[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 106 (Thursday, July 18, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8105-S8150]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY, WORK OPPORTUNITY, AND MEDICAID RESTRUCTURING
ACT OF 1996
The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
Mr. ASHCROFT addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
Amendment No. 4901
(Purpose: To ensure that welfare recipients are drug-free as a
condition for receiving welfare assistance from the American taxpayers)
Mr. ASHCROFT. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Missouri [Mr. Ashcroft] proposes an
amendment numbered 4901.
Mr. ASHCROFT. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that further
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
Strike existing Section 2902, and replace with the
following:
``SEC. 2902. SANCTIONING WELFARE RECIPIENTS FOR TESTING
POSITIVE FOR THE USE OF CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, States shall
randomly test welfare recipients, including recipients of
assistance under the temporary assistance for needy families
program under part A of title IV of the Social Security Act
and individuals receiving food stamps under the program
defined in section 3(h) of the Food Stamp Act of 1977, for
the use of controlled substances and shall sanction welfare
recipients who test positive for the use of such illegal
drugs.
Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. I understand the distinguished Senator from Missouri
will agree to 15 minutes and Senator Kennedy, in opposition, to 15
minutes. I ask unanimous consent that there be 15 minutes on each side
for a total of 30 minutes on this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. DOMENICI. And I ask unanimous consent that there be no second-
degree amendments.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
Mr. CHAFEE addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. CHAFEE. I wonder if we could get some indication, while the
managers are here, of what is going to transpire for the remainder of
the evening, perhaps tomorrow.
Mr. ASHCROFT. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that this not
be deducted from the time on the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DOMENICI. That was understood, but we will be glad to agree.
I say to Senator Chafee, we have 28 Democratic amendments and 22
Republican amendments. We have not had a chance to go through and see
if there are significant numbers that we could agree to accept. So for
now we are in business until we get to talk with our leader and see
what he wants to do. We will take this amendment and use that time to
see what we can give the Senator by way of assurance. There are a lot
of Senators who have things planned for this evening, but I think the
leader made it clear that we want to try to finish this reconciliation
bill by a time certain, and we are nowhere close to that. So for now,
the best I can do is say let us wait for at least 30 minutes and then
try to give you a more concrete answer.
I thank Senator Ashcroft for yielding.
Mr. ASHCROFT addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
Mr. ASHCROFT. Madam President, the debate over the provisions before
us today represents an opportunity to change the way we view welfare in
this country. The question is simple: Will we continue to allow Federal
assistance to be a way of life?
That is the fundamental choice we face. Will we see welfare as the
intergenerational problem that it is, or will we continue to fund this
failure, this dependence?
There are a number of things in this bill that would help us make
sure welfare is no more than a transition. We put time limits on
welfare, for instance. But if we really want to move people from
dependence to independence, if we want individuals to move from welfare
to work, if we really want individuals to change their behavior, I
think we ought to be asking people to display a set of behaviors which
readies them for the real world.
If you want to be part of the working world, you ought to be drug-
free. When you go to work in the private sector, this is the standard.
As the chart behind me indicates, even in small firms with 1 to 500
employees, 62 percent test for drugs. Similarly, 88 percent of all
firms employing over 10,000 people in America require drug testing.
Now, I ask a simple question: What good does it do for us to allow
people to remain on drugs if they have little or no capacity to be
placed in the private sector? If you are on welfare, you should be off
drugs. Period.
That is the point that I make, that the American people should not be
asked to spend their hard-earned resources supporting the drug habits
of uninterested addicts. Under my amendment, each State would be
required to create a random drug-testing program as well as sanction
those individuals who test positive.
It does mandate that the States require drug testing. No question. It
is time, however, for us to stop funding the drug habits of individuals
who have no intention of working toward a job.
I am pleased, then, to send this amendment to the desk, and to say to
[[Page S8106]]
those individuals who are on welfare, it is time to move from
dependence to independence and opportunity. I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I yield myself 10 minutes.
Madam President, I listened with interest to the presentation made by
the Senator from Missouri regarding his amendment. I bring to the
attention of the membership that the amendment says ``notwithstanding
any other provision of law, States shall''--not may, but ``shall''--
``shall test welfare recipients.'' So, effectively this is a mandate.
The Senator has not commented about how much money these tests would
cost and who would pay for them. We heard a good deal earlier this year
about unfunded Federal mandates. Well that's what this amendment is.
This amendment says that the States shall undertake this activity.
Now, if the Senator offered an amendment to provide that the
Governors, or the State legislatures and the Governors, may do this, I
might urge the Senate to support it. I might support giving States the
discretion to test, within constitutional limits, provided that they
comply with the HHS guidelines which ensure maximum accuracy and
appropriate safeguards.
But the Senator says we will not leave this matter up to the States.
We will not let the Governors make a decision or judgment about this.
This amendment provides no flexibility based on different State
experiences. This amendment says that every State shall do it.
I hope in the remaining time, the Senator from Missouri would explain
to the Senate where the States will get the money to do it. If they use
money from this bill, it is going to come out of other vital
activities. If they had discretion, Governors might decide that drug
testing was a sensible priority for these scarce funds, or they might
not. But this amendment provides no discretion. As a result, the money
spent on drug testing will be money not spent on children's programs
and expectant mother programs. We are going to cut back on those even
further.
I would have thought the Senator would at least attempt to justify
his proposal by arguing that there is a higher incidence of substance
abuse among AFDC recipients, but he has not made that point. He has not
made that point because there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that
it is true. But evidently he believes that poor people need this kind
of testing, but that other, different groups that get Federal benefits
do not. We do not drug test farmers applying for crop subsidies. We do
not drug test homebuyers applying for a federally guaranteed mortgage.
We do not drug test corporate executives applying for marketing
assistance overseas. But we are singling out this particular group of
poor people for this stigmatizing, intrusive procedure.
Now, the latest information from HHS is that it costs at least $35 to
conduct a drug test, and that does not include the cost of an
administrative appeals process, or the cost of treatment for those who
test positive. There are some 5 million adults receiving AFDC, and that
is only one category of welfare recipients. So we are looking ar a bare
minimum price tag of $1.75 billion. That is $1.75 billion, without any
assurance about what particular tests or laboratories we will have.
Madam President, it seems to me it would make more sense to say that
the States may go ahead and develop these programs if they choose
within constitutional limits and in compliance with the HHS guidelines.
Let the Governors make that decision. But that is not what this
amendment is about.
At an appropriate time, Mr. President, I will make a point of order
against the amendment.
Madam President, just a brief comment on the underlying piece of
legislation that we are considering here this evening. It is shocking
to me that after months of what I had hoped was progress, our
Republican friends are once again prepared to shed the fragile and
frayed safety net designed to protect nearly 9 million American
children. As I said from the beginning, there is a right way and a
wrong way to reform welfare. Punishing children is the wrong way.
Denying realistic job training and work opportunities, is the wrong
way. Leaving States holding the bag is the wrong way. We all want to
move families from welfare to work, but we should be clear that this
bill is still not about real welfare reform but is simply more welfare
fraud.
After more than 60 years of a good-faith national commitment to
protect all needy children, our Republican friends are still proposing
legislative child neglect, if not abuse. This measure, the broad
measure, the underlying measure, is an assault on the youngest and most
vulnerable Americans.
I urge my colleagues to join with me in doing the right compassionate
thing and eventually voting no. Granted, after being called on the
carpet for putting forward their home alone welfare bill, a proposal
that would have forced mothers into workfare programs even if they had
no one to care for their children--this bill provides funding for child
care services. In addition, the Republicans have finally let go of
their desire to dismantle existing protections for abused and neglected
children. These are improvements.
The bill, nevertheless, poses many of the very same dangers to
children as the bills that have already been vetoed. Madam President,
here are a few of the tragic consequences. Under the Republican bill,
destitute children would no longer be able to count on even the most
basic concern in a time of need. In 1935, Congress made a historic
promise that no child would be left to face poverty, hunger, and
disease. This bill permanently breaks that promise. If the Republicans
have their way, when children need a helping hand, it will depend on
whether they are fortunate enough to be born in a State that has the
resources and the will to provide that assistance. It will no longer be
a matter of national policy. It will be a gamble geography.
Under the Republican bill, more than 1 million adolescent children
and 4 million parents would lose their currently guaranteed access to
health care. We know that adequate health care is a major barrier to
employment. If we are serious about promoting work and reducing long-
term health care costs, this is a major step backward.
Under the Republican bill, food stamp payments would be reduced to 66
cents a meal. I do not know how many of my colleagues have tried to
feed a child for 66 cents, but it is just not possible. By slashing $27
billion from critically important nutrition programs, the Republican
bill will leave more than 14 million children at risk of hunger,
malnutrition, stunted development, and school failure.
Under the Republican bill, 300,000 children with serious
disabilities, including mental retardation, tuberculosis, autism, and
head injuries, will be denied SSI cash benefits and Medicaid
eligibility.
The Republican bill pulled back the welcome mat for legal immigrants
who enter this country under our laws, play by the rules, pay taxes,
and contribute to our communities. It bans legal immigrants from SSI
and food stamps. Even if their sponsors cannot help them, they still
cannot help. Many immigrants, particularly those who come to fill needs
rather than to unite with families, do not even have sponsors to turn
to when they need help. Under this bill, if you are a legal immigrant
and you fall on hard times, you are out of luck.
Madam President, I can think of no measure that expresses a greater
hostility toward the immigrants that have made this country great than
to ban legal immigrants from the ultimate safety net--Medicaid.
There is a solution to ensure that public assistance is truly a last
resort for immigrants. We should hold sponsors accountable for the care
of the immigrants they sponsor. But where the sponsor cannot shoulder
the burden, or where there is no sponsor, we should be prepared to lend
a helping hand, particularly to the children. There is much more.
The Republican bill provides far too few Federal resources to help in
the training, education, and services needed to help move families from
welfare to work. It prohibits the States from offering assistance to
babies born to families on welfare--unless and until they enact laws to
exempt themselves from this requirement. These provisions are a direct
assault on children and have nothing at all to do with meaningful
reform.
Madam President, right here in the Senate, much of what America has
[[Page S8107]]
stood for is being dismantled and destroyed.
In the movie ``Independence Day,'' people go to the theater, the
lights go down, and they sit in the dark to watch a battle between
aliens and America's best fighters, who win in the end. Here we are
talking about American children living in poverty, the innocent victims
of fate. If this bill passes, they will be the innocent victims of
their own Government.
Tonight, after the movies, when people shut out their lights, we
should all think about how fate has treated us and about what kind of
country we want to live in, about what kind of children we want to grow
up in this country. We do not need to worry about aliens; we need to
worry about what we are doing to ourselves, our country, and our
children. We may be reaching for the gold in Atlanta, but when it comes
to caring for our children, we are certainly trailing the rest of the
industrial world here in Washington. Surely, we can do better.
Mr. BIDEN. Madam President, I support random drug tests, and I have
voted for random drug tests for welfare and food stamp recipients--as
recently, in fact, as last May in Senate vote 133. But the big
distinction between that and what Senator Ashcroft is proposing here is
that he is making it mandatory--and not providing the money to pay for
it. We spent the first part of this Congress in 1995 debating the
entire issue of unfunded mandates. And, here is an unfunded mandate. If
this amendment had provided the funding or allowed States to do random
drug tests, I would have supported it, as I have similar proposals in
the past. But I cannot support this.
Madam President, I support the right of States to require welfare
recipients to submit to drug tests and to fulfill a commitment to
remain drug free as a condition for receiving public assistance. Drug
abuse is serious, and is all-too-often a heartbreaking problem,
particularly among young people. And we have to attack it on as many
fronts as we can. Just yesterday, I joined my friend and colleague,
Senator Hatch of Utah, in introducing a bill to crack down on the
manufacture and importation of methamphetamine, or crank.
But whether a State chooses to combat drug abuse among welfare
recipients through random testing and punishment, or through other
methods of screening drug use and efforts to help people get off drugs
permanently, is a decision that should be left to the States. Random
drug testing is not cheap, and this amendment, as written, would force
the States to spend up to $200 million--even if they had in place
another means to go after drug use money recipients. While I support
the right of States to test welfare recipients for drug use, I cannot
support this unfunded mandate.
Mr. ASHCROFT. Madam President, I ask that the Senator from Oklahoma
[Mr. Nickles] be added as a cosponsor, and I yield 4 minutes to the
Senator from Alabama.
Mr. SHELBY. Madam President, I rise tonight to join my friend from
Missouri, Senator Ashcroft, in offering this amendment, which would
require the States to sanction individuals testing positive for drug
use. This amendment would go a long way in restoring integrity into our
system of public assistance.
Madam President, I trust there is not one Senator in this Chamber who
would stand here and argue that taxpayers should be forced to subsidize
the drug habits of other individuals. Yet, if the Federal Government
continues to send cash payments to individuals using drugs, that is
exactly what is happening. Not only is that directly contrary to the
intent of the AFDC program, and others, and a complete waste of the
taxpayers' money, but it is also very harmful to the parents using
drugs and the children living in that environment.
Subsidizing the parents' drug habits will, in the end, destroy their
chances for ever becoming self-sufficient. They will remain trapped on
welfare longer and will require substantial rehabilitation.
However, Madam President, think of what we are doing to the children
living in that environment. Giving cash to parents using drugs is one
of the cruelest forms of Federal child abuse I can think of. By cutting
off or limiting public assistance to those buying drugs, we are
limiting their ability to buy the drugs. That will improve not only
their lives, but the lives of their children.
Madam President, I believe the amendment offered by the distinguished
Senator from Missouri will restore a great deal to our welfare system.
I hope my colleagues will support it.
I yield the floor.
Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, has all time expired?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. No. The Senator from Missouri has 6 minutes
and 10 seconds. The Senator from Massachusetts has 5 minutes.
Mr. KENNEDY. I am more than glad to yield back 4 minutes of the time
and just take 1 more minute if the Senator wants to yield back his
time. I am more than glad to do that. If he is going to retain the
time, I will retain mine.
Mr. DOMENICI. Before the Senator does that----
Mr. KENNEDY. I will not do anything until I hear what Senator
Ashcroft is going to do. If he wants to yield time, I will as well. If
he does not, I will retain my time.
Mr. ASHCROFT. I would like to use my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri is recognized.
Mr. ASHCROFT. I yield myself 4 minutes of the time remaining.
I have to say that I agree totally with the senior Senator from
Massachusetts. This amendment is about children. As a matter of fact,
drug use has been damning to children. It has, as a matter of fact,
been lethal.
I would like to introduce you to one such child. This young man is no
longer with us. His name was Jason. His mother was a 21-year-old
recipient of the welfare of which we speak, and she funded her drug
habit with the methamphetamine drug known as crank. Not only was her
child born drug-addicted, but as a result of the nursing, the child
literally died of an overdose of methamphetamine.
So, this amendment is about children. It is also about drug use and
what that use does to children. It kills them. It is time for us to
stop this killing.
This amendment is also about preparing for a job. If we are willing
to say that people who are involved in job training should be subject
to mandatory drug tests, as we did last October, it seems to me that
welfare recipients should be held to the same standard. That is what
this amendment would do.
Mr. President, let us not lure welfare recipients into a false sense
of security; stay on drugs and we will still support you. Let us make
it clear from the very beginning. If you are on welfare, you will be
off drugs. The taxpayers and the children who aspire to a better
tomorrow deserve nothing less.
I reserve the remainder of my time.
Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, we can all have a feel good vote and
support Senator Ashcroft's amendment and think we are doing something
about children. But the underlying bill cuts back on nutrition support
for 14 million children in the United States. So who really favors
children?
It is interesting listening to this Senator from Missouri. He says we
know better, Washington knows better, we ought to tell those States how
to run their programs. Of course he tells us something entirely
different in another context. I hope we can let the Governors make this
decision.
And remember the backdrop against which this amendment is offered.
This Republican Congress has spent the last 2 years cutting back on the
drug treatment and prevention programs that are designed to help the
families whose lives have been affected by the scourge of drugs. We
have tens of thousands of individuals who need and want drug treatment
today, to free themselves from addiction, but they languish on the
waiting lists of the treatment programs that still exist after the
Republican budget cut these programs almost 20 percent. So we can
pretend to be tough about drugs by voting for this amendment, but if we
really wanted to fight drugs we would provide treatment to the people
who need it and are begging for it.
The Senator from Missouri talks about substance-abusing mothers. But
there is no money in here to assist any of those individuals who might
test positive and want freedom from addiction. Does the amendment have
any
[[Page S8108]]
money for treating these women so that they can be better mothers to
their children? No. It is not provided.
Not only is money for treatment not provided. There is no money in
here for the testing itself. It is $1.75 billion, and the Senator does
not show where it comes from.
On the underlying measure, we have 1.3 million children who are going
to be thrown off Medicaid. We are supposed to shed crocodile tears
about drug-abusing mothers under the Ashcroft amendment, but the bill
says to 1.3 million Americans, ``You are going to be denied any kind of
help and assistance.'' Are we going to say to the 4 million mothers who
are being denied Medicaid, many of them of childbearing age, that they
are going to be denied prenatal care? The baby may get some care, but
we are denying the mothers the prenatal care? Do we care about
children?
It is difficult for me to be persuaded by the Senator's argument
about how concerned we are about children when the underlying bill so
badly frays the social safety net for children.
In conclusion, the amendment is an unfunded mandate on the States. It
does not provide the money to conduct the drug tests. And it is simply
inhumane to test these people and throw them into the street when the
Republican budget so dramatically cuts back on the drug treatment
programs that provide assistance for those individuals who want to free
themselves from substance abuse.
I withhold whatever time I have.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. Are we clear on time on amendments yet?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 2 minutes left for each side.
Mr. ASHCROFT addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
Mr. ASHCROFT. Madam President, thank you very much.
The case of Jason Allen is not an isolated case. I could fill the
Record with cases of children who are drug abused, or victims of the
drug abuse of their parents, all funded by a welfare system that is the
subject of this debate.
This amendment does nothing to impair our ability to care for
children. Far from it. This amendment merely says that we ought to
provide incentives for our children to live in drug-free environments,
not drug-laden environments.
If we care about children, we cannot allow the current devastation to
persist. It has occurred for too long. It has ruined families and
ruined children. This amendment is an important first step in the right
direction.
With that, Madam President, I thank you. I yield the floor.
Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, we still have not heard from the
Senator about what is going to happen to those children. What is going
to happen if the mother is thrown off the welfare rolls for testing
positive? Say she has been denied treatment, she is on a waiting list
for drug treatment, and so she tests positive for drug use and forfeits
her family's welfare benefits. How does that possibly help the
children? You are prohibiting these women from getting vouchers so that
they can get diapers, so they can get milk, or infant formula. So what
happens to these families? They get thrown out on the street, and they
are made homeless. There is no provision in here to look after the
children.
I just think this is a harsh proposal. It is directed toward the
mother, but it hits the children. It is also reflective of the
underlying problem with the whole welfare bill. We are fragmenting the
safety net for children in this country, and I think that is why the
underlying measure should be defeated as well.
I withhold the remaining time. I have to withhold enough time to be
able to make a point of order.
Mr. ASHCROFT. Madam President, I would be pleased to yield the
remainder of my time for raising the point of order by the Senator from
Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. I yield back all my time, and as I understand when all
time is yielded that it is appropriate to make the point of order that
the pending Ashcroft amendment is not germane. I raise the point of
order that the amendment violates section 305(b) of the Congressional
Budget Act.
Mr. ASHCROFT. Madam President, I move to waive the Budget Act for
consideration of my amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the time
be yielded back on the motion to waive.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. ASHCROFT. There is no objection on my part.
Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, before we proceed to a vote, could I
ask Senator Dodd? I understand he has an amendment. If the sponsor and
the opposition to the previous amendment would permit us, we would like
to set the motion aside temporarily and take up the Dodd amendment. I
think the Senator is going to go to 30 minutes equally divided.
Mr. DODD. That is correct.
Mr. DOMENICI. And there be no second-degree amendments.
Mr. DODD. Right.
Mr. DOMENICI. After which time we will order a rollcall on it, and we
will then ask they be sequenced----
Mr. ASHCROFT. Reserving the right to object, might the Senator from
New Mexico estimate the time at which a vote would occur on this
amendment, on the motion to waive the budget act?
Mr. DOMENICI. It looks to me like it would be 6:10.
Does the Senator want that agreed to now so we do not violate that?
Mr. ASHCROFT. If it is possible, I would like to defer the vote until
perhaps 8:30.
Mr. DOMENICI. I think maybe we better proceed to vote on the motion
to waive right now, Mr. President. We will just do that and take
Senator Dodd's up in due course.
Mr. DODD. I say to my colleague, we will try to get it done quickly.
The amendment is not a matter of great controversy. I know a lot of
people wanted to say something about the amendment.
Mr. DOMENICI. Would the Senator take less?
Mr. DODD. I will try to do it in 20 minutes.
Mr. DOMENICI. The amendment was going to be agreed to, so I assume
the Senator is going to get a very big vote. Would the Senator want to
agree to let us accept the amendment?
Mr. DODD. I want a vote, I say, with all due respect, to the
Chairman, on an issue that has gone back and forth.
Mr. ASHCROFT. Reserving the right to object, is there a reason the
Senator wants to make his remarks in advance of the vote?
If the Senator from Connecticut needs to leave for other reasons, I
would indicate to him that that is the condition in which the Senator
from Missouri finds himself.
Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I withdraw my unanimous-consent
request and ask for the regular order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to
waive the Budget Act. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk
will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Oregon [Mr. Hatfield]
is necessarily absent.
I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from
Oregon [Mr. Hatfield] would vote nay.
Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Bradley]
and the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Pryor] are necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bennett). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber who desire to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 50, nays 47, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 203 Leg.]
YEAS--50
Abraham
Ashcroft
Bennett
Bond
Breaux
Brown
Burns
Campbell
Coats
Cochran
Coverdell
Craig
D'Amato
DeWine
Domenici
Faircloth
Feinstein
Frahm
Frist
Gorton
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hatch
Heflin
Helms
Hutchison
Inhofe
Kassebaum
Kohl
Kyl
Lieberman
Lott
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nickles
Nunn
Pressler
Roth
Santorum
Shelby
Simpson
[[Page S8109]]
Smith
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Warner
NAYS--47
Akaka
Baucus
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Bryan
Bumpers
Byrd
Chafee
Cohen
Conrad
Daschle
Dodd
Dorgan
Exon
Feingold
Ford
Glenn
Graham
Harkin
Hollings
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnston
Kempthorne
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lugar
Mack
Mikulski
Moseley-Braun
Moynihan
Murray
Pell
Reid
Robb
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Simon
Snowe
Specter
Wellstone
Wyden
NOT VOTING--3
Bradley
Hatfield
Pryor
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 50, the nays are
47. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected. The point of order is
sustained.
Several Senators addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, our leader will announce his intentions
shortly, but I just want to say, from the best I can ascertain, there
are 28 known amendments on the Democratic side, and that does not
include the list of Byrd rule violations which could be considered to
be votes. And on our side, there are 22, as of the last count.
I think the longer we are here, I say to the leader, it is an
invitation for phone calls. We have about nine additional phone calls
in our cloakroom from Senators who want to add amendments. So I do not
believe it is going to be very easy to get this completed. We are going
to need substantial time.
I yield to the leader, because I can't do anything about it at this
point.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, first, I would like to inquire, are we in a
position where we can get a 20-minute time agreement, equally divided,
on the Dodd amendment and get a vote on that in 20 minutes?
Mr. DODD. I say to the majority leader, we had 30 minutes, and we
will try to use less than that. We have a number of people who want to
speak. That is the problem. I will try to keep it to no more than 30.
Mr. LOTT. Are you talking about a total of 30 minutes equally
divided?
Mr. DODD. Yes, 30.
Mr. LOTT. Let me lock this in.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be a 30-minute time
agreement equally divided on the Dodd amendment, with a vote to follow
immediately after that time, and no second degrees be in order.
Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I thought this was an amendment they were
going to accept.
Mr. DOMENICI. We told the Senator we would accept it. He desires a
rollcall vote and desires debate.
Mr. CHAFEE. If it is going to be accepted, how much debate is there
going to be on the other side? Can you take 10 minutes?
Mr. DODD. We are wasting time debating. Why don't we get to the
amendment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I don't want to delay time here. There has
been a suggestion made that we try to work together on both sides of
the aisle to get a reasonable list of amendments that would be debated
and voted on. If we could get that done, then we could go to events
that are scheduled tonight. Some of the Senators would like to be at
the Olympics tomorrow at 12. Then we would have a series of votes on
those amendments beginning at 9:30 Tuesday. Basically that is the
outline of what we were trying to do. But instead of the amendments
shrinking, they are growing on both sides of the aisle.
I have suggested to the Democratic leader that we will get our list
down to five amendments on our side of the aisle for votes, which means
that some of them will be accepted, some of them will come up another
day. I mean, that is reasonable. I hope there will be an effort on the
other side. We debated this before. We made our points. You can make
your points on your five amendments and we can make whatever points we
have to on our five amendments or so. It does not have to be exactly
that number. But if we are talking about a series of 20 to 40
amendments on Tuesday, that is no accomplishment.
We do have an alternative. That is to stay here tonight and stay
tomorrow and complete the time that is remaining and vote on amendments
tomorrow, which would suit me fine. But I would like to be able to
accommodate Members on both sides of the aisle who have things that
they would like to do. I think that would be fair.
So at this point, I just ask everybody--we have 30 minutes here. Let
us get serious. Let us get this agreement worked out. Then we can go on
and do what we need to do tonight and tomorrow. We can take up the
agricultural appropriations bill Monday. We can debate the amendments
tonight, tomorrow, and 4 hours on Monday and we can vote on Tuesday.
That is a mighty good arrangement. We have been having good cooperation
all week. Let us see if we cannot do it one more time on this very
important piece of legislation that the President wants and both sides
of the aisle want. With that, I plead with Members on both sides to
cooperate with us and let us get a reasonable list worked out.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, let me reiterate as well my desire to see
if we cannot work this list down in the next 30 minutes. I hope every
one of the colleagues on my side of the aisle will come to me and tell
me, No. 1, when they intend to offer the amendment and, No. 2, whether
they really need a rollcall or whether they would be satisfied with a
voice vote.
If we cannot get it down to a reasonable list, I think it is fair to
say that within a half-hour we would be then in a position to say
whether we will be here tonight, tomorrow and Monday. So, if we
cannot--I do not have any plans--we will be here tonight. I have no
objection to being here tomorrow and Monday, but there are a lot of
people who have expressed an interest in trying to accommodate the
schedule that the majority leader has discussed, and I hope we can do
that, just to take into account some of the people who have already
made their plans. But we will have to make that decision within the
next 30 minutes. So, I hope everybody will come to me, and we will
decide within that 30-minute timeframe whether or not we will be here
tomorrow and Monday or not.
Mr. DOMENICI. Could we ask our side to do the same--30 minutes?
Mr. LOTT. Absolutely.
Mr. DOMENICI. Just come into the Cloakroom and tell us. We want to
dispose of them. Thank you.
Mr. DODD addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut is recognized.
Amendment No. 4902
(Purpose: To restore health and safety protections with respect to
child care)
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for
its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Dodd] for himself, Mr.
Coats, Mr. Kennedy, Mrs. Kassebaum, Ms. Snowe, Ms. Mikulski,
Mr. Harkin, Mr. Kohl, Mr. Kerry, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Kerrey, Mr.
Cohen, Mr. Reid, and Mr. Leahy, proposes an amendment
numbered 4902.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further reading
of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 628, strike clauses (vi) and (vii) of section
2805(2)(A).
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I offer this amendment on behalf of myself
and my colleagues, Senators Coats, Kennedy, Kassebaum, Snowe, Mikulski,
Harkin, Kohl, Kerry, Murray, Kerrey, Cohen, Reid, and Leahy. As you can
see by this list, Mr. President, this is a bipartisan effort.
I have asked for a rollcall vote here because this is an issue that
has been adopted in the past and yet mysteriously ends up dropping out
of the bill every time we turn around. So I am asking for a rollcall
vote, and hopefully an overwhelming vote here, so that when we get to
conference on this legislation, it stays in the bill. Despite the fact
that we passed this a number of times, every time we get it done,
somehow it manages to disappear from the bill again, as it did from the
Finance Committee bill. For those reasons, we will ask Members to be
recorded on this issue.
[[Page S8110]]
Mr. President, let me just briefly point out that what we are doing
here is restoring to the bill the child care health and safety
standards that we adopted now 6 years ago when the senior Senator from
Utah and I offered the child care legislation and set up broad
guidelines for health and safety standards, leaving to the States the
specifics on how they would achieve those particular goals.
I am thankful for the efforts of my colleague from Indiana, and
Senator Snowe, Senator Kassebaum, and others who worked on this over
the years. We have felt that it has been very, very helpful to have
these standards in place. If we are going to have, as we must have,
child care resources as we move people from welfare to work, these
children have to be in a safe place. We have standards by which we
maintain our pets and our automobiles. In this case here we are setting
basic minimum standards for children. It is something that we ought to
all be able to agree on.
There was a study done, Mr. President, a few years ago that assessed
the health and safety standards at child care settings across the
country. The conclusion of that study, Mr. President, was that in only
14 percent of the cases was it where the child care centers provided
good quality care. In 85 percent of those settings, almost 86 percent,
the study concluded it was not good quality at all. So there is a
necessity for requiring that these children be in a healthy and safe
setting. We are talking about a setting where you are seeing to it that
there are not open electrical outlets, there is electrical safety,
water safety, basic requirements so that these children will be
adequately protected.
Mr. President, as I pointed out earlier today, let us try to keep
this debate in perspective. Of the 13 million people on welfare, 8.8
million of those are children. And 78 percent of that 8.8 million are
under the age of 12. Almost 50 percent of the 8.8 million children are
under the age of 6. So there is going to be a substantial number of
children who will need child care as their mothers or fathers who are
on welfare go to work.
There is money for child care. I would like more, but it certainly is
an improvement over what existed in the past. But it is not just a
question of having funding for child care. These children must also be
in a safe environment.
A little later on this evening or tomorrow, or whenever, you are
going to have another amendment offered by my colleague from Louisiana
dealing with another aspect of children's safety. Let me urge my
colleagues here, many of whom support this amendment, to look at the
Breaux amendment and look at the other amendments dealing with
children. I do not think there is any debate in this Chamber about
trying to get adults from welfare to work. But there ought not to be
any debate either, in our view, about trying to see to it that innocent
children who through no fault of their own have been born into
circumstances where they need some help, whether it is in food or
health care or child care, are protected.
So we urge the adoption of the amendment and also amendments that
would provide that safety net for these children.
At this point, if I can, Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to my
colleague from Maryland, and then I will yield to my colleague from
Indiana. At that point we will try to wrap up the debate here, unless
others want to be heard, and get to a vote on this amendment.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the Dodd-
Mikulski-Kassebaum-Coats, et al. amendment. This amendment is really
quite simple. It restores basic health and safety standards for child-
care providers receiving Federal funds.
The bill before us repeals those modest standards. I think that is
shocking. Safe child care is too important to be left to chance.
Mr. President, we have to make sure that what we explicitly state are
our values we put in our legislative policy. This bill does that. It
restores the requirement that states have standards in place to protect
children. These standards protect children from infectious diseases,
make sure their buildings and playgrounds are safe, and require the
people who take care of children to know first aid.
I hope that every Senator will support this amendment because in
moving families to work, we must ensure not only the adequacy of child
care, but that child care is safe. Sure, we often focus on debating the
amount of money we are going to spend on child care. And this is one
Senator who believes we need to provide more funding for child care.
However, we have to make sure that child care is not only affordable,
but that it is safe. There is a basic need for health and safety
standards for child care facilities and providers. We need standards to
make sure our kids are not around open electrical outlets, that there
are not open manholes like little Jessica fell down some years
ago. This is basic. Child care has to be more than warehousing kids.
Parents have to have some assurance that their children are in a
hazard-free environment, and that those who are taking care of them
know at least basic first aid, so they will know what to do if a child
is hurt or becomes ill.
This is not an unfunded mandate. It is not even a mandate at all. It
is common human decency. Requiring States to assure certain basic
health and safety standards is the least we can do to give parents
peace of mind, while they are working to provide for their children.
Mr. President, in 1990 the Congress enacted a major child care bill.
We had bipartisan support for that bill. It provided Federal funds for
tax credits and grants to make child care more affordable. It also
ensured that providers who receive those funds had to meet minimum
health and safety standards, which each State would establish.
We recognized that basic standards were needed to ensure that all
children would be safe and well-cared for. The 1990 child care bill
made sense then and it makes sense now. Under that law, States set the
standards; they decide what will work best for their State.
In my own State of Maryland, we have a three tiered system of health
and safety standards. Maryland felt it was important that child care
centers that care for lots of kids have a higher level of regulation
than someone who provides care in a home setting or in the child's own
home. Maryland also ensures background checks to screen providers for
criminal records.
Other States have different standards to meet the particular needs of
their State. But this law ensures that each and every State must have
at least a minimal level of safety and health standards. If we are
serious about protecting children, we absolutely must maintain that
requirement.
It is what every mom and dad wants for their kids. We should vote our
values and support the Dodd-Mikulski, et al, amendment.
I yield the floor.
Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I will be brief. I know time is of the
essence here, and we will yield back some of our time.
Let me state that I support very much what Senator Dodd and Senator
Mikulski are attempting to do here. This is essentially the same
legislation that we are attempting to restore that we enacted in the
1990 child care legislation. This gives States a great deal of
flexibility.
For instance, the State of California has a program called Trust Line
which allows the State to require background checks, criminal
background checks, of child-care providers. In those background checks,
they found 5 percent of those who had applied to be State-certified
child-care providers had criminal backgrounds and they had to
disqualify them. Not all States have chosen to operate on that basis,
although I think that is a reasonable requirement that a State might
want to impose on a child-care provider. That is just one example of
the flexibility that a State has to impose, those minimal conditions
for safety and health, under child-care provisions.
Now, the House Ways and Means committee has supported this. The House
Employment Economic Opportunity Committee, President Bush supported
this in 1990, the Congress supported it on a bipartisan basis, the
Governors have supported this. What we are attempting to do is correct
something that I believe was an error, maybe it was not, but I think
all indications are that it was an error as it was put in the
reconciliation bill. This
[[Page S8111]]
would restore it to what, essentially, is current law and what the
Congress agreed to in 1990. I urge its adoption.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President I ask unanimous consent that Senator Boxer of
California be added as a cosponsor, as well as Senator Exon and Senator
Wellstone.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DODD. I end on the note I began with here. I hope our colleagues
will look at some of the other amendments dealing with children,
particularly the voucher proposal from Senator Breaux. I believe we can
develop a pretty good bill here.
I do not think there is much debate about moving 4 million adults in
the country from welfare to work, and I hope we could develop some
consensus, particularly on the children under the age of 12. I
understand people make an argument for 16-, 17-, and 18-year-olds, but
when you have 80 percent of the 8.8 million kids on AFDC under the age
of 12, 50 percent under the age of 6, it seems to me we ought to find
the means to provide a safety net for them, whether in a child-care
setting or regarding adequate nutrition.
I do not think we need any real debate about ideological differences
on that point. While I think we will get a strong vote here, I urge my
colleagues to look at these other amendments and judge them on their
merits and decide whether or not you do not think this will help
strengthen and improve a welfare-to-work piece of legislation that
draws us all together in this body, makes it a stronger bill, and one
that I think will adequately give the kind of protection to children
that all of us want to give.
Do not blame the innocent child for the circumstances they have
arrived in. They ought not to go hungry without adequate health care
and the protection of a child-care setting.
Mrs. BOXER. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. DODD. I am happy to yield to the Senator.
Mrs. BOXER. I commend the Senator and both sides of the aisle for
their leadership here, and say as one who has fought hard and long with
the Senators from Maryland, Connecticut, and certainly Senator Pryor
and others for nursing home standards, we have to take care of our
vulnerable populations. This is a big step forward.
Mr. President, back in 1990, we passed a law in the reconciliation
bill to enact basic health and safety protections for child care.
That current law now requires providers receiving funds through the
child care development block grant [CCDBG] to have basic health and
safety protections in place.
The Dodd amendment restores these basic health and safety protections
which are otherwise repealed in the pending welfare bill.
What do we mean by basic?
Requirements regarding the prevention and control of infectious
diseases.
Building and physical premises safety.
Minimum health and safety training.
These standards ensure, for example, that children have up-to-date
immunizations. That poisonous substances stay out of the reach of young
children. That electrical outlets have plugs in them.
Simply put, these basic standards reduce the numbers of accidents,
incidence of illness, and safe childrens' lives.
Mr. President, we are about to make major changes to the way welfare
programs in our country are run.
We hope that these changes will mean a lot more people will be
getting off welfare and going to work.
I think the least we can do is give people some assurance that their
children's caregivers meet a minimum level of health and safety
standards.
Spurred by the Federal health and safety standards we put in place in
1990, California decided to pass a law to give even more protection for
children from providers with a criminal record.
The law California passed created Trust Line.
Turst Line is a criminal background check for child care providers
who are exempt from State licensing requirements.
Through Trust Line, the State found that 5 percent of these providers
had criminal records--60 percent of which involved child abuse
convictions.
Repealing the Federal standards would be a huge step backward for
protecting our children.
Many of us here are parents. I think we understand that having piece
of mind about our childrens' safety is literally priceless.
The least we can do for the welfare recipients we will be sending off
to work is to assure them that some minimum health and safety standards
are in place for their child's day care facility.
I urge my colleagues to support the Dodd amendment.
Mr. EXON. Have the yeas and nays been requested?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. No.
Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. DODD. I yield 30 seconds to my colleague from Delaware.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I compliment my friend from Connecticut and
our Republican colleagues.
Mr. President, it was not too long ago--1990-- that we first put the
child care health and safety standards in place. The Senator from
Connecticut--who led the effort--remembers all too well the extensive
discussion--and, bipartisan compromise--that went into enacting these
standards.
It would be unfortunate if we repealed them today. They were the
product of a bipartisan effort 6 years ago. They were retained in the
bipartisan Senate bill that passed here last September. And they are
retained in the bipartisan Castle-Tanner bill.
Frankly, I am not sure why we are repealing them. Usually, we hear
the argument about Federal requirements being a burden on people.
But, in fact, in my State of Delaware, the people who are the
strongest supporters of these health and safety standards are the very
people who have to comply with them--the child care providers.
Yes, child care providers in Delaware have come to me and said,
``Don't get rid of the safety standards. Don't get rid of the quality
in day care.''
It may sound strange. But, think about it. They want Federal
standards and Federal requirements because they remember what it was
like before there were standards. And, they do not want to go back.
And at a time when we are increasing child care funding--and going to
see significant increases in the number of children in day care as
welfare mothers are required to work--it is crucial that the child care
providers who will be caring for kids meet minimum standards. I don't
think that's too much to expect.
In fact, I think every parent with a child in day care would expect
no less. Parents who drop their children off every morning want to know
that their kids will be safe. They want to be sure that they are not
leaving their child at some fly-by-night, shoddy, unsafe, unhealthy day
care center.
So, I just urge my colleagues to think about what is being proposed
here.
I add one point, I do not know how we can, in fact, have the kind of
bill we want without this amendment. I think it is very important. I
yield the floor.
Mr. DODD. I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise in strong support, and as an original
cosponsor, of the amendment by the Senator from Connecticut.
I agree with much of what is in the welfare legislation before us
today and I plan to vote on it. We owe it to the low-income families of
this country to end a welfare system that keeps them down rather than
helps them up. We owe it to the taxpayers to spend their money in a way
that strengthens their communities. We owe it to ourselves to be honest
when we have failed--as we have with our current welfare system. And we
owe it to this country to develop a welfare system that respects and
encourages this Nation's longstanding values of work and family. I
think this bill, on the whole, does that, and that is why I support it.
But before we send this bill out of the Senate, there is room for
improvement. One of my chief concerns with this bill is the unwise
elimination of the bipartisan, minimal Federal standards that govern
the quality of child care. We ought to be doing exactly the opposite.
[[Page S8112]]
Not only does the repeal of safety standards jeopardize quality of
care for children from welfare families, it threatens child care safety
for all children. Children of families from all income levels benefit
from the current health and safety standards.
We need to return welfare to the States because the Federal program
has proven itself a disaster. But turning the program over does not
mean turning our backs on the people and communities welfare is meant
to help. We still have a responsibility at the Federal level to make
sure that State-run welfare systems are able to succeed where the
Federal system so dismally failed.
And that means doing everything we can to keep the national economy
healty--so there are jobs for welfare recipients to move into. And that
means strengthening our child care infrastructure--so there are safe
and stimulating places for the children of welfare recipients to spend
their days as their parents go back to work.
As States begin to move mothers off the welfare rolls and into jobs,
the demand for child care is going to soar. Preliminary estimates done
for the city of Milwaukee have shown that welfare reform will create
the demand for 8,000 new child care slots--child care that does not
exist today. Already in the State of Wisconsin, there are almost 6,500
children from 4,000 families on waiting lists for child care.
At the Federal level, there is much we can do to start putting a
broader child care infrastructure in place. But one thing I know we
cannot do is move backward and eliminate the minimal Federal standards
that now regulate the quality of child care.
At the very heart of the welfare debate is the Government's
responsibility to the impoverished children of this county. We failed
them with our current welfare system, and today we rightly admit that
failure and ask the States to try and do better. As we turn welfare
over to the States, we cannot fail those children again by ignoring the
real need they have for protection and education while their parents
work. We can--and should--turn over welfare. But we cannot turn away
from the children who need and deserve quality day care.
I ask my colleagues to support the Dodd amendment.
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President. I rise today as a proud cosponsor of
Senator Dodd's amendment to restore child care health and safety
standards to this welfare reform bill. During consideration of last
year's welfare reform bill, I worked with my distinguished colleague
from Connecticut to add crucial child care funds to the welfare reform
bill. In fact, the $3 billion in child care funds which we succeeded in
adding to the bill resulted in an overwhelming vote of 87 to 12 in
favor of the bill.
I am pleased to join my colleague once again, as we consider a new
welfare reform bill almost one year later, on another important child
care issue. Maintaining health and safety standards for federally
subsidized child care is a basic issue of accountability for Federal
dollars. But above all, it is about guaranteeing the safety of this
Nation's youngest and most vulnerable children. The amendment is a
significant step toward ensuring that American children from low-income
and working families receive safe child care.
These health and safety standards were created as part of the child
care and development block grant in 1990, with broad support from
President Bush, Congress, and the Nation's Governors. The 1990
legislation did not dictate regulations governing child care
facilities. Instead, it required child care facilities receiving
Federal funds to meet basic requirements set by the states in three
areas: building premises safety; prevention of infectious diseases; and
training for child care providers.
Again, I emphasize that these health and safety standards are set by
the States. And because they are set by the States, they allow States
the same State flexibility that motivates this welfare reform bill.
Six years after the creation of these health and safety standards, we
know that they work to protect this Nation's children. For example,
California protects children through Trustline, which institutes
background checks for providers that are exempt from State licensing
requirements. Through these background checks, the State found that 5
percent of these providers had criminal records--of which 60 percent
involved child abuse convictions.
Yet despite their proven success, this welfare bill does not contain
these crucial protections for children. Instead, it simply requires
States to certify that they have State licensing requirements for child
care. However, a significant percentage of child care facilities are
exempt from State licensing requirements. In fact, only 9 States
require all family child care homes to be regulated regardless of size.
The children who attend these exempted facilities would do so with no
assurances that these facilities met even minimal health and safety
requirements. And yet Federal funds would pay for this potentially
substandard care where children are offered no protections for their
health and safety.
This does not make sense. After all, we offer consumers protection
when they buy food and cars, use public transportation on our highways,
and have their hair cut. It does not make sense that this bill would
leave the Federal Government with no way to ensure that children
receiving public child care funds are in minimally healthy and safe
settings.
This amendment simply ensures that when Federal child care funds are
used they will not be in settings where poisonous substances are within
easy reach of children; where electrical outlets are left exposed and
open; where unfenced play areas expose children to busy streets; where
children are allowed to go unimmunized; and where child care providers
have a criminal record. How can we allow public funds--taxpayer
dollars--to be spent in such a reckless and uncaring manner?
Finally, if we are talking about welfare reform helping people become
self-sufficient, why wouldn't we want to ensure that children get off
to a good start by having safe child care? Experts believe that the
first few years of life--those years during which an increasing number
of children are in child care --are the most crucial for a child's
development. If children are to develop to their full potential, we
need to ensure that they are cared for in safe environments by
responsible adults who are knowledgeable about child development.
Research shows that unregulated child care is generally of lower
quality than regulated care. This means that children are less likely
to receive the care they need to enter school ready to learn. The
children that will receive child care under this bill are some of the
most vulnerable children in our society. They should not be placed at
greater developmental risk because they begin life in substandard child
care.
As a Nation, it is the least we can do to ensure that Federally
funded child care meets minimum health and safety standards. I urge my
colleagues to support this important amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The yeas and nays have been ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Oregon [Mr. Hatfield]
and the Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Inhofe] are necessarily absent.
I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from
Oregon [Mr. Hatfield] would vote ``yea.''
Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Pryor] and
the Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Bradley] are necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 96, nays 0, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 204 Leg.]
YEAS--96
Abraham
Akaka
Ashcroft
Baucus
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Breaux
Brown
Bryan
Bumpers
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Chafee
Coats
Cochran
Cohen
Conrad
Coverdell
Craig
D'Amato
Daschle
DeWine
Dodd
Domenici
Dorgan
Exon
Faircloth
Feingold
Feinstein
Ford
Frahm
Frist
Glenn
Gorton
Graham
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Harkin
Hatch
[[Page S8113]]
Heflin
Helms
Hollings
Hutchison
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnston
Kassebaum
Kempthorne
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Kyl
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Mikulski
Moseley-Braun
Moynihan
Murkowski
Murray
Nickles
Nunn
Pell
Pressler
Reid
Robb
Rockefeller
Roth
Santorum
Sarbanes
Shelby
Simon
Simpson
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Warner
Wellstone
Wyden
NOT VOTING--4
Bradley
Hatfield
Inhofe
Pryor
The amendment (No. 4902) was agreed to.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. BREAUX. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum, the
time to be charged equally.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LOTT. I want to say before I ask this unanimous consent request
that I appreciate the cooperation, again, from the Democratic leader.
There has been an effort on both sides to reduce the number of
amendments. We have not been able to get it reduced as much as we had
hoped for on either side of the aisle. We worked on it. We will
continue working on it. We are trying to accommodate as many Senators
as we possibly can, with a variety of personal problems or needs, and
to get our work done. It is very hard to get both of those done
simultaneously. So we have come up with a unanimous consent request
that I think will allow us to do our job and still allow for
consideration of as many Senators' needs as possible.
The summation of it is basically we will begin now and continue to
take up as many as nine amendments tonight for debate. Hopefully, some
time limitations could be agreed to on those. We will begin voting at 9
a.m. tomorrow morning on those amendments taken up tonight. There will
be a series of votes on those amendments. Then we will return to debate
on amendments throughout the afternoon tomorrow and for 4 hours on
Monday, at which point we will turn to the agriculture appropriations
bill and make an effort to complete that bill, if it is at all
possible, on Monday. All time on all amendments would be done Friday
afternoon and Monday, during that time. Then we will go to the final
votes beginning at 9:30 on Tuesday and complete action on the
reconciliation bill.
I think that is as fair a process as we can come up with because we
still have 13 hours of time remaining. We still have a long list of
amendments remaining. It does take time to debate those amendments,
though, so this will allow us to have a substantial portion of that
time used up tonight. We are going to be counting on Senators to stay
and offer those amendments. We have offered at least three on our side
and six on the other side. We will have the votes in the morning. I
think that is a fair arrangement.
I have submitted a unanimous-consent request. The leader is reviewing
that now, and I think we can achieve this.
Unanimous-Consent Agreement
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent during the remainder
of the Senate's consideration of S. 1956, the following amendments be
the only amendments in order and those amendments be subject to germane
second degrees and all other provisions under the statute remain in
effect and any rollcall votes ordered this evening with respect to
amendments offered tonight occur at 9 a.m. on Friday, July 19, in a
stacked sequence, with 2 minutes for debate to be divided equally prior
to each vote, and following the disposition of amendments the Senate
proceed to further debate on the remaining amendments.
I further ask that following those stacked votes on Friday, any
additional rollcall votes ordered with respect to the amendments be
stacked in the same fashion as described above beginning at 9:30 on
Tuesday, July 23, and following disposition of the amendments, the bill
be advanced to third reading and the Senate proceed immediately to the
House companion bill, H.R. 3734, and all after the enacting clause be
stricken, the text of S. 1956 as amended be inserted, and the bill be
immediately advanced to third reading and final passage occur, all
without further action or debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. DASCHLE. Reserving the right to object.
Mr. DOMENICI. I do not object, but I ask if you could insert that
time on the amendments be no longer than 30 minutes, equally divided?
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I think in some cases we are not going to
need 30 minutes. I know at least in one case, the amendment to be
offered by the distinguished Senators from Delaware and Pennsylvania, I
think they wanted 45 minutes.
Mr. DOMENICI. I withdraw that request. We will work on it.
Mr. DASCHLE. I would like to, if we could, at the end of the
colloquy, announce the list and the order in which the amendments are
going to be taken so Senators will be put on notice as to when their
amendment could be expected.
Mr. LOTT. If I could respond to that suggestion, Mr. President, we
are working on a list right now. Of course, we will try to identify
them in order. We will try to go back and forth so you are getting your
amendments offered, although tonight there may not be exactly that
number. We have three, I think, committed tonight. You may have as many
as six.
Mr. DASCHLE. Six.
Mr. LOTT. I urge the Senators to agree to time agreements, hopefully
less than 30 minutes. If we have one that needs 40 minutes, we will do
that. But we will, at the end of this, try to identify the list
somewhat in the order they would come up.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Senator from Rhode
Island.
Mr. CHAFEE. May I ask the leader a question, please?
Mr. LOTT. That will be fine, Mr. President.
Mr. CHAFEE. I have an amendment which is up near the top of the list.
I greatly prefer if I did not have to debate that tonight. I will be
perfectly prepared to debate it after we have completed our rollcalls
tomorrow.
Mr. LOTT. I do not think there will be any problem. I know the
Senator has a couple of problems tonight. We will accommodate that. We
have identified other amendments that can be offered tonight, and yours
could be one of the first tomorrow.
Mr. CHAFEE. As far as the time agreement, I am perfectly prepared to
agree to 30 minutes. I do not know what the Senator from Delaware would
say, but I am agreeable to 30 minutes equally divided.
Mr. EXON. Mr. President, if I understood the unanimous consent
request, any amendment that would be offered would be debated either
tonight, sometime on Saturday----
Mr. LOTT. Friday. Friday afternoon or Monday morning.
Mr. EXON. Or Monday.
Mr. LOTT. Yes, sir.
Mr. EXON. There would be no amendments debated--if you want to offer
an amendment on this bill, you are going to have to do it by Monday, is
that correct?
Mr. LOTT. Yes, sir.
Mr. EXON. But there would be 2 minutes of debate equally divided, on
every amendment that was offered, on Tuesday before the vote?
Mr. LOTT. That is the way it has been done, and that is what is
incorporated in the request.
Mr. EXON. I thank my friend.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I further ask unanimous consent that all
amendments must be offered and points of order must be offered and
debated during the remainder of the session this evening, during
tomorrow's session of the Senate, or Monday, July 22, between the hours
of 10 a.m. and 2 p.m., with that time for debate on Monday to be
equally divided. That is in response to the question that the Senator
from Nebraska just asked.
[[Page S8114]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LOTT. So, for the information of all Senators, there will be no
further votes this evening. The next vote will occur at 9 a.m. on
Friday, July 19, 1996. Following those stacked votes, the Senate will
continue to debate the reconciliation bill. The next voting series will
be on July 23, 1996.
Members are put on notice, if they intend to offer amendments under
the consent agreement just reached, they must be offered and debated
tonight, during the session of the Senate on Friday, or on Monday
between the hours of 10 a.m. and 2 p.m. No further amendments or debate
other than the 2 minutes of closing debate will be in order.
I thank all Senators for their cooperation in this matter.
Mr. HARKIN. Will the majority leader yield?
Mr. LOTT. I yield.
Mr. HARKIN. As I understand it, tomorrow morning at 9 votes will
start. After those stacked votes, there will be no more votes after
that.
Mr. LOTT. We will shorten the time for votes by agreement, and there
will be no more recorded votes after that sequence of votes, which
could be as many as nine votes in a row.
Mr. HARKIN. I thank the majority leader.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I am submitting for the Record a list of
amendments that we have identified. I still hope some of these will be
accepted on a voice vote or be worked out, but we are submitting this
list for the Record. This would foreclose any other amendments on our
side being offered, other than on that list.
I send the list to the desk and ask unanimous consent that it be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the last was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
1. Jeffords: LIHEAP.
2. McCain: Child support--Indians.
3. Chafee: Standards of eligibility.
4. Shelby: Adoption assistance.
5. Craig: Childcare.
6. Hatch: SOS EIC.
7. Helms: Food stamp--work.
8. Abraham: Illegitimacy ratio.
9. Faircloth: Funds for teenager mothers.
10. Faircloth: SSI outreach.
11. Ascrost: Children immunization.
12. Faircloth: Childcare work.
13. Bono/Abraham etc.: Waivers.
14. Gramm: Deny drug benefits.
15. Coats: Independent accounts.
16. Coats: Kinship.
17. Pressler: FS Fraud.
18. Nickles: Reports on small businesses.
19. Ascroft: Limit time.
20. D'Amato: Work requirement.
21. Lott: Manager's package.
22. Domenici: Manager's package.
Mr. LOTT. We would like to ask that a similar list be submitted from
the Democratic side.
Mr. DASCHLE. That will be provided.
Mr. DOMENICI. When will that list be provided, the overall list?
Mr. DASCHLE. We will provide it within the next half-hour; even
sooner. It is available. We just want to put it in a form that is
presentable.
Mr. DOMENICI. Presentable.
Mr. LOTT. You are not adding any more to it? I inquire how many that
is? What number is that?
I will not put you on the record, because I hope whatever it is, it
will be less than that when it is submitted for the Record or, in fact,
when they are brought up.
Mr. DASCHLE. That is our intention.
Mr. LOTT. We still have a real problem with the colleagues not being
cooperative enough with us. There is no reason why we should have 40
votes on amendments on this bill. We can make our points. Some of these
can be taken on voice votes. Senators insisted, ``I want a recorded
vote.''
I remember one time, when Senator Daschle and I were in the House of
Representatives, a Congressman who won on a voice vote insisted on a
recorded vote and lost. There is a great message in that.
I, again, ask our colleagues, cooperate with us. There is no reason
why we should have more than 10 or 12 additional amendments voted on in
this process. Vote-a-ramas do not help anybody and it makes us all look
very bad.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, if it is appropriate, I ask unanimous
consent that the first 15 minutes of this series of amendments to be
considered be for the distinguished Senator from Washington, to be
joined by the Senator from Illinois, and we will dispose of the first
amendment.
Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I say to Senator Daschle, I just checked
as to what that amendment is. That is an amendment in the jurisdiction
of the Agriculture Committee, not either Senator Roth or myself. We
were wondering if we could have someone from the Agriculture
Committee--we will proceed. Do you want to go for 15 minutes?
Mr. DASCHLE. Can we do 15 minutes? I do not know if you need more.
Mr. DOMENICI. We will take up to 15 minutes. Let's get that locked in
and proceed.
We will say to Senators around waiting to offer their amendments, we
are going to use this 15 minutes to sequence eight or nine amendments
so Senators can know when they are coming up.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Washington.
Amendment No. 4903
(Purpose: To strike amendments to the summer food service program for
children)
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask
for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Washington [Mrs. Murray] proposes an
amendment numbered 4903.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading
of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
Strike section 1206.
Mrs. MURRAY. Thank you, Mr. President.
Mr. President, I offer this amendment that simply strikes provisions
relating to the Summer Food Program in the welfare bill that is in
front of us. I hope this can be accepted on a voice vote. If not, we
will have it be one of our recorded votes tomorrow.
Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, the Senate is not in order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The point is well taken. The Senate is not in
order.
The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Thank you, Mr. President.
Again, the amendment that I have sent to the desk simply strikes the
provisions that are related to the Summer Food Program. As all of the
Members of the Senate know, we debated the school lunch issue over the
last year and a half. Understand, the consensus across this country is
people believe we do need to make sure that our children get adequate
nutrition. The Summer Food Program is the same argument.
The Senate bill that is before us makes an 11-percent cut to the
reimbursement rate for lunches provided in the Summer Food Program.
This reduction is a 23-cent cut on each lunch that is provided. It will
reduce the amount of money that is provided for these lunches from
$2.16 to $1.93. That is a substantial cut, Mr. President, and will have
a dramatic impact on the programs offered across this country that
assure each one of the children of those programs get adequate
nutrition.
We have heard the arguments many times over the last year how
important it is that a child get proper nutrition and, without that
nutrition, is unable to learn. That is exactly what these cuts will do.
They will dramatically impact the ability of our kids to have a
nutritious meal in these summer programs.
It also will mean many of these summer programs will not survive. If
they have to charge the people in these programs an additional $20 or
$30 a month in order to make up the difference, it will mean that many
of these programs will be lost, particularly in our rural areas where
costs are substantial and it is very difficult for parents to come up
with adequate money for these programs to begin with.
Estimates vary by State, but a recent report concluded that this cut
that is being proposed in this welfare bill will result in a 30- to 35-
percent drop in the number of sponsors, most of them in our rural
districts. It will result in a 20-percent cut in the number of children
who are able to participate, and many of the larger sponsors are going
to have to drop their smaller sites.
[[Page S8115]]
I think it is very critical that this Senate go on record saying that
we understand the nutrition needs of young children in this country
today, and I urge my colleagues, hopefully by voice vote, to accept
this reasonable amendment to assure that young children in this country
do get the proper nutrition in the Summer Food Program that is in the
welfare bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak
for about 15 minutes. I probably will not use it all.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
If the Senator will suspend, the Senate is not in order. The Chair
suggests that the negotiations that are going on take place in the
cloakroom. It is making it very difficult for Senators to proceed.
The Senator from Illinois.
Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Thank you very much, Mr. President, for restoring
order.
Mr. President, I would like to speak to the bill. Maintaining a
social safety net for the poor has always been a complex and
paradoxical challenge. How does one provide sufficient support for the
poorest Americans while simultaneously promoting self-help and
individual initiative?
The bill before us offers one approach to the problem in the current
welfare system by implementing time limits on benefits, requiring
individuals to work and, at the same time, increasing parental
responsibility. However, the problem lies in that this bill does not
focus welfare reform on the people that welfare really serves. I know
you have heard me use these statistics before, but I think it is
important to restate them.
There are 14 million people in this country on welfare; 9 million, or
67 percent, of those people are children, almost 60 percent of whom are
below the age of 6.
Is it fair that these children lose the safety net that the Federal
Government and the States have maintained for 60 years, in the name of
welfare reform?
Whenever we cite problems with the current welfare system, such as
encouraging family breakups or fostering dependence, I have never heard
anyone arguing that we are giving children excessive resources as a
complaint. Therefore, Mr. President, as we consider welfare reform
today, my question remains the same as I posed months and months ago
when this debate first started. What about the children?
Mr. President, may we have order?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate is not in order. Once again the
Chair requests that negotiations that are going on go on inside the
cloakroom.
Mr. FORD. Mr. President, there is room for staff to have seats in the
back. That would help some.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The point is well taken. If staff are not
required on the floor, they can retire to the cloakroom.
The Senator from Illinois.
Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. I thank you again, Mr. President. I really
appreciate it, and I appreciate Senator Ford's interjection.
My question remains the same: What about the children, our children?
What about America's future? No one has answered that question, and all
the sponsors of this initiative can do is speculate, guess, come up
with hypothetical responses about the answer. What happens to the
children is the great unanswered issue in this welfare reform debate.
I am sure that my colleague will recall the discussions about what
happened in this country before we had a safety net for children.
We found many children being left to their own devices. Subsequently,
the term ``homeless half-orphan'' was formed. I do not believe for a
moment, Mr. President, the architects of this bill want to move this
country back to the bad old days with homeless half-orphans and
friendless foundlings and children left to their own devices begging in
the streets. I do not believe that.
But I am a bit dismayed with the Members' apparent ability to
conclude, while they do not yet know what the implications are for
children with this bill, we still must go forward, we still must reach
closure on this issue in spite of the fact that we have not answered
that great unanswered question.
Many of my colleagues seem to be willing to take the chances that the
States will do no harm to children. There is also, it seems to me, the
perception that we have to do something no matter how misguided it may
be. Frankly, Mr. President, I am concerned. I do not agree it is better
to do something bad than to do nothing at all. If any of us were
directly affected by this bill, if we were directly affected by what
happens here, I believe we would all be a lot less willing to take that
chance. That is a chance that we are now forcing on those who are the
most vulnerable in our society.
I want to take this opportunity to discuss two core implications of
this bill, its impact on children and the disproportionate impact on
States and communities.
First, what about the children? Currently, Mr. President, 22 percent
of American children live in poverty. That is about 15 million
children, or one in every five. That number is twice the number of
children in poverty in Canada and Australia; four times that of France
and Germany, the Netherlands and Sweden.
Consequently, there are 9 million children on welfare and about
300,000 homeless children in our Nation. These facts are disheartening
enough because America is the greatest country on Earth. There is no
reason why we have so many kids, so many children stuck in poverty. As
a Nation, we are No. 1 in terms of gross domestic product, the number
of millionaires and billionaires, health technology, and defense
expenditures.
It is shameful that we are number 16 in living standards among our
poorest one-fifth of the children, number 18 in the gap between rich
and poor children, number 18 in infant mortality rates, and number 19
in low-birthweight rates.
Mr. President, these children are not responsible for being born
poor. They did not choose to have parents who refuse to play by the
rules, nor do these children have the means of fighting a State or
local decision made during difficult budget times.
The Department of Health and Human Services has estimated last year
that about 1.5 million children would be pushed below the poverty level
by last year's passed Senate welfare bill. Essentially, the same
provisions that pushed children below the poverty line last year are
included in this bill as well, and the result is likely to be the same.
Nearly 1.5 million American children pushed into poverty who are not
today in poverty. This alone should set off the warning sirens that we
are doing something wrong here, that there is something flawed with
this approach. The ramifications of welfare reform should not be to
push more children into poverty than are already there.
The Department of Health and Human Services, HHS, again, currently
estimates that under a best-case scenario, which would be every State
having 5-year time limits and exempting 20 percent of families, about
2.6 million children would be cut off of subsistence that public
assistance provides now--left with absolutely nothing.
This legislation even prohibits the States from providing in-kind
assistance to children whose families reach the time limits. I cannot
understand, Mr. President, the reasoning behind this provision. Efforts
in the Finance Committee to restore even the State option to provide
noncash assistance to children were opposed and were defeated. The
entire block grant approach is supposed to be--is supposed to be--
predicated on State flexibility, and yet this policy in this bill says
to the States that they cannot use funds, they cannot use their own
money that they are already getting from the block grants to provide
for the children of their States through the best possible means that
they decide are the best possible means under the circumstances.
In other words, it is a mandate in a direction that cuts against
flexibility. Again, it is stunning to me that that
[[Page S8116]]
would happen in the context of a bill that is touted as giving local
flexibility. Perhaps my colleagues are tired of the question, ``What
about the children?'' I cannot, however, help believing that the
implications of this welfare reform genuinely are not fully understood
yet. And 1.5 million children will be pushed into poverty, and 2.6
million children cut off altogether. We are not talking about 1.5
million cars or 2.6 million trees. These are children. And they are
poor through no fault of their own.
Should not we, as Americans, as the wealthiest nation in the world,
provide a safety net to ensure that our children do not go hungry, do
not become homeless--a minimum level beneath which no American child
can fall?
Adults, of course, must be held responsible and held accountable.
Everyone who can work, should work. I mean, I do not think there is any
debate at all by anybody on that score. There are currently about 5
million adults on welfare, lower than the number of children. But of
the 5 million adults on welfare, 4 million of them, approximately, are
able-bodied and can work. They, therefore, should work.
However, demanding that adult welfare recipients work is not enough.
We need also to recognize there has to be 4 million jobs for those 4
million people. It is unlikely, Mr. President, that the job market can
so quickly absorb that number of people.
Again, a second unanswered question in this legislation. Where does
the job creation come from? How do these people find jobs? We have to
be careful. We have to be certain, Mr. President, that we do not punish
9 million children based on unrealistic assumptions about the
employability of 4 million adults. And that is what this legislation
does.
The Massachusetts welfare program that began in November of 1995
demonstrates this fact. That program required 20,000 AFDC recipients to
work at least 20 hours a week. As of June of this year, only 6,000 had
actually found work. I want to point out, of that 6,000 who actually
found work, 1,900 of those were working in subsidized jobs. Only 30
percent of the 20,000 individuals have found work of any sort, paid or
unpaid.
Massachusetts has realized that a lack of education and skills among
these parents, half of whom have never completed high school, seems to
be a factor in the failure of that program so far. The State is
encountering numerous unanticipated problems, including an inadequate
job supply. So again, this legislation, which does not create any jobs,
forces the 4 million adults into the job market, and then, thereby, if
they do not find jobs, if they cannot support their families, those 9
million children will suffer. I think that these assumptions ought to
be looked at very carefully as we rush to judgment on this legislation.
The second point I am going to talk about has to do with the State
and community variation which I call the ``food chain'' argument. We
have all heard the expression that ``all politics are local.'' Well,
caring for the poor, dealing with poverty is also local. The needs of
the poor do not just stop because the Federal Government decides to
stop paying for it. Again, this legislation moves in that direction.
The block grant program will lock in the Federal funding to the States.
And no matter what happens--no matter what happens in the economy--that
funding will not change.
Currently, many States, particularly in the Midwest, are experiencing
revitalized growth, and welfare rolls are in fact declining. These are
good economic times in this country. We heard the discussion about that
this morning in committee. So, of course, many States weigh the
flexibility of block grants versus the projected decline in needs and
say, ``Well, OK, this program, this new initiative is acceptable to
us.''
I am not surprised that many Governors concluded that block grants
were acceptable because their budget estimates tended to indicate that
fewer people will need welfare and that they can have this free block
grant money to play with. Financially, this probably looks like a good
deal to a lot of Governors.
But what happens when the business cycle takes its normal dip or,
even worse, a recession? That is the time in which more difficult
decisions will have to be made. Will a State raise additional revenues
to meet needs, shift responsibilities to localities, or reduce
benefits? That is the key question.
Although this bill includes a $2 billion contingency fund for States
to tap into during economic downturns, the fine print on the access to
that fund makes it clear that it will be too little and too late to
help people who lose their jobs when the economy turns sour.
Some States and communities do a better job of taking care of poor
people than others. Also, States and communities often start from very
different positions. The Federal Government and the States have
maintained a 60-year commitment to abolishing child poverty through the
AFDC program. This bill would take this national problem, turn it over
to the States, and say to the Governors, ``Here. Go fix it.'' I fear
that a system will develop in which Governors will be forced to say to
mayors and county commissioners, local governments, ``Here is a
problem. Go fix it.''
The result will be of this pushing down of accountability, the
successive washing of hands, that our children will become victims of
geography. The benefits available to a child may depend on what State
that child lives in or what region of the State that child resides in.
I want to show you a national chart, Mr. President, about the
variation in child poverty rates between the States. The variation in
child poverty rates between the States reflects these likely
disproportionate impacts. The increase in color, from beige to red,
indicates States with high poverty rates. These are the high-poverty-
rate States.
You recall, I indicated 22 percent of children are below the poverty
line. Well, there are great variances. In Virginia, it is a 14-percent
poverty rate under the age of 6; Illinois, 18.9 percent poverty rate
for children under 6; Texas, 25.6 percent poverty rate of children
under 6. How can my State be expected to care for children under the
same conditions as a State like Virginia with such different needs?
In all likelihood, the provisions of the bill will force the States
to handle the burden for those who simply cannot find work to local
units of government. Yet, there is even more in child poverty rates
among counties within a State, more variation than among the States
generally.
My own State of Illinois, Mr. President, is an illustration. We have
an overall child poverty rate for children under 6 of almost 19
percent. However, as you can see, there is considerable variation among
the counties, ranging from less than 3 percent in DuPage County, to 57
percent down here in the south, Alexander County. Virginia and Texas
show a similar pattern. Texas goes from 7 percent in some counties to
almost 70 percent in others.
Again, the debate surrounding the solution to those living in poverty
has gone on and will probably go on for a long time. Yet, as we attempt
to address this difficult issue, let us not relive a past where we turn
over the problem and let children fend for themselves.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. I ask unanimous consent for an additional 2
minutes.
Mr. DOMENICI. I have no objection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for 2 additional
minutes.
Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. This bill aims to make people more responsible and
may have some minor success in achieving that objective. However, in
teaching others responsibility, let us not forget our own
responsibility. Let us not just wash our hands of the responsibility we
have to the children of this Nation, as we hand it down to States and
local communities. The existing disparities between State and local
communities will only be exacerbated, and our children, these American
children, will be the losers.
Mr. President, welfare reform is necessary. Few would argue that we
need to do something to encourage change here, to give people a chance,
to give them the opportunity to pull themselves up by their bootstraps
and take care of their own children. Welfare reform must be based on
welfare reality, not welfare mythology. We must not forget who the real
victims are, or beneficiaries are, depending on your point of view--our
Nation's children.
[[Page S8117]]
In the absence of information, in the absence of real data about the
impact of this legislation, we should not abandon our responsibility to
be thoughtful as we approach our legislative duties.
I want to say in conclusion, Mr. President, I was with my son one
time and we were driving down the street. He asked why there were so
many homeless people. I tried to describe to him it was a function of
failed policy. Folks just did not pay attention to decisions they were
making when we made some decisions in terms of the mentally ill. The
result is we have people laying in the gutters talking to themselves in
the alleys.
Mr. President, I do not want to look up 5 years from now and discover
we have children living in the gutters, sleeping on the streets, and
begging on the corners because we did not wait until HHS or anybody
else could come up with decent numbers regarding the impact of our
decision, that we did not think about the fact that counties within a
State had variations, that we did not think about the economic impact.
Mr. President, I understand it is a popular issue. I understand it is
a political issue. I say, Mr. President, and I quote my colleague,
Senator Moynihan, who said at one point that this is the most
regressive social legislation we have seen in this century. It is for
that reason that I am going to oppose this, as I have opposed this
legislation.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SANTORUM. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Murray amendment for a
couple of reasons. No. 1, there is no offset identified in the Murray
amendment. For the information of Members, what that means is we have
$214 million of savings that the Agriculture Committee was required to
come up with that now we are going to have to come up with savings
somewhere else, in some other program, which, given where the big money
is in the agriculture bill, we are talking about looking at the Food
Stamp Program.
We have already heard from many Members on the other side that the
Food Stamp Program already has been squeezed, so we are back to a very
tough decision. That is a very important reason to oppose this
amendment.
No. 2, really, this amendment is not necessary to continue to meet
the needs of the summer feeding programs for children. The reason I say
that is because the rates that are in the underlying bill for the
Summer Food Service Program for lunch is $1.93 a meal. The ordinary
rate for a lunch, a school lunch, in an ordinary school in America
during the year is $1.79. Let me repeat that: The ordinary rate for a
school lunch during the year, during the school year, is $1.79. The
rate in the bill for a lunch during the summer is $1.93 for that lunch.
That, by the way, that reimbursement rate is roughly equivalent to the
amount we pay to severe-need schools. Those are schools that have at
least 60 percent of their children at the school who are in poverty. So
we are paying a rate, actually, slightly above the rate that we pay
during the school year for severe-need schools.
Now, I understand that the Summer Food Service Program for Children
is targeted at poor communities, but we are paying a reimbursement rate
here which is equal to the rate we pay to poor communities during the
school year. So I guess we believe that this was a responsible place to
find a reduction, that we are still paying enough money for school
lunches, to encourage venders to participate, schools to participate in
providing the service for children throughout the summer.
If we do not make a reduction in this program, and I think it is a
judicious reduction, then we have to come up with money from someplace
else in the budget, which may, in fact, be tougher on children than the
reduction proposed in the underlying bill.
I encourage Members to oppose the Murray amendment for those reasons.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I will be very brief because I know there
are a number of Senators who want to offer amendments.
I heard two arguments, one that there is no offset. It is my
understanding that when this Senate struck the Medicaid provisions in
this bill, that had a $70 billion impact, without worrying about where
the offsets were. So in this provision, it only affects $24 million. I
say because it is the right policy that we care for our children and
make sure they have nutritious foods, it seems legitimate and like-
minded to do what we have done with the Medicaid provision in this
bill.
Second, the other argument was that the price for these meals is
higher than what is offered during the school year. That is, of course,
true, because during the school year the volume, the number of children
that are served is quite large, is much larger. In the summer, we are
serving fewer students, and, therefore, the cost of meals goes up.
Second, during the school year, the facility is provided. During the
summer, programs have to pay for the sites, and the cost goes up
prohibitively because of that. That is why the summer program costs
more than the school-year program.
It is a very legitimate concern. I will again say that the bill
reduces the amount of the program by 23 cents on each lunch. That will
have a dramatic impact. We will lose sites, especially in rural areas,
and see as much as a 35-percent drop in the number of programs that are
able to offer this.
Again, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment tomorrow
morning. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. SANTORUM. My response to that, Mr. President, first, the Senator
from Washington knows the fact is that the Agriculture Committee was
given a reconciliation instruction, and by removing this part from that
portion of the bill we will have to come up with money elsewhere. It is
not like Medicaid is part of that instruction. It is not. It is a
separate instruction, a separate area, an area that is gone for now. We
are deeming with this portion of the bill.
We cannot just say we cut something somewhere else, and, therefore,
we should not worry about it here. It is apples and oranges. We do have
to come up with the money somewhere else. I think this is a reasonable
place to come up with it. The rate of $1.93 was increased in the
committee by Senator Leahy. He sought to increase it more himself, but
he recognized that to do that he would have had to find savings
somewhere else. It was his judgment--obviously, by his amendment--that
this was an area that could afford a reduction more than other areas of
the agriculture budget. And so I think, going from the attempt that he
made in committee, that this was probably the best place to find the
reduction at the time. So I ask, again, that Members oppose the
amendment.
I yield the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, has the Senator yielded back her time?
Mrs. MURRAY. How much time is left?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has approximately 5 minutes left.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I will simply conclude by saying that we
have had this argument about the importance of providing nutritious
meals for our kids so they have the ability to learn and learn well.
I urge my colleagues to remember those children when we vote on this
amendment tomorrow morning.
I yield the remainder of my time.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I am going to try to just informally
establish a little bit of the order, so that Senators who know they are
going to offer amendments tonight will kind of know the sequencing. The
first thing we would like to do, however, is to ask the distinguished
chairman of the Finance Committee to shortly offer three amendments, en
bloc, which have been cleared on both sides.
The order would be as follows: We have just completed debate on
Murray. Next would be Senator Faircloth on our side. He has two
amendments. We will have the first Faircloth amendment. Senator Breaux
would be next.
Mr. FORD. If the Senator will yield, are we going to try to have time
agreements on these?
Mr. DOMENICI. I tried that a while ago, and we decided to just wait
on each one.
[[Page S8118]]
Mr. FORD. I was just hoping.
Mr. DOMENICI. I am hoping, too. Senator Faircloth is not going to
take much time. Maybe we can get an agreement now. While we are waiting
for him, to put everybody on notice, Senator Breaux would follow
Senator Faircloth.
There will be a second Faircloth amendment, to be followed by Senator
Biden. And then we would have a Santorum-Frist amendment with reference
to waiver. Then there will be a Senator Harkin amendment and then an
Ashcroft amendment. Then we would have Senator Wellstone, who, I
believe, has two. We would be pleased to let him proceed with two in
sequence. And then we would have Senator Graham of Florida and Senator
Dodd.
If we can complete those, we will be set up for a vote in the morning
on 11 amendments. Senator Faircloth will be right along. We will ask
for 15 minutes to a side, if that is satisfactory.
Mr. FORD. That suits me. If we can get a finite time or an
understanding, it would be helpful to all concerned.
Mr. DOMENICI. If the Senator is prepared, can Senator Faircloth agree
to 15 minutes on his amendment?
Mr. FAIRCLOTH. I can do it in about 3 minutes. They are bringing it
over from the office.
Mr. FORD. Would it be all right for Senator Breaux to go ahead with
his?
Mr. FAIRCLOTH. I only need about 3 minutes for just a brief
description.
Mr. DOMENICI. Senator Faircloth wants 3 minutes. How much does the
opposition want?
Mr. FORD. I do not know whether we will oppose it. Give us 3 minutes.
Mr. DOMENICI. I ask unanimous consent that there be 3 minutes to a
side on the Faircloth amendment, and that it be the next amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DOMENICI. I ask unanimous consent that no second-degrees be in
order to the Faircloth amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DOMENICI. How much time would Senator Breaux like on his
amendment?
Mr. BREAUX. I think 10 minutes.
Mr. DOMENICI. I ask unanimous consent that there be 10 minutes on
each side on the Breaux amendment, with no second-degrees in order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DOMENICI. Senator Faircloth has a second amendment. While we are
waiting for him, does anybody know if 15 minutes will be satisfactory
for Senator Biden?
Mr. FORD. He has a total substitute, so it will be a little longer,
probably.
Mr. DOMENICI. On Senator Faircloth's second amendment, I ask
unanimous consent that there be 3 minutes on a side, with no second-
degrees in order to that amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DOMENICI. We have Senator Biden's amendment, and we are trying to
find out what he would like. In the meantime, will Senator Santorum,
Senator Frist, and Senator Abraham decide what they need? And then we
will lock that in shortly. Those three Senators are participating in
waiver amendments.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum, and I ask
unanimous consent that the time be charged equally.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I have a unanimous consent agreement to
propound to dispose of four amendments which have been agreed to on
both sides of the aisle. These amendments are Senator Jeffords'
amendment to protect recipients of Federal energy assistance; the
second is Senator Gregg's amendment to require administrative summons
to request child support information from public utilities; the third
is Senator McCain's amendment to allow child support agencies to enter
into cooperative agreements with Indian tribes; and the fourth, Senator
Coats' amendment relating to placing children separated from their
parents with a relative. Senator Wyden is a cosponsor of this
amendment.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order for me to
offer these four amendments, which I now send to the desk en bloc, that
they be considered and agreed to en bloc, and that the motions to table
and the motions to reconsider be agreed upon en bloc, and that they
appear on the Record as if considered individually.
Mr. FORD. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I apologize.
We have failed, and those on the other side have failed, to talk to the
ranking member of the Indian Affairs Committee, Senator Inouye. It has
not been cleared with him yet. I suspect that it will be. But I hope
that the Senator will withhold this until such time as we might contact
him. And that would be within a minute or two.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I withhold my request until such time as we
hear from the senior Senator from Hawaii.
Mr. FORD. Mr. President, why don't we ask unanimous consent that this
motion be set aside? It would automatically come back, I say to the
Senator, if that is all right. I ask unanimous consent, then, that this
amendment be set aside so that we might proceed to the Faircloth
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
Under the previous order, Senator Faircloth is recognized for 3
minutes.
Amendment No. 4905
(Purpose: To prohibit recruitment activities in SSI outreach programs,
demonstration projects, and other administrative activities)
Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Mr. President, this is a very simple one but is a very
direct one and I think a very important one to the American taxpayers.
I am offering an amendment which clarifies that no Federal funds
should be used for recruitment activities in the SSI program.
I send the amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Faircloth) proposes an
amendment numbered 4905.
Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 399, between lines 10 and 11, insert the following:
Subchapter F--Other Provisions
SEC. 2241. PROHIBITION OF RECRUITMENT ACTIVITIES.
(a) In General.--Section 1631 (42 U.S.C. 1383) is amended
by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``prohibition of recruitment activities
``Nothing in this title shall be construed to authorize
recruitment activities under this title, including with
respect to any outreach programs or demonstration
projects.''.
Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Mr. President, this amendment says very simply that we
will not use the taxpayers' money to solicit people to come into the
SSI program, which we are doing, and spending massive amounts of
taxpayers' dollars to solicit people to come and sign up for SSI
benefits. We are doing it through mailing, advertising, and even door-
to-door solicitation with people who are hired and paid by the Federal
Government. SSI outreach programs are used to try to maximize
participation in the SSI program.
I believe we owe it to the American people to assure them that we are
using the hard-earned dollars that we spend on welfare programs only to
provide assistance to the truly needy and that we are not out spending
more of their money and hiring bureaucrats to solicit people to come
get their money.
So this is a very simple program. It forbids the use of Federal funds
for the recruitment of people into the SSI program. I do not think we
should be hiring people to solicit people to come get welfare.
Mr. President, I yield the remainder of my time.
Mr. BREAUX addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
Mr. BREAUX. I thank the Chair.
Mr. President, I was just looking at the amendment. It is the first
time I
[[Page S8119]]
have had the opportunity to see it and read it. The Social Security
Disability Program that the Senator is referring to is essentially cash
benefits for disabled people, most of which are elderly.
The question I am concerned about when the Senator's amendment says
``nothing shall be construed to authorize recruitment activities,
including any outreach program, or demonstration projects,'' I think it
is important that the agencies let people know what the program is
about.
I tend to agree with the Senator about going out and trying to
recruit people to come in and engage in a program that is there. But is
the Senator's amendment intended to prohibit trying to let people know
what is in the program? Would they be prohibited under the Senator's
amendment from telling people about what the program does and how it
works?
Mr. FAIRCLOTH. It would not prohibit them from telling them if they
come in and ask about it. They can come into the Social Security office
and ask about the program. They would be told.
Mr. BREAUX. Let me ask the Senator something further. We have a lot
of Federal programs that provide benefits and loans. For instance, the
Senator is aware of the farm programs. The Farmers Home Administration
has loan programs and things that are beneficial to farmers. They try
to communicate that information to the farm community to let them know
that we have a program that does the following three things. ``If you
are interested, come in and talk to us.''
Would this prohibit the Social Security people from doing the same
thing that other Federal programs are able to do with regard to
informing people about the benefits of the program?
Mr. FAIRCLOTH. I am not sure how they inform all the people about the
programs because there are many Federal programs and many, many ways of
informing people. But we have simply created here an issue that we
could simply go out and solicit door to door. We bring people in to try
to get the benefits. If they come to the office and ask about the
program, then it certainly is perfectly all right.
Mr. BREAUX. Would his amendment prohibit publishing a brochure
describing what the program does?
Mr. FAIRCLOTH. No, not if they kept it in the office, but not start
mailing them and delivering them door to door.
Mr. BREAUX. The concern I have is that it is sort of like we will
have a Federal program, but we are going to hide it; that we are not
going to let anybody know about it. I do not think that a Federal
agency should go out and recruit people to benefit from a program. If a
program is a legal program, I am concerned about getting to the point
of trying to say we are going to have this program but we do not want
to tell anybody about it. If you are lucky enough to find out about it
on your own, maybe you could come and apply for the benefits. We are
talking about people who are disabled. A lot of them are disabled. They
cannot get anywhere. How do they find out about it?
Mr. FAIRCLOTH. The Senator is well aware that we have never had a
Government program in which we have given away money that was not well
advertised.
Mr. BREAUX. My concern is we are taking about a disabled person who
may be homebound and who cannot get out. They are disabled. We are
talking about disabled people. That person is disabled. How are they
going to find out about the program if you cannot tell them about it?
Mr. FAIRCLOTH. They are going to find out about the program.
Mr. BREAUX. I am wondering how they would find out about the program.
How?
Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Innumerable ways; family members. They will find out
about the program. But we have gone out soliciting people door to door
that are not homebound, that are not sick.
Mr. BREAUX. Let me ask the Senator this question.
Would his amendment prohibit the Social Security Administration from
getting a list from the county health authority on people who are
disabled and then sending them a brochure telling them about the
benefits?
Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Getting this from where?
Mr. BREAUX. Would the Senator's amendment prohibit the Social
Security Administration from getting a list of people who are disabled
from the county health authority and then sending them a brochure
describing what the benefits are?
Mr. FAIRCLOTH. No, the amendment would not prohibit that. I would be
willing to amend it so we could do that. That is certainly within the
realm of what we could do. But door-to-door solicitation, big ads in
the newspaper, come-and-get-it type ads, that is what I am trying to
get at.
Mr. BREAUX. The Senator is aiming at door-to-door solicitation and
running ads advertising the program, but other than that, communicating
by any other means would be legitimate communication?
Mr. FAIRCLOTH. They can do it if they do not use Federal funds. There
are many advocacy groups that are working and soliciting--I am saying
advocacy groups cannot use Federal funds.
Mr. BREAUX. Is the Senator saying the Social Security Administration
could not use funds to print a brochure to describe the benefits?
Mr. FAIRCLOTH. They can print the brochure, they can mail it, but
they cannot give money to advocacy groups going door to door.
Mr. BREAUX. Could they mail it to the disabled?
Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Certainly. Who else would you mail it to?
Mr. BREAUX. I just want to make sure we are not trying to hide the
program so well nobody will ever find out anything about it.
Mr. FAIRCLOTH. I do not think there has ever been a Federal program
in which we gave away money like we have with SSI that was very well
hidden.
Mr. BREAUX. I wonder under the unanimous-consent agreement whether
the Senator's amendment would be amendable.
Mr. FAIRCLOTH. It would be amendable, yes.
Mr. BREAUX. It would be. Would it take unanimous consent to amend it?
Mr. FAIRCLOTH. It would not.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Smith). The Chair would inform the
Senators the time on the amendment has expired.
Mr. FORD addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. FORD. May I ask the distinguished Senator from North Carolina a
question. I understood the Senator to say to the Senator from Louisiana
he would be able to amend it to be sure that door-to-door solicitation
and that sort of thing was not acceptable but what he explained would
be. Is there a chance we might set it aside and work out an agreement
so it could be accepted and we would not have a vote?
Mr. FAIRCLOTH. That would be agreeable, yes.
Mr. FORD. I ask unanimous consent then that the Faircloth amendment
be set aside temporarily.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Chair hears none, and
it is so ordered.
Mr. FORD. Now, Mr. President, as I understand it, the Roth proposal
is now the pending business?
Mr. BREAUX. I do not think so.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Roth amendment was withdrawn by consent.
The Senator can renew the request.
Mr. FORD. All right, I ask him to renew it then, because at the time
I was the culprit because we had not checked completely with the
ranking members and now it has been cleared and we are in full support
of Senator Roth's proposal.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request of the
Senator from Delaware? Is there objection? The Chair hears none, and it
is so ordered.
Amendments Nos. 4906 Through 4909, En Bloc
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I would ask permission to renew my request
that the four amendments which I identified earlier be agreed to en
bloc, they be considered and agreed to en bloc, that the motions to
table the motions to reconsider be agreed to en bloc, and that they
appear in the Record as if considered individually.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk
will report the amendments by number.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
[[Page S8120]]
The Senator from Delaware [Mr. Roth] proposes amendments en
bloc numbered 4906 through 4909.
The amendments (Nos. 4906 through 4909), en bloc, are as follows:
amendment no. 4906
(Purpose: To protect recipients of federal energy assistance)
Beginning on page 1-5, strike line 18 and all that follows
through page 1-7, line 12, and insert the following:
(a) In General.--Section 5(d) of the Food Stamp Act of 1977
(7 U.S.C. 2014(d)) is amended by striking paragraph (11) and
inserting the following: ``(11)(A) any payments or allowances
made for the purpose of providing energy assistance under any
Federal law, or (B) a 1-time payment or allowance made under
a Federal or State law for the costs of weatherization or
emergency repair or replacement of an unsafe or inoperative
furnace or other heating or cooling device,''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--Section 5(k) of the Food Stamp
Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 2014(k)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)--
(A) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``plan for aid to
families with dependent children approved'' and inserting
``program funded''; and
(B) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``, not including
energy or utility-cost assistance,'';
(2) in paragraph (2), by striking subparagraph (C) and
inserting the following:
``(C) a payment or allowance described in subsection
(d)(11);''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(4) Third party energy assistance payments.--
``(A) Energy assistance payments.--For purposes of
subsection (d)(1), a payment made under a State law to
provide energy assistance to a household shall be considered
money payable directly to the household.
``(B) Energy assistance expenses.--For purposes of
subsection (e)(7), an expense paid on behalf of a household
under a State law to provide energy assistance shall be
considered an out-of-pocket expense incurred and paid by the
household.''.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I wish to correct what I think is a
serious problem with this bill. I ask my colleagues to support my
amendment to remove from the welfare section of this bill those
provisions that unfairly burden poor families who rely on both food
stamps and Federal energy assistance. Not only does the bill change a
long-standing bipartisan policy, it does so without bringing any
savings to the bill.
As it's currently drafted, S. 1956 will cut the food stamp benefits
of poor families and elderly people who receive Federal low-income
energy assistance. The bill achieves this end by counting LIHEAP
benefits as though they were income available to families to purchase
food. The result is that any time a poor family with children or an
elderly person receives Federal help to pay a fuel bill, they'll get
less in food stamp benefits that month.
The good news is this is a very easy provision to fix. Linking LIHEAP
benefits to food stamp eligibility doesn't add any savings to the bill
because under new scoring policies, CBO doesn't score any savings to
this provision. We can remove this harsh provision from the bill
without reducing our welfare savings.
I'd like to take a few minutes now to remind my colleagues of the
importance of both the Food Stamp Program and the energy assistance
program to our most vulnerable populations.
Who is receiving food stamps?
Households with children--80 percent of the food stamp population.
Elderly people--another 7 percent.
People living at half the poverty level--more than half of all food
stamp benefits go to people living at half the poverty level.
That's who's getting food stamps--families with children, the
elderly, and extremely poor people, Food stamps benefit our most
vulnerable populations. We can't lost sight of that fact.
LIHEAP, too, serves the poorest of the poor:
Households with incomes less than $8,000--two-thirds of LIHEAP funds
goes to these households.
Half of the households receiving LIHEAP have incomes below $6,000.
One-third of LIHEAP households have elderly people living in them.
One-third of LIHEAP households have disabled people living there.
LIHEAP is the program that prevents many disadvantaged households
from having to choose between putting food on the table or heating or
cooling their homes.
What we've done in the bill as drafted is force people to make that
choice again. If they need help heating or cooling their homes, there
will be less food stamp benefits available to them. In households with
incomes of less than $8,000, we shouldn't be forcing people to make
that choice.
Food and shelter are very basic human needs. On $8,000 a year, there
can be no doubt that the entire household income must be devoted to
meeting the needs of basic human existence: clothing, medical care, and
maybe transportation. In my mind, it's simply bad policy to force those
basic needs to compete with each other.
This welfare reform package is about helping people to get back on
their feet: helping them to move beyond poverty and dependence into
productive and contributing citizenship. To the extent that we're
talking about populations we don't expect to hold down jobs: the
severely disabled, the elderly, and children--this policy is even more
problematic. Either way, we need to make sure that people have the fuel
they need to heat their homes, or cool them if that's necessary. We
need to make sure people have food for their children and for
themselves. It's not a one or the other proposition--people need both.
Federal law has recognized this fact since the mid-1980's, and there's
no reason to change the policy now.
For many years, it has been our policy to not count aid provided
under LIHEAP assistance as income. Members of both parties have
recognized in the past that reducing the food stamps of LIHEAP
recipients would be counterproductive. Do we really want a policy that
says ``whenever LIHEAP helps a poor family or elderly person pay high
utility bills, they well have their food stamps cut?'' I don't believe
we're really helping if we implement this policy. People will still
face major difficulty in paying basic bills and securing adequate food
at the same time.
According to CBO estimates, the welfare bill already cuts the Food
Stamp Program by $28 billion over the next 6 years. The food stamp cuts
in this bill are $4 billion deeper than the cuts in those years under
last year's Senate welfare bill. The cuts in the benefits of the
households receiving energy assistance would be on top of the food
stamp benefit reductions already in the bill. Since the provision
cutting the food stamps of poor households that receive LIHEAP doesn't
score any savings, we should remove this link from the bill and retain
current law.
Again, I urge my colleagues to join me and my colleagues, Senators
Snowe, Chafee, Cohen, Leahy, Lieberman, Simon, Kennedy, Kohl, and
Wellstone in supporting this amendment.
AMENDMENT NO. 4907
(Purpose: To modify the requirement for expedited procedures to
establish paternity and to establish, modify, and enforce support
obligations)
Beginning on page 467, line 22, strike all through page
469, line 18, and insert the following:
``(D) Access to information contained in certain records.--
To obtain access, subject to safeguards on privacy and
information security, and subject to the nonliability of
entities that afford such access under this subparagraph, to
information contained in the following records (including
automated access, in the case of records maintained in
automated data bases):
``(i) Records of other State and local government agencies,
including--
``(I) vital statistics (including records of marriage,
birth, and divorce);
``(II) State and local tax and revenue records (including
information on residence address, employer, income and
assets);
``(III) records concerning real and titled personal
property;
``(IV) records of occupational and professional licenses,
and records concerning the ownership and control of
corporations, partnerships, and other business entities;
``(V) employment security records;
``(VI) records of agencies administering public assistance
programs;
``(VII) records of the motor vehicle department; and
``(VIII) corrections records.
``(ii) Certain records held by private entities with
respect to individuals who owe or are owed support (or
against or with respect to whom a support obligation is
sought), consisting of--
``(I) the names and addresses of such individuals and the
names and addresses of the employers of such individuals, as
appearing in customer records of public utilities and cable
television companies, pursuant to an administrative subpoena
authorized by subparagraph (B); and
``(II) information (including information on assets and
liabilities) on such individuals held by financial
institutions.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, my amendment will bring the child support
enforcement language in this bill
[[Page S8121]]
in line with Federal law on privacy protections. I understand it has
been accepted by the committee, so I will keep my remarks brief. I
sincerely appreciate the help and support of the chairman, Senator
Roth, and the ranking member, Senator Moynihan.
Mr. President, part of our effort to reform the welfare system in
this country has been to ensure that parents are responsible for the
financial support of their children. Efforts to streamline the ability
of States to identify and collect child support payments from dead-beat
parents is a big part of the Personal Responsibility and Work
Opportunity Act of 1996. In our ardent effort to accomplish this,
however, we must also remain mindful of legal protections that should
be provided for private entities that would be required to supply
necessary information for the enhanced enforcement of child support
payments.
It is important to note that the private entities that will be
required to participate in the bill's support enforcement efforts
should be able to operate within the constraints of existing laws
designed to protect privacy.
Current privacy protections in Federal law (18 U.S.C. Sec. 2703),
require that private information can be provided only pursuant to a
warrant, court order, or administrative subpoena. The bill's current
provisions, which allow States to obtain information by merely
requesting it, would be in conflict with this Federal statute. Without
addressing this issue, the bill would put private entities such as
telephone companies in a needlessly difficult situation. My amendment
will resolve this problem.
In short, Mr. President, what my amendment would do is allow States
the ability to obtain this information in the simplest manner, while
complying with Federal statute, by requiring only an administrative
subpoena for the procurement of private information for the purposes of
child support enforcement. It will also provide these private entities
with the necessary protection from lawsuits.
An administrative subpoena is not an onerous or time-consuming
requirement for State agencies. In fact, in the States where it is
currently used, the device actually streamlines the process of
obtaining necessary information. Under an administrative subpoena, if
preapproved conditions and standards are met, an agency has the
authority to issue a subpoena without having to submit individual cases
for a court's approval. In fact, it is my understanding that some
States allow certain individuals, within an appropriate agency, the
authority to issue subpoenas. For example, that could include a
caseworker, who is working directly with the issue, to issue an
administrative subpoena. This procedure is recognized by courts, and
allows agencies to quickly obtain information, while providing private
entities the necessary protection from lawsuits based on the
unauthorized release of private information.
Mr. President, the private entities involved, such as telephone
companies, have a good record of complying with these requests, and
working with agencies within the constraints of the law. Given that
fact, and an expressed desire on the part of industry to be able to
continue those efforts under this legislation, this minor change needs
to be made. Otherwise, we could see a new problem arise with less
timely compliance on the part of industry, if the protections of an
administrative subpoena are not guaranteed.
As I mentioned before, I thank the committee for their assistance and
for accepting this amendment.
amendment no. 4908
(Purpose: To provide for child support enforcement agreements between
the States and Indian tribes or tribal organizations)
On page 411, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following:
``(4) Families under certain agreements.--In the case of a
family receiving assistance from an Indian tribe, distribute
the amount so collected pursuant to an agreement entered into
pursuant to a State plan under section 454(33).
On page 411, line 3, strike ``(3)'' and insert ``(4)''.
On page 554, between lines 7 and 8, insert the following:
SEC. 2375. CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT FOR INDIAN TRIBES.
(a) Child Support Enforcement Agreements.--Section 454 (42
U.S.C. 654), as amended by sections 2301(b), 2303(a),
2312(b), 2313(a), 2333, 2343(b), 2370(a)(2), and 2371(b) of
this Act is amended--
(1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (31);
(2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (32) and
inserting ``; and'';
(3) by adding after paragraph (32) the following new
paragraph:
``(33) provide that a State that receives funding pursuant
to section 428 and that has within its borders Indian country
(as defined in section 1151 of title 18, United States Code)
may enter into cooperative agreements with an Indian tribe or
tribal organization (as defined in subsections (e) and (l) of
section 4 of the Indian Self-Determination and Education
Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 450b)), if the Indian tribe or
tribal organization demonstrates that such tribe or
organization has an established tribal court system or a
Court of Indian Offenses with the authority to establish
paternity, establish, modify, and enforce support orders, and
to enter support orders in accordance with child support
guidelines established by such tribe or organization, under
which the State and tribe or organization shall provide for
the cooperative delivery of child support enforcement
services in Indian country and for the forwarding of all
funding collected pursuant to the functions performed by the
tribe or organization to the State agency, or conversely, by
the State agency to the tribe or organization, which shall
distribute such funding in accordance with such agreement;
and
(4) by adding at the end the following new sentence:
``Nothing in paragraph (33) shall void any provision of any
cooperative agreement entered into before the date of the
enactment of such paragraph, nor shall such paragraph deprive
any State of jurisdiction over Indian country (as so defined)
that is lawfully exercised under section 402 of the Act
entitled `An Act to prescribe penalties for certain acts of
violence or intimidation, and for other purposes', approved
April 11, 1968 (25 U.S.C. 1322).''.
(b) Direct Federal Funding to Indian Tribes and Tribal
Organizations.--Section 455 (42 U.S.C. 655) is amended by
adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(b) The Secretary may, in appropriate cases, make direct
payments under this part to an Indian tribe or tribal
organization which has an approved child support enforcement
plan under this title. In determining whether such payments
are appropriate, the Secretary shall, at a minimum, consider
whether services are being provided to eligible Indian
recipients by the State agency through an agreement entered
into pursuant to section 454(33).''.
(c) Cooperative Enforcement Agreements.--Paragraph (7) of
section 454 (42 U.S.C. 654) is amended by inserting ``and
Indian tribes or tribal organizations (as defined in
subsections (e) and (l) of section 4 of the Indian Self-
Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C.
450b))'' after ``law enforcement officials''.
(d) Conforming Amendment.--Subsection (c) of section 428
(42 U.S.C. 628) is amended to read as follows:
``(c) For purposes of this section, the terms `Indian
tribe' and `tribal organization' shall have the meanings
given such terms by subsections (e) and (l) of section 4 of
the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act
(25 U.S.C. 450b)), respectively.''.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues, Senators Inouye,
Domenici, and Daschle, for joining me in offering this important
amendment.
The amendment is similar to provisions adopted by the Senate during
debate last year on H.R. 4, the original welfare reform bill. The
amendment has bipartisan support, and as revised, is now endorsed by
the National Council of State Child Support Enforcement Administrators.
The non-controversial amendment I am offering should be adopted
because it addresses a long-standing problem which Indian tribes and
States have both experienced in providing child support enforcement
services and funding affecting Indian children.
The amendment would further the goals of enforcing child support
enforcement activities by encouraging State governments with Indian
lands within their borders to enter into cooperative agreements with
Indian tribal governments for the delivery of child support enforcement
services in Indian country. Let me repeat--the cooperative agreements
would be encouraged; they would not be mandated.
The amendment provides funding to achieve these purposes within the
overall spending allocated to this effort. It gives the Secretary the
authority, in specific instances, to provide direct Federal funding to
Indian tribes operating an approved child support enforcement plan.
This approach is consistent with the government-to-government
relationship between tribal governments and the Federal Government, and
the other provisions contained in the reconciliation measure.
Mr. President, the problem is this--title IV-D of the Social Security
Act
[[Page S8122]]
was enacted to assist all children in obtaining support and moving out
of poverty. Under title IV-D, State child support offices are required
to provide basic services to parents who apply for these services,
including those that receive welfare assistance. These services include
collecting and distributing child support payments from dead beat dads.
Yet this program has been of little assistance to Indian children
residing in Indian country because under title IV-D, only States are
eligible to receive Federal funds to operate IV-D programs under
Federal regulations which, as a practical matter, all but prohibits
them from providing services to Indian children on reservations.
Because of this, Indian children have lost, and will continue to lose,
vitally-needed services.
Mr. President, there is a great need for child support enforcement
funding and services in Indian country. There are approximately 557
federally-recognized Indian tribes and Alaska Native villages in the
United States. According to the most recent Bureau of Census data,
children under the age of 18 make up the largest age group of Indians.
Approximately 20.5 percent of American Indians and Alaska Natives are
under the age of 10 compared to 14 percent for the Nation's total
population. In addition, one out of every five Indian households are
headed by single females. This data reveals that the need for
coordinated child support enforcement and service delivery in Indian
country exceeds the need in the rest of America.
There are also jurisdictional barriers to effective service delivery
under IV-D programs on Indian reservations. Federal courts have held
that Indian tribes, not States, have authority over Indian child
support enforcement issues and paternity establishment of tribal
members residing and working on the reservation. These jurisdictional
safeguards, although necessary, have hampered State child support
agencies in their efforts to negotiate agreements for the provision of
services or funding to Indian tribal governments. The types of services
provided under title IV-D include genetic blood testing and other
measures used to establish paternity, and the establishment and
enforcement of child support obligations through wage withholdings and
tax intercepts. These activities fall within the exclusive jurisdiction
of the Indian tribes for reservation residents. Yet there is no
mechanism to enable tribes to receive Federal funding and assistance to
conduct these activities.
This amendment in no way forces or compels an Indian tribe or State
to act, nor does it affect well-established State or tribal
jurisdiction to establish paternity or support orders. It merely
recognizes the problems of child support collection and distribution
between States and tribes as they exist under the current system.
Simply put, this amendment encourages cooperative agreements between
two governments to satisfy the goals and purposes of uniform child
support enforcement. Let me just point out that some of these
agreements are already in place in States like Washington and Arizona.
State administrators, such as in my own State, have attempted to meet
the goals of uniform child support enforcement by extending their
efforts to Indian country, but the administrative and jurisdictional
hurdles make it all but impossible to get these services out to the
children in need. These obstacles have lead to costly litigation. The
ability of State governments to work with tribal governments to provide
these services is quite limited because Indian tribes are not mentioned
in title IV-D. The amendment would clarify that Indian children are
entitled to the same protections from deadbeat dads as all other
children in our country.
Mr. President, this problem is not new to those involved in State
child support enforcement agencies or national organizations concerned
with these issues. For instance, in 1992, the American Bar Association
and the Interstate Commission on Child Support Enforcement recognized
the problems created by the omission of Indian tribes from the title
IV-D legislation. In fact, the American Bar Association issued a
handbook for States and tribes to use in attempting to negotiate State/
tribal cooperative agreements for child support enforcement. Also in an
extensive report issued in 1992, the Interstate Commission on Child
Support Enforcement recommended that the Congress address this problem
in Federal legislation. Until now, nothing has been done to implement
this recommendation.
More recently, I received a letter from the President of the National
Council of State Child Support Enforcement Administrators in support of
the amendment I am offering. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent
that a copy of the letter appear in the Record following my remarks.
I will also say that there are several other weaknesses in our
welfare reform bill that I remain very concerned about, issues raised
by Indian tribes that have not been adequately addressed. The amendment
I am offering does not address those concerns. But I want to take this
opportunity to briefly outline the deficiencies I see.
The welfare reform legislation we have before us eliminates the Child
Protection Block Grant Program. I am concerned because the elimination
of this program takes away the funding that tribes currently receive
under the title IV-B child welfare programs.
Currently tribes receive funding under the title IV-B, subpart 1
program, known as child welfare services. The Secretary is directed to
make grants to tribes, but the law does not specify a particular
amount. Previous HHS regulations were very restrictive, and required
that only those tribes which contracted under the Indian Self-
Determination Act for all BIA social services were eligible for the IV-
B, subpart 1 program. The result was that relatively few tribes were
able to access this program. But HHS has recently revised, and greatly
improved, the regulations for funding to tribes. Beginning in fiscal
year 1996, HHS changed the IV-B Subpart 1 regulations to drop the
requirement that only those tribes which contract for BIA social
services would be eligible. The new regulations also increased the
weight given to tribes in the formula, and they combined the IV-B
incentive funds with the regular program, thus making more money
available. Tribes are still in the process of applying for Title IV-B,
subpart 1 funds under the new regulations. HHS Region X reports that
the fiscal year 1996 applications from tribes thus far represent a 3-
fold increase over those of 2 years ago. And they expect more tribes to
apply before the end of the fiscal year.
Tribes also receive under current law a statutory 1 percent
allocation under the title IV-B, subpart 2, Family Preservation and
Support Services. But the welfare reform bill under consideration in
the Senate today removes all funding for the child protection block
grant program, meaning that Indian tribes will likely lose these funds.
The House version of the bill, however, does provide for funding for
the Child Protection Block Grant, including Indian tribes. Under the
House bill, there are two streams of funding for the Child Protection
Block Grant. First, under the House bill, Indian tribes would receive 1
percent of funds under the mandatory money, or about $2.4 million
annually. And tribes would be authorized to receive .36 percent, or
about \1/3\ of 1 percent of the discretionary stream of funding. If the
discretionary program is fully appropriated, tribes would receive about
$1 million under this section of the Child Protection Block Grant. This
.36 percent reflects the amount tribes received under the very
restrictive title IV-B, subpart 1 regulations.
I urge the conferees to adopt a figure which would reflect the amount
of IV-B, Subpart 1 funds tribes would receive under the new
regulations. As a rule, the relative funding levels provided to Indian
tribes should, at the very least, not be reduced below previous levels.
I have refrained at this time from offering amendments in the Senate in
the hope that the conferees will ensure that Indian tribes are at least
held harmless on these funds in the final version of the bill at
conference. I urge the conferees to adopt the House approach in
providing direct funding to tribes under the Child Protection Block
Grant. We should make the funding under the discretionary program
consistent with the mandatory funding in the Child Protection block
grant and provide at least 1 percent for tribes.
With that, Mr. President, I ask that my colleagues accept the
amendment I am offering today that would allow
[[Page S8123]]
States and Indian tribes to cooperate on child support enforcement
activities.
There being no objection, the letter referred to was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
National Council of State Child Support Enforcement
Administrators, July 18, 1996.
Re Senator McCain's Senate Floor amendment to Senate bill
1956, the Balanced Budget Reconciliation Act.
Hon. John McCain, Chairman,
Senate Committee on Indian Affairs,
Hon. William V. Roth, Chairman,
Senate Finance Committee,
Hon. Pete V. Domenici, Chairman,
Senate Budget Committee, Washington, DC
Gentlemen: I am writing you on behalf of the National
Council of State Child Support Enforcement Administrators
(NCSCSEA) in reference to the amendment offered on the Senate
floor by Senator McCain regarding child support enforcement
services to Native Americans.
The amendment has been reviewed by the members of NCSCSEA's
Committee on Native American Children. Although not all
members of the Committee have responded on the amendment, a
majority of the Committee members have indicated their
support of it. Therefore, I feel comfortable expressing
NCSCSEA's support for this amendment.
We feel this is an important step toward the goal of
providing all children the benefits of child support
enforcement. On behalf of NCSCSEA, I want to express our
appreciation to Senator McCain for his efforts on this
important issue.
Sincerely,
Leslie L. Frye,
President.
AMENDMENT NO. 4909
(Purpose: To require a State plan for foster care and adoption
assistance to provide for the protection of the rights of families,
using adult relatives as the preferred placement for children separated
from their parents where such relatives meet the relevant State child
protection standards)
At the end of chapter 7, of subtitle A, of title II, add
the following:
SEC. ____. KINSHIP CARE.
Section 471(a) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
671(a)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (16);
(2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (17) and
inserting ``; and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(18) provides that States shall give preference to an
adult relative over a non-related caregiver when determining
a placement for a child, provided that the relative caregiver
meets all relevant State child protection standards.''.
Mr. COATS. Mr. President, each year, scores of abused, neglected, and
abandoned children are herded into the world of child protection to be
cared for by strangers. For many of these children, foster care will be
a refuge, for others, a nightmare. Being separated from a parent is
never easy, but we can make the transition smoother by looking to
relatives when a child must be removed from his home.
And so I wish, with my colleague from Oregon, to introduce the
kinship care amendment. This amendment encourages States to use adult
relatives as the preferred placement option for children separated from
their parents. We are introducing this amendment because we feel
strongly that if a child has to be separated from their parents for a
period of time, that separation should be as smooth as possible.
Kinship care is a time honored tradition in most cultures. Care of
children by kin is strongly tied to family preservation. These
relationships may stabilize family situations, ensure the protection of
children, and prevent the need to separate children from their parents
and place them in a formal foster care arrangement within the child
welfare system.
Yet, rather than encourage relative or kinship care some States have
made it increasingly difficult for relatives to provide care for their
own. Immense financial, emotional, and regulatory challenges are often
barriers willing kinship caregivers.
The amendment I am offering is consistent with current law. The
Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980, Public Law 96-272,
requires that when children are separated from their parents and placed
in the custody of a public child welfare agency, the State must place
them in the least restrictive alternative available. While relatives
are not expressly mentioned, this requirement has been interpreted by
many child welfare practitioners as a preference for placement with
relatives when separation from parents must occur.
Mr. President, this amendment is also consistent with previous
positions I have taken on this matter. In S. 919, the 1995 amendments
to the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act which was passed
unanimously by the Labor Committee, includes a kinship care
demonstration project. This demonstration project, which is
administered by the Secretary of HHS, awards grants to public entities
to assist in developing or implementing procedures using adult
relatives as the preferred placement for children removed from their
home, when those relatives are found to be capable of providing a safe,
nurturing environment for the child.
Additionally, S. 1904, the Project for American Renewal, includes The
Kinship Care Act which creates a $30 million demonstration program for
States to use adult relatives as the preferred placement option for
children separated from their parents.
Mr. President, this country is truly facing a very serious crisis
concerning many of our children.
By the end of 1992, 442,000 children were in foster care, up from
276,000 in 1985, at a Federal cost in fiscal year 1993 of $2.6 billion.
The population of children in foster care is expected to exceed 500,000
by the end of 1996.
The National Foster Parent Association reports that between 1985 and
1990, the number of foster families declined by 27 percent while the
number of children in out of home care increased by 47 percent.
Children placed for foster care with relatives grew from 18 percent
to 31 percent of the foster care caseload from 1986 through 1990 in 25
States that supplied information to the Department of Health and Human
Services.
Children in kinship care are less likely to experience multiple
placements than their counterparts in family foster care. Of the
children who entered California's foster care system in 1988, for
example, only about 23 percent of those placed initially with kin
experienced another placement, while 58 percent of children living with
unrelated foster families experienced at least one subsequent placement
during the following 3.5 years.
This amendment will: Ensure that grandparents and other adult
relatives will be first in line to care for children who would
otherwise be forced into foster care or adoption; strengthen the
ability of families to rely on their own family members as resources.
It will also help soften the trauma that occurs when children are
separated from their parents. Living with relatives that they know and
trust will give these children more immediate stability during this
painful transition; and provide a hopeful alternative to traditional
foster care.
I hope that all my colleagues can see the critical importance of
ensuring that children who are in need of out-of-home placement will be
placed with relatives who they know and trust, rather than strangers.
Please join me and Senator Wyden in supporting the kinship care
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, those amendments now
are agreed to.
The amendments (Nos. 4906 through 4909), en bloc, were agreed to.
Mr. ROTH. I yield back the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana is recognized.
Amendment No. 4910
(Purpose: To ensure needy children receive noncash assistance to
provide for basic needs until the Federal 5-year time limit applies)
Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk under the
previous order and ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Louisiana [Mr. Breaux] proposes an
amendment numbered 4910.
Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
Section 408(a)(8) of the Social Security Act, as added by
section 2103(a)(1), is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(E) Effects of denial of cash assistance.--
``(i) Provision of vouchers.--In the event that a family is
denied cash assistance because of a time limit imposed under
this paragraph--
``(I) in the event that a family is denied cash assistance
because of a time limit imposed at the option of a State that
is less
[[Page S8124]]
than 60 months, a State shall provide vouchers to the family
in accordance with clause (iii); and
``(II) in the event that a family is denied cash assistance
because of the 60 month time limit imposed pursuant to this
paragraph, a State may provide vouchers to the family in
accordance with such clause.
``(ii) Other assistance.--The--
``(I) eligibility of a family that receives a voucher under
clause (i) for any other Federal or federally assisted
program based on need, shall be determined without regard to
the voucher; and
``(II) such a family shall be considered to be receiving
cash assistance in the amount of the assistance provided in
the voucher for purposes of determining the amount of any
assistance provided to the family under any other such
program.
``(iii) Voucher requirements.--A voucher provided to a
family under clause (i) shall be based on a State's
assessment of the needs of a child of the family and shall
be--
``(I) determined based on the basic subsistence needs of
the child;
``(II) designed appropriately to pay third parties for
shelter, goods, and services received by the child; and
``(III) payable directly to such third parties.
Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President and my colleagues, this is the amendment
that has been referred to as the so-called voucher amendment which we
have authored.
I would point out that the legislation which originally came to the
Senate from the House was much more reasonable in this area than the
bill that is now before the Senate, which is the reason for this
amendment.
What we are basically talking about is the situation of what happens
to children after we cut off a parent from a welfare program. Everybody
wants to cut the parent off if they are not doing what they are
supposed to be doing. We want to really be tough on parents. We are
really going to be tough about work. We want to put work first. But we
should not put children last.
That is what I am trying to get at. I do not think there is a lot of
difference between the position of my Republican colleagues and
Democrats on this issue. We have time limits on the bill. Everybody
agrees we ought to have time limits now. At least most people agree we
ought to have time limits. We said in this legislation there was going
to be a maximum period of time someone could be on welfare, and after
that, they are off.
A State under our legislation can pick a time limit of shorter than 5
years. They can make it 24 months. My State is probably going to do
that. Many other States are going to make it a lot shorter than 5
years.
So we are saying to parents, we are going to be very tough on you; we
are going to make you realize that welfare is not forever, that it is
temporary. We want you to get a job. We want you to go to work. We want
you to earn a check and not just get a check.
That is what all of this debate is basically about, trying to get
people off welfare into the work force. I agree with that. I think most
people in this body share that desire as well. Let us face it. Most
people on welfare are not parents. Most people on welfare are children.
And the majority of those children are young children. The majority of
those children cannot get a job. They cannot work. Most of them do not
even go to school because they are too young.
So the point is, when we get tough on parents, fine, but how many
people want to get tough on innocent children who did not ask to be
born? I think we as a Nation have a responsibility to make sure that
while we get as tough as we can on parents, we do not harm innocent
children at the same time.
Here is the problem. Under the Republican plan that is now pending
before the Senate, if, after 5 years, a person is taken off welfare,
there can be no assistance to children. There cannot be any vouchers to
children. There can be no noncash assistance to children after 5 years.
They are gone. I can agree that the parent may be gone as far as
Federal assistance or State assistance. I do not agree that a young,
innocent child, maybe 2 or 3 years old, should be neglected and
forgotten by their country.
That is the principal problem, because it forbids any type of
assistance even to children, which are the majority of the people on
welfare. Two-thirds of all people on AFDC assistance are children. In
my State of Louisiana, 34.5 percent of all children are living in
conditions below the poverty line--34.5 percent of the children living
in Louisiana are at the poverty level or lower. So why should I as a
Senator say that after the parent is taken off welfare, I am also for
taking the child off any help or assistance?
Is that what America is all about? I suggest it is not. We ought to
be talking about putting children first in what we are trying to do for
the future. The Republican plan, if the State takes a 2, 3 or 4-year
period, allows them to give assistance but does not require it. And
this is Federal money.
In my State, the State puts up 28 percent, and the Federal Government
puts up 72 percent. Should we not, as managers of the money we raise,
say to the States they should use those funds to take care of innocent
children?
So the Breaux amendment which is now pending says to States, after 5
years, they can use funds that they are getting in their block grant to
help children, and it requires the States to do that if they pick a
period to cut off the parent in a period shorter than 5 years.
Let me tell you what we do with the amendment. It is absolutely,
totally flexible in what it would allow. No. 1, the State, as they do
when they select people on welfare, does an assessment. They do an
assessment that determines whether this family should be on welfare.
They know what the income level is; they know if they have a house or a
car or truck or clothes or what have you. They make an assessment. They
decide whether the person is eligible for welfare assistance or not.
They know things about the family already.
What my amendment simply says is that a voucher under conditions that
we have set out--for instance, mandating it if the period is less than
5 years--shall be based on the State's assessment of the needs of the
child. The State makes the determination that the child is needy. If
they make a determination that the child is in need, then that State
will pay to third parties, for shelter, for goods, for services,
clothing for the child if they need clothes, diapers if it is an infant
and they cannot afford diapers in the family, a crib or medicine. How
many people want to say we are not going to provide medicine for an
innocent child because we kicked the child off welfare? How many people
want to say we do not want to pay for medicine you need to survive? Or
how many people want to say if the child wants to go to school and has
no money to buy school supplies, that we, as a nation, are going to say
to the children of America we are not going to help you buy school
supplies to go? That is all we are saying.
We are telling the State: You make the assessments. You determine if
there is a need. If you determine there is a need, for heaven's sake,
let us make sure we take care of the child. Not with cash. There is no
money here. We are talking about in-kind vouchers so they could go to a
third party: Maybe it is a Wal-Mart, maybe it is the local drug store,
maybe it is a grocery store to get the food, but to take care of the
child. The parent does not get the cash. There is no cash. The third
party would get it, under my amendment, payable directly to third
parties. The third party gets the money and uses those funds to take
care of the children who did not ask to be born, who are innocent
victims here. And we better start treating them better or we are going
to have more people on welfare, not less.
Are we going to allow children to get sick and just neglect them?
Some say there is Federal money available under title 20. Great, $2
billion a year and it goes to the elderly and goes to programs like
Meals on Wheels and child care and everything else. Some will say this
title 20, they can use it for that. ``There ain't no money left.''
There is no money in title 20. It has been frozen practically since we
instituted the program. If they have food stamps, then the State
determines that if the child is getting food stamps they do not need
any of this.
Really, what we are saying is let us be fair and treat children fair
in this country. Let us be as tough as we possibly can on the parent
who refuses to work. But for heaven's sake, we as a nation owe
something to the children of America. The Breaux amendment, I think,
would do just that.
I reserve any time I may still have left.
[[Page S8125]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania is recognized.
Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I yield myself 5 minutes.
Mr. President, this is a nice idea that is unnecessary. The current
legislation very well takes care of what problem the Senator from
Louisiana has laid out in his vouchers for children amendment. The
Senator from Louisiana suggests, and correctly suggests, in the first 5
years of the program, when someone enters the program, under the
Republican bill the States are allowed--are allowed to provide a
voucher program for those who disqualify themselves, usually, in most
cases, because they refuse to comply with the law there, by not
working. I should say those are people who are still eligible for a
voucher. The States can use Federal dollars to provide those vouchers.
OK? So it allows the State to provide a voucher using Federal dollars.
What the Senator from Louisiana wants to do is, frankly, an
additional cost to the State and not a requirement of the State. What
he requires the State to do is an assessment after someone has broken
their eligibility for welfare within the 5-year time period. He
requires the State to do an assessment of the family to determine
whether the children in that family are in need now, now that mom has
decided not to go to work.
So, an additional assessment is necessary under his plan. So they are
required to do the assessment. What they are not required to do is
provide a voucher. It is up to the State whether they want to provide
that voucher or not. That, to me, is a cost and the State will say:
Look, if you are going to make us do the assessment we will spend the
money we would have spent maybe providing the vouchers, doing the
assessment and not help anybody. So I think it is well intentioned but
it could actually have the reverse effect, of getting fewer vouchers
approved for those people within that 5-year window.
On the other side of the 5-year window, again I think the Senator
from Louisiana has missed the mark. He is correct, his amendment allows
States to use the block grant funds for the AFDC block grant. It allows
them to use those funds for vouchers after 5 years. That is what his
amendment does. Our bill does not allow you to use the block grant
funds in the AFDC block grant, now it is called the TANF block grant,
for vouchers. But what we do allow under current law is to use title 20
block grant money for that provision of services.
So there are several block grants we are giving to the State. One is
the block grant to the States for social services. It is an existing
block grant and there is nothing in this law--in fact I will read it.
``Services which are directed at the goals set forth in this section,
2001, include, but are not limited to . . .'' and it includes child
care services and a whole bunch of other things. It is very clear
within this block grant, the Governors, the legislature if they want to
provide it, can give Federal dollars for a voucher program after the 5-
year time limit is expired. They have Federal dollars right here to do
it.
We are all talking about the same pot of money. The Senator from
Louisiana does not put up more money to provide vouchers after 5 years.
We have the same pots of money here. All we are suggesting is we want--
and here is the difference. If you want to know the difference between
what the Senator from Louisiana wants to do and what the Republican
bill wants to do--I should put it this way.
The Republicans want all the block-granted funds for AFDC to go in
the first 5 years, to concentrate that money to get people off welfare.
We do not want any of those funds diverted to maintain people on
welfare. We want all that money spent in the first 5 years. We believe
we want every conceivable dollar we can get to get people up and going
and off so we do not have to worry about the next 5 years.
By spending less the first 5 you guarantee people will be there at
the end, and we do not want to do that. We want to make sure it is all
spent. If there is a problem after the 5-year period, then we will say:
Look, there are some other Federal dollars out here. If you want to use
those dollars, you are certainly welcome to use those dollars. In
addition, obviously there is nothing in either of these bills that
prohibits the State from using State dollars to fund a voucher program
after the 5-year period.
Mr. FORD. Will the distinguished Senator yield for one question?
Mr. SANTORUM. I will be happy to yield.
Mr. FORD. Did the Republican welfare bill that was passed last year,
the one that was proposed last year, have in it the same thing that the
Senator from Louisiana is trying to propose now? In this bill have you
restricted it more than the previous bill?
Mr. SANTORUM. You have two questions there, actually, in order to
give the answer.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will say to the Senator, the time of
the Senator has expired.
Mr. SANTORUM. I yield myself an additional 30 seconds.
It is restrictive in some respects; in some it is not. We do not
require in the first 5 years--in the original bill you have to do these
reviews and have to provide some service, so that is not the same. The
Breaux amendment in fact goes further. In the second 5 years there was
an allowance in the conference report, I believe, and I can check on
that, that after 5 years they could use Federal funds.
Mr. FORD. I say to the Senator I do not believe--you allowed
noncash----
Mr. SANTORUM. Correct.
Mr. FORD. At the discretion of the State. Now you are not allowing
it, you are cutting it off at the end of 5 years.
Mr. SANTORUM. I think that was in the conference report and not the
Senate bill, but I will check on that.
Mr. FORD. It was somewhat different. You allowed it before and now
you say you cannot.
Mr. SANTORUM. But we do not go as far as, I believe in the wrong
direction, the Breaux amendment goes at this time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, how much time do we have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana has 2 minutes and
50 seconds.
Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, let me just make a couple of comments. I
do not want to belabor this point. When the Senate votes tomorrow, it
is going to be faced with the question of how do we do welfare reform?
Do we do welfare reform by being tough on parents who refuse to work?
Or are we going to be tough on kids who do not have a choice in life?
I think this country, as strong as we are, should be as tough as we
possibly can on deadbeat parents or parents who do not want to work or
refuse to work, whatever the reason. But we should not take it out on
innocent children who did not ask to be born.
This amendment simply says that, after a family has been taken off
AFDC assistance, we should at least allow the States to use their block
grant money they already get to pay for vouchers to give to third
parties to provide for the needs of children whose parents have been
kicked off AFDC assistance.
This is a child, and most of the people on welfare are children. Over
two-thirds are children, and those children are poor children. I am
merely saying with my amendment that we should at least allow--and the
Republican bill says it is forbidden--at least allow a State to use its
block grant money to aid a child with in-kind assistance, not with cash
dollars to the parent, not with cash money to the child, but in-kind
contributions to help that child survive, in many cases in terms of
getting food, in terms of getting clothing, in terms of getting
diapers, yes, or in terms of getting medicine.
The Republican bill forbids it. This amendment says we allow the
State to do it. It simply says, if the State is going to cut them off
after a shorter period of time, we ought to require them to do that.
The State makes a determination whether there is a need. The State
makes a determination what kind of benefits they get, how much and for
how long. This is truly in keeping with the block grant concept that
the States should have the maximum flexibility in this particular area.
The National Governors' Association endorses this, and a majority of
them are Republicans. They said, ``Don't prevent us from doing this if
we want to do it.'' That is the NGA position. They have sent a formal,
written letter to those of us on the committee which
[[Page S8126]]
says, ``Please do not prohibit us from helping children if we want to
help children.''
The Republican bill is absolutely contrary to the NGA position. Even
more, it is contrary to what this country is about, and that is give an
opportunity for children to survive.
I think without this amendment we make a very strong statement that
we are going to be so tough we are going to step on the rights and
futures of the children of this country. That is not what this Congress
is about; that is not what this country is about. I suggest this
amendment be adopted.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator from Louisiana has
expired.
Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I want to make two quick responses. No.
1, the Senator from Kentucky is absolutely right, it was in the
conference report, but I tell the Senator from Kentucky, it was not in
the House bill, it was not in the Senate bill, and I have been informed
by staff it was a drafting error in the conference report. It was a
mistake on the part of the drafters in putting that in. It was not
intended policy by either body to include what the Breaux amendment
does.
I think one of the reasons is--and I get back to the fact that there
are Federal dollars out there for the States to use for that last 5
years, and I think that is more than generous and complies with what
the Governors want to do, which is to have Federal dollars available
for the voucher program after the 5-year period.
Mr. FORD. Mr. President, may I just say to the Senator from
Pennsylvania, it is strange to blame staff.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, how much time remains?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Two minutes 30 seconds remain.
The Senator from Delaware is recognized.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I reiterate what my distinguished colleague
from Pennsylvania has said. First of all, the States are still free to
use title XX money for whatever purpose they see fit. So it is not
accurate to say that funds are shut off so that children cannot be
helped.
I point out that even with the 5-year time limit to implement the
important welfare reforms we are considering, families receiving
Government assistance will still be eligible for more than 80 means-
tested programs. That is quite a few. These programs range from food
stamps, WIC, health care, to section 8 low-income housing. In other
words, placing a 5-year time limit on implementing our welfare reform
package is not Government pulling away a lifeline; rather, it is
Government encouraging people to swim and giving them the time
necessary to learn.
Mr. President, I believe we must keep the 5-year time limit, and I
encourage my colleagues to see that we do. I encourage them to join me
in seeing that real and necessary reforms take place in a real and
positive way.
Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time on the amendment has expired.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I make a point of order against the Breaux
amendment on the grounds that it is nongermane under sections 305 and
310 of the Budget Act.
Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the
Congressional Budget Act, I move to waive all applicable points of
order under that act for the purposes of the Breaux amendment.
I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The vote will be delayed under the previous
order.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, what is the order of business? Was there
agreement as to the order? I was not sure whether the Senator from
North Carolina--I am told he has 3 minutes; is that correct? I do not
want to usurp his order.
Mr. FAIRCLOTH. I think the order is Senator Abraham.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will clarify it was not a unanimous
consent agreement, it was a general understanding that the Senator from
North Carolina would proceed.
Mr. BIDEN. As I understand it, Mr. President, it was a general
understanding that after the Senator from North Carolina finished, the
Senators from Pennsylvania and Delaware would have the floor to offer
their amendment. That was my understanding. I know it is not a UC.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. I have Senator Faircloth, Senator Biden,
Senator Santorum.
Mr. BIDEN. I assume we will do that. If we do not, I will not yield
the floor.
So I ask unanimous consent that upon the completion of the 6 minutes
on the Faircloth amendment, then myself and Senator Specter be
recognized to offer our amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to that?
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I have been trying to get----
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator reserve the right to object?
Mr. WELLSTONE. Reserving the right to object, can I ask unanimous
consent that I be in order after the Biden-Specter amendment?
Mr. SANTORUM. No. I object.
Mr. DOMENICI. We already placed the Senator from Minnesota and
indicated when he is going to come up. We indicated that at least
informally.
Mr. WELLSTONE. When is that? I might ask.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair informs the Senator from Minnesota,
the Senator from New Mexico is correct. Under a general agreement, not
a unanimous-consent agreement, the Senator is due to be recognized
after the Senator from Missouri, Senator Ashcroft.
The Chair will clarify: Senators Faircloth, Biden, Santorum, Harkin,
Ashcroft, Wellstone, Graham and Dodd.
Mr. DOMENICI. Wellstone has two.
Mr. FORD. Wellstone has two.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Mr. President, I am ready to proceed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina is recognized.
Amendment No. 4911
(Purpose: To address multi-generational welfare dependency)
Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Mr. President, I have an amendment that I send to the
desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from North Carolina [Mr. Faircloth] proposes an
amendment numbered 4911.
Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 245, line 22, insert ``and subparagraph (C),''
after ``(B)''.
on page 249, between lines 14 and 15, insert the following:
``(C) Requirement that adult relative or guardian not have
a history of assistance.--A State shall not use any part of
the grant paid under section 403 to provide cash assistance
to an individual described in subparagraph (B)(ii) if such
individual resides with a parent, guardian, or other adult
relative who is receiving assistance under a State program
funded under this part and has been receiving this assistance
for a 3-year period.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for 3 minutes.
Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Mr. President, this amendment is intended to address
the problem of multigenerational welfare dependency. In other words,
this is an attempt to cut off the money, to break the cycle of welfare
dependency.
The bill before us requires that minor children be required to live
with the parent to receive assistance. I agree with this. But,
unfortunately, in many cases that parent or, as it might turn out to
be, grandparent to the child to be born, has a history of dependency
herself and has continuously for a long time been dependent upon
welfare and Aid to Families with Dependent Children, to cash payments.
My amendment says simply that if the parent is currently receiving
welfare, and has been for a 3-year period, that the minor may not
receive cash benefits.
This amendment is not intended to reduce benefits. States are not
prohibited from giving noncash benefits. This amendment will simply
prevent more cash from going to a household with a clear history of
welfare dependency. In its very simplest terms, if the grandmother of
this child to be born or that has just been born has been on welfare
for 3 continuous years, then the mother of the child cannot receive a
check,
[[Page S8127]]
a cash check benefit. She can receive all other benefits, food stamps,
diapers, whatever would be appropriate, medical care. But two cash
checks cannot go to the same household.
Mr. President, I think this is what we are trying to do, to cut out
the dependency upon direct Government taxpayers' cash money. This will
do it in this case. I yield the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from North
Carolina does have 30 seconds remaining. Who yields time?
Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I do not believe there is anyone on our side
who would like to take the 3 minutes. I understood the Senator from
North Carolina yielded back his time.
Mr. FAIRCLOTH. I yield back my time.
Mr. FORD. On behalf of the floor manager, I yield back the 3 minutes
on our side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back. All time on the
amendment has expired.
Mr. BIDEN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
Amendment No. 4912
(Purpose: To provide for a complete substitute.)
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for
its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Delaware [Mr. Biden], for himself and Mr.
Specter, proposes an amendment numbered 4912.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under
``Amendments Submitted.'')
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Pennsylvania.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the pending amendment is the substance of
a bill which the distinguished Senator from Delaware, Senator Biden,
and I introduced some time ago, Senate bill 1867. This bill was
introduced as a companion bill to H.R. 3266, which was a bipartisan
bill introduced by Congressman Castle of Delaware and Congressman
Tanner.
The purpose of this effort was to try to find a bipartisan way to
move to agreement on welfare reform. At that time, in the context of
the muddled situation which was then presented, welfare reform was
stalled because, after the Senate approved a welfare reform bill by a
vote of 87 to 12, and the House passed its own bill, and then the
conference report produced legislation which was divided pretty much
along party lines, when the conference report came out of the Congress
that bill was vetoed by the President.
There has been a general consensus in America that welfare reform is
necessary with President Clinton's famous statement, ``We need to
reform welfare as we know it.'' There has been a very considerable
effort in both Houses to have welfare reform. When welfare reform was
stalled, Congressman Castle and Congressman Tanner introduced the
bipartisan bill in the House, and Senator Biden and I followed suit
with a bipartisan bill in the Senate.
Thereafter, the Budget Committee reported out a new welfare reform
bill, Senate bill 1956. Having started with a bipartisan effort with
Senator Biden, I intend to continue that. It is my view that, in a
side-by-side comparison of the committee report contrasted with the
original Biden-Specter bill, our bill is preferable, although candidly
they are very close.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion of my
remarks, a 7-page summary of the comparison of the welfare reform
proposals, of the budget reconciliation bill, S. 1956, compared to the
Biden-Specter, bill be printed in the Record, together with a 1-page
summary of the major differences in the welfare proposals.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 1.)
Mr. SPECTER. Briefly, Mr. President, I will itemize six of these
issues which I believe show the superiority of the Biden-Specter bill
over the committee report as embraced in Senate bill 1956.
The first difference is that the budget reconciliation bill
eliminates child-care safety standards from existing law, whereas the
Biden-Specter bill maintains those child-care safety standards, which I
submit are very important.
The second significant difference in provisions is that in the Biden-
Specter bill there is an individual responsibility contract, while the
budget reconciliation bill has none. This individual responsibility
contract is an agreement entered into by the Government on one side and
the welfare recipient on the other, which specifies the
responsibilities of each, which I submit is a significant step forward
and is desirable to have in the legislation.
The third significant activity is that the Biden-Specter bill
provides funding for work-activities funding, which is a very important
element. There is some contention that this may put us out of order in
terms of funding, but it is my understanding that on the Castle-Tanner
bill, the identical bill, there was a budget estimate which puts us
within the appropriate range.
The fourth significant difference is on the safety net provisions.
The budget reconciliation bill has the States prohibited from using
Federal funds to provide vouchers after the 5-year time limit. Under
Biden-Specter, there is a State option for such benefits, to both
children and adults, after 5 years. It is my submission that leaving
the State option is preferable to having an absolute Federal
prohibition in line with the general theory of leaving the State
options.
The fifth significant difference relates to food stamps, where there
is a retention of the entitlement under the Biden-Specter bill,
contrasted with the budget reconciliation bill, which gives a State
option for a block grant.
Overall, the Biden-Specter bill does not contain entitlements. But on
this one item, food stamps, there is a retention of this existing
entitlement because of our consideration that food stamps are so
important, so basic that there ought not to be the option for the
States to eliminate food stamps.
The Sixth item relates to immigrant exceptions, where the Biden-
Specter bill retains the exemptions or has an identical provision as to
the retention of immigrant exceptions under the budget reconciliation
bill as to exempting refugees, veterans, and military personnel. But we
add to it disabled children, victims of domestic abuse, and all
children in the case of food stamps.
Mr. President, we are in a very complex matter here. It is my hope
that the Congress will adopt welfare reform legislation which will be
signed by the President and that the gridlock will not continue. In
maintaining my support for Senate bill 1867, I understand that the
budget reconciliation bill, Senate bill 1956 has the support of a
majority of Republicans, but having started all this effort to have a
bipartisan legislative proposal with Congressmen Castle and Tanner
joining Senator Biden and I, I intend to stay there.
I do believe there are some beneficial provisions which are included
in Biden-Specter which are not present in the budget reconciliation
bill. For these reasons, I urge Members to support this amendment which
Senator Biden and I are proposing this evening.
Exhibit 1
COMPARISON OF WELFARE REFORM PROPOSALS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget
reconciliation (S. Bipartisan Reform
1956, as approved by Act (Biden-Specter,
Finance and reported S. 1867) (Tanner-
by Budget) Castle, H.R. 3266)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GRANTS TO STATES
Cash Assistance Block Grant. Ends AFDC Same.
entitlement and
combines AFDC, EA,
and JOBS into a
block grant to the
states. Funding
totals $16.4
billion annually.
[[Page S8128]]
Maintenance-of-Effort....... 80% of FY 94 85% of FY 94
spending on AFDC spending on AFDC
and related and related
programs. programs.
Percentage could be Percentage could
lowered to as low range anywhere from
as 72% for ``high 80% to 90%,
performance'' depending on a
states (see state's success in
performance bonus meeting the work
section below). participation
requirements.
Supplemental Grant.......... $800 million fund Same.
for states with
high population
growth and/or below
average AFDC
benefits.
Loan Fund................... $1.7 billion loan Same.
fund, which must be
repaid with
interest within 3
years.
Contingency Funds........... $2 billion Same, except (1)
contingency fund minor differences
for states with in triggers to
high unemployment qualify; (2) if the
rates or increases fund is exhausted
in food stamp as a result of a
caseload. State national or
maximum equal to regional recession,
20% of block grant. additional money
States must would be added to
maintain 100% of the fund; and (3)
state spending in state maximum equal
order to tap to 40% of block
contingency funds. grant minus the
supplemental grant
a state receives.
Work Activities Funding..... No provision........ $3 billion work fund
available beginning
in FY 1999 for
states that
maintain 100% of
state spending on
work programs and
match federal funds
at the Medicaid
rate.
Illegitimacy Bonus.......... States that reduced Same.
their out-of-
wedlock birth rates
without increasing
their abortion
rates would be
eligible for
additional funding
equal to 5% to 10%
of block grant.
Performance Bonus........... $200 million per No provision.
year, beginning in
FY 1999, available
to states with
``high
performance,'' as
determined by a
formula to be
developed by HHS.
Each state's
performance bonus
could not exceed 5%
of block grant.
CHILD CARE
Child Care Block Grant...... $13.8 billion over 6 Same.
years in guaranteed
funding (annual
amount increases
each year). An
additional $1
billion per year is
authorized and
subject to annual
appropriations.
Child Care Maintenance of To receive funds Same, except states
Effort. above base must maintain 100%
allocation ($9.3 of FY 95 spending
billion), states on child care.
must maintain 100%
of FY 94 or FY 95
spending on child
care, whichever is
greater, and match
federal funds at
the Medicaid rate.
Transfer of Funds........... States may transfer States may transfer
up to 30% of cash up to 20% of cash
block grant to block grant to
child care. child care.
Health and Safety Standards. Eliminates health/ Maintains health/
safety standards safety standards
for child care for child care
providers. providers.
TIME LIMITS
Time Limits................. 5 years (less at a Same.
state's option, but
no less than 2
years).
Hardship Exception.......... States can exempt Same.
20% of caseload
from the time limit
for reasons of
hardship or abuse/
extreme cruelty.
Safety Net.................. States prohibited If states have time
from using federal limit of less than
funds to provide 5 years, in-kind/
vouchers after the voucher benefits
five-year time must be provided to
limit. kids. State option
for such benefits
to both kids and
adults after 5
years.
WORK
Individual Responsibility No provision........ To be eligible for
Contract. benefits,
individuals must
sign an individual
responsibility
contract.
Work Requirements........... Welfare recipients Same.
must work after two
years of receiving
assistance.
Work Participation Rate..... States must have the States must have the
following following
percentages of percentages of
welfare recipients welfare recipients
working: FY 97-- working: FY 97--
25%; FY 98--30%; FY 20%; FY 98--25%; FY
99--35%; FY 00-- 99--30%; FY 00--
40%; FY 01--45% 35%; FY 01--40%; FY
FY02--50%. 02--50%.
Financial Penalties on States that failed No provision. (See
States. to meet the work maintenance-of-
participation rate effort section
would lose 5% of above.)
their block grant
in the first year,
10% in the second
year, 15% in the
third year, etc.
Hourly Work Requirements.... To count as work, To count as work,
individuals would individuals would
be required to work be required to work
the following hours the following hours
each week: FY 97- each week: FY 97-
98--20; FY 99-25; 98--20; FY 99--25.
FY 00-01--30; FY
02--35.
Work Requirement Exemption.. State option to Same, except there
exempt from work is no one-year
requirement those aggregate lifetime
with children under cap per family.
age 1, with one-
year lifetime
aggregate exemption
per family. Those
with children under
age 6 are required
to work 20 hours
per week.
Child Care Exemption........ States cannot Same, except applies
penalize those who to those with
refuse to work if children under age
they have children six.
under age eleven
and cannot find or
cannot afford child
care.
Work Activities............. ``Work'' is defined Same. Also,
as employment; on- individuals leaving
the-job training; welfare for work,
work experience; and working at
community service; least 25 hours per
job search week, would count
activities (for 4 toward the state
weeks, or for 12 participation
weeks if state requirement for six
unemployment months.
exceeds national
average); and
vocational training
(for 12 months and
no more than 20
percent of
caseload).
Teenagers in
secondary school
would be considered
``working.''.
TEENAGERS
Teen Parents................ In order to receive Same.
cash assistance,
unmarried teens
under the age of 18
must stay in school
and live at home or
in another adult-
supervised setting.
Denial of Benefits to State option........ Same.
Unmarried Minors.
Federal Strategy to Prevent Requires HHS to Same.
Teen Pregnancies. establish a
strategy for
preventing out-of-
wedlock teen
pregnancies and
have a teen
pregnancy
prevention program
in 25% of all U.S.
communities.
OTHER CASH ASSISTANCE PROVISIONS
Family Cap.................. Federal mandate, Same.
with state ability
to opt out.
Existing Waivers............ States with existing Same.
welfare waivers
would have the
option to continue
to operate under
their waivers,
regardless of the
provisions of this
bill. However,
funding for that
state would be the
amount under the
block grant.
Transitional Medicaid....... Provides Medicaid Retains current law
coverage during a of one-year
one-year transition transition Medicaid
period for those coverage for all
who leave welfare welfare recipients
for work as long as who leave welfare
family income is for work.
below the poverty
line.
State Accountability........ States must Same, except that
establish the federal
procedures to government must
ensure that approve state
eligibility and welfare plans and
benefits are therefore has
determined in a oversight on
fair and equitable fairness and due
manner--and that process
similar families requirements.
are treated
similarly. States
must have due
process procedures
for those denied
assistance.
CHILD SUPPORT
Licenses/Passports.......... Requires states to Same.
have laws
suspending drivers,
professional,
occupation, and
recreational
licenses for
overdue child
support. Federal
government will
deny or suspend
passports to those
with arrears in
excess of $5,000.
Paternity Establishment..... Increases the Same.
paternity
establishment rate
from 75% to 90%.
States that fail to
meet this
percentage would
have their block
grant reduced.
Distribution of Child Beginning FY 1998, Same.
Support. arrearages
collected after
family leaves
welfare would be
paid to family
(unless collected
through IRS
intercept).
Beginning FY 2001,
pre-welfare
arrearages would be
paid to family
(unless collected
through IRS
intercept). Ends
$50 pass through.
Automation.................. States must have Same.
central registry of
child support cases
and support orders--
and an automated
directory of new
hires. Also, states
must operate a
centralized unit to
collect and
disburse all child
support orders.
Increases funding
for states for
systems automation.
Individual Cooperation...... Individuals Same, except the
receiving cash minimum penalty
assistance who fail would be the amount
to cooperate in of family
establishing assistance
paternity or attributable to the
collecting child adult.
support would have
family benefit
reduced at least
25%. States could
deny all benefits
to the family.
Interstate Enforcement...... Requires states to Same.
enact Uniform
Interstate Family
Support Act and
have expedited
procedures for
interstate cases.
Creates forms for
use in collection
of interstate
orders. Requires
states to respond
within 5 days to a
request by another
state for
enforcement of an
order.
Work Requirement............ States must have Same.
procedures to
ensure that
noncustodial
parents in arrears
have a plan for
payment or
participate in work
programs.
Grandparent Liability....... State option to hold Same.
parents of
noncustodial minor
parent (the
grandparents of the
child receiving
welfare)
responsible for
child support.
Health Care Support......... Requires states to Same.
have procedures to
ensure that all
child support
orders include the
provision of health
care benefits for
the child.
[[Page S8129]]
Access/Visitation........... Creates grants for Same.
states to establish
programs and
systems of access
and visitation for
noncustodial
parents.
SSI FOR CHILDREN
Eligibility................. Eliminates Same.
comparable severity
standard,
Individual
Functional
Assessment (IFA),
and references to
maladaptive
behavior.
Establishes new
definition of
disability for
children.
Grandfather Clause.......... All children Same, except that
currently receiving the earliest
SSI benefits must disenrollment date
be reevaluated is January 1, 1997.
under the new
definition. But, no
child currently
receiving benefits
would be
disenrolled before
June 30, 1997.
Continuing Reviews.......... Disability reviews Same.
must be conducted
at least every
three years for
children under age
18. Representative
payees must prove
that children are
receiving treatment
for their
condition.
Eligibility would
be determined using
adult disability
definition within
one year of turning
18.
Privately Insured, Benefits limited to Same.
Institutionalized Children. $30 per month.
Deeming of Parents Income... No provision........ Disregards some
income of the
parents of disabled
children to provide
a monthly benefit
for those with
lower incomes that
is greater than
those with higher
incomes. Medicaid
eligibility would
be retained for
those who lose
benefits under this
provision.
Fraud....................... Individuals who have Same.
fraudulently
misrepresented
their residence in
order to receive
welfare, food
stamps, or SSI
benefits in more
than one state
simultaneously
would be ineligible
for benefits for 10
years. Benefits
would not be
available to
fugitive felons.
IMMIGRANTS
Food Stamps/SSI............. Current and future Same, except
immigrants barred following people
from receiving food also exempted:
stamps and SSI *Children (food
until attaining stamps only);
citizenship or *Disabled children;
working 40 *Victims of
quarters. Exempts domestic abuse.
the following
people: *Refugees
(first 5 years
only) *Veterans/
Active duty
military and their
dependents.
All Other Means Tested Five-year ban on Same, except for the
Programs. means-tested additional people
benefits for new exempted under food
immigrants, with stamps/SSI. Also,
same exceptions as ban does not apply
food stamps/SSI. to Medicaid (but
Ban does not apply sponsor's income
to the following would be deemed;
programs: see below).
*Emergency medical
care; *Emergency
disaster relief;
*Child nutrition;
*Immunizations;
*Testing and
treatment for
communicable
diseases; *Foster
care and adoption
assistance; *Higher
education loans and
grants; *Title I
education for
disadvantaged
children.
Deeming..................... Income of Extends current law
immigrant's sponsor deeming requirement
deemed to immigrant to Medicaid
for all federal program. (Thus,
means-tested deeming applies to
programs until cash benefits plus
citizenship or 40 Medicaid.)
quarters of work.
State Flexibility........... State option to deny Same, except for
or restrict Medicaid.
benefits under
Medicaid, Title XX,
and welfare to
immigrants. Same
exceptions as food
stamp/SSI.
Non-Profit Organizations.... No provision........ Immigrant provisions
do not apply to any
program operated by
a non-profit
organization.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MAJOR DIFFERENCES IN WELFARE PROPOSALS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget
reconciliation (S. Bipartisan Reform
1956, as approved by Act (Biden-Specter,
Finance and reported S. 1867) (Tanner-
by Budget) Castle, H.R. 3266)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Work Activities Funding..... No provision........ $3 billion work fund
available beginning
in FY 1999 for
states that
maintain 100% of
state spending on
work programs.
Contingency Funds........... Once the $2 billion If the $2 billion
contingency fund is contingency fund is
exhausted, no more exhausted as a
contingency money result of a
is available to national or
states. regional recession,
additional money
would be added.
Child Care Safety Standards. Eliminates.......... Maintains
Private Sector Work......... No provision........ Individuals leaving
welfare for work,
and working at
least 25 hours per
week, would count
toward the state
participation
requirement for six
months.
Safety Net.................. States prohibited If states have time
from using federal limit of less than
funds to provide 5 years, in-kind/
vouchers after five- voucher benefits
year time limit. must be provided to
kids. State option
of such benefits to
both kids and
adults after 5
years.
Food Stamps................. State option for a Retains existing
block grant. entitlement.
Individual Responsibility No provision........ To be eligible for
Contract. benefits,
individuals must
sign an individual
responsibility
contract.
Transitional Medicaid....... Provides Medicaid Retains current law
coverage for one of one-year
year for those who transition Medicaid
leave welfare for coverage for all
work as long as welfare recipients
family income is who leave welfare
below the poverty for work.
line.
Financial Penalty on States. States that failed No financial
to meet the work penalty. But, state
participation rate maintenance-of-
would lose 5% of effort for block
their block grant grant funds would
in the first year, increase or
10% in the second decrease depending
year, 15% in the on whether state
third year, etc. met work
requirements.
Work Exemption for Children Each family could At a state option,
Under Age 1. only claim families with child
exemption for an under age 1 could
aggregate 12 months. always be exempt
from work
requirements.
Immigrant Exemptions........ Exempts refugees, Also exempts
veterans, and disabled children,
military personnel victims of domestic
from the abuse, and all
prohibitions on children in the
immigrant case of food
eligibility for stamps.
federal benefits.
Immigrant Eligibility for Bars immigrants from Always deems
Medicaid. being eligible for sponsor's income to
Medicaid for five determine
years; deems eligibility, but
sponsor's income not an outright ban
thereafter. for the first five
years.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note.--This table shows the major differences between the Budget
Reconciliation bill and the Biden Amendment--the Bipartisan Welfare
Reform Act. It is not a complete listing of all differences in the two
proposals.
Mr. SPECTER. I yield the floor.
Mr. BIDEN. For the benefit of my colleagues who are waiting in line
to introduce their amendments, we had 45 minutes on this amendment, and
we will not take that amount of time, but will probably take
considerably less than half of that.
In offering this amendment with Senator Specter, the reason we
offered it is I believe we have gotten off track on welfare reform. We
need to return to bipartisanship on this issue and, quite frankly, on
many others.
This amendment is the text of the only bipartisan welfare reform bill
that has been introduced in this Congress and the only bill that
President Clinton has promised he would sign. It is not to suggest it
is the only bill he will sign, but it is the only bill he has promised
to sign, and the only bill I am aware of that has relatively wide
editorial support from the leading papers in the country.
My colleagues will probably know it as the Castle-Tanner welfare
reform bill. I, frankly, like to call it the Biden-Specter bill because
Senator Specter and I did introduce it on the Senate side. But, the
heavy lifting on this bill and the drafting of the legislation was done
by Congressmen Castle and Tanner. It is perhaps appropriate that
everyone know it as the Castle-Tanner bill, and they did a first-rate
job.
Before talking about the substance of the proposal, I want to briefly
review how we got to this point of offering the amendment. Last
September, the Senate passed a bipartisan welfare reform bill by an
overwhelming majority, as my colleague, Senator Specter, indicated. We,
along with the vast majority of our colleagues, voted for it. Since
then, however, we have been faced with gridlock, politics, and
paralysis. Both sides of the aisle have been using welfare reform as a
political football, and we have accomplished nothing thus far.
Last April, Congressmen Castle and Tanner, and several other
moderates from both parties in the House, decided to leave the
bickering behind, sit down, and write a bipartisan welfare plan. This
amendment is that bill. There is nothing shocking or hidden in this
bill. It has all been out there before. Block grants to the States, a
5-year time limit, work requirements, child care, and child-support
enforcement. The genius of this particular amendment is that it is
bipartisan and has been from day one.
[[Page S8130]]
Let me mention just a couple of differences between this amendment
and the underlying bill. Before I do, I want to compliment my senior
colleague from Delaware, Senator Roth, for the changes that he has made
in the bill in the Finance Committee. When I introduced the Biden-
Specter bill, or Castle-Tanner bill, in the Senate last month, the
differences between the Finance Committee proposal and what we are
proposing today were much larger than they are today. There is still,
in my view, much room for improvement in the so-called leadership bill,
and I believe we should still go forward with the bipartisan bill.
However, I want to recognize Senator Roth's effort at accommodating
some bipartisan changes.
Some of the major differences that remain--one we settled just a
couple hours ago, the child care health and safety standards, to ensure
that kids are being cared for in a safe environment. We accepted that
amendment. I guess we voted, actually, overwhelmingly, for the
amendment to become part of the leadership bill.
Second, the Biden-Specter bill provides States with additional funds
to set up work programs, because getting welfare recipients into jobs
is going to cost a little bit of money on the front end.
Third, the Biden-Specter bill allows--not requires, but allows--
States to provide noncash benefits for those who reach the time limit,
so that States have the flexibility to design a program that meets the
needs of the children in their State. This provision is the same as an
amendment which was independently introduced by the distinguished
Senator from Louisiana, and just discussed.
Fourth, the Biden-Specter bill would not allow food stamps to be
converted into block grants, so that the ultimate safety net, ensuring
that all Americans have food on the table, will not be taken away.
Fifth, the Biden-Specter bill would retain for all families, not just
those who are below the poverty line, the transitional Medicaid
coverage, where those who go to work can keep their health insurance
for 1 year. It is acknowledged that the vast majority of welfare
recipients in that first year in jobs will not have jobs that, in fact,
provide health insurance for their children.
Welfare recipients are not stupid; they know most of the jobs will
not have any health insurance for their kids. If we really want to move
them off of welfare and on to work, and not just on to the streets, an
extra year of health care, in my view, and in the view of the
bipartisan group, is critical.
Sixth, the Biden-Specter bill says that anyone who wants to receive
welfare must sign an individual responsibility contract, so that they
are forced to agree up front to the conditions placed on receiving the
benefit, and so that they will have a plan from day one on how to get
themselves off of welfare.
Again, Mr. President, these are not all of the differences that exist
in the bills, but they are among the most important.
Now, I know that every Member of the Senate will be able to find
something that he or she does not like in the Biden-Specter proposal
and all other proposals. I can do that, too, and it is my own
amendment. The point is this: If we really want welfare reform, and not
a political issue, we must do it in a bipartisan way, with each of us
compromising and doing it in a form the President can sign.
This amendment fits that bill. It is the only bipartisan welfare
reform bill to be introduced in Congress. It is a bill the President
said he would sign, a bill that has gotten wide editorial endorsement,
and a bill that makes compromises by definition of being bipartisan on
both sides.
I do not like the idea that we are block granting welfare and that it
is no longer an entitlement, but in return for that, my Republican
colleagues agreed they would come up with sufficient dollars for a 1-
year transition for health care and they would come up with money for
child care, and so on.
It is a genuine compromise that I think is a solid proposal. I
proposed a concept of welfare to work in 1987, and I was pilloried by
my colleagues on the Democratic side at the time for suggesting that
there be mandatory a work requirement for anyone receiving welfare. We
have all sort of come to the same general proposition.
The issue is, are kids going to be left out there? Are women going to
be able to go to work, or single fathers be able to go to work, knowing
that there is no reasonable prospect for anyone to take care of that
child, and not have day care? And are they going to make that judgment
to do it, knowing once they do, they are going to lose their Medicaid--
which is translated as health care for their children--by going to a
job where they will not get health care for their children?
This is not just about money, although the Biden-Specter bill is
estimated to achieve savings of $53.1 billion. But that is only one of
the purposes, I thought, of this legislation, this change. We hear
speech after speech after speech about changing the ethic that is
involved in the welfare syndrome. We just heard our good friend from
North Carolina talking about the generational nature of this problem
and how to break the spiral, and so on. Part of this effort is to, in
fact, not just take people off of welfare and put them on the streets,
but put them to work and make them want to go to work and make it
reasonable for them to go to work.
I respectfully suggest it is not just about money. It is about
changing attitudes.
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 the sake of the people on welfare, I urge my
colleagues to support this bipartisan Welfare Reform Act. And depending
on what my friends on the other side have to say in opposition, I
reserve the remainder of my time. I do not expect to use any more time
if there is no reason to respond.
I yield the floor.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. President, let me thank Senators Specter and Biden for their
important contribution to the welfare debate before us. The tremendous
effort it takes to find common ground is always welcomed and
appreciated.
There are many similarities between the Specter-Biden legislation and
the welfare reform legislation reported by the Finance Committee. We
are very close, for example, on issues such as ending the individual
entitlement to benefits, work participation rates, supplemental grants
for States with high population growth, the family cap, and the 20-
percent hardship exemption.
The Specter-Biden bill includes provisions from our welfare reform
bill regarding funding for abstinence education, SSI reforms, and child
support enforcement to mention a few more of the policy areas we share.
But the substitute offered by Senators Specter and Biden also
includes a number of provisions which I cannot support. Working with
the Governors over these past months, I have learned a firm lesson that
they are willing to accept the risks associated with a block grant. But
in exchange, the states must have the requisite flexibility to redesign
and manage the programs.
I am concerned that the Specter-Biden provisions regarding
Maintenance of Effort, transferability of funds mandatory individual
responsibility plans, would break the fragile balance the Governors
seek.
The substitute also opens up the Federal checkbook for a $3 billion
work program. Both bills provide for a $2 billion contingency fund.
This is a $1 billion increase from last year. But the Specter-Biden
substitute appropriates additional Federal funds subject to
unemployment or Food Stamps triggers. This additional spending does not
achieve the savings necessary. In other words, the Specter-Biden
substitute breaks the budget. And for this reason alone was must oppose
it.
However, Mr. President, breaking the budget is not the only problem
with this substitute.
The Specter-Biden substitute severely weakens the goal of setting
time limits.
Vouchers are mandatory, subject to a reduction in the State grant for
noncompliance.
The Specter-Biden substitute also undermines the goal of curbing
Federal benefits to noncitizens. Under this substitute, even illegal
aliens could qualify for Medicaid, a liberalization of the
[[Page S8131]]
program beyond current law. Under the Specter-Biden plan, middle- and
low-income American families would be put in a position of subsidizing
individuals who are openly breaking the law. This is not fair.
Under Specter-Biden, the limitations on Medicaid benefits for other
noncitizens under the finance bill would be lifted as well. While I
respect the good intentions of the sponsors, I simply believe these
provisions to too far.
Mr. President, I must therefore oppose the Specter-Biden substitute.
Let me also hasten to add that there is no need to look any further for
a bill which has bipartisan support.
The finance bill is identical in many of the most critical aspects to
H.R. 4 which originally passed the Senate by a vote of 87 to 12 last
September.
The finance bill was crafted with the help of Democratic and
Republican Governors alike.
It includes a number of Democratic amendments which were offered in
committee. Over the past several weeks, we have been told in a variety
of ways that Medicaid was the stumbling block to welfare reform. We
have removed that stumbling block. This is no time to erect new
barriers to welfare reform. This is no time to turn back from authentic
welfare reform.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I will yield back my time if the Senator
from Delaware is prepared to yield back his time.
Mr. ROTH addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I yield the remainder of my time.
Mr. President, since the pending amendment, if adopted, would have
the effect of reducing outlays by $10 billion less than the legislation
before us, I make a point of order against the amendment under section
310(d)(2) of the Budget Act.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, pursuant to Section 904 of the
Congressional Budget Act, I move to waive all applicable points of
order under the act for the purposes of the Biden-Specter amendment.
I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the vote will be
delayed until tomorrow.
Mr. FRIST addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee is recognized.
Amendment No. 4914
(Purpose: Expressing the sense of Congress that the President should
ensure approval of State waiver requests)
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for
its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Tennessee [Mr. Frist], for himself, Mr.
Abraham, Mr. Santorum, Mrs. Hutchison, and Mr. Thompson,
proposes an amendment numbered 4914.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the
amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
At the appropriate place, add the following new section:
SEC. . SENSE OF CONGRESS
(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) the Secretary of Health and Human Services has not
approved in a timely manner, State waiver requests for
programs carried out under part A of title IV of the Social
Security Act or other Federal law providing needs-based or
income-based benefits (referred to in this resolution as
``welfare reform programs'');
(2) valuable time is running out for these states which
need to obtain the waivers in order to implement the changes
as planned;
(3) across the country there are 16 States, with 22 waiver
requests for welfare reform programs, awaiting approval of
the requests by the Secretary of Health and Human Services;
(4) on July 21, 1995, in Burlington, Vermont, President
Clinton promised the Governors that the Secretary of Health
and Human Services would approve their waiver requests within
30 days; and
(5) despite the President's promise, the average delay in
approving such a waiver request is currently 210 days and
some of the waiver requests have been pending since 1994.
(b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that
the President should ensure that the Secretary of Health and
Human Services approved the following waiver requests for
Georgia--Jobs First Project, submitted 7/5/94; Georgia--Fraud
Detection Project, submitted 7/1/96; Indiana--Impacting
Families Welfare Reform Demonstration, submitted 12/14/95;
Kansas--Actively Creating Tomorrow for Families
Demonstration, submitted 7/26/94; Michigan--To Strengthen
Michigan Families, submitted 6/27/96; Minnesota--Work First
Program, submitted 4/4/96; Minnesota--AFDC Barrier Removal
Project, submitted 4/4/96; New York--Learnfare Program,
submitted 5/31/96; New York--Intentional Program Violation
Demonstration, submitted 5/31/96; Oklahoma--Welfare Self-
Sufficiency Initiative, submitted 10/27/95; Pennsylvania--
School Attendance Improvement Program, submitted 9/12/94;
Pennsylvania--Savings for Education Program, submitted 12/29/
94; Tennessee--Families First, submitted 4/30/96; Utah--
Single Parent Employment Demonstration, submitted 7/2/96;
Virginia--Virginia Independence Program, submitted 5/24/96;
Wisconsin--Work Not Welfare and Pay for Performance,
submitted 5/29/96; And Wyoming--New Opportunities and New
Responsibilities--Phase II, submitted 5/13/96.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be 45
minutes of debate equally divided on the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request?
Mr. FORD. Reserving the right to object. Would the Senator add that
no amendments in the second degree be in order?
Mr. FRIST. Yes, I have no objection to that. I ask unanimous consent
that there be no second-degree amendments in order to this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. FRIST. This amendment, submitted on behalf of myself and
colleagues, Senators Abraham, Santorum, Hutchison and Thompson, asks
for a sense of the Congress that President Clinton should ensure
approval of a waiver request for Tennessee's Family First program, as
well as welfare programs in 12 other States.
Across this country this very minute, States are desperately awaiting
the Clinton administration's approval for local welfare state
initiatives. The State of Tennessee, like 12 other States, has
submitted a waiver request to Donna Shalala, Secretary of Health and
Human Services, to gain Federal approval for portions of a State-based
welfare plan. Tennessee submitted its waiver request on April 30,
1996--78 days ago. This is not uncommon. Across this country, there are
15 other States with 22 waiver requests currently pending.
Some of these States include Georgia, the Jobs First program; also in
Georgia, the Fraud Detection Project; in Kansas, Actively Creating
Tomorrow for Families Demonstration; in Minnesota, the Work First
program and the AFDC Barrier Removal Project; in Oklahoma, the Welfare
Self-Sufficiency Initiative. Those are a few samples.
Mr. President, on July 31, 1995, the President promised the Governors
that the Secretary of Health and Human Services would approve their
requests ``within 30 days.'' That is what he said--30 days. It has been
78 days since Tennessee's request was placed.
Mr. President, I remain committed to holding President Clinton to
this promise, ensuring that the Secretary of Health and Human Services
approve these much-needed waiver requests, such as that for Tennessee's
Families First welfare program, as well as for Michigan's and
Wisconsin's.
I urge every one of my Senate colleagues to join me in this effort.
Across this country States are fighting for the waivers that the
President has promised to sign.
Time is running. Time is ticking. Time is running out for the people
of Tennessee. The State needs to obtain this Federal waiver in order to
implement the changes by September 1, 1996 as planned. Tennessee needs
action. The country needs action.
Mr. President, I would particularly like to thank the distinguished
Senators from Michigan and Pennsylvania for their support in this
effort, and also Senator Hutchison of Texas for her hard work in
putting this effort together.
I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. FRIST. Yes, sir.
Mr. ROTH. Does the fact that you are here asking that the President
sign these waivers demonstrate the urgent need for welfare reform?
[[Page S8132]]
Mr. FRIST. That is correct. And States are calling out for this
reform at the State level, and at the national level. These are waivers
that have been promised to these States to be considered within 30
days. We need to fulfill that promise.
Mr. ROTH. And those waivers would not be necessary under our reform
legislation?
Mr. FRIST. That is correct. The bureaucratic nightmare, the barriers
that are placed with these States, would be removed by this piece of
legislation.
Mr. ROTH. I thank the Senator for his answers.
Mr. FORD. Will the Senator yield for an additional question, Mr.
President?
Mr. FRIST. Yes.
Mr. FORD. Is it not true that this President has issued 67 waivers to
40 States, more than any President has issued?
Mr. FRIST. That is correct; 16 States are waived now, all over 30
days at this point; 22 waiver requests are pending at this very minute.
I would like to yield 10 minutes to my colleague from Michigan.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan is recognized.
Mr. ABRAHAM. Thank you, Mr. President.
Mr. President, I rise to join my colleagues from Tennessee and
Pennsylvania and other States, all of whom are trying find themselves
in the same position as we do in Michigan. States across America know
best how to deal with the problems of the people who live in those
States. Places like Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Tennessee,
Texas, and many other jurisdictions have attempted to address the
problems of their most needy citizens in thoughtful ways designed to
try to the best degree possible move people from dependency on
government programs to the economic ladder.
In Michigan we have been doing a variety of things over the past few
years on a bipartisan basis; I would add to try to establish a set of
programs that will work. These programs will work in Michigan. They
might not work in Tennessee, or they might not work in New Hampshire.
They might not work in Kentucky, or Pennsylvania. They are designed to
work in Michigan. That is the way we believe welfare reform needs to be
addressed, giving States the kind of flexibility to design programs
best able to serve the constituencies in their jurisdictions.
It is interesting. The legislation which recently passed in Michigan
with respect to welfare reform passed the Michigan State senate by a
vote of 30 to 7. It passed the State house of representatives by a
margin of 85 to 22. I promise my fellow Senators that is not a
reflection of the partisan makeup of those legislative chambers. A 30-
to-7 vote in the Michigan Senate and 85-to-22 vote in the Michigan
House of Representatives reflects an overwhelming bipartisan decision
to put in place a set of welfare reforms that will work for our State.
That is what has happened.
These reforms come on the heels of others that have been implemented
in the last 2 years. The results of Michigan's welfare reforms to date
have been very impressive. Michigan's AFDC caseload has dropped from
221,000 cases in September 1992 to 176,000 cases in May 1996, a
decrease of 45,000. The current AFDC caseload level is the lowest in
nearly 25 years in Michigan. The caseload in our State have decreased
for 26 straight months, and has fallen by more than 20 percent over the
past 2 years. During fiscal year 1994 alone, nearly 30,000 individuals
were placed into employment and since September 1992 over 90,000 AFDC
cases have been closed as a result of earned income from employment.
In addition, by January 1996 the number of cases with earned income
had risen 31.1 percent compared to the 15.7 percent of cases with
earned income in September 1992.
Mr. President, this reflects a successful effort undertaken on a
bipartisan basis in my State of Michigan designed to address the
concerns and the problems of the neediest people in our State. We
believe we have the best insight into solving Michigan's problems--a
better insight than anyone in other States, and certainly a better
insight than those in the bureaucracies in Washington.
For that reason, Mr. President, I join in this amendment. We want to
give Michigan the chance to go further, to continue the success that we
have had, to build on that success to try to make sure that everybody
in Michigan who in any sense desires the opportunity to move onto the
economic ladder gets the chance to do so. So that is why I join in this
amendment.
The legislation which was passed in Michigan that became then the
waiver sought from the Federal Government and that is part of this
amendment here tonight is, I think, the right solution for our State.
It is what the people of Michigan on a bipartisan basis have said is
the right solution for our State. It frees us to give us the
flexibility to move forward and solve people's problems rather than
spending too much time solving problems created by bureaucracy.
Just to put that in perspective, we did a study in Michigan. We
talked to the people on the front lines in the social services
department which we now call the Family independence department. We
discovered, interestingly, that two-thirds of the time of the folks
whose job it is to help people get out of dependency is spent not
helping people get out of dependency but is spent handling paperwork
and redtape, most of it emanating from Washington, and only one-third
of this time is spent trying to actually assist the folks who they are
trying to help.
Our legislation will try to put the priorities where they ought to
be. The proposal that we include in this amendment, this waiver that
was sought, includes a number of innovations that will assist Michigan.
It will require attendance for all adult AFDC, food stamp, and State
general assistance applicants or recipients at a joint orientation
meeting with the family independence agency and Michigan's Jobs
Commission personnel as a condition of eligibility.
It will require recipients to enter into a family independence
contract.
It will require compliance with work activity requirements within 60
days.
Failure to comply will result in the loss of the family independence
and AFDC benefits, and food stamps for a minimum of 1 month, and until
there is compliance with work requirements.
It will require teen parents to live in an adult supervised setting
and stay in school. Failure to comply will result in case closure.
The proposal includes many other similar programs designed to place
incentives into the structure for people who, in fact, want to get out
of dependency and onto the economic ladder. But at the same time our
waiver is designed to give people some of the tools they need to be on
that ladder.
It provides greater employment-related services, guaranteed access to
child care, guaranteed transportation so people can get to the jobs we
hope to create and make available to them, and guaranteed access to
health care for anyone leaving welfare for work--in short, assistance
and incentives for those seeking employment just as we also include
increased responsibility for individuals receiving assistance.
Third, our program will remove unnecessary and overly burdensome
regulations; provides a vastly simplified application form reduced from
the current 30 pages down to 6; provides for the most dramatic
simplification of AFDC food stamp and medical assistance anywhere in
the country, and it streamlines services by establishing a single point
of contact with the welfare office for each welfare recipient
regardless of the mix of benefits received.
Finally, the program encompassed in this amendment will strengthen
families and increase community involvement.
It provides additional funding for prevention services to help keep
children safe and strengthen families.
And, it will allow faith-based organizations to work with communities
to address the needs of welfare recipients.
In short, it is a balanced approach tailor-made to assist those in
Michigan who are needy, and those in Michigan who are currently
dependent on Government support in the best way we can craft to get out
of that dependency and onto the economic ladder.
We recognize how to do this in Michigan for our citizens. We have
developed a plan that has moved us a long way in the right direction.
If we were given the opportunities created by the waiver we have
sought, which we embody in this amendment, we think we can go the final
steps it takes to give the people in our State opportunity regardless
of where they
[[Page S8133]]
live, regardless of economic condition, and regardless of their current
status. We will give them hope.
That is what I believe this overall welfare reform bill before us is
designed to do, to give States the flexibility, to give States the
opportunity to design programs that will work for them, not programs
that work in one State but programs that work individually State by
State, not programs dreamed up in Washington but programs designed in
State capitals and in major cities of this country for the people who
live in those communities.
For that reason, I strongly support this amendment. I believe that if
Michigan, Tennessee, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and other States are
given this flexibility, given the chance to have the programs they have
designed put into place, it will create the kind of opportunity we want
for every American citizen.
For that reason, I strongly support the amendment. I thank the
Senator from Tennessee for bringing it before us this evening.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. HARKIN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. FORD. Mr. President, how much time does this side have?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The side of the Senator from Kentucky has
22\1/2\ minutes and the Senator from Tennessee has 10 minutes.
Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I have just had an opportunity to sit down
and read this amendment. I have operated as a Governor and understand
what Governors like to say and what Governors like to do. Governors
want the money now at the higher level but when we start decreasing the
amount of funds the State receives, it is going to be difficult for
them to reduce their expenditures or reduce the number, and so we find
that is going to be somewhat difficult for them to do.
I have some problem with us micromanaging any program. Mr. President,
I looked at these projects that are here. Some of them sound good,
others not necessarily. Fraud Detection Project, that sounds
interesting. Actively Creating Tomorrow for Families Demonstration. I
do not know, are you supposed to look at these and just approve them
without studying them some? AFDC Barrier Removal Project; Intentional
Program Violation Demonstration, Single Parent Employment
Demonstration, Work-Not-Welfare and Pay For Performance, New
Opportunities and New Responsibilities Demonstration.
Now, I am hopeful that we can get a welfare bill that the President
will sign. We hear a lot about 80-something to a few votes for a bill
that we passed. If that bill had gone to the President's desk, my
judgment is that he would have signed it. I think we are close to
getting a bill that will be signed. I am one who wants to vote for
welfare reform. I hope we can listen to Senators like the Senator from
Louisiana and others who are trying to protect children. I think we
have gone much, much too far in trying to be harsh on parents and then
in turn being harsh on children.
So, Mr. President, in listening to the Governors, the other side of
the aisle, the Republicans are not listening to the Governors except in
certain cases where they want to listen to them. We have endorsements
of the National Governors' Conference as it relates to vouchers and the
amendment of the Senator from Louisiana. The Governors have endorsed
that. But they do not pay any attention to that one. We are going to
be against it. I think it is wrong. So now the Governors want all this.
Are we supposed to flip over and say, yes? You did not do that when I
was Governor. I had to come up here and cry a little bit, shed some
crocodile tears, try to get something more for my State.
So I hope we will not try to micromanage this particular operation.
As I say, the President has issued 67 waivers to 40 States. But none of
these waivers, in my opinion, in reading them, are all directly welfare
connected. Maybe they are. But some of the programs as they are listed
lead me--work first, I like that. I like Gov. McWherter's program in
Tennessee. I thought Governor Ned McWherter did a good job. It took a
lot of bumps; it took a lot of skin off his back, as we say
politically, but I thought Governor McWherter did a good job in
Tennessee.
So since I am here standing in for others, I hope that we will be
very careful with the vote as it relates to micromanaging welfare. If
we are going to give it to the States, let us give it to the States and
let us do it in a bill; let us do it legislatively; let us do it
statutorily, and let us not start telling the President what to do and
what not to do, because their President did not do nearly as well as
this President. You have to look at the number of jobs that we have
had. That reduces the amount of welfare in a State--more jobs, less
welfare. And I can take credit for unemployment being at a low level in
my State. We are doing great. We have so many people off welfare. We
are saving this kind of money. All these programs are working. But if
the economy is good, Mr. President, then all States are going to look
good, and as of now the economy is good and all States are faring
somewhat better.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. FRIST addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. FRIST. I understand we have 10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. FRIST. I yield 8 minutes to the Senator from Pennsylvania.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania is recognized
for 8 minutes.
Mr. SANTORUM. I thank my friend from Tennessee. I will not take the
entire 8 minutes. I rise in support of this amendment.
I ask unanimous consent that Senator Bond from Missouri be added as a
cosponsor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SANTORUM. In fact, Senator Bond has introduced legislation,
frankly, that goes further than the sense of the Senate. Senator Bond's
legislation would actually move the Senate to approve of the Wisconsin
waiver and a bill similar to what passed in the House of
Representatives, passed through the Senate and actually forced the
President's hand on the Wisconsin waiver.
That is the most publicized waiver, frankly, because the President
said, and I will quote his words, in his Presidential radio address
back on May 18:
All in all, Wisconsin has the making of a solid, bold
welfare reform plan. We should get it done.
``Get it done,'' meaning approve the waiver.
I pledge that my administration will work with Wisconsin to
make an effective transition to a new vision of welfare based
on work, that protects children and does right by working
people and their families.
That is what the President said. He said he wanted to do it with the
waiver. He said he was for the waiver. In fact, he went so far as to
make it the real focus of his radio address to the American public.
Unfortunately, his administration has not approved those waivers yet.
He set an artificial deadline, he has for quite some time, of a 30-day
turnaround on all waiver requests by the States. He, as the Senator
from Tennessee mentioned, has not met that 30-day requirement recently.
In fact, we have the Wisconsin plan and here we are in the middle of
July and he has not approved what is now a 12-month-old waiver request.
Unfortunately, we learn that while the President is still running
around the country talking about how good the Wisconsin plan is, the
President's people are saying that they are not going to approve the
plan, which led Governor Thompson the other day down at the National
Governors' Association to say, ``We are sort of shaking our heads, not
knowing what's going on, who to believe.''
Well, in the end, I always found that it is best policy to believe
what you see, not what you hear from this administration. And what you
see from this administration is not approving your waiver. That is
pretty concrete evidence of whether you are going to get it approved or
not. The fact that they are not approving it, in effect, the
bureaucrats in the administration are saying the likelihood of your
getting through the approval process is not good. And it is not a
simple approval
[[Page S8134]]
process. It sounds like these waivers are no big deal; everybody gets
them approved. Remember, these get approved; they get modified; they
get altered a little bit; they have to sort of work with the Federal
Government to make changes that they in the Federal Government believe
is best for the State. In the case of Wisconsin, in order to put the
plan in effect, the State requested waivers from 83 Federal provisions
administered by HHS. So they needed 83 separate decisions by the
Department of Health and Human Services to get those waivers. They
needed five from the Department of Agriculture to get their overall
waiver approved by the Federal Government. This is no small task. It is
a task that, under our bill, the bill that is before the Senate right
now, would be unnecessary.
The Senator from Delaware, I think accurately and perceptively,
questioned the Senator from Tennessee about whether this bill would
make all of this rather expensive, time-consuming and inefficient
process of waivers necessary in the future. If, in fact, we are going
to use the States, as the States have been used recently, as incubators
for changing the welfare system, we should give them more flexibility
in dealing with this program.
We should give them the opportunity to design programs that fit their
needs, not judged by people in Washington who maybe have never set foot
in that State, who do not know the particular problems in the
communities, but by people who represent those communities, as Senator
Abraham was talking about, the State legislators who live in those
communities, who represent those people in a much smaller area, in a
district in those States--those are the people who should make
decisions about what the welfare system should look like; not people at
Health and Human Services.
So one of the reasons I wanted to sign on to this effort was to
highlight the inconsistencies--not surprising to my mind--but the
inconsistencies between what the President says and what the President
has done on one of the most important issues before us, which is
welfare reform. We have, obviously, the President's record overall on
what he says and what he does on welfare, which is he runs television
commercials all over the country saying he is for welfare reform and
then every chance he has to sign welfare reform, he finds a reason to
veto it. I hope this is not the case this time around. I am confident
we will send him a bill that he certainly can sign. The question is
whether he will sign it, but he certainly will talk a good game up
until that point. But when the rubber hits the road, whether it is
waivers or whether it is the actual bill, the President has fallen
short in the area of welfare reform.
Part of my reason for cosponsoring this legislation is that
Pennsylvania has just recently passed welfare reform legislation. They
are going to be requesting a couple of waivers from the Federal
Government. They will be submitting them shortly. I am hopeful the
President will go along with what Pennsylvania has wanted to do with
Governor Ridge's plan to reform the welfare system and Medicaid system.
To try to reduce the strain on the State budget, frankly, is one
reason; but also to provide a better future for the people in
Pennsylvania who are on welfare.
So I congratulate the Senator from Tennessee for his efforts. I hope
we can approve this amendment and send a very strong signal we want the
administration to move more quickly and more efficiently when it comes
to granting waivers.
I reserve the remainder of our time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from Tennessee.
Amendment No. 4914, As Modified
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I yield myself 1 minute. I ask unanimous
consent to modify my amendment No. 4914. I send that modification to
the desk. As part of that unanimous consent, I ask that Senator Bond be
added as a cosponsor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request? Without
objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment as modified is as follows:
At the appropriate place, add the following new section:
SEC. . SENSE OF CONGRESS
(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) the Secretary of Health and Human Services has not
approved in a timely manner, State waiver requests for
programs carried out under part A of title IV of the Social
Security Act or other Federal law providing needs-based or
income-based benefits (referred to in this resolution as
``welfare reform programs'');
(2) valuable time is running out for these States which
need to obtain the waivers in order to implement the changes
as planned;
(3) across the country there are 16 States, with 22 waiver
requests for welfare reform programs, awaiting approval of
the requests by the Secretary of Health and Human Services;
(4) on July 21, 1995, in Burlington, Vermont, President
Clinton promised the Governors that the Secretary of Health
and Human Services would approve their waiver requests within
30 days; and
(5) despite the President's promise, the average delay in
approving such a waiver request is currently 210 days and
some of the waiver requests have been pending since 1994.
(b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that
the President should ensure that the Secretary of Health and
Human Services approves the following waiver requests for
Georgia--Jobs First Project, submitted 7/5/94; Georgia--Fraud
Detection Project, submitted 7/1/96; Indiana--Impacting
Families Welfare Reform Demonstration, submitted 12/14/95;
Kansas--Actively Creating Tomorrow for Families
Demonstration, submitted 7/26/94; Michigan--To Strengthen
Michigan Families, submitted 6/27/96; Minnesota--Work First
Program, submitted 4/4/96; Minnesota--AFDC Barrier Removal
Project, submitted 4/4/96; New York--Learnfare Program,
submitted 5/31/96; New York--International Program, Violation
Demonstration, submitted 5/31/96; Oklahoma--Welfare Self-
Sufficiency Initiative, submitted 10/27/95; Pennsylvania--
School Attendance Improvement Program, submitted 9/12/94;
Pennsylvania--Savings for Education Program, submitted 12/29/
94; Tennessee--Families First, submitted 4/30/96; Utah--
Single Parent Employment Demonstration, submitted 7/2/96;
Virginia--Virginia Independence Program, submitted 5/24/96;
Wisconsin--Work Not Welfare and Pay for Performance,
submitted 5/29/96; And Wyoming--New Opportunities and New
Responsibilities--Phase II, submitted 5/13/96; California--
Assistance Payment Demonstration Project, submitted 3/13/96;
California--Work Pays Demonstration Project, submitted 11/9/
94; Hawaii--Pursuit of New Opportunities, submitted 5/7/96;
West Virginia--West Virginia Works, submitted 7/1/96.
Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I am about to yield back what time we have.
Is the Senator yielding his time?
Mr. FRIST. I, too, am ready to yield back.
Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. FORD. Mr. President, we have an amendment that has been agreed
to. I ask unanimous consent the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kerry],
be given 60 seconds to offer his amendment and get it modified so it
could be passed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. FORD. I thank the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.
Amendment No. 4913, As Modified
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I call up my amendment on child poverty
which was submitted earlier tonight. I ask unanimous consent this
amendment be modified in a manner that has been agreed to by both
sides. I send the modification to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kerry] proposes an
amendment numbered 4913, as modified.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the
amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
Section 413 of the Social Security Act, as added by section
2103, is amended by adding at the end thereof the following
new subsection:
``(h) Child Poverty Rates.--
``(1) In general.--Not later than 90 days after the date of
the enactment of this part, and annually thereafter, the
chief executive officer of a State shall submit to the
Secretary a statement of the child poverty rate in the State
as of such date of enactment or the date of such subsequent
statements. Such subsequent statements shall include the
change in such rate from the previous statement, if any.
``(2) Increase in rate.--
[[Page S8135]]
``(A) In general.--With respect to a State that submits a
statement under paragraph (1) that indicates an increase of 5
percent or more in the child poverty rate of the State from
the previous statement as a result of the changes made by the
Act, the State shall, not later than 90 days after the date
of such statement, prepare and submit to the Secretary a
corrective action plan in accordance with paragraph (3).
``(3) Corrective action plan.--
``(A) In general.--A corrective action plan submitted under
paragraph (2) shall outline that manner in which the State
will reduce the child poverty rate within the State. The plan
shall include a description of the actions to be taken by the
State under such plan.
``(B) Consultation about modifications.--During the 60-day
period that begins with the date the Secretary receives the
corrective action plan of a State under subparagraph (A), the
Secretary may consult with the State on modifications to the
plan.
``(C) Acceptance of plan.--A corrective action plan
submitted by a State in accordance with subparagraph (A) is
deemed to be accepted by the Secretary if the Secretary does
not accept or reject the plan during 60-day period that
begins on the date the plan is submitted.
``(4) Compliance with plan.--
``(A) In general.--A State that submits a corrective action
plan under this subsection shall continue to implement such
plan until such time as the Secretary makes the determination
described in subparagraph (B).
``(B) Determination.--A determination described in this
subparagraph is a determination that the child poverty rate
for the State involved has fallen to, and not exceeded for a
period of 2 consecutive years, a rate that is not greater
than the rate contained in the most recent statement
submitted by the State under paragraph (1) which did not
trigger the application of paragraph (2).
``(C) Labor surplus area.--With respect to a State that
submits a corrective action plan under paragraph (2)(B), such
plan shall continue to be implemented until the area involved
is no longer designated as a Labor Surplus Area.
``(5) Methodology.--The Secretary shall promulgate
regulations establishing the methodology by which a State
shall determine the child poverty rate within such State.
Such methodology shall, with respect to a State, take into
account factors including the number of children who receive
free or reduced-price lunches, the number of food stamp
households, and the county by county estimates of children in
poverty as determined by the Census Bureau.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, the welfare bill before us today would
allow States to experiment with various welfare policies. Many States
may implement innovative welfare policies to move parents from welfare
to work. But if we are sending Federal money to States, if we are going
to take this risk and allow States to experiment, let's be sure that
child poverty does not increase.
This amendment, which I introducing with Senator Murray, says that if
child poverty increases in a State after the date of enactment of this
welfare bill, that State would be required to submit a corrective
action plan.
There is nothing more important to this debate than constantly
reminding ourselves that our focus is--or ought to be--this Nation's
children. That was the focus when under Franklin Roosevelt's leadership
title IV-A of the Social Security Act was originally enacted. The
objective here is to help impoverished children.
Let me acknowledge right up front that this amendment will be subject
to a point of order under the Byrd rule and will require 60 votes to
pass. I want to say to my Republican colleagues that it is outrageous
that we are debating welfare reform under budget reconciliation rules.
We should not be considering such major changes affecting millions of
children and families and cutting more than $60 billion from human
service programs under budget rules that make almost any substantive
amendment out of order. There is no reason to debate welfare reform
under budget reconciliation except for the majority to make it
significantly harder to make any changes to this bill, even changes
supported by a majority of members. But despite this unreasonable
hurdle erected by the majority party, we must attempt to remedy
problems in the bill.
What does this amendment do? This amendment says that if the most
recent State child poverty rate exceeds the level for the previous year
by 5 percent or more then the State would have to submit to the HHS
Secretary within 90 days a corrective action plan describing the
actions the State shall take to reduce child poverty rates.
Mr. President, I want to be clear that this amendment in no way
intrudes on a State's ability to design its own welfare program. State
flexibility would not be decreased in any way. This amendment simply
says that if a State's welfare system increases child poverty, that
State must take corrective action.
Mr. President, there are many very different views of welfare in this
Chamber. But I believe all of us regardless of party can agree on two
things at least: we can all agree that the child poverty rate in this
country is too high. The fact is that 15.3 million U.S. children live
in poverty. This means that more than one in five children--21.8
percent--live in poverty. In Massachusetts, there are more than 176,000
children who live in poverty. And despite the stereotypes, Mr.
President, the majority of America's poor children are white--9.3
million--and live in rural or suburban areas--8.4 million--rather than
central cities--6.9 million.
The other thing on which we can all agree, because it is a fact
rather than an opinion, is that the child poverty rate in this country
is dramatically higher than the rate in other major industrialized
countries. According to an excellent, comprehensive recent report by an
international research group called the Luxembourg Income Study, the
child poverty rate in the United Kingdom is less than half our rate,
9.9 percent, the rate in France is less than one-third of our rate, 6.5
percent, and the rate in Denmark 3.3 percent is about one-sixth our
rate.
Mr. President, we know that poverty is bad for children, This should
be obvious. Nobel Prize-winning economist Robert Solow and the
Children's Defense Fund recently conducted the first-ever long-term
impact of child poverty. They found that their lowest estimate was that
the future cost to society of a single year of poverty for the 15
million poor children is $36 billion in lost output per worker. When
they included lost work hours, lower skills, and other labor market
disadvantages related to poverty, they found that the future cost to
society was $177 billion.
With this amendment, I want to make sure that, at the very least, if
a State's welfare plan increases child poverty--instead of increasing
the number of parents moving from welfare to work and self-
sufficiency--that State will take immediate steps to refocus its
program.
Mr. President, I also want to say that I hope that our extremist
colleagues on the House side do not ultimately prevail again in
conference. This effort to reform welfare should not be scuttled by a
conference report they call welfare reform but that children will only
know as their ticket to empty stomachs and hopelessness.
Mr. President, I want to thank Chairman Roth and his staff, Senator
Moynihan and his staff, and Senator Exon and his staff for their
assistance and their willingness to accept this amendment that I
believe will benefit children across the Nation.
Mr. President, as we know, the child poverty rate in the United
States is dramatically higher than that in other industrial countries.
It is in our obvious interest, in whatever we do with respect to
welfare reform, that whatever we do here not increase that rate.
This seeks, by agreement on both sides, to simply measure where we
are today with respect to child poverty and, if there is an
ascertainable difference as a consequence of the measures of this act
that increases it, then the Secretary of Health and Human Services has
the ability to ask that particular State to come up with a remedy.
There is no forced remedy. There is no mandate. It is simply a
requirement to try to deal with the obvious negative consequences or
unintended consequence of anything we might do here.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
If there be no further debate, the question is on agreeing to the
amendment.
The amendment (No. 4913), as modified, was agreed to.
Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. KERRY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. KERRY. I thank my colleagues.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
[[Page S8136]]
Amendment No. 4915
(Purpose: 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 agreement)
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I have a couple of amendments. I send the
first one to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration. I send
this amendment to the desk on behalf of myself and Senator Coats of
Indiana.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Iowa [Mr. Harkin], for himself and Mr.
Coats, proposes an amendment numbered 4915.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
Section 408 of the Social Security Act, as added by section
2103, is amended by adding at the end thereof the following
new subsection:
``(d) State Required To Enter Into a Personal
Responsibility Agreement With Each Family Receiving
Assistance.--
``(1) In general.--Each State to which a grant is made
under section 403 shall require each family receiving
assistance under the State program funded under this part to
enter into a personal responsibility agreement (as developed
by the State) with the State.
``(2) Personal responsibility agreement.--For purposes of
this subsection, the term `personal responsibility agreement'
means a binding contract between the State and each family
receiving assistance under the State program funded under
this part that--
``(A) contains a statement that public assistance is not
intended to be a way of life, but is intended as temporary
assistance to help the family achieve self-sufficiency and
personal independence;
``(B) outlines the steps each family and the State will
take to get the family off of welfare and to become self-
sufficient, including an employment goal for the individual
and a plan for promptly moving the individual into paid
employment;
``(C) specifies a negotiated time-limited period of
eligibility for receipt of assistance that is consistent with
unique family circumstances and is based on a reasonable plan
to facilitate the transition of the family to self-
sufficiency;
``(D) provides for the imposition of sanctions if the
individual refuses to sign the agreement or does not comply
with the terms of the agreement, which may include loss or
reduction of cash benefits;
``(E) provides that the contract shall be invalid if the
State agency fails to comply with the contract; and
``(F) provides that the individual agrees not to abuse
illegal drugs or other substances that would interfere with
the ability of the individual to become self-sufficient, or
provide for a referral for substance abuse treatment if
necessary to increase the employability of the individual.
``(3) Assessment.--The State agency shall provide, through
a case manager, an initial and thorough assessment of the
skills, prior work experience, and employability of each
parent for use in developing and negotiating a personal
responsibility contract.
``(4) Dispute resolution.--The State agency shall establish
a dispute resolution procedure for disputes related to
participation in the personal responsibility contract that
provides the opportunity for a hearing.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, when individuals are hired for a job they
are handed a job description, a job description which outlines their
responsibilities so on day one they know what is expected in order to
earn a paycheck. However, when individuals go into a welfare office to
sign up for benefits, they fill out an application and then the
Government sends them a check. There is no job description, nothing is
expected on day one. The individual goes home and collects a check. I
believe that is wrong. It saps an individual's self-esteem and makes a
family dependent.
We must fundamentally change the way we think about welfare. We
should be guided by common sense and build a system based on a
foundation of responsibility. If you want a check, you must earn it and
you must follow the job description. We need to stop looking at welfare
as a Government giveaway program. Instead, welfare should be a
contract, demanding mutual responsibility between the Government and
the individual receiving the benefits. The contract should outline the
steps a recipient will take to become self-sufficient, and also a date
certain by which benefits will end. Responsibility should begin on day
one, and benefits should be conditioned on compliance with the terms of
the contract. Essentially, the contract would outline the
responsibilities for an individual, just like a job description
outlines a worker's duties. It builds greater accountability in the
welfare system and sends the clear message that welfare as usual is no
more.
A binding contract of this nature makes common sense, and it works.
Here is how I know. The Family Investment Agreement, or contract, is
the centerpiece of Iowa's innovative welfare reform program. The
agreement or the contract is negotiated between individual recipients
and their case workers. Failure to negotiate and sign a Family
Investment Agreement or to refuse to follow its terms results in
elimination of welfare benefits.
I meet with welfare recipients and their case workers on a regular
basis in Iowa. I always ask them what they think about the requirement
for this contract. An overwhelming number credit the contract for
creating a fundamental change of the welfare system in Iowa, change
which has meant fewer families on welfare and an increase in the number
of families working and earning income and a decrease in the amount of
money spent on cash grants. The results have been truly impressive in
Iowa.
Caseworkers say the family investment agreement, or contract, has
helped them guide families off welfare. Welfare recipients often say it
is the first time that anyone ever asked them about their goals, and
with the contract, they get a clear picture of exactly what is expected
of them. That is an important first step toward making families self-
sufficient.
The amendment I am offering with Senator Coats is simple. It builds
on the successful reforms that are going on in our States; that welfare
recipients negotiate and sign an agreement which outlines what will be
done to move off welfare. A similar amendment was included in last
year's bipartisan Senate bill. That bill we adopted 87 to 12. This
would be a good improvement to the pending bill. Some changes were made
in that amendment at the suggestion of Senator Coats, very good
changes, I might add.
So I urge my colleagues to support that amendment.
Mr. President, I do not know if this amendment is going to be agreed
to or not. There is some talk that it will be. We do not really know
yet.
I ask unanimous consent that if this amendment is not agreed to that
it be put over until Tuesday so that Senator Coats can speak on it. He
could not be here this evening. So I ask unanimous consent that it be
put over, that the vote on it be put over until Tuesday, and I will ask
for the yeas and nays, which, if it is accepted, we can vitiate the
yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the unanimous consent
request?
Mr. HARKIN. Let me rephrase that request. I ask unanimous-consent
that this amendment, if it is not accepted, be put over to a vote until
Tuesday so that Senator Coats might speak on it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
Mr. HARKIN. I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I still hope the amendment will be
accepted after it is looked at. I do want to thank Senator Coats for
his help in crafting this amendment and making changes to it. Again, I
still hope it will be accepted. As I said, something similar to it was
adopted unanimously on the bill we put through last fall.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I have a second amendment. It will not
take very long.
Amendment No. 4916
(Purpose: To strike amendments to child nutrition requirements)
Mr. HARKIN. I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Iowa [Mr. Harkin] proposes an amendment
numbered 4916.
Strike section 1253.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, this amendment would strike the provision
[[Page S8137]]
in the bill that eliminates the existing program of grants for
initiating or expanding school breakfast or summer food programs. The
provision in the bill has nothing to do with welfare reform. It is
merely killing a good program to save only a relatively small amount of
money in terms of the total amount of money involved in this bill.
In fact, I believe this provision in the bill will actually hinder
welfare reform, because it will mean more kids will be hungry during
the school year and over the summer months. That is a circumstance that
will make it harder for that family to get off welfare.
Many children having the greatest need for school breakfast and
summer food assistance do not get the opportunity they should have to
receive the benefits of these valuable programs. Currently, about 12
million low-income children take part in the School Lunch Program. Only
about 5.5 million children participate in the School Breakfast Program,
and the number of participants in the Summer Food Program is only about
2 million.
What these numbers mean is that a large proportion of low-income
children who benefit from the School Lunch Program do not benefit from
the School Breakfast Program and even fewer from the summer food
program. Less than half of the low-income kids getting school lunches
now receive breakfasts and less than 20 percent of low-income kids in
the lunch program receive summer meals. There are many children who
cannot take part in these very important programs because they simply
are not available in their neighborhoods due to a lack of community
resources.
Startup and expansion funds have proven themselves as a means to get
these programs going in neighborhoods. What this program does is
provide modest amounts of assistance to allow schools and summer food
sponsors to get programs started or expand them in low-income areas.
The school may need, for example, some equipment or some other resource
that will help them deliver meals to hungry kids. There is no other
program that is in existence to help out on these equipment and
infrastructure needs. This is the only one.
The School Breakfast Startup and Expansion Program was begun by
Congress to provide competitive grants for one-time expenses associated
with starting a School Breakfast Program in individual schools. In
1994, the startup and expansion program was modified and made permanent
and made to cover both school breakfast and the summer food programs.
The first grants under the new guidelines were announced in June of
1995, just last year. Forty-eight States have applied for grants; 31
States have received funding under this program. So it is needed, and
it is helping to improve access of low-income kids to nutritious
breakfasts and summer meals across the country.
There has been a resounding consensus from State departments of
education that the availability of these funds has played a major role
in increasing the availability of school breakfast and summer food
programs to low-income kids. These funds are for one-time startup
costs. Funding does not go on and on and on, but it provides schools
and sponsors with the seed funds necessary to start or to expand to new
sites these proven nutrition programs for children.
These startup and expansion funds have meant the difference between
needy children going hungry in the morning--because their schools are
too poor to afford the startup costs of a breakfast program--and
children ready to learn after eating a school breakfast.
This bill that we have before us cuts spending by over $50 billion.
My amendment would only have a minuscule effect on the magnitude of
those savings. Mr. President, I submit that the cost in human terms,
the cost in diminished futures for our Nation's children is far too
high to pay in order to achieve the relatively minor spending
reductions associated with the provision that my amendment strikes. By
striking this provision, my amendment will ensure we continue to make a
modest, sound investment in the nutrition, health, education and future
of our children.
Finally, Mr. President, I believe that this amendment will actually
save money in the long run, because kids who are well-nourished grow up
healthy. They are able to learn and acquire the skills they need to
live as productive members of society. That means less welfare
dependency, less crime, less poor health and less cost to our society
in dealing with the various ills that result from poor nutrition and
stunted human development.
Mr. SANTORUM addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania is recognized.
Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Harkin
amendment. The underlying provision that the Harkin amendment attempts
to amend actually has some commonality here, bipartisan support, I
should say.
The President, in his most recent welfare reform proposal, contained
a provision to repeal the expansion grants, the grants that the Senator
from Iowa wants to put back in.
In addition, the Democratic substitute which we voted on earlier
today also repealed expansion grants. And I think the reason was that
these expansion grants, at least for the school breakfast program, have
been around for 6 or 7 years. With 6 or 7 years, that is a fair amount
of time to have those grants on the table to use to grow the program.
If they have not grown by now, they are probably not going to grow with
respect to the summer food program. It has not been widely used.
The Senator from Iowa mentioned 31 States. But these are not State
grants. They are grants to very small discreet schools. If you only
have 31 in the entire country, that is hardly a significant expansion
of the program. I think most everyone has recognized that we have sort
of reached the end of the road with respect to expanding this program.
And this money can be more efficiently spent elsewhere.
I remind Senators that this provision saves a substantial amount of
money. What it is is $112 million that we were required to come up with
in our reconciliation portion of the agriculture budget. And there is
no offset provided for in this legislation. So if in fact we put these
grants back, we are going to have to find other places, food stamps,
other kinds of programs that I think have more political support, and
for good reason, than these expansion grants. So I would urge my
colleagues not to support this amendment.
I yield the floor.
Mr. HARKIN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. HARKIN. Just a small followup. I do not always agree with the
President of the United States. These start-up and expansion grants
stand on their own merits, without regard to what is contained in the
President's or any other welfare reform proposal.
As the Senator from Pennsylvania says, this is kind of a modest
program. But we did in 1994, as I said, make it permanent and modify it
to include summer food start-up and expansion. We got the first of the
new grants out last year. It is a modest program. It is not a big,
overwhelming program. But it allows really the poorest schools to get
the seed money.
As I said, it is a one-time infusion of money. Let us say they have
some sites they want to deliver meals to. They have a central kitchen
and they want to delivery some meals to other sites. Maybe they do not
have a vehicle to do it. Well, this program would help them get the
vehicle that will be able to deliver those meals to other sites, let us
say, around the area.
So it is a one-time cost that will enable them to go ahead and have a
breakfast program or a summer food program. It is needed. You say,
well, it is a modest program. I suppose if it was big, they would argue
it is too big. But it is a modest program and it is needed.
Right now, I say to my friend from Pennsylvania, that in the ag
function we have over $500 million in excess spending reductions beyond
the levels required by the budget resolution. CBO estimates that
eliminating this program will reduce spending over 6 years by $112
million. So there is plenty of excess savings in the Agriculture
Committee's portion of this bill to cover this amendment. I hope that
we will correct this bill to allow these very important start-up and
expansion grants for school breakfast and summer food programs to
continue. Thank you very much.
Mr. SANTORUM. Just one of the reasons we had more savings than the ag
[[Page S8138]]
bill is because we had to meet a specific target in the last year. And
to meet that target, we had to cut a little bit more than we needed to
in the first few years to meet the outyear number. That is why if you
change the numbers, then we do not have the numbers in the outyears. I
say that in response.
I am willing to get the yeas and nays on this.
Mr. HARKIN. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There appears to
be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. FORD addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. FORD. May I ask the Senator from Iowa, did the Senator offer two
amendments?
Mr. HARKIN. Yes. I offered two amendments.
Mr. FORD. Did we get the yeas and nays on the second one?
Mr. HARKIN. I did get the yeas and nays, but we had a unanimous
consent to hold off until Tuesday.
Mr. SANTORUM. I say to the Senator from Iowa, in discussing the
matter with the Senator from Delaware, we are prepared to accept the
first Harkin amendment, the one that was pushed off until Tuesday and
accept the amendment without the need for a vote, if that is acceptable
to the Senator.
Mr. HARKIN. That would be very acceptable.
Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to vitiate the
yeas and nays on the first Harkin amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays have been ordered on the
second Harkin amendment.
Amendment No. 4915
Mr. FORD. Mr. President, we are now ready to accept the Harkin
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the Harkin
amendment No. 4915.
The amendment (No. 4915) was agreed to.
Mr. FORD. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. SANTORUM. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. FORD. Mr. President, we have an amendment that is up from the
Republican side. I understand that the Senator is not here. It is going
to be offered by the acting floor manager. I do not know that we have
anybody on our side. If the Senator wants to introduce it, then we
would get the yeas and nays on it.
Amendment No. 4917
(Purpose: To ensure that recipients or caretakers of minor recipients
of means-tested benefits programs are held responsible for ensuring
that their minor children are up to date on immunizations as a
condition for receiving welfare benefits from the taxpayers)
Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on
behalf of the Senator from Missouri, Senator Ashcroft.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. Santorum] for Mr.
Ashcroft, proposes an amendment numbered 4917.
Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
At the appropriate place in chapter 9 of subtitle A, insert
the following:
SEC. . SANCTIONS FOR FAILING TO ENSURE THAT MINOR CHILDREN
ARE IMMUNIZED.
(a) TANF.--
(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, a State shall not be prohibited by the Federal
Government from sanctioning a recipient of assistance under a
State program funded under part A of title IV of the Social
Security Act for failing to provide verification that such
recipient's minor children have received appropriate
immunizations against contagious diseases as required by the
law of such State.
(2) Exception.--In the event that a State requires
verification of immunizations, paragraph (1) shall not apply
to a caretaker described in such paragraph who relies solely
or partially upon spiritual means rather than medical
treatment, in accordance with the religious beliefs of such
caretaker.
(b) Food Stamps.--
(1) In general.--A caretaker recipient of assistance or
benefits under the food stamp program, as defined in section
3(h) of the Food Stamp Act of 1977, shall provide
verification that any dependent minor child residing in such
recipient's household has received appropriate immunizations
against contagious diseases as required by the law of the
State in which the recipient resides.
(2) Exception.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply to a
caretaker described in such paragraph who relies solely or
partially upon spiritual means rather than medical treatment,
in accordance with the religious beliefs of such caretaker.
(3) Individual penalties.--The failure of a caretaker
described in paragraph (1) to comply with the requirement of
such paragraph within the 6-month period beginning with the
month that includes the date that the caretaker first
receives benefits under the food stamp program shall result
in a 20 percent reduction in the monthly amount of benefits
paid under such program to such caretaker for each month
beginning after such period, until the caretaker complies
with the requirement of paragraph (1).
(c) SSI.--
(1) In general.--A caretaker of a minor child who receives,
on their own behalf or on behalf of such child, payments
under the supplemental security income program under title
XVI of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1681 et seq.) shall
provide verification that the child has received appropriate
immunizations against contagious diseases as required by the
law of the State in which the child resides.
(2) Exception.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply to a
caretaker described in such paragraph who relies solely or
partially upon spiritual means rather than medical treatment,
in accordance with the religious beliefs of such caretaker.
(3) Individual penalties.--The failure of a caretaker
described in paragraph (1) to comply with the requirement of
such paragraph within the 6-month period beginning with the
month that includes the date that the caretaker first
receives, on their own behalf or on behalf of such child,
payments under the supplemental security income program shall
result in a 20 percent reduction in the monthly amount of
each payment made under such program on behalf of the
caretaker or such child for each month beginning after such
period, until the caretaker complies with the requirement of
paragraph (1).
Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, in 1994, one out of every four 2-year-
olds had not received the proper vaccinations. This statistic worsens
appreciably in urban areas. For example, a 1995 survey of State health
department clinics in Houston found that only 14 percent of the
children were up-to-date on their immunizations.
Because these children are not being immunized, the Centers for
Disease Control reported 1,537 needless and easily avoidable incidences
of mumps in 1994.
Such a deplorable lack of basic preventive health care is
inexcusable, particularly since immunizations are free in America.
The Vaccines for Children Program administered by the National
Immunization Program of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
provides free vaccines to children under 18 who are eligible for
Medicaid, or are uninsured or underinsured.
When a child in America is not immunized, it is entirely the fault of
the parent. It is a blatantly irresponsible act not to immunize a
child.
We should not be paying welfare recipients to abdicate their
responsibility. The welfare system should encourage people to take care
of their own.
Children are the future, and in order to break the cycle of
dependence, children of welfare recipients need every break available.
All schools require immunization records for a child to be enrolled.
An unimmunized child can be denied admission to school. And a child
that doesn't go to school will probably end up on welfare.
What's wrong with requiring parents on welfare to have their children
immunized? We shouldn't be paying parents to neglect their children.
This amendment allows States to sanction welfare recipients of TANF,
and other States programs who do not immunize their children.
This amendment also requires States to sanction Food Stamps and SSI
recipients who do not immunize their children.
Again, immunizations are free to Medicaid recipients and the
uninsured
[[Page S8139]]
in hospitals and clinics across the Nation, so there is simply no
legitimate excuse for parents not to have their children
immunized. Additionally, States think immunization requirements for
government aid are a good idea.
According to the American Public Welfare Association 12 States have
received Federal waivers to implement AFDC requirements for
immunization.
For example: Delaware, immunization is required for pre-school
children. Failure to comply results in $50 decrease per month in AFDC
grant. Indiana, recipients must show proof within 12 months of AFDC
application that children are immunized. Families in noncompliance are
sanctioned $90 per month. Michigan sanctions AFDC families $25 per
month if parents fail to immunize pre-school-age children according to
State policy. Mississippi children under 6 must receive regular
immunization and checkups or sanction of $25 per month applies. AFDC
preschoolers in Texas must be immunized or the State may sanction the
family $25 per child. And finally, in Virginia, AFDC recipients with
children who have not been immunized receive fiscal sanctions of $50
for the first child and $25 for each additional child.
This amendment is the best means to ensure that all children
everywhere are immunized against deadly, but easily controllable
diseases such as mumps, tetanus, measles, polio, et cetera.
It is a first step to encouraging responsibility in a system that
breeds decadence and dependence--a step upward on the ladder of
opportunity out of our current welfare system's net of ensnarement.
Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I yield back what time we might have on this
side.
Mr. SANTORUM. Likewise.
Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the Ashcroft amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a
sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
Amendment No. 4918
(Purpose: To revise this legislation if it increases the number of
impoverished children in this Nation)
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Wellstone] for himself and
Mr. Simon, proposes amendment numbered 4918.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
At the appropriate place insert the following:
``Impoverished Children Provision.--
``(A) Report by the secretary, accompanied by legislative
proposal.--The Secretary of Health and Human Services shall
develop data and, by January 30, 1999, shall report to
Congress with respect to whether the National child poverty
rate for Fiscal Year 1998 is higher than it would have been
had this Act not been implemented. If the Secretary
determines that this rate has increased and that such
increase is attributable to the implementation of provisions
of this Act, then such report shall contain the Secretary's
recommendations for legislation to halt this increase. The
Secretary's report shall be made public and shall be
accompanied by a legislative proposal in the form of a bill
reflecting said recommendations.
``(B) Congressional action.--
``(1) The bill described in (A) shall be introduced in each
House of Congress by the Majority Leader or his designee upon
submission and shall be referred to the committee or
committees with jurisdiction in each House.
``(2) Discharge.--If any committee to which is referred a
bill described in paragraph (1) has not reported such bill at
the end of 20 calendar days after referral, such committee
shall be discharged from further consideration of such bill,
and such bill shall be placed on the appropriate calendar of
the House involved.
``(3) Floor consideration.--Any bill described in paragraph
(1) placed on the calendar as a result of a committee's
report or the provisions of paragraph (2) shall become the
pending business of the House involved within 60 days after
it has been placed on the calendar of such House, unless such
House shall otherwise determine.''
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, this amendment is on behalf of myself
and Senator Simon. This amendment is a very simple and straightforward
amendment. And it is my fervent hope that this amendment will have
strong bipartisan support.
Mr. President, let me just assume--and I think it is probably a
correct assumption--that there is not one Senator in this Chamber that
wishes to impoverish any more children in America, that when people say
that they think the passage of this bill will not hurt children, they
mean it. I accept that as having been said in good faith.
Mr. President, today the Washington Post, in an editorial, said that
this welfare reform bill could be a profound mistake and called upon
all of us to be cautious, that one out of every eight children in
America is covered by the AFDC program, the welfare program.
Mr. President, let me give you the context, and then let me go right
to the amendment. The context is as follows. I think we are going to be
very honest about this. As the old saying goes, people can be in honest
disagreement about this bill. But the fact of the matter is, we do not
know for certain. There are some ardent advocates for this welfare
bill. And there are those who have spoken in strong opposition.
One of those Senators who has been most vocal in his opposition is
Senator Patrick Moynihan from New York, who has been a giant in the
field, who has studied welfare longer than any of the rest of us, who
is an acknowledged expert, and who has enormous intellectual and
political and personal integrity.
Senator Moynihan argues that this in fact would mean that there would
be more impoverished children in America. That is his view. That is not
the view of every Senator.
Mr. President, what this amendment says is that Health and Human
Services takes a look at what we have done over the next 2 years. I
know that Senators do not want this to be the case. But if, in fact, as
a result of some of the provisions in this legislation there are more
impoverished children in America, that report comes back to us, and we
fast track it. It comes back to the Congress, we fast track it, and it
comes to the floor in 20 days, and we take action to correct the
problem.
Now, Senators, please understand what I am saying. I wish there was
time to summarize this tomorrow. I am assuming everybody in this
Chamber--and I believe it has been operating in good faith; we just
have some honest disagreements. But I do not think any of us know for
certain.
What I am saying in this amendment is, at least have some safety net
here or some fail-safe mechanism. At least be willing to evaluate what
we have done. We cannot know what we do not want to know. We cannot be
unwilling to study what we have done. We cannot be unwilling to have
some sort of evaluation, have Health and Human Services study this,
bring it back to us, and if, in fact, because of some of the provisions
in this legislation, there are more impoverished children in America--
that is what the Office of Management and Budget said about the last
bill we passed--then we would take a look at that study, and we, not
Health and Human Services, we, as legislators, would take the kind of
corrective action that would be necessary to make sure we do not
continue to cause this poverty among children in America.
Mr. President, I am really hopeful that there will be strong support
for this. I think it is a most reasonable amendment. I think it would
be reassuring to people in the country. Frankly, I think it is a way we
can reassure ourselves. I offer this amendment, and I hope that it will
be accepted.
I withhold the balance of my time and ask for a response from the
Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I do not see anything in this amendment
that is necessary. We already get a variety of information from the
Department of Health and Human Services, the Labor Department, and a
whole lot of other agencies with respect to statistical information
with respect to poverty rates and a whole variety of other factors
dealing with children in poverty.
That information is compiled regularly and is made available to the
Congress. So to have the Secretary of
[[Page S8140]]
Health and Human Services redo that in some report as requested by the
Senator from Minnesota seems to me to be unnecessary.
If, in fact, the poverty statistics over the 2-year-period, as
described in this legislation, show an increase in the poverty rate
among children, I guarantee you that there will be Members, maybe from
both sides of the aisle if it is dramatic, who will come here to the
floor and will be looking to make some changes in the welfare program.
I suggest we have seen increases in poverty with the current system
on many occasions, almost continually over the past 30 years, and we
have never done anything as dramatic as what the Senator from Minnesota
is suggesting with this proposal. I think what we are seeing here is
really nothing more than putting in some sort of structure in some very
limited and constrained timing. Why not 2 years? Why not 5 years? Why
not 1 year? It is hard to pull a number like 2 years out of the hat.
This is a program that, once implemented, will be implemented
differently across this country because of the flexibility given in
this bill. There will be programs that I think will be dramatically
successful which will have tremendous impact on the poor in this
country. There are those, in all likelihood, that will have modest
success. I think it is important to let that play out. It is important
to give the Congress the flexibility to be able to deal with that in a
rational, measured way, by debate, instead of forcing them into a
rather tight timeframe that is being designed here by the Senator from
Minnesota.
For those reasons, I oppose the Wellstone amendment.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, the Senator from Pennsylvania evades
the point. This amendment is not about collecting statistics about
poverty in general. It is about this piece of legislation and doing
something in the affirmative for children if, in fact, provisions in
this piece of legislation should lead to an increase in poverty among
children. Two years is hardly too tight a time line for children who
might find themselves in more difficult economic circumstances because
of what we have done.
In all due respect, I find it absolutely amazing that Senators who
make the argument that this is going to be a piece of legislation that
will not hurt children would now be unwilling to support a study to see
whether, in fact, provisions in this piece of legislation are going to
impoverish more children. You cannot evade the point.
I ask my colleague, what would be the harm in such a study? Gunnar
Myrdal said, ``Ignorance is never random.'' Sometimes I guess we do not
know what we do not want to know.
Before I move on to my other amendment, is there any particular
response as to why?
Mr. FORD. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. WELLSTONE. I am happy to yield to the Senator.
Mr. FORD. We are starting something new, and it is down a path that
we are not sure how it will turn out. I think that is the Senator's
point.
The States will be doing this and not the Federal Government, as
such, because in this legislation we would be giving block grants. I
think we ought to know how that is faring out there.
I remember when the States were in charge of nursing homes. Because
it was so bad, the Federal Government took it over and set higher
standards so we could take care of our senior citizens better. Is it
not the point that we do not know what will happen?
Like the Senator from Pennsylvania said, some programs may be good,
some may be mediocre, some may flunk. Do we not need to know and
respond, particularly for children? Is that not the point the Senator
is trying to make?
Mr. WELLSTONE. I say to my colleague from Kentucky, absolutely.
I will give but one other example. It was President Richard Nixon, a
Republican, who said we better have some national standards for food
stamps, because we had all these reports in the mid and late 1960's. I
am sure my colleague from Pennsylvania has read about those reports on
children with extended bellies and children suffering from rickets and
scurvy. We decided there better be some national standards.
If we are going to do something quite new, and we have Senators of
the stature of Senator Patrick Moynihan who say this will impoverish
more children, and we have two studies from OMB and Health and Human
Services saying the same thing, I do not wish to cast judgment on it,
but I cannot for the life of me understand why my colleagues would not
want to at least have Health and Human Services study it and bring back
a report to us, and if, in fact, some of the provisions of this
legislation have increased poverty among children, we take corrective
action.
My colleagues have said that will not happen, so why would you want
to vote against this? Why would you not want to have a study? Why would
you not want to have some measuring of statistics? Why would we not
want to err on the side of caution when it comes to what we are doing,
as it affects the poorest children in America? Why would we not want to
err on the side of caution?
The silence is deafening; is there a response?
Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I am happy to respond to the Senator
from Minnesota. The answer simply is, like every other welfare program
that has been instituted in this country, there are volumes of studies
as to its impact by a variety of organizations from the left to the
right, including the Government. I do not think there will be any
shortage of information as to the efficacy of this new direction in
welfare. That is No. 1.
No. 2, what your amendment provides for is not only reports, and I
suggest duplicative reports, but congressional action, discharge for
consideration, an expedited procedure, very expedited procedure for
legislation, which is, again, I think, an overreaction and just not
necessary.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Well, Mr. President, I will finish up with one other
quick amendment with my time slot. First, I will respond by saying one
more time that it just evades the point. It is not a question of
academics or whether there will be studies. It is a question of whether
or not we are willing, as an institution, as a body, to say we are
doing something very different. We want to make sure that in this
legislation we pass we have some provision here to take a look at what
we have done, so that the results will come back to us, so that if in
fact, God forbid, we have done something that impoverished more
children, we will take quick action to correct the problem. I cannot,
for the life of me, understand the opposition to such a proposal. I am
really shocked. Excuse me for my indignation, but I am.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to lay this amendment aside
and to offer my other amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Frist). Is there objection?
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I will
not object, but I want to make some comments.
Mr. WELLSTONE. I am sorry. I yield for that purpose.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator withdraw the unanimous
consent request for the moment?
Mr. WELLSTONE. Yes. I thank the Chair.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, every Senator here is concerned about the
children of America, and we are particularly concerned about those
children that are not having the kind of opportunity we all think they
deserve. So I do not think the comments should be that we do not all
seek the same benefits for the children in our country.
Just let me point out that the legislation reported out by the
Finance Committee already provides for research, evaluation, and
national studies. In section 413(a), we specifically provide that the
Secretary shall conduct research on the benefits, efforts, and costs of
operating different State programs funded under this part, including
time limits relating to eligibility. Not only do we provide for
studies, but we provide $15 million for each of the fiscal years from
1998 through 2001, with the purpose of paying the cost of conducting
such research, for the cost of developing and evaluating innovative
approaches for reducing welfare dependency and increasing the well-
being of minor children under section (b).
So we already have in the legislation ample provisions for studies to
be made to determine how effective our reform
[[Page S8141]]
programs are. We all want that information. That is the reason it is
contained in this bill.
However, we do object to the expedited procedure, whereby the
Secretary of Health makes recommendations and they are put on an
accelerated track to be considered by the Congress. I know of no
instance where this kind of procedure has been used. Yes, we have had
accelerated procedures in certain limited circumstances, such as trade
bills. But the recommendations come from the President of the United
States. I, for one, think that it is appropriate for the
recommendations of these studies to go through the regular process of
Congress.
My distinguished friend and colleague from Minnesota talks about the
timeframe. Just let me point out that the present program has been in
effect for about 30 years, and we have studies and recommendations from
the CBO that show that if we do not do something about reform, that
another 3 million children will be on welfare in the next 9 years. So
do not talk to me about the timeframe. Let us all agree that we do want
the studies, and we do want the independent analyses as to how these
programs are working. But let us use the Congress and its normal
processes, including its committees, to determine what is appropriate,
rather than to give this kind of authority to a nonelected Member of
the Cabinet.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I have just a quick response, and we
will move on. First of all, I say to my friend from Delaware that to
talk in general terms about studies and evaluations and not to connect
it specifically to the issue that I raised in this amendment, as to
whether or not we will in fact be willing to look at the very real and
important questions as to whether this legislation or provisions in
this legislation have impoverished more children, and then take
corrective action, again, it misses the point. It is not a response to
that very real concern.
Second of all, this it is not an agency that takes the action. Health
and Human Services reports back to this body, and we are the ones that
correct the problem. We are the ones that correct the problem. So,
again, I do not really believe that the comments of my colleague are
responsive to what this amendment speaks to.
Finally, on welfare--I cannot resist--and then we can move on. But
this reference to the CBO study. With all due respect, when I hear my
colleagues talk about welfare and how welfare caused poverty, it is
tantamount to making the argument that Social Security caused people to
grow old. You have the cause and effect mixed up. Every 30 seconds, a
child is born into poverty in this country. We are getting close to one
out of every four children. That is true. There are a whole host of
reasons why we have this poverty. Welfare is a response to it. To argue
that the welfare system causes the poverty is like saying the Social
Security system causes people to be aged. You just have the cause and
effect mixed up.
I yield the floor.
Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I yield back all our time on the
amendment.
The amendment is not germane to the provisions of the reconciliation
bill pursuant to 305(b)(2) of the Budget Act. I raise a point of order
against the pending amendment.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I move to waive the applicable
section of that Act for the consideration of the pending amendment.
Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Amendment No. 4919
(Purpose: To ensure that States which receive block grants under Part A
of title IV of the Social Security Act establish standards and
procedures regarding individuals receiving assistance under such part
who have a history of domestic abuse, who have been victimized by
domestic abuse, and who have been battered or subjected to extreme
cruelty)
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask
for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Wellstone], for himself and
Mrs. Murray, proposes an amendment numbered 4919.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
At the end of section 402(a) of the Social Security Act, as
added by section 2103(a)(1), add the following:
``(7) Certification of standards and procedures to ensure
that the state will screen for and identify domestic
violence.--
``(A) In general.--A certification by the chief executive
officer of the State that the State has established and is
enforcing standards and procedures to--
``(i) screen and identify individuals receiving assistance
under this part with a history of domestic violence while
maintaining the confidentiality of such individuals;
``(ii) refer such individuals to counseling and supportive
services; and
``(iii) waive, pursuant to a determination of good cause,
other program requirements such as time limits (for so long
as necessary) for individuals receiving assistance, residency
requirements, child support cooperation requirements, and
family cap provisions, in cases where compliance with such
requirements would make it more difficult for individuals
receiving assistance under this part to escape domestic
violence or unfairly penalize such individuals who are or
have been victimized by such violence, or individuals who are
at risk of further domestic violence.
``(B) Domestic violence defined.--For purposes of this
paragraph, the term `domestic violence' has the same meaning
as the term `battered or subjected to extreme cruelty', as
defined in section 408(a)(8)(C)(iii).
``(8) Certification regarding eligibility of individual who
has been battered or subjected to extreme cruelty.--A
certification by the chief executive officer of the State
that the State has established and is enforcing standards and
procedures to ensure that in the case of an individual who
has been battered or subjected to extreme cruelty, as
determined under section 408(a)(8)(C)(iii), the State will
determine the eligibility of such individual for assistance
under this part based solely on such individual's income.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I will try to be brief. This amendment
speaks to an issue that we, as the Senate, have really, I think, taken
some important steps and major strides forward in addressing, and that
is domestic violence in our country, violence within families that
effect women, children, and sometimes men--usually women and children.
Mr. President, this amendment would ensure that States that receive
the block grant under part A of title IV of the Social Security Act
establish standards and procedures regarding individuals receiving
assistance who have a history of domestic abuse, who have been
victimized by domestic abuse and have been battered or subjected to
extreme cruelty.
There was a study done by the Taylor Institute in Chicago that
documented that between 50 to 80 percent of women receiving AFDC are
current or past victims of domestic abuse. In other words, for all too
many of these women and children welfare, imperfections and all, is the
only alternative to a very dangerous home.
So what this amendment would say is that States would be required to
screen and identify individuals receiving assistance with a history of
domestic violence, refer such individuals to counseling and supportive
services, and waive for good cause other program requirements for so
long as necessary.
This is what the States would essentially end up doing. It would all
be done at the State level.
Mr. President, we cannot have ``one size fit all,'' as I have heard
many of my colleagues so say. It took Monica Seles 2 years to play
tennis again. Can you imagine what it would be like as a result of her
stabbing--to be beaten up over and over and over again; can you imagine
what it would be like to be a small child and see that happen in your
home over and over again?
I want to make sure that these women and these children throughout
our country, for whom the welfare system has been sometimes the only
alternative to these very dangerous homes, receive the kind of special
services and assistance that they need. In the absence of the passing
of this amendment, all too many women and children could find
themselves forced back into these very dangerous homes.
So it is a reasonable amendment. It is one that speaks to the very
real problem of violence within homes in
[[Page S8142]]
our country. It would be an extremely important, I think, modification
of this welfare bill that would provide assistance that is really
needed by many women, many children, and many families in our country.
I hope that this amendment would be agreed to and would receive
strong support, bipartisan support.
Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, there is no objection to this amendment
on this side. We are willing to accept the amendment.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Pennsylvania.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment
of the Senator from Minnesota.
The amendment (No. 4919) was agreed to.
Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which
the amendment was agreed to.
Mr. WELLSTONE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Several Senators addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I have a unanimous consent agreement to
propound to dispose of two amendments which have been agreed to on both
sides of the aisle. They are Senator Faircloth's amendment to clarify
that a welfare recipient may provide child care services to satisfy the
bill's work requirements.
The second one is Senator Coats' amendment allowing welfare
recipients to establish individual development accounts.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order for me to
offer these two amendments which I now send to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, has this
amendment been cleared?
Mr. ROTH. Yes. Both have been cleared.
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I have been informed that the first
amendment has not been cleared on this side.
Mr. ROTH. I understand that, although they have been cleared, a
question has been raised.
So I withdraw my request until clarified.
Mr. DeWINE addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
Amendment No. 4920, Withdrawn
(Purpose: To amend the Social Security Act to clarify that the
reasonable efforts requirement includes consideration of the health and
safety of the child)
Mr. DeWINE. I send an amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Ohio [Mr. DeWine] proposes an amendment
numbered 4920.
Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
At the end of chapter 7 of subtitle A of title II, add the
following:
SECTION 2703. CLARIFICATION OF REASONABLE EFFORTS REQUIREMENT
BEFORE PLACEMENT IN FOSTER CARE.
(a) In General.--Section 471(a)(15) of the Social Security
Act (42 U.S.C. 671(a)(15)) is amended to read as follows:
``(15) provides that, in each case--
``(A) reasonable efforts will be made--
``(i) prior to the placement of the child in foster care,
to prevent or eliminate the need for removing the child from
the child's home; and
``(ii) to make it possible for the child to return home;
and
``(B) in determining reasonable efforts, the best interests
of the child, including the child's health and safety, shall
be of primary concern;''.
(b) Effective Date.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the
amendment made by subsection (a) shall be effective on the
date of the enactment of this Act.
(2) Exception.--In the case of a State plan for foster care
and adoption assistance under part E of title IV of the
Social Security Act which the Secretary of Health and Human
Services determines requires State legislation (other than
legislation appropriating funds) in order for the plan to
meet the additional requirement imposed by the amendment made
by subsection (a), such plan shall not be regarded as failing
to comply with the requirements of such title solely on the
basis of its failure to meet this additional requirement
before the first day of the first calendar quarter beginning
after the close of the first regular session of the State
legislature that begins after the date of the enactment of
this Act. For purposes of the previous sentence, in the case
of a State that has a 2-year legislative session, each year
of such session shall be deemed to be a separate regular
session of the State legislature.
Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I intend to talk for approximately 10
minutes about this amendment, and then, for reasons which I am going to
discuss in just a moment, withdraw the amendment. But I want to discuss
it. I inform my colleagues that it will take approximately 10 minutes.
Mr. President, my amendment deals with the issue of foster care. It
is my understanding that because the Senate bill has no language in
this bill on the issue of foster care that my amendment would be
considered not to be germane. The House bill does deal with foster
care. Therefore, if we had a House bill before us it obviously would be
germane. Because of this, after a few brief remarks, I am going to
withdraw this amendment.
But I would like to discuss tonight what I consider to be a very
important issue. It is the issue that my amendment addresses. It is the
subject of a freestanding bill that I have just a few moments ago
introduced. I believe that the idea contained in the bill, the idea
contained in my amendment, must be acted upon; if not in this bill then
in a subsequent bill. And I have previously discussed this issue at
length on the Senate floor. I want to take just a few moments now to
revisit the issue, and to talk to my colleagues about it.
In 1980, Congress passed the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare
Act, known as CWA. That 1980 act has done a great deal of good. It
increased the resources available to struggling families. It increased
the supervision of children in the foster care system, and it gave
financial support to people to encourage them to adopt children with
special needs.
Mr. President, while the law has done a great deal of good, many
experts are coming to believe that this law has actually had some bad
unintended consequences. The bad unintended consequences were not
because of the way the law was written and not because of the way the
lawmakers intended in 1980 that it happen, but, frankly, because the
law has been grossly misinterpreted.
Under the 1980 act, for a State to be eligible for Federal matching
funds for foster care expenditures, the State must have a plan for the
provision of child welfare services. And that plan must be approved by
the Secretary of HHS. This plan must provide, and I quote. Here is the
pertinent language, referring now to foster care:
In each case reasonable efforts will be made, (A), prior to
the placement of a child in foster care to prevent or
eliminate the need for removal of the child from his home;
and, (B), to make it possible for the child to return to his
home.
In other words, Mr. President, the law very correctly says we should
try family reunification. The law put money behind that. That is the
right thing to do. But, Mr. President, this law has been
misinterpreted. In other words, Mr. President, no matter what the
particular circumstances of the household may be, the State must make
reasonable efforts to keep it together and to put it back together, if
it falls apart.
What constitutes reasonable efforts? Here is where the rub comes. How
far does the State have to go? This has not been defined by Congress
nor has it been defined by HHS. This failure to define what constitutes
reasonable efforts has had a very important and very damaging practical
result. There is strong evidence to suggest that in the absence of a
definition reasonable efforts have become in some cases extraordinary
efforts, unreasonable efforts; efforts to keep families together at all
costs. These are families, Mr. President, that many times are families
in name only and parents that are parents in name only.
In the last few months I have traveled extensively throughout the
State of Ohio talking to social work professionals; talking to people
who are in the field every day dealing with this issue.
In these discussions, I have found that there is great disparity in
how the law is being interpreted by judges and by social workers. In my
home State of
[[Page S8143]]
Ohio we have 88 counties, and I would venture to say the law is being
interpreted 88 different ways and in some counties with many juvenile
judges it is interpreted differently within that same county by
different judges.
Let me give you an example. This is the easiest way that I can
explain it. I posed this hypothetical, which it turns out in some
cases, unfortunately, is not a hypothetical, but I made it up, I posed
a hypothetical to representatives of children's services in both rural
parts of Ohio and urban counties.
Here is my hypothetical. The mother, Mary, is a 28-year-old, crack-
addicted individual who has seven children. Steve, the father, 29-year-
old father of the children, is an abusive alcoholic, and all seven of
their children have been taken away, taken away permanently by the
county, by the State over a period of time. In each child's case,
courts have decided these people cannot have this child; they are
abusive; it is dangerous for the child. Not only that, we are taking
them away permanently. The mother gives birth now to an eighth child.
This newborn tests positive for crack. Therefore, it is very obvious
that the mother is still addicted to crack. The father is still an
alcoholic. Those are the facts.
Pretend for a moment that you work for the county children's services
department. Here is the question, the question I posed to numerous
people across Ohio. Does the law allow you to get the new baby out of
the household, and if you do, should you file for permanent custody so
that baby can be adopted? Can you file for permanent custody so that
baby can be adopted?
The answer, I believe, will surprise and shock you. In fact, I was
surprised at the response I got when I asked a number of Ohio social
work professionals that very question. The answer varied from county to
county but I heard too much ``no'' in the answers I got. Some officials
said they could apply for emergency custody of the baby, they would get
emergency custody and take the child away on a temporary basis, but
that they would have to make a continued effort--do you believe this?
They would then have to make a continued effort to send the baby back
to the family, back to the mother, back to the father.
Other social workers said if they went to court to get custody of the
baby, they probably would not be able to get even temporary custody of
this little child. Most shocking of all, Mr. President, is the issue of
adoption. I asked then with this hypothetical, with the seven children
already having been taken away, with the eighth child now testing one
day positive for crack, mother clearly still on crack, showing no signs
she is going to get off, father continues to be an alcoholic, continues
to be an abusive alcoholic, with all of those facts, how soon could I
expect that this poor little baby would be eligible to be adopted?
Most shocking of all is the answer I got. The lowest figure I got was
2 years. That was the best I got; it would take 2 years for this child
to be eligible to be adopted. In one urban county in the State of
Ohio--and this is not unusual to Ohio--I was told it would take 5 years
before that child was eligible to be adopted--5 years.
One social worker, just one out of the ones I asked, told me that her
department would move immediately for permanent custody of the baby,
but she said their success would depend on the particular judge that is
assigned to the case.
Mr. President, should our Federal law really push the envelope this
far? Should this Federal law really require extraordinary efforts?
Should it require extraordinary efforts be made to keep that family
together, efforts that any one of us clearly would not consider to be
reasonable based on past history? I had one social worker look me in
the eye and say, ``Senator, the problem is the way our courts interpret
this law, we can't look at any history. We can't learn from the history
of that family. We can't learn from the history of that abusive father
or that abusive mother. We have to start over again each time.''
It is clear that after 16 years of experience with the law, there is
a great deal of confusion as to how the act applies. Again, I do not
believe that is the fault of the authors. I think that is just the way
it has been interpreted. I would not interpret the law that way, but
the fact is after 16 years we know it is being interpreted that way and
is going to be interpreted that way.
My legislation is very simple, very short. My legislation would
clarify once and for all the intent of Congress in the 1980 act. My
legislation would amend that language in the following way. I am going
to read in a moment what my language would add. I want to first state
to the Senate that I would not change any of the language in the
current law. I would add to it, but I would not change it. I would not
change the requirement for reasonable efforts to be made to reunify a
family. That is a positive thing. That is something that we should try
whenever it is reasonable to do so. The people who make that decision
are the people on the front lines, the social workers, the children's
service agencies, the people who have to make life-and-death decisions.
They are the ones who are going to have to make the decision. I just
want to clarify the law and to get it back to where I think the framers
of the law, people who wrote the law in this Congress in 1980, intended
it to be. So I would add the following, after the current language:
In determining reasonable efforts, the best interests of
the child, including the child's health and safety, shall be
a primary concern.
Let me read it again:
In determining reasonable efforts, the best interests of
the child, including the child's health and safety, shall be
a primary concern.
I think that settles it; it clarifies it. Again, I think it does what
the framers wanted.
In conclusion, Mr. President, the 1980 act was a good bill. There are
some families that need a little help if they are going to stay
together, and it is right for us to help them. That is what the Child
Welfare Act did. But by now it should be equally clear that the framers
of the 1980 act did not intend for extraordinary, unreasonable efforts
to be made to reunite children with their abusers.
As Peter Digre, the Director of the Los Angeles County Department of
Children and Family Services, testified at a recent House hearing, ``We
cannot ignore the fact that at least 22 percent of the time infants who
are reunited with their families are subjected to new episodes of
abuse, neglect or endangerment.''
That was not the intent of Congress in the 1980 law, but too often
that law is being misinterpreted in a way that is trapping these
children in abusive households.
I believe we should leave no doubt about the will of the American
people on this issue affecting the lives of America's children. The
legislation I am proposing today would put the children first.
Now, Mr. President, for the reasons that I have stated in the
beginning, I reluctantly ask the Chair to withdraw the amendment.
I ask unanimous consent to have the amendment withdrawn.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is withdrawn.
The amendment (No. 4920) was withdrawn.
Amendment No. 4911
Mr. DeWINE. I yield the floor.
Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent it be in order
to ask unanimous consent to order the yeas and nays on amendment 4911.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. SANTORUM. I thank the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I would make a series of notions to strike
provisions in S. 1956.
Mr. SANTORUM. Will the Senator from Florida agree to a time agreement
at this point?
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, 40 minutes, equally divided.
Mr. SANTORUM. I ask unanimous consent to have 40 minutes equally
divided on the Graham motion without a second-degree amendment in
order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. GRAHAM. I would modify that. It will require more than a single
motion in order to strike the sections which I intend to strike from
title II,
[[Page S8144]]
chapter C, of S. 1956. So could the reference to ``motions'' be placed
in the plural?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, the purpose of the series of motions which
I will make, which I hope will be considered as a single motion for
purposes of our final vote, is to strike from this legislation those
sections which relate to the eligibility of legal immigrants--legal
immigrants--to receive various Federal needs-based benefits. I do this
because to have this language in this welfare bill is both redundant
and punitive in terms of those communities which have large numbers of
legal immigrants and will have significant costs shifted to them as a
result of this legislation.
I am joined in this effort by Senators Simon, Murray and Feinstein,
who also recognize it would be inappropriate, and a duplication, to
consider matters which have already been resolved by this body.
As we will all recall, it was only a few weeks ago, May 2, to be
precise, that the Senate passed the Immigration Control and Financial
Responsibility Act. This act, which had as its primary objective
controlling illegal immigration into the United States, also contained
provisions that restrict the rights of legal aliens to a variety of
Federal needs-based programs.
This legislation was the result of extensive hearings and markups in
the Judiciary Committee. It was subjected to exhaustive floor debate
which lasted well over a week in the Senate. The majority of the time
spent on the immigration bill dealt with the public benefits for legal
and illegal immigrants. The availability of Supplemental Social
Security Income, Aid for Families with Dependent Children, Medicaid and
Medicare for immigrants, was examined during several floor votes which
resulted in a comprehensive Senate bill.
I am going to say, I hope with not excessive arrogance, that this is
a subject which I know something about. I was Governor of Florida in
1980 when over 125,000 immigrants in various legal categories came to
my State in a period of a few weeks. Since that time, it has been
estimated that the total unreimbursed cost of that incident to the
State of Florida was in excess of $1.5 billion. Those were costs
associated with health care, social services, education, housing, job
training--a variety of activities which were necessary in order to
facilitate the assimilation of that large population into the
population of the State of Florida.
The State of Florida has tried for the better part of 15 years to get
recognition of those costs which were incurred because of Federal
immigration decisions, but which ended up being an unreimbursed,
unfunded mandate on the State of Florida. This case finally ended up in
the U.S. Supreme Court earlier this year. The decision of the U.S.
Supreme Court: This is not a judicial issue. If the State of Florida,
and other States which might be similarly affected, is to be dealt
with, it has to be dealt with by a political judgment, not by a
judicial remedy.
What distresses me is after having spent weeks shaping the bill which
was intended to provide that type of structured legal response by the
Federal Government when such impositions are placed by Federal action
on a particular community or State, we now, in a bill which is going to
be subject to 20 hours of debate--here it is after 10:30 at night--we
are about to substantially rewrite, discard the fundamental policy
premise of our previous actions and almost quadruple the amount of the
unfunded mandate we are going to impose on affected States. In addition
to the inappropriateness of us rejecting our previous work, we are
making some very significant policy decisions without the kind of
attention that we afforded to our earlier action on immigration.
What are some of those decisions we are about to make? In the
previous bill, we used the concept of deeming. I wish the Senator from
Wyoming were with us this evening, because he explained in great detail
and on a repetitive basis what the theory of deeming is. It is that if
a person sponsors a legal alien to come into this country, that that
person should assume the financial obligations that will guarantee that
their sponsored legal alien will not become a public charge.
Therefore, in terms of evaluating whether that legal alien
qualifies--for instance, for Medicaid--you would add the income of the
sponsor to the income of the legal alien. And if the combination of
those incomes exceeded the eligibility threshold, then the legal alien
would no longer qualify for that particular needs-based service. That
concept of deeming that we worked so carefully on in the immigration
bill is largely replaced in this legislation by absolute prohibitions
against legal aliens being able to access these Federal programs.
Much of the legislation that we considered earlier and passed on May
2 was based on a recommendation of the U.S. Immigration Commission,
which was established by act of Congress in 1990, and which issued a
series of reports in the mid-1990's. This report, issued in 1994,
entitled ``U.S. Immigration Policy: Restoring Credibility,'' while it
spoke well of the concept of deeming as a means of assigning
responsibility for legal aliens, went on to say:
However, circumstances may arise after an immigrant's entry
that create a pressing need for public health: unexpected
illnesses, injuries sustained because of serious accident,
loss of employment, death in the family. Under such
circumstances, legal immigrants should be eligible for public
benefits if they meet other eligibility criteria. We are not
prepared to remove the safety net from under individuals who
we hope will become full members of our polity.
That is precisely what this legislation does. It removes the social
net.
This also will make a very significant difference in the dollar
amount of unfunded costs shifted to the States. Under the bill we
passed as immigration reform, the cost over 7 years was $5.6 billion.
This bill will impose an unfunded mandate of $23 billion over the
next 7 years on States. Mr. President, in deference to the limited time
that we have and the lateness of the hour, I will not unduly burden the
Senate with the reports which I have, but I ask unanimous consent to
have printed in the Record a statement from the National Association of
Public Hospitals and Health Systems which outlines what the costs are
going to be just in the one sector of health care institutions which
are going to be a principal target of these unfunded mandates.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Statement of the National Association of Public Hospitals and Health
Systems in Support of Senator Graham's Amendment
The National Association of Public Hospitals and Health
Systems (NAPH) strongly supports Senator Graham's amendment,
cosponsored by Senator Simon, to strike Title IV from the
welfare reform legislation. NAPH is strongly opposed to the
legal immigrant provisions in the welfare reform bill because
barring legal immigrants from Medicaid eligibility for five
years and deeming legal immigrants out of Medicaid
eligibility until citizenship would jeopardize the health
care safety net in many urban areas.
Public hospitals would still treat immigrants but receive
no reimbursement. Most low income legal immigrants cannot
afford health insurance. Because of the legislation, however,
all legal aliens will be ineligible for Medicaid.
Public hospitals would have new burdens of uncompensated
care. The bar on Medicaid eligibility and Medicaid deeming
would lead to an increase in the number of uninsured patients
and exacerbate an already tremendous burden of uncompensated
care on public hospitals and other providers who treat large
numbers of low income patients. This is a cost shift from the
federal government to state and local entities and providers.
Public hospitals would bear the costs of welfare reform.
The cost shift created by the welfare legislation would
disproportionately fall on public hospitals in states with
large numbers of legal immigrants, such as Florida,
California, Texas, New York, and Illinois. Public hospitals
in states with lower levels of immigration would also bear
the costs, because legal immigrants are part of almost every
community.
There would be new public health risks. The loss of
Medicaid coverage means that the amount of preventive care
provided to legal immigrants would be drastically reduced,
thereby exposing entire communities to communicable diseases
while increasing the overall cost of providing necessary
care.
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, there are two other aspects of the policy
shifts in this legislation. The immigration bill contained the shift in
eligibility, the constriction of eligibility based on deeming for legal
aliens in order to generate funds that would then be used to finance
the programs
[[Page S8145]]
that were authorized in the illegal immigration sections of that bill
to better protect our borders. What we are about to do here is to take
all the money that is in the immigration bill that is intended to be
used for border enforcement and divert it for the purposes of this
welfare reform bill.
So all of the promises that we made, for instance, to the people
along the Southwest border, that we are going to have more Border
Patrol agents, fencing, and other steps to enforce our borders against
illegal immigration are going to be ashen, because we, by this action,
have taken all the money that we have provided to finance those
enhancements to our borders. It is, in part, for that reason, I
suspect, that Senator Feinstein, who has been such a leader in the
efforts to protect our borders, is a cosponsor of this amendment.
Finally, I suggest, Mr. President, that this is a very clear back-
door way to accomplish the same objective that this Senate on several
occasions rejected when we were debating the immigration bill, and that
is a sharp reduction on the rights of legal immigration into this
country which we know is primarily the right to reunify families.
Why is this a back-door constraint on legal immigration and
particularly family reunification? The reason is because we are making
it so financially onerous for sponsors. We are raising the specter of
their own impoverishment as a result of bringing a loved one, a child,
a spouse, a parent into this country that we are going to effectively,
through coercion, accomplish the same thing that this Senate, by direct
action, refused to do, which was to make it more difficult for legal
aliens to reunite with their families.
So, Mr. President, this amendment, this series of motions to strike
will eliminate those sections of the legislation that relate to the
eligibility of legal aliens to a variety of Federal benefits. I
underscore that this is not to say that we are not going to restrain
those benefits, but we would do so through the immigration bill that we
have passed, a bill that had the considered judgment of this Senate as
opposed to doing it through a welfare reform bill where this matter is
getting virtually no consideration.
We are going to do it through the concept of deeming rather than the
concept of a total prohibition. We are going to do it at a reasonable
level of $5.6 billion which I personally think is, in itself,
excessive, but pales in comparison to the $23 billion of reduction that
is contained in this welfare bill.
Amendment No. 4921
(Purpose: To strike the provisions restricting welfare and public
benefits for aliens)
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk, and I ask
unanimous consent that the time I have used thus far be counted against
my time on the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk
will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Florida [Mr. Graham], for himself, Mrs.
Feinstein, Mr. Simon, Mrs. Murray and Mrs. Boxer, proposes an
amendment numbered 4941.
Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading
of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
Beginning on page 562 strike line 5 through the end of line
23 on page 567.
Beginning on page 567 strike line 14 through the end of
page 582 line 2.
Beginning on page 585 line 13 strike all through the end of
line 25 on page 587.
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.
Mr. SANTORUM addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I think this is an area where there is
just a disagreement in philosophy. I respect the Senator from Florida,
and there probably is not a Member in this Chamber who knows more about
the difficulty in dealing with a large number of legal immigrants in
this country than the former Governor of Florida. But I think there is
just a philosophical difference here, or a difference of what we
believe is fair and equitable in this country.
What we are talking about is a particular class of legal immigrants.
We are not talking about refugees, people who come to this country
seeking refuge from persecution in their homeland. All refugees are
excluded from the provisions of this bill. In other words, they are
fully entitled to the array of social welfare benefits provided by the
Federal Government.
Asylees, for example, the two Cuban baseball players--they are
probably not going to need any social welfare benefits given their
talent level, but if they were not so talented and were here in this
country claiming political asylum, they would continue to be eligible
for a variety of welfare benefits.
We are, in a sense, to my understanding, unique in that respect
around the world. There are, to my knowledge, no other countries that
do provide welfare benefits to legal immigrants and their noncitizens
in their country. So, in a sense, we are keeping very much with the
tradition of our country, with the Statue of Liberty when we suggest
that those who are under persecution at home, that those who are in
need of this country as a beacon of freedom are, in fact, provided for
by this country. So I think that is something we should all agree on,
be proud of and, obviously, continue, and we do that in this bill.
What we do not continue in this bill, and I think wisely do not
continue, is to continue to provide benefits to what are called
sponsored immigrants. Sponsored immigrants are immigrants who come to
this country, and almost all come to this country through a family
unification provision, which is to unify a family, whether it is a
spouse or a child or a mother or a father or a sister or a brother.
They come to this country to unify a family, and when they do so, the
citizen of this country, who is the sponsor, signs a document. The
document says that I will take financial responsibility for this person
who I want to bring to this country for a period of 5 years, and that
all of my assets are deemed available and in the possession, so to
speak, constructive possession of the person coming into this country
for purposes of evaluating whether that person is eligible for welfare
or other Government benefits. That is current law.
But the problem with this whole agreement is it is not legally
enforceable, and they are not enforced. In fact, one hand does not know
what the other hand is doing. The welfare department has no idea what
the immigration status is, and, in fact, these benefits are handed out
without really much knowledge of the immigration status of the
individual involved.
What we are seeing--and the Senator from New York and the Senator
from New Mexico discussed this earlier today--is a trend. I say it is
even more than a trend, it is an avalanche, and the avalanche is
elderly family reunification, elderly being the bringing over of mom or
dad to this country.
Mom or dad being 60 or 70 or 80 years of age, coming to this country,
you know, the doting son signs the sponsor agreement. And lo and
behold, mom, who is disabled, ends up on SSI. Or if you are elderly,
because you qualify when you are over 65, you end up on SSI. The
Federal Government and the taxpayers of this country become the
retirement village supporters of the entire world.
I do not think that is what the intent of these provisions was for. I
think we have seen a real pattern of abuse here of a document that is
not legally enforceable, which is the sponsorship agreement, and a
tremendous number of people coming over here and using the SSI system
as, in fact, the retirement system for many people all across the
world. So what we have said is that we do not want to continue to have
this incentive.
We, as members of the Ways and Means Committee over in the other
body, heard testimony on numerous occasions about how it was well
known--and in fact it went throughout many refugee camps in Southeast
Asia and other places; that was one of the items of testimony--about
how this was this great system that America had, that you can get over
here and you could array yourself in all these wonderful benefits.
People should come to this country because they want the benefits of
our society, not the benefits of our welfare system. I think that is
where we really
[[Page S8146]]
have to draw the line here. So I think we have held up our
responsibility to the fabric of our society, which is to invite those
who are in need to come here, and we will in fact help you get started.
But I think we have drawn the line saying, if you want to bring a
member of your family over and you sign a document saying that you will
take financial responsibility for them, live up to the document,
provide for them. In fact, if you want--after 5 years, under current
law, you are eligible for citizenship. If you apply for citizenship,
you do what is necessary to prepare yourself for citizenship, and
comply and apply and pass all your tests, you can, too, be eligible for
the wide variety of welfare programs that we have in this country.
But, I mean, we talk in terms of people coming here for welfare. The
fact is, the vast majority of people do not come here for welfare. They
come here because America is the land of opportunity, and unfortunately
what we have seen is because of the abuse in this area, it has caused a
lot of some of the anti-immigrant feelings that are seen in many areas
of the country and by many people in this country.
I think what we have a responsibility to do--I joined with Senator
DeWine and Senator Abraham on this side of the aisle, I know Senator
Graham and others on the other side of the aisle, in not restricting
the caps on immigration. I am proimmigration. I am the son of an
immigrant. I am not one of these people who says, ``I'm in. OK. Close
the door.'' I believe immigration is important to the future of this
country.
But I believe if we have programs that are abused, if we have
programs that in fact call into question the immigration policy in this
country, that cast a broad shadow over immigration in general, we have
a responsibility to the taxpayers, No. 1, but also to the sentiment of
immigration in this country, No. 2, to clean up the mess, to put a
better face on immigration, to show that we have our act together in
providing immigration to those who truly are in need, but not to those
who are abusing the system.
If we clean that up, I think we improve the image of immigration and
there is less pressure on lowering those caps and doing other things
that I think could be harmful with respect to the area of immigration
and, I think, save the taxpayers a whole bundle of money in the
process.
I think those are all very positive things that happen. That is one
of the reasons that this provision that is in this bill is included in
the Democrat substitute and has been included in, I think, all the
House bills that have been considered.
I think it has very strong bipartisan support. While I think the
Senator from Florida is well-intentioned and certainly is, I think,
sensitive to the needs of the many thousands of immigrants who are in
the State of Florida, I think we have taken a judicious swipe at this
issue and have cut appropriately. I hope we will support the underlying
bill and be in opposition to the amendment of the Senator from Florida.
I reserve the remainder of my time.
Mr. GRAHAM. Will the Senator from Pennsylvania yield for a question?
Mr. SANTORUM. I will be happy to.
Mr. GRAHAM. Did the Senator from Pennsylvania state that these
provisions that are not bars to eligibility only apply to those persons
who come into the country with a sponsor who has assumed the financial
obligation?
Mr. SANTORUM. I mean, I have not combed over the Finance Committee
bill, but that has been my understanding all along.
Mr. GRAHAM. Will the Senator please turn to section 2402, which is
one of the sections that my motion would strike?
Mr. SANTORUM. Can you tell me what page that is on?
Mr. GRAHAM. Page 234 on my copy, but at a different page--
Mr. SANTORUM. I have section 2402 before me.
Mr. GRAHAM. It states that:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law and except as
provided in paragraph (2), an alien who is a qualified alien
(as defined in section 2431) is not eligible for any
specified Federal program (as defined in paragraph (3)).
So thus we then have to go to section 2431 to determine what the
definition is of a ``qualified alien.'' Subparagraph (b) of that
section says:
For purposes of this chapter, the term ``qualified alien''
means an alien who, at the time the alien applies for,
receives, or attempts to receive a Federal public benefit,
is--
Among other things--
(2) an alien who is granted asylum under section 208 . . .
(3) a refugee who is admitted to the United States under
section 207 . . .
(4) an alien who is paroled into the United States under
section 212(d)(5) . . .
None of these people have a sponsor. If I have misread the language
of this section, I will appreciate being corrected. But that is a very
fundamental issue as to who is intended to be covered.
Mr. SANTORUM. What I think this provision says is they are eligible
for a 5-year exemption under the law, and then they have to become
citizens.
Mr. GRAHAM. The Senator said the only people this applied to were
those who had a sponsor who could assume responsibility. I understood
the Senator to say specifically, for instance, they did not apply to
refugees who were admitted because they are fleeing legitimate
persecution.
Mr. SANTORUM. Yes. The Senator is absolutely right. This is different
than I understood the provision to be. The difference is--and the
Senator is correct--that aliens, refugees, et cetera, are eligible for
5 years until they become eligible for citizenship, and then we expect
them to become citizens or they will not be eligible in the future.
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I think this question precisely
underscores why I have offered this series of strikes. We spent a week-
plus on this floor in April and May debating a comprehensive
immigration bill. We came to a studied judgment as to how, for whom,
for what time period benefits for legal aliens should be constrained.
We came to a judgment that said over the next 7 years the restraint
should have a dollar figure of $5.6 billion.
Tonight we are debating a provision that purports to reduce the
benefits of legal aliens by $23 billion, four times more than what we
had purported to do just a few weeks ago. Yet there is not the
opportunity for careful scrutiny and study. Therefore, fundamental
misconceptions as to who this applies to are being presented on this
legislation on which our colleagues are going to be asked to vote.
I think the prudent thing to do is to adopt the motions to strike
that I have offered and let these issues be resolved in the conference
committee which is now in place to settle the immigration bill and not
attempt to do these things at now 11 o'clock at night on a bill that
has received not a scintilla of the kind of analysis insofar as it
relates to the impact on legal aliens as did that immigration bill.
That is the argument that I make in support of my motions to strike
these provisions. This has very serious implications, not only to the
individuals involved, but to the communities in which legal aliens
elect to live.
As an example, in a study by Los Angeles County of what this will
mean in terms of health care in that community, there are estimates
that they have 93,000 legal immigrants who would lose their SSI
benefits, making them automatically eligible for county funded general
assistance. That would cost Los Angeles County $236 million a year in
additional costs. I do not think we ought to be imposing an unfunded
mandate of $236 million on the citizens of Los Angeles County in the
cavalier manner that I suggest we are about to do.
We have a process. The conference committee focused on immigration
with Senators and Members of the House who were selected because of
their knowledge and background on that subject matter, several of whom
have served on these important commissions on immigration. That is the
form which these issues ought to be resolved, not in this welfare bill.
Mr. DODD. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. GRAHAM. I am happy to yield to the Senator.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, it is awfully late here. Our colleague from
Pennsylvania gets saddled with the responsibility of providing analysis
for I do not know how many pages in the bill, and it is not easy, but I
think our colleague from Florida, despite the late hour and the fact
there are only a
[[Page S8147]]
handful of us here, is a classic example of offering insight that we
probably were not aware of.
I hope those who understand this bill would look carefully at the
suggestions our colleague has made, because, as I understood it, this
is the kind of thing which none of us intended to be the case. We are
talking about a category of people who come here legally, who fall into
circumstances that all of us have agreed should not be denied benefits.
There is no debate about that. I think we have resolved that.
I urge staff and others who might look at this, so that tomorrow when
we are asked to vote on matters as we gather in the well, there will
not be the benefit that those of us sitting here today will have had of
the very careful analysis of the Senator from Florida. My hope is, and
I say this so our friends from Pennsylvania and Delaware who are here,
who have staff here to look at this, so tomorrow when our colleagues
gather we will have an opportunity to pass judgment on this, and if it
is as our colleague from Florida has suggested, we might adopt that
amendment maybe by voice vote, go to conference, and try and resolve
some of the matters.
They may take an opposite point of view, but I urge that thought be
given to that. Most of our colleagues, if they have any sense at all,
are fast asleep by this hour. I see that our Presiding Officer is a
surgeon. He may make recommendations for all of us here. We all know
what it is like when it comes time to vote. We come in, there are
papers at the desk, we vote aye or we vote no, we do not have a chance
to benefit from the exchanges that have occurred here.
I urge our staffs take a good look at this, and if the Senator from
Florida is correct, I urge, in the spirit of bipartisanship, that we
try and set that matter aside for conference so as not to unwittingly
adopt some provisions that I think none of us would agree with.
Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, with all due respect to my friend and
colleague from Connecticut, I am not too sure there is anything
unwitting going on here. This was a provision that was in the Senate
bill when it passed 87 to 12. It was in the conference report; it was
in the original bill that was introduced. This provision has really
been unchanged for quite some time and has been, as I said, not only
included in the Republican bill, but the Senator from Connecticut
himself stood up on the floor when the Senator from New Mexico and the
Senator from New York said, ``What are you guys talking about?
This provision on illegal immigrants, it is in our bill. You should not
be talking about that.''
I think there has been very broad support of this issue. It saves a
significant amount of money. It is $18 billion. Obviously, the Senator
from Florida does not have any offset there to put us within our
reconciliation target, so this puts us well beyond, well under our
reconciliation target, No. 1.
No. 2, the Senator from Florida talks about the potential for an
unfunded mandate. We have a CBO estimate here that there is no unfunded
mandate here, including the provision in this bill that the bill does
not provide an unfunded mandate. So we have no unfunded mandate with
this provision included in the bill, No. 1.
No. 2, we lose $18 billion of a $50-some-odd-billion savings in this
bill with this provision.
No. 3, it has been adopted on many occasions, included in both
parties' bills, and we had a vote on it the last time we were here, and
it was voted down.
I think to suggest that someone is being hoodwinked here or that
there is some substantial question as to whether this is a legitimate
way to reform the system, I do not think is borne out by the history of
these provisions. I think these provisions have been tested. These
provisions have had broad bipartisan support. I am hopeful tomorrow
that broad bipartisan support will continue.
Mr. DODD. I will not dwell on this. I do not believe our colleague
from Florida was on the floor when our colleague from New York, and the
chairman, Senator Domenici, had a chart they raised and talked about
legal aliens, the parents of citizens, who under the deeming process--
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I be able to proceed
for 3 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DODD. As I understood it, those were the parents of citizens who
would come in legally, and under the deeming process their children
assumed, as my colleague from Pennsylvania properly described, the
financial responsibility of those parents coming in. The exchange was
that both the Democratic proposal and the underlying bill prohibit that
kind of situation from persisting. I think we all agree on that.
Mr. SANTORUM. I suggest to the Senator from Connecticut that with the
amendment of the Senator from Florida, that would not be; it would
strike the provisions that eliminate that, that that situation could
continue.
Mr. DODD. I understand that part of it. I think we would want to keep
it. What I understood, this went beyond that, which I am not as
knowledgeable as our colleague from Florida. In addition to that, you
have refugees, asylees and others who would not necessarily fall into
the category, or they did not have a sponsor and got here.
That is what he is trying to carve out. That is why I suggest staff
get together. Maybe I misunderstood.
I yield to the Senator from Florida.
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, to be clear, my argument is that this is a
redundant and inappropriate piece of legislation to be considering the
issue of the eligibility of legal aliens for Federal benefits. That is
exactly what we did in the immigration bill.
We spent days on the floor and weeks in the appropriate committee
considering the nuances of that legislation, including its impact on
the communities, which would now have to carry the cost that previously
had been a partnership between the States, the communities, and the
Federal Government.
I am suggesting what we ought to do is let that process come to
fruition. The House has passed an immigration bill. The Senate has
passed the immigration bill. They are in conference. They have been in
conference since mid-May. Let that forum decide what should be the
benefits that the Federal Government would provide for legal aliens. Do
not do it in this welfare bill.
I think the very fact that we are proposing to reduce those benefits
by $23 billion, when just a few weeks ago we thought the appropriate
level of reduction was $5.6 billion, ought to raise in our minds
whether we really know what we are doing here.
The statement that this is not an unfunded mandate, how in the world
is it not going to be an unfunded mandate when the Federal Government
denies coverage to large groups of people and imposes that cost for the
sick, the elderly, those who require special other assistance, is going
to end up being a responsibility of States and local governments.
If I could use one example, the U.S. Government has entered into an
agreement with the Cuban Government which sets up a process by which
20,000 Cubans each year will come into the United States. Most of them,
when they come into the United States, come under the category of
parolees. Currently, the Federal Government, which is the government
that signed this agreement, is responsible for the financial cost of
that group of new arrivals if they, for instance, become eligible for
health care because they are indigent and they are in need of health
care.
This is going to say that, for the first year, that group of people
will not be eligible for any Federal assistance. Who is going to pick
up those costs? Eighty percent plus of those people end up in Dade
County, FL. I can tell you who is going to pick up the cost. Jackson
Memorial Hospital and the other health care providers in the community
are going to be paying for the costs, and it will become--in the
classic definition of an unfunded mandate--an unfunded mandate to
render services to a group of people who the Federal Government has
determined shall enter the community without any Federal financial
participation in paying those costs.
We dealt with that issue specifically in the immigration bill, and we
did not reach that, I think, quite unjust result. This would reverse a
decision that we have previously made.
So my argument, Mr. President, is a simple one--not that we should
not
[[Page S8148]]
face the issue and try to accomplish some of the objectives the Senator
from Pennsylvania strives to do; but we ought to do it in the proper
form with the proper consideration and with the proper level of respect
to the communities that are going to be most affected by the ultimate
decisions we will make. I believe striking these provisions out of this
bill, which then turns to the more appropriate forum of the immigration
conference committee as the means by which we would reach ultimate
judgment, is the appropriate policy. I hope the Senate will concur when
we vote on this issue tomorrow.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I would just like to point out that it is,
of course, the Finance Committee that has jurisdiction over these
programs. I point out that the provisions that are contained in the
legislation before us were also contained in H.R. 4, as well as the
Balanced Budget Act of last year. So this legislation has been acted
upon in the Congress twice.
I further point out that the matter was considered in committee, and
on that committee we have a number of members of the Judiciary
Committee. On the Republican side, these provisions were supported.
So I do not think it can be said that this is a matter that just came
up in the wee hours of this evening. It has been a matter carefully
considered in committee, as well as on the Senate floor.
I also point out that much of these provisions, although not entirely
in the same form, were included as part of the Democratic substitute.
So I think it is important that we bring this into the proper
perspective. I want to point out that much of the savings that would
come about through this legislation are through the changes that are
being made in welfare programs for noncitizens. These people came into
the United States on the basis that they would not become a public
charge. S. 1956 requires noncitizens to live up to their end of the
bargain by requiring them to work or depend on the support of their
sponsors and not rely on the American taxpayers.
I yield the floor.
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the motion
to strike.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Amendment No. 4922
(Purpose: To correct provisions relating to quality standards for child
care)
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for
its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Dodd], for himself, Ms.
Snowe, Mr. Kennedy, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Kohl, Mr.
Kerry, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Kerrey, Mr. Cohen, Mr. Reid, and Mr.
Leahy, proposes an amendment numbered 4922.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the
amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
In the amendment made by section 2807, strike ``3'' and
insert ``4''.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I offer this amendment on behalf of myself,
Senator Snowe, and others.
This deals with the child care section of the legislation. Let me
just very briefly describe the amendment to my colleagues. The
reconciliation bill reserves 3 percent of the child care funds to
improve the quality and availability of child care. Using current law
projections, Mr. President, this proposal would represent a reduction
of approximately $400 million over 6 years for the quality and
increased availability of child care, and buildings and accommodations
for those children who will need it.
This amendment increases the funds reserved for quality from 3
percent to 4 percent, reducing the shortfall in funds to about $200
million over 6 years, about half of what the shortfall would be without
this amendment.
I point out, Mr. President, that the House has adopted a similar
provision of 4 percent, so we would be conforming with this legislation
to what is already included in the House language.
Earlier in the day, Mr. President, I made a case for the importance
of health and safety standards for our child care settings, and I
pointed out that in recent studies of child care facilities in this
country, only 1 in 7 day care centers received a rating of good quality
care, with even fewer programs--8 percent--providing good quality care
for infants and toddlers. In the same study, 40 percent of rooms
serving infants and toddlers provided less than minimum quality care in
the country.
I do not think I need to make the case here. I think we all agree and
understand the implications of the legislation. There is unanimity here
on the concept of moving adults from welfare to work. We all understand
that many of these adults, of course, have children who are going to
require child care of one kind or the other.
As I pointed out earlier in the day, of the 13 million people in this
entire country who receive AFDC, 8.8 million of the 13 million are
under the age of 18; 78 percent of the 8.8 million are under the age of
12; and 46 percent of the 8.8 million are under the age of 6. There are
4.1 million adults who collect AFDC. So as we take the 2 million
adults, of the 4 million that this bill requires we put to work over
the next 7 years, at least anyway, 78 percent of that 8.8 million, you
can argue actually a higher number will require some form of child care
setting--a significant amount. We are told the numbers will get larger
in the coming years.
So we want to put adequate quality child care out there. We have made
the case that for automobiles and pets we have standards. If you leave
your pet someplace, certain standards have to be met. What we are
trying to say here is, when it comes to our Nation's children, minimum
standards should be met, and there should be some quality control.
We leave it to the States, Mr. President, to decide in specificity
what those quality standards ought to be. We do not try to mandate here
specific requirements, except in a broader context. So we are not
violating the notion that States meet those standards. I point out, by
the way, that this is language that we adopted--my colleague from
Delaware will recall--going back to 1990, under the Bush
administration, when Senator Hatch and I authored the Child Care Block
Grant Program that was supported by the Bush administration and adopted
here. We included quality and health and safety standards.
Earlier today, with the support of Senator Coats, Senator Kassebaum,
Senator Snowe, and others, we adopted the health and safety standards
in the bill. This amendment offered by Senator Snowe and I would raise
from 3 percent to 4 percent an allocation for quality, and I hope that
my colleagues will see fit to support this amendment. I think it
improves the bill.
With that, I would not necessarily ask for a rollcall vote because I
understand that it may be acceptable to the majority. If that is the
case, I will not ask, obviously, for a rollcall vote.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I say to the distinguished Senator from
Connecticut that we are willing to agree to his amendment, and
consequently a rollcall vote would not be necessary.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I deeply appreciate my colleagues' support
for the amendment.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment
of the Senator from Connecticut.
The amendment (No. 4922) was agreed to.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the
amendment was agreed to.
Mr. ROTH. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, there is also an amendment. The Senator from
North Carolina, Senator Faircloth, had an amendment he was going to
propose, and it has to do with child care and the question of whether
or not child care workers could be considered in the work sections of
this bill. There was some question as to whether or not we would clear
that.
As I understand it, all the health and safety standards and quality
would apply. If my colleague from Delaware would confirm that for me,
we would be more than willing to accept that
[[Page S8149]]
amendment and move another amendment along.
Mr. ROTH. Yes. I do confirm that.
Mr. DODD. I would be more than happy to clear that amendment on our
side. I do not know if the Senator has an amendment and he would like
to offer it. If he does, we could remove one more amendment. I am sure
Senator Domenici, who is sound asleep, would be grateful in the morning
when he arrives to find out that we agreed to one more amendment.
Mr. ROTH. Actually, I had three more amendments.
Mr. DODD. Do not get carried away.
Mr. ROTH. Do you want more?
Mr. DODD. No.
[Laughter.]
Mr. ROTH. We had the two earlier agreements.
Amendments Numbered 4923 through 4925, En Bloc
Mr. ROBB. Let me start over.
Mr. President, I have a unanimous-consent agreement to propound to
dispose of three amendments which have been agreed to on both sides of
the aisle. They include Senator Faircloth's amendment to clarify that a
welfare recipient may provide child care services to satisfy the bill's
work requirement; two, Senator Coats' amendment allowing welfare
recipients to establish individual development accounts; and, third,
Senator Abraham's amendment modifying the illegitimacy ratio.
I ask unanimous consent that it be in order for me to offer these
three amendments that I send to the desk, en bloc, that they be
considered and agreed to, en bloc, and that the motions to table and
the motions to reconsider be agreed to, en bloc, and that they appear
in the Record as if considered individually.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, reserving the right to object--I shall not
object--the Senator from Delaware is correct. These amendments have
been cleared on this side. We are pleased to have them accepted.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendments by
number.
The bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Delaware [Mr. Roth] proposes amendments
numbered 4923 through 4925, en bloc.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendments are agreed to.
The amendments (Nos. 4923, 4924, and 4925, en bloc) were agreed to,
as follows:
amendment no. 4923
(Purpose: To encourage individuals to provide child care services)
On page 239, between lines 21 and 22, insert the following:
``(i) Encouragement To Provide Child Care Services.--An
individual participating in a State community service program
may be treated as being engaged in work under subsection (c)
if such individual provides child care services to other
individuals participating in the community service program in
the manner, and for the period of time each week, determined
appropriate by the State.
____
amendment no. 4924
(Purpose: To provide for the establishment of individual development
accounts)
On page 221, between lines 20 and 21, insert the following
new subsection:
``(h) Use of Funds for Individual Development Accounts.--
``(1) In general.--A State operating a program funded under
this part may use amounts received under a grant under
section 403 to carry out a program to fund individual
development accounts (as defined in paragraph (2))
established by individuals eligible for assistance under the
State program under this part.
``(2) Individual development accounts.--
``(A) Establishment.--Under a State program carried out
under paragraph (1), an individual development account may be
established by or on behalf of an individual eligible for
assistance under the State program operated under this part
for the purpose of enabling the individual to accumulate
funds for a qualified purpose described in subparagraph (B).
``(B) Qualified purpose.--A qualified purpose described in
this subparagraph is 1 or more of the following, as provided
by the qualified entity providing assistance to the
individual under this subsection:
``(i) Postsecondary educational expenses.--Postsecondary
educational expenses paid from an individual development
account directly to an eligible educational institution.
``(ii) First-home purchase.--Qualified acquisition costs
with respect to a qualified principal residence for a
qualified first-time homebuyer, if paid from an individual
development account directly to the persons to whom the
amounts are due.
``(iii) Business capitalization.--Amounts paid from an
individual development account directly to a business
capitalization account which is established in a federally
insured financial institution and is restricted to use solely
for qualified business capitalization expenses.
``(C) Contributions to be from earned income.--An
individual may only contribute to an individual development
account such amounts as are derived from earned income, as
defined in section 911(d)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986.
``(D) Withdrawal of funds.--The Secretary shall establish
such regulations as may be necessary to ensure that funds
held in an individual development account are not withdrawn
except for 1 or more of the qualified purposes described in
subparagraph (B).
``(3) Requirements.--
``(A) In general.--An individual development account
established under this subsection shall be a trust created or
organized in the United States and funded through periodic
contributions by the establishing individual and matched
by or through a qualified entity for a qualified purpose
(as described in paragraph (2)(B).
``(B) Qualified entity.--For purposes of this subsection,
the term `qualified entity' means either--
``(i) a not-for-profit organization described in section
501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and exempt
from taxation under section 501(a) of such Code; or
``(ii) a State or local government agency acting in
cooperation with an organization described in clause (i).
``(4) No reduction in benefits.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of Federal law (other than the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986) that requires consideration of 1 or more
financial circumstances of an individual, for the purpose of
determining eligibility to receive, or the amount of, any
assistance or benefit authorized by such law to be provided
to or for the benefit of such individual, funds (including
interest accruing) in an individual development account under
this subsection shall be disregarded for such purpose with
respect to any period during which such individual maintains
or makes contributions into such an account.
``(5) Definitions.--For purposes of this subsection--
``(A) Eligible educational institution.--The term `eligible
educational institution' means the following:
``(i) An institution described in section 481(a)(1) or
1201(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C.
1088(a)(1) or 1141(a)), as such sections are in effect on the
date of the enactment of this subsection.
``(ii) An area vocational education school (as defined in
subparagraph (C) or (D) of section 521(4) of the Carl D.
Perkins Vocational and Applied Technology Education Act (20
U.S.C. 2471(4))) which is in any State (as defined in section
521(33) of such Act), as such sections are in effect on the
date of the enactment of this subsection.
``(B) Post-secondary educational expenses.--The term `post-
secondary educational expenses' means--
``(i) tuition and fees required for the enrollment or
attendance of a student at an eligible educational
institution, and
``(ii) fees, books, supplies, and equipment required for
courses of instruction at an eligible educational
institution.
``(C) Qualified acquisition costs.--The term `qualified
acquisition costs' means the costs of acquiring,
constructing, or reconstructing a residence. The term
includes any usual or reasonable settlement, financing, or
other closing costs.
``(D) Qualified business.--The term `qualified business'
means any business that does not contravene any law or public
policy (as determined by the Secretary).
``(E) Qualified business capitalization expenses.--The term
`qualified business capitalization expenses' means qualified
expenditures for the capitalization of a qualified business
pursuant to a qualified plan.
``(F) Qualified expenditures.--The term `qualified
expenditures' means expenditures included in a qualified
plan, including capital, plant, equipment, working capital,
and inventory expenses.
``(G) Qualified first-time homebuyer.--
``(i) In general.--The term `qualified first-time
homebuyer' means a taxpayer (and, if married, the taxpayer's
spouse) who has no present ownership interest in a principal
residence during the 3-year period ending on the date of
acquisition of the principal residence to which this
subsection applies.
``(ii) Date of acquisition.--The term `date of acquisition'
means the date on which a binding contract to acquire,
construct, or reconstruct the principal residence to which
this subparagraph applies is entered into.
``(H) Qualified plan.--The term `qualified plan' means a
business plan which--
``(i) is approved by a financial institution, or by a
nonprofit loan fund having demonstrated fiduciary integrity,
``(ii) includes a description of services or goods to be
sold, a marketing plan, and projected financial statements,
and
``(iii) may require the eligible individual to obtain the
assistance of an experienced entrepreneurial advisor.
``(I) Qualified principal residence.--The term `qualified
principal residence' means a principal residence (within the
meaning of section 1034 of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986), the qualified acquisition costs of which do not exceed
100 percent of the average area purchase price applicable to
such residence (determined in accordance with paragraphs (2)
and (3) of section 143(e) of such Code).
____
[[Page S8150]]
amendment no. 4925
(Purpose: To establish an illegitimacy reduction bonus fund)
Beginning on page 202, line 20, strike ``a grant'' and all
that follows through line 13 on page 203, and insert the
following: ``an illegitimacy reduction bonus if--
``(i) the State demonstrates that the number of out-of-
wedlock births that occurred in the State during the most
recent 2-year period for which such information is available
decreased as compared to the number of such births that
occurred during the previous 2-year period; and
``(ii) the rate of induced pregnancy terminations in the
State for the fiscal year is less than the rate of induced
pregnancy terminations in the State for fiscal year 1995.
``(B) Participation in illegitimacy bonus.--A State that
demonstrates a decrease under subparagraph (A)(i) shall be
eligible for a grant under paragraph (5).
On page 203, line 19, strike ``(B)'' and insert ``(C)''.
On page 204, line 7, strike ``(C)'' and insert ``(D)''.
On page 204, lines 13 and 14, strike ``for fiscal year
1995'' and insert ``the preceding 2 fiscal years''.
On page 214, between lines 10 and 11, insert the following:
``(5) Bonus to reward decrease in illegitimacy.--
``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall make a grant
pursuant to this paragraph to each State determined eligible
under paragraph (2)(B) for each bonus year for which the
State demonstrates a net decrease in out-of-wedlock births.
``(B) Amount of grant.--
``(i) In general.--Subject to this subparagraph, the
Secretary shall determine the amount of the grant payable
under this paragraph to a low illegitimacy State for a bonus
year.
``(ii) Top five states.--With respect to States determined
eligible under paragraph (2)(B) for a fiscal year, the
Secretary shall determine which five of such States
demonstrated the greatest decrease in out-of-wedlock births
under such paragraph for the period involved. Each of such
five States shall receive a grant of equal amount under this
paragraph for such fiscal year but such amount shall not
exceed $20,000,000 for any single State.
``(iii) Less than five states.--With respect to a fiscal
year, if the Secretary determines that there are less than
five States eligible under paragraph (2)(B) for a fiscal
year, the grants under this paragraph shall be awarded to
each such State in an equal amount but such amount shall not
exceed $25,000,000 for any single State.
``(C) Bonus year.--The term `bonus year' means fiscal years
1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, and 2003.
``(D) Appropriation.--Out of any money in the Treasury of
the United States not otherwise appropriated, there are
appropriated for fiscal years 1999 through 2003, such sums as
are necessary for grants under this paragraph.
____________________