[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 138 (Thursday, September 7, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S12802-S12805]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                      FAMILY SELF-SUFFICIENCY ACT

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
  Mr. BROWN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.


                Amendment No. 2465 to Amendment No. 2280

 (Purpose: To provide that funds are expended in accordance with State 
   laws and procedures relating to the expenditure of State revenues)

  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I rise to offer an amendment and ask for 
its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Colorado [Mr. Brown], for himself, Mr. 
     Moynihan, Mr. Simpson, Mr. Murkowski, Mr. Kohl, Mr. Campbell, 
     and Mr. Feingold, proposes an amendment numbered 2465.

  The amendment is as follows:

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC.   . EXPENDITURE OF FEDERAL FUNDS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAWS 
                   AND PROCEDURES APPLICABLE TO EXPENDITURE OF 
                   STATE FUNDS.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, any funds received by a State under the provisions of 
     law specified in subsection (b) shall be expended only in 
     accordance with the laws and procedures applicable to 
     expenditures of the State's own revenues, including 
     appropriation by the State legislature, consistent with the 
     terms and conditions required under such provisions of law.
       (b) Provisions of Law.--The provisions of law specified in 
     this subsection are the following:
       (1) Part A of title IV of the Social Security Act (relating 
     to block grants for temporary assistance to needy families).
       (2) Section 25 of the Food Stamp Act of 1977 (relating to 
     the optional State food assistance block grant).
       (3) Subtitles B and C of title VII of this Act (relating to 
     workforce development).
       (4) The Child Care and Development Block Grant Act of 1990 
     (relating to block grants for child care).

  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I asked the bulk of the amendment be read, 
as it just was, for a very simple purpose. It is a straightforward 
amendment. It is very basic. It simply calls for the amount that is 
block granted under this bill to be spent in a manner in accordance 
with the laws and procedures for expenditures of the States' own 
revenues. That may not sound like a revolutionary or even controversial 
suggestion, but it is terribly important.
  The core and essence of this welfare reform is centered around the 
suggestion that States and communities can do a better job in deciding 
how their funds are expended on welfare programs assisting the poor 
than can a centrally planned government, than can a government 
thousands of miles away from the action. It is the heart, at least in 
part, of what this welfare reform is all about--the suggestion that 
money can be spent better by local levels than it can be by the Federal 
level.
  Why would I raise this issue? The facts are that in six of our States 
it makes a difference. In 44 of our States the money is expended, as is 
provided under the State's own laws, generally in the same manner that 
the State's own expenditures are allocated. But in six of our States a 
practice has been followed where the Governor alone decides where block 
grant money is spent.
  If we believe that the States are better able to decide how that 
money is spent, then I think we have to be concerned about the 
situation in the absence of this amendment. Literally, unless this 
amendment is adopted, we will see six of our States where the Governor 
is allowed to both appropriate the money, in effect decide where it is 
to be spent, and administer that money; that is, distribute the money 
and, as we will explore later on, even have a strong voice in 
conducting the audit of how that money is spent.
  Literally, what we are doing, then, in those six States is giving 
into the hands of one person the ability to appropriate, the ability to 
administer, and some significant control over the audit of what they 
have appropriated and administered. This is contrary to the very 
foundation of this country. It is contrary to the very theme of our 
Constitution. It is contrary to those philosophers who thought of our 
system and brought it to fruition.
  Mr. President, any in this Chamber who have read the very significant 
book of Senator Byrd, the distinguished Senator from West Virginia, 
cannot help but note not only his musings about the history of our 
system, but the intricacies of the Roman system. One of the lessons is 
the understanding that there needs to be a division of power.
  I want to quote from some of our historical documents because I think 
Members will find it interesting. In our own Federalist Papers, Madison 
said it best. It is in No. 47, where he says clearly:

       There can be no liberty where the legislative and executive 
     powers are united in the same person or body or magistrates.

  Unless we adopt this amendment, you are going to have that power, 
both legislative and executive powers, combined in one person in six of 
our States.
  In No. 47 of the Federalist Papers, Madison says this:

       The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive and 
     judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, 
     and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may 
     justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.

  That tyranny he talked about he goes on to talk about in further 
depth when he says:

       From these facts by which Montesquieu was guided, it may 
     clearly be inferred that in saying, ``There can be no liberty 
     where the legislative and executive powers are united in the 
     same person, or body of magistrates.''

  Mr. President, that is the core of the concern of this amendment. 
This amendment will simply provide, in those six States where they do 
not now have it, that they will follow the normal legislative process. 
If we do not adopt this, what we will in effect be doing is saying that 
the elected representatives of the people and the legislative branch 
will be ignored and their priorities bypassed when it comes to welfare 
reform under these block grants. We in this body have long recognized 
the difference between block grants and others where we have allocated 
the money ourselves. In categorical programs it has been normal to send 
the money back to the States, but it has been sent back to the States 
with guidelines from the Federal Government, including elected 
legislators, making the decisions on its allocation.
  The prime difference between block grants and the categorical grants 
is the level of government which designs the program. Under our block 
grants, the States design the programs. For categorical grants, most of 
the programs are designed and established at the Federal level. The 
State is to administer the grant in accordance with Federal directives.
  Mr. President, it makes sense that when we move to block grants, that 
we allow the State legislative process to be part of this.
  This amendment is offered, not only by myself but by Senator 
Moynihan, Senator Simpson, Senator Murkowski, Senator Kohl, Senator 
Campbell, and Senator Feingold.
  I believe the provisions of this measure are broad and they are 
bipartisan. I think they unite the interests of this Congress, an 
interest that we ought to have special recognition of. Would Senators 
literally want to abdicate the legislative responsibility to a chief 
executive? Chief executives are responsible, are important members of 
our governmental functions, but they should not have combined with them 
the legislative powers.
  In addition to this, I want to draw the Members' special attention to 
another factor in this bill. Under section 

[[Page S 12803]]
408 of the Dole amendment, it requires States to conduct an annual 
audit of expenditures under the Federal temporary assistance--AFDC, 
that is--block grant. The auditor is required to be independent of the 
administering State agency and approved by the U.S. Treasury Secretary 
and the chief executive officer of the State.
  Literally, what we are doing, then, is we are allocating money to the 
States which, in some cases in effect, will be legislated or 
appropriated by a chief executive, administered by that chief 
executive, and audited by someone that chief executive approves of. Or, 
put a different way, no one of which the chief executive does not 
approve can audit those funds.
  This is untenable. I understand why some Governors may like this 
power, but I suspect, on reflection, many Governors will not like that 
power because what it gives them a special burden. Some may say this is 
in line with what we have done in the past. But let me assure this body 
that it is not fully in line. Under the General Revenue Sharing Act of 
1972, Public Law 92-512, section 123(a) addressed this. In subsection 4 
it said this:

       It will provide for the expenditure of amounts received 
     under subtitle A only in accordance with the laws and 
     procedures applicable to the expenditures of its own 
     revenues.

  In other words, the State government would have the ability to 
appropriate those moneys under the same procedures that they follow now 
for their own revenues. That is what we are asking in this amendment. 
It is consistent with the provision that Congress enacted in 1972 for 
general revenue sharing.
  In 1977 the Advisory Committee on Intergovernmental Relations 
reported:

       The commission recommends that the State legislatures take 
     a much more active role in State decisionmaking relating to 
     the receipt and expenditures of Federal grants to the States.
  Specifically, the Commission recommends that the legislatures take 
action to provide for: inclusion of anticipated in Federal grants in 
appropriation or authorization bills; prohibition of receipt of 
expenditures of Federal grants above the amount appropriated without 
the approval of the legislature. The recommendation goes on.

  But whether it is in the 1972 General Revenue Sharing Act or the 1977 
report of the Advisory Commission, or the 1980 report of the U.S. 
Comptroller General that dealt with the same subject, the theme is 
consistent. It was also a theme of provisions in the 1981 Omnibus 
Reconciliation Act, in the 1982 Job Training Act, and in the 1984 U.S. 
Comptroller General's report to Congress. There the subject was 
addressed, with this specific language-- the public's opportunity to 
influence State decisions for programs supported with block grant funds 
has been enhanced through the combined effects of multiple public 
participation opportunities offered by the States, the increased 
activity of State elected officials, and the increased activity of 
interest groups at the State level. This increase is related to the 
expanded public input opportunities established both in response to the 
Federal requirements as well as to the greater discretion available to 
the States.
  Mr. President, it is clear from following the background that this 
Congress and independent advisory groups have recognized the value over 
and over again of having elected State officials set the priorities.
  Mr. President, this amendment is straightforward. And it is basic. 
What it suggests is that we as a Congress ought to make sure that the 
appropriating function is performed by the State legislatures or at 
least with regard to the general standard of appropriation that is 
followed by the States themselves.
  It is endorsed by the National Conference of State Legislators. It is 
endorsed by the National Speakers Conference. It is endorsed by the 
American Legislative Exchange Council.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
the letters from and resolutions of these three bodies.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                            National Conference of


                                           State Legislatures,

                                   Washington, DC, August 4, 1995.
     Hon. Hank Brown,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Brown: The National Conference of State 
     Legislatures is greatly appreciative of the leadership you 
     have provided on a variety of federalism and 
     intergovernmental relations issues. Most recently, you were 
     able to include language in H.R. 4 that reaffirmed the state 
     legislature's role in expending federal block grant funds. 
     With the Senate about to undertake debate on the Republican 
     leadership's welfare reform package, S. 1120, we wish to call 
     upon you again to ensure that state legislative policymaking 
     and fiscal authority is in no way compromised regarding any 
     and all block grants included in S. 1120.
       As reported from the Senate Finance Committee, H.R. 4 
     specifically stated that family assistance block grant funds 
     received by the state would be expended in accordance with 
     the laws and procedures applicable to expenditure of the 
     state's own revenues. NCSL strongly encourages you to pursue 
     insertion of similar language in S. 1120, making it 
     applicable to all of the various block grants and 
     consolidations being considered, and stands ready to assist 
     you. Your language clearly reaffirms the roles that state 
     lawmakers play in appropriating funds. We are concerned that 
     giving governors direct control over funds, even if it is 
     optional with food stamps, could well violate state laws and 
     practices. Your H.R. 4 language guarantees that there will be 
     an open, deliberative process in expending any block grant 
     monies. It does not change the governor's role regarding the 
     state's policymaking process and it certainly ensures that 
     the state legislature will be involved.
       Thank you again for the leadership on and commitment you 
     bring to these issues. NCSL is prepared to work closely with 
     you as floor deliberations on S. 1120 proceed. Please have 
     your staff contact Sheri Steisel (624-8693) or Michael Bird 
     (624-8686) for further assistance.
           Sincerely,

                                                James J. Lack,

                                           State Senator, New York
     and President, NCSL.
                                                                    ____

        Resolution Supporting State Authority in Welfare Reform

       Whereas, the 10th Amendment to the Constitution of the 
     United States reserves all powers not prohibited to the 
     states nor delegated to the United States to the states or to 
     the people respectively, and;
       Whereas, the Constitution of the United States neither 
     prohibits power over welfare to the states, nor delegates 
     power over welfare to the United States, and;
       Whereas, through the years the United States has assumed 
     powers over welfare that are inconsistent with the 
     distribution of powers between the United States, the states, 
     or the people respectively under the United States 
     Constitution, and;
       Whereas, restoration of the Constitutional distribution of 
     powers between the United States, the states or the people 
     respectively should proceed at an expeditious pace to restore 
     the consistency of governing relationships with the nation's 
     fundamental law, and;
       Whereas, the welfare programs of the United States have 
     been largely unsuccessful, enormously expensive and even 
     counter-productive to the welfare of recipients, and;
       Whereas, the states are laboratories of democracy in which 
     different policy approaches are tried, and the most 
     successful policies are copied by states whose policy 
     approaches are less successful, and;
       Whereas, restoration of state authority with respect to 
     welfare is consistent with the fundamental democratic 
     principle that government should be as close as possible to 
     the people, and;
       Whereas, the United States Senate Finance Committee has 
     reported H.R. 4 which contains language that would allow 
     states to expend federal welfare funds ``in any manner that 
     is reasonably calculated to accomplish the purpose'' of the 
     bill, and;
       Whereas, as reported by the United States Senate Finance 
     Committee, H.R. 4 contains language requiring that federal 
     funding for welfare be ``expended only in accordance with the 
     laws and procedures applicable to expenditures of the State's 
     own revenues, including appropriation by the State 
     legislature,'' and;
       Whereas, the above reference clauses in H.R. 4 represent an 
     important step toward restoration of state authority with 
     respect to welfare;
       Now therefore be it resolved, That the Board of Directors 
     of the American Legislative Exchange Council urges the United 
     States Senate to include the above reference clauses in any 
     welfare reform bill which it adopts.
                                                                    ____

  Resolving To Preserve State Legislative Authority and Oversight of 
                       Federal Block Grant Funds

       Whereas, the National Speakers Conference represents the 
     bipartisan and collective sentiment of the nation's Speakers 
     of the House; and
       Whereas, the National Speakers Conference seeks to 
     strengthen and preserve state legislatures' traditional 
     appropriations authority and oversight of all state 
     expenditures; and
       Whereas, the National Speakers Conference recognizes that 
     this authority is enshrined in our national and state 
     constitutions and is fundamental to the system of checks and 
     balances that defines the separation of power among the three 
     branches of our government; and

[[Page S 12804]]

       Whereas, the National Speakers Conference believes that the 
     appropriation and administration of block grants require the 
     full participation of both the legislative and executive 
     branches to develop and implement effective policy; and
       Whereas, the National Speakers Conference believes the most 
     effective means of ensuring the full participation of the 
     legislative and executive branches of government is through 
     the budget appropriation and approval process;
       Now, therefore be it resolved by the National Speakers 
     Conference, that the various Speakers of the House attending 
     the National Speakers Conference in a bipartisan vote urge 
     the United States Congress to support the premise that all 
     federal block grants received by the various states be 
     expended only in accordance with the laws and procedures 
     applicable to expenditures of the state's own revenues, 
     including appropriation by the state legislatures; and
       Be it further resolved, that the Conference endorses the 
     bipartisan amendment proposed by Senators Hank Brown of 
     Colorado, Daniel Patrick Moynihan of New York, Herb Kohl of 
     Wisconsin, Frank Murkowski of Alaska and Alan Simpson of 
     Wyoming to the welfare reform bill; and
       Be it further resolved, that the National Speakers 
     Conference request the United States and the United States 
     House of Representatives in any block grant legislation that 
     is enacted to ensure that the legislative appropriating 
     authority is protected; and
       Be it further resolved, that copies of this resolution be 
     transmitted to the Congressional delegations of the various 
     states by the Speakers of the House of those respective 
     states.
       Approved this first day of September Nineteen Hundred and 
     Ninety-Five in Santa Fe, New Mexico.

  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I will reserve the remainder of my time.
  Let me simply close with this thought. As we give to the States an 
enormous grant of new authority and new responsibility, an ability 
literally to appropriate the funds and allocate the funds that have 
been taken by the Federal Government, I think it is incumbent upon us 
to make sure that is done wisely, and it is done well. To suggest that 
we are going to concentrate in the hands of one person, the Governor, 
the ability to both appropriate and administer and have a control over 
the audit is unacceptable.
  This amendment gives the States the ability to preside over this 
money just as they do with their own money that they raise.
  I urge the adoption of the amendment.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, may I thank the Senator from Colorado 
for offering this amendment which appears to this Senator, and I 
believe to most Senators on either side of the aisle, as appropriate, 
and necessary because there are principles involved.
  I am sure the Senator from Colorado agrees that constitutional 
government is a division of powers, and always contemplates that 
resources will be revenues. These are revenues to State governments 
that will be allocated in accordance with agreements in the legislative 
branch and the executive branch.
  That is the intent of the Senator's amendment.
  Mr. BROWN. It is precisely that intent and more consistently 
constitutional, I believe.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. It seems to me, precisely that. By constitutional 
proviso the Congress guarantees to the States a republican form of 
government. I am not sure whether this would fall under that admonition 
or injunction.
  Mr. BROWN. Many of us were hopeful that admonition for a republican 
form of government meant just that. But unfortunately, apparently it 
was not.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. I insist that republican be with a small ``r,'' and at 
the time when Thomas Jefferson assumed to run the democratic Republican 
Party. But we will not get into that detail.
  I would simply indicate that it would be my disposition, absent any 
contrary information, to accept the amendment. If the Senator wishes a 
vote, of course that is his right. But I will defer to the Senator from 
Colorado in this regard.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I would be happy to have it accepted. I am 
advised there are Members who have concerns about this.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. So they would wish to speak and perhaps to be heard. 
Very well. I do believe we are at a point where we may be reaching an 
agreement on tomorrow's schedule, Mr. President.
  Mr. President, I see the distinguished Senator from Nevada is on the 
floor.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. REID addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, will the Chair inform the Senator from 
Nevada what the parliamentary status now is on the Senate floor?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado is on a second-
degree amendment.
  Mr. REID. There is no time agreement?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is no time agreement.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the remarks I 
make appear elsewhere in the Record so as not to interfere with the 
debate on this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOLE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I wonder if we might be able to get the yeas 
and nays on the Brown amendment. We will set that vote for tomorrow 
morning.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, if we could ask for the yeas and nays on the 
Brown amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. DOLE. We will have an agreement to have that vote tomorrow 
morning at 9:30 unless it can be accepted. I understand there is no 
objection on the Democratic side.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Not to my knowledge.
  Mr. DOLE. There may be an objection.
  We are still looking for additional amendments to be taken up this 
evening. We have agreed to amendments on either side. I know the 
distinguished manager on the other side does not wish to offer his 
amendment this evening. We can lay it down. I think that would take an 
hour, or 45 minutes, tomorrow.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. If it is agreeable, an hour and 30 minutes equally 
divided.
  Mr. DOLE. I have no objection to that.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Will the Senator from Nevada be generous enough to let 
us proceed with these technical matters for just a moment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Nevada yield for that 
purpose?
  Mr. REID. I do.


                Amendment No. 2466 to Amendment No. 2280

              (Purpose: To provide a substitute amendment)

  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk in the 
second degree and I ask for its consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment of 
the Senator from Colorado is temporarily set aside, and the clerk will 
report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New York (Mr. Moynihan) proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2466 to amendment No. 2280.

  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The text of the amendment appears in today's Record under 
``Amendments Submitted.'')
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, in accordance with the agreement, such 
as it will be reached between leaders, I yield the floor with the 
understanding that we will take this matter up tomorrow.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Will the Senator from Nevada yield?
  Mr. REID. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Just for clarification of the schedule this evening, it 
is the leader's intention to take up the Moynihan amendment tomorrow 
and have other amendments offered if we can have them laid down tonight 
but no additional amendments would be voted upon tonight?
  Mr. DOLE. That is correct. I know Members are going to want to be 
leaving fairly early tomorrow afternoon. It is not going to be possible 
unless they are willing to come to the floor tonight and debate the 
amendments and have the votes tomorrow morning. We are searching on our 
side if we can ask the leader to search on his side.

[[Page S 12805]]

  Mr. DASCHLE. If the Senator from Nevada will yield, let me urge my 
colleagues. We have been polling our Members and have been told that we 
have about 130 amendments. If we have that many amendments, there is no 
reason why tonight we cannot have a good debate on some of these 
amendments. I would like to see a couple of them offered and debated 
tonight. The ranking member is here and prepared to work with any of 
our Members on this side. So I hope we can do that. If we have that 
many amendments, there is no reason why at 6 o'clock tonight we do not 
have more of an opportunity to discuss some of these important matters.
  So I really urge all of our Democratic colleagues to cooperate in 
good faith and to come to the floor. This is a good time to be offering 
the amendments, and we will accommodate Senators as they come to the 
floor.
  Mr. DOLE. If the Senator from Nevada will yield further, I make the 
same request. This is normally the late evening, Thursday evening, and 
we have not announced any votes this evening but we are prepared to do 
that if we can have the cooperation of Members, if they just come to 
the floor, debate the amendment, with the exception of the amendment of 
the Senator from New York, and then we can agree to vote on those 
tomorrow morning.
  Following the votes, we would take up the amendment of the Senator 
from New York [Mr. Moynihan], with 1\1/2\ hours equally divided for 
debate. So we will put out a hotline on this side, and this is the time 
to offer amendments. We had 70-some on our list. You have, say, 150. If 
there are 200 amendments out there, there ought to be somebody willing 
to come to the floor at 6:20 on a Thursday evening--it is not even dark 
outside--and offer some amendments. We are prepared to do business. I 
know the Presiding Officer is very pleased to be here, and we will do 
our best. I thank my colleague.
  Mr. REID addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.

                          ____________________