Tom Daschle

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I wholeheartedly support the efforts of Senators Domenici, Inouye, and McCain to restore funding to the Bureau of Indian Affairs, but I am very concerned about the offsets for the amendment. Unfortunately, the managers of the bill, the distinguished chairman of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, Senator Gorton, and the ranking member of the subcommittee, Senator Byrd, have made clear their belief that passage of the amendment in its current form would result in cuts to the U.S. Geological Survey that could force the closure of the EROS Data Center in Sioux Falls, SD, a state-of-the-art facility that receives, processes, and distributes data from Landsat satellites. Today, the Center holds the world's largest collection of images of the Earth, including more than 3 million images acquired from Landsat, meteorological, and foreign satellites. While I strongly support the goal of the Domenici amendment--to restore BIA funding for key tribal programs--in light of the statements by the bill managers that the offsets in the amendment could eliminate EROS funding, I cannot support the amendment as currently drafted. The amendment represents the right thing to do, but the wrong way to do it. It is my hope we can go back to the drawing board and work out a compromise that restores this essential funding for Indian priorities without robbing EROS funding. I will be doing all I can to accomplish that goal. There should be no misunderstanding about the need for the restoration of BIA funding. The existing level of funding for the Bureau of Indian Affairs [BIA] and tribal programs is extremely inadequate. While the Bureau of Indian Affairs received a slight increase in the President's fiscal year 1996 budget request, the Republican-controlled Congress appears intent on drastic cuts. The House of Representatives cut the administration's request by $100 million, and the Senate Appropriations Committee reduced it by $500 million. At the same time, we are considering an Armed Services Committee-reported defense bill that proposes spending $7 billion more than the Pentagon has requested. This is yet another clear indication of misplaced priorities. The objective of the BIA is to encourage and help Indian people manage their own affairs under the Federal trust relationship. Historically, the BIA has never been funded at a level that meets the needs of Indian people. The reductions in the BIA tribal priority allocation account recommended by the Interior Appropriations Committee have the potential to further decrease and eliminate many important programs such as tribal courts, law and order, social services, roads, and housing needs that are so important to tribal self-sufficiency. Mr. President, I appreciate the efforts of Senators Domenici, Inouye, and McCain to address the problem associated with the offsets. Again, while I feel I cannot support the amendment as currently drafted, I hope that, before the fiscal year 1996 appropriations bill becomes law, we can restore funding for Indian programs without forcing the closure of EROS.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I would like to engage the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee, Senator Domenici and the distinguished vice-chairman of the Committee on Indian Affairs, Senator Inouye, in a colloquy on their amendments to H.R. 1977, the fiscal year 1996 Interior appropriations bill and the Earth Resources Observation System [EROS] Data Center.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, before discussing the EROS Data Center, I would like to take this opportunity to commend my colleague on the Budget Committee and my colleagues on the Indian Affairs Committee for offering their amendment to the Interior appropriations bill. I strongly support their efforts to restore $200 million to the Bureau of Indian Affairs tribal priority allocations account, nonrecurring programs, and other recurring programs. The existing level of funding for the Bureau of Indian Affairs [BIA] and tribal programs is extremely inadequate. The objective of the BIA is to encourage and assist Indian people to manage their own affairs under the trust relationship to the Federal Government. To carry out this objective, the BIA is responsible for assisting Indian tribes in the development and implementation of effective programs for their self-sufficiency and advancement. Historically, the BIA has never been funded at a level that meets the needs of Indian people. The reductions in the BIA tribal priority allocation account recommended by the Interior Appropriations Committee will have the potential to further decrease and eliminate many important programs such as tribal courts, law and order, social services, roads, and housing needs that are so important to tribal self-sufficiency.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, my support for the BIA restoration amendment is based on an understanding that the offsets will not be taken from the EROS Data Center, which is funded from the U.S. Geological Survey's [USGS] national mapping, geography, and surveys account. The EROS Data Center is a data management, systems development, and research field center of the National Mapping Division of the USGS. Located near Sioux Falls, SD, EROS is a state-of-the-art facility that receives, processes, and distributes data from Landsat satellites. Today, the center holds the world's largest collection of images of the Earth, including more than 3 million images acquired from Landsat, meteorological and foreign satellites. As my colleagues on the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior know, the EROS Data Center works closely with USGS, the Interior Department, and other Federal agencies including the Department of Defense and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration [NASA]. The center, for instance, manages the National Satellite Land Remote Sensing Data Archive and participates in NASA's Mission to Planet Earth Program. As a unique hub of high technology research, EROS is particularly important to South Dakota because it provides opportunities for scientists, educators, and students in our State and assures them a role in the rapidly changing area of supercomputing and on the information superhighway.

Mr. DASCHLE. I want to thank my colleague from the Budget Committee and my colleague from the Committee on Indian Affairs for this clarification and assurance. I commend them for offering this important amendment. transfer of hatcheries

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, we would be hard-pressed to find anyone in this Chamber to argue that art does not enrich American life. I think it would be equally difficult to find someone who has not been touched by art in some way at some important point in their lives. There is no dispute that art has played an invaluable role in the cultural life of our Nation. Increasingly, however, we are presented with what amounts to a ``yes or no'' proposition: is art important enough to fund at the Federal level? I firmly believe the answer to that question is ``yes.'' Americans want the Federal Government to play a role in promoting the arts. And they feel so strongly about this issue precisely because the small amount of Federal funding received by the NEA each year goes so far toward enhancing the cultural life of our Nation. The matching power of NEA grants is exceptional. Every dollar we appropriate at the Federal level generates more than $12 at the State and local level. This extraordinary leveraging power has helped increase the number of arts organizations and opportunities around the country since the NEA's inception since 1965: the number of large symphony orchestras has doubled; the number of dance companies has increased from 37 to over 400; the number of theaters has multiplied by 8; and the number of State arts agencies has increased from 5 to 50. I am not shy about admitting that a good deal of my support of the NEA derives from the benefits it provides my State. South Dakota is a rural State, and many communities could not maintain on their own the kinds of cultural opportunities they have been able to maintain with the help of the NEA and the South Dakota Arts Council, which also receives funding from the NEA. My hometown of Aberdeen, SD, a city of about 25,000 people, has an orchestra and a community theater, both of which are made possible in part because of NEA dollars. And my hometown is one of the biggest cities in South Dakota. The support provided by the NEA is even more important to the many smaller communities of my State: communities like Freeman, which has a Swiss choral society; Sisseton, which operates a Heritage Museum; and Faith, which has an arts and historical society--all of which operate with assistance from the NEA. This is a big return for a relatively small investment. Mr. President, I am aware of the budgetary constraints under which we operate this year. Each year our fiscal decisions get more difficult as the demands of a runaway deficit grow ever larger. In such an environment, we must look critically at every program, and the arts are no exception. But let us be fair, and let us be reasonable. When I am told that it costs each American only 64 cents per year to support the NEA, I have to admit that sounds like a good return on our investment. I do not believe the NEA deserves the level of funding cut it is facing. I do not believe Americans want this small investment--whose corresponding benefits are so great--taken away from them. Unfortunately, the NEA has been an easy political target because of a few controversial grants it has approved. I fully appreciate the intensity of public opposition to Federal support for specific projects that many Americans consider offensive, and it is appropriate that the public and their representatives in Congress press this issue forcefully. Concern about the NEA's grant application process has been expressed, and NEA Chair Jane Alexander has addressed that concern frankly and forthrightly. Moreover, I fully expect that dialogue between the Congress and Ms. Alexander to continue. Nonetheless, the statistics have been overwhelmingly clear on this issue: the number of controversial grants made by the NEA is exceedingly small when compared to the total number of NEA-funded projects. I should also add that I think it is unrealistic to expect the NEA to be entirely free of controversy. It never will be, and we should not expect it to be. In her remarks to the Senate Labor Committee during her confirmation hearing, Jane Alexander said that-- * * * the very essence of art, after all, is to hold the mirror up to nature; the arts reflect the diversity and variety of human experience. We are, as Hamlet says, `the abstracts and brief chroniclers of the time,' and, as such, the artist often taps into the very issues of society that are most sensitive. And that is the way it should be. We should have constructive debate on how to improve the grant application process and the operation of the NEA. But the fact that there is occasional controversy should not be used as an excuse to abolish the agency or drastically reduce its funding. Mr. President, I realize we must make significant cuts in the budget this year. The arts, like every other area, will have to carry its share of the burden in this effort. It is my hope, however, that this debate will be fair, enlightened, and reasoned. Americans deserve the NEA's positive contributions to our culture. Amendment No. 2304, As Modified

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to clarify the intent of the Senate Appropriations Committee regarding the funding for Bureau of Indian Affairs bison restoration projects. As you may know, the Intertribal Bison Cooperative was formed 3 years ago with only nine tribes as members. ITBC's mission is to reestablish healthy bison populations on tribal lands in a manner that promotes economic development, cultural enhancement, ecological restoration, and spiritual revitalization. The role of ITBC, as established by its membership, is to act as a facilitator in coordinating education and training programs, develop marketing strategies, coordinate the transfer of surplus buffalo from national parks to tribal lands, and provide technical assistance to its membership in developing management plans that will help each tribal herd become a successful and self-sufficient operation. Today, the cooperative works with 36 member tribes spread across 15 States. The united efforts of cooperative member tribes to restore the Nation's bison population have created much-needed economic development for the member tribes through the sale of buffalo meat and other byproducts. Last year, the Bureau of Indian Affairs put the cooperative's bison herd management program in jeopardy by distributing its limited fiscal year 1995 funds among any or all of the federally recognized Indian tribes. The effect of this action has the potential to undermine the cooperative spirit that ITBC has worked many years to achieve and that has fostered its success. I believe that the BIA's interpretation of congressional intent was clearly in error. It has been consistently my belief that the ITBC, which has proven its success in achieving self-sufficiency, warrants investment by Congress. Of course, tribes wishing to qualify for Federal bison restoration funding are free to become members of the cooperative. I would like to take this opportunity to inquire of my colleagues whether it is the intent of the Appropriations Committee to distribute fiscal year 1996 bison project funds specifically to the Intertribal Bison Cooperative and its member tribes.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I would ask the chairman of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, Senator Gorton, if he concurs that my understanding that the fiscal year 1996 bison restoration project funds are to be solely designated for the Intertribal Bison Cooperative and its member tribes is correct?

Mr. DASCHLE. I want to thank my colleagues from the committee for this clarification.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Will the Senator from Missouri yield for a short unanimous-consent request?

Mr. DASCHLE. If I could just ask the majority leader for a clarification on the opportunity both leaders will have to modify our legislation prior to the end of the week. I think there is an understanding we will be able to do that.

Mr. DASCHLE. The Senator from Missouri has mentioned the need for 10 minutes, and I think that was the understanding. I think under the unanimous-consent agreement, it was just 8 minutes. I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Missouri and the Senator from Washington have 10 minutes.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I have had a number of opportunities to discuss this legislation. I did again last night. I probably will throughout the remainder of the week. In the interest of time and certainly appreciation of the long wait that the distinguished Senator from Missouri has had already, I will make no further statements regarding the amendment and save that for a later date.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I do concur. I also want to commend the majority leader for making the decision he has. I think there are three reasons why this makes sense. First, as the distinguished majority leader said, negotiations are continuing. I hope to lay the Work First amendment down prior to the time we go to the Interior bill for the opportunity it presents all Members to compare and to pick apart and critically review both the bill offered by the Republican leadership and the bill offered by the Democratic leadership. So the next 3 days could be very helpful in bringing to refinement what we hope are legislative proposals that will unite not only our caucuses but, hopefully, the Senate, ultimately. Second, I think it is also helpful, as the distinguished majority leader said, to involve the Governors in a way that they have not yet had the opportunity to be involved. I think the next 3 weeks could be the most meaningful in terms of asking people outside of Washington what they think. They are the ones ultimately, when this legislation passes, who are going to be confronted with the responsibility for not only implementing but administering what it is we are doing here. So, having their input, having their review, having their ideas will even better prepare us to come back and conclude the work on this very important piece of legislation in September. Third, as the distinguished leader said, we have a lot of work to do on appropriations. I recognize the very difficult decisions that have to be made on a number of these bills. I may, personally, vote against a couple of these bills, but that ought not preclude us from considering them in a timeframe that will allow us to accommodate this schedule in a way that will meet the schedule laid out by the majority leader. I hope as many problems and as many difficulties as we may have with this legislation--that is, these appropriations bills --that we agree to short time limits, that we do the best we can to resolve what differences there are, be as willing to confront these bills with time limits to amendments and ultimately, perhaps, even a time agreement in consideration of the legislation itself. I believe we can accommodate not only the welfare reform schedule in that manner but also the rigorous schedule we will have with regard to appropriations bills when we return in September. So, for those three reasons I think this makes a good deal of sense, and I hope we could get unanimity here in the Senate with regard to this schedule and the appropriateness with which we will take up each of these bills and, hopefully, welfare reform when we come back.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, with that understanding, I would like to lay down the Democratic substitute at this time and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I would also ask unanimous consent that Timothy Prinz, a congressional fellow in my office, be granted privileges of the floor during the debate on welfare reform and the appropriations bills to which it would refer.

Mr. DASCHLE. That is right.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, every 5 years, Congress has the opportunity to review the Government's role in sustaining domestic agriculture production and determine the effectiveness of those programs. That effort is underway as we begin, again this year, the legislation that modifies and extends USDA programs. The multiyear farm bill allows us to step back and shine the light on current conditions on each and every one of the programs affected by this legislation. As the Senate Agriculture Committee took its first look under the hood earlier last month, it is already clear that some of the programs need a tune-up, some need a complete overhaul, and still others may need to be hauled away. No piece of legislation Congress takes up this year will affect the lives of South Dakotans and rural Americans more than the 1995 farm bill. Commodity support programs, trade, conservation, research, domestic food assistance, rural credit, and the rural development programs will all be under very close scrutiny. In my years in Congress, I have had the honor of representing the interests and concerns of South Dakota farmers and ranchers in a number of these farm bill debates. In close consultation with the agricultural community, I have worked to improve farm income and bolster the rural economy by offering amendments that were eventually incorporated in the final legislation. Nonetheless, as each of these bills have come up for final votes, I have had to ask myself whether they truly represented our best effort to respond to legitimate needs of the agricultural sector. I sincerely hope this year, as we begin to weigh pros and cons of the legislation, that we recognize that the stakes could not be higher. As we debate the 1995 farm bill in the coming months, I hope the Democrats and Republicans alike can move beyond the partisanship that so often dominates Congress and work together to draft a farm bill that truly reflects the genuine appreciation for an agricultural community that is too often taken for granted. On many issues, I am optimistic that broad consensus is possible and, indeed, likely. As in years past, however, there are those in Congress who will push for drastic and disproportionate cuts in agricultural spending, claiming that in these times of tight budget constraints, we can no longer afford to support American agriculture, including family farmers. I say we cannot afford to. American agriculture is making an extraordinarily important contribution to the national economy. In a time when our manufacturing base continues to decline, agriculture contributes more to our exports and produces one of the largest positive balances of trade of any sector within our economy. Let me remind my colleagues of the extent to which the agriculture sector has already contributed significantly to deficit reduction in the last several years. Since 1986, agriculture spending has been cut by 60 percent, from $26 to $9 billion today. If other Federal programs had been slashed as severely as agriculture over the last 10 years, the U.S. Government would now have a budget surplus. Such past contributions will not and should not preclude the Federal agricultural programs from being thoroughly reviewed once again. The farmers I talked to realize and accept this proposition. They are as concerned about the Federal deficit as anyone. Amidst ever-increasing production costs and stagnant commodity prices, they know how difficult it is to balance a budget, but they do it in their daily lives and expect us to do it as well. Farmers and ranchers are willing to lend their hand to the effort. They simply ask that once a hand is extended, it receives a fair shake. Our task is to ensure fairness and responsibility in drafting a new farm bill. Farm programs are like many other Government programs: They can be refined; they can be streamlined. Their costs can be reduced and their effectiveness can be increased. All agricultural policy initiatives must be crafted with the intelligence and with the simultaneous appreciation for the role that family farmers play in the daily lives of all Americans and the budgetary constraints in which we now find ourselves. We must not, however, let those woefully ignorant of farming realities run roughshod over sound agricultural policy under the guise of fiscal responsibility. Farmers across the country know the difference between political expedience and fiscal responsibility, even if we in Congress confuse the two. Fashioning a farm bill that will reduce the cost and still provide the necessary services and support for agriculture is one of the top priorities in [[Page S 11806]] this session of Congress. I have four primary goals as we look at the upcoming farm bill. First, we need to increase the market income of family farmers. Farmers are the backbone of rural America and an essential part of the foundation of our entire economy. The new farm bill should be structured to maximize net farm income and reduce reliance on Government payments. Farmers tell me time and time again that they want to receive more income from the market and less from the Government. The income support programs in the farm bill must give farmers the flexibility to respond to market conditions while still providing an economic safety net. I am firmly convinced the market can and should more fairly compensate farmers for the long hours and large amounts of capital they invest in producing our food. Second, we need to promote the production of innovative value-added agricultural products that will expand the markets for American agriculture and enhance the incomes of all of our producers. USDA research dollars should be targeted toward the expansion of these market opportunities. The American farmer is the most productive in the world, but production in and of itself does not pay the bills. We need to facilitate the creation of new markets in which agricultural products can actually be sold. This will stimulate our small communities by bringing new industries to rural areas and improving the economic stability of all family farmers. Third, we need to drastically simplify Federal programs. I have had the opportunity to work in a South Dakota county ASCS office and see the excessive paperwork and redtape. Any of us would get hopelessly lost in the maze of base acres, deficiency payments, marketing loans, payment acres, program crops, nonprogram crops, and target prices that producers must navigate each and every day. These programs cry out for reform and simplification. Most farmers will tell you that if we could do any one of them a favor, this would be it. Let us allow farmers to get back to doing what they do best: Growing safe and abundant food. Finally, we need to find innovative ways to assist young and beginning farmers. The future of rural communities is really in their hands. Far too many young South Dakotans are forced to leave our State every year in search of opportunities in urban areas. Loans, assistance programs and, most of all, a good price are needed to encourage young people to begin farming. We are almost unanimous in support of this goal, but the challenge here is perhaps greater than anyplace else, given the severe budget restrictions we face over the next few years. I hope we can find the creativity necessary to meet this particular challenge. In the context of the extensive cuts the current budget resolution will inflict upon rural America, our actions on the farm bill are magnified in importance. We simply cannot let the farm bill deteriorate into a political squabble between parties or, for that matter, regions. If that happens, everybody will be busy scoring political points, and the only real loser will be agriculture. It is time we stopped taking our safe and abundant food supply, and the farmers and ranchers who produce it, for granted. We must use this opportunity to craft a farm bill that reflects the need to preserve rural America and the farms that produce the world's safest and most abundant food supply. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. I wish the Presiding Officer a good morning. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, few debates have had greater importance than the one we have begun this week. A number of us have been working now for many months in preparation for this debate. I want to thank Members on both sides of the aisle for the work that has been done thus far, and let me in particular commend the ranking member of the Finance Committee, Senator Moynihan, for his leadership and the continued effort he has made to bring us to this point. I also feel the need to, again, reiterate my gratitude to Senators Breaux and Mikulski for the leadership they have given our caucus on the issue of welfare reform; Senators Dodd and Kennedy for all of the help they have given us with regard to the need to consider children as we deal with this issue; and Senators Moseley-Braun and Conrad on the Finance Committee for their efforts. Let me also cite the tremendous cooperation and support that we have been given from the administration, Democratic Governors, and local officials. For many months now, all of them, and many more within our caucus, have come forth to give us their best ideas and to produce what we hope will be one of the best work products that we have had since this Congress has begun. Mr. President, the result of that effort has been a remarkable degree of unity within our caucus about the need for welfare reform and about the way we bring it about. We support a new concept which we call Work First, a concept which incorporates many very critical principles that we as Democrats feel strongly about, that we as Democrats can unite on and reach out to our Republican colleagues and hope that, working together, we can achieve meaningful welfare reform on a bipartisan basis this year. First and foremost, as we consider those principles, Mr. President, our belief is that the emphasis needs to be put on work; that we end welfare as we know it; that we abolish the old infrastructure; that we create the incentives and the opportunities that must be created if, indeed, we are going to put work first. So we begin by requiring that all able-bodied people go to work, get jobs, obtain the skills, do what is necessary to ensure that they break their dependency on welfare. We recognize that in order to do that, we have to provide tools that do not exist today. So as we abolish the AFDC Program and the old JOBS Program, we recognize that new tools must be put in place if indeed we are going to give people opportunities and the real hope that they can break that cycle of dependency, that they can go out with confidence and get the jobs that they need to get. We also recognize that even though it may not be a part of welfare reform, it is very difficult to tell anybody today that they are to go out and get a minimum-wage job, work 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year, and still be below the national poverty level. That is unacceptable. If we are going to make work pay, we have to provide not only the economic incentives, but the opportunities and the confidence necessary so that indeed we can break the cycle of poverty, as well as the cycle of dependency. Breaking the cycle of poverty, hopefully this year, will mean an increase in the minimum wage, to ensure that men and women can work 40 hours or more a week and not be condemned to poverty in spite of their best efforts. The second principle, Mr. President, is a recognition that there are impediments to ending welfare as we know it and to getting those jobs that exist today. We must address those impediments if indeed we are going to get the job done. Our belief is that the two most critical impediments are the fear of losing their health insurance and the lack of adequate child care. First, they fear that once they get a job, especially if it is a minimum-wage job, they will lose their health insurance, they will have no protection for themselves or their children, because Medicaid will no longer be provided. They also know that they have a Hobson's choice of getting a job or staying on welfare and taking care of their children. They do not want to be in a position of saying, I want to get that job, I want to go out into the private sector and obtain a good, meaningful, good-paying job--but I do not want to leave my children at home unattended. What am I going to do with my kids? How many families would be willing to leave their young children at home while they went out to get a minimum-wage job, which is, in part, what we are asking people to do today. That, too, is unacceptable. We cannot ask a young parent to do that. We have to find a way to ensure that their legitimate concerns are addressed in terms of health care, as well as in terms of child care. So what we do in our Work First plan is extend Medicaid for another year to give people the opportunity to create the financial means to buy their health insurance. We do the same thing with child care. We tell them, look, we are going to care for your children, we are going to find a way, working with the States, to create the infrastructure necessary to see that your children are cared for. We are not going to effectively force you to leave them at home. We are not going to make you leave them unattended. We recognize how many problems are created at home when there is no adult supervision. That is the second principle--recognizing the impediments to work today and dealing with them. The third principle is to ensure the safety net for children continues. Children should not be required to pay for the problems created by their parents. If we are going to break the cycle of dependency, it ought to be the goal of every Senator to strengthen the child, to give them the care, the direction, the nutrition, the protection that they need so that they never find themselves on welfare in the first place. Creating that mechanism of ensuring that children are protected has to be a fundamental principle of welfare reform, regardless of what else we do with their parents looking for work. A fourth principle is to recognize today that we actually penalize husbands for staying at home and staying [[Page S 11801]] married. We actually penalize them for living at home and playing the role of father. Today, if a welfare recipient is married, that person is ineligible for the full benefits created through the welfare system. That is wrong. So we eliminate the penalty for married welfare recipients. We say we want to encourage families to stay together. We want the mother and father in that house together. We want to do everything we can to preserve the family unit. We require tough child enforcement mechanisms and expand job placement and training for absent fathers. We have had the opportunity to consult with scores of people from around the country, and the word we get time and time again from virtually every expert is that if indeed you really want to stop welfare dependency, if you want to break out of the problems we have today, you have to find ways to keep the family together. We want to do that. We do that by eliminating the penalty for married welfare recipients, strengthening child support enforcement, encouraging absent fathers to stay home and to get the job skills they need, without penalizing them. Fifth, Mr. President, we recognize, as so many people have alluded to today, that if we are going to do this, we recognize the big differences between and among States. Ohio and South Dakota are dramatically different in many respects. South Dakota's largest city is about 125,000 people. We have only 10 communities with more than a thousand people, and 300 communities with fewer than a hundred people. We recognize that welfare in South Dakota is vastly different from welfare in other parts of the country. So we must give States the flexibility and the opportunities to create new mechanisms that adapt to the problems, needs, and concerns of people within each State. We recognize that the current system is too constrained, is too prescriptive, is too dictatorial in coming up with ways to allow States the opportunity and the freedom and flexibility to do what they know, in many cases, has to be done to combat the problems in the welfare system. Next, we want to combat teen pregnancy. Here, too, there is no secret, magical, one-size-fits-all solution. We realize, as Senator Moynihan and others have spoken about many times, we have no way of knowing for sure what we can do to break the cycle of illegitimacy, to ensure that teen parents will not continue in the practices and the direction they often take at an early age. We want to stop children from having children. We want to create whatever mechanisms are necessary to ensure that children are children first and parents second. To do that, we require that teen mothers, if unfortunately they become pregnant, stay in school and stay at home; and that, in those cases where home is not the appropriate place, they be given second- chance home opportunities, living in an environment that is loving, caring, protective, and reassuring. Second-chance homes can do that. We believe very strongly that whether it is at home or whether it is in a new home, teen mothers cannot be put by themselves, cannot be forced to take all of the responsibilities that comes with rearing a child, with little or no resources, and expected to rear that child properly. That does not work. So once a child has a child, and that child has a child, and that cycle goes on and on, it is no wonder we have the incredible delinquency problems and the problems with childhood abuse and the many serious problems that come with it. Finally, we recognize that there are many loopholes in the Food Stamp and SSI Programs that we believe have to be addressed. We clamp down on waste and abuse and recognize there are ways not only to save money but to administer these programs much more effectively. So we believe that, through all of these principles, we can enact a substantial degree of reform and bring about a change in welfare to the degree that it has never been brought about before. We are optimistic that in working with these principles, we can do a great deal to change the direction of welfare as we know it in this country. I believe that, in many cases, the Work First plan stands in contrast to the bill offered by many of our Republican colleagues. The latest version of the Republican bill is a significant improvement over the Finance Committee draft that passed a couple of months ago. But I would cite among the many differences between Work First and the current Republican plan four fundamental differences that I think have to be addressed. The first has to do with work. We both recognize that work has to be a priority. We both recognize that we have to put new emphasis and a new direction to the opportunities there are for work. The big difference, of course, comes in resources. Both of us have a requirement that, by the year 2000, 50 percent of those people on welfare will be required to work. Fifty percent. I am told today that about 10 percent of those people on welfare ultimately get jobs. So we are asking for a 5-fold increase in our success rate in the next 5 years. A 5-fold increase, from 10 percent to 50 percent. I am not talking about ``participation.'' I am talking about actual work. Today we judge our success largely by participation. That is, if you come into the office and you demonstrate you are looking for a job, you can qualify for all the welfare benefits that may be provided. We say participation is not good enough anymore. Now what we want to do is say you really have to have a job before we consider this case closed. You have to be out there working prior to the time we are willing to call this particular case a success. The problem is that, to obtain that 5-fold increase in the next 5 years, I believe we will need resources to do it. It is not just going to happen. We are talking about providing skills. We are talking about education. We are talking about a new infrastructure which will make welfare offices employment offices. If we are going to do that, the States and the Federal Government must work in partnership to ensure that we can accomplish all that we know we can accomplish in a very short period of time. A five-fold increase in real jobs is a major responsibility. The difference between the Democratic bill and the Republican bill is that over the next 5 years, the Republican bill will cut $70 billion in the assistance to be provided to the States to do just that. What we are telling the States through the Republican bill is that we want you to get the job done, but we will cut $70 billion in resources before you are given the chance to do it. Mr. President, I do not see how that is possible. If, over the course of this debate, we can figure out how we can ask the States to accomplish five times what they are doing today with $70 billion less in resources, that explanation, I think, is one the Governors will want to hear for themselves. The second major difference between the Republican plan as it has been presented and the democratic Work First plan is our emphasis on children. There are about 14 million welfare recipients today. Mr. President, 9 million of the 14 million are children. We believe if those children are going to be cared for, if those children are going to get out of this incredible dependence they find themselves in as a result of being born into welfare families, then indeed we have to ensure that they are nourished, they are given the education, they are given the loving care they need and deserve. If they are given all those things we had when we were growing up--we had the encouragement, we had the nutrition, we had the education, we had the loving care-- then maybe they will have a fighting chance. The reality is that these children are too often born into situations where none of that exists. Mr. President, I think it is very critical if we want to ensure that those children have a chance, then it seems critical to me that we create and ensure that the safety net continues for those children, so they never have to face what their parents are facing. Second, as I said a moment ago, it is so important that if we are honest and serious about telling mothers they have to get a job-- telling young mothers and fathers, for that matter--it is not going to be enough to be dependent upon welfare in perpetuity, if that is going to happen, we have to realize that 60 percent of all AFDC families have at least one child under the age of 6. Mr. President, 60 percent of all AFDC families today have one child at least under the age of 6. In a recent study, these families said that the biggest reason they cannot go out and get a job is because there is no one there to take care of that child. We do not want a bill that says we are going to have to leave them at home if indeed you want benefits at all. This ought not be what we call the home-alone bill. We do not want to see children left without protection and care. The big difference here is how do we handle child care? In addition to the safety net, not punishing children, how do we ensure that those children are taken care of when the parents leave in the morning to go to work? No one can tell me that we will ever solve this problem if we do not resolve that one. Child care and welfare reform are inextricably linked. We cannot have one without the other. People need to understand that. It is too much to ignore. We must have some realization of the [[Page S 11802]] essential connection between child care and welfare reform. The third big difference, Mr. President, has to do with funding. I mentioned earlier that there is a $70 billion reduction in the availability of funds. The Republican bill freezes funding at 1994 levels for the next 7 years. We are told that is a $70 billion reduction. That is just the beginning. It is not just the amount of money but how that money is provided. There is no needs determination in the Republican bill. That is, there is no system by which the more severe the situation, the greater the resources. It is all done on a formula. That formula is really based on a first-come-first-served theory. A block grant is sent out based upon this formula. Whether or not it is enough, the money is there so long as it is available. If there are more people than there are funds, it will be up to the States to decide who gets it. There is no match requirement. States are not required in any way, shape or form to come up with a reciprocal amount of money-- some supplemental amount, some pool of resources--that would enable them to benefit from the resources provided at the Federal level. No needs determination, no match whatever. A formula that is determined in Washington, not based on severity, not based on the number of people on welfare, not based on the degree to which there are imaginative approaches being employed. Mr. President, there is a very significant difference in the approach used by the Republican plan and the approach incorporated in the Work First plan. Our view is that need ought to determine availability; that in some cases there is a greater need, regardless of population, for a lot of different reasons. We ought to take that into account prior to the time we arbitrarily make some formula decision that may or may not help some States. Finally, there is also a big difference with regard to the availability of assistance for teenage pregnancy. The Republican bill makes assistance to be provided for curtailing teenage pregnancy simply an option to the States. They can do it or not. Regardless of their choice, there is no funding available to the States to do whatever it is they may do. Whatever they do, they are on their own. One can guess what choice most States will make under such circumstances. There is encouragement to use second-chance homes. There is encouragement to require that teenagers be required to stay in school or at home, but there is no funding. No availability of additional resources to see that might be something we should look at. Mr. President, at least on those four principles, we have some fundamental philosophical differences that I think have to be addressed if, indeed, we are going to succeed in breaching the differences in arriving at a bipartisan bill some time this Congress. Let me make two final points with regard to welfare reform. First of all, as we can see from the debate already today, and for that matter last Saturday, this ought to be a lively debate, a spirited debate, a debate in which very good points are raised--likely on both sides. I sincerely hope that Members of the Republican caucus will look at the Work First bill. I have every expectation they will consider even voting for it, at some point, given the significant new concepts incorporated in it. I hope we can have a good debate but I hope we do not arbitrarily decide this thing can be resolved--this whole debate can be resolved-- in a matter of a couple of days. I do not think it can be. This is one of the most consequential debates we will be taking up this year. It has broad ramifications. And if we do it right we may not have to visit this issue again for a long time to come, at least as it relates to our infrastructure. So I do not think we ought to be rushed into final passage. I do not think our success ought to be judged by how few days we actually take to resolve these differences and debate these points and come up with the best piece of legislation. So I sincerely hope we can have a good debate and not arbitrarily come to any conclusion as to how long a good debate may take. Finally, let me say I hope it can be a bipartisan effort. I do not see it as necessarily a Democratic or a Republican issue, but it is going to be hard to be bipartisan if Republicans engage, once again as they did earlier this year, in negative political attacks when the debate has barely begun. It is wrong and deeply disappointing that Republicans would attack five Democratic Senators who have participated in the debate, who have made significant contributions to this effort, who may differ in some cases with Republicans on how we resolve these outstanding issues--but in good faith participate in the debate--and then be attacked politically simply because they may disagree. I would add that they have been attacked erroneously. Some of the attacks now being leveled against five of my colleagues in the Democratic caucus are wrong. They are outright fabrications. I hope the media take the time to look into the claims and then check the facts, because if they do they will find that not only are these attacks wrong and shortsighted, but they simply do not represent the facts or the voting records of those who have been the subject of these unfortunate attacks in the last couple of days. We can do this either way. I recall vividly some of the criticism Republicans had last year, for the partisan nature of some of the debate on health care. I recall how unfair they thought it was when some of the debate was politicized. On the other side, there was great concern about the Harry and Louise ads. We heard a lot about targeted ads in States and districts around the country. Both sides raised a lot of questions about whether or not that was the right way to debate an issue as important as health care was. It was wrong then and it is wrong now. It is wrong now to politicize this debate at the very beginning of what I hope will be an opportunity for us to deal with this issue in a productive, meaningful way, coming to some resolution sometime this session of Congress to one of the most important and challenging issues of our day--welfare reform. I believe we can do it. I believe we can work together and, in spite of some of our deep differences philosophically, overcome those differences and come up with a plan that works a lot better than the one we have today. That is not going to happen if we contaminate the debate with sharp political attacks against Members on either side. So I hope cooler heads will prevail, and I hope those responsible for those ads will have second thoughts and the good common sense to pull them before it is too late. Mr. President, noting no other interest in debate, I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. I will be very brief, Mr. President. I can only respond by saying that the Senator from Nebraska has spoken again very eloquently and obviously with the experience that only a Governor can bring to a debate like this. The Senator from Nebraska has been Governor for a long period of time in a State that is not much different from South Dakota, my State. He recognizes the intricacies of making a program like this work and he recognizes as well the differences between a Nebraska and a Florida or a California. I am delighted he brought up another issue that is also very important as we connect the relationship between success and expectation. We will only achieve success if we can truly make work pay. If we can make work pay, part of making it pay is to recognize that minimum wage today, if a person will work 40 hours a week, is still below the level of poverty. That is not making work pay. As the Senator from Nebraska has said so well, if we are going to make this thing work, then we also have to recognize that pieces not directly related to welfare but having a significant impact on it, will have to be addressed as well. So the Senator from Nebraska, as always, was able to hone in on those two or three principles that are key. I appreciate the contribution he has made to this effort. I look forward to working with him next week.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, let me also associate myself with the remarks of the majority leader with regard to Elizabeth McDonough. We will miss her. She has been a delight to work with. We wish her well as she goes on to school and hope that she comes back frequently. She has been a very, very important member of the floor staff, and we are delighted to have had the opportunity to work with her.