```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 83 (Thursday, May 18, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6846-S6848]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                             WELFARE REFORM

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, there is broad 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 5\1/2\ 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 [[Page 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 two-parent 
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 [[Page S6848]] 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.

                          ____________________
```