[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 97 (Thursday, June 27, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7208-S7209]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  WELFARE-MEDICAID REFORM LEGISLATION

 Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, in discharging its responsibilities 
under the 1997 budget resolution, yesterday the Finance Committee 
reported S. 1795, as amended. This legislation proposes major reforms 
to Medicaid and welfare-related programs to give States additional 
flexibility, and to reduce associated Federal expenditures by $98 
billion through 2002.
  Under the terms of the budget resolution, this is the first of three 
legislative packages the Finance Committee will consider. Next month, 
the committee will act on legislation to shore up the troubled Medicare 
program. Following that, a third bill will be considered in September 
that will deal with other Federal entitlement programs.
  I would like to make a general comment about the budget process this 
year, and then proceed with specified points about the Finance 
Committee-reported bill.
  Last month the Senate rejected by only four votes an alternative 
budget resolution authored by myself and Senator Breaux. That 
bipartisan plan would have put us on a constructive, achievable path to 
a balanced budget.
  At the end of the day, I think the Chafee-Breaux plan would have been 
acceptable to President Clinton. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said 
for the budget resolution which was ultimately approved by the 
Congress. Instead, this is like deja vu all over again. We will go 
through the motions, as we did last year, of sending the President much 
needed deficit reduction legislation he is all but certain to veto.
  Frankly, our time could have been better spend working on a 
bipartisan basis to develop a consensus package which could have become 
law, and actually helped to reduce the deficit. In my opinion, we can 
only enact meaningful entitlement reforms--which are the root cause of 
our deficit problem--through bipartisan cooperation. That was what the 
Chafee-Breaux alternative was all about.
  Given the critical need to get this intolerable Federal deficit under 
control, I find the present situation frustrating and disappointing.
  On a related matter, I want to commend our Republican leaders for 
their decision not to include cuts in this Medicaid-welfare package. To 
do so would have been counterproductive. I would prefer to see us 
concentrate our firepower on deficit reduction before we start cutting 
taxes.
  With respect to the Finance Committee's action yesterday, I want to 
offer several observations. Though I voted to report S. 1795, it is 
widely acknowledged that this legislation is headed for a Presidential 
veto.
  However, I want to commend our distinguished chairman, Bill Roth, for 
accommodating a number of the improvements I recommended with respect 
to the Medicaid and welfare sections of the legislations.
  On Medicaid, the initial version of S. 1795 would have allowed States 
to cut off children 13 or older--a significant departure from current 
law. Under current law States must cover children at or below 100 
percent of poverty through the age of twelve, with an additional year's 
coverage added each year until such children reach the age of 19. At my 
urging the chairman agreed to maintain current law in this area.
  I was also pleased the chairman retained current law coverage of 
benefits for children under the early periodic screening, diagnosis, 
and treatment requirements. This will assure that severely disabled 
children continue to get medically necessary treatment.
  Another concern of mine which the chairman addressed was the lack of 
health and quality standards for individuals with developmental 
disabilities who reside in intermediate care facilities for the 
mentally retarded [ICF's/MR], as well as those who reside in community-
based settings. The chairman agreed to include standards in his 
proposal to ensure the safety and quality of care provided to these 
individuals.

  My biggest remaining concern in the Medicaid area is that S. 1795 
does not guarantee coverage for individuals with disabilities under the 
age of 65, as defined under current law. Under this bill, States would 
have the option of setting their own standards, which I fear would 
result in the loss of basic health care services for this vulnerable 
population. I intend to offer an amendment to correct this deficiency 
when S. 1795 comes before the Senate.
  With respect to the welfare provisions, I was pleased several of my 
proposed improvements were incorporated into the revised version of S. 
1795 which the chairman brought before the committee.
  I have long been a proponent of a strong Federal-State partnership 
with respect to welfare. For this reason, I pressed to have the 
maintenance of effort requirement in S. 1795 strengthened from 75 to 80 
percent, and to prevent States from counting expenditures they make 
which are not directly related to supporting poor families and their 
children. The States must maintain their investment in these programs 
if we are to achieve genuine welfare reform.
  On a related matter, I proposed, and the chairman accepted, a 
provision to ensure that the block grant funds are used only to meet 
the objectives of this legislation, and not for general social 
services.
  Last, I was very pleased that the chairman agreed with my request to 
retain current law with regard to child welfare and foster care, and to 
drop his proposal to block grant these programs. These are not welfare 
programs, and have no place in welfare reform.
  With respect to the issue of abortion services, I was disappointed 
the committee rejected my amendment to continue current law, which 
requires States to cover abortions for poor pregnant women in cases of 
rape, incest, or where the life of the mother is at stake.
  S. 1795 would leave this decision to the States. Regrettably, this 
means, for example, that a poor 13-year-old girl who is pregnant as a 
result of being raped by her father, may not be able to obtain an 
abortion. I intend to pursue this matter further when S. 1795 comes 
before the Senate.
  I remain deeply troubled about the immigrant provisions of the 
committee-reported bill. The restrictions on benefits for legal 
immigrants in this measure are harsher than those that were included in 
the welfare reform bill overwhelmingly approved this past September by 
the Senate.
  It had been my intention to offer an amendment in committee to soften 
the impact of these proposed restrictions. However, once it became 
clear that no extra funds were available to defray the cost of my 
amendment, I was unable to proceed. I remain hopeful that we can work 
to modify these very tough restrictions as the process moves forward.
  In closing, while I continue to have significant concerns about this 
legislation, I am pleased that Chairman Roth

[[Page S7209]]

was receptive to addressing a number of my concerns in the revised 
version of S. 1795 he brought before the committee.
  I am very hopeful that these improvements will be retained, and that 
additional improvements can be made on the Senate floor and in 
conference.

                          ____________________