[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 86 (Wednesday, June 12, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6144-S6150]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. INOUYE (for himself and Mr. Akaka):
S. 1864. A bill to transfer jurisdiction over certain parcels of
Federal real property located in the District of Columbia, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
federal real property transfer legislation
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I introduce a bill to transfer
jurisdiction over a parcel of land from the Architect of the Capitol to
the Department of the Interior. This no-cost transfer would allow this
parcel to be used to establish
[[Page S6145]]
a memorial to Japanese-American patriotism in World War II, since
monuments cannot be built on the Capitol Grounds. I am pleased to note
that this transfer has the support of the National Park Service, the
Bureau of Land Management, and the Architect of the Capitol.
This memorial, authorized in 1992 by Public Law 102-502 to honor the
patriotism of Americans of Japanese ancestry during World War II, must
begin construction by October 24, 1999. It is essential that the land
exchange take place as soon as possible in order to begin the formal
approval processes for the memorial's design.
I hope that my colleagues will join me in supporting this measure's
expedient passage.
______
By Mrs. FEINSTEIN:
S. 1865. A bill to direct the Administrator of the Federal Aviation
Administration to issue regulations relating to recirculation of fresh
air in commercial aircraft, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
The Aviation Clean Air Act of 1996
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation having
to do with the quality of air in passenger cabins of commercial
aircraft.
I want to begin for a moment by telling you how I got into this.
Three years ago, obviously coming to the Senate, I began a whole series
of flights from San Francisco and from Los Angeles to Washington, and I
noticed something. I noticed when I rode a 747 I did not get a headache
and the circulation in my hand did not cease. When I rode a 757 or a
767, I began to get rather severe headaches. If I fell asleep, the
circulation in my hand ceased. This, then, promptly woke me up.
I began to look into it. What did I find? I looked at Federal clean
air standards for enclosed spaces. I found that the Federal standard
for fresh air in prison cells is 20 cubic feet per person per minute.
The fresh air standard for an office building, for a theater lobby, for
a restaurant, is the same. Then I found there were no fresh air
standards for commercial aircraft.
So I asked, what are the existing levels? Let me tell you what I
found. The average amount of fresh air circulation in a 757 is 9 cubic
feet per person. The average amount of fresh air in a 767 is 9.1 cubic
feet per person per minute. The new 737's, provide an average of 9.6
cubic feet per person per minute. Now, what is the significance? The
significance is that it is less than one-half the fresh air that is
required in a prison cell, an office or a restaurant. And then I began
to ask flight attendants about the problems. What I learned is that
stories documented of sore throats and headaches, of difficulty of
breathing, of poor circulation in the body and swollen legs, of colds,
flus, and airborne diseases, such as flu and tuberculosis are now
beginning to spiral throughout the 1.4 million passengers per day that
ride commercial airlines.
Well, today I want to introduce in the Senate an idea whose time has
come, and that is an aviation clean air act. This is also being
introduced in the House of Representatives at the same time.
Essentially, what this bill would require is that commercial airlines
provide ventilation systems that provide 20 cubic feet of fresh air per
person per minute in the cabin. This is equal to what is provided today
by older aircraft, namely, the 747. Many of the larger commercial
aircraft, such as the 737's, 757's, or 767's, as I said, provide less
than one-half of what is provided by a 747.
Second, the bill would ensure that air filters used in airplane cabin
air recirculation systems are monitored and changed regularly.
Third, it would require that airlines monitor humidity and ozone
levels.
Fourth, it would require the FAA to create a ``1-800'' number to
receive reports of illnesses relating to air travel.
I also want to introduce into the Record directly following my
statement a statement of Patricia Friend, the international president
of the Association of Flight Attendants; a statement of Andrew
Parramore, a flight attendant; a statement of Joe Johnson, a member of
the Association of Flight Attendants, and Janie Johnson, a member of
the Association of Flight Attendants.
I ask unanimous consent that they be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the materials were ordered to be printed in
the Record as follows:
Statement of Patricia Friend at an Aviation Clean Air Act Press
Conference
On behalf of the 40,000 members of the Association of
Flight Attendants, I would like to thank Senator Dianne
Feinstein and Representative Jerrold Nadler for today
introducing legislation that will significantly air quality
in the airplane cabin.
This legislation seeks to establish a minimum ventilation
standard of 20 cubic feet of fresh air per minute per person
in the cabin. In addition to the ventilation standard, the
proposed legislation would also require the monitoring of air
filters, ozone and humidity. The Aviation Clean Air Act of
1996 seeks to establish a toll-free telephone number at the
FAA for individuals to report cabin air quality incidents.
These are critical elements to achieving a healthy workplace
for flight attendants.
While frequent fliers often complain of headaches, nausea,
dizziness, consistently coming down with upper respiratory
viral infections after flying, and in some cases, passing out
during flight and having oxygen administered by the flight
attendants, the flight attendants themselves are at even
greater risk from poor cabin air quality.
Flight attendants are inflight safety professionals. In the
daily performance of our duties, we inhale a greater amount
of air, increasing our exposure to viruses and bacteria,
fumes from chemical solvents, and carbon monoxide from
incomplete combustion of fuel. Flight attendants who
routinely work in cabins with poor air quality complain of
respiratory problems and other health difficulties such as
dizziness, severe headaches, loss of balance and numbness in
the hands.
Our position on increased fresh air in the cabin is
supported by the FAA's recently introduced final rule. The
FAA determined that health and safety considerations justify
these standards, stating that cabin crew members must be able
to perform their duties without undue discomfort or fatigue.
Regrettably, their rule did not address air quality in
aircraft currently being operated but applies only to future
generation aircraft. After 7 years of pending rule-making,
the FAA's final rule is still unsatisfactory offering too
little, too late.
Recall the USAir Flight 1016 accident on a DC9-31 (with
100% fresh air), in which the flight attendants helped
passengers to escape from the aircraft. One of them, Rich
DeMary, repeatedly risked his life to single-handedly save
four persons from the burning wreckage. Imagine what might
have happened had these flight attendants been suffering loss
of balance, headaches, or numbness in their hands. Whether it
is reacting to severe turbulence, safely evacuating
passengers during an emergency or responding to an onboard
fire, flight attendants must be ready to respond at a
moment's notice.
AFA strongly supports the legislation to establish a
minimum standard of 20 cubic feet of fresh air per minute per
person in the cabin. Both Senator Feinstein and
Representative Nadler deserve the thanks of all flight
attendants and passengers, whose health and safety will
benefit from this legislation.
____
Statement of Andrew Parramore
On April 25, 1994, on an aircraft with recirculated air,
scheduled to fly from Los Angeles to the East coast, with 103
passengers and 7 flight attendants aboard, developed severe
air cabin quality problems. The result was an eventual
unscheduled landing in Chicago, where passengers and crew
were met by paramedics, and one flight attendant was
hospitalized with abnormally high carbon monoxide levels.
Four others went en route sick list, experiencing headache,
disorientation, motor skill impairment and respiratory
difficulties, symptoms, I was told by a physician, which are
consistent with prolonged exposure to carbon monoxide
poisoning and resultant oxygen deprivation.
Immediately upon takeoff the coach cabin filled with dense
white smoke, the flight attendants experienced eye
irritation, smells described as overheating metal and/or
electrical fire, and a bitter metallic taste. The cockpit was
notified, the cabin was searched for source of possible fire,
and the problem attributed to a deferred, inoperative air
pack which had been activated. Crewmembers noted an unusually
high percentage of coach passengers in a deep, heavy sleep;
the few conscious complained of dizziness, fatigue, headache,
nausea, and complained of the cabin air. Flight attendants
were unable to complete the beverage service without rotating
to the cockpit for supplementary oxygen.
At this point, one of the flight attendants described what
happened:
``I tried to finish setting up two liquor carts. I had to
leave at least twice and go to the forward galley to warm up
and clear my head, but eventually I went to the cockpit for
oxygen as well. When I was in the cockpit, I again told the
pilots we were feeling ill and several passengers had
complained. [The pilots] hypothesized what the problem could
be but I definitely got the impression that they thought this
was a cosmetic problem (bad smell in the cabin) and our
illness was all in our heads. They asked why the first class
flight attendants were not feeling ill. I said the smoke and
fumes were primarily in the main cabin and not first class.''
I then came into the cockpit to take oxygen.
[[Page S6146]]
Our symptoms worsened, and individual oxygen bottles were
soon retrieved. The flight attendant crew experienced
increasing loss of motor skills and mental alertness, loss of
ability to judge time passage and elementary computations,
disorientation, headache, extreme fatigue. The lunch service
was canceled, passengers awakened with great difficulty and
relocated from coach to business class [which is designed to
provide a somewhat increased level of fresh air per person]
where effects seemed less severe. The flight attendants
responsible for the coach section of the aircraft spent the
last two hours of the flight seated, breathing from oxygen
bottles. Individual flight attendants intermittently lost
consciousness. Passengers were either completely ``out'',
often with flushed faces, or in an apathetic, non
communicative ``daze''. The airline safety official's ``best
guess'' is that the malfunctioning air pack combusted
superheated synthetic oil, flooding the coach cabin with
resulting fumes and particulate irritants and as a byproduct
created poisonous carbon monoxide.
____
Statement of Joe Johnson
I have been a flight attendant for about 16 years and
traveling by air for much longer than that. With the
relatively recent introduction of aircraft with recycled air
systems, I have experienced a reduction of air quality on
board. I have experienced fatigue, difficulty in breathing,
lightheadedness, and headaches on some flights. Passengers
often complain to me of the same. The first thought is that
this could be due to smoking on board flights. However, since
most flights have been nonsmoking for some time, I believe
this is just a contributing factor.
There is a marked difference in air quality when flying
older aircraft such as the 747-100 series, any 727 or 737-200
series. I am told by experts in the field this is due to 100
percent fresh air exchange on the older airplanes. On some
newer generation airplanes, we frequently ask the pilots to
turn off the recirculation fans, which I understand, allows
more fresh air into the cabin. This procedure, I am told by
our engineers, theoretically uses more fuel, however, it does
improve air quality. You can surmise in an era of cost
control that this practice is not popular among airline
management's.
Another area that contributes to poor air quality is the
lack of adequate maintenance of the filtration systems. I
have witnessed filters that are so black and clogged I don't
know how any air could have passed through. On a recent
flight from Los Angeles to Washington, a frequent flying
passenger repeatedly asked me to ask the pilots to improve
the air quality and air flow. He proclaimed to all who were
around that, ``I travel all the time and we are all going to
have black lungs from the air on board airplanes. These new
planes are terrible.'' I repeatedly relayed his requests to
the cockpit.
Due to design, it would appear, air quality continues to
deteriorate. This is a real problem for flights attendants as
well as the traveling public.
____
Statement of Janie Johnson
As a veteran flight attendant for 23 years, I believe the
air quality continues to deteriorate. A great number of
flight attendants experience headaches, have difficulty
breathing, suffer from upper respiratory problems and are
fatigued.
On August 24, 1994, I worked a flight from Washington, DC
to Anchorage International via Denver's Stapleton airport. It
was an aircraft with recirculating cabin air and was a non-
smoking flight. The air was stuffy. Many passengers requested
aspirin and I myself had a terrible headache, with sharp
pains between my eyes. I also had a difficult time breathing.
It was as if someone was standing on my chest.
We reported this to the pilots and they turned off a
recirculation fan to see if it would help and it did. Within
approximately 20 minutes I found it much easier to breath and
my headache was gone.
Upon our return flight from Anchorage to Dulles, via Denver
on a different aircraft of the same type, we experienced the
same symptoms and again the pilots turned off one of the
recirculation fans. The results were the same. We did notice
that the ceiling vents in both galleys were obstructed by
lint. We logged the problems with the air quality and upon
our arrival into Denver, mechanics removed the covers and
cleaned the filters. They were almost totally blanketed with
what appeared to be lint, and other debris.
I am not a doctor nor a mechanic but just a flight
attendant that makes a living of working on board airplanes.
Lack of good air quality is negatively impacting not only my
health but the health of my flying partners and passengers
who travel on board our airplanes every day. During a
conference call regarding air quality on one of the new
generation of aircraft with recirculated air, the maintenance
engineer commented, ``when I went to training for this
system, I was told it was a flying cold.''
Numerous incidents of poor air quality have been filed by
flight attendants, yet, over the years, conditions continue
to worsen. It would appear for the sake of some fuel savings,
air quality and our health and safety continue to suffer.
______
By Mr. HOLLINGS:
S. 1866. A bill to amend title 18, United States Code, to clarify
Federal jurisdiction over offenses relating to damage to religious
property.
The Church Arson Prevention Act of 1996
Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill aimed
at providing a mechanism for Federal law enforcement to combat the most
recent scourge to sweep across the Southeast. I am talking about the
burnings of black churches that have been making such dramatic
headlines lately. The burning of houses of worship have been taking
place for the past 5 or 6 years, but this particular outbreak of fires
has all the characteristics of an epidemic. Not since the sixties have
I been witness to such blatant intolerance and hatred, such utterly
despicable acts of American citizens against their fellow Americans as
has I have seen over these past few weeks. I turn on the news and see a
burning church, a haunting image with horrific symbolic and practical
implications, and I say this must stop. Not just this specific rash of
crime, but the whole trend toward violence and intolerance in our
society. We as Americans have fought too hard to let racial or
religious intolerance once again pollute our democracy.
This morning I accompanied President Clinton as he traveled to South
Carolina. I welcome his strong presence in the midst of this unsettling
trend, and moreover I welcome the message he brought to my home State.
This country is stronger than the forces of hatred that would divide
us. We will rebuild, and we will punish those responsible for these
episodes of destruction.
To fight against the forces of divisiveness, we must pull together as
a community. In the South, that means rebuilding, it means
congregations of churches all over America picking a Sunday and
dedicating their collections to rebuild these burned churches. Here in
the Government, in means using every means within our power to make
sure that this never happens again.
As of this moment, we don't have legislation that adequately
addresses this brand of criminal behavior. The investigations by
Federal authorities, and their ability to prosecute these cases have
been limited by the current law. The bill I propose will remove the
impediments to bringing Federal cases, and give the Attorney General an
effective, and necessary weapon with which to combat these crimes.
Section 247 of title 18, United States Code, makes it a crime to damage
religious property or to obstruct persons in the free exercise of
religious beliefs. I propose to amend this by requiring only that the
offense ``is in or affects interstate or foreign commerce.'' Congress
will be effectively granting jurisdiction over all conduct which may be
reached under the interstate commerce clause of the constitution.
Additionally, the bill eliminates the $10,000 threshold for fire
damages to grant Federal jurisdiction in cases where there is only
minimal damage. This way, desecration or defacement of houses of
worship can be prosecuted under 18 U.S.C. 247.
I urge the Senate to act quickly and adopt this provision. As I
understand a similar measure is making its way through the House, the
Senate should also act in an expeditious manner to ensure the Federal
Government has the necessary authority to combat this tragic epidemic.
More importantly, this country must come together, leave racial
intolerance behind, and insure that we end this type of bigotry.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 1866
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Church Arson Prevention Act
of 1996''.
SEC. 2. DAMAGE TO RELIGIOUS PROPERTY.
Section 247 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
(1) so that subsection (b) reads as follows:
``(b) The circumstances referred to in subsection (a) are
that the offense is in or affects interstate or foreign
commerce.''; and
(2) in subsection (a)(1), by inserting ``, racial, or
ethnic'' before ``character''.
______
By Mr. BIDEN (for himself and Mr. Specter):
[[Page S6147]]
S. 1867. A bill to restore the American family, enhance support and
work opportunities for families with children, reduce out-of-wedlock
pregnancies, reduce welfare dependence, and control welfare spending;
to the Committee on Finance.
the bipartisan welfare reform act of 1996
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, since 1987, when I first proposed an
overhaul of the welfare system, I have argued that welfare recipients
should be required to work. Nine years later, America is still in need
of fundamental welfare reform.
So, today, Mr. President, Senator Specter and I are introducing the
Bipartisan Welfare Reform Act of 1996--the Senate companion to
legislation introduced in April by Representatives Mike Castle and John
Tanner and 30 moderate House Members from both parties.
Let me briefly review how we got to this point and why we are taking
this action.
Last September, the Senate passed a bipartisan welfare reform bill by
an overwhelming vote of 87-12. I voted for that bill, and President
Clinton said he could sign it.
Since then, however, polarizing partisanship and Presidential
politics have permeated this issue. And, the result has been paralysis.
Nothing has been accomplished.
In an attempt to break the gridlock, last February, the Nation's
Governors--led by my Governor, Tom Carper--proposed a bipartisan
welfare reform bill. In April, Representatives Castle and Tanner and a
group of other moderates wrote what I believe is a first-rate
bipartisan welfare reform plan.
No such bipartisan plan to date has been introduced in the Senate.
And, as this issue will be back before us again soon, Senator Specter
and I decided that now is the time--and the Castle-Tanner proposal is
the bill to move us forward.
What this bill proposes, in and of itself, is not new. What is new is
that it is being proposed all together in a bipartisan fashion.
For that, Representative Castle and Senator Specter deserve great
applause. They are reaching across the aisle to do what the American
people sent us to Congress to do--work together to solve the problems
facing this country. And, again, I think the bill we are introducing
today is a first-rate bill.
To highlight the basic principles: there would be a 5-year time limit
on receiving welfare benefits. After 2 years, welfare recipients would
be required to work--at least 25 hours per week. And, child care would
be available, so that children are not left home alone while their
mothers are working.
The bill would make getting tough on the deadbeat dads who do not pay
child support as high a priority as getting tough on the welfare moms.
And, the bill takes steps to crack down on welfare--particularly food
stamp--fraud.
This will all sound familiar to those who have followed this debate.
And, as I said a moment ago, it is. For the principles have never been
in doubt--almost everyone agrees on them.
You see, what has been lost in the shuffle and shouting of the last
10 months is that there is a great deal of common ground on welfare
reform. So much so, that if you leave behind the politics and the
partisanship, a tough, bipartisan welfare reform bill is easily within
reach.
I think this is that bill. But, if not, it is awfully darn close. Let
me just mention a couple of examples of bipartisan compromise.
For Republicans, the bill converts aid to families with dependent
children--AFDC-- to a block grant to the States. For Democrats, it more
adequately invests in child care.
For Republicans, the bill freezes funding for cash welfare payments.
For Democrats, it provides additional help to those States faced with
economic downturns.
For Republicans, the bill imposes a family cap. For Democrats, it
gives States flexibility to opt out.
Is this bill exactly how I would have written a bill on my own in the
solitude of my office? The answer is no. But, if we are going to move
forward, we must stop insisting that there be a perfect bill or no bill
at all.
It is time to say that we do not care who gets credit for reforming
welfare. It is time to just do it--in a bipartisan fashion--for the
sake of the American people and for the sake of the people on welfare.
I urge my colleagues to cosponsor the Biden-Specter Bipartisan
Welfare Reform Act, and I ask unanimous consent that a summary of the
bill prepared by Representative Tanner be included in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Highlights of the Bipartisan Welfare Reform Act of 1996
title i--block grant for temporary assistance to needy families (tanf)
Basic grant. Consolidates funding for AFDC, JOBS and
Emergency Assistance (EA) into a $16.35 annual billion block
grant to states beginning in FY 1997 called the Temporary
Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grant.
Supplemental grant fund of $800 million for FY 1997-FY 2000
for states with high population growth and/or low grant
amounts per poor person.
Contingency Fund for State Welfare Programs. Establishes a
contingency fund for states of $2 billion in matching funds
over five years (FY 1997-2001) for states that experience
high unemployment or an increase in the food stamp caseload.
States must also meet a 100% maintenance of effort
requirement in the year they use the contingency fund. Funds
are provided at the end and cannot exceed 20% of a state's
annual TANF grant in a fiscal year.
State plan. States would be required to submit a state plan
for approval in order to receive federal funds. The Secretary
must approve any plan which meets the following basic
requirements:
Work Requirements. Require all able-bodied recipients to
engage in work activities within two years of receiving
assistance.
Fair and equitable treatment. Set forth objective criteria
for the delivery of benefits and the determination of
eligibility and fair and equitable treatment, treat families
with similar needs and circumstances similarly and provide
opportunities for recipients who have been adversely affected
to be heard in a state administrative or appeal process.
Out of wedlock pregnancies. Establish goals and take
actions to reduce the incidence of out of wedlock
pregnancies, with special emphasis on teenagers.
Other programs. Have in place a child support enforcement
and child protection programs.
Local Control. Certify that 1) local governments and
private sector organizations are included in all phases of
developing the plan; 2) local officials who are responsible
for administration of services are able to plan, design and
administer programs in their jurisdiction; and 3) there are
no unfunded mandates on local governments.
Non-displacement. Certify that the state program will not
result in the displacement of any current employees or
replacement of an employee who was terminated with
individuals receiving assistance under the state plan.
Maintenance of effort. 85% maintenance of effort
requirement through FY 2001 based on a state's FY 1994
spending on AFDC, JOBS, and AFDC-related child care and EA.
State spending on programs that were not part of the state's
AFDC program would not be counted in meeting the maintenance
of effort. The Secretary may reduce the maintenance of effort
requirement by up to 5% (down to 80%) for states that have
high performance in placing individuals in private sector
employment and increase the states maintenance of effort by
up to 5% (up to 90%) if the state fails to meet the work
participation rates.
Transferability. States may transfer up to 20% of the
federal TANF grant to the Child care and Development Block
grant.
Time limits on benefits:
Five year federal limit. A state may not provide cash
assistance to a family that includes and adult who has
received any assistance under the TANF grant for 60 months.
State option for time limits. States have the option of
terminating benefits to a family that includes an adult who
has received assistance for 24 months.
Exemption to time limits. States may grant exemptions to up
to 20% of the caseload for either reason of hardship or if
the individual has been battered or subject to extreme
cruelty.
Vouchers. States have the option of providing assistance in
the form of vouchers for the needs of the child (diapers,
etc.) for families who lose benefits as a result of the
federal five year time limit. States must provide vouchers to
families who lose assistance as a result of a state time
limit of less than five years.
Work requirements. States must require a parent or
caretaker receiving assistance under the program to engage in
work after receiving assistance for 24 months:
Individual Responsibility Contract. Require welfare
recipients sign an individual responsibility contract
developed by the state upon becoming eligible for cash
assistance. The individual responsibility contract would
outline what actions the individual would take to move to
private sector employment. The contract will also outline
what services the state will provide to the individual.
Eligible work activities. Unsubsidized employment;
subsidized private and public sector employment; work
experience, on-the-job
[[Page S6148]]
training; job search and job readiness (limited to 12 weeks
in a year); community service; vocational educational
training (not to exceed 12 months for any individual).
Education and job skills training will not count toward
meeting the first 20 hours of participation (unless in the
case of education, the parent is a teen). Individuals who
have welfare for private sector employment (``leavers'')
would be considered as engaged in work activities for
purposes of calculating participation rates for six months
provided that they remain employed.
Required hours. The minimum average number of hours per
week for all recipients in 20 hours for FY 1996, FY 1997, and
FT 1998; and 25 hours in FY 1999 and thereafter.
Participation rates. States must meet the following
participation rates for single parent families: 1996-15%,
1997-20%, 1998-25%, 1999-30, 2000-35%, 2001-40%, 2002 and
thereafter-50%. The rates for two-parent families are: 1996-
50%, 1997-75%, 1998-75%, 1999 and thereafter-90%.
Pro rata reduction in participation rate. States will
receive pro rata reduction in the participation rate
requirement if the number of families receiving assistance
under the State program is less than the number of families
that received the AFDC in FY 1995.
Work Funding. Provides $3 billion in supplemental funds for
the operation of work programs that states can draw down
beginning in 1999 if the state is maintaining 100% of 1994
state spending on AFDC work programs and demonstrates that it
needs additional funds to meet the work requirements or
certifies that it intends to exceed the work requirements.
The state must match the additional federal funds for work
programs at FMAP.
Other Provisions:
Minor mothers. Teen parents under age 18 must attend school
and live at home or with a responsible adult. States have the
option of denying aid to unmarried teen mothers and their
children.
Family cap. States have the option of denying cash
assistance to additional children born or conceived while the
parent is on welfare.
Bonuses for reducing out-of-wedlock births. Includes
bonuses to states that reduce out-of-wedlock births without
increasing abortions.
Title II--SSI REFORM
SSI Benefits for children. Reform the SSI program to
address the so-called ``crazy check'' problem in the child
SSI program by eliminating the current Individualized
Functional equivalency standards, maladaptive behavior and
psychoactive substance dependence disorder. The Social
Security Administration would be required to revise
functional equivalency standard within the medical listings.
All children who are currently on the rolls as a result of
the IFA process would be reevaluated under the new criteria
established in Section 9601. Parents would be required to
demonstrate that funds received from SSI were used to assist
the disabled child during the review. The provisions would be
effective on October 1, 1996.
Deeming of parents income for children. Increase the
portion of the income of a child's parents that is ``deemed''
in determining the eligibility of that child for SSI for
families with incomes above 150% of poverty.
Disability Review for SSI recipients who are 18 years of
age. Requires children who received SSI benefits to undergo a
disability review before being placed on the adult rolls at
age 18.
SSI benefits for individuals convicted of fraud. Denies
benefits for ten years to an individual who is found to have
fraudulently misrepresenting residence in order to receive
AFDC, TEA, Food Stamps or SSI benefits simultaneously in two
or more states.
SSI benefits for fugitive felons and probation and parole
violators. Denies SSI benefits to individuals in any month in
which the individual is fleeing prosecution or imprisonment.
Authorizes SSA to provide information regarding SSI
beneficiaries if requested by law enforcement officers for
recipients who are fleeing prosecution or imprisonment.
SSI Continuing Disability Reviews. Requires Social Security
Administration to schedule continuing disability reviews
(CDRs) for all current and future adult SSI recipients to
ensure that they are still eligible. The CDRs would be
scheduled on a staggered schedule with reviews every three
years for covered individuals. Individuals who have
disabilities which are not expected to improve or who are
more than 65 years old would be exempt.
Title III--CHILD SUPPORT
Distribution. Post-welfare arrearages must be paid to the
family first beginning October 1, 1997. Pre-welfare
arrearages will also be paid to the family first but the
effective date for this provision will be October 1, 2000. If
pre-welfare arrearages paid to the family exceed state
savings from the elimination of the $50 disregard and other
methods of improving collections in the bill, the federal
government will pay the difference to the state.
Incentive adjustments. The Secretary will develop a new
performance-based incentive system to be effective October 1,
1997.
System automation. Extends the 90% enhanced match for state
implementation of the data systems requirement that were
created by the Family Support Act until October 1, 1997.
States must have submitted their advance planning document by
September 30, 1995. Increases in the funding available for
new systems requirements to $400 million from the $260
million, originally included in both bills. Provides an
enhanced match of 80% for new requirements.
Paternity establishment rate. Increases the paternity
establishment rate from 75% to 90%. States failing to reach
it or make adequate progress will have their TANF grant
reduced. Paternity establishment ratio is amended to be based
on all children born out-of-wedlock, not just to those
receiving AFDC or child support services.
New requirements. States must establish an automated
central registry of IV-D case records and support orders and
an automated directory of new hires; operate a centralized
unit to collect and disburse all child support orders (not
just IV-D cases); and meet expanded requirements around
enforcement and paternity establishment.
Licenses. Requires states to have laws suspending drivers,
professional, occupation and recreational license for overdue
child support.
Title IV--IMMIGRATION.
Food stamp and SSI bar. Current and future immigrants are
barred from food stamps and SSI until attaining citizenship
with the following exceptions:
(1) Children are exempted from the food stamp ban;
(2) Disabled children;
(3) Victims of domestic abuse;
(4) Refugees in their five years in the U.S.;
(5) Veterans and active duty service members and their
spouses and dependents;
(6) Individuals who have worked and paid FICA taxes for 60
months.
5-year ban. New entrants are denied all other federally
means-tested benefits for five years after arrival in the
U.S. with same exemptions as above. Programs not included in
the bar include Medicaid emergency medical services, child
nutrition, immunization programs, foster care and adoption
assistance, higher education loans and grants and Chapter 1.
Deeming until citizenship required for Medicaid (same
exemptions as above) for all immigrants until citizenship.
State options. New immigrants would be barred for five
years from Medicaid, Title XX and the TANF block grant.
States have the option to deny or restrict benefits under
these programs for current immigrants and new immigrants
(after their first five years). State authority to limit
eligibility of immigrants for state and local means-tested
programs. Non-profit organizations and community
organizations designated by the state attorney general would
be exempted from enforcing this ban.
Affidavits of support. Sponsors' affidavits of support are
binding and enforceable against the sponsors until the
immigrant attains citizenship.
title v.--reductions in federal government positions
Requires a reduction of 75 percent in the number of federal
positions in agencies that administer programs that have been
converted into a block grant.
title vi.--reform of public housing
Ensures that penalties imposed by states against
individuals who fail to comply with rules under welfare
programs do not result in reduced public and assisted housing
rents.
title vii.--child care
Funding. Over the period FY 1997-FY 2002, combines $13.85
billion in mandatory funding and $6 billion in discretionary
spending into the Child Care and Development Block Grant
(CCDBG):
Discretionary funding (representing the old CCDBG) is
authorized at $1 billion annually and must be appropriated
annually. Allocation of these funds to states is based on
current CCDBG formula.
Mandatory funding or entitlement funding levels are $1.967
billion in FY 1997, $2.067 billion in FY 1999, $2.367 billion
in FY 2000, $2.567 billion in FY 2001 and $2.717 billion in
FY 2002. States will receive a ``base allocation'' based on
what they received in previous years funds above this amount
will be distributed on a matching basis.
CCDBG rules. Rules and regulations of the Child Care
Development Block Grant apply to all funds under the child
care section. Retains current requirement that states apply
minimum health and safety standards to providers and adds a
requirement that states not implement any policy or practice
that has the effect of restricting parental choice. All funds
must be transferred to the lead agency under the Child care
and Development Block Grant. There will be a 5 percent cap on
administrative costs.
Title IX.--CHILD NUTRITION
Child and Adult Care Food Program. Restructures the meal
reimbursements for family day care homes in the Child and
Adult Care Food Program (CACFP) by targeting assistance to
poorer areas.
Summer Food Service Program. Reduces the reimbursement rate
for breakfast, lunches and snacks served under the Summer
Food Service Program.
Title X.--FOOD STAMP REFORM
Fraud and Abuse. All of USDA's proposals to combat food
stamp fraud and abuse are included, whereas HR 4 included
only some of those proposals.
Cooperations with child support agencies Requiring food
stamp participants to cooperate with child support agencies
will be an option for the States, rather than a mandate as
under HR 4.
[[Page S6149]]
Adjustments to Thrifty Food Program. Food stamp benefits
will be based on 100% of the Thrifty Food Plan rather than
103% as in current law, as in both bills. The standard
deduction used in calculating food stamp eligibility and
benefit levels will be reduced.
Simplified food stamp program States will be authorized to
operate a simplified food stamp program, combining elements
of the food stamp program and the cash welfare program. Such
a program must be approved by the Secretary and may not
increase federal costs or substantially alter the appropriate
distribution of benefits according to household need.
Waiver authority USDA will be required to respond to a
request of a State for a waiver of food stamp rules within 60
days of receipt of the request.
Title XI.--MISCELLANEOUS
Appropriation of funds by state legislature. Requires that
block grants must be appropriated in accordance with the laws
and procedures applicable to expenditures of the state's own
revenues, including appropriation by the state legislature.
Applies to the cash assistance, child care, child protection
and optional food stamp block grants. (This would preempt
state law in a number of states.)
Social Services Block Grant. Reduces the mandatory spending
level of the Social Services Block Grant by 10% beginning in
FY 1997 through FY2002--from $2.8 billion to $2.52 billion
annually.
Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) programs. Exempts state
and local government electronic benefit transfer programs
from Regulation E of the Electronic Funds Transfer Act.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to speak on the
Biden-Specter Bipartisan Welfare Reform Act of 1996, a companion
measure to H.R. 3266, the Castle-Tanner Bipartisan Welfare Reform Act
of 1996. At the outset, I want to compliment my colleague from
Delaware, Senator Biden, and Congressmen Castle and Tanner for their
efforts in drafting a strong, bipartisan bill that represents
commonsense welfare reform and should attract a broad consensus. Our
basic objective in reforming the welfare system is the reduction of
poverty and the improvement of the standard of living of millions of
Americans. We should not let this goal become lost in partisan politics
and we should not wait for the next election to achieve welfare reform
and a balanced budget. This Congress can be known as the can do
Congress if we work together on these vital issues.
I support many of the principles reflected in the Bipartisan Welfare
Reform Act, such as establishing new work requirements in conjunction
with improved job training, child care, and other support services for
welfare recipients trying to end their dependence on Government
assistance. I also support its get-tough policy on collecting overdue
child support and on reducing fraud in various Government benefit
programs. Although I have concerns about some of the provisions in our
legislation, such as the calculation of the formula for the State block
grant, it is important to demonstrate that there is a bipartisan effort
in the Senate on reforming welfare and I intend to address my
reservations during the coming weeks as welfare reform proposals are
considered in the Senate. While I have some reservations, I believe
this bill is a good starting point for bipartisan legislation.
Looking back to my youth, I began to learn about some of the problems
of welfare while growing up in Russell, KS, a small agricultural-oil
community. Then, upon moving to Philadelphia for college I saw the
problems that can arise in a large city. I have observed problems of
welfare dependency for more than 30 years, going back to my earliest
days of public service. As an assistant district attorney in
Philadelphia, I saw the tremendous impact, the tremendous cost
occasioned by a program which did not realistically move people from
welfare rolls to payrolls. I learned a great deal about the problems of
poverty and the interrelation of jobs, housing, education, welfare, and
crime. Later, as district attorney, I brought prosecutions on welfare
fraud which I believe were among the first to be brought in the
country. So my concern about welfare reform goes back a long way.
Mr. President, in the mid-1980's I had the pleasure of introducing
and cosponsoring several pieces of welfare reform legislation that
included job training for economically disadvantaged individuals. In
the 99th Congress, I cosponsored Senate bills 2578 and 2579 with
Senator Moynihan, which were directed toward improving the welfare
system. In the 100th Congress, I introduced similar legislation with
Senator Dodd and worked closely with Senator Moynihan on the
legislation that became the first comprehensive welfare reform bill,
the Family Welfare Reform Act of 1988, which was signed by President
Reagan.
It is against this background of my own involvement with the problem
of welfare that I am seeking to work with my colleagues again this year
in fashioning legislation that will constitute firm action to put many
able-bodied people back to work while ensuring that a social safety net
continues to exist, particularly where children are involved.
As we revisit this debate, it is painfully obvious to me that our
welfare system has not worked. When one weighs all the factors, it is
apparent that we must try a new approach at the Federal level.
Consider, for example, the astonishing fact that the overall percentage
of persons in poverty in 1994 was roughly equivalent to poverty rates
in 1965--the year the Federal Government broadened its role in reducing
poverty in our society. In my own State of Pennsylvania, I have been
troubled that as many as 5 percent of our more than 11 million
residents were receiving some form of welfare benefits as of the end of
1994, more than double the 2.4 percent that were receiving benefits in
1965. Further, since 1965, the number of Pennsylvanians receiving aid
to families with dependent children has risen from 276,000 to 608,000.
There are ongoing efforts at real welfare reform at the State level,
such as in Wisconsin, where Gov. Tommy Thompson has made notable
progress. In Pennsylvania, Gov. Tom Ridge recently signed into law far-
reaching welfare reform which will institute agreements between the
government and welfare recipients that spell out the steps they must
take to move from welfare to work. Pennsylvania's new law emphasizes
work, personal responsibility, job training, child care, and other
support services, all of which are key elements of the Biden-Specter
reform plan. While I do not agree with all provisions of the proposed
Pennsylvania legislation, I do concur that reform legislation is
needed.
Because a new approach is merited, Congress should pass welfare
reform legislation that the President will sign into law. Last year,
Congress passed H.R. 4, the Personal Responsibility and Work
Opportunity Act of 1995, and H.R. 2491, the Balanced Budget
Reconciliation Act of 1995, both of which were vetoed by President
Clinton. In order to bridge the differences between Congress and the
President concerning how to balance the budget and reform welfare, I
began working with the centrist coalition, a bipartisan group of 22
Senators led by Senators Chafee and Breaux, to craft a 7-year
comprehensive balanced budget proposal. This plan, which would achieve
$45 to $53 billion savings by reforming the welfare system, was offered
as a substitute to the fiscal year 1997 budget resolution, but failed
by a vote of 46 to 53. Although the coalition budget failed to win a
majority, it showed once again that there is great potential in this
body for initiatives presented in a bipartisan manner. If the policies
work, there is ample credit to be shared. But, if we don't try to work
together, we deserve to share the blame.
The bill which I am jointly introducing today, the Bipartisan Welfare
Reform Act of 1996, represents another attempt to generate a broad
consensus and achieve meaningful welfare reform this year. The Biden-
Specter bill builds on the conference report to H.R. 4 and the
bipartisan Governors' proposal, but is more specific and requires
stronger State accountability and maintenance of effort in important
areas, such as child care and contingency funding. Like other proposals
considered by this Congress, this legislation delivers a strong message
that many Americans who are currently on welfare need to get into the
work force and pursue job training. Significantly, we will be giving
the States greater latitude to analyze and deal with the problems
closer to home. I am hopeful that this will result in better tailored,
more cost-effective social programs. However, effective welfare reform
is not simply a matter of increasing flexibility or shifting
incentives. The movement toward block grants is a sound one, provided
that there are some limitations
[[Page S6150]]
and requirements that continue to be imposed by the Federal Government
in Washington. We need to make sure that we simply do not give the
States a blank check where money may be spent for other purposes that
fail to protect a national interest identified by Congress.
Among its key provisions, the legislation we are introducing today
does the following: First, it limits benefits--no cash assistance
beyond 5 years except exemptions for up to 20 percent of a State's
caseload for reason of hardship or if individual was battered or
subject to extreme cruelty; second, it requires that 50 percent of
welfare recipients must be working by the year 2002--all able-bodied
recipients must engage in work activities within 2 years of receiving
benefits, generally 25 hours/week, but 20 hours/week for parents with
children 6 and under; third, it requires States to meet 85 percent
level of maintenance of effort, which is stronger State accountability
than last year's GOP plan, 75 percent, Chafee-Breaux, 80 percent or
this year's GOP plan, 75 to 80 percent; fourth, it requires welfare
recipients to sign an individual responsibility contract developed by
the State upon becoming eligible for cash assistance, which would
outline steps the individual must take to get in private sector and
would outline the State's obligations; fifth, it allows eligible work
activities to include unsubsidized employment, subsidized private and
public sector employment, on-the-job training, vocational training,
community service; sixth, it provides an additional $3 billion for
work-related programs beginning in 1999 if States are meeting 100
percent of their fiscal year 1994 spending levels and need more funds
for work participation; seventh, it provides $20 billion in mandatory
and discretionary child care funding over the next 6 years, an amount
higher than last year's Senate bill, similar to Chafee-Breaux, and
recommended by the National Governors Association--also maintains
current law's Federal health and safety protections for licensed child
care providers; eighth, during economic downturns, States can access a
$2 billion contingency fund if they have high unemployment rates or
high rates of increase in their food stamp population--also provides
$800 million in additional funding for States with rapid population
increases and a $1.7 billion loan fund for States that need additional
money; and ninth, it requires States to enforce and improve existing
child support laws, including the suspension of certain licenses for
overdue child support--also increases the likelihood that a child's
paternity will be established.
As my colleagues are aware, I had some real reservations about some
aspects of last year's welfare reform legislation. Although I supported
the conference report on H.R. 4 because it advanced the underlying goal
of reforming a program that has discouraged poor families from working,
I would have preferred that the original Senate-passed bill, agreed to
by a virtual consensus of 87 to 12, become law. Some of my concerns are
met by the legislation we are introducing today. I am hopeful that my
additional concerns will be met as the Senate considers this and other
welfare reform legislation during the balance of the 104th Congress.
Mr. President, as we move forward with budget reconciliation, I will
continue to work with my colleagues to craft legislation that will not
only save money and help families mired in poverty to move off of
welfare and become self-sufficient, but also protect children and
preserve the rights, dignity, and well-being of those currently
involved in our welfare system. I urge my colleagues to support the
Biden-Specter Bipartisan Welfare Reform Act of 1996 as a commonsense
approach to this difficult, complex issue which is so important to the
future of our society.
____________________