[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 140 (Monday, September 11, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S13143-S13150]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
FAMILY SELF-SUFFICIENCY ACT
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will now resume consideration of
H.R. 4, which the clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (H.R. 4) to restore the American family, reduce
illegitimacy, control welfare spending, and reduce welfare
dependence.
The Senate resumed consideration of the bill.
Pending:
Dole Modified Amendment No. 2280, of a perfecting nature.
Subsequently, the amendment was further modified.
Feinstein Modified Amendment No. 2469 (to Amendment No.
2280), to provide additional funding to States to accommodate
any growth in the number of people in poverty.
[[Page S 13144]]
Feinstein Amendment No. 2470 (to Amendment No. 2280), to
impose a child support obligation on paternal grandparents in
cases in which both parents are minors.
Moseley-Braun Amendment No. 2471 (to Amendment No. 2280),
to require States to establish a voucher program for
providing assistance to minor children in families that are
eligible for but do not receive assistance.
Moseley-Braun Amendment No. 2472 (to Amendment No. 2280),
to prohibit a State from imposing a time limit for assistance
if the State has failed to provide work activity-related
services to an adult individual in a family receiving
assistance under the State program.
Moseley-Braun Amendment No. 2473 (to Amendment No. 2280),
to modify the job opportunities to certain low-income
individuals program.
Moseley-Braun Amendment No. 2474 (to Amendment No. 2280),
to prohibit a State from reserving grant funds for use in
subsequent fiscal years if the State has reduced the amount
of assistance provided to families under the State program in
the preceding fiscal year.
Feinstein Amendment No. 2478 (to Amendment No. 2280), to
provide equal treatment for naturalized and native-born
citizens.
Feinstein Amendment No. 2479 (to Amendment No. 2280), to
provide for State and county demonstration programs.
Feingold Amendment No. 2480 (to Amendment No. 2280), to
study the impact of amendments to the child and adult care
food program on program participation and family day care
licensing.
Feingold Amendment No. 2481 (to Amendment No. 2280), to
provide for a demonstration project for the elimination of
take-one-take-all requirement.
Bingaman Amendment No. 2483 (to Amendment No. 2280), to
require the development of a strategic plan for a State
family assistance program.
Bingaman Amendment No. 2484 (to Amendment No. 2280), to
provide funding for State programs for the treatment of drug
addiction and alcoholism and for the National Institute on
Drug Abuse Research.
Bingaman Amendment No. 2485 (to Amendment No. 2280), to
provide Indian vocational education grants.
Simon Amendment No. 2468 (to Amendment No. 2280), to
provide grants for the establishment of community works
progress programs.
Levin Amendment No. 2486 (to Amendment No. 2280). to
require recipients of assistance under a State program funded
under part A of title IV of the Social Security Act to
participate in State mandated community service activities if
they are not engaged in work after 6 months receiving
benefits.
Breaux Amendment No. 2487 (to Amendment No. 2280), to
maintain the welfare partnership between the States and the
Federal Government.
Breaux Amendment No. 2488 (to Amendment No. 2280), to
maintain the welfare partnership between the States and the
Federal Government.
Breaux Amendment No. 2489 (to Amendment No. 2280), to
improve services provided as workforce employment activities.
Breaux Amendment No. 2490 (to Amendment No. 2280), to
strike provisions relating to workforce development and
workforce preparation.
Rockefeller Modified Amendment No. 2491 (to Amendment No.
2280), to provide States with the option to exempt families
residing in areas of high unemployment from the time limit.
Rockefeller Modified Amendment No. 2492 (to Amendment No.
2280), to provide for a State option to exempt certain
individuals from the participation rate calculation and the
time limit.
Snowe/Bradley Amendment No. 2493 (to Amendment No. 2280),
to clarify provisions relating to the distribution to
families of collected child support payments.
Snowe Amendment No. 2494 (to Amendment No. 2280), to
clarify that the penalty provisions do not apply to certain
single custodial parents in need of child care and to exempt
certain single custodial parents in need of child care from
the work requirements.
Pryor Amendment No. 2495 (to Amendment No. 2280), to modify
the penalty provisions.
Bradley Amendment No. 2496 (to Amendment No. 2280), to
modify the provisions regarding the State plan requirements.
Bradley Amendment No. 2497 (to Amendment No. 2280), to
prohibit a State from shifting the costs of aid or assistance
provided under the aid to families with dependent children or
the JOBS programs to local governments.
Bradley Amendment No. 2498 (to Amendment No. 2280), to
provide that existing civil rights laws shall not be
preempted by this Act.
Bond Amendment No. 2499 (to Amendment No. 2280), to
establish that States shall not be prohibited by the Federal
Government from sanctioning welfare recipients who test
positive for use of controlled substances.
Glenn Amendment No. 2500 (to Amendment No. 2280), to ensure
that training for displace homemakers is included among
workforce employment activities and workforce education
activities for which funds may be used under this Act.
Grassley (for Pressler) Amendment No. 2501 (to Amendment
No. 2280), to provide a State option to use an income tax
intercept to collect overpayments in assistance under the
State program funded under part A of title IV of the Social
Security Act.
Grassley (for Cohen) Modified Amendment No. 2502 (to
Amendment No. 2280), to ensure that programs are implemented
consistent with the First Amendment.
Wellstone Amendment No. 2503 (to Amendment No. 2280), to
prevent an increase in the number of hungry children in
states that elect to participate in a food assistance block
grant program.
Wellstone Amendment No. 2504 (to Amendment No. 2280), to
prevent an increase in the number of hungry and homeless
children in states that receive block grants for temporary
assistance for needy families.
Wellstone Amendment No. 2505 (to Amendment No. 2280), to
express the sense of the Senate regarding continuing medicaid
coverage for individuals who lose eligibility for welfare
benefits because of more earnings or hours of employment.
Wellstone Amendment No. 2506 (to Amendment No. 2280), to
provide for an extension of transitional medicaid benefits.
Wellstone Amendment No. 2507 (to Amendment No. 2280), to
exclude energy assistance payments for one-time costs of
weatherization or repair or replacement of unsafe or
inoperative heating devices from income under the food stamp
program.
Simon Amendment No. 2509 (to Amendment No. 2280), to
eliminate retroactive deeming requirements for those legal
immigrants already in the United States.
Simon Amendment No. 2510 (to Amendment No. 2280), to
maintain a national Job Corps program, carried out in
partnership with States and communities.
Abraham/Lieberman Amendment No. 2511 (to Amendment No.
2280), to express the sense of the Senate that the Congress
should adopt enterprise zone legislation in the 104th
Congress.
Abraham Amendment No. 2512 (to Amendment No. 2280), to
increase the block grant amount to States that reduce out-of-
wedlock births.
Feinstein Amendment No. 2513 (to Amendment No. 2280), to
limit deeming of income to cash and cash-like programs, and
to retain SSI eligibility and exempt deeming of income
requirements for victims of domestic violence.
Moynihan (for Lieberman) Amendment No. 2514 (to Amendment
No. 2280), to establish a job placement performance bonus
that provides an incentive for States to successfully place
individuals in unsubsidized jobs.
Moynihan (for Lieberman) Amendment No. 2515 (to Amendment
No. 2280), to establish a national clearinghouse on teenage
pregnancy, set national goals for the reduction of out-of-
wedlock and teenage pregnancies, and require States to
establish a set-aside for teenage pregnancy prevention
activities.
Hatch Amendment No. 2516 (to Amendment No. 2280), to
establish a block grant program for the provision of child
care services.
Hatch (for DeWine) Amendment No. 2517 (to Amendment No.
2280), to provide for quarterly reporting by banks with
respect to common trust funds.
Hatch (for DeWine) Amendment No. 2518 (to Amendment No.
2280), to modify the method for calculating participation
rates to more accurately reflect the total case load of
families receiving assistance in the State.
Hatch (for DeWine) Amendment No. 2519 (to Amendment No.
2280), to provide for a rainy day contingency fund.
Hatch (for Burns) Amendment No. 2520 (to Amendment No.
2280), to establish procedures for the reduction of certain
personnel in the Department of Health and Human Services.
Hatch (for Simpson) Amendment No. 2521 (to Amendment No.
2280), to ensure State eligibility and benefit restrictions
for immigrants are no more restrictive than those of the
Federal government.
Hatch (for Kassebaum) Amendment No. 2522 (to Amendment No.
2280), to modify provisions relating to funds for other child
care programs.
Helms Amendment No. 2523 (to Amendment No. 2280), to
require single, able-bodied individuals receiving food stamps
to work at least 40 hours every 4 weeks.
Exon Amendment No. 2525 (to Amendment No. 2280), to
prohibit the payment of certain Federal benefits to any
person not lawfully present within the United States.
Shelby Amendment No. 2526 (to Amendment No. 2280), to amend
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide a refundable
credit for adoption expenses and to exclude from gross income
employee and military adoption assistance benefits and
withdrawals from IRAs for certain adoption expenses.
Shelby Amendment No. 2527 (to Amendment No. 2280), to
improve provisions relating to the optional State food
assistance block grant.
Moynihan (for Conrad/Lieberman) Amendment No. 2528 (to
Amendment No. 2280), to provide that a State that provides
assistance to unmarried teenage parents under the State
program require such parents as a condition of receiving such
assistance to live in an adult-supervised setting and attend
high school or other equivalent training program.
Moynihan (for Conrad/Bradley) Amendment No. 2529 (to
Amendment No. 2280), to provide States with the maximum
flexibility by allowing States to elect to participate in the
TAP and WAGE programs.
Moynihan (for Conrad) Amendment No. 2530 (to Amendment No.
2280), to provide that a State that provides assistance to
unmarried teenage parents under the State program require
such parents as a condition of receiving such assistance to
live in an adult-supervised setting and attend high school or
other equivalent training program.
[[Page S 13145]]
Moynihan (for Conrad) Amendment No. 2531 (to Amendment No.
2280), to prevent States from receiving credit toward work
participation rates for individual who leave the roles due to
a time limit.
Moynihan (for Conrad) Amendment No. 2532 (to Amendment No.
2280), in the nature of a substitute.
Moynihan (for Levin) Amendment No. 2533 (to Amendment No.
2280), to improve the provisions relating to incentive
grants.
Moynihan (for Pell) Amendment No. 2475 (to Amendment No.
2280), to clarify that each State must carry out activities
through at least 1 Job Corps center.
Moynihan (for Dodd) Amendment No. 2534 (to Amendment No.
2280), to award national rapid response grants to address
major economic dislocations.
Moynihan (for Dorgan) Amendment No. 2535 (to Amendment No.
2280), to express the sense of the Senate on legislative
accountability for the unfunded mandates imposed by welfare
reform legislative.
Moynihan (for Lieberman) Amendment No. 2536 (to Amendment
No. 2280), to establish bonus payments for States that
achieve reductions in out-of-wedlock pregnancies, establish a
national clearinghouse on teenage pregnancy, set national
goals for the reduction of out-of-wedlock and teenage
pregnancies, and require States to establish a set-aside for
teenage pregnancy prevention activities.
Moynihan (for Lieberman) Amendment No. 2537 (to Amendment
No. 2280), to establish a national clearinghouse on teenage
pregnancy, set national goals for the reduction of out-of-
wedlock and teenage pregnancies, and require States to
establish a set-aside for teenage pregnancy prevention
activities.
Moynihan Amendment No. 2538 (to Amendment No. 2280), to
strike the provisions repealing trade adjustment assistance.
Hatch (for Coats/Ashcroft) Amendment No. 2539 (to Amendment
No. 2280), to provide a tax credit for charitable
contributions to organizations providing poverty assistance.
Hatch (for McCain) Amendment No. 2540 (to Amendment No.
2280), to remove barriers to interracial and interethnic
adoptions.
Hatch (for McCain) Amendment No. 2541 (to Amendment No.
2280), to provide that States are not required to comply with
excessive data collection and reporting requirements unless
the Federal Government provides sufficient funding to allow
States to meet such excessive requirements.
Hatch (for McCain) Amendment No. 2542 (to Amendment No.
2280), to remove the maximum length of participation in the
work supplementation or support program.
Hatch (for McCain) Amendment No. 2543 (to Amendment No.
2280), to make job readiness workshops a work activity.
Hatch (for McCain) Amendment No. 2544 (to Amendment No.
2280), to permit States to enter into a corrective action
plan prior to the deduction of penalties from the block
grant.
Harkin Amendment No. 2545 (to Amendment No. 2280), to
require each family receiving assistance under the State
program funded under part A of title IV of the Social
Security Act to enter into a personal responsibility contract
or a limited benefit plan.
Chafee Amendment No. 2546 (to Amendment No. 2280), to
maintain the welfare partnership between the States and the
Federal Government.
Chafee (for Cohen) Amendment No. 2547 (to Amendment No.
2280), to deny supplemental security income cash benefits by
reason of disability to drug addicts and alcoholics, and to
require beneficiaries with accompanying addiction to comply
with appropriate treatment requirements as determined by the
Commissioner.
Moynihan (for Kerrey) Amendment No. 2549 (to Amendment No.
2280), to allow a State to revoke an election to participate
in the optional State food assistance block grant.
Moynihan (for Kohl) Amendment No. 2550 (to Amendment No.
2280), to exempt the elderly, disabled, and children from an
optional State food assistance block grant.
Moynihan (for Kohl) Amendment No. 2551 (to Amendment No.
2280), to expand the food stamp employment and training
program.
Moynihan (for Bryan) Amendment No. 2552 (to Amendment No.
2280), to provide that a recipient of welfare benefits under
a means-tested program for which Federal funds are
appropriated is not unjustly enriched as a result of
defrauding another means-tested welfare or public assistance
program.
Moynihan (for Bryan) Amendment No. 2553 (to Amendment No.
2280), to require a recipient of assistance based on need,
funded in whole or in part by Federal funds, and the
noncustodial parent to cooperate with paternity establishment
and child support enforcement in order to maintain
eligibility for such assistance.
Moynihan (for Bryan) Amendment No. 2554 (to Amendment No.
2280), to provide that State welfare and public assistance
agencies can notify the Internal Revenue Service to intercept
Federal income tax refunds to recapture over-payments of
welfare or public assistance benefits.
Moynihan (for Bryan) Amendment No. 2555 (to Amendment No.
2280), to provide State welfare or public assistance agencies
an option to determine eligibility of a household containing
an ineligible individual under the Food Stamp program.
Hatfield Amendment No. 2467 (to Amendment No. 2280), to
increase the participation of teacher, parents, and students
in developing and improving workforce education activities.
Hatch (for Nickles) Amendment No. 2556 (to Amendment No.
2280), to require the transmission of quarterly wage reports
in order to relay information to the State Director of New
Hires to assist in locating absent parents.
Hatch (for Jeffords) Amendment No. 2557 (to Amendment No.
2280), to amend the definition of work activities to include
vocational education training that does not exceed 24 months.
Hatch (for Jeffords) Amendment No. 2558 (to Amendment No
2280), to provide for the State distribution of funds for
secondary school vocational education, postsecondary and
adult vocational education, and adult education.
Hatch (for Kyl) Amendment No. 2559 (to Amendment No. 2280),
to require the establishment of local workforce development
boards.
Dodd Amendment No. 2560 (to Amendment No. 2280), to provide
for the establishment of a supplemental child care grant
program.
Ashcroft Amendment No. 2561 (to Amendment No. 2280), to
replace the supplemental security income program for the
disabled and blind with a block grant to the States.
Ashcroft Amendment No. 2562 (to Amendment No. 2280), to
convert the food stamp program into a block grant program.
Graham (for Kennedy) Amendment No. 2563 (to Amendment No.
2280), to terminate sponsor responsibilities upon the date of
naturalization of the immigrant.
Graham (for Kennedy) Amendment No. 2564 (to Amendment No.
2280), to grant the Attorney General flexibility in certain
public assistance determinations for immigrants.
Graham Amendment No. 2565 (to Amendment No. 2280), to
provide a formula for allocating funds that more accurately
reflects the needs of States with children below the poverty
line.
Graham Amendment No. 2566 (to Amendment No. 2280), to
require each responsible Federal agency to determine whether
there are sufficient appropriations to carry out the Federal
intergovernmental mandates required by this Act, and to
provide that the mandates will not be effective under certain
conditions.
Graham Amendment No. 2567 (to Amendment No. 2280), 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.
Graham Amendment No. 2568 (to Amendment No. 2280), 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.
Graham Amendment No. 2569 (to Amendment No. 2280), to
provide for the prospective application of the provisions of
title V.
Dodd (for Leahy) Amendment No. 2570 (to Amendment No.
2280), to reduce fraud and trafficking in the Food Stamp
program by providing incentives to States to implement
Electronic Benefit Transfer systems.
Jeffords Amendment No. 2571 (to Amendment No. 2280), to
modify the maintenance of effort provision.
Santorum (for Domenici) Amendment No. 2572 (to Amendment
No. 2280), to improve the child support enforcement system by
giving States better incentives to improve collections.
Santorum (for Domenici) Amendment No. 2573 (to Amendment
No. 2280), to maintain the welfare partnership between the
States and the Federal Government.
Santorum (for Domenici) Amendment No. 2574 (to Amendment
No. 2280), to express the sense of the Senate regarding the
inability of the noncustodial parent to pay child support.
Santorum (for Domenici) Amendment No. 2575 (to Amendment
No. 2280), to allow States maximum flexibility in designing
their Temporary Assistance programs.
Santorum (for Domenici) Amendment No. 2576 (to Amendment
No. 2280), to create a national child custody database, and
to clarify exclusive continuing jurisdiction provisions of
the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act.
Santorum (for D'Amato) Amendment No. 2577 (to Amendment No.
2280), to change the date for the determination of fiscal
year 1994 expenditures.
Santorum (for D'Amato) Amendment No. 2578 (to Amendment No.
2280), relating to claims arising before effective dates.
Santorum (for D'Amato) Amendment No. 2579 (to Amendment No.
2280), terminating efforts to recover funds for prior fiscal
years.
Santorum (for Grams) Amendment No. 2580 (to Amendment No.
2280), to limit vocational education activities counted as
work.
Jeffords Amendment No. 2581 (to Amendment No. 2280), to
strike the increase to the grant to reward States that reduce
out-of-wedlock births.
Dodd (for Wellstone) Amendment No. 2582 (to Amendment No.
2280), to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to
increase the minimum wage rate under such Act.
Dodd (for Wellstone) Amendment No. 2583 (to Amendment No.
2280), to exempt women and children who have been battered or
subject to extreme cruelty from certain requirements of the
bill.
Dodd (for Wellstone) Amendment No. 2584 (to Amendment No.
2280), to exempt women and children who have been battered or
subjected to extreme cruelty from certain requirements of the
bill.
[[Page S 13146]]
Stevens Amendment No. 2585 (to Amendment No. 2280), of a
technical nature.
Santorum (for Cohen) Amendment No. 2586 (to Amendment No.
2280), to modify the religious provider provision.
Santorum (for Specter) Amendment No. 2587 (to Amendment No.
2280), to maintain a national Job Corps program, carried out
in partnership with States and communities.
Santorum (for Chafee) Amendment No. 2588 (to Amendment No.
2280), to require States to provide voucher assistance for
children born to families receiving assistance.
Santorum (for McCain) Amendment No. 2589 (to Amendment No.
2280), to provide for child support enforcement agreements
between the States and Indian tribes or tribal organizations.
Moynihan Amendment No. 2590 (to Amendment No. 2280), to
provide that case record data submitted by the States be
desegregated, and to provide funding for certain research,
demonstration, and evaluation projects.
Moynihan (for Boxer) Amendment No. 2591 (to Amendment No.
2280), to provide for a child care maintenance of effort.
Moynihan (for Boxer) Amendment No. 2592 (to Amendment No.
2280), to provide that State authority to restrict benefits
to noncitizens does not apply to foster care or adoption
assistance programs.
Moynihan (for Boxer) Amendment No. 2593 (to Amendment No.
2280), expressing the sense of the Senate on restrictions on
providing medical information by recipients of Federal aid.
Santorum (for Faircloth) Amendment No. 2594 (to Amendment
No. 2280), to prohibit direct cash benefits for out of
wedlock births to minors except under certain conditions.
Santorum (for Faircloth) Amendment No. 2595 (to Amendment
No. 2280), to require the Secretary of Housing and Urban
Development to submit a report regarding disqualification of
illegal aliens from housing assistance programs.
Santorum (for Faircloth) Amendment No. 2596 (to Amendment
No. 2280), to express the sense of the Congress regarding a
work requirement for public housing residents.
Santorum (for Faircloth) Amendment No. 2597 (to Amendment
No. 2280), to require ongoing State evaluations of activities
carried out through statewide workforce development systems.
Santorum (for Faircloth) Amendment No. 2598 (to Amendment
No. 2280), to provide for transferability of funds.
Santorum (for Faircloth) Amendment No. 2599 (to Amendment
No. 2280), to provide for transferability of funds allotted
for workforce preparation activities for at-risk youth.
Santorum (for Faircloth) Amendment No. 2600 (to Amendment
No. 2280), to allow a State agency to make cash payments to
certain individuals in lieu of food stamp allotments.
Santorum (for Faircloth) Amendment No. 2601 (to Amendment
No. 2280), to integrate the temporary assistance to needy
families with food stamp work rules.
Santorum (for Faircloth) Amendment No. 2602 (to Amendment
No. 2280), to limit vocational education activities counted
as work.
Santorum (for Faircloth) Amendment No. 2603 (to Amendment
No. 2280), to deny assistance for out-of-wedlock births to
minors.
Santorum (for Faircloth) Amendment No. 2604 (to Amendment
No. 2280), to provide for no additional cash assistance for
children born to families receiving assistance.
Santorum (for Faircloth) Amendment No. 2605 (to Amendment
No. 2280), to deny assistance for out-of-wedlock births to
minors.
Santorum (for Faircloth) Amendment No. 2606 (to Amendment
No. 2280), to provide for provisions relating to paternity
establishment and fraud.
Santorum (for Faircloth) Amendment No. 2607 (to Amendment
No. 2280), to require State goals and a State plan for
reducing illegitimacy.
Santorum (for Faircloth) Amendment No. 2608 (to Amendment
No. 2280), to provide for an abstinence education program.
Santorum (for Faircloth) Amendment No. 2609 (to Amendment
No. 2280), to prohibit teenage parents from living in the
home of an adult relative or guardian who has a history of
receiving assistance.
Moynihan Amendment No. 2610 (to Amendment No. 2280), to
amend title 13, United States Code, to require that any data
relating to the incidence of poverty produced or published by
the Secretary of Commerce for subnational areas is corrected
for differences in the cost of living in those areas.
Moynihan Amendment No. 2611 (to Amendment No. 2280), to
correct imbalances in certain States in the Federal tax to
Federal benefit ratio by reallocating the distribution of
Federal spending.
Abraham/Lieberman Amendment No. 2476 (to Amendment No.
2280), to express the sense of the Senate that the Congress
should adopt enterprise zone legislation in the 104th
Congress.
Santorum (for Gramm) Amendment No. 2612 (to Amendment No.
2280), to limit the State option for work participation
requirement exemptions to the first 12 months to which the
requirement applies.
Santorum (for Gramm) Amendment No. 2613 (to Amendment No.
2280), to require that certain individuals who are not
required to work are included in the participation rate
calculation.
Santorum (for Gramm) Amendment No. 2614 (to Amendment No.
2280), to provide for increased penalties for failure to meet
work requirements.
Santorum (for Gramm) Amendment No. 2615 (to Amendment No.
2280), to reduce the Federal welfare bureaucracy.
Santorum (for Gramm) Amendment No. 2616 (to Amendment No.
2280), to require paternity establishment as a condition of
benefit receipt.
Santorum (for Gramm) Amendment No. 2617 (to Amendment No.
2280), to prohibit the use of Federal funds for legal
challenges to welfare reform.
Moynihan Amendment No. 2618 (to Amendment No. 2280), to
eliminate the requirement that HHS reduce full-time
equivalent positions by specific percentages and retain
requirements to evaluate the number of FTE positions required
to carry out the activities under the bill and to take action
to reduce the appropriate number of positions.
Moynihan (for Kennedy) Amendment No. 2619 (to Amendment No.
2280), to terminate sponsor responsibilities upon the date of
naturalization of the immigrant.
Moynihan (for Kennedy) Amendment No. 2620 (to Amendment No.
2280), to grant the Attorney General flexibility in certain
public assistance determinations for immigrants.
Moynihan (for Kennedy) Amendment No. 2621 (to Amendment No.
2280), to ensure that programs are implemented consistent
with the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Moynihan (for Kennedy) Amendment No. 2622 (to Amendment No.
2280), to repeal food stamp provisions relating to children
living at home and to reduce tax benefits for foreign
corporations.
Moynihan (for Kennedy) Amendment No. 2623 (to Amendment No.
2280), to permit States to apply for waivers with respect to
the 15 percent cap on hardship exemptions from the 5-year
time limitation.
Moynihan (for Kennedy) Amendment No. 2624 (to Amendment No.
2280), to permit States to provide non-cash assistance to
children ineligible for aid because of the 5-year time
limitation.
Moynihan (for Kennedy) Amendment No. 2625 (to Amendment No.
2280), to require States to have in effect laws regarding
duration of child support.
Moynihan (for Kennedy) Amendment No. 2626 (to Amendment No.
2280), to eliminate a repeal relating to the Trade Act of
1974.
Moynihan (for Kennedy) Amendment No. 2627 (to Amendment No.
2280), to improve provisions relating to the Trade Act of
1974.
Moynihan (for Kennedy) Amendment No. 2628 (to Amendment No.
2280), to improve provisions relating to the Wagner-Peyser
Act.
Moynihan (for Kennedy) Amendment No. 2629 (to Amendment No.
2280), to improve provisions relating to the unemployment
trust fund.
Moynihan (for Kennedy) Amendment No. 2630 (to Amendment No.
2280), to clarify that the responsibilities of the National
Board are advisory.
Moynihan (for Kennedy) Amendment No. 2631 (to Amendment No.
2280), to improve provisions relating to workforce
development activities and funds made available through the
unemployment trust fund.
Moynihan (for Kennedy) Amendment No. 2632 (to Amendment No.
2280), to exclude employment and training programs under the
Food Stamp Act of 1977 from the list of activities that may
be provided as workforce employment activities.
Moynihan (for Kennedy) Amendment No. 2633 (to Amendment No.
2280), to provide for the State distribution of funds for
secondary school vocational education, postsecondary and
adult vocational education, and adult education.
Moynihan (for Kennedy) Amendment No. 2634 (to Amendment No.
2280), to establish a job placement performance bonus that
provides an incentive for States to successfully place
individuals in unsubsidized jobs.
Moynihan (for Kennedy) Amendment No. 2635 (to Amendment No.
2280), to require that 25 percent of the funds for workforce
employment activities be expended to carry out such
activities for dislocated workers.
Moynihan (for Kennedy) Amendment No. 2636 (to Amendment No.
2280), to establish a definition of a local workforce
development board.
Moynihan (for Kennedy) Amendment No. 2637 (to Amendment No.
2280), to provide a conforming amendment with respect to
local workforce development boards.
Moynihan (for Kennedy) Amendment No. 2638 (to Amendment No.
2280), to require the establishment of local workforce
development boards.
Moynihan (for Kennedy) Amendment No. 2639 (to Amendment No.
2280), to clarify the role of the summer jobs program.
Moynihan (for Kennedy) Amendment No. 2640 (to Amendment No.
2280), to expand the provisions relating to the limitation of
the use of funds under title VII.
Moynihan (for Kennedy) Amendment No. 2641 (to Amendment No.
2280), to improve the State apportionment of funds by
activity.
Moynihan (for Kennedy) Amendment No. 2642 (to Amendment No.
2280), to clarify the role of the summer jobs program.
Moynihan (for Kennedy) Amendment No. 2643 (to Amendment No.
2280), to increase the authorization of appropriations for
workforce development activities.
Moynihan (for Kennedy) Amendment No. 2644 (to Amendment No.
2280), to limit the percentage of the flex account funds that
may be used for economic development activities.
[[Page S 13147]]
Moynihan (for Kennedy) Amendment No. 2645 (to Amendment
No. 2280), to make a conforming amendment regarding limiting
the percentage of the flex account funds that may be used for
economic development activities.
Moynihan (for Kennedy) Amendment No. 2646 (to Amendment No.
2280), to provide for national activities.
Moynihan (for Kennedy) Amendment No. 2647 (to Amendment No.
2280), to ensure that students have broad exposure to a wide
range of knowledge on occupations and choices for skill
training.
Moynihan (for Kennedy) Amendment No. 2648 (to Amendment No.
2280), to clarify the advisory nature of the responsibilities
of the National Board.
Moynihan (for Kennedy) Amendment No. 2649 (to Amendment No.
2280), to provide both women and men with access to training
in occupations or fields of work in which women or men
comprise less than 25 percent of the individuals employed in
such occupations or fields of work, with respect to workforce
development activities.
Moynihan (for Kennedy) Amendment No. 2650 (to Amendment No.
2280), to provide both women and men with access to training
in occupations or fields of work in which women or men
comprise less than 25 percent of the individuals employed in
such occupations or fields of work, with respect to workforce
preparation activities for at-risk youth.
Moynihan (for Kennedy) Amendment No. 2651 (to Amendment No.
2280), to ensure that States reference existing academic and
occupational standards in their State plans.
Moynihan (for Kennedy) Amendment No. 2652 (to Amendment No.
2280), to ensure that State plans describe activities that
will enable States to meet their benchmarks.
Moynihan (for Kennedy) Amendment No. 2653 (to Amendment No.
2280), to clarify that the term ``labor market information"
refers to labor market and occupational information.
Moynihan (for Kennedy) Amendment No. 2654 (to Amendment No.
2280), to explicitly include occupational information in
labor market information system provided under workforce
employment activities.
Moynihan (for Kennedy) Amendment No. 2655 (to Amendment No.
2280), to provide a conforming amendment relating to labor
market and occupational information.
Moynihan (for Kennedy) Amendment No. 2656 (to Amendment No.
2280), to maintain the administration of the school-to-work
programs in the School-to-Work office.
Moynihan (for Kennedy) Amendment No. 2657 (to Amendment No.
2280), to make the list of workforce education activities for
which funds may be used more consistent with the provisions
of the amendments made by the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and
Applied Technology Education Act Amendments of 1990, and the
provisions of the School-to-Work Opportunities Act of 1994.
Moynihan (for Kennedy) Amendment No. 2658 (to Amendment No.
2280), to clarify the role of the State educational agency
with respect to workforce education activities and at-risk
youth.
Moynihan (for Kennedy) Amendment No. 2659 (to Amendment No.
2280), to include the participation and resources of the
education community with that of business, industry, and
labor in the development of statewide workforce development
systems, local partnerships, and local workforce development
boards.
Moynihan (for Kennedy) Amendment No. 2660 (to Amendment No.
2280), to include volunteers among those for whom the
National Center for Research in Education and Workforce
Development conducts research and development, and provide
technical assistance.
Moynihan (for Kerry) Amendment No. 2661 (to Amendment No.
2280), to provide supplemental security income benefits to
persons who are disabled by reason of drug or alcohol abuse.
Moynihan (for Kerry) Amendment No. 2662 (to Amendment No.
2280), to provide demonstration projects for using
neighborhood schools as centers for beneficial activities for
children and their parents in order to break the welfare
cycle.
Moynihan (for Kerry) Amendment No. 2663 (to Amendment No.
2280), to provide demonstration projects for using
neighborhood schools as centers for beneficial activities for
children and their parents in order to break the welfare
cycle.
Moynihan (for Kerry) Amendment No. 2664 (to Amendment No.
2280), to require applicants for assistance who are parents
to enter into a Parental Responsibility Contract and perform
satisfactorily under its terms as a condition of receipt of
that assistance.
Moynihan (for Harkin) Amendment No. 2665 (to Amendment No.
2280), to reduce the income tax rate for individuals to equal
the estimated cost of certain repealed programs.
Moynihan (for Kerry) Amendment No. 2666 (to Amendment No.
2280), to make the workforce development system more
responsive to changing local labor markets.
Moynihan (for Breaux) Amendment No. 2667 (to Amendment No.
2280), to improve the services provided as workforce
employment activities.
Moynihan (for Mikulski) Amendment No. 2668 (to Amendment
No. 2280), to eliminate a repeal of title V of the Older
American Act of 1965.
Moynihan (for Mikulski) Amendment No. 2669 (to Amendment
No. 2280), to encourage 2-parent families.
Moynihan (for Kerrey) Amendment No. 2670 (to Amendment No.
2280), to allow a State to revoke an election to participate
in optional State food assistance block grant.
Moynihan (for Daschle) Amendment No. 2671 (to Amendment No.
2280), to provide a 3 percent set aside for the funding of
family assistance grants for Indians.
Moynihan (for Daschle) Amendment No. 2672 (to Amendment No.
2280), to provide for a contingency grant fund.
Santorum Amendment No. 2673 (to Amendment No. 2280),
regarding implementation of electronic benefit transfer
system.
Santorum (for McConnell) Amendment No. 2674 (to Amendment
No. 2280), to timely rapid implementation of provisions
relating to the child and adult care food program.
Santorum (for McConnell) Amendment No. 2675, to clarify the
school data provision of the child and adult care food
program.
Santorum (for Packwood) Amendment No. 2676, to strike the
increase to the grant to reward States that reduce out-of-
wedlock births.
Moynihan (for Kennedy) Amendment No. 2677 (to Amendment No.
2280), to provide for an extension of transitional medicaid
benefits.
Santorum (for D'Amato) Amendment No. 2678 (to Amendment No.
2280), relating to the eligibility of States to receive
funds.
Moynihan (for Kerry) Amendment No. 2679 (to Amendment No.
2280), to provide supplemental security income benefits to
persons who are disabled by reason of drug or alcohol abuse.
Moynihan (for Harkin) Amendment No. 2680 (to Amendment No.
2280), to assure continued taxpayer savings through
competitive bidding in WIC.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from
Kansas, Mrs. Kassebaum, is recognized to offer an amendment.
Amendment No. 2522 to Amendment No. 2280
Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I am happy to be able to start off by
offering one of the 200 amendments that will be considered today. As we
know, all these amendments were laid down before the close of business
on Friday.
The amendment that I am offering and that I would like to discuss
briefly this morning would restore provisions contained in the Child
Care and Development Block Grant Amendments Act of 1995. This is the
reauthorization of legislation that has been in law for 5 years. It was
approved by the Committee on Labor and Human Resources by a unanimous
vote on May 25.
While I am committed to ending the concept of welfare as an
entitlement, I have some concerns about the legislation before us, the
Work Opportunity Act, regarding changes that have been made to child
care.
It seems to me that one of the most important considerations we have
to undertake when we are considering welfare reform is how we handle
child care. I think that all of us here in the Senate on both sides of
the aisle regard our ability to structure welfare reform in an
effective manner a top priority for the 104th Congress. We can talk
about ending support for mothers who should be working, for families
who should be working, but it is the children who become a crucial
element. It is with the children that we have to be careful and must
begin breaking the cycle of dependence that has occurred through years
of being on welfare. It is the protection of the children that is the
most important responsibility that we have.
Title VI of the welfare reform bill includes the reauthorization of
the Child Care and Development Block Grant. It is called the CCDBG and
it was enacted in 1990 with bipartisan support because Congress
recognized there was a lack of adequate child care for many low-income
working families. These just are not families on welfare. These are
families that are in the work force, frequently with low-paying jobs,
but who do not have the access to affordable, quality child care.
It was in that light that we felt it was very important to address
this, with a sliding fee scale determined by the states, so that low-
income families could be participants with some subsidies as they
worked their way into better paying jobs.
I think this continues to be a nationwide problem. One of the primary
goals of the CCDBG as it came out of committee is to ensure that there
is a seamless system of child care where it counts the most at the
point where the parent, child, and provider meet.
The provision that was in S. 850 that would have consolidated child
care funds into one unified system is not included in the leadership
welfare reform bill. The amendment I offer today restores that
provision so that we will
[[Page S 13148]]
have one unified system of child care, one State plan, and one set of
eligibility requirements.
I believe this only makes sense, Mr. President, as we are trying to
consolidate and trying to work together to form a better system. Why
continue to have two different child care systems--one under the child
care and development block grant, and one under the welfare child care
system?
I think it makes sense to bring the two systems together in a unified
approach.
My amendment does make one change to the original consolidation
provision that was included in S. 850, the legislation that we approved
out of committee, and that relates to the 15-percent set-aside for
quality improvement activities. The set-aside will apply to the
discretionary funds appropriated for the CCDBG, but will not apply to
other child care services provided through the unified system.
We have tried to take into account some of the concerns of Governors
who obviously would like to have a system that does not have too many
requirements from Congress, and we have tried to do that. On the other
hand, we believe that through the CCDGB there are some important
requirements that have proven to be of benefit and to have created a
successful child care approach in the States.
My amendment also strikes the provision in the welfare bill that
would allow up to 30 percent of the funds to be transferred between the
CCDBG and the cash assistance block grant. I oppose the transferability
provision for two major reasons.
First, I am concerned that there is too little child care money
available now. Funds transferred out of the CCDBG would not necessarily
be used for child care, which would create an even bigger problem; the
Governors could use it for other assistance such as cash benefits,
which they might choose and which they may feel is important. But I
feel strongly that these funds need to be targeted toward child care.
If we fail in this, we are going to fail to reform welfare in ways that
will be beneficial for years to come.
Second, the primary purpose of the CCDBG is to assist the working
poor who contribute something toward child care through the sliding fee
scale. Having this type of assistance available will become even more
important as individuals make the transition from welfare to work. I
think we all know that finding the right child care can be one of the
most costly and stressful aspects for parents as they enter the work
force. Not everyone is fortunate enough to have a grandparent or an
extended family member who can help with child care. In fact, many
today do not have relatives that can or will care for their children.
And that becomes one of the most stressful problems that a mother faces
when she goes to work in the morning, if she cannot be certain of some
quality child care, or cannot count on child care that she feels
comfortable with for her children.
Having this type of assistance available to those who are trying to
work their way off welfare will become even more important as we stress
the transition from welfare to work. Diverting CCDBG funds for other
purposes diminishes a program which is badly needed by the working
poor, and I believe it is unfair to penalize those who are struggling
to provide for themselves and their families.
I hope that all of my colleagues can support the amendment I offer
today, Mr. President, to consolidate child care into one unified system
and to preserve the limited funds allocated to child care.
I yield the floor.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, on a Monday morning, to focus on a very
important amendment that the Senator from Kansas has offered, when we
are going to have a very long week on this bill, is a sharp contrast
from sometimes the easy subjects we are discussing on Friday afternoon
when we adjourn for a weekend. To start out with the very basic issue
of child care that Senator Kassebaum has brought up is really starting
out with a heavy burden. The Senator from Kansas is always well
prepared, and so we cannot find any fault with the preparation for her
amendment, but we do take exception to the rationale behind the
amendment and consequently cannot support it.
Behind the amendment I believe is an assumption that somehow if you
are on welfare, or are low income, and it comes to the subject of
getting up in the morning and going to work--and obviously if you are
on welfare, there is a family involved, so there is a child that must
be taken some place when you are on welfare--it assumes somehow that
low-income people are different than other people; that when it comes
to child care, they cannot do it; they cannot seek good child care, go
through the business arrangements required, and on their own, without
the help of the Federal Government or without the help of the State
government, be able to provide for the care of a child while the mother
and/or father are at work. It assumes that low-income people are not
capable of this or assumes that they do not want to do it.
One of the things our reform proposal intends to do is to assume that
whether people are low income or not, they are, first of all, concerned
about their family; and, second, that they have the capacity to do what
must be done for their family; that you just cannot assume because
people are low income, somehow they do not have that ability.
Part of the basis for welfare reform is to enhance individual
responsibility, detract from the dependency of the State that has been
paramount to the system we have had historically and to start out with
the assumption that low income people have the basic innate
capabilities that other people have if given the opportunity.
Just recently, as I have said so many times on the floor of this
body, our State of Iowa passed a welfare reform proposal that is going
to enhance this individual responsibility. In fact, under our system,
welfare recipients sign a contract with the State establishing certain
points in the near future when they will take certain actions regarding
the family, regarding seeking a job, regarding education, if that is
necessary before a job, and eventually to getting a job so they work
their way off welfare. Individual responsibility is the essence of that
contract which the recipient signs with the State of Iowa.
There is a welfare recipient in my State who recently told a State
legislator that the problem with the Iowa welfare reform was that we
had gone from a system of no choices, where the State told her what to
do, when to do it, and where to do it, to a system of choices in which
she had to plan for her future, decide what opportunities to take and,
in her words, ``to be responsible.''
For her being faced with choices was the hardest part of the reform,
but I hope she recognizes, and us as well, that the hardest part of the
reform is basic to whether or not things are going to be different
under a new system. The issue comes down to whether we are going to
assume the capabilities that all Americans have of making decisions and
wanting to make decisions and set up an environment for those decisions
to be made.
I think the amendment that has just been presented by the Senator
from Kansas assumes that the welfare recipient might not be totally
capable, or ought not to have the responsibility even, of making that
decision.
The story I mentioned about the Iowa welfare recipient is true. I
think it epitomizes what is wrong with the current system. And when we
give States an opportunity to do better than what the Federal
Government wants to do, we can move in the direction of changing our
paternalistic system. It is promoting and even rewarding dependency.
There are many low-income American families who are struggling to
make ends meet and be responsible without any public assistance. They
take pride in their successes. And they have dignity for their efforts
to be self-sufficient through employment. They get up every morning and
they take their children to child care. They go to a job where they
work all day. They pick up their children in the afternoon and go home.
That is what most American families do. That is what even most
American families who are low income or ``working poor'' do without any
concern by any bureaucracy. They just do it. When you lump in some of
the other benefits that go with AFDC that may not have an immediate
cash value, there are some people on welfare who are not too
[[Page S 13149]]
far below what low-income working people make over the course of a
year.
And yet somehow with this amendment the assumption is that if you are
on welfare and make X number of dollars, the State has all this
responsibility to see that you have food on the table, child care, job
training before you go to a job, and assistance in finding a job.
In contrast, if you have never been part of the welfare system and
you have a job that does not pay very well, you get up in the morning,
find your own job, take your kids to child care, pick them up at night.
Additionally, you had to worry about your own training if there was
training for that job, without any concern of a bureaucrat looking out
for you.
Why the difference? One system breeds dependence. The other
independence. We want to change that. We want people who are on welfare
to assume responsibility and to move forward with life.
They should not somehow be segregated as different from other people
without the capability of exercising a normal life.
Well, those families who work are faced with decisions on how to deal
with their daily challenges, how to budget for their family's needs,
what to do if their child care falls through for the day and how to
plan for their future. In contrast, today's welfare system does not
allow, expect, or encourage welfare recipients to make these normal,
everyday decisions.
I think this legislation is about changing all that, ending business
as usual for families, requiring recipients to take responsibility and
learn to make decisions that most American families are faced with
every day.
And, of course, one of those decisions is child care.
It is conceivable that a State may want to take a new approach of
combining cash assistance and child care funding into a single grant to
a family. The family then would make the decision on who to provide
care for their children and the fair rate that they need to pay in a
negotiated agreement with the providers.
That is what most American families do. The amendment before us by
the Senator from Kansas would apply all of the child care development
block grant standards to all child care funding, no matter what the
source of the Federal dollars might be.
For instance, the amendment assumes payment to the provider would be
guaranteed directly from the State. This would take away the premise of
family responsibility and independence. This is what we need to change.
We need a system where a State would be allowed to challenge public
assistance recipients to be responsible and to make the child care
decisions themselves as well as making the payments themselves.
We should not assume the worst about public assistance recipients,
that they are incapable of making these decisions in the best interest
of their children and family. If we really want an environment of State
flexibility, we should be minimizing standards, not maximizing them. As
we all know, the best welfare reform proposals have come from the State
level, not from the Federal Government. So, if we maximize State
flexibility to be creative with reforms, including child care, we do
that by leaving these decisions to the States. So if we want to give
States block grants and the flexibility that goes with it, rather than
continue the rigid existing programs and regulations, then it seems to
me that we have to limit prescriptive operating guidelines in our
legislation.
As well intended as the Senator's amendment is, it is tied to the old
way of doing business. It is tied to the philosophy that, first of all,
when it comes to the families of AFDC recipients, everyone needs a
bureaucrat looking out for them. It assumes that government knows
better. It assumes that when government knows better, that of all
governments, the Federal Government knows better. It assumes that
parents, if low income and on a government program, know less about
meeting the needs of their families than low-income families who are
not on public assistance.
It assumes because you are low income that you have capabilities less
than people who are middle income or higher income, and that is not
true.
It segregates too many Americans into certain categories. We ought to
be eliminating the categorization of Americans, the balkanization of
our society. We ought to be working in this body to bring our country
together, not to separate it.
We should be working in this body for eliminating any differences we
can, particularly those differences that come because of Government
involvement.
So, I hope that the amendment of the Senator from Kansas can be
defeated. I yield the floor
Mrs. KASSEBAUM addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I wish to respond for a moment to the
Senator from Iowa. I know that Senator Grassley cares as much as I do
about making sure that we can enact a welfare reform initiative and the
importance of doing that. But I think I need to reiterate that the
amendment I am offering deals with child care for low-income working
families.
The child care and development Block Grant, which has been in law for
5 years, and is being reauthorized, has been included in this overall
welfare reform package. It was designed to provide, as I said earlier,
a sliding fee scale of support for low-income working families. It is
not addressing the child care provisions for AFDC recipients. It does
bring them together into a single system rather than a two-track
system, but it is not Government bureaucracy so much as I would argue
the need to continue that support for families that are moving off
welfare.
Child care is very expensive. As I say, if you are not lucky enough
to have some member of the family or a good neighbor or friend who is
assisting with child care--sometimes those provisions and tradeoffs can
be made; having a daughter and daughters-in-law who work, I know that
sometimes it is possible, but many times it is not--child care can
range as low as $60 to $80 per week to as high as $150 to $200 a week.
That is a lot of money for families who are trying to enter the work
force at very low-income levels, and that is why I feel strongly about
not permitting transferability of funds out of the CCDBG account so
that we can help those families in transition.
It seems to me that this is a very important part of this provision.
I think we should be concerned about low-income families who do not
have any support for child care versus the welfare family who would
have total support for child care. For those just right over the line,
it is difficult and it does not make a lot of sense. That is why I feel
strongly about a sliding fee scale where recipients make a contribution
to their child care and are given some Federal assistance based on
their income as they are trying to break away from welfare assistance.
I think every State, including Iowa, has some concerns about how to
help a population that has been very dependent on benefits over the
years and how to make this transition without harming children. This is
what I am trying to address by keeping intact the provisions of the
child care and development block grant.
I yield the floor, Mr. President.
Mr. President, I call up my amendment, which is No. 2522.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Kansas [Mrs. Kassebaum] proposes an
amendment numbered 2522.
Mrs. KASSEBAUM. 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 the Friday, September 8,
1995, edition of the Record.)
Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, as has been indicated, this will be
one of the amendments that will be voted on after 5 o'clock this
afternoon.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I announce to Members of this body who
have amendments that are pending--and I think under the rules all
amendments must have been filed by last week--that several of those
amendments have been reviewed and agreed to. If those amendments can be
offered
[[Page S 13150]]
today, we would like to have the Members come and bring those
amendments up, and those amendments will be accepted.
I and other managers of this legislation, throughout the course of
the day, will be happy to handle those amendments if the Members are
not able to do so or do not want to do so this morning, so that we can
use this time before the votes at 5 o'clock this afternoon to expedite
as many amendments as we can from our list of over 200.
Mr. President, I am going to take this opportunity to speak as in
morning business. When somebody comes and wants the floor for work on
welfare reform, I will yield it.
I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The
Senator from Iowa is recognized.
____________________