[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.


                          ____________________