[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 114 (Friday, July 14, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10070-S10072]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
UNFUNDED MANDATES UNDER SENATE FINANCE WELFARE BILL
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, yesterday we had a very productive
meeting with the President, a number of my colleagues here in the
Senate, Governor Carper, Mayor Archer of Detroit, County Executive Rick
Phelps of Dane County, WI, and Bill Purcell, majority leader of the
Tennessee House of Representatives.
It is clear that the Work First Coalition is growing. Government
leaders at all levels agree that we need to move forward with welfare
reform--that we can't let extremists hold this very important reform
hostage.
We have a plan. It is about work. It is about ending the cycle of
dependency and helping single mothers and unemployed fathers become
self-sufficient and stay that way.
The bill that was reported from the Finance Committee is not about
work. It's a huge unfunded mandate to the States.
In fact, the head of the bipartisan U.S. Conference of Mayors may
have put it best when he called the Republican welfare reform plan the
``mother of all unfunded mandates.''
It's ironic that S. 1, the first bill the Republican leadership
introduced this Congress, was a bill to stop unfunded mandates. Now
they want to dump a $35 billion unfunded mandate on the States.
Why is the welfare reform bill as reported from the Finance Committee
an unfunded mandate? The reason is simple.
The bill as reported by the committee freezes Federal funding to the
States at the fiscal year 1994 level in each of the next 7 years. At
the same time, the bill requires an increasing percentage of welfare
recipients to participate in the current-law JOBS Program, which offers
education or training or other work opportunities to welfare
recipients.
But, participation in the JOBS Program is not free. There is a cost
to providing education or job training. In addition, when we talk about
welfare recipients, we are usually talking about single mothers raising
children, many of them small children or infants.
To enable a single parent to participate in an education or training
program, someone has to care for her child during that time period. She
may be lucky; perhaps a relative will watch her child for free. But,
chances are, she will not be lucky. She, like the majority of working
parents today, will have to pay for child care--will have to pay
someone to take care of her child while she is away from home.
The cost of child care is not cheap. In fact, today the cost of child
care is often a low-income family's largest expense--larger even than
rent.
And, the problem for parents of very young children is that the cost
of child care is greatest for toddlers and infants.
Certainly, if we want to put the parents of these young children to
work--
[[Page S10071]]
if we want them to stay in the workforce and become truly self-
sufficient--then we need to help them afford quality day care.
I do not think any Member of the Senate would suggest that we promote
a policy that would result in infants and toddlers being left home
alone--even in the name of requiring parents to work or participate in
the JOBS Program. I do not believe any Senator truly wants that.
However, it needs to be clearly understood that, in order to avoid
that result and, at the same time, comply with the participation rates
in the Finance Committee bill, States will have to pay for increased
JOBS Program participation and child care to enable mothers to
participate. Otherwise, participation in the JOBS Program simply won't
happen, and/or mothers will be forced to leave young children and
infants alone.
The Finance Committee bill provides no funds to help States comply
with this mandate.
What will States have to pay? About $35 billion over the next 7
years.
Now, one begins to understand why this bill has been called the
mother of all unfunded mandates.
Who will pay that $35 billion? I'll tell you if you haven't already
figure it out. The States. The counties. The cities. And, last, but
certainly not least, the local taxpayers will have to pay. That's who.
If a mandate is enacted and resources aren't provided to facilitate
compliance with that mandate, someone will have to foot the bill.
That's a simple fact that we cannot afford to overlook in the welfare
debate.
I ask unanimous consent that two charts I have be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the charts were ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Unfunded mandates to the States (or counties, cities, local taxpayers)
under the Senate Finance Committee welfare bill
[Fiscal years 1996-2002 in millions of dollars]
Additional 7-year cost passed on to States in order to comply with the
Senate finance bill
Alabama...........................................................299.4
Alaska.............................................................82.6
Arizona...........................................................565.8
Arkansas..........................................................207.7
California......................................................5,290.0
Colorado..........................................................288.9
Connecticut.......................................................434.7
Delaware...........................................................86.3
District of Columbia..............................................206.5
Florida.........................................................1,978.4
Georgia.........................................................1,066.3
Hawaii............................................................156.7
Idaho..............................................................58.5
Illinois........................................................1,622.6
Indiana...........................................................579.7
Iowa..............................................................241.8
Kansas............................................................147.5
Kentucky..........................................................553.5
Louisiana.........................................................682.6
Maine.............................................................182.4
Maryland..........................................................672.9
Massachusetts.....................................................946.0
Michigan........................................................1,470.0
Minnesota.........................................................543.0
Mississippi.......................................................403.6
Missouri..........................................................761.8
Montana............................................................74.7
Nebraska...........................................................25.8
Nevada............................................................108.1
New Hampshire......................................................69.8
New Jersey........................................................953.2
New Mexico........................................................235.7
New York........................................................3,399.5
North Carolina....................................................687.3
North Dakota.......................................................49.1
Ohio............................................................1,747.6
Oklahoma..........................................................412.2
Oregon............................................................238.5
Pennsylvania....................................................1,631.6
Rhode Island......................................................160.6
South Carolina....................................................361.3
South Dakota.......................................................20.5
Tennessee.........................................................841.0
Texas...........................................................2,270.2
Utah...............................................................17.8
Vermont............................................................85.2
Virginia..........................................................550.8
Washington........................................................638.7
West Virginia.....................................................247.4
Wisconsin.........................................................415.2
Wyoming............................................................20.6
__________
Total......................................................34,791.6
Notes:
Analysis prepared by staff of the Democratic Policy Committee based on
HHS/ASPE data.
Estimates assume that States maintain the number of participants in the
JOBS program projected under current law and keep current law
exemptions through FY 1998, and comply with participation rates
required under the Senate Finance Committee welfare bill for years FY
1996-FY 2002. Expected average national costs per countable participant
for JOBS/work and child care: FY 1999 $5,700; FY 2000 $5,900; FY 2001
$6,200; FY 2002 $6,400. [For example, the Finance Committee bill
freezes funding at the FY 1994 level through FY 2002. Therefore the
seven-year costs are derived by subtracting FY 1994 JOBS participants
from the number of participants expected to be required to participate
in each year to find the number of net new recipients required to
participate in JOBS in each year to comply with the Finance Committee
bill. The net new number of participants each year has then been
multiplied by the average cost to fulfill JOBS requirements and cover
day care costs to enable parents to participate for 20 hours per week.]
The top 10 States with the largest unfunded mandates under the Senate
Finance Committee welfare bill
[In millions of dollars]
Additional 7-year cost passed on to States in order to comply with the
Senate Finance bill
1. California...................................................5,290.0
2. New York.....................................................3,399.5
3. Texas........................................................2,270.2
4. Florida......................................................1,978.4
5. Ohio.........................................................1,747.6
6. Pennsylvania.................................................1,631.6
7. Illinois.....................................................1,622.6
8. Michigan.....................................................1,470.0
9. Georgia......................................................1,066.3
10. New Jersey....................................................953.2
Note: Analysis prepared by staff of the Democratic Policy Committee
based on HHS/ASPE data.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, the first chart, entitled, ``Unfunded
Mandates to the States (or Counties, Cities, Local Taxpayers) Under the
Senate Finance Committee Welfare Bill (FY1966-FY2002).'' is a State-by-
State breakdown of the unfunded mandates under the legislation over the
next 7 years.
The analysis was prepared by the staff of the Democratic Policy
Committee based on HHS data on JOBS participation and the cost of such
participation.
The second chart is entitled, ``The Top Ten States With the Largest
Unfunded Mandates Under the Senate Finance Committee Welfare Bill.''
South Dakota didn't make the top 10 list, but anyone in our small
State will tell you that an unfunded mandate of $20.5 million is a lot
of money. I suspect people in the other 39 States facing similar
shortfalls would react the same way.
I am disappointed that so few Members have focused on the unfunded
mandate aspect of this legislation. Instead, they have chosen to focus
on the size of the slice of pie they expect to get.
During the last several weeks, I have read on numerous occasions that
one of the largest reasons the Senate Republicans have not brought the
legislation to the floor for consideration is that there is a formula
fight brewing in their caucus.
What's the fight about? The distribution of money. Under a frozen
block grant as proposed in the Finance Committee bill, funds are really
frozen. Despite your circumstances, that's it. You get one piece of the
pie each year.
The problem is that a number of Members have looked ahead and seen
their slice of the frozen pie, and they don't know if they're so hungry
for block grants anymore. What about population growth? What about
times of recession or economic downturn? Unemployment? Natural
disaster?
Perhaps there ought to be adjustments they say. Adjustments for these
uncontrollable things or events. Southern States don't want to be
punished just because their populations are growing.
Mr. President, I agree with them. That's why our plan isn't a frozen
pie that locks States into the same size piece each year for the next 7
years.
Our plan abolishes AFDC, but continues a matching share partnership
with the States so that, as need rises, the Federal Government will be
there to remain a partner. So we don't have a formula fight over our
plan.
We recognize that, to put welfare recipients to work, to end the
cycle of dependency, we must first make some initial investments to get
welfare recipients into the work force.
Our plan cuts existing welfare programs and reinvests those funds in
the effort to putting welfare recipients to work, and in day care to
enable these mothers to go to work without abandoning their children.
I have said it before and I'll say it again. Senate Democrats are
ready to debate welfare. Senate Republicans have delayed that debate
time and again. I call on the other side not to let extremists hold
welfare reform hostage. Join with us. Work with us. It's not too late.
We can enact a bipartisan welfare reform plan. A plan that is truly
about
[[Page S10072]]
putting welfare recipients to work and enabling them to become self-
sufficient.
We support that. Able-bodied welfare recipients ought to work. As
some have said, they need to get out of the cart and help pull it. But,
babies and toddlers shouldn't be thrown out of the cart. That kind of
extremism aims at the mother and hits the child.
We believe the Senate can enact a welfare reform plan that is not
extreme, but that is fair and requires work and personal
responsibility. Rhetoric is fine, but the reality is that a small
minority support the extreme approach and are using their power to
block real reform.
If the rest of us join together, we can have a pragmatic, sensible,
realistic plan to reform welfare.
____________________