|
Orrin Hatch on Welfare & Poverty
Republican Sr Senator (UT)
|
|
|
Supports welfare reform from dependency to self-sufficiency
The current welfare system of the United States is broken. It is destructive. It destroys self esteem, families, and personal responsibility. The Congress has passed legislation to reform this system into one that supports families transitioning into
self-sufficiency rather than one that pulls them into a destructive cycle of dependency.
Source: Senate Statement on Welfare Reform
, Mar 3, 1997
Welfare should be a transitional program, not permanent
I generally support programs to help Americans who are unable to work or who are temporarily down on their luck. But, I also believe that our welfare system should not be a program of permanent hand-outs for those who are able to work. We must thoroughly
review our current welfare system and identify those rules and policies that encourage this kind of welfare dependency. We need to design a welfare system that is transitional, helping families achieve self-sufficiency in a reasonable amount of time.
Source: Senate Statement on Welfare Reform
, Mar 3, 1997
Replace hand outs with hand up via job training
I support programs that will provide a “hand up” not a “hand out.” Job training, vocational education, and literacy programs can help welfare recipients become qualified for employment. The availability of child care will permit single parents on welfare
to get training and then a job. This is critical to the success of any welfare program.
Source: Senate Statement on Welfare Reform
, Mar 3, 1997
Block grants let local programs work; fed programs do not
Too often, the federal government prevents innovative local programs from working by regulating them to death. States are in a much better position to meet specific state and local needs and to coordinate related programs, thus avoiding costly
duplication and administrative costs. The welfare reform bill provided a system of block grants to the states which would help not only to better control costs, but also to improve the overall effectiveness of the programs.
Source: Senate Statement on Welfare Reform
, Mar 3, 1997
Voted YES on instituting National Service as a new social invention.
Congressional Summary:Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education (GIVE) Act: Adds to National and Community Service Act of 1990 (NCSA) purposes:- providing year-round opportunities in service-learning;
- involving program participants in emergency and disaster preparedness, relief, and recovery;
- increasing service opportunities for retiring professionals;
- encouraging service by individuals age 55 or older and continued service by national service alumni;
- focusing national service on the areas of national need.
Proponent's argument to vote Yes:Sen. BARBARA MIKULSKI (D, MD): [In developing national service over many years] we were not in the business of creating another new social program. What we were in the business of was creating a new social invention. What do I mean by that? In our country, we are known for our technological inventions. But also often overlooked, and sometimes undervalued, is our social inventions.
We created national service to let young people find opportunity to be of service and also to make an important contribution. But not all was rosy. In 2003, when I was the ranking member on the appropriations subcommittee funding national service, they created a debacle. One of their most colossal errors was that they enrolled over 20,000 volunteers and could not afford to pay for it. That is how sloppy they were in their accounting. I called them the "Enron of nonprofits."
And they worked on it. But all that is history. We are going to expand AmeriCorps activity into specialized corps. One, an education corps; another, a health futures corps; another, a veterans corps; and another called opportunity corps. These are not outside of AmeriCorps. They will be subsets because we find this is where compelling human need is and at the same time offers great opportunity for volunteers to do it.
Opponent's argument to vote No:No senators spoke against the amendment.
Reference: Serve America Act/GIVE Act;
Bill H.R. 1388
; vote number 2009-S115
on Mar 26, 2009
Voted YES on welfare block grants.
Replacement of federal welfare guarantee with block grants to the states.
Status: Conf Rpt Agreed to Y)78; N)21; NV)1
Reference: Conference Report on H.R. 3734;
Bill H.R. 3734
; vote number 1996-262
on Aug 1, 1996
Voted NO on eliminating block grants for food stamps.
Vote to not allow states the option of getting food stamp funds as a block grant administered by the state, rather than as a federal program, if they meet certain criteria.
Reference:
Bill S 1956
; vote number 1996-218
on Jul 23, 1996
Voted YES on allowing state welfare waivers.
Vote on a procedural motion to allow consideration of an amendment to express the Sense of Congress that the president should approve the waivers requested by states that want to implement welfare reform.
Reference:
Bill S.1956
; vote number 1996-208
on Jul 19, 1996
Voted YES on welfare overhaul.
Approval of an overhaul on the federal welfare system.
Status: Bill Passed Y)87; N)12; NV)1
Reference: Contract w/ America (Welfare Refm);
Bill H.R. 4
; vote number 1995-443
on Sep 19, 1995
Page last updated: Jun 11, 2018