[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 139 (Friday, September 8, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S12924-S12937]
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. ASHCROFT. I thank the Senator from Connecticut. I am delighted to
have this opportunity to make a few remarks and to offer two amendments
to the Dole modified amendment for the welfare reform proposal.
Mr. President, the Dole modified amendment which is offered today is
a substantial improvement, a very substantial and significant step
toward the right kind of operation in terms of reforming welfare. I am
pleased to see that the mechanism for delivering block grants--which
was first recommended in the proposal I made on welfare reform called
CIVIC, Senate bills 842, 843, 844 and 845, the proposal for delivering
block grants directly from the Department of the Treasury to the
States--is included and that will vastly reduce the Federal welfare
bureaucracy, which I considered to be a bureaucratic tax upon the poor,
and make resources available to the truly needy. It should limit
Washington's interference in the States' welfare reform efforts.
As I have spoken many times on the floor, ending the micromanagement
and intermeddling involvement of HHS to the extent possible, and giving
States the opportunity to craft and shape welfare reform so that it
meets the needs of the people in the States, is very important. We do
need to replace the failed system of welfare which has been a
Washington-run system, and the modified amendment proposed by Senator
Dole would help achieve this, in part, by adopting the proposal which
is for direct block grants to the States that bypass much of the
redtape of Washington.
Also, it is important that the Dole amendment includes an independent
audit provision which will eliminate much of the Washington
micromanagement and prevent funds from being consumed needlessly on
bureaucratic oversight. Under this provision, States would supply to
the Department of the Treasury audits conducted by independent auditors
demonstrating their compliance and that block grant funds have been
used properly in serving the needy populations.
I want to also say how pleased I am to see that the modified
amendment includes a provision adapted from my welfare reform bill,
which recognizes that Government programs alone will never solve all of
our welfare needs. We have to allow States to involve a number of
nongovernmental charitable organizations, including faith-based
organizations, in serving the poor. Organizations like the Salvation
Army and Boys and Girls Clubs are often more successful in serving
people in need than are governmental institutions. We need to be able
to tap these resources effectively. There is a character in the
programs like the Boys and Girls Clubs and the Salvation Army that is
important in meeting needs. It is a character associated with charity,
which provides for a kind of compassion and caring that instills hope
and aspiration in the lives of people.
The modified amendment includes very important provisions in this
respect, which will ensure that such organizations that are selected to
participate in meeting the needs of the poor are not forced to
compromise their character. Furthermore, any person eligible for
assistance who would be offended by going to one of these organizations
to receive assistance would have an opportunity to receive alternative
services from the state.
There have been clear guidelines set to protect individual rights and
to protect the rights of the organization.
While these are important provisions included in the modified Dole
amendment, Mr. President, the modified amendment still I think needs
adjustment and falls shorts of being a comprehensive welfare reform
bill.
That is why I intend to send a pair of amendments to the desk which
would broaden the bill to include block grants for two major welfare
programs: Food stamps and supplemental security income, or the SSI
program.
Block grants are essential for these programs because if you leave
welfare partially open ended as entitlement programs, and partially
block granted, there is a tendency on the part of jurisdictions to
shift the welfare caseload from the areas which are block granted to
the areas that are open ended and entitlements.
As a result, rather than controlling and managing welfare
effectively, you just push from one area of the welfare population to
another, move people from AFDC over to SSI. In some cases, that move
would be far more expensive.
A single child on SSI gets $448 a month. There are AFDC programs
which provide $200 or $300 a month, and a shift in that population
would not be a reform at all in terms of cost containment, but a way of
just dramatically increasing our welfare costs. As a matter of fact, it
would make it very difficult for us to control costs.
In addition, when you have a program which has no limit on it,
totally entitlement and totally federally funded, the incentives on the
part of State and local instrumentalities to combat fraud and abuse are
low. If we give the items in block grants to the States, the incentive
to contain fraud and abuse, to detect it, to root it out of the system,
is elevated.
Mr. President, fraud and abuse are rampant in the Food Stamp Program
and SSI today because as the rolls grow, the money flows. There is no
incentive to the welfare industry to reduce the problem. The only way
we will be able to combat fraud and abuse is to give States the ability
to design and enforce these programs and the incentive for them to
limit the expenditures in these programs. I intend to send two
amendments to the desk regarding SSI and food stamps.
Finally, Mr. President, I join today Senator Coats in introducing an
[[Page S 12925]]
amendment which also recognizes we must look beyond Government to solve
the welfare problems. Specifically, we need to encourage people to get
involved personally in helping the needy. Our amendment combines
proposals which we have offered in the past to accomplish this goal. It
would provide a nonrefundable tax credit to individuals who volunteer
time as well as money to give to charitable organizations so that
individuals who contributed at least 50 hours per year at nonprofit
private or religious charitable organizations which serve the needy
would be eligible for not just the tax deduction regarding a $500
contribution, but if they also have a $500 contribution, they would be
eligible for a tax credit of up to $500.
Mr. President, let me emphasize that simply rearranging the deck
chairs on the ``Welfare Titanic'' would be turning our backs on the
most pressing issues facing our future. We must fundamentally reform
the entirety of our welfare system.
We simply cannot tinker around the margins. We cannot afford to
repeat the mistakes we made in the past. We must all admit that
Government alone has failed miserably and will continue to fail.
We must, I believe, have these expanded block grants so we do not
have a partial system of block grants which invites cost-shifting and
does not provide incentives for fraud and abuse containment.
I believe we must invite a far broader band of our society to
participate in meeting the needs of the needy, and for that reason we
need to encourage involvement by a far broader group of individuals in
society.
Amendments Nos. 2561 and 2562 to Amendment No. 2280
Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I send two amendments to the desk and I
ask unanimous consent they be considered as having been offered
individually.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Missouri [Mr. Ashcroft] proposes
amendments numbered 2561 and 2562 to amendment No. 2280.
Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendments be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The text of the amendments are printed in today's Record under
``Amendments Submitted.'')
Mr. ASHCROFT. I wish to thank the Senator from Connecticut for his
courtesy.
Mr. DODD. I send my apologies to the Senator from Missouri and the
people of Missouri for saying the State of Ohio.
Mr. ASHCROFT. Perhaps the Senator needs to apologize to the Senator
from Ohio if he is offended.
I yield to my colleague from Florida.
Amendments Nos. 2563 and 2564 to Amendment No. 2280
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Connecticut. On
behalf of Senator Kennedy, I send two amendments to the desk to be
offered, and I ask the pending amendment be set aside.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment is
set aside.
The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Florida [Mr. Graham], for Mr. Kennedy,
proposes amendments numbered 2563 and 2564 to amendment No.
2280.
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendments be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendments are as follows:
amendment no. 2563
(Purpose: To terminate sponsor responsibilities upon the date of
naturalization of the immigrant)
On page 289, line 5, strike the period and insert ``, but
in no event shall such period extend beyond the date (if any)
on which the alien becomes a citizen of the United States
under chapter 2 of title III of the Immigration and
Nationality Act.''
On page 291, line 14, strike the period and insert ``, but
in no event shall such period extend beyond the date (if any)
on which the alien becomes a citizen of the United States
under chapter 2 of title III of the Immigration and
Nationality Act.''
On page 293, line 16, insert ``but in no event shall the
sponsor be required to provide financial support beyond the
date (if any) on which the alien becomes a citizen of the
United States under chapter 2 of title III of the Immigration
and Nationality Act.'' after ``quarters''.
amendment no. 2564
(Purpose: To grant the Attorney General flexibility in certain public
assistance determinations for immigrants)
On page 292, line 5, strike ``and''.
On page 292, line 11, strike the period and insert ``;
and''.
On page 292, between lines 11 and 12, insert the following
new subparagraph:
(F) benefits or services which serve a compelling
humanitarian or compelling public interest as specified by
the Attorney General in consultation with appropriate Federal
agencies and departments.
Amendments Nos. 2565 through 2569 to Amendment No. 2280
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask the pending amendment be set aside,
and on behalf of myself and cosponsors, I send to the desk five
amendments.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is set aside. The clerk will
report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Florida [Mr. Graham] proposes amendments
numbered 2565 through 2569 to amendment No. 2280.
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendments be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendments are as follows:
amendment no. 2565
(Purpose: To provide a formula for allocating funds that more
accurately reflects the needs of States with children below the poverty
line, and for other purposes)
On page 17, line 2, strike ``paragraphs (3) and (5),
section 407 (relating to penalties),'' and insert ``section
407 (relating to penalties)''.
On page 17, beginning on line 16, strike all through line
22, and insert the following: ``equal to the amount
determined under paragraph (3), reduced by the amount (if
any) determined under subparagraph (B).''
On page 18, beginning on line 22, strike all through page
22, line 8, and insert the following:
``(3) State Family Assistance Grant.--
``(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraphs (B) and (C),
for purposes of paragraph (2), the amount of the State family
assistance grant to a State for a fiscal year is an amount
which bears the same ratio to the amount appropriated for
such fiscal year under paragraph (4)(A) as the average number
of minor children in families within the State having incomes
below the poverty line for the 3-preceding fiscal years bears
to the average number of minor children in families within
all States having incomes below the poverty line for such 3-
preceding fiscal years.
``(B) Special rules.--
``(i) Ceiling.--Except as provided in clause (ii), the
amount of the State family assistance grant for a fiscal year
to a State shall not exceed--
``(I) for fiscal year 1996, an amount equal to 150 percent
of the total amount of Federal payments to the State under
section 403 for fiscal year 1994 (as such section was in
effect before October 1, 1995); and
``(II) for each fiscal year thereafter, an amount equal to
150 percent of the total amount of the State family
assistance grant to the State for the preceding fiscal year.
``(ii) Minimum Allocation.--
``(I) In general.--Subject to subclause (II), if the amount
of the State family assistance grant determined under
subparagraph (A) for a fiscal year is less than 0.6 percent
of the total amount appropriated for such fiscal year under
paragraph (4)(A), the amount of such grant for such fiscal
year shall be an amount equal to the lesser of--
``(aa) 0.6 percent of the amount appropriated under
paragraph (4)(A) for such fiscal year, or
``(bb) an amount equal to two times the total amount of
Federal payments to the State
under section 403 for fiscal year 1994 (as such section was
in effect before October 1, 1995).
``(II) Reduction if amounts not available.--If the
aggregate amount by which State family assistance grants for
States is increased for a fiscal year under subclause (I)
exceeds the aggregate amount by which State family assistance
grants for States is decreased for the fiscal year under
clause (i), the amount of the State family assistance grant
to a State to which this clause applies shall be reduced by
an amount which bears the same ratio to the aggregate amount
of such excess as the average number of minor children in
families within the State having incomes below the poverty
line for the 3-preceding fiscal years bears to the average
number of minor children in families within all States to
which this clause applies having incomes below the poverty
line for such 3-preceding fiscal years.
``(C) Allocation of remainder.--
``(i) In general.--A State that is an eligible State for a
fiscal year shall be entitled to an increase in the State
family assistance grant equal to the additional allocation
amount determined under clause (ii) (if any) for such State
for the fiscal year.
[[Page S 12926]]
``(ii) Additional allocation amount.--The additional
allocation amount for an eligible State for a fiscal year
determined under this clause is the amount which bears the
same ratio to the remainder allocation amount for the fiscal
year determined under clause (iii) as the average number of
minor children in families within the eligible State having
incomes below the poverty line for the 3-preceding fiscal
years bears to the average number of minor children in
families within all eligible States having incomes below the
poverty line for such 3-preceding fiscal years.
``(iii) Remainder allocation amount.--The remainder
allocation amount determined under this clause is the
amount (if any) that is equal to the difference between--
``(I) the amount appropriated for the fiscal year under
paragraph (4)(A), and
``(II) an amount equal to the sum of the family assistance
grants determined under this paragraph (without regard to
this subparagraph) for all States for such fiscal year.
``(iv) Eligible State.--For purposes of this subparagraph,
the term `eligible State' means a State whose State family
assistance grant for the fiscal year, as determined under
this paragraph (without regard to this subparagraph), is less
than the total amount of Federal payments to the State under
section 403 for fiscal year 1994 (as such section was in
effect before October 1, 1995).
``(D) Option to base allocations on preceding fiscal year
data.--The Secretary may in lieu of using data for the 3-
preceding fiscal years, allocate funds under this paragraph
based on data for the most recent fiscal year for which
accurate data are available.
``(E) Definitions and special rules.--For purposes of this
paragraph--
``(i) Poverty line.--The term ``poverty line'' has the same
meaning given such term in section 673(2) of the Community
Services Block Grant Act (42 U.S.C. 9902(2)).
``(ii) 3-preceding fiscal years.--The term `3-preceding
fiscal years' means the 3 most recent fiscal years preceding
the current fiscal year for which data are available.
``(iv) Publication of allocations.--Not later than January
15th of each calendar year, the Secretary shall publish in
the Federal Register the amount of the family assistance
grant to which each State is entitled under this subsection
for the fiscal year that begins in such calendar year.
On page 23, beginning on line 7, strike all through page
24, line 18.
amendment no. 2566
(Purpose: To require each responsible Federal agency to determine
whether there are sufficient appropriations to carry out the Federal
intergovernmental mandates required by this Act, provide that the
mandates will not be effective under certain conditions, and for other
purposes)
At the appropriate place, insert the following new section:
SEC. . UNFUNDED FEDERAL INTERGOVERNMENTAL MANDATES.
(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law--
(1) no later than 15 days after the beginning of fiscal
year 1996, and annually thereafter through fiscal year 2000,
the Director of the Congressional Budget Office shall, in a
manner similar to section 424(a) (1) and (2) of the
Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (2
U.S.C. 658c(a) (1) and (2)), estimate the direct costs for
the fiscal year of each Federal intergovernmental mandate
resulting from the enactment of this Act or any other
legislation that includes welfare reform provisions and
determine whether there are sufficient appropriations for the
fiscal year to provide for the direct costs,
(2) each responsible Federal agency shall, for each fiscal
year described in paragraph (1), identify any appropriations
bill or other legislation that provides Federal funding of
the direct costs described in paragraph (1) which relate to
each Federal intergovernmental mandate within the agency's
jurisdiction and shall determine whether there are
insufficient appropriations for the fiscal year to provide
such direct costs, and
(3) no later than 30 days after the beginning of each
fiscal year described in paragraph (1), the responsible
Federal agency shall notify the appropriate authorizing
committees of Congress of the agency's determination under
paragraph (2) and submit either--
(A) a statement that the agency has determined based on a
re-estimate of the direct costs of such mandate, after
consultation with State, local, and tribal governments, that
the amount appropriated is sufficient to pay for the direct
costs of such Federal intergovernmental mandate for the
fiscal year, or
(B) legislative recommendations for--
(i) implementing a less costly Federal intergovernmental
mandate, or
(ii) making such mandate ineffective for the fiscal year.
(b) Legislative Action.--
(1) In general.--The Congress shall consider on an
expedited basis, under procedures similar to the procedures
set forth in section 425 of the Congressional Budget and
Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 658d), the
statement or legislative recommendations described in
subsection (a)(3) no later than 30 days after the statement
or recommendations are submitted to Congress.
(2) Legislative action required.--The Federal
intergovernmental mandate to which a statement described in
subsection (a)(2) relates shall--
(i) cease to be effective on the date that is 60 days after
the date the statement is submitted under subsection
(a)(3)(A) unless Congress has approved the agency's
determination under subsection (a)(3)(A) by joint resolution
during the 60-day period;
(ii) cease to be effective on the date that is 60 days
after the date the legislative recommendations described in
subsection (a)(3)(B) are submitted to the Congress, unless
Congress provides otherwise by law; or
(iii) in the case that such mandate has not yet taken
effect, continue not to be effective unless Congress provides
otherwise by law.
(c) Definitions.--For purposes of this section:
(1) Responsible federal agency.--The term ``responsible
Federal agency'' means the agency that has jurisdiction with
respect to a Federal intergovernmental mandate created by the
provisions of this Act or any other legislation that is
enacted that includes welfare reform provisions.
(2) Federal intergovernmental mandate; direct costs.--The
terms ``Federal intergovernmental mandate'' and ``direct
costs'' have the meanings given such terms by section 421 of
the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974
(2 U.S.C. 658).
(3) Welfare reform provisions.--The term ``welfare reform
provisions'' means provisions of Federal law relating to any
Federal benefit for which eligibility is based on need.
amendment no. 2567
(Purpose: To provide that the Secretary, in ranking States with respect
to the success of their work programs, shall take into account the
average number of minor children in families in the State that have
incomes below the poverty line and the amount of funding provided each
State for such families)
On page 64, line 10, after the period, insert the
following: ``In ranking States under this subsection, the
Secretary shall take into account the average number of minor
children in families in the State that have incomes below the
poverty line and the amount of funding provided each State
for such families.''
amendment no. 2568
(Purpose: To set national work participation rate goals and to provide
that the Secretary shall adjust the goals for individual States based
on the amount of Federal funding the State receives for minor children
in families in the State that have incomes below the poverty line, and
for other purposes)
On page 12, strike lines 10 and 11, and insert the
following:
``(C) Satisfy the work participation rate goals established
for the State pursuant to section 404(b)(6).
On page 29, beginning with line 19, strike all through the
table preceding line 3, on page 30, and insert the following:
SEC. 404. NATIONAL WORK PARTICIPATION RATE GOALS.
``(a) National Goals for Work Participation Rates.--A State
to which a grant is made under section 403 shall make every
effort to achieve the national work participation rate goals
specified in the following tables for the fiscal year with
respect to--
``(1) all families receiving assistance under the State
program funded under this part:
The national
participation rate goal
``If the fiscal year is: for all families is:
1996...............................................................25
1997...............................................................30
1998...............................................................35
1999...............................................................40
2000 or thereafter................................................50;
and
``(2) with respect to 2-parent families receiving such
assistance:
The national
participation rate goal is:
``If the fiscal year is:
1996...............................................................60
1997 or 1998.......................................................75
1999 or thereafter................................................90.
On page 35, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following:
``(6) Modifications to national participation rate goals to
reflect the number of families receiving assistance in each
state.--The Secretary, after consultation with the States,
shall establish specific work participation rate goals for
each State by adjusting the national participation rate goals
to reflect the level of Federal funds a State is receiving
under this part for the fiscal year and the average number of
minor children in families having incomes below the poverty
line that are estimated for the State for the fiscal year.
Not later January 15, 1996, and each year thereafter, the
Secretary shall publish in the Federal Register the
participation rate goals for each State for the current
fiscal year.
On page 52, beginning on line 24, strike all through
``fiscal year,'' on page 53, line 4, and insert the
following:
``(3) Failure to satisfy participation rate.--
``(A) In general.--If the Secretary determines that a State
has failed to satisfy the work participation rate goals
specified for the State pursuant to section 404(b)(6) for a
fiscal year,
amendment no. 2569
(Purpose: To provide for the perspective application of the provisions
of title V)
On page 300, line 10, insert ``other than section 506 of
this Act,'' after ``law,''.
[[Page S 12927]]
On page 302, between lines 5 and 6, insert the following:
SEC. 506. APPLICATION OF TITLE TO CERTAIN BENEFICIARIES.
The provisions of, and amendments made by, this title shall
not apply to any noncitizen who is lawfully present in the
U.S. and receiving benefits under a program on the date of
the enactment of this Act.
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I offered several amendments which I will
explain in brief.
My first amendment would change the formula for distributing Federal
welfare funds to the States.
I am offering this amendment with Senator Dale Bumpers. I would ask
for unanimous consent to add Senators Bryan, Moseley-Braun, Pryor,
Johnston, and Reid as cosponsors.
In sum, our formula amendment would distribute funds under this bill
on the basis of a State's number of children in poverty.
In the interest of time, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in
the Record at this point a description of the Graham-Bumpers formula
amendment. Thank you.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Graham-Bumpers Children's Fair Share Proposal
The Graham-Bumpers Children's Fair Share proposal allocates funding
based on the number of poor children in each state.
The amendment would be needs based, adjusts for population and
demographic changes, treats all poor children equitably does not
permanently disadvantage states based on previous year's spending in a
system that is being dismantled, and allows all states a more equitable
chance at achieving the work requirements in S. 1120. The Graham-
Bumpers Children's Fair Share measure would establish a fair, equitable
and level playing field for poor children in America, regardless of
where they live.
Disparities in funding would be narrowed in the short-run and
eliminated over time--in sharp contrast to S. 1120.
I11Children's Fair Share Allocation Formula: The Children's Fair Share
formula would allocate funding based on a three-year average of the
number of children in poverty. This information would come from the
Bureau of the Census in its annual estimate through sampling data. With
the latest data available, the Secretary would determine the state-by-
state allocations and publish the data in the Federal Register on
January 15 of every year.Small State Minimum Allocation: For any
State whose allocation was less than 0.6%, the minimum allocation would
be set at the lesser of 0.6% of the total allocation or twice the
actual FY 1994 expenditure level.
Allocation Increase Ceiling: For all states except those covered by
the small state minimum allocation, the amount of the allocation would
be restricted to increase not more than 50% over FY 1994 expenditure
levels in the first year and to 50% increases for every subsequent
year.
Final Adjustment to Minimize Adverse Impact: The savings from the
``allocation increase ceiling'' would exceed that for ``small state
minimum allocation''. The net effect of these adjustments would be
reallocated among the states who receive less than their FY 1994 actual
expenditures.
Mr. GRAHAM. My second amendment addresses the issue of unfunded
mandates. In the spirit of S. 1, the first bill of this session that
will seek to limit unfunded mandates in the future, a bill which was
passed with bipartisan support and signed into law by the President, I
am offering an amendment to apply the principles of S. 1--the unfunded
mandates bill--to the welfare reform bill.
My third amendment deals with the section of the Dole bill the calls
for a ranking of States' compliance with the provisions of this bill.
My thesis is that this ranking system would be inherently unfair,
because of the disparate amounts that would flow to States under this
bill. Therefore, if we're going to give the States a grade, my
amendment would require the Secretary to take into account the number
of poor children in each State.
My fourth amendment deals with the work-participation goals in the
Dole bill. My amendment would allow those work goals to be modified,
based on the amount of funding a State receives. My final amendment
would allow legal aliens currently receiving benefits to continue to be
eligible under this legislation.
Mr. SANTORUM addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. SMITH). The Senator from Pennsylvania is
recognized.
Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending
amendment be set aside.
Mr. DODD. Will my colleague yield for a second?
Amendment No. 2570 to Amendment No. 2280
(Purpose: To reduce fraud and trafficking in the Food Stamp program by
providing incentives to States to implement Electronic Benefit Transfer
systems)
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, in behalf of my colleague from Vermont, I
would like to send an amendment to the desk
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment is
set aside and the clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Dodd), for Mr. Leahy,
proposes an amendment numbered 2570.
Mr. DODD. 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 is printed in today's Record under
``Amendments Submitted.'')
Amendment No. 2571 to Amendment 2280
(Purpose: To modify the maintenance of effort provision)
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask
for its consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Vermont [Mr. Jeffords) proposes an
amendment numbered 2571 to amendment number 2280.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
In section 403(a)(5) of the amendment, strike B-D, and
insert the following:
``(B) Historic state expenditures.--For purposes of this
paragraph, the term `historic State expenditures' means
expenditures by a State under parts A and F of title IV for
fiscal year 1994, as in effect during such fiscal year.
``(C) Determination of state expenditures for preceding
fiscal year.--
``(i) In general.--For purposes of this paragraph, the
expenditures of a State under the State program funded under
this part for a preceding fiscal year shall be equal to the
sum of the State's expenditures under the program in the
preceding fiscal year for--
``(I) cash assistance;
``(II) child care assistance;
``(III) job education, training, and work; and
``(IV) administrative costs.
``(ii) Transfers from other state and local programs.--In
determining State expenditures under clause (i), such
expenditures shall not include funding supplanted by
transfers from other State and local programs.
``(D) Exclusion of federal amounts.--For purposes of this
paragraph, State expenditures shall not include any
expenditures from amounts made available by the Federal
Government.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, there is a little confusion. Some time
ago the Senator from Utah offered three amendments on my behalf. Only
two were delivered in that package. This is the third amendment, so
there is no confusion.
This amendment will clarify the definition of maintenance of effort.
I ask unanimous consent that my amendment be set aside.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendments Nos. 2572 through 2576 to Amendment No. 2280
Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I send the following five amendments to
the desk on behalf of the Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Domenici] and
ask for their consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. Santorum], for Mr.
Domenici, proposes amendments numbered 2572 through 2576 to
amendment No. 2280.
Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendments be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
[[Page S 12928]]
The amendments are as follows:
amendment no. 2572
(Purpose: To improve the child support enforcement system by giving
States better incentives to improve collections)
On page 590, after line 23, strike (a) incentive Payments
and all that follows through page 595, line 2 and insert the
following:
Share collections 50/50 with all States.
Set national standards that all states must reach before
incentives are made.
National standards will be set up for Paternity
Establishment, Support Order establishment, Percentage of
cases with collections, ratio of support due to support
collected and cost effectiveness.
Set basic matching rate at 50 percent and allow incentive
matching rates up to 90 percent of expenditures for the
performance categories.
Change audit process to invoke audit sanctions if States do
not meet 50 percent of the performance standard.
Require IRS COBRA notices to be sent to the State Child
Support Agency.
amendment no. 2573
(Purpose: To maintain the welfare partnership between the States and
the Federal Government)
On page 21, after line 25, insert the following:
``(5) Welfare partnership.--
``(A) In general.--Beginning with fiscal year 1997, if a
State does not maintain the expenditures of the State under
the program for the preceding fiscal year at a level equal to
or greater than 75% of the level of historic State
expenditures, the amount of the grant otherwise determined
under paragraph (1) shall be reduced in accordance with
subparagraph (B).
``(B) Reduction.--The amount of the reduction determined
under this subparagraph shall be equal to--
(i)(I) the difference between the historic State
expenditures and the expenditures of the State under the
State program for the preceding fiscal year;
(ii) the amount determined under clause (i)(I)
``(C) Historic state expenditures.--For purposes of this
paragraph, the term ``historic State expenditures'' means
expenditures by a State under parts A and F of title IV for
fiscal year 1994, as in effect during such fiscal year.
``(D) Determining state expenditures.--
``(i) In general.--Subject to (ii) and (iii), for purposes
of this paragraph the expenditures of a State under the State
program funded under this part for a preceding fiscal year
shall be determined by adding the expenditures of that State
under its State program for--
``(I) cash assistance;
``(II) child care assistance;
``(III) job education and training, and work; and
``(IV) administrative costs;
in that fiscal year.
``(ii) Exclusion of grant amounts.--The determination under
(i) shall not include grant amounts paid under paragraph (1)
(or, in the case of historic State expenditures, amounts paid
in accordance with section 403, as in effect during fiscal
year 1994).
``(iii) Reservation of federal amounts.--For any fiscal
year, if a State has expended amounts reserved in accordance
with subsection (b)(3), such expenditure shall not be
considered a State expenditure under the State program.''
AMENDMENT NO. 2574
(Purpose: To express the Sense of the Senate regarding the inability of
the non-custodial parent to pay child support)
At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following
new provision:
``SEC. . SENSE OF THE SENATE.
``It is the sense of the Senate that--
``(a) States should diligently continue their efforts to
enforce child support payments by the non-custodial parent to
the custodial parent, regardless of the employment status or
location of the non-custodial parent; and
``(b) States are encouraged to pursue pilot programs in
which the parents of a non-adult, non-custodial parent who
refuses to or is unable to pay child support must
``(1) pay or contribute to the child support owned by the
non-custodial parent; or
``(2) otherwise fulfill all financial obligations and meet
all conditions imposed on the non-custodial parent, such as
participation in a work program or other related activity.''
AMENDMENT NO. 2575
(Purpose: To allow States maximum flexibility in designing their
Temporary Assistance programs)
On page XX, after line XX, strike and all that follows
through page XX, Line XX.
AMENDMENT NO. 2576
(Purpose: To create a national child custody database, and to clarify
exclusive continuing jurisdiction provisions of the Parental Kidnapping
Prevention Act)
On page 792, after line 22, add the following new title:
TITLE --CHILD CUSTODY REFORM
SEC. 01. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the ``Child Custody Reform Act
of 1995''.
SEC. 02. REQUIREMENTS FOR EXCLUSIVE CONTINUING JURISDICTION
MODIFICATION
Section 1738A of title 28, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in subsection (d) to read as follows:
``(d)(1) Subject to paragraph (2) the jurisdiction of a
court of a State that has made a child custody or visitation
determination in accordance with this section continues
exclusively as long as such State remains the residence of
the child or of any contestant.
``(2) Continuing jurisdiction under paragraph (1) shall be
subject to any applicable provision of law of the State that
issued the initial child custody determination in accordance
with this section, when such State law establishes
limitations on continuing jurisdiction when a child is absent
from such State.'';
(2) in subsection (f)
(A) by redesignating paragraphs (1) and (2) as paragraphs
(2) and (1), respectively and transferring paragraph (2) (as
so redesignated) so as to appear after paragraph (1) (as so
redesignated); and
(B) in paragraph (1) (as so redesignated), by inserting
``pursuant to subsection (d),'' after ``the court of the
other State no longer has jurisdiction,''; and
(3) in subsection (g), by inserting ``or continuing
jurisdiction'' after ``exercising jurisdiction''.
SEC. 03. ESTABLISHMENT OF NATIONAL CHILD CUSTODY REGISTRY.
Section 453 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 653) (as
amended by section 916) is further amended by adding at the
end the following new subsection:
``(p)(1) Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment
of this subsection, the Secretary, in consultation with the
Attorney General, shall conduct and conclude a study
regarding the most practicable and efficient way to create a
national child custody registry to carry out the purposes of
paragraph (3). Pursuant to this study, and subject to the
availability of appropriations, the Secretary shall create a
national child custody registry and promulgate regulations
necessary to implement such registry. The study and
regulations shall include--
``(A) a determination concerning whether a new national
database should be established or whether an existing network
should be expanded in order to enable courts to identify
child custody determinations made by, or proceedings filed
before, any court of the United States, its territories or
possessions;
``(B) measures to encourage and provide assistance to
States to collect and organize the data necessary to carry
out subparagraph (A);
``(C) if necessary, measures describing how the Secretary
will work with the related and interested State agencies so
that the database described in subparagraph (A) can be linked
with appropriate State registries for the purpose of
exchanging and comparing the child custody information
contained therein;
``(D) the information that should be entered in the
registry (such as the court of jurisdiction where a child
custody proceeding has been filed or a child custody
determination has been made, the name of the presiding
officer of the court in which a child custody proceeding has
been filed, the telephone number of such court, the names and
social security numbers of the parties, the name, date of
birth, and social security numbers of each child) to carry
out the purposes of paragraph (3);
``(E) the standards necessary to ensure the standardization
of data elements, updating of information, reimbursement,
reports, safeguards for privacy and information security, and
other such provisions as the Secretary determines
appropriate;
``(F) measures to protect confidential information and
privacy rights (including safeguards against the unauthorized
use or disclosure of information) which ensure that--
``(i) no confidential information is entered into the
registry;
``(ii) the information contained in the registry shall be
available only to courts or law enforcement officers to carry
out the purposes in paragraph (3); and
``(iii) no information is entered into the registry (or
where information has previously been entered, that other
necessary means will be taken) if there is a reason to
believe that the information may result in physical harm to a
person; and
``(G) an analysis of costs associated with the
establishment of the child custody registry and the
implementation of the proposed regulations.
``(2) As used in this subsection--
``(A) the term `child custody determination' means a
judgment, decree, or other order of a court providing for
custody or visitation of a child, and includes permanent and
temporary orders, and initial orders and modifications; and
``(B) the term `custody proceeding'--
``(i) means a proceeding in which a custody determination
is one of several issues, such as a proceeding for divorce or
separation, as well as neglect, abuse, dependency, wardship,
guardianship, termination of parental rights, adoption,
protective action from domestic violence, and Hague Child
Abduction Convention proceedings; and
``(ii) does not include a judgment, decree, or other order
of a court made in a juvenile delinquency, or status offender
proceeding.
``(3) The purposes of this subsection are to--
``(A) encourage and provide assistance to State and local
jurisdictions to permit--
``(i) courts to identify child custody determinations made
by, and proceedings in, other States, local jurisdictions,
and countries;
[[Page S 12929]]
``(ii) law enforcement officers to enforce child custody
determinations and recover parentally abducted children
consistent with State law and regulations;
``(B) avoid duplicative and or contradictory child custody
or visitation determinations by assuring that courts have the
information they need to--
``(i) give full faith and credit to the child custody or
visitation determination made by a court of another State as
required by section 1738A of title 28, United States Code;
and
``(ii) refrain from exercising jurisdiction when another
court is exercising jurisdiction consistent with section
1738A of title 28, United States Code.
``(4) There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as
may be necessary to establish the child custody registry and
implement the regulations pursuant to paragraph (1).''.
SEC. 04. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING SUPERVISED CHILD
VISITATION CENTERS.
It is the sense of the Senate that local governments should
take full advantage of the Local Crime Prevention Block Grant
Program established under subtitle B of title III of the
Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, to
establish supervised visitation centers for children who have
been removed from their parents and placed outside the home
as a result of abuse or neglect or other risk of harm to such
children, and for children whose parents are separated or
divorced and the children are at risk because of physical or
mental abuse or domestic violence.
Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that those
amendments be set aside for later consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 2577, 2578 and 2579 to Amendment No. 2280
Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I send to the desk three amendments on
behalf of the Senator from New York, Senator D'Amato and ask for their
consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. Santorum], for Mr.
D'Amato, proposes amendments numbered 2577, 2578, and 2579 to
amendment No. 2280.
Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendments are as follows:
AMENDMENT NO. 2577
(Purpose: Changing the date for the determination of fiscal year 1994
expenditures)
On page 17, line 20, strike ``February 14'' and insert
``May 15''.
AMENDMENT NO. 2578
(Purpose: Claims arising before effective date)
On page 124, between lines 9 and 10, insert:
(3) Closing out account for those programs terminated or
substantially modified by this title.--In closing out
accounts, Federal and State officials may use scientifically
acceptable statistical sampling techniques. Claims made under
programs which are repealed or substantially amended in this
title and which involve State expenditures in cases where
assistance or services were provided during a prior fiscal
year, shall be treated as expenditures during fiscal year
1995 for purposes of reimbursement even if payment was made
by a State on or after October 1, 1995. States shall complete
the filing of all claims no later than September 30, 1997.
Federal department heads shall--
(A) use the single audit procedure to review and resolve
any claims in connection with the close out of programs, and
(B) reimburse States for any payments made for assistance
or services provided during a prior fiscal year from funds
for fiscal year 1995, rather than the funds authorized by
this title.
AMENDMENT NO. 2579
(Purpose: Terminating efforts to recover funds for prior fiscal years)
On page 124, between lines 9 and 10, insert:
Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, the Secretary of
Health and Human Services shall cease efforts to recover
previously granted funds, shall pay any amounts being
deferred, and shall forgive any disallowance pending appeal
before the Departmental Appeals Board or before any Federal
court unless the Secretary determines that there was not
substantial compliance with the program requirements
underlying the claims or, upon probable cause, believes that
there is evidence of fraud on the part of the State. The
preceding sentence shall not be construed as diminishing the
right of a State to administrative or judicial review of a
disallowance of funds.
Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that those
amendments be set aside for later consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 2580 to Amendment No. 2280
(Purpose: To limit vocational education activities counted as work)
Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk in
behalf of Senator Grams of Minnesota and ask for its consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. Santorum], for Mr.
Grams, proposes an amendment numbered 2580 to amendment No.
2280.
Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 36, between lines 13 and 14, insert the following;
``(4) Limitation on vocational Education activities counted
as work.--For purposes of determining monthly participation
rates under paragraphs (1)(B)(i)(I) and (2)(B)(i) of
subsection (b), not more than 20 percent of adults in all
families and in 2-parent families determined to be engaged in
work in the State for a month may meet the work activity
requirement through participation in vocational educational
training.
Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that that
amendment be set aside for later consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 2560
Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, seeing no other Senators present, I
would like to respond to the comments of the Senator from Connecticut.
As I said, yesterday when I made comments on the issue of child care,
I have sympathy for what he is talking about. I was a member of the
Ways and Means Committee which last year worked on the Republican Task
Force on Welfare and came up with a bill, H.R. 3,500, with the Senator
from Massachusetts spoke to and came over and said we should adopt the
Santorum bill over here from last session because indeed in the last
session we introduced a bill that, as chairman of the task force, will
provide more money for child care recognizing the need that if we are
going to put people into work that we would in fact be required to come
up with some more money for child care.
I say that under H.R. 3,500 we did not block grant the program. We
did not give States the kind of flexibility that we do in this bill,
and that Governors from across the country--as I said, yesterday, 80
percent of the people who are on welfare today are represented by
Republican Governors. Those Governors have almost unanimously--I think
there is one Governor so far that has not come out and endorsed this
proposal--said that they are willing to take the allocation of
resources provided in this bill and can in fact run programs that will
put people to work and provide day care and the other support services
that are necessary to get people into work.
So while we did provide money in that bill in the House, we did not
provide the flexibility that the Governors wanted. They believe, as
sort of the age-old tradeoff, as most Governors will tell you, if you
are going to give us all these requirements give us the money to live
with them. If you are going to give us responsibility, give us the
flexibility and we will not need as much money.
That is pretty much the bottom line here. We believe we are actually
able to provide more money overall if we give more flexibility to run
the programs and not have the bureaucratic hoops to jump through here
in Washington which cost a lot of money for the States to comply with.
So that is one comment.
The other comment I would make is that in the programs that have in
fact required work and in fact did put people into work. I cite the
example of Riverside, CA, Grand Rapids, MI and Atlanta. In those
programs where you had these work requirements you had substantial cost
savings from the existing programs as a result of implementing this
program.
You had I believe about a 15 percent reduction in food stamps, over
20 percent reduction in AFDC payments and over 25 percent reduction in
AFDC caseload. So you got a lot of people off welfare who maybe should
not have been on welfare in the first place and you had a reduction in
the expenditures which that pool of resources
[[Page S 12930]]
could be used to provide the supplemental benefits that are necessary
to put people to work. In fact, that is what was done in these
experimental cities that I referenced.
So it is a matter of better targeting resources. It is not a matter
that we have to keep putting up more and more money.
The final point I wanted to make on child care, and it is a sensitive
one, is that I share the concern, and in fact I support the Snowe
amendment which now is the modified Dole package which would provide
for mothers who have children under 5 to be able to be exempted from
the work requirement if they can demonstrate that they simply do not
have child care available or the child care available is simply
unaffordable under the circumstances that they are in.
I support that because I think we first have to make sure that before
we create an entitlement for someone to get child care we have to make
sure there are not any other sources of day care available. There are
people on welfare who have parents and grandparents who can help
provide day care for children, who have neighbors, who have other
situations in which they can in fact find child care for their children
without resorting to government entitlement. The government entitlement
and the big concern I have with the Government entitlement is it
becomes the first resort for day care, not the last, and that it
becomes another program that just simply grows and grows and grows and
we continue to break down the family, the need for parents and
grandparents as we have done historically not just in this country, in
every civilization known, to have parents and grandparents of the
mother be able to be there and help provide for the extended family.
We can continue to say that is not as important, or the Government is
going to take their place now, that the Government is going to be in
there first to provide this day care. I think that is harmful. I do not
think that should be the first resort. I think we should say that
families should continue to work together and not look to the
Government to provide day care for children. If you are going to have
children, there should be a responsibility of not only the parents but
the grandparents involved to be a participant in helping. And in fact
that is what happens today in most cases in America.
If we create this entitlement, which is what has been talked about, I
think we really potentially damage. Unintended as it may be, I think we
damage the nucleus of the relationships of families in America, and the
dependency which I think is so necessary between generations to hold
families together.
The other point I would want to make on that is that if we provided
an entitlement for mothers--and it is predominantly mothers--for
mothers on welfare, we say if you go on welfare and then go to work
under a work program, we will provide you day care, but if you do not
go on welfare and you just are trying to make ends meet as a single
mom, you are on your own, wow. What are we saying here? What are we
saying to single mothers who are out there, as they are, in the
millions today just trying to get kids to day care and get to work and
not be late and get home on time and the rest, and we say if you get on
welfare, we will make it easy for you; the Government will pay for it?
What are we saying?
Mr. DODD. Will my colleague yield?
Mr. SANTORUM. I will be happy to yield.
Mr. DODD. It is an interesting point because presently we provide
about 640,000 children in a program with assistance. What we need to
talk about is not just people on welfare but people going to work at
125 percent or so of poverty. And there is a transition where people
should start to contribute to their own child care needs.
I did not mention this in my remarks, but one of the dangers I think
of what is going to happen here is that you have people working right
now that are out there, they are getting help with their child care. If
we are now going to say to the welfare recipient that you have got to
go to work, and we are going to say, take what exists out there today,
we may be taking care from some of the very people working right now,
managing to stay at work because they are getting help with child care.
They are going to be put into a second-class status because the person
on welfare is going to utilize that dollar.
My colleague is correct. We have provided, not to any great extent,
for some families to try and keep them off of welfare because even if
you get off welfare, you have to stay off and staying off requires a
bit of time so you can get up to a point where you can afford the rent.
Setting aside health care and looking just at food, rent and so forth,
average day care costs, private costs are $80, $100 a week, for the
least expensive programs in many cases, and if you are pulling down
something a bit above minimum wage that gets almost impossible.
So it is a good point, but it seems to me it does not necessarily
argue against trying to get people off welfare and providing that
transitional assistance. I think the Senator was making that point.
Mr. SANTORUM. I am not making the point that we should not provide
child care for women who are on welfare who want to work. I am not
saying we should not do that. The point I was making is I do not think
we should create a guaranteed entitlement for it. There is a
difference. The Senator mentioned in fact for working mothers today
there is no entitlement to day care. There simply is not. We do, as the
Senator mentioned, have some 600,000 people who are in need of day care
assistance, that assistance, but it is a very tough program. You have
to walk through the hoops to be able to qualify. You have to prove that
there is no family or other kind of support necessary.
It is not easy to qualify. And even at that, even if you qualify, you
are not guaranteed a slot.
Mr. DODD. Will my colleague yield on that point?
Mr. SANTORUM. Sure.
Mr. DODD. Just to make the case. We have no entitlement. This
amendment is not an entitlement. There is no provision here saying that
you are entitled to it. We have been told this is the rough amount of
money--with the 165 percent increase under the Dole work provisions,
this is the amount of money we have been told would be adequate to
provide for child care. There is no entitlement here at all. In the
past, I have argued for entitlement.
Mr. SANTORUM. The Senator has.
Mr. DODD. But not on this one. This is no entitlement.
Mr. SANTORUM. If you provide the amount of money that will be
necessary to fully fund the program, in a sense you have not created an
entitlement but you have created a slot for everyone.
Mr. DODD. Hopefully. But you do not have a right to go to court, as
you do under an entitlement program, and say I have met the criteria;
therefore, you must provide me.
Mr. SANTORUM. I think that is a distinction without a difference.
Mr. DODD. That is an entitlement program.
Mr. SANTORUM. OK. Then if we are going to provide sufficient money
for everyone to get child care as a first resort and a last resort,
while it may not be an entitlement, it has in effect the same
consequence which is everyone will have a day care slot, and that is a
Federal day care slot which I think is a dangerous precedent and a
counterproductive one.
Again, I want to emphasize that I think through the Snowe amendment
we are going to without a doubt encourage States--and I think a lot of
States would do this without our encouragement--encourage States to
move forward and to provide day care support for working single
parents. And I will go through that rationale again. I think it is
important.
Under the Dole provision, we are going to require eventually 50
percent of all people who participate in this program, the welfare
program, 50 percent will have to be in the work program. There will be
a substantial number, roughly a third is usually the number, a third
considered to be incapacitated, disabled, whatever the term you want to
use, who will never be in a work program because of either their own
incapacity or disability of a child that would make that parent really
ineligible to have to leave that child and go to work.
So you are setting aside a third that you pretty well know are not
ever going to be in that program. So you have 50 percent of the whole
thing and
[[Page S 12931]]
again a third of that is gone, so you have a pretty good chunk of the
remaining caseload that are going to be required to work.
If you say that single parents are going to be required to work
irrespective of the age of the child, so they are going to be in the
denominator of the equation, but they are not required to work if they
can demonstrate that child care is not available to them--and again the
State will set the criteria--that means they are not going to be in the
enumerator, and if you have a pool here of roughly 67 percent of the
whole group, and you have to get 50 percent to work, you have a pretty
slim margin to work with to exclude people because they cannot get day
care.
So what you are going to do is to meet your 50 percent number the
State really is going to be forced to go out and provide day care
opportunities for younger mothers, and I think that is what we want to
do. We want to make sure that as efficiently as possible we can direct
the States to in effect go out and provide those dollars.
So we think we have gotten around the problem without getting into
the--I will not use the term entitlement because it is not
entitlement--without getting used to, I would say, the guaranteed slot
that is being provided for in the Dodd amendment, however well-
intentioned I think--I know the Senator from Connecticut has been a
champion in trying to expand the number of day care guarantees for
parents. However well-intentioned that is, I do not think that is the
right direction we should be taking at this time.
Mr. DODD. If my colleague will yield for just one more point, I
appreciate his concerns, and I was not aware of his efforts in the
previous Congress in the other body with H.R. 3500, with the Senator's
own welfare reform and child care proposals, but I will take a look at
them. Maybe I will offer that as an amendment, the Santorum bill--
Mr. SANTORUM. Do not put me on the spot.
Mr. DODD. From the previous Congress. I just raise this because it is
a good point. States under the Dole proposals I suspect--I am sure they
are going to be wanting to do what they can in child care, but I
suspect they are also going to weigh the cost of doing that, through
whatever mechanism they have to do it, either by cutting spending in
other areas or raising taxes, and the penalties imposed upon them if
they do not meet the criteria of the legislation regarding a certain
percentage of the welfare recipients going to work. They will decide
which they would rather do, pay the penalty, which I presume would be
lower--I do not know exactly, but I suspect it is lower than what it
would be to come up with the resources to see to it that the welfare
recipient makes the transition. That is one of my concerns here. So we
will end up with States paying the penalties in some cases because it
is cheaper to pay the penalties than it is to meet that criteria, or
that race to the bottom approach where they will say: Look, we are
going to lower this thing so that people will not stay around in this
State and they will find some other State, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire,
some other place to go to, so you will have a competition as to who
will get this thing done and we have another national problem.
Mr. SANTORUM. I would say to the Senator again in the Dole bill as
recently modified there is a provision that States have to do 75
percent maintenance of effort over 3 years. There really is no attempt
to race to the bottom. I do not know how many States are going to be
willing to sort of give back dollars as opposed to reallocating
existing dollars.
We are not really asking to spend more money. We are telling them to
reallocate dollars to child care, to implement the work program. And
that is not costing them any Federal funds to do that. If they violate
and suffer penalties, they will lose Federal dollars. And that is a
pretty powerful incentive, I think. I will get those numbers as to what
the penalties will be.
Mr. DODD. Yes.
Mr. SANTORUM. I think it is important to look. If, in fact, we see
the penalties are not particularly stiff, I would look at dealing with
that down the road.
I thank the Senator.
Mr. DODD. I thank the Senator.
Mr. JEFFORDS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Amendment No. 2581 To Amendment No. 2280
(Purpose: To strike the increase to the grant to reward States that
reduce out-of-wedlock births)
Mr. JEFFORDS. I have an amendment at the desk and ask for its
immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Vermont [Mr. Jeffords], proposes an
amendment numbered 2581.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading
of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
Strike the matter between lines 11 and 12 of page 51 (as
inserted by the modification of September 8, 1995).
Mr. DODD. Will my colleague yield for one second?
Mr. JEFFORDS. I will be happy to.
Amendment Nos. 2582, 2583, and 2584, En Bloc, To Amendment No. 2280
Mr. DODD. I send to the desk three amendments on behalf of Senator
Wellstone.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report the amendments.
To assistant legislative clerk read as follows:.
The Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Dodd] for Mr. Wellstone
proposes amendments numbered 2582, 2583, and 2584, en bloc.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of
the amendments be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendments are as follows:
amendment no. 2582
(Purpose: To amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to increase the
minimum wage rate under such Act)
On page 576, between lines 12 and 13, insert the following:
Subtitle D--Minimum Wage Rate
SEC. 841. INCREASE IN THE MINIMUM WAGE RATE.
Section 6(a)(1) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29
U.S.C. 206(a)(1)) is amended to read as follows:
``(1) except as otherwise provided in this section, not
less than $4.25 an hour during the period ending December 31,
1995, not less than $4.70 an hour during the year beginning
January 1, 1996, and not less than $5.15 an hour after
December 31, 1996;''.
Amendment No. 2583
(Purpose: To exempt women and children who have been battered or
subject to extreme cruelty from certain requirements of the bill)
On page 14, between lines 12 and 13, insert the following:
``(8) Certification regarding battered individuals.--A
certification from the chief executive officer of the State
specifying that--
``(A) the State will exempt from the requirements of
sections 404, 405 (a) and (b), and 406 (b), (c), and (d), or
modify the application of such sections to, any woman, child,
or relative applying for or receiving assistance under this
part, if such woman, child, or relative was battered or
subjected to extreme cruelty and the physical, mental, and
emotional well-being of the woman, child, or relative will be
endangered by application of such sections to such woman,
child, or relative, and
``(B) the State will take into consideration the family
circumstances and the counseling and other supportive service
needs of the woman, child, or relative.
On page 14, line 13, strike ``(8)'' and insert ``(9)''.
On page 16, between lines 22 and 23, insert the following:
``(6) Battered or subjected to extreme cruelty.--The term
`battered or subjected to extreme cruelty' includes, but is
not limited to--
``(A) physical acts resulting in, or threatening to result
in physical injury;
``(B) sexual abuse, sexual activity involving a dependent
child, forcing the caretaker relative of a dependent child to
engage in nonconsensual sexual acts or activities, or threats
of or attempts at physical or sexual abuse;
``(C) mental abuse; and
``(D) neglect or deprivation of medical care.
On page 35, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following:
``(6) Certain individuals excluded in calculation of
participation rates.--An individual who is battered or
subjected to extreme cruelty and with respect to whom an
exemption or modification is in effect at any time during a
fiscal year by reason of section 402(a)(8) shall not be
included for purposes of calculating the State's
participation rate for the fiscal year under this subsection.
On page 36, after line 25, add the following:
[[Page S 12932]]
The penalties described in paragraphs (1) and (2) shall not
apply with respect to an individual who is battered or
subjected to extreme cruelty and with respect to whom an
exemption or modification is in effect by reason of section
402(a)(8).
On page 74, between lines 2 and 3, insert:
Such requirements, limits, and penalties shall contain
exemptions described in section 402(a)(8) for individuals who
have been battered or subject to extreme cruelty.
On page 175, line 16, strike ``and''.
On page 175, line 20, strike the period and insert ``;
and''.
On page 175, between lines 20 and 21, insert the following:
(C) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
`'(F) The provisions of this subsection shall not apply
with respect to any alien who has been battered or subjected
to extreme cruelty (within the meaning of section 402(d)(6)
of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 602(d)(6)).''
On page 183, line 11, strike the end quotation marks and
the end period.
On page 183, between lines 11 and 12, insert:
``(E) Exception for battered individuals.--The requirements
of this paragraph shall not apply to an individual who has
been battered or subjected to extreme cruelty (within the
meaning of section 402(d)(6) of the Social Security Act) if
such application would endanger the physical, mental, or
emotional well-being of the individual.''.
On page 192, between line 16 insert at the end: ``The
standards shall provide a good cause exception to protect
individuals who have been battered or subjected to extreme
cruelty (within the meaning of section 402(d)(6) of the
Social Security Act).''
On page 197, line 13, after ``section'' insert ``6(d)(1)(E)
or''.
On page 287, line 21, strike ``or (V)'' and insert ``(V),
or (VI)''.
On page 291, lines 18 and 19, strike ``or (V)'' and insert
``(V), or (VI)''.
On page 299, line 11, strike ``or''.
On page 299, line 14, strike ``title II'' and insert
``title II; or (VI) a noncitizen who has been battered or
subjected to extreme cruelty (within the meaning of section
402(d)(6))''.
On page 612, line 24, strike ``rights'' and inserting
``rights, and only if such resident parent or such resident
parent's child is not an individual who has been battered or
subjected to extreme cruelty (within the meaning of section
402(d)(6)) by such absent parent''.
On page 715, line 8, strike ``arrangements.'' and insert
``arrangements. Such programs shall not provide for access or
visitation if any individual involved is an individual who
has been battered or subjected to extreme cruelty (within the
meaning of section 402(d)(6)) by the absent parent.''.
amendment no. 2584
(Purpose: To exempt women and children who have been battered or
subject to extreme cruelty from certain requirements of the bill)
At the end of the amendment, insert the following new
title:
TITLE --PROTECTION OF BATTERED INDIVIDUALS
SEC. 01. EXEMPTION OF BATTERED INDIVIDUALS FROM CERTAIN
REQUIREMENTS.
(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of, or
amendment made by, this Act, the applicable administering
authority of any specified provision shall exempt from (or
modify) the application of such provision to any individual
who was battered or subjected to extreme cruelty if the
physical, mental, or emotional well-being of the individual
would be endangered by the application of such provision to
such individual. The applicable administering authority shall
take into consideration the family circumstances and the
counseling and other supportive service needs of the
individual.
(b) Specified Provisions.--For purposes of this section,
the term ``specified provision'' means any requirement,
limitation, or penalty under any of the following:
(1) Sections 404, 405 (a) and (b), 406 (b), (c), and (d),
414(d), 453(c), 469A, and 1614(a)(1) of the Social Security
Act.
(2) Sections 5(i) and 6 (d), (j), and (n) of the Food Stamp
Act of 1977.
(3) Sections 501(a) and 502 of this Act.
(c) Definitions and Special Rules.--For purposes of this
section--
(1) Battered or subjected to extreme cruelty.--The term
``battered or subjected to extreme cruelty'' includes, but is
not limited to--
(A) physical acts resulting in, or threatening to result
in, physical injury;
(B) sexual abuse, sexual activity involving a dependent
child, forcing the caretaker relative of a dependent child to
engage in nonconsensual sexual acts or activities, or threats
of or attempts at physical or sexual abuse;
(C) mental abuse; and
(D) neglect or deprivation of medical care.
(2) Calculation of participation rates.--An individual
exempted from the work requirements under section 404 of the
Social Security Act by reason of subsection (a) shall not be
included for purposes of calculating the State's
participation rate under such section.
Mr. DODD. I thank my colleague.
Mr. JEFFORDS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont is recognized.
Mr. JEFFORDS. I ask unanimous consent that my amendment be set aside.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. STEVENS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
Amendment No. 2585 To Amendment No. 2280
Mr. STEVENS. I send an amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens], for himself and Mr.
Murkowski, proposes an amendment numbered 2585.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading
of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 16 of the pending amendment, beginning on line 13,
strike all through line 17 and insert in lieu thereof the
following:
``(4) Indian, indian tribe, and tribal organization.--
``(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B),
the terms `Indian', `Indian tribe', and `tribal organization'
have the meaning given such terms by section 4 of the Indian
Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C.
450b).
``(B) In alaska.--For purposes of grants under section 414
on behalf of Indians in Alaska, the term `Indian tribe' shall
mean only the following Alaska Native regional non-profit
corporations--
``(i) Arctic Slope Native Association,
``(ii) Kawerak, Inc.,
``(iii) Maniilaq Association,
``(iv) Association of Village Council Presidents,
``(v) Tanana Chiefs Conference,
``(vi) Cook Inlet Tribal Council,
``(vii) Bristol Bay Native Association,
``(viii) Aleutian and Pribilof Island Association,
``(ix) Chugachmuit,
``(x) Tlingit Haida Central Council,
``(xi) Kodiak Area Native Association, and
``(xii) Copper River Native Association.
Mr. STEVENS. I want to make a brief explanation of this amendment. I
hope it will be adopted as a technical amendment. I have provided a
copy to each side.
I think this is a necessary change in the provision that is in the
Dole amendment dealing with Indians, Indian tribes and tribal
organizations. It will provide in Alaska there be a specific regional
framework for block granting welfare funds. We think that is necessary
to meet the circumstances of our State. After all, it is one-fifth the
size of the United States.
The administrative costs of just having the welfare assistance
programs administered from Juneau are almost the same as administering
the whole east coast of the United States from Washington, DC. It is
something we are trying to get away from through block granting.
This amendment would apply only to Alaska and specify that there are
12 Alaska Native regional nonprofit corporations that are the only
native organizations in Alaska which would be eligible to receive
family subsistence block grants directly under the concepts of this
bill. I think that this will limit the eligible organizations. There
are some 170 different organizations that would be entitled otherwise
if we would block grant directly to those organizations.
We prefer to do it on a regional basis to keep administrative costs
to a minimum and it is my hope that having decided to do this, if it is
approved by Congress, that within each region the regional nonprofits
themselves will work with the villages so that these moneys can be
administered with the very least administrative costs and will not be
spending money on people flying planes or going to visit these
individual areas from far distant places. Let the people of the area
determine what the basic family assistance money should be used for.
It is consistent with the law. We are not changing the law at all. It
merely changes the concept of the tribal organization that is specified
in the previous subsection (a) of subsection 4, which is the Indian
tribe and tribal organization section. I am hopeful that it will be
accepted as a technical amendment.
I ask that the amendment be set aside temporarily until there is a
report from the two sides.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
[[Page S 12933]]
Amendment No. 2586 To Amendment No. 2280
(Purpose: To modify the religious provider provision)
Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I send the following amendment to the
desk, and ask for its immediate consideration on behalf of the Senator
from Maine, Senator Cohen.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. Santorum] for Mr. Cohen
proposes an amendment numbered 2586.
Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading
of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
In section 102(c) of the amendment, insert ``so long as the
programs are implemented consistent with the Establishment
Clause of the United States Constitution'' after ``subsection
(a)(2)''.
In section 102(d)(2) of the amendment, strike subparagraph
(B), and redesignate subparagraph (C) as subparagraph (B).
Mr. SANTORUM. I ask unanimous consent that that amendment be set
aside for later consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 2587 To Amendment No. 2280
(Purpose: To maintain a national Job Corps program, carried out in
partnership with States and communities)
Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I send to the desk an amendment on
behalf of the Senator from Pennsylvania, Senator Specter, and ask for
its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. Santorum] for Mr.
Specter proposes an amendment numbered 2587.
Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading
of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under
``Amendments Submitted.'')
Mr. SANTORUM. I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be set aside
for later consideration.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise in strong opposition to the
Dole-Packwood welfare reform bill.
Mr. President, we live in the greatest nation on Earth. We are the
wealthiest country in the world. But it is clear that some in our
society do not share in this wealth. They are poor. They are jobless
and in some cases homeless. And they must rely on public assistance to
survive. In America, this is unacceptable. And we should be committed
to improving their lives.
Mr. President, there is no question that the current welfare system
needs reform. But the central goal for any welfare reform bill should
be to move welfare recipients into productive work.
This will only happen if we provide welfare recipients with education
and job training to prepare them for employment. It will only happen if
we provide families with affordable child care. It will only happen if
we can place them into jobs, preferably in the private sector or--as a
last resort--in community service.
But the Dole-Packwood bill is not designed to help welfare recipients
get on their feet and go to work. It is only designed to cut programs--
pure and simple.
It is designed to take money from the poor so that Republicans can
provide huge tax cuts for the rich. That is what is really going on
here!
Unfortunately, Mr. President, the radical experiment proposed in this
legislation will inflict problems on our society while producing
defenseless victims. Those victims are not represented in the Senate
offices. They are not here lobbying against this bill. They do not even
know they are at risk.
The victims will be America's children. And there will be millions of
them.
Mr. President, the AFDC Program provides a safety net for 9 million
children. These young people are innocent. They did not ask to be born
into poverty. And they do not deserve to be punished.
These children are African-American, Hispanic, Asian, and white. They
live in urban areas and rural areas. But, most importantly, they are
American children. And we as a Nation have a responsibility to provide
them with a safety net.
The children we are talking about are desperately poor, Mr.
President, They are not living high off the hog. These kids live in
poverty.
Consider the following:
The median AFDC grant for a family of three is $366 per month. This
is the same amount a Member of Congress makes in one day; $366 per
month does not buy much these days. As a matter of fact, it gets a
family of three to 38 percent of the Federal poverty level.
Mr. President, this is the median. Consider the conditions some
children live under in certain States.
In Mississippi, the maximum a family of three can receive is $120 per
month. This will get a family to 13 percent of the poverty level.
In Texas, the maximum a family of three can receive is $184 per
month. This will get a family to 19 percent of the poverty level.
Mr. President, it is hard for many of us to appreciate what life is
like for the 9 million children who live in poverty and who benefit
from AFDC.
I grew up to a working class family in Paterson, NJ, in the heart of
the Depression. Times were tough. And I learned all too well what it
meant to struggle economically.
But as bad as things were for my own family, they still were not as
bad as for millions of today's children.
These are children who are not always sure whether they will
get their next meal. Not always sure that they will have a roof over
their heads. Not always sure they will get the health care they need.
Mr. President, these children are vulnerable. They are living on the
edge of homelessness and hunger. And they did not do anything to
deserve this fate.
Mr. President, if we are serious about reforming a program that keeps
these children afloat, we will not adopt a radical proposal like the
Dole-Packwood bill. We will not put millions of American children at
risk. And we will not simply give a blank check to States and throw up
our hands.
Mr. President, this Republican bill is not a serious policy document.
It is a budget document. It's a down payment on a Republican tax cut
that targets huge benefits for millionaires and other wealthy
Americans. A tax cut that, as passed by the House, would provide
$20,000 to those who make $350,000 per year.
Mr. President, if the Republicans were serious about improving
opportunities for those on welfare, they would be talking about
increasing our commitment to education and job training. In fact, only
last year, the House Republican welfare reform bill, authored in part
by Senator Santorum, would have increased spending on education and
training by $10 billion.
This year, by contrast, the House Republican welfare bill actually
cuts $65 billion, including huge reductions in education and training.
So what has changed? The answer is simple. This year, the Republicans
need the money for their tax cuts for the rich.
Mr. President, shifting our welfare system to 50 State bureaucracies
may give Congress more money to provide tax cuts. But it is not going
to solve the serious problems facing our welfare system, or the people
it serves.
To really reform welfare, Mr. President, we first must emphasize a
very basic American value: the value of work.
We should expect recipients to work. In fact, we should demand that
they work, if they can.
Of course, Mr. President, that kind of emphasis on work is important.
But it is not enough. We also have to help people get the skills they
need to get a job in the private sector. I am not talking about
handouts.
I am talking about teaching people to read. Teaching people how to
run a cash register or a computer. Teaching people what it takes to be
self-sufficient in today's economy.
We also have to provide child care.
Mr. President, how is a woman with several young children supposed to
find a job if she can not find someone to take care of her kids? It is
simply impossible. There is just no point in pretending otherwise.
[[Page S 12934]]
Unfortunately, the Dole-Packwood bill does not even begin to address
these kind of needs. It does not even try to promote work. It does not
even try to give people job training. It does not even try to provide
child care.
All it does is throw up its hands and ship the program to the States.
That is it.
Mr. President, that is not real welfare reform. It is simply
passing the buck to save a buck. And who's going to get the buck
that's saved? The people the Republicans really care about: the rich.
Mr. President, if we are serious about welfare reform, I would
suggest that we start with adopting provisions that were contained in
the ``Work First'' alternative developed by Senators Daschle, Breaux,
and Mikulski. Unlike the Dole-Packwood bill, this proposal addresses
the real problems facing our welfare system.
It emphasizes moving people into productive work by providing
education, training, child care, and health care for those who leave
the welfare rolls. And after 2 years, recipients would have to work,
either in the private sector or in community service.
It provides flexibility for States to run welfare experiments, while
preserving the Federal commitment to poor children.
It encourages families to stay together and discourages teen
pregnancy.
It contains tough new measures to better collect child support.
Finally, it makes savings in the Food Stamp and SSI Programs by
cracking down on waste, fraud, and abuse.
This is a much preferable approach to welfare reform, Mr. President.
It emphasizes work and protects the safety net for children. It is the
type of balance we need to truly reform our welfare system.
Therefore, I will work with my colleagues to try to improve this
Dole-Packwood bill through amendments.
Mr. President, we have an enormous opportunity to improve the welfare
system. President Clinton has made welfare reform a priority, and the
American people are demanding action.
But to do the job right, we are going to have to work on a bipartisan
basis. That means that my Republican colleagues will have to sit down
with Senate Democrats and the administration and produce a balanced
reform bill. A bill that protects children. And a bill that promotes
work.
Mr. President, there is a precedent for such a bipartisan effort, and
it can happen again. In 1988, the Senate passed the Family Support Act
which provided funds for States to train AFDC recipients so that they
could move permanently into the work force.
We passed that legislation by a vote of 96 to 1 when the Democrats
controlled both Houses of Congress. It was signed by President Reagan.
And you know who attended the bill signing ceremony at the White House?
Then-Gov. Bill Clinton.
I would hope that we could repeat this kind of bipartisanship. But to
do so, we are going to have to move well beyond budget-driven proposals
that simply shift the welfare problem to the States, and that threaten
millions of children in the process.
So I would strongly urge my colleagues to reject the Dole-Packwood
bill. Let us reform our welfare system. But let us do it right.
I yield the floor.
tribal block grants and welfare reform
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the Indian
provisions contained in the Dole substitute to H.R. 4, the Work
Opportunity Act of 1995. I commend the distinguished majority leader,
Senator Dole, and the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Senator
Packwood, for their efforts to overhaul our Nation's welfare system and
for including provisions which responsibly address the unique needs and
requirements of Indian country. Senators Dole and Packwood have taken
great care to draft a welfare plan that effects real change in a system
that is greatly in need of repair while ensuring that all citizens,
including our Nation's Indian population, receive equitable access to
necessary welfare assistance. It is important to point out that the
Dole substitute bill honors in many practical ways the special
relationship that the United States has with Indian tribal governments.
Clearly, our welfare system has failed to meet its goals. Dependency
is the off-spring of the current welfare system. In order to foster
independence, we must completely replace the welfare system that breeds
this dependency.
Let me put it plain and simple--the great social programs of the past
have failed American Indians as much or even more than they have failed
the rest of America's citizens. These programs have failed Indians
because they have largely ignored the existence of Indian tribal
governments and the unique needs and of the Indian population. Recent
attempts to fix this problem have been like placing a bandaid on a
gaping wound. Under existing programs, Indians remain the worst-off and
yet benefit the least. If we are to truly reform welfare then we cannot
ignore Indians, who year-after-year rank the highest in poverty and
unemployment.
I believe that the Dole substitute bill promises greater hope for
Indians because it allows their own tribal governments to serve Indians
now living in poverty. It empowers tribes themselves to assist in
ending the welfare dependency often created by existing programs by
placing resources necessary to fight local welfare problems into the
hands of local tribal governments. Mr. President, I believe this bill
demonstrates a real commitment to ending welfare as Indians have known
it. As I have said on many occasions, our successes as a nation should
be measured by the impact that we have made in the lives of our most
vulnerable citizens--American Indians.
Early in the 104th Congress, the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs
held several hearings on the potential impact to Indians of various
welfare reform proposals such as block grants. During these hearings,
tribal leaders spoke out in strong favor of direct Federal funding
which would allow tribal governments flexibility in administering local
welfare assistance programs and stated their hopes of receiving no less
authority than the Congress chooses to give to State governments in
this regard. The committee also received testimony from the Inspector
General of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services who
testified to how poorly Indians fare under block grants as currently
administered by State governments. In response to the record adduced at
these hearings, the Indian Affairs Committee developed provisions for
direct, block grant funding to tribal governments which are now
contained in the Dole substitute bill. These provisions reflect the
efforts of many members on both the Indian Affairs and Finance
Committees, and to them I express my gratitude.
Let me take several minutes to explain the Indian provisions related
to temporary assistance for needy families contained in the leader's
bill and the goals and purposes of those governments. In general terms,
the bill authorizes Indian governments, like State governments, to
receive direct Federal funding to design and administer local tribal
welfare programs. Let me be clear--an Indian tribe retains the complete
freedom to choose whether or not it will exercise this authority. If it
does not, the State retains the authority and the funds it otherwise
has under the Dole substitute bill.
Section 402(b) requires a State to certify, as it does with several
other important Federal priorities, that it will provide equitable
access to Indians not covered by a tribal plan. This provision
expressly recognizes the Federal Government's trust responsibility to,
and government-to-government relationship with Indian tribes.
Section 402(d) provides standard definitions of the terms ``Indian'',
``Indian tribe'', and ``tribal organization'' in order to clarify the
respective limits of State and tribal government responsibilities under
the bill.
Section 403(a) establishes the method by which tribal plans are
funded, basing tribal grants on the amount attributable to Federal
funds spent by a State in fiscal year 1994 on Indian families residing
in the service area of an approved tribal plan. Under this Section,
States are given advance notice before the tribal grant amounts are
deducted from their quarterly payment. Once deducted, the State has no
responsibility under the bill for those Indian families and service
areas so identified in an approved tribal plan.
Section 403(e) provides that the secretary shall continue to provide
direct
[[Page S 12935]]
funding, for fiscal years 1996 through 2000, to those Indian tribes or
tribal organizations who conducted a job opportunities and basic skills
training program in fiscal year 1995, in an amount equal to the amount
received by such tribal JOBS programs in fiscal year 1995.
Section 404(b)(4) provides that a state may, at its option, count
those Indian families receiving assistance under a tribal family
assistance plan as part of the calculation of a State's monthly
participation rates in accordance with paragraphs (1)(B) and (2)(B) of
section 404.
Section 414 is the main Indian provision setting forth the basic
authority for tribal direct funding and the express requirements of
tribal family assistance plans. It requires the Secretary to make
direct funding available to Indian tribes exercising this option in
order to strengthen and enhance the control and flexibility of local
governments over local programs, consistent with well-settled
principles of Indian self-determination. In particular, section 414(a)
describes how the goals of welfare reform pursued under this bill and
the goals of Indian self-determination and self-governance authorized
under separate authority are consistent. Section 414(b) establishes the
methodology for funding an approved tribal family assistance plan,
including the use of data submitted by State and tribal governments.
This provision anticipates that the data involved is already collected
or the added burden of data collection required will be de minimus.
Section 414(c) provides that in order to be eligible to receive direct
funding, an Indian tribe must submit a 3-year family assistance plan.
Each approved plan must outline the tribe's approach to providing
welfare-related services consistent with the purposes of this section.
Each plan must specify whether the services provided by the tribe will
be provided through agreements, contracts, or compacts with intertribal
consortia, States, or other entities. This allows small tribes to join
with other tribes in order to economize on administrative costs and
pool their talents to address their common problems. Each plan must
identify with specificity the population and service area or areas
which the tribe will serve. This requirement is designed to ensure that
there is no overlap in service administration and to provide a clear
outline to affected State administrations of the boundaries of their
responsibilities under the Act. Each plan must also provide guarantees
that tribal administration of the plan will not result in families
receiving duplicative assistance from other State or tribal programs
funded under this part. Each plan must identify employment
opportunities in or near the service area of the tribe and the manner
in which the tribe will cooperate and participate in enhancing such
opportunities for recipients of assistance under the plan consistent
with any applicable State standards. And finally, each plan must apply
fiscal accounting principles in accordance with chapter 75 of title 31,
United States Code. This last requirement is consistent with other
Federal authority governing the administration by tribes and tribal
organizations of similar block grant programs under authority of the
Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975, as
amended. Section 414(d) requires the establishment of minimum work
participation requirements, time limits on receipt of welfare-related
services, and individual penalties consistent with the purposes of this
section and the economic conditions of a tribe's service area and the
availability to a tribe of other employment-related resources. These
restrictions must be developed with the full participation of the
tribes and tribal organizations, and must be similar to comparable
provisions in Section 404(d). The remaining provisions of Section 414
further ensure that funding accountability will be maintained by tribes
and tribal organizations in administering funds under an approved
tribal family assistance plan.
The funds provided to a tribe under section 414 are deducted from the
State allocation, but only after advance notice to the State. Having
lost the Federal support for temporary assistance to needy Indian
families in a tribal plan's service area, the State no longer has any
responsibility under the bill for those families. The Indian Affairs
Committee has been informed by various State representatives that it is
administratively more difficult and costly for States to provide
services to Indians who reside in remote locations of their States.
While these States acknowledge a responsibility to provide services,
circumstances such as geographic isolation make it more difficult to do
so. States are, therefore, well-served by these provisions, because if
Indian families in a geographical area are identified in an approved
and funded tribal plan, a State government no longer has the
responsibility to serve those families unless the tribe and the State
agree otherwise.
Some tribal representatives have pointed out that some tribes may
choose not to exercise the option to administer a tribal plan, because
the bill does not require a State to provide State funding to
supplement the Federal funding provided to a tribe. As originally
drafted, the Indian provisions expressly permitted States to agree to
provide State funding or services to an Indian tribe with an approved
plan in order to maintain equitable services. It is my understanding
that this language was deleted because other provisions in the bill
provide sufficient guarantees that States will ensure the delivery of
equitable services. But under the bill's current provisions, a State is
not prohibited from entering into an agreement with a tribe for the
transfer of State funds or the provision of specific State services to
a tribe for the benefit of Indians within that State. Indeed, a State
government may choose to enter into an agreement with a tribal
government to induce the tribe to take over administration of these
programs, and one of the inducements could be a transfer of State funds
to the tribe that would otherwise have been used by the State to serve
those who would now be served under the tribal plan. If State
administrators are sincere about making real progress on welfare
reform, and I think they are, I expect they will act responsibly and
sensitively with tribes that wish to join the State in administering
programs that end welfare dependency.
Mr. President, it is important to point out that these Indian
provisions are consistent with the purposes of the Dole substitute
bill. They do not seek to circumvent these purposes nor give preferable
treatment to Indian tribal governments. The tribal plans remain subject
to minimum requirements and penalties similar to those applied to State
governments. The Dole substitute also requires a tribe to comply with
the fiscal accountability requirements of chapter 75 of title 31,
United States Code and the Indian Self-Determination and Education
Assistance Act of 1975, as amended. I would also submit that giving
tribal governments the authority to administer a tribal welfare program
is consistent with our goal of empowering local government control over
local programs. It only stands to reason that, like States, Indian
tribal governments are most familiar with the problems that plague
their local communities.
Many of my colleagues in the Senate know that some Indian tribal
governments may not have existing capacity or infrastructure to
administer complex welfare programs. Consequently, the Dole substitute
bill includes provisions authorizing tribes to enter into cooperative
agreements with States or other tribal governments for the provision of
welfare assistance. This will allow small tribes to join with other
tribes in order to economize on administrative costs and pool their
talents and resources to address their common problems. However, I
believe it is very important to permit and encourage those Indian
tribal governments that do possess such capacity to participate in
these new welfare initiatives by addressing welfare issues at a local
level.
It should go without saying that any State may enter into any
agreement it chooses with a tribe for the transfer of State funds to
that tribe for the purpose of administering a welfare program that
benefits Indians within that State. In my view, it is in both a State
and tribe's best interest to work out supplemental agreements for
funding and services where necessary because to do otherwise could
undermine the goals of the bill.
I know that many Members in this body are aware that Indian Country
has historically been plagued by high
[[Page S 12936]]
unemployment and therefore its residents suffer from extremely high
poverty rates. Therefore, I was pleased to learn that the Finance
Committee Chairman drafted provisions that enable Indian tribes that
are
currently administering tribal JOBS programs to continue to do so.
Section 403 of the Dole substitute provides that the Secretary shall
provide direct funding in an amount equal to the amount received by the
existing tribal JOBS programs in fiscal year 1995. By keeping the JOBS
programs in Indian country intact, we will acknowledge the positive
impact it has made in the lives of thousands of Indians. Indians
residing in communities where a tribal JOBS program is in operation
have experienced a new sense of hope by developing basic job skills
that have helped them to secure stable job opportunities both on and
off the reservation. The Dole substitute bill also contains provisions
in titles VI and VIII which provide continuing resources for programs
that have proven successful in Indian country, such as the Child Care
and Development Block Program as well as new programs that are critical
to ending the high Indian unemployment rates such as the proposed
workforce development and training activities. These provisions, along
with the JOBS component will greatly assist in helping Indian country
contribute to the goals of welfare reform and the purposes of the act.
Mr. President, I believe it is important to point out that with
passage of these provisions in the Dole substitute bill the Senate will
discharge some of its continuing responsibilities under the U.S.
Constitution--the very foundation of our treaty, trust, and legal
relationship with the Nation's Indian tribes, and which vests the
Congress with plenary power over Indian affairs. I was deeply troubled
to learn that H.R. 4, as passed by the House, did not address the
unique status of Indian tribal governments or the trust responsibility
of the Federal Government to the Indian tribes. There was no House
debate on the status of the welfare state on many Indian reservations
nor the impact that the proposed changes to welfare programs would have
on access to services already in existence in Indian country. Nor was
there any mention made in the House welfare debate of the significant
legal and trust responsibility that the Federal Government has to the
Indian tribes. Therefore, it is extremely important that the Senate do
so. to do otherwise would be to abrogate our responsibilities. I was
pleased to learn that the distinguished chairman of the House Ways and
Means Committee has acknowledged with some regret the failure of the
House to address the Indian issues and has given his assurance to
address this oversight during conference on the bill.
As the chairman of the Indian Affairs Committee, I feel it is my
responsibility to take a moment to briefly expand my remarks to a
discussion of the responsibilities of the Congress toward Indians under
the U.S. Constitution. The Constitution provides that the Congress has
plenary power to prescribe Federal Indian policy. These powers are
provided for pursuant to the Commerce and the Treaty Power clauses.
Sadly, over the last two centuries, the Congress has poorly exercised
its power and responsibility--subjecting Indian tribal governments to
inconsistent or contradictory policies--policies of termination and
assimilation. These policies have served to weaken well established
Indian systems of government and, in my view, have greatly contributed
to the welfare state that exists today on most Indian reservations.
I know that time and time again, I have stood on this floor to recite
grim statistics revealing that Indians are, and consistently remain--
even in 1995--the poorest of the poor and always the last to benefit.
Today, I will withhold from reciting that data because I believe that
this bill begins to turn the tide in this Nation's treatment of Indians
and their tribal governments. Similar to the unfunded mandates bill we
enacted into law earlier their year, the Dole substitute bill under
consideration will treat tribal governments like State governments by
allowing them the flexibility and authority to directly administer
their own programs free of Federal bureaucratic intrusion and control.
Due in large part to the leadership of the late President Nixon, the
Congress for more than two decades have responsibly exercised its
plenary authority by replacing the distorted and dismal policy of
termination of Indian tribal governments with empowering policies of
tribal self-determination and self-governance--policies that respect
and honor the government-to-government relationship between the Federal
Government and the Indian tribes--policies that are consistent with the
Federal trust responsibility and that set a new course of fairness in
the Federal Government's dealings with Indian tribal governments.
Given the renewed commitment by Congress to deal fairly with the
Indian tribes, I fully understood why many tribal leaders became
concerned when the Congress earlier this year began moving toward a
system of block grants to States. The
concerns were that if the Congress did not revise the block grant
model to reflect its responsibility to Indian tribal governments, the
government-to-government relationship between the tribes and the United
States would be soon eroded and the Federal trust responsibility held
sacred in our Constitution and the decisions of our Supreme Court would
be relegated to the States.
These tribal concerns are likewise valid in a practical sense. A
Federal Inspector General's report issued in August 1994 found that
Federal block grants to States, in some instances have not resulted in
equitable services being provided to Indians. That report found that in
15 of the 24 States with the largest Indian populations, eligible
Indian tribes did not receive funds even though Indian population
figures were used to justify the State's receipt of Federal funding. In
addition, findings of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs revealed
that even when States were attempting to serve Indians, the
programmatic and administrative costs of providing welfare services to
Indians are often greater than providing local services to others. What
these findings revealed to me is that when either the Federal or State
governments have administered programs for Indians, Indians have not
received an equitable share of services.
Mr. President, the whole purpose of welfare reform is to provide the
tools to State governments to design and administer local welfare
programs. After all, we have come to understand that local governments
want and have the ability to create local solutions to address what
are, in essence, local problems. I would suggest that this policy is no
different than the Federal Indian policies of tribal self-determination
and self-governance. I also know that elected tribal officials have a
great love of country and an incredible desire to contribute to the
Nation's goal of elevating members of their communities out of the
depths of poverty. Given the tools to do so, I believe that Indian
tribes will make great contribution to the Nation's war on poverty.
Mr. President, before I conclude my remarks, I would like to
acknowledge a group of Senators that I believe have demonstrated a
great level of understanding and commitment to the importance of
addressing the needs of Indian tribes in the Nation's welfare reform
movement. Senators Hatch, Inouye, Domenici, Simon, Murkowski, Pressler,
Campbell, and Kassebaum have contributed to ensuring that Indian tribes
are not overlooked and abandoned in the current welfare reform efforts.
Two members of the Indian Affairs Committee deserve particular
recognition: my good friend from Kansas, Senator Nancy Landon Kassebaum
and my good friend from Utah, Senator Orrin Hatch. Senator Kassebaum,
as chairwoman of the Labor and Human Resources Committee, worked
closely with the Indian Affairs Committee and Senator Simon to ensure
that provisions for direct Federal funding would be available to Indian
tribes in her committee's employment consolidation bill and that tribes
would continue to receive funding through the Child Care and
Development Block Grant Program. Senator Kassebaum's leadership has
greatly contributed to the fairness with which Indian tribes are
treated under H.R. 4 and the progress that has been made by the
Congress in its treatment of Indian tribes.
I want to give particular thanks to my good friend from Utah, Senator
Orrin Hatch. Senator Hatch has
[[Page S 12937]]
worked tirelessly with me over the last several months to shape and
enhance tribal welfare provisions that could be acceptable in any
welfare reform plan. Senator Hatch is a member of the Senate Finance
Committee and he is a new member of the Senate Committee on Indian
Affairs. He has demonstrated a great level of understanding and
commitment to the betterment of the lives of Indian people, and I
commend Senator Hatch for his steadfast leadership in ensuring that
Indian tribal governments are fairly treated in the welfare reform
debate.
Mr. President, I understand that other major welfare reform proposals
make an effort to similarly address the needs of Indian tribes. While I
have placed my full support behind the provisions of H.R. 4 related to
Indian tribal governments, I want to make sure to recognize the
attention that has been paid and the work that has been done on behalf
of Indian tribal governments by my colleague so the other side of the
aisle. For example, I know that S. 1117 would have provided a 3-percent
allocation of funds to Indian tribes under the JOBS Program and would
have authorized new funding for teen pregnancy prevention and for teen
parent group homes, and like the Dole substitute bill, provides
continued funding for child care and development block grants to
tribes.
The spirit in which the Senate has acted has adhered to a principle
that I believe should guide the Congress in matters of Indian affairs:
Indian issues are neither Republican, nor Democratic. They are not even
bipartisan issues--they are nonpartisan issues. They are day-to-day
human issues which call for a level of understanding on both sides of
the aisle. While this body is not in total agreement with just how to
reform welfare, the one thing we all agree upon is that whatever new
form this Nation's welfare system takes, providing equal access to the
Nation's Indian population is not only the right thing to do, it
honorably discharges some of our continuing responsibilities under the
U.S. Constitution.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________