William Roth

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, how much time remains?

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I reiterate what my distinguished colleague from Pennsylvania has said. First of all, the States are still free to use title XX money for whatever purpose they see fit. So it is not accurate to say that funds are shut off so that children cannot be helped. I point out that even with the 5-year time limit to implement the important welfare reforms we are considering, families receiving Government assistance will still be eligible for more than 80 means- tested programs. That is quite a few. These programs range from food stamps, WIC, health care, to section 8 low-income housing. In other words, placing a 5-year time limit on implementing our welfare reform package is not Government pulling away a lifeline; rather, it is Government encouraging people to swim and giving them the time necessary to learn. Mr. President, I believe we must keep the 5-year time limit, and I encourage my colleagues to see that we do. I encourage them to join me in seeing that real and necessary reforms take place in a real and positive way. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I make a point of order against the Breaux amendment on the grounds that it is nongermane under sections 305 and 310 of the Budget Act.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. President, let me thank Senators Specter and Biden for their important contribution to the welfare debate before us. The tremendous effort it takes to find common ground is always welcomed and appreciated. There are many similarities between the Specter-Biden legislation and the welfare reform legislation reported by the Finance Committee. We are very close, for example, on issues such as ending the individual entitlement to benefits, work participation rates, supplemental grants for States with high population growth, the family cap, and the 20- percent hardship exemption. The Specter-Biden bill includes provisions from our welfare reform bill regarding funding for abstinence education, SSI reforms, and child support enforcement to mention a few more of the policy areas we share. But the substitute offered by Senators Specter and Biden also includes a number of provisions which I cannot support. Working with the Governors over these past months, I have learned a firm lesson that they are willing to accept the risks associated with a block grant. But in exchange, the states must have the requisite flexibility to redesign and manage the programs. I am concerned that the Specter-Biden provisions regarding Maintenance of Effort, transferability of funds mandatory individual responsibility plans, would break the fragile balance the Governors seek. The substitute also opens up the Federal checkbook for a $3 billion work program. Both bills provide for a $2 billion contingency fund. This is a $1 billion increase from last year. But the Specter-Biden substitute appropriates additional Federal funds subject to unemployment or Food Stamps triggers. This additional spending does not achieve the savings necessary. In other words, the Specter-Biden substitute breaks the budget. And for this reason alone was must oppose it. However, Mr. President, breaking the budget is not the only problem with this substitute. The Specter-Biden substitute severely weakens the goal of setting time limits. Vouchers are mandatory, subject to a reduction in the State grant for noncompliance. The Specter-Biden substitute also undermines the goal of curbing Federal benefits to noncitizens. Under this substitute, even illegal aliens could qualify for Medicaid, a liberalization of the program beyond current law. Under the Specter-Biden plan, middle- and low-income American families would be put in a position of subsidizing individuals who are openly breaking the law. This is not fair. Under Specter-Biden, the limitations on Medicaid benefits for other noncitizens under the finance bill would be lifted as well. While I respect the good intentions of the sponsors, I simply believe these provisions to too far. Mr. President, I must therefore oppose the Specter-Biden substitute. Let me also hasten to add that there is no need to look any further for a bill which has bipartisan support. The finance bill is identical in many of the most critical aspects to H.R. 4 which originally passed the Senate by a vote of 87 to 12 last September. The finance bill was crafted with the help of Democratic and Republican Governors alike. It includes a number of Democratic amendments which were offered in committee. Over the past several weeks, we have been told in a variety of ways that Medicaid was the stumbling block to welfare reform. We have removed that stumbling block. This is no time to erect new barriers to welfare reform. This is no time to turn back from authentic welfare reform. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I yield the remainder of my time. Mr. President, since the pending amendment, if adopted, would have the effect of reducing outlays by $10 billion less than the legislation before us, I make a point of order against the amendment under section 310(d)(2) of the Budget Act.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. ROTH. Does the fact that you are here asking that the President sign these waivers demonstrate the urgent need for welfare reform?

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I would ask permission to renew my request that the four amendments which I identified earlier be agreed to en bloc, they be considered and agreed to en bloc, that the motions to table the motions to reconsider be agreed to en bloc, and that they appear in the Record as if considered individually.

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

Mr. ROTH. And those waivers would not be necessary under our reform legislation?

Mr. ROTH. I thank the Senator for his answers.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I will not object, but I want to make some comments.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, every Senator here is concerned about the children of America, and we are particularly concerned about those children that are not having the kind of opportunity we all think they deserve. So I do not think the comments should be that we do not all seek the same benefits for the children in our country. Just let me point out that the legislation reported out by the Finance Committee already provides for research, evaluation, and national studies. In section 413(a), we specifically provide that the Secretary shall conduct research on the benefits, efforts, and costs of operating different State programs funded under this part, including time limits relating to eligibility. Not only do we provide for studies, but we provide $15 million for each of the fiscal years from 1998 through 2001, with the purpose of paying the cost of conducting such research, for the cost of developing and evaluating innovative approaches for reducing welfare dependency and increasing the well- being of minor children under section (b). So we already have in the legislation ample provisions for studies to be made to determine how effective our reform programs are. We all want that information. That is the reason it is contained in this bill. However, we do object to the expedited procedure, whereby the Secretary of Health makes recommendations and they are put on an accelerated track to be considered by the Congress. I know of no instance where this kind of procedure has been used. Yes, we have had accelerated procedures in certain limited circumstances, such as trade bills. But the recommendations come from the President of the United States. I, for one, think that it is appropriate for the recommendations of these studies to go through the regular process of Congress. My distinguished friend and colleague from Minnesota talks about the timeframe. Just let me point out that the present program has been in effect for about 30 years, and we have studies and recommendations from the CBO that show that if we do not do something about reform, that another 3 million children will be on welfare in the next 9 years. So do not talk to me about the timeframe. Let us all agree that we do want the studies, and we do want the independent analyses as to how these programs are working. But let us use the Congress and its normal processes, including its committees, to determine what is appropriate, rather than to give this kind of authority to a nonelected Member of the Cabinet.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I say to the distinguished Senator from Connecticut that we are willing to agree to his amendment, and consequently a rollcall vote would not be necessary.

Mr. ROTH. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I would just like to point out that it is, of course, the Finance Committee that has jurisdiction over these programs. I point out that the provisions that are contained in the legislation before us were also contained in H.R. 4, as well as the Balanced Budget Act of last year. So this legislation has been acted upon in the Congress twice. I further point out that the matter was considered in committee, and on that committee we have a number of members of the Judiciary Committee. On the Republican side, these provisions were supported. So I do not think it can be said that this is a matter that just came up in the wee hours of this evening. It has been a matter carefully considered in committee, as well as on the Senate floor. I also point out that much of these provisions, although not entirely in the same form, were included as part of the Democratic substitute. So I think it is important that we bring this into the proper perspective. I want to point out that much of the savings that would come about through this legislation are through the changes that are being made in welfare programs for noncitizens. These people came into the United States on the basis that they would not become a public charge. S. 1956 requires noncitizens to live up to their end of the bargain by requiring them to work or depend on the support of their sponsors and not rely on the American taxpayers. I yield the floor.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may take. Mr. President, this is the beginning of the end to the lengthy debate in the 104th Congress about the current welfare system. The issue of welfare reform has been frequently and passionately debated over these past months, and rightly so. The effects and consequences of the welfare system in some way touch us all. Mr. President, it would be difficult to estimate exactly how many thousands of hours the Congress has devoted to this issue over the past months. The various committees in the Senate and the House of Representatives have taken testimony from Governors, Members of Congress advocating their own particular brand of reform, Cabinet officials, outside experts, advocacy groups, and so forth. But of all of these, perhaps the clearest message for welfare reform I have found comes from a newspaper article about Sharon Stewart, a 33- year-old single mother who has been on welfare for nearly 12 years. In a Richmond Times-Dispatch article last month, Ms. Stewart was quoted as praising Virginia's new 2-year time limit on welfare benefits. She said, ``I feel like I can actually accomplish something again. This is something I'm doing and nobody else is just giving me a handout.'' With simple eloquence, Ms. Stewart told the Times-Dispatch, ``this program should have been in effect when I [first] went on AFDC. It means people''--it means people--``are going to be independent. At first they're real scared and kind of back off, but I believe it will help in the long run.'' In the same article, Tracy James, a mother of four children, also voiced her support for the time limit on benefits. She summed up the situation better than any of the experts when she stated, ``The old law was too easy. I settled for it. [Now] it's either get yourself together or you're just stuck.'' Eloise Anderson, the very distinguished director of the California Department of Social Services, recently responded to a reporter who asked whether time limits were a form of ``tough love.'' Miss Anderson responded, ``It's the real world.'' Mr. President, this is the fundamental philosophy upon which our welfare reform package is based. We will help families through the crisis which forced them into poverty. But that assistance is only temporary, and they must again help themselves. Welfare reform will restore the dignity to families who want more than to ``just settle'' for what the welfare system will give them. The current AFDC program, as it was designed in the 1930's, abandoned many families long ago as a statistic of long-term dependency in contemporary society. The current welfare system has failed the very families it was intended to serve. Look at the record. The record speaks for itself. Unfortunately, in 1965, something like 3.3 million children received AFDC benefits. In 1990, more than 7.7 million children received AFDC. This growth occurred even though the total number of children in the United States had declined--I underscore ``had declined''--by nearly 5 million between 1965 and 1990. In 1994, nearly 9.6 million children received AFDC. Last year, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services estimated that 12 million would receive AFDC benefits within 10 years under the current welfare system. I think it is clear that the present system has not worked. To the contrary, rather than giving a lifting hand and helping people back to work, back to the mainstream, we find the record is consistently an increase in the number of families, the number of children, caught in the web of welfare. If the present system was working well for children, we would, frankly, not be here today. I do not think anyone wants to make a claim that the existing system is good for children. While the present welfare system is full of excuses, the welfare reform legislation being presented to the American people today is a bold challenge. While the present system quietly accepts the dependency of more than 9 million children, our proposal speaks loudly to them and insists they, too, are among the heirs to the blessing of this great Nation. The key to their success will not be found in Washington, but, frankly, in the timeless values of family and work. Mr. President, 90 percent of the children on AFDC live without one of their parents. Only a fraction of welfare families are engaged in work. The current welfare system has cheated these children of what they need most. The reason the States will succeed in welfare reform where Washington has failed is because State and local officials see the faces of their neighbors, while Washington only sees caseload numbers. The bureaucracy in Washington is too detached, too removed, too far out of touch to reform the welfare system. The opponents of welfare reform believe the States lack either the compassion or the capacity or both to serve needy families. They are wrong. We understand that there is not a singular approach to welfare reform. We believe if families, if children, are going to escape from the vicious cycle of dependency, they must be enabled to find their own way out. Welfare reform is not simple because human beings are complex. The goal of welfare reform for all families is for all families to leave welfare. The path on how they get there is not necessarily a straight line. Nor, under our approach, must all families follow the same path. In contrast, this is precisely why Washington will never be able to end welfare as we know it. The existing system is designed more for the convenience of the bureaucracy than for the needs of the individuals. Washington wants to put its one shoe on every foot. That simply does not work. In the tradition of scientific management, everything must be reduced to bureaucratic rules, procedures, and mathematical equations. This is why, if we are truly seeking the answer to end dependency, Washington is the wrong place to look. The causes and cures of poverty involve some of the most intimate acts in human behavior. What many families on welfare need cannot be sent through the mail or reproduced in the Federal Register. There is no flaw in admitting we do not understand how or why individuals will respond to the various incentives and sanctions present in everyday life in modern society. The mistake is believing, especially after 30 years of evidence to the contrary, that Washington does know how to apply these incentives and sanctions to the lives of millions of people. Under the present system, welfare dependency is allowed to become a permanent condition. This is one of the cruelest features of the welfare system because it saps the human spirit. Welfare reform will help free families from the present welfare trap and save future generations from its affect. To do this, we must give the State and local governments all of the tools they need to change the existing welfare system. What works in Delaware may not work in Virginia or New York and the States that demonstrated that it is time to move beyond the waiver process. One of the basic flaws in the existing system is, while State officials have the responsibility to administer these programs, they do not--I emphasize the word ``not''--have the authority they need to effectively run the program. That authority is dispensed by Washington one drop at a time, and this is no longer acceptable. Waivers are no substitute for an authentic welfare reform. Since President Clinton vetoed welfare reform for a second time, we worked with the Nation's Governors to construct a comprehensive welfare reform package, which, of course, included Medicaid. And a compromise last February was supported by the most liberal Governor and the most conservative Governor and everyone in between. No one liked everything, but there was something for everyone. That is the essence of bipartisanship. When this legislation was marked up in the Finance Committee, I included more than 50 Democratic amendments. Nearly half of all the Democratic amendments were incorporated into the legislation. Those changes still did not gain Democrat support in committee. And, of course, the administration still refused to compromise on Medicaid. So we are now separating Medicaid from the rest of the welfare package. Let me say, Mr. President, although I am supporting and have supported the separation, it is a matter that I personally believe need not happen. The President, on several occasions, in addresses to the Governors, stated that many, many people on welfare would not take themselves off the rolls because they were fearful that they would put their children at risk, that they would not be covered by Medicaid. I think there is great truth in that statement. But, for that reason, it seems to me critically important that we deal with welfare and Medicaid as a package. That is what the Senate Finance Committee did, and that is what we have before us. But, as I stated earlier, we will be separating Medicaid from the rest of the welfare package. Mr. President, we have a bipartisan bill. There is no need to look any further than the measure before us. Frankly, this legislation will look very familiar to my colleagues, as it closely resembles H.R. 4, as it was passed by the Senate last September by a vote of 87 to 12. In other words, it is basically similar legislation which received broad bipartisan support when they voted for H.R. 4 last September. With regard to such issues as work requirements and time limits, this legislation is nearly identical to the Senate-passed bill. Mr. President, it has been 41 months since President Clinton outlined his welfare reform goals to the American people. Welfare reform was not enacted in 1993 or in 1994. Welfare reform is not about claiming political credit. We need to enact welfare reform for families like those of Sharon Stewart, Tracy James, and their children. If we do nothing, more children will fall into the trap of dependency. That is a certainty of what the current system will bring. Mr. President, I yield the floor. (Mr. ASHCROFT assumed the chair.)

Mr. ROTH. That is correct.

Mr. ROTH. I want to say what an honor and privilege it has been to work on these matters with the distinguished Senator from New York. There is no one on either side of the aisle who brings greater knowledge, understanding, and depth than Senator Moynihan. Now, frankly, sometimes his conclusions are wrong, but that is understandable, and that is what makes for the democratic process. But I do want to say that working with them, in an effort to bring a solution, to be compassionate, to take care of the needs of the many children who are without is our common goal. I know he seeks that with all his intelligence and being.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. I have no objection.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read, and agreed to, the committee amendment be agreed to, the bill be deemed read a third time, passed, as amended, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill be placed at the appropriate place in the Record.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I understand there is an amendment at the desk offered by Senator Coats. I ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of calendar No. 149, S. 919.

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I ask that the Chair lay before the Senate a message from the House of Representatives on S 1316, a bill to reauthorize and amend title XIV of the Public Health Service Act, commonly known as the Safe Drinking Water Act, and for other purposes. The PRESIDING OFFICER laid before the Senate the following message from the House of Representatives: Resolved, That the bill from the Senate (S. 1316) entitled ``An Act to reauthorize and amend title XIV of the Public Health Service Act (commonly known as the ``Safe Drinking Water Act''), and for other purposes'', do pass with the following amendment: Strike out all after the enacting clause, and insert:

Mr. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today it stand in adjournment until the hour of 9 a.m. on Friday, July 19; further, that immediately following the prayer the Journal of proceedings be deemed approved to date, the morning hour be deemed to have expired, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day; and that the Senate immediately resume consideration of the reconciliation bill under the previous order.