Daniel Moynihan

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, we find ourselves in the 20th day of an untenable situation. Large parts of the Federal Government are closed. Spending authority is suspended for 9 Cabinet departments and 38 agencies, commissions, and boards, which have responded by closing virtually all functions. Prior to 1982, the Federal Government had never closed. This is now the 12th closing in 14 years. Recall that the British arrived in Washington in 1814. They burnt the White House. They burnt the Capitol. We still did not close down the Federal Government. In the 1930's, in the midst of the worst depression we have ever had, we kept the Federal Government open. We now have an army in the Balkans. They deserve a better example. One critical service forced to close is the Passport Office of the Department of State. Last night, the Senate passed a continuing resolution attached to H.R. 1643 and the majority leader's back-to-work bill, S. 1508. Both of these measures would reopen our passport offices. But, apparently, the House may balk at approving these eminently reasonable and logical measures. Accordingly, I rise to introduce legislation to reopen the Passport Office. Last year 5.3 million Americans applied for passports. This year the agency expects a record 5.6 million applications. Today, the Washington Post reports that the Government closing has created a backlog of 200,000 passport applications. This is no way to begin a record-breaking year at the Passport Office. Speaking of the backlog of passport applications is perhaps too callous. All of these applications were submitted by citizens who expect that the Federal Government will provide them with a passport so they can travel to other countries to conduct business, study, visit family and friends, and vacation. Two hundred and fifty constituents have contacted my office seeking assistance; however, the passport office will only issue passports in cases considered life or death emergencies. One man was unable to attend his daughter's wedding in London because his passport had expired and could not be renewed. Another who is employed abroad fears losing his job if he cannot get his passport renewed. For years, we badgered the Soviet Union to grant more passports to its citizens. Now we are denying them to our own. Article 12 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, ratified by the U.S. Senate on April 2, 1992, recognizes that ``Everyone shall be free to leave any country, including his own.'' This is a binding international obligation of the United States, yet we have now taken action which violates that covenant. A 1- or 2-day delay might be considered a nuisance. For this to continue for 3 weeks leads to incalculable waste, as people are forced to cancel plans and seek refunds for reservations. This is not just. Closing passport offices and other large swaths of the Federal Government erodes the confidence of all Americans, disrupts the lives of those who rely on Government services, and discourages Federal workers. Clearly we have entered an Orwellian realm in which employees are paid not to work so that negotiations to save money can continue. The Founders of our Nation were astute students of government. They searched history to analyze the strengths and weaknesses of various political systems as they debated and later formed our own Government. They perceived how government power is derived from the consent of the governed. They perceived how government power is derived from the consent of the governed. In the Declaration of Independence they reveal their insights: We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, . . . Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient Causes; Governance is a covenant between the people and their leaders. Perhaps not since secession has that covenant been so trampled. The closing of the Government ought never have begun. Now we should end it without further delay. At a minimum, we should reopen our passport offices.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, we find ourselves in the 20th day of an untenable situation. Large parts of the Federal Government are closed. Spending authority is suspended for 9 Cabinet departments and 38 agencies, commissions, and boards, which have responded by closing virtually all functions. Prior to 1982, the Federal Government had never closed. This is now the 12th closing in 14 years. Recall that the British arrived in Washington in 1814. They burnt the White House. They burnt the Capitol. We still did not close down the Federal Government. In the 1930's, in the midst of the worst depression we have ever had, we kept the Federal Government open. We now have an army in the Balkans. They deserve a better example. One critical service forced to close is the Passport Office of the Department of State. Last night, the Senate passed a continuing resolution attached to H.R. 1643 and the majority leader's back-to-work bill, S. 1508. Both of these measures would reopen our passport offices. But, apparently, the House may balk at approving these eminently reasonable and logical measures. Accordingly, I rise to introduce legislation to reopen the Passport Office. Last year 5.3 million Americans applied for passports. This year the agency expects a record 5.6 million applications. Today, the Washington Post reports that the Government closing has created a backlog of 200,000 passport applications. This is no way to begin a record-breaking year at the Passport Office. Speaking of the backlog of passport applications is perhaps too callous. All of these applications were submitted by citizens who expect that the Federal Government will provide them with a passport so they can travel to other countries to conduct business, study, visit family and friends, and vacation. Two hundred and fifty constituents have contacted my office seeking assistance; however, the passport office will only issue passports in cases considered life or death emergencies. One man was unable to attend his daughter's wedding in London because his passport had expired and could not be renewed. Another who is employed abroad fears losing his job if he cannot get his passport renewed. For years, we badgered the Soviet Union to grant more passports to its citizens. Now we are denying them to our own. Article 12 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, ratified by the U.S. Senate on April 2, 1992, recognizes that ``Everyone shall be free to leave any country, including his own.'' This is a binding international obligation of the United States, yet we have now taken action which violates that covenant. A 1- or 2-day delay might be considered a nuisance. For this to continue for 3 weeks leads to incalculable waste, as people are forced to cancel plans and seek refunds for reservations. This is not just. Closing passport offices and other large swaths of the Federal Government erodes the confidence of all Americans, disrupts the lives of those who rely on Government services, and discourages Federal workers. Clearly we have entered an Orwellian realm in which employees are paid not to work so that negotiations to save money can continue. The Founders of our Nation were astute students of government. They searched history to analyze the strengths and weaknesses of various political systems as they debated and later formed our own Government. They perceived how government power is derived from the consent of the governed. They perceived how government power is derived from the consent of the governed. In the Declaration of Independence they reveal their insights: We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, . . . Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient Causes; Governance is a covenant between the people and their leaders. Perhaps not since secession has that covenant been so trampled. The closing of the Government ought never have begun. Now we should end it without further delay. At a minimum, we should reopen our passport offices.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, the shutdown of the U.S. Government is becoming a crisis. A recent article in the New York Times carried this headline: ``Judge Says Budget Impasse Could Shut Nation's Courts.'' The article reported that: A senior judge who represents the policymaking board of the Federal judiciary today warned that the budget stalemate might force the nation's courts to shut down shortly after New Year's Day. Mr. President, this is unthinkable. It is time to settle, and a settlement ought to be within reach. Here are two simple steps that I propose be taken immediately to break the stalemate and balance the Federal budget in 7 years: First, drop the tax cut; and second, a 1-percentage point correction in the Consumer Price Index. Under the President's December 1995 budget as scored by CBO, these two steps get you to a balanced budget in the year 2002. It's as simple as that, It's doable and ought to be done, and it ought to be done now. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a table entitled ``Two Simple Steps to Balancing the Budget in Seven Years,'' and the article from the New York Times of December 23, be printed in the Record.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, the Senator from Kentucky and I join together to propose a modest measure in response to a continued pattern of egregious abuses of power by the Burmese military junta, the State Law and Order Restoration Council [SLORC]. The members of SLORC have worked to thwart democracy at every turn. They continue to be implicated in drug trafficking, and they continue to abuse the people of Burma in a manner that can only be characterized as inhuman. This bill makes clear our intention that such a regime will no longer enjoy investments from the United States. Investments which so often supported--knowingly or unknowingly--its totalitarian and abusive rule. The bill also codifies our intention to withhold our support for loans to Burma from international financial institutions, to prevent direct assistance to the SLORC, and to exclude the members of SLORC from the United States. In 1988 the Burmese people took to the streets of Rangoon, to demand democracy for their country. Sadly, government forces turned peaceful protests into violent tragedy. In September of that year, thousands of unarmed demonstrators were killed by government troops. Since then, the SLORC has earned its reputation as one of the worst violators of human rights in the world. The Department of State and numerous human rights organizations document this. The SLORC maintains power through violence and intimidation. In effect, the military junta has waged war against its own people. But the will of the Burmese people cannot be squelched. As they continue their fight for democracy, support from the international community remains steadfast. The SLORC came to power through violence, but it must have cynically imagined that a rigged election would be the answer to its untenable political situation, and one was scheduled for May 1990. The National League for Democracy [NLD] party, led by Aung San Suu Kyi, won that election while she was under house arrest. Yet the SLORC has never allowed the elected leaders of Burma to take office. Instead it has forced these leaders to flee their country to escape arrest and death. The U.S. Senate has spoken often in support of those brave Burmese democracy leaders. We have withheld aid and weapons to the military regime, and have provided some--albeit modest amounts--of assistance to the Burmese refugees who have fled the ruthless SLORC. Pro-democracy demonstrators were particularly vulnerable, yet having fled the country they found themselves denied political asylum by Western governments. In 1989, Senator Kennedy and I rose in support of the demonstrators and won passage of an amendment to the Immigration Act of 1990 requiring the Secretary of State and the Attorney General to define clearly the immigration policy of the United States toward Burmese pro-democracy demonstrators. Congress acted again on the Customs and Trade Act of 1990 to adopt a provision I introduced requiring the President to impose appropriate economic sanctions on Burma. The Bush administration utilized this provision to sanction Burmese textiles. Unfortunately, these powers have never been exercised by the current administration. The Senate continued to press for stronger actions. On March 12, 1992, the Foreign Relations Committee unanimously voted to adopt a report which Senator McConnell and I submitted detailing specific actions that should be taken before the nomination of a United States Ambassador to Burma would be considered by the Senate. Last year, the State Department authorization act for 1994-1995 contained a provision I introduced placing Burma on the list of international outlaw states such as Libya, North Korea, and Iraq. Let us be clear: The U.S. Congress considers the SLORC regime to be one of the very worst in the world. The Senate also unanimously adopted S. 234 on July 15, 1994, calling for the release of Aung San Suu Kyi and for increased international pressure on the SLORC to achieve the transfer of power to the winners of the 1990 Democratic election. After 6 years of unjust detention by the Burmese military, Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Aung San Suu Kyi was released on July 10, 1995. While this was cause for celebration and great relief for those of us who have long called for her release, one cannot fail to stress that there is also great outrage that she was incarcerated in the first instance. The struggle in Burma is not over. The SLORC continues to wage war against its own people. Illegal heroin continues to be produced with the junta's complicity. And the SLORC continues to thwart the transfer to democracy in Burma. The New York Times writes appropriately in an editorial: The end of Ms. Aung San Suu Kyi's detention must be followed by other steps toward democracy before Myanmar is deemed eligible for loans from multilateral institutions or closer ties with the United States. It is too soon to welcome Yangon back into the democratic community. Too soon indeed.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, the Senator from Kentucky and I join together to propose a modest measure in response to a continued pattern of egregious abuses of power by the Burmese military junta, the State Law and Order Restoration Council [SLORC]. The members of SLORC have worked to thwart democracy at every turn. They continue to be implicated in drug trafficking, and they continue to abuse the people of Burma in a manner that can only be characterized as inhuman. This bill makes clear our intention that such a regime will no longer enjoy investments from the United States. Investments which so often supported--knowingly or unknowingly--its totalitarian and abusive rule. The bill also codifies our intention to withhold our support for loans to Burma from international financial institutions, to prevent direct assistance to the SLORC, and to exclude the members of SLORC from the United States. In 1988 the Burmese people took to the streets of Rangoon, to demand democracy for their country. Sadly, government forces turned peaceful protests into violent tragedy. In September of that year, thousands of unarmed demonstrators were killed by government troops. Since then, the SLORC has earned its reputation as one of the worst violators of human rights in the world. The Department of State and numerous human rights organizations document this. The SLORC maintains power through violence and intimidation. In effect, the military junta has waged war against its own people. But the will of the Burmese people cannot be squelched. As they continue their fight for democracy, support from the international community remains steadfast. The SLORC came to power through violence, but it must have cynically imagined that a rigged election would be the answer to its untenable political situation, and one was scheduled for May 1990. The National League for Democracy [NLD] party, led by Aung San Suu Kyi, won that election while she was under house arrest. Yet the SLORC has never allowed the elected leaders of Burma to take office. Instead it has forced these leaders to flee their country to escape arrest and death. The U.S. Senate has spoken often in support of those brave Burmese democracy leaders. We have withheld aid and weapons to the military regime, and have provided some--albeit modest amounts--of assistance to the Burmese refugees who have fled the ruthless SLORC. Pro-democracy demonstrators were particularly vulnerable, yet having fled the country they found themselves denied political asylum by Western governments. In 1989, Senator Kennedy and I rose in support of the demonstrators and won passage of an amendment to the Immigration Act of 1990 requiring the Secretary of State and the Attorney General to define clearly the immigration policy of the United States toward Burmese pro-democracy demonstrators. Congress acted again on the Customs and Trade Act of 1990 to adopt a provision I introduced requiring the President to impose appropriate economic sanctions on Burma. The Bush administration utilized this provision to sanction Burmese textiles. Unfortunately, these powers have never been exercised by the current administration. The Senate continued to press for stronger actions. On March 12, 1992, the Foreign Relations Committee unanimously voted to adopt a report which Senator McConnell and I submitted detailing specific actions that should be taken before the nomination of a United States Ambassador to Burma would be considered by the Senate. Last year, the State Department authorization act for 1994-1995 contained a provision I introduced placing Burma on the list of international outlaw states such as Libya, North Korea, and Iraq. Let us be clear: The U.S. Congress considers the SLORC regime to be one of the very worst in the world. The Senate also unanimously adopted S. 234 on July 15, 1994, calling for the release of Aung San Suu Kyi and for increased international pressure on the SLORC to achieve the transfer of power to the winners of the 1990 Democratic election. After 6 years of unjust detention by the Burmese military, Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Aung San Suu Kyi was released on July 10, 1995. While this was cause for celebration and great relief for those of us who have long called for her release, one cannot fail to stress that there is also great outrage that she was incarcerated in the first instance. The struggle in Burma is not over. The SLORC continues to wage war against its own people. Illegal heroin continues to be produced with the junta's complicity. And the SLORC continues to thwart the transfer to democracy in Burma. The New York Times writes appropriately in an editorial: The end of Ms. Aung San Suu Kyi's detention must be followed by other steps toward democracy before Myanmar is deemed eligible for loans from multilateral institutions or closer ties with the United States. It is too soon to welcome Yangon back into the democratic community. Too soon indeed.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time, which does not exist, with a plea that this legislation not be approved. Mr. DOLE addressed the Chair.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I yield to my gallant friend from Massachusetts.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. I thank my friend from Massachusetts. It is truly hard to conceive that we might be for such business 3 days before Christmas. Mr. President, if the majority leader does not wish to speak at this moment, the Senator from Connecticut will do. I yield 1 minute to my able friend from Connecticut.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Connecticut may have 1 minute.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, to begin, I ask there be printed in the Record an editorial in this morning's Washington Post entitled ``Hard Hearts, Soft Heads.''

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, last evening, I had occasion to remark that persons most specifically critical of the welfare measure before the Senate have been conservative social scientists who understand the extent of the problem we face and the resources needed if we are going to achieve anything. I mentioned Prof. Lawrence Mead. It turns out he prepared a report for the Republican Caucus in the House saying ``Your bill is a disaster, can't you see that?'' and readers will do so. Several of those of us who voted against this measure in September are on the floor. My friend from Minnesota, may I yield him 1\1/2\ minutes.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished minority leader.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, as I stated on repeated occasions in last evening's debate, this is not welfare reform; this is welfare repeal. It is repeal of title IV(A) of the Social Security Act, something never done, never contemplated in this Congress in 60 years. I am happy to yield a minute and a half to my valiant comrade in this regard, the Senator from Illinois.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. The people of Illinois can be proud of you, sir.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I yield 1 minute to my colleague on the Finance Committee, and good friend, the Senator from Louisiana.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, may I simply respectfully suggest that the budget negotiations are much too narrowly based with five or six persons in one room for the kind of bipartisan effort on welfare which President Clinton called for when he said he would veto this bill. We achieved consensus through such effort when we passed the Family Support Act of 1988 by a vote of 96 to 1. I am happy to yield 1 minute to my good friend, the distinguished Senator from Washington.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, two records in 2 days. What do you say we give him a hand. [Applause, Senators rising.]

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, it is with great pride that I rise to congratulate Joseph H. Gale of Virginia, who has just been confirmed by the Senate to be a judge on the United States Tax Court for a term of 15 years. Mr. Gale, who is well known to Members of the Senate, has been a good friend and trusted counsel to the Senator from New York for 11 years now. He joined my personal staff in 1985 as Tax Counsel, just in time for the fundamental restructuring of the tax code in the Tax Reform Act of 1986, with which he was intimately involved. Since then he has been a major force in the development and passage of literally every piece of tax legislation considered by the Congress. In 1993, Mr. Gale became Chief Tax Counsel for the Senate Committee on Finance, and in that capacity took a leading role in the drafting, and ultimately in the enactment, of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993. In 1995, he became our Minority Staff Director. Three weeks ago, when Mr. Gale appeared before the Finance Committee for his confirmation hearing, Senators from both sides of the aisle praised him highly for his professionalism, his unmatched knowledge of tax law and the legislative process, and his dedication to public service. At least one Senator attended the hearing solely for the purpose of making a statement in support of Joe Gale's nomination, and Chairman Roth took the opportunity to declare that only our former Chairman Lloyd Bentsen got through the Committee more easily. Mr. President, I am pleased and gratified that the Senate has confirmed Mr. Gale to be a United States Tax Court Judge. He is superbly qualified for this position, and I know he will be an outstanding jurist. Finally, I thank Joe Gale for his 11 years of distinguished service to the Senate, and I wish him well in his new career as a member of the Federal judiciary.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

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

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I simply want to make the announcement, now that we have had a near unanimous vote on the Democratic side against this measure which would affect 39 percent of the children in our country, we would like to turn to the President's proposal. In his statement yesterday he said he will veto this bill. But, he said, ``I am determined to work with Congress to achieve real bipartisan welfare reform.'' I just this moment was speaking with my friend from New Mexico, who made very serious proposals in that regard. Let us do it. But, sir, it has to be done here in the Congress--in cooperation with the Executive. An hour from now, the 11 Democratic Senators who voted against this measure in September --Mr. Akaka, Mr. Bradley, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Kerrey of Nebraska, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Leahy, Ms. Moseley-Braun, Mr. Sarbanes, Mr. Simon, Mr. Wellstone, and I--will send a letter to the President encouraging the proposal for a bipartisan welfare reform, but saying it cannot be done in a 4-day or 3-day summit budget conference. This must not come back to us in a proposal put together in 3 days in a room with four people. This is a task for the Congress. We look forward to it. We welcome it. But we put the President respectfully on notice that we must be involved. Mr. President, I thank the majority leader for allowing me to use this time in morning business, and I yield the floor.

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, in our family, we have had the great privilege and joy since the years of the Kennedy administration to have a home, an old farmhouse on a dairy farm in up-State New York, Delaware County, where the Delaware River rises. Mormonism had some of its origins on the banks of the Susquehanna in our county. The population of Delaware County is largely Scots, the one main group that you can identify. This was sheep raising country in the 19th century. Presbyterian churches are everywhere. It is not so very prosperous, but more so now than when we moved there. In 1963, 3.5 percent of live births in Delaware County were out of wedlock; in 1973, 5.1; 1983, 16.6; 1993, 32.6. We are, in fact, above the national average in this rural traditional society. We talk so much about how the welfare system has failed. Mr. President, the welfare system reflects a much larger failure in American society, not pervasive, but widespread, which we had evidence of, paid too little attention to, but still do not truly understand. It will be the defining issue of this coming generation in American social policy and politics. There is nothing more dangerous to writer Daniel Boorstin, that most eminent historian, former Librarian of Congress, who said that it is not ignorance that is the great danger in society, it is ``the illusion of knowledge.'' The illusion exists where none exists. I have spent much of my lifetime on this subject and have only grown more perplexed. In the Department of Labor under Presidents Kennedy and Johnson, we began the policy planning staff and picked up the earthquake that shuttered through the American family. We picked up the first trembles. If you told me the damage would be as extensive as it is today, 30 years ago if I was told what would be the case, I would have said no, no, it would never get that way. It has. Now, we did make an effort. We did, indeed, do something very considerable, and in 1988, by a vote of 96-1, we passed out of this Chamber the Family Support Act, which President Reagan signed in a wonderful ceremony. Governor Clinton was there, Governor Castle for the Governors' Association, in a Rose Garden ceremony, October 13. He said: I am pleased to sign into law today a major reform of our Nation's welfare system, the Family Support Act. This bill represents the culmination of more than 2 years of effort and responds to the call in my 1986 State of the Union message for real welfare reform--reform that will lead to lasting emancipation from welfare dependency. The act says of parents: We expect of you what we expect of ourselves and our own loved ones: that you will do your share in taking responsibility for your life and the lives of the children you bring into the world. First, the legislation improves our system of securing support from absent parents. Secondly, it creates a new emphasis on the importance of work for individuals in the welfare system. All we are saying all this year has been what President Reagan said. We put that legislation into place. I offered on the floor a bill to bring it up to date, the Family Support Act of 1995. It got 41 votes, all, I am afraid, on this side, because both the present and previous administration, to be candid, have somehow not been willing to assert what has been going on under the existing statute. I stood on the floor when we were debating the welfare bill and Senator after Senator on our side talked about the extraordinary things going on in his or her State by way of welfare changes, and none acknowledging that they are going on under the existing law. On Wednesday, Senator James T. Fleming, a Republican, the majority leader of the Connecticut Senate, had an op-ed article, as we say, in the New York Times, called ``Welfare in the Real World.'' He talked about Connecticut's new welfare legislation, which is tough. ``It imposes the Nation's shortest time limit on benefits, 21 months, and reduces payments under the Aid to Families with Dependent Children program by an average of 7 percent.'' Then he goes on to complain that to do this, the State had to get a waiver from Washington, which it did, particularly objecting to the fact that the administration has also refused to permit a two-tier payment system which discourages welfare migration by paying newcomers a lower cash benefit. He says the administration desperately clings to the discredited theory that Washington knows best. Mr. President, I have spoken to our extraordinarily able, concerned, Secretary of Health and Human Services about this proposition. Why did you refuse the two-tier system? And she said, because it was unconstitutional, that is why. We have a Constitution which provides that an American citizen has equal rights with any other citizen of any State he or she happens to live in. That is what it means to be an American citizen--and that Connecticut cannot say you came from New York and therefore you get half of what somebody who was born here gets. We do not do that. That is all they did. In point of fact, under the Clinton administration, 50 welfare demonstration projects have been approved in 35 States; 22 States have time-limited assistance in their demonstrations. This kind of experimentation is going on around the country. Governors have finally come to terms with the reality here. A new generation of public welfare officials is learning that they are no longer dealing with the old system. Frances Perkins, who I had the privilege to know years ago, was Secretary of Labor when the Social Security Act was passed, which created the Aid to Families with Dependent Children program. It was simply a bridge program until old age assistance matured, as there was old age assistance. She described a typical recipient as a West Virginia coal mine widow. The widow was not going to go into the coal mines and was not going to get into the work force. A wholly new population has come on to the rolls. We know it is extraordinary. We have had intense efforts. Douglas Besharov describes them in an article in the current issue of Public Interest, which I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, first, may I express my appreciation for the thoughtfulness and sincerity with which the Senator from Delaware has addressed this troubled issue. It is not necessarily the mode of address in these times with regard to this subject. And if I do not agree with him, it is not for lack of respect for his views. He knows that. He mentioned the subject of a presidential veto, sir. And I must say that there will be such. The President this morning issued a statement saying that, ``If Congress sends me this conference report, I will veto it and insist that they try again.'' And I hope we will try again. He spoke to the idea that, as he says as he concludes, ``My administration remains ready at any moment to sit down in good faith with Democrats and Republicans in Congress to work out a real welfare reform plan.'' May I say in that regard, first of all, that it is disappointing considering the degree of bipartisan efforts we have made with respect to the Social Security Act. As the Senator from Delaware stated, this bill would repeal the individual entitlement under title IV-A of the Social Security Act, the Aid to Families with Dependent Children program. The conference report before us states: The committee on conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendments of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 4), to restore the American family, reduce illegitimacy, control welfare spending and reduce welfare dependence, having met, after full and free conference, have agreed to recommend-- Full and free conference? No, Mr. President. There was one meeting of the conferees on October 24, 2 months ago. We took the occasion to make opening statements, and the conference, as such, has never met since. We received a copy of this report late this afternoon. This is no way to address a matter of this consequence. Let me, if I may, state to you what consequence I refer to. It is possible to think of the problem of welfare dependency, an enormous problem, as somehow confined to parts of our society and geography, the inner-city, most quintessentially. It is certainly concentrated there but by no means confined there. The supplemental security income provision, established in 1974, is what is left of President Nixon's proposal for the Family Assistance Plan that would have created a guaranteed level of income. I remarked earlier, a quarter century ago I found myself working with our masterful majority leader in this purpose--the children were left out. But we established a guaranteed income for the aged, the blind and disabled and later expanded it greatly for children. But, basically, the provision to replace AFDC with a negative income tax was dropped. In the course of the 1960's we developed a new set of initiatives, in particular the Economic Opportunity Act of 1965. We had learned, as a matter of social inquiry, that there is just so much you can do with a one-time survey of the population to understand the condition of that population. You can extrapolate, you can use your mathematical skills as much as possible, sampling and surveying periodically. But we said, if you are going to learn more, you are going to have to follow events over time. Longitudinal studies, as against vertical. The distinguished Presiding Officer knows those words from his experience as an applied economist in the world of business. In 1968, we established the panel study of income dynamics at the University of Michigan at the Survey Research Center, and they have been following a panel of actual persons, with names and addresses, for almost 30 years. We now know something about how people's incomes go up and down, and such. A distinguished social scientist, Greg J. Duncan, at Northwestern University and Wei-Jun Jean Yeung of the University of Michigan have calculated the incidence of welfare dependency in our population for the cohort, by which we mean people born, between 1973 and 1975. These people will be just going into their twenties and out of age of eligibility. Mr. President, of the American children born from 1973 to 1975, now just turning 20, 24 percent had received AFDC benefits at some point before turning 18. That includes 19 percent of the white population and 66 percent of the black population. Do not ever forget the racial component in what we are dealing with. If you include AFDC, supplemental security income, and food stamps, you find that 39 percent of your children, 81 percent of African- Americans and 33 percent of whites--received benefits at some point in their youth. Problems of this magnitude deserve careful analysis and careful response. That is why persons whose voices have been most persuasive in this debate, those asking, ``What are you doing?'' have been conservative social analysts, social scientists. James Q. Wilson at the University of California, Los Angeles, for example; Lawrence Mead on leave at Princeton. His chair is at New York University. And George Will, a thoughtful conservative, who had a column when we began this discussion last September called ``Women and Children First?'' He said: As the welfare reform debate begins to boil, the place to begin is with an elemental fact: No child in America asked to be here. No child in America asked to be here. Each was summoned into existence by the acts of adults. And no child is going to be spiritually improved by being collateral damage in a bombardment of severities targeted at adults who may or may not deserve more severe treatment from the welfare system. We are talking about these children. I ask unanimous consent that this column be printed in the Record.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, just as a point of inquiry, we have 3 hours this evening, and I assume it will be equally divided? Is that agreeable to my friend, the distinguished chairman?

Mr. MOYNIHAN

Mr. MOYNIHAN. With great precision and with equal interest, Mr. President, it has been a quarter of a century since I first knew Bob Dole and worked with him. He would find it interesting that we began working in an effort with a Republican President to establish a guaranteed income as a way of getting us out of our welfare problems. We are still in them. We will be in them much of the evening. But in 25 years I have not known a man I have respected more. I have not worked with anyone with greater consequence. He is an ornament to this institution and to this Nation. We are proud of him. I thank the Senator from Nevada. Mr. REID addressed the Chair.