S6846 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE May 18, 1995

in protest this cherished symbol of our national heritage; and

Whereas, whatever legal arguments may be

offered to support this contention, the incineration or other mutilation of the flag of the

United States of America is repugnant to all

those who have saluted it, paraded beneath

it on the Fourth of July, been saluted by its

half-mast configuration, or raised it inspirationally in remote corners of the globe where

they have defended the ideals of which it is

representative; and

Whereas, the members of the Legislature

of the State of Texas, while respectful of dissenting political views, themselves dissent

forcefully from the court decision, echoing

the beliefs of all patriotic Americans that

this flag is OUR flag and not a private property subject to a private prerogative to

maim or despoil in the passion of individual

protest; and

Whereas, as stated by Chief Justice William Rehnquist, writing for three of the four

justices who comprised the minority in the

case, ‘‘Surely one of the high purposes of a

democratic society is to legislate against

conduct that is regarded as evil and profoundly offensive to the majority of people—

whether it be murder, embezzlement, pollution, or flag burning’’; and

Whereas, this legislature concurs with the

court minority that the Stars and Stripes is

deserving of a unique sanctity, free to wave

in perpetuity over the spacious skies where

our bald eagles fly, the fruited plain above

which our mountain majesties soar, and the

venerable heights to which our melting pot

of people and their posterity aspire; now,

therefore, be it

Resolved, That the 74th Legislature of the

State of Texas hereby petition the Congress

of the United States of America to propose

to the states an amendment to the United

States Constitution, protecting the American flag and 50 state flags from willful desecration and exempting such desecration from

constitutional construction as a First

Amendment right; and, be it further

Resolved, That official copies of this resolution be prepared and forwarded by the Texas

secretary of state to the speaker of the house

of representatives and president of the senate of the United States Congress and to all

members of the Texas delegation to that

congress, with the request that it be officially entered in the Congressional Record as

a memorial to the Congress of the United

States; and, be it further

Resolved, That a copy of the resolution be

prepared and forwarded also to President Bill

Clinton, asking that he lend his support to

the proposal and adoption of a flag-protection constitutional amendment; and, be it finally

Resolved, That official copies likewise be

sent to the presiding officers of the legislatures of the several states, inviting them to

join with Texas to secure this amendment

and to restore this nation’s banners to their

rightful status of treasured reverence.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, there is

WELFARE REFORM

fbroad consensus in this country that

the current welfare system serves no

one well—not the recipients, not their

children, not the American taxpayer. I

agree with that consensus. The current

welfare system is broken and needs

major repair. Why? Because it is failing

both the people in need and the working people who are paying for it.

The current system has trapped all

too many people into a lifetime of dependency rather than assisting them

on a temporary basis to get back on

their feet and back into the labor force.

Any meaningful welfare reform must

be grounded on the premise that government assistance is a way ‘‘up and

out’’—not a ‘‘way of life.’’

The current welfare system has failed

us all. It traps all too many, especially

women, into a lifetime of dependency

and poverty. Their children in all too

many instances suffer irreparable harm

and are likely to remain poor and disadvantaged for the remainder of their

lives. If the past is a predictor, too

many children of today’s welfare recipients will end up on the rolls themselves or in trouble with the law.

We simply must break this cycle. Unless we move welfare recipients into

meaningful educational and work situations, we are doomed to failure. The

only system that can work to the benefit of all is one that encourages independence, discourages dependency and

demands personal responsibility. All of

those elements, it seems to me, are

missing in the welfare program we

have today. Let us make sure that

those key elements are the

underpinnings of the bill on which we

will cast our votes. Let us make sure

we do it right. And let us make sure we

do it with great care and compassion.

Mr. President, it is my hope that Republicans and Democrats alike can

work together to fashion a bipartisan

welfare plan that will be both effective

in moving recipients from welfare to

work. Our welfare system should provide temporary help—an opportunity

for people to help themselves. If we put

aside partisan rhetoric and turn instead to the mission of protecting poor

kids and helping adults who need a

temporary helping hand, I think we

will have the best opportunity we have

had in many years to forge a reform

package which is good for kids, good

for their parents and good for the

American taxpayer.

Before we begin the debate, I think it

is important to dispel some of the

myths surrounding welfare. My purpose in detailing the following facts is

not to defend the current system, but

to ground the debate in truth rather

than fiction.

First, AFDC caseloads as a percentage of the general population have remained fairly static over the past 20

years, fluctuating between 4 and 51⁄2

percent. The number of recipients has

grown as the population has increased

and, cyclically, when the economy has

declined.

Second, benefit levels have substantially declined in inflation adjusted

dollars over the past two decades. The

median State benefit for a family of

three, adjusted for inflation, fell by 47

percent between 1970 and 1994.

Third, AFDC does not come close to

providing a poverty level income to recipients. The median State benefit for

a family of three was only 38 percent of

the poverty level in 1994. If food stamps

are included, the median State benefit

only reaches 70 percent of the poverty

level.

Fourth, the average size of the welfare family is 2.9 while the average size

of the typical American family is 3.2.

As legislators, we must craft a welfare reform bill that helps rather than

hinders hope and self-sufficiency, especially for poor mothers and their children. And I know we can achieve our

goals if we join together in a collaborative effort to accomplish them.

Mr. President, since there is no

Democratic or Republican welfare bill

around which the Senate membership

of either party has currently coalesced,

I thought this would be an appropriate

time to offer some suggestions.

IT MUST PROTECT CHILDREN

Protecting the vulnerable children of

poor welfare mothers must be our highest priority, and I do not believe that

can be accomplished without maintaining the entitlement status of benefits

for children. Let me make it clear, I

am not talking about entitlement status for the mother, only the child. Despite the best intentions of State governments, despite their basic goodwill,

despite their legislative skills, there is

no way the Federal Government can

guarantee that the welfare child will be

protected by each and every State

under a with a no-strings-attached

block grant approach to reform. And

protecting poor children is something I

believe the Federal Government must

do. It is and ought to be a national priority. I am not simply not willing to

take the gamble that each and every

State government will successfully

meet this most fundamental responsibility.

I am all for giving State governments

as much flexibility as possible in designing effective State reform plans

that fit local needs. I am all for encouraging States to tap every creative resource available in forging new approaches to reform. But let us be honest with one another, welfare varies

widely from State to State. Benefit

levels vary widely. Effectiveness varies

widely. Successful job training and

placement efforts vary widely. And I

am simply not willing to sacrifice any

child, in any State, to a potentially unsuccessful outcome. These kids are our

future. We must protect their interests.

IT MUST BE WORK-ORIENTED AND TRANSITIONAL

After the protection of children, the

fundamental focus of the bill must be

to move recipients from welfare, to

work, to economic self-sufficiency as

quickly as possible. While the original

goal of AFDC in 1935 was to pay widows

to stay at home and raise their children, the world and workforce have

changed a great deal over the intervening decades. Increasingly, we expect

both parents to work to support their

children. We also expect both parents

to share the responsibility of rearing

their children. No one denies the difficulties involved in this dual role for

parents. But it is done every day by

millions upon millions of struggling
May 18, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S6847

families. Is it any wonder, then, why

the general public expects the same

from welfare recipients?

Today 75 percent of mothers with

children between the ages of 6 to 16 are

in the labor force. The public expects

no less from the welfare mother. And

they are right. So it is critically important that welfare be re-framed, in

the minds of both the public and recipients alike, as a transitional work assistance program. Our goal must be to

replace a welfare check with a paycheck. No more something for nothing.

No more revolving door. Strict work

requirements, and a time limit on benefits. You take responsibility for yourself and the government will provide

you with temporary help to ease your

entry into the workforce and to help

you stay there.

Easier said than done. No doubt

about it. But if we can change the perception of welfare and build upon the

lessons learned over the years, at both

the State and Federal levels, we should

be able to move forward in a constructive way.

Most people on the welfare rolls do

not want to be there. They want to

work. They want to be role models for

their children. They want their children to have better opportunities in

life than they have had. But, like the

workforce in general, many welfare recipients need some help. They want to

work, they want to be successful, but

they need help in getting from here to

there. Many need help in learning how

to look for a job. Others need training.

Others need assistance to remain in the

labor force. But let us face up to the

fact that there may not be enough jobs

or the types of jobs available in the private sector to accommodate each and

every welfare parent, so community

service jobs may have to act as a last

resort. And let us admit that reforming

the system may require some investment if we want to get it right.

WE MUST ELIMINATE WORK DISINCENTIVES

But how do we move from a program

which encourages dependency to one

that encourages work? One obvious

way is to eliminate the disincentives

which exist in the current system. You

liberalize earning disregards, you raise

asset limitations, and you make support services, the linchpin upon which

success in the workplace hinges, more

readily available to poor people who

want to work.

One decisive lesson we have learned

over the past decade is that former recipients return to the welfare rolls

after a short time in the labor force

due to the inadequacy of transitional

support services. We have learned that

as soon as the recipient has to begin

paying for child care and medical care

out of a meager salary which more

often than not is significantly below

the Federal poverty level, the financial

burden becomes too great and—no surprise—the mother returns to the welfare rolls. We must address this problem squarely. Forcing poor parents to

choose between work and their children’s health care or child care is a losing proposition and it is doomed to

failure. Who loses? The parent, the

child and the taxpayer. So meaningful

work is important, but equally important is the continued provision of child

care and health care services as these

welfare recipients transition to the

workplace. These services are a critical

bridge to successful work outcomes.

Is 1 year of transitional assistance

for those who have gone to work, as required under current law for Medicaid

services, sufficient? Probably not.

Should child care support end as soon

as a recipient has found work. Clearly

not. Child care consumes at least a

quarter of most low-income family

budgets. How many low-skilled workers in low-paying jobs are going to receive a raise in 1 year sufficient to be

able to financially absorb the full cost

of child care and medical care? Not

many, if any. This is simply not a realistic goal. I therefore believe that the

plan we pass should continue these

vital family support services at a reduced level over a number of years,

phasing them out as the recipient’s income rises. This will cost money in the

short term, but it will be invaluable in

ensuring long-term success. But it is

my hope that savings to offset this

spending can be achieved through other

reforms in the system.

WE MUST REMOVE TWO-PARENT FAMILY

DISINCENTIVES

One issue on which I believe there is

virtual unanimity is that the best environment in which to raise children is

in loving, two-parent families. Yet welfare assistance is not available for twoparent families, regardless of their income, unless one parent is unemployed

or incapacitated. A system that discourages marriage of low-income single

parents and encourages the breakup of

married couples who find themselves in

economic need is shameful. It is bad social policy, bad welfare policy, bad

family policy, bad children’s policy,

and it ought to be changed. Another

thing we ought to change is our policy

toward absent fathers who want to

share in the support of their children,

but do not have the economic means to

do so. Why not offer them job training

and placement services as well as the

mother?

IT MUST DEMAND PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY

I believe it is the best interest of society to discourage out-of-wedlock

births. But if individuals continue to

choose to have children outside of marriage, they must take responsibility for

their actions. It is their responsibility

to support their child. They must learn

that actions have consequences and

parents have responsibilities. If they

want temporary assistance, it is their

responsibility to identify the father

who must be required to share, at the

very least, in the financial burden of

raising the child. If they seek temporary government help, they must be

willing to go to work to help pay for

that assistance.

Most welfare proposals contain a requirement for the welfare parent to

sign a contract with the State agency

agreeing to abide by the work plan

that has been designed for the recipient, with the recipient’s input, after

careful assessment by a team of case

managers of the individual’s personal

history, work experience and educational and training needs. Once the

contract has been signed, the recipient

must honor its terms or suffer sanctions. Actions have consequences. That

makes eminent good sense to me. It demands accountability and responsibility.

IT MUST ADEQUATELY ADDRESS THE TEEN

PREGNANCY CRISIS

Although last on my list, curbing

teen pregnancy is one of my highest

priorities. And it is one of the most

crucial yet vexing components of welfare reform. Teen pregnancy is a crisis

by any standard of measurement. Too

many teens are becoming parents and

too few are able to responsibly care for

their children either emotionally or financially. The result: the child is deprived of a fair start in life and the

mother will very likely be doomed to a

lifetime of poverty.

The teen pregnancy crisis is escalating at an alarming rate. The data are

shattering: Before age 20, 43 percent of

teenage girls become pregnant; 1 million teens become pregnant each year;

70 percent of teen mothers are not married today in comparison to 15 percent

in 1960; the unmarried teen mother rate

has doubled in a single generation and

continues to climb; 77 percent of unmarried teen mothers end up on the

welfare rolls within 5 years of the birth

of their first child, and all too many remain there for years thereafter; and

approximately half of AFDC recipients

in 1993 had their first child as a teen.

What can we reasonably do about

this seriously escalating social crisis?

There is clear data linking teen births

with long-term welfare dependency.

Data also tell us that teen births go

down as educational and economic options go up. So one thing we must do is

require AFDC teen mothers to stay in

school and finish their educations or

pursue a vocational alternative in return for benefits. We can and must insist that these teen mothers immunize

their children and participate in

parenting and pregnancy prevention

classes. And we can and should require

that teen mothers on AFDC live with

their families or in supervised homes

where they can get the support and

guidance they need to become successful parents and good citizens. Finally,

we must all become engaged in finding

solutions to this devastating societal

problem.

Each of us in one way or another has

the bully pulpit. Every entity of government, every community, every

church, every corporation must trumpet the alarm about teen pregnancy,

and we must speak with a single voice:

out of wedlock births, especially
S6848 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE May 18, 1995

among teens, are wrong; they are a prescription for disastrous outcomes for

both the mother and the child—both

will undoubtedly be seriously disadvantaged for the remainder of their lives.

We must preach—and I do mean

preach—that marriage is the proper social unit in which to have and raise a

child. We must, each of us, discourage

illegitimacy as harmful to the parents,

the child and society at large. And we

must do it now. This is not an issue we

can push to the back burner. We are in

a serious crisis now, and every single

indicator points to it getting worse

each and every year into the foreseeable future.

These are some of the threshold issues that I believe must be addressed in

whatever reform package reaches the

Senate floor. When the debate begins, I

hope it will not become another missed

opportunity. I hope we will work on

the reform together. I hope we will do

it right, with firmness but fairness.

And I hope it will produce the desired

results. Our efforts will impact all of

our lives in one way or another. But it

will affect more directly the lives of

our children and their children.

WELCOMING HER MAJESTY QUEEN

SIRIKIT OF THAILAND

fMr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, this

month the United States is privileged

to welcome Her Majesty Queen Sirikit

of Thailand. She is here as an honored

guest. On May 25 Queen Sirikit will be

awarded the degree of Doctor of Humane Letters by the Johns Hopkins

University. On Tuesday, May 16, Queen

Sirikit became the first woman ever to

receive the prestigious Lindbergh

Award. In the words of the Charles A.

and Anne Morrow Lindbergh Foundation, Her Majesty was honored for her

‘‘educational and humanitarian efforts,

her conservation and wildlife preservation work, and programs which are

maintaining the Thai heritage and culture.’’

The description does not begin to do

justice to Queen Sirikit’s 45-year effort

to care for the people of her country, to

improve their health and living standards, and to preserve their environmental and cultural heritage. She has

given generously of her time and energy to traditional humanitarian

causes. She has served as honorary

president of the Council of Social Welfare of Thailand, an organization of 150

public and private social work agencies. In her capacity as president of the

Thai Red Cross, a position she has held

since 1956, she established shelters for

refugees from the war in Cambodia.

But her particular genius, and I do not

use that word lightly, the accomplishment for which the queen has been

honored by the United Nations and for

which she was awarded the first International Humanitarian Award by the

Friends of the Capital Children’s Museum in 1992, has been in finding ways

to preserve traditional Thai culture

and ecology while simultaneously

making life easier for impoverished

farmers and hill tribes.

Her deep concern for the welfare of

the Thai people is matched by her

knowledge of their needs. Her husband,

His Majesty King Shumibol Adulyadej,

has made it his admirable policy to

‘‘visit the people’’, spending more than

half of each year traveling around

Thailand, often to remote areas accessible only by helicopter or jeep. Accompanying him on his trips, the queen

witnessed at first hand the hardships of

rural life, the damage to forests, wildlife and water supplies caused by primitive farming practices and the threat

posed by modernization to traditional

Thai arts and crafts. It was her inspiration to, in effect, capitalize culture, to

train farm families in producing handicrafts which could be sold to bring in

regular income. Since 1978, Queen

Sirikit’s SUPPORT Foundation has

trained 30,000 such families in crafts

ranging from ceramics to silk-weaving

to bamboo basketry.

In 1982, the Queen initiated the Forest-Loves-Water project, to demonstrate that SUPPORT handicrafts

projects could encourage reforestation.

At Ban Mae Tam village, the rich teak

forests once threatened by illegal logging are being replaced. Villagers able

to earn a living from cottage industries

do not need to rely on tree-cutting or

slash-and-burn farming for subsistence.

Under her gentle leadership, through

encouragement and practical training,

solutions are being found to pressing

environmental problems.

Queen Sirikit’s likeness is on the

Cares Medal awarded by the Food and

Agriculture Organization of the United

Nations. This is an honor reserved for

women who by their lives and their

work have helped to lift the status of

women. It is a beautiful medal, reflecting the beauty of spirit of its model, a

woman whose motto has always been

‘‘To give without discrimination.’’ It is

always a pleasure to welcome Her Majesty to the United States, and to tell

her how much we admire her efforts on

behalf of the Thai people.

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, this

GEORGIA AND LARRY TALSMA

fweek I have been fortunate to visit

with two citizens from Springfield,

SD—Georgia and Larry Talsma. Georgia and Larry made their first trip ever

to Washington, DC, by car. The

Talsmas are the quintessential hardworking South Dakota ranch family.

They and their ancestors have worked

the land for five generations. They

know the importance of proper stewardship of the land, because without

this respect there would be nothing for

the next generation.

The Talsmas came to Washington to

tell their story of how the Federal Government is intruding on their land and

threatening to take over their private

property. Amazing as this may sound,

Mr. President, it is true.

In 1991, Congress passed legislation to

designate the 39-mile segment of the

Missouri River from the headwaters of

Lewis and Clark Lake to the Ft. Randall Dam as a recreational river to be

administered by the National Park

Service. Today, however, the process to

achieve this designation has raised

great controversy. In fact, the local

citizens along this segment of the Missouri River now question the need for

the designation. I agree with those

South Dakotans, including the

Talsmas.

During the first public meeting on

the designation, pamphlets were handed out describing how the Park Service

acquires private property. Mr. President, most, if not all, of the South Dakotans in attendance were not even

aware of the river designation, let

alone the possibility of the Federal

Government condemning their land

and buying it out from under them.

Their concerns and fears were fed by

representatives of the National Park

Service who stated that if they, the

Park Service, cannot own this land,

then they will control it.

This morning I asked the Director of

the National Park Service to come to

my office and listen to the Talsmas. At

that meeting I told the Director that I

intended to introduce legislation to

undo the designation in South Dakota.

This is an effort the Talsmas and other

South Dakotans strongly support.

I also asked the Director to listen to

the Talsmas and see what steps could

be taken by the Park Service to address the needs of South Dakotans.

While Director Kennedy informed the

Talsmas that the Park Service did not

want to buy or control their land or

claim eminent domain, the Talsmas

correctly pointed out that the ‘‘Devil is

in the details.’’

The Talsmas informed the Director

they were being told just the opposite

at the public meetings and that is why

they felt they had to come to Washington to get their message across. Their

primary concern is not for themselves,

but for their children and future generations of South Dakotans who depend on the land for their survival.

I am pleased to report that due to the

efforts of the Talsmas, something good

came out of the meeting. First, the

Park Service agreed to push back the

deadline for a preferred alternative to

no earlier than August 1, 1995. Just a

few days ago the Talsmas were told

they had only 5 days to review and

comment on the preferred alternatives.

This extreme time limit simply is not

fair. I told the Director that South Dakotans needed the time to tell their

story and have input into the decisionmaking process. Director Kennedy

agreed.

Director Kennedy also assured the

Talsmas there would be at least a 60-

day comment period on any preferred

alternative. If more time is needed, Director Kennedy said he would be willing to provide such time.

Director Kennedy also told me his office would provide legislative language