[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 54 (Friday, May 6, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: May 6, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mrs. HUTCHISON:
  S. 2085. A bill to amend title IV of the Social Security Act to 
require States to establish a 2-digit fingerprint matching 
identification system in order to prevent multiple enrollments by an 
individual for benefits under such act, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Finance.


                     welfare antifraud act of 1994

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about our 
Nation's welfare system. Almost 30 years ago a fellow Texan Lyndon 
Johnson declared an unconditional war on poverty. Unfortunately, this 
country has not yet won that war. Our welfare programs, created with 
the intention of providing assistance to those in despair, has been 
defeated by the disincentives that plague America's inner cities. 
Unfortunately, adding to our troubled entitlement programs are the 
abuses of the system that prevail in many of our cities. There are too 
many welfare recipients receiving benefits to which they are not 
entitled. Our State and local governments are burdened with inefficient 
fraud prevention procedures that perpetuate the abuses in the system.
  Today, I am introducing a bill to detect, investigate and prosecute 
fraud in the Aid to Families With Dependent Children [AFDC] program 
through fingerprint identification systems. AFDC fraud is a costly 
problem that will not go away if left unaddressed. We need dramatic 
changes in fraud detection programs. People all over the world see the 
United States social service system as a ticket to free benefits. Fake 
birth certificates, fake green cards, and phony Social Security cards 
are sold openly in Puerto Rico, Haiti, and China. Cooperation among 
Federal and State agencies is necessary to detect the abusers. A 
fingerprinting identification system is a solution to identifying the 
cheaters.
  Examples of fraud are evident in every State. According to the 
National Taxpayers Union, Maria Lopez and her 17 relatives might still 
be defrauding welfare departments in five States. As a migrant farm 
worker, Maria collected welfare benefits in Washington, Nebraska, 
Oregon, and Wyoming. Following in her success, 17 of her relatives 
opened welfare accounts in those States. Had caseworkers in the various 
States bothered to check they would have found all 18 persons claiming 
the same address or post office box. In Minnesota, a man was convicted 
of welfare fraud, assault and terrorist threats related to using at 
least six names and even more Social Security numbers. That man 
defrauded the welfare system of $10,490. Governor Wilson of California 
said last month ``You can use a phony social security card or a phony 
name, but nobody can use a phony fingerprint.'' The use of a 
fingerprinting system to verify the identify of recipients will work to 
reduce and prevent fraud in the system. Reducing fraud in the system 
will cut costs and make sure that those who are really in need are 
receiving assistance. States that have experimented with fingerprinting 
programs have produced dramatically better results in combating fraud 
than those States expending resources and effort on other deterrence 
programs.
  The fingerprinting system works. In June 1991, Los Angeles County 
began taking computer fingerprints from applicants for the State 
general relief program. That program has saved Los Angeles County $5.4 
million during the first 6 months of its operation and is projected to 
save about $18 million over 5 years. The program was so successful that 
2 weeks ago, Los Angeles County announced commencement of the finger-
imaging system in the AFDC program. According to Governor Wilson's 
office the fingerprinting project is expected to save taxpayers a total 
of $4.2 million in its first year of operation.

  Programs in New York have also been successful. A study conducted by 
the New York Department of Social Services estimated that New York 
could save $46 million a year if it adopted a statewide finger-imaging 
system.
  According to a recent Inspector General's report, the evidence of 
fraud that occurs in our local office goes unnoticed and worse yet 
unpunished. In that report, one eligibility worker stated ``After all 
my work proving that she was a fraud, she only got a slap on the wrist 
and an order to repay the money. * * * I know she'll do the same thing 
again, but why should I waste my time sending it to the investigator. 
She will just be back in here laughing in my face again.'' The 
Inspector General of HHS reported that the presence of an active, 
visible and effective fraud investigation function is critical to the 
integrity of the AFDC program. Fingerprinting welfare recipients has 
proven to be an effective mechanism to attack the abuses of the system. 
A fingerprinting system coupled with real prosecutorial mechanisms to 
deal with perpetrators is desperately needed in our local welfare 
offices.
  With both the President and Congress focusing on the reform of our 
welfare system, attention to eligibility is critically important. In 
1991, the Department of Health and Human Services reported that roughly 
65 percent of the cases reported in 1991 had evidence sufficient to 
support a question of fraud. This number represents only the percentage 
of cases that have been reported. As the Inspector General report 
indicates, there may also be many, many cases that go unreported due to 
inadequate preeligibility requirements and inadequate investigative 
techniques.
  The 1993 Inspector General report recommended that States use the 
most effective ways to prevent inappropriate payments in the AFDC 
program. The success stories from both the California and New York 
programs suggest that fingerprinting welfare recipients is effective 
fraud detection. The results have been impressive. The cost-savings are 
significant. Fingerprinting welfare recipients is a more modern and 
efficient approach to the welfare application process. The systems 
currently being utilized have weeded out several thousand people who 
should not have been on the rolls. The Welfare Anti-Fraud Act will 
ensure that only eligible persons receive access to AFDC benefits. We 
must halt the widespread abuses of the welfare system across this 
Nation. This bill is necessary to ensure that scarce Federal, State, 
and county resources are used effectively and not pointlessly spent on 
multiple aid.
  Mr. President, the old parable about welfare says that if you give a 
man a fish, he eats for a day, and if you teach him to fish, he eats 
for a lifetime. Almost every welfare program this Congress has devised 
has promised to teach people to fish, but most have ended up handing 
out fish on the street corner. If we stop the abuses in the system, 
those who are truly needy will be covered--and the taxpayers who 
provide this help will know their tax dollars are being spent in a 
responsible manner.
                                 ______

      By Mr. LEAHY (by request):
  S. 2086. A bill to amend the Rural Electrification Act of 1936 to 
remove the 7-percent interest rate limitation on certain Rural 
Electrification Administration loans, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.


         rural electrification administration loans act of 1994

 Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation 
to repeal the 7-percent interest rate cap on certain loans made by the 
Federal Financing Bank. This legislation will repeal a provision that 
was included in the Rural Electrification Loan Restructuring Act of 
1993 (H.R. 3123/Pub. L. 103-129). On April 26, 1994, I introduced S. 
2054 for the same purpose. However, because of a technical error in 
that bill I am introducing this new corrected version of the 
legislation.
  As I mentioned on April 26, 1994, when President Clinton signed H.R. 
3123, he indicated concern over the 7-percent cap on certain REA loans 
and said he wished to work with Congress to remove this provision. The 
legislation that I am introducing today is a good faith effort on the 
part of the administration to resolve this issue with Congress.
  In President Clinton's ``Statement on Signing the Rural 
Electrification Loan Restructuring Act of 1993'' he explained:

       The Act places a 7-percent interest rate cap on certain REA 
     loans, including those refinanced through the Department of 
     the Treasury's Federal Financing Bank. Experience with 
     Federal credit programs indicates that such statutorily fixed 
     interest rate ceilings produce unpredictable and unintended 
     results, including (1) inequities among borrowers using the 
     program at different times; (2) extraordinary demands for 
     loans when market interest rates are high; and (3) increased 
     budget deficits. The ``openended'' character of subsidies 
     resulting from the interest rate cap is inconsistent with the 
     administration's objective of managing Federal subsidies more 
     effectively.

  I would like to inform my colleagues of my intent to seek quick 
action on this legislation. I will move next week to discharge this 
bill from the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry and to 
seek final passage.
  I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2086

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. REMOVAL OF MAXIMUM INTEREST RATE LIMITATION ON FFB 
                   LOAN REFINANCING.

       Section 306C of the Rural Electrification Act of 1936 (7 
     U.S.C. 936c) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (c)(2), by striking ``, except that such 
     rate shall not be greater than 7 percent per year, subject to 
     subsection (d)''; and
       (2) by striking subsection (d).
                                 ______

      By Mr. BUMPERS:
  S. 2087. A bill to extend the time period for compliance with the 
Nutrition Labeling and Education Act of 1990 for certain food products 
packaged prior to August 18, 1994; to the Committee on Labor and Human 
Resources.


      the nutrition labeling and education act amendments of 1994

 Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, companies across the Nation have 
spent countless hours and millions of dollars in an effort to comply 
with the new food labeling rules that will become effective Sunday, May 
8. In spite of their efforts, many have found that they will simply not 
be able to meet the newest labeling requirements by that date. In many 
cases, their current supply of labels contains nutrition information, 
but the label format does not meet the new standards.
  Changes or clarifications to the regulations were issued in August, 
and although this might seem a reasonable period of time in which to 
comply, it has not been the case.
  I have heard from manufacturers from Maryland to Oregon who simply 
could not get their labels or packages printed before the deadline. 
These companies want to provide the required nutrition information in 
the correct format because it is clear that consumers are beginning to 
``check it out'' as the FDA suggests.
  I am pleased to introduce a bill that corrects this regulatory 
problem, a problem that will affect not only the food manufacturing 
industry, but consumers, farmers, and the environment if we do not act 
quickly.
  This bill extends the deadline for full compliance to August 18, 
1994, for products whose labels were printed before April 1, 1994. I 
believe this approach is a reasonable solution to a very real problem.
  Label producers are running at full capacity, but they simply cannot 
meet the demands of their customers. Label printing is a specialty, and 
the process is not as simple as it seems. Only after the food products 
have undergone laboratory analysis to determine nutrition content can 
the first step toward a final label begin. Art work has to be done, 
film has to be made, and then plates for the presses must be produced. 
In a memorandum dated May 4, 1994, a graphics company told one of its 
large customers that U.S. plate producers are saturated with orders and 
that ``there is a backlog in the industry that will take several weeks 
to debottleneck.''
  Labels include more than just the paper or plastic strips that are 
attached to cans of beans or bottles of soft drink. They include the 
egg cartons, the potato chip bags or any other packaging on which the 
nutrition information is provided. Without an extension of the May 8 
deadline, manufacturers will be forced to dispose of tons of packages 
and labels, many of which are not biodegradable.
  In Arkansas, one rice cooperative alone will have to dispose of about 
a half million dollars' worth of packaging. This loss will come out of 
the farmers' pockets. A paper company in my State has 7 million 
dollars' worth of liquid packaging that is not in compliance. Some 
companies will not have enough cartons that comply with the letter of 
the regulation by Sunday and milk producers can't put their products on 
hold while containers are manufactured.
  Can you imagine how many tons of cardboard, plastic coated paper, and 
plastic bags and jugs will be hauled to the landfills of this Nation? 
For each container or labeling strip that is discarded, another must be 
produced. The environmental consequences of our failure to extend the 
compliance period would be staggering.
  Some segments of the food industry face a more serious dilemma than 
others. A company that produces private label products, sometimes 
called ``store brands,'' may produce 150 brands of one product in three 
sizes of each brand. This one company must have 450 different labels 
for just that one product. If the company cannot get enough labels in 
time, it will be foced to shut down production and lay off its 
employees until its new labels arrive, and the customer must choose a 
different and perhaps more expensive brand.
  This measure will not assist everyone, but I believe it will make a 
significant difference.
  I am grateful for the cooperation of all those who assisted in 
working out a solution to several serious problems.
                                 ______

      By Mr. PACKWOOD (for himself, Mr. Bradley, Mr. Stevens, Mrs. 
        Feinstein, Mr. Kennedy, and Mrs. Hutchison):
  S.J. Res. 186. A joint resolution to designate February 2, 1995, and 
February 1, 1996, as ``National Women and Girls in Sports Day''; to the 
Committee on the Judiciary.


                 national girls and women in sports day

 Mr. PACKWOOD. Mr. President, today, I am joined by my 
colleagues Senators Bradley, Stevens, Feinstein, Kennedy, and Hutchison 
in introducing a joint resolution to designate February 2, 1995, and 
February 1, 1996, as ``National Girls and Women in Sports Day.'' I have 
successfully introduced this joint resolution for the past 8 years and 
hope to continue this tradition.
  I first introduced this joint resolution after I met a very special 
woman named Flo Hyman when she came to lobby Congress in 1984. Flo, 
along with other Olympic athletes, joined Senators in support of 
restoring landmark civil rights protections for women, minority, and 
disabled athletes after the Supreme Court ruling in the Grove City 
College versus Bell case. In its decision, the Supreme Court ruled that 
the prohibition of sex discrimination in education in title IX of the 
Education Amendments of 1972 applied only to the particular program or 
activity that received Federal assistance, not the entire institution. 
Under this interpretation, educational institutions would be free to 
discriminate in programs such as athletics and retain their Federal 
funding in other areas. Fortunately, the Grove City case was ultimately 
overturned and gender equity in education was restored.
  At a crowded press conference in 1984, Flo delivered a moving and 
inspiring speech about how the civil rights law--title IX--had enabled 
her to fulfill her dream and ``reach the gold.''
  When Flo died about 8 years ago, I was moved by her sudden death at 
such a young age. I wanted to do something to continue her mission and 
spirit. So, I introduced the resolution to begin National Girls and 
Women in Sports Day to honor Flo Hyman. Each year at a ceremony on this 
day, a woman athlete is presented with the ``Flo Hyman Award.'' In 
1994, the award representing total commitment and passion that Hyman 
demonstrated was presented to Patti Sheehan--professional golfer and 
LPGA Hall of Fame inductee. It is my hope that this resolution will 
inspire future generations of women athletes to strive toward the 
excellence which Flo Hyman, Patti Sheehan, and other female athletes 
exemplify.
  Despite recent advances made by women in sports, inequities still 
exist between the funding and promotion of women's and men's athletic 
programs. Mr. President, I offer this joint resolution designating 
February 2, 1995, and February 1, 1996, as ``National Girls and Women 
in Sports Day'' to honor women's contributions in sports and to 
encourage all women to participate in and enjoy the health benefits of 
athletics.

                          ____________________