on the steps of the Capitol when the Contract With America was announced? There was a huge public display, and it made all the evening news. One of the key plans in that Contract With America was action to be taken on the line-item veto. What happened to it? Where is it? Where are the conferees from the other body who were willing to sit down and finish this incredibly important part of the contract? Nineteen Democrats over here voted for it, and Republican colleagues here supported it. The Senate appointed the conferees. We found 18 willing souls to sit down with the other body and work out the differences. Cannot the House find 18 Members who are willing to sit with the Senate, Republican and Democrats, and work out the differences between the House- and Senate-passed bills? Sometimes what people do in this business, they give a great political speech and then they sort of forget and hope everybody else forgets what they said because this is, in effect, what is happening. They make this great political announcement and pronouncement on the steps of the Capitol that the line-item veto was absolutely essential to Western civilization, and then the House passes it and the Senate passes it and the House will not appoint the conferees. We can send them 18 names and say, ``Here, pick one of these or pick anybody you want to pick. Just pick somebody to sit down and meet with the Senate.'' If this was so important and it justified being put in their Contract With America, is it not still important in August to find 18 House Members who can sit down with the Senate and talk with us? Is it that difficult to do? Or is maybe there is another reason? Maybe the reason is that all these appropriations bills are now working their way through the House and the Senate. I have heard some of them say, ``Well, we may do this after we finish with the appropriations bills and they have already been signed.'' That is after the fact. The whole purpose of a line-item veto is to say that some items in an appropriations bill should not become the law of the land. And they are saying, ``Well, we want to do the appropriations bills first and then maybe sometime next year we will appoint the conferees.'' The time is now. The American people do remember what politicians say on the steps of the Capitol, and I suggest that our House conferees should be appointed. We can send them a list and they can pick. We can send them 435 names and just pick 18. It is not that difficult. Start with A and just go right down the list. When we get 18, stop, send us the names, we have a meeting, and we can work this out. If it is important enough to put in the contract, it is important enough to at least finish the job.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Any gift Members receive that is over $20, that includes a meal, would be prohibited under the legislation. I yield to the Senator from Kentucky.

Mr. BREAUX. I yield myself 3 minutes of my 5 minutes. Mr. President, the issue before the Senate, I think, is very, very clear. Mr. President, and my colleagues, this legislation, make no bones about it, makes major, dramatic changes in how we are going to conduct the daily lives of Members of this body. Essentially, today, meals are exempt from any kind of a gift ban or limitation. We all have meals and lunches with our constituents and with people who do business here in Washington. Essentially, those events are exempt from any ban today. This legislation, for the first time, says meals are going to be included. If that meal costs $21, Members will find themselves before the Ethics Committee, answering a charge that they have violated this rule. I say to my colleagues that is not sound policy. The Ethics Committee has a lot of work to do. They should not be going over lunch tabs and dinner tickets, to make sure that the tab, the tax, and the tip, does not somehow add up to $21. That is what the McCain-Wellstone bill provides for. I suggest that we, I think, are smarter than that. Our constituents are smarter than that. Every year in my State of Louisiana, the Shreveport Chamber of Commerce comes up. They have a luncheon. They invite Senator Johnston. They have a dinner. They invite myself. Next year, they will reverse the order. That meal is probably going to cost more than $20. They are having that meal for us to talk about things of interest to that city and my State. Every year the Louisiana Municipal Association comes up and takes us out to dinner. That meal is going to cost more than $20. I suggest to the Members of this body, as it has been said so many times before, we are not going to be bought for $21. We have to be reasonable. We have to be practical. If we vote like our constituents want us to vote, a $21 meal is not going to make the difference. Our legislation simply says $50 for a gift limitation. You cannot take it when it adds up to over $100 in a year. Therefore, a meal that is $50--a lunch, a dinner, anything under that--is not prohibited. If you add $51, that is prohibited. The maximum would be $100 in a year. Some say Members go to dinner every night for 365 days and they could give you $18,000 a year. If anybody goes to dinner with the same person every night for 365 some days, I suggest they are idiots and should not be in the Senate in the first place. Under their legislation, Members could go every night for $20 and spend $7,350. Is that all right? Are we playing games with our self- respect, our ability to know what is right and what is wrong? And more importantly, to allow our constituents to know what is right and what is wrong. I yield to the Senator from Louisiana.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to a fellow Louisianian, Mr. Ralph O. Brennan, who will be honored August 4 by the Louisiana Restaurant Association for his distinguished career in the food service industry. A member of the world-famous Brennan restaurant family of New Orleans, Mr. Brennan has long exemplified a commitment to community service, participatory democracy and creating opportunities for all Americans. He has diligently served, and continues to serve, the $290 billion food service industry and its 9.4 million employees. A past president of the Louisiana Restaurant Association, he currently is chairman of the board and president of the National Restaurant Association, a major trade group here in Washington. He is also a trustee of the Association's educational foundation, and will be an industry delegate to the first White House Conference on Travel and Tourism in October 1995. In all of these capacities he urges independent restaurateurs from around the country to participate fully in the democratic process by getting to know their elected representatives at every level of government and then making it their responsibility to keep those officials informed. He facilitates their involvement through a toll- free hotline, numerous personal appearances and--perhaps most important--leading by example, through frequent visits to his Members of Congress and, on occasion, delivering testimony before congressional committees. With his sister, Cindy, Mr. Brennan owns and operates two award- winning restaurants in the New Orleans French Quarter, thereby helping to preserve the rich culinary heritage of that great city which his family has successfully endeavored to do for three generations. But, as an industry leader, he is determined to preserve far more than just a great family tradition. Mr. Brennan has dedicated his life to preserving the boundless opportunities that food service affords individuals the rest of society could ignore, like recent immigrants, those without education or professional skills, and those on public assistance. Entry-level restaurant positions--washing dishes, bussing tables, assisting with food preparation--are a proven first step up a viable career ladder for millions of Americans; in fact, 60 percent of today's restaurant owners and managers started out in what some unknowing and insensitive people might refer to as dead-end restaurant jobs. In the restaurant business, upward mobility is the rule rather than the exception. Mr. President, as this Congress continues its debate on welfare reform, I salute Mr. Brennan for working to ensure that the unmatched employment and training opportunities afforded by the food service industry will be something all Americans can be proud of in the future.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill to help solve a problem that has made it difficult for recreational boaters to obtain diesel fuel on our Nation's waterways. This bill would correct the significant unintended problems created by the federally mandated diesel fuel dyeing scheme contained in the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993. These problems are national in scope and affect every area of the country with significant boating activity. Under the 1993 changes, fuel that is subject to taxation is clear and fuel that is exempt from taxation is dyed. The problem for boaters arises because while most marinas have only one fuel tank, they provide fuel to both recreational and commercial boats. Commercial boat fuel is exempt from any tax and therefore commercial boat operators seek to purchase dyed fuel. Recreational fuel is taxable and recreational boaters want to purchase clear fuel. Diesel fuel retailers have been forced to choose either one, to incur the significant costs and regulatory burdens of having separate fuel storage tanks from which to pump untaxed--dyed--and taxed--undyed--diesel fuel or two, to pump only one type of diesel fuel. Many marina operators can only afford to maintain one storage tank. Most marina operators in my State of Louisiana find that their primary customer base is made up of commercial boaters and they are choosing to sell the dyed fuels. Thus, recreational boaters have no place to purchase the clear fuel. With diesel fuel unavailable for recreational boaters, there is a serious danger that some of these boaters may run out of fuel and become stranded before they are able to find a marina that sells clear fuel. As a further consequence, many marina operators are finding that their diesel fuel sales have declined significantly because they are not allowed to sell dyed diesel fuel--the only fuel they have--to recreational boaters. Mr. President, this is a clear case of unintended consequences. The boaters are willing to pay the tax, they simply cannot find a place to buy the fuel and pay the tax. The bill I am introducing today addresses this problem in a practical manner by: Having the Treasury Department asses the effectiveness of various procedures for collecting excise taxes on diesel fuel sold for use, or used, in recreational boats and report to Congress within 18 months the results of the study, including any recommendations. Suspending collection of the tax for 2 years while the Treasury Department conducts this study. Reinstituting the current collection procedure at the end of the 2- year suspension period if Congress has not enacted legislation to create a new collection procedure. Mr. President, I believe that this legislation is necessary to increase the availability of diesel fuel to recreational boaters across the country. Passage of this legislation will ultimately lead to improved collection of the diesel fuel tax, prevent a potentially dangerous safety hazard to recreational boaters, and improve the economic viability of many marine fuel retailers. I urge my colleagues to join me in moving this bill forward as soon as possible.