[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.
____________________