Rick Santorum

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I yield briefly 2 minutes to the Senator from Missouri.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that prior to the vote on the Breaux amendment scheduled for 2:15 that each side be given 2 minutes to explain their bill.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Missouri for his insightful comments. I think he really speaks from the kind of experience that we need here in this Chamber, as somebody who served as a Governor and has managed a welfare program, who understands the dynamics in the State capitals and the likelihood of success of the Dole substitute. I think his words of support and encouragement for the bill, as it is today, and particularly the maintenance of effort provisions, are important, and I want to congratulate him for not only his statement here, but the tremendous amount of work he has done on this legislation, to bring consensus to the Republican side of the aisle and move this matter forward. He has really been a standout on this issue. I thank him for his comments and for his work on this legislation. The Senator from Vermont is here. I will yield the floor.

Mr. SANTORUM. I yield the Senator an additional 5 minutes.

Mr. SANTORUM. No. I was responding to what the Senator anticipates happening in conference. And I think we can save ourselves a lot of problems. I think what this shows is that this is not really an area of precision. I mean, we do not have a lot of precision here of what should be the maintenance of effort, whether it is 90, 75, or 50 percent. It is really a question of philosophy as to whether you want to give the States the flexibility to be able to reap some rewards in managing their own program and whether you trust Governors and State legislatures. I think there is and has traditionally been at the Federal level a mistrust. I think that is unfortunate. I will have comments later. But I see the Senator from Missouri, who was a Governor of the State of Missouri, and who was elected as Governor and Senator. I would be interested to hear from the Senator from Missouri as to whether those constituencies that elected him to both offices require him to do different things, whether he should feel differently as Governor and not care for the poor as Governor but care for the poor more as a Senator. I would be interested in whether there is that transformation as held in the State office as opposed to holding the Federal office, whether you care more about poor people as a Senator than you did as a Governor. I would be happy to yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Missouri. Mr. ASHCROFT addressed the Chair.

Mr. SANTORUM. We are willing to take that tough stand.

Mr. SANTORUM. Thank you, Mr. President. I hear great consternation [[Page S 13321]] of what is going to go on when this bill reaches conference. We have to vote for the Breaux amendment because of positioning, and we have to position ourselves at 90 percent so we can get something, because the House is at zero and we are at 90 percent. The Senator from Louisiana suggested we may get up to 45 percent. If we go in with 5 years, the House has nothing, we will get 2\1/2\ years. I do not want to speak for the majority leader, but I think we would be willing to say that we will go with 45 percent and 2\1/2\ years, and we will stick to that in conference. So if the Senator is concerned about what we are going to bargain, I think we are willing to make that commitment right here on the floor of the Senate. And I think the leader could come over and say that we will fight and stand firm on 45 percent and 2\1/2\ years. And if that is----

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time be limited on the Ashcroft and Shelby amendments to 1 hour on each amendment, equally divided between the sides.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the Conrad amendment.

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

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I think the Senator from Missouri is right, that the Dole formula is fair. And it is also, I think, structured to create the incentive for States to reform their welfare system. Remember, if we are going to pass the Dole amendment, the States will then have the opportunity--I am confident that every State will take this opportunity because under this bill we block grant money to the States--they will have to at some point convene their legislature and with the Governor will have to develop their own welfare plan. I think it would be incumbent upon them, almost a requirement, that they do so because they would have block grant funds and would have to take some action to spend the dollars. So we would be forcing every legislature in the country to go forward and redesign their program. [[Page S 13326]] What the Dole amendment does is say for the first 3 years you have to maintain 75 percent of effort. There is a lot of argument here about States racing to the bottom. You cannot race to the bottom, particularly if you are a high-dollar State, if you have to maintain 75 percent of your revenue. If we are going to make the State legislatures reform welfare, they are going to do it relatively quickly within the first year or two. So we will have the results. To suggest that we need to stretch this to 5 years suggests that State legislatures are going to continually every year be reforming and cutting their welfare rolls. As we know, we do not do that. We do not do that here. The State legislatures do not reform welfare every year. They pass a welfare package, and, like this body, see how it works. It takes some time. So I think a lot of this, whether we have 3 or 5 years, is really just a matter of making yourself feel comfortable in Washington. The real changes in welfare will occur in the first 1 or 2 years. I think that is the important thing to look at. I want to talk a little bit more following up on the disparity among States. I think this is really an important and significant problem with this 90 percent basis of effort. One of the things that I had suggested--and we are not able to come to closure on this--is that it is not fair for New York and Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania spends per child, based on the State cash aid relating to this block grant, about $1,092 per child. That is ranked 17. Alaska is No. 1 with $3,182, and last is Mississippi with $107. So the disparity is just tremendous. To suggest that we are being fair hereby saying Mississippi has to maintain 90 percent of $107, and Alaska has to maintain 90 percent of $3,182, again does not reflect the reality of a block grant. Eventually over time what this block grant is hoping to do, as the Senator from Texas, Senator Hutchison, suggested with her growth formula is to equalize the Federal contribution per child across this country. So a child in Alaska should not be paid more out of the Federal coffers than a child in Mississippi. I think that is sort of a nonsense thing. I think most of us, if we are going to go to this block grant, would like to see us achieve a program where the Federal payments per child would be the same. I do not see how we get there, in fact, I do not think we can get there, if we require States to maintain this high share of effort. I am hopeful that we agree to this compromise that was in the Dole modified bill at 75 percent. It is a reasonable compromise. It puts the compromise in place for 3 years, which I think is the most crucial time when these State legislatures are enacting their programs, and it does not penalize a high-dollar State. The compromise that I had even offered was to suggest that States like New York and Pennsylvania would not have to maintain 75 percent of their effort but they would only have to maintain 75 percent of what the average effort is among States. So, if you took all the States' contributions already and set an average, I think according to the gain per child average of State cash aid here, I would guess would be around--just looking at the numbers, the 25th State is Wyoming at $758. That is the median. I assume the average is somewhere close to that; to suggest that Alaska would have to maintain 75 percent of $758 instead of $3,182 and any State above the average would only have to maintain 75 percent of the average, I think is a fair burden to put on States given the fact that a lot of these States are going to be growing, or are big States and are not going to get any more money. Any State below the national average, Maine being one, which is 26th, and Louisiana, which is 50th out of the 51 jurisdictions, Louisiana is at $155. I mean, I can understand why the Senator from Louisiana wants a 90 percent maintenance of effort for Louisiana. It is $155 per child in 1994. But I am in Pennsylvania. I have $1,092. You are saying that the State government of Pennsylvania has to maintain $900-plus in Pennsylvania but $130 in Louisiana. How is that fair when we are block granting the funds? We are not over the next 5 years giving Pennsylvania one additional dollar, and I might add Louisiana gets a big chunk of the growth fund because they are a low-dollar State. This is having your cake and eating it, too. I think that is just too penalizing of larger States that have made substantial contributions to welfare. You are going to stick them with a program that maybe passes the administration. We have a new Governor in Pennsylvania, and the Governor, I know, is very aggressively pursuing a reform of the welfare system. And what we are going to do with Pennsylvania is lock them into high contributions of 1994 forever, that they have to continue if they want to continue to receive their Federal dollars. Remember, you say, ``Well, if you reduce the amount of people on welfare, you lose dollar per dollar.'' Pennsylvania is not going to have any increase in Federal dollars. If Louisiana goes below 75 percent, they are still going to get an increase in Federal dollars because of the growth formula.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be allowed to meet during the Tuesday, September 12, 1995, session of the Senate for the purpose of conducting a hearing on spectrum policy reform.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be granted permission to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, September 12, 1995, for purposes of conducting a full committee hearing which is scheduled to begin at 9:30 a.m. The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony on H.R. 1266, to provide for the exchange of lands within Admiralty Island National Monument, known as the ``Greens Creek Land Exchange Act of 1995.''

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 12, 1995, at 10 a.m. to hold a hearing on religious liberty.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Labor and Human Resources be authorized to meet for a hearing on S. 969, the Newborns' and Mothers' Health Protection Act of 1995, during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, September 12, 1995, at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology, and Government Information of the Committee on the Judiciary, be authorized to hold a hearing during the session of the Senate on September 12, 1995, at 2 p.m. to consider the Ruby Ridge incident.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would like to say that this amendment, which is similar in nature to what Senator Daschle had offered in his substitute, really does violate the whole principle of ending welfare as we know it. What this amendment does is continue the entitlement to welfare benefits albeit in a different form. It is not cash, it is vouchers, still an entitlement, Federal dollars to families on welfare in perpetuity. There is no time limit. So this will, in effect, end the time limit. Now, if we are serious--I would say that the President when he offered his bill a year ago in June, although he had some loopholes, he did have a time limit. And he did, after 5 years, under some circumstances, not many, unfortunately, but some circumstances actually end welfare in the sense that the cash assistance, voucher--no further entitlement under AFDC would be continued. And to suggest that if we provide in an entitlement just for children and not for the mother that somehow the children are going to get this money and the mother or father, whoever the custodial parent, is not going to get this--I do not know many 3-years-olds who fend for themselves. The money is going to go to the parents and it is going to be a support. Now, I would say, under the Dole modified bill, we do continue to support that family with Medicaid, with food stamps, with housing if the family qualified for housing. About 25 percent of families on AFDC qualify for Federal housing assistance, whether it is section 8 or public housing. So all of those benefits continue. And all we are doing is saying, after 5 years, after we have given you intensive training under this bill--we believe there will be intensive worker training or retraining if necessary, 3 years of work opportunity--at some point the Federal contract with the family who is in need ends. And what we are going to say is we will continue to provide food and medical care and other things if you chose not to go to work. But at some point we are going to say we are not going to continue to provide assistance in the form of cash, or in the case of the Senator from Illinois's amendment, a voucher, which is the equivalent of cash to provide for other services that cash would be used for. So to me this is just a backdoor attempt to continue the welfare entitlement in perpetuity. And if you understand the whole motivation, the reason the President in such dramatic fashion in 1992 stood squarely behind the idea of ending welfare as we know it, that whole concept of ending welfare as we know it was based on a time limit, a 5-year time limit on welfare. You cannot end welfare if you continue welfare, and this continues welfare. If we adopt this amendment, anyone who stands here and says, ``We are ending welfare as we know it'' is not telling the truth, because you continue the entitlement. It is very important that this amendment, although I understand and respect the Senator from Illinois and her desire to protect children, I suggest that you can go to cities across this country and find pictures of children in, unfortunately, the same situation today. Usually, they may not even be out on the street, because in many of these neighborhoods, they certainly would not be safe out on the street because of the violence and the degradation that we have seen in the communities that they live in. We go back to the whole point that we are here today, and the whole point we are here today is the current system is failing the very children it is attempting to help. To suggest we are going to help children by continuing dependency, by continuing the welfare system, in a sense, with this entitlement stretching on in perpetuity, I think, just belies the fact that the system is failing. I appreciate her concern for children, and I think everyone here who stands behind the Dole bill has that same concern for children. We honestly believe, and I think rightfully believe, that ending the entitlement to welfare, requiring work, moving people off a system which says, ``We are going to maintain you in poverty,'' to a system that says, ``We are going to move you out of poverty,'' that is a dynamic, time-certain system, is the way to really change the dynamics for the poor in America today and for the children in America today. It is a philosophical difference. Many times I go back home and I have town meetings. People at my town meetings say, ``Why don't you folks just work it out? You are always playing politics down here. Why don't you folks come together?" I say to the Senator from Illinois, we did come together on one of her amendments. She was to offer three. One of the amendments we accepted. We accepted her amendment on a demonstration project, called JOLI, $25 million. We understand that that system is experiencing some success, so we agreed to accept one of her three amendments. The other two we have very different policy differences. This is not politics. They are fundamental differences of opinion as to whether welfare is working with a system of endless entitlement, or whether we need, as the President has stated, to put some certainty of time, some commitment to the individual that welfare will be there to help for a discrete period of time to intensively try to turn someone's life around with the expectation and requirement that at some point you will move off and the social contract between the Government, whether it is the State or whether the State, hopefully under the Ashcroft provision of the Dole amendment, moves it to the private sector and has a private entity more involved in provision of welfare, whatever the case may be, we believe that that dynamic process is so possible under this amendment, that is so different than what we have seen in the past, that I am hopeful that we can defeat this amendment, keep that time- limit provision in place and move forward with this bill. Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN addressed the Chair.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I move to table the Breaux amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I think we had a good debate on the maintenance of effort provision. I think it boils down to simply this. If you want a welfare reform bill to come out of the Senate that is going to be an impetus for change, it is going to say to the States to go out there and be innovative and be able to reduce the welfare caseload, reduce the amount of State expenditures, and have the flexibility you need to do those without artificially holding States to the high level of maintenance of effort. I think the Dole 75 percent provision that is in there right now does that. It prohibits a race to the bottom. It gives States flexibility. It says be innovative. It saves money. And I think that is really what we want to accomplish. It is a prevention of the worst-case scenario which is no welfare spending from the States, and at the same time provides that amount of flexibility that is needed to go forward and do some dramatic changes in the welfare system. I think we have struck a very responsible compromise. I think this amendment goes too far. This basically says we are going to continue to spend money. The Senator from Louisiana often says we are going to save money at the Federal level. Why should not the Federal Government save money? We may be saving money on the Federal level but we are spending a lot more taxpayers' money at the State level. The taxpayer overall under this amendment will lose even though the Federal Government is going to save a little money. It will spend a lot more in State resources. Again, it is an unfriendly taxpayer amendment and at the same time stifles innovation. I urge the rejection of the amendment.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. I yield 7 minutes to the Senator from Oklahoma.

Mr. SANTORUM. One additional minute.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, in the couple of minutes left before concluding our side of this debate, I just suggest this really boils down to whether you really want to see dramatic reform or not and whether you want to see dramatic savings in the welfare system. Because, if you require States to keep 90 percent of maintenance of effort, what you will do is create a disincentive in an approach that was supposed to be the maximum incentive to welfare reform; to get welfare savings for the taxpayer--to do both. I think it is pretty clear this is sort of a moderating attempt to try to make welfare reform not as dramatic as it could be. I think that is unfortunate. I think what the public has demanded on the issue of welfare is that you cannot go too far in trying new things to get people off welfare, to get people on to work, to reduce the amount of expenditure that we have. I remind all Senators that, even under the Republican plan as it exists today, welfare spending will go up 70 percent--70 percent--over the next 7 years. It was scheduled to go up 77 percent. We have it go up only 70 percent. That is hardly dramatic, but it is something. It is a start in the right direction, at least, because we believe even though the Federal expenditures on welfare will go up 70 percent, we believe State expenditures will come down and come down dramatically. We are willing to make that tradeoff because we believe ultimately the taxpayer is going to benefit more from this proposal because of lower State expenditures even though the Federal Government is going to maintain a relatively high level of expenditures. I am hopeful we can look to the goals of this, the Dole substitute, which is dramatic, ingenious, inventive reform, to get people back to work, all at a savings of taxpayers' dollars on the Federal level and even more dramatically on the State level. If this amendment is adopted, we will see less reform, less innovation, and more money spent overall on welfare. And that is not what the goal of this welfare reform debate should be. I yield the remainder of my time.