[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 108 (Monday, July 22, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8395-S8426]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY, WORK OPPORTUNITY, AND MEDICAID RESTRUCTURING
ACT OF 1996
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report the bill.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 1956) to provide for reconciliation pursuant to
section 202(a) of the concurrent resolution on the budget for
the fiscal year 1997.
The Senate resumed consideration of the bill.
Pending:
Faircloth amendment No. 4905, to prohibit recruitment
activities in SSI outreach programs, demonstration projects,
and other administrative activities.
Harkin amendment No. 4916, to strike section 1253, relating
to child nutrition requirements.
D'Amato amendment No. 4927, to require welfare recipients
to participate in gainful community service.
Exon (for Simon) amendment No. 4928, to increase the number
of adults and to extend the period of time in which
educational training activities may be counted as work.
Feinstein-Boxer amendment No. 4929, to provide that the ban
on supplemental security income benefits apply to those
aliens entering the country on or after the enactment of this
bill.
Chafee amendment No. 4931, to maintain current eligibility
standards for Medicaid and provide additional State
flexibility.
Roth amendment No. 4932 (to amendment No. 4931), to
maintain the eligibility for Medicaid for any individual who
is receiving Medicaid based on their receipt of AFDC, foster
care or adoption assistance, and to provide transitional
Medicaid for families moving from welfare to work.
Chafee amendment No. 4933 (to amendment No. 4931), to
maintain current eligibility standards for Medicaid and
provide additional State flexibility.
Conrad amendment No. 4934, to eliminate the State food
assistance block grant.
Santorum (for Gramm) amendment No. 4935, to deny welfare
benefits to individuals convicted of illegal drug possession,
use or distribution.
Graham amendment No. 4936, to modify the formula for
determining a State family assistance grant to include the
number of children in poverty residing in a State.
Helms amendment No. 4930, to strengthen food stamp work
requirements.
Graham (for Simon) amendment No. 4938, to preserve
eligibility of immigrants for programs of student assistance
under the Public Health Service Act.
Shelby amendment No. 4939, to provide a refundable credit
for adoption expenses and to exclude from gross income
employee and military adoption assistance benefits and
withdrawals from IRA's for certain adoption expenses.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, let me summarize where we are for
Senators and staffers. We have used approximately 16 of the 20-hour
statutory time. Amendments can be offered and debated today between 10
a.m. and 2 p.m. The amendments have to be on the general list of
amendments agreed to last Thursday.
[[Page S8396]]
As of today, we will have disposed of over 23 amendments. We have had
10 rollcall votes and 13 voice votes. As of Friday night, we have 15
amendments pending for possible votes beginning tomorrow at 9:30, and
we could add to that list today as many as another 19 amendments. I am
not saying we will, but we could if all of those remaining on the
agreed-on list that we agreed on Thursday night are offered today. So
it is possible that beginning tomorrow we could have as many as 34
rollcall votes but certainly at least 20, not counting final passage.
It is my understanding that the distinguished Senator from Kentucky
[Mr. Ford], is first. It is on that side.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The distinguished Democratic whip is
recognized.
Amendment No. 4940
(Purpose: To allow States the option to provide non-cash assistance to
children after the 5-year time limit, as provided in report No. 104-430
(the conference report to H.R. 4 as passed during the lst session of
the 104th Congress))
Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for
its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. Ford] proposes an amendment
numbered 4940.
Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the
amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 250, line 4, insert ``cash'' before ``assistance''.
Mr. FORD. Mr. President, this is an amendment that I think could
almost be accepted. Although we could not agree on the Breaux amendment
of last week regarding noncash assistance for children, I hope we can
agree on this one. One of the reasons welfare reform is so complicated
is that it is usually hard to separate the adults on welfare from the
children. Many want to get tougher on the adults, especially those who
have been on welfare for a long period of time. But I do not hear
anyone who says get tougher on children. This amendment separates those
issues because it is about how we as a Nation are ultimately
responsible for the welfare of our children.
Under the Republican bill, after 5 years, States may not use any
Federal block grant money to assist families whatsoever. This applies
to cash and noncash benefits as well. The current bill goes much
further than H.R. 4, which passed Congress last year and was vetoed by
the President. In my view, this makes the bill much tougher on
children. H.R. 4 prohibited cash assistance after 5 years. It did not
prohibit noncash assistance like vouchers that could be used for
clothing or medicine or other needs of our children.
My amendment makes this bill identical to H.R. 4 by allowing States
to use Federal block grant funds to provide noncash assistance after
adults on welfare have reached their 5-year limit.
If you favor State flexibility, you should support this amendment.
Some supporters of this bill have said State flexibility is one of
their top priorities, yet on this issue the bill is less flexible than
H.R. 4. We say send this welfare reform back to the States, but yet we
say: States, do it the way we tell you to do it. That is not
flexibility for the States.
The National Governors' Association supports this amendment. This
amendment does not increase the cost of the bill, nor add to the
deficit. It deals with how the Federal block grant funds allocated to
each State may be used. And so, Mr. President, in a letter dated June
26, 1996, the National Governors' Conference urged support for an
amendment to apply the time limit in the bill only to cash assistance.
I ask unanimous consent that a copy of this letter be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
National Governors Association,
Washington, DC, June 26, 1996.
Senate Finance Committee,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Finance Committee Member: The nation's Governors
appreciate that S. 1795, as introduced, incorporated many of
the National Governors' Association's (NGA) recommendations
on welfare reform. NGA hopes that Congress will continue to
look to the Governors' bipartisan efforts on a welfare reform
policy and build on the lessons learned through a decade of
state experimentation in welfare reform.
However, upon initial review of the Chairman's mark, NGA
believes that many of the changes contained in the mark are
contradictory to the NGA bipartisan agreement. The mark
includes unreasonable modifications to the work requirement,
and additional administrative burdens, restrictions and
penalties that are unacceptable. Governors believe these
changes in the Chairman's mark greatly restrict state
flexibility and will result in increased, unfunded costs for
states, while at the same time undermining states ability to
implement effective welfare reform programs. These changes
threaten the ability of Governors to provide any support for
the revised welfare package, and may, in fact, result in
Governors opposing the bill.
As you mark up the welfare provisions of S. 1795, the
Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act of 1996, NGA
strongly urges you to consider the recommendations contained
in the welfare reform policy adopted unanimously by the
nation's Governors in February. Governors believe that these
changes are needed to create a welfare reform measure that
will foster independence and promote responsibility, provide
adequate support for families that are engaged in work, and
accord states the flexibility and resources they need to
transform welfare into a transitional program leading to
work.
Below is a partial list of amendments that may be offered
during the committee markup and revisions included in the
Chairman's mark that are either opposed or supported by NGA.
This list is not meant to be exhaustive, and there may be
other amendments or revisions of interest or concern to
Governors that are not on this list. In the NGA welfare
reform policy, the Governors did not take a position on the
provisions related to benefits for immigrants, and NGA will
not be making recommendations on amendments in these areas.
As you mark up S. 1795, NGA urges you to consider the
following recommendations based on the policy statement of
the nation's Governors on welfare reform.
THE GOVERNORS URGE YOU TO SUPPORT THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS:
Support the amendment to permit states to count toward the
work participation rate calculation those individuals who
have left welfare for work for the first six months that they
are in the workforce (Breaux). The Governors believe states
should receive credit in the participation rate for
successfully moving people off of welfare and into
employment, thereby meeting one of the primary goals of
welfare reform. This will also provide states with an
incentive to expand their job retention efforts.
Support the amendment that applies the time limit only to
cash assistance (Breaux). S. 1795 sets a sixty-month lifetime
limit on any federally funded assistance under the block
grant. This would prohibit states from using the block grant
for important work supports such as transportation or job
retention counseling after the five-year limit. Consistent
with the NGA welfare reform policy, NGA urges you to support
the Breaux amendment that would apply the time limit only to
cash assistance.
Support the amendment to restore funding for the Social
Service Block Grant (Rockefeller). This amendment would limit
the cut in the Social Services Block Grant (SSBG) to 10
percent rather than 20 percent. States use a significant
portion of their SSBG funds for child care for low-income
families. Thus, the additional cut currently contained in S.
1795 negates much of the increase in child care funding
provided under the bill.
Support technical improvements to the contingency fund
(Breaux). Access to additional matching funds is critical to
states during periods of economic recession. NGA supports two
amendments proposed by Senator Breaux. One clarifies the
language relating to maintenance of effort in the contingency
fund and another modifies the fund so states that access the
contingency fund during only part of the year are not
penalized with a less advantageous match rate.
Support the amendment to extend the 75 percent enhanced
match rate through fiscal 1997 for statewide automated child
welfare information systems (SACWIS), (Chafee, Rockefeller).
Although not specifically addressed in the NGA policy, this
extension is important for many states that are trying to
meet systems requirements that will strengthen their child
welfare and child protection efforts.
Governors urge you to oppose amendments or revisions to the
Chairman's mark that would limit state flexibility, create
unreasonable work requirements,impose new mandates, or
encroach on the ability of each state to direct resources and
design a welfare reform program to meet its unique needs.
In the area of work, Governors strongly oppose any efforts
to increase penalties, increase work participation rates,
further restrict what activities count toward the work
participation rate or change the hours of work required. The
Governors' policy included specific recommendations in these
areas, many of which were subsequently incorporated into S.
1795, as introduced. The recommendations reflect a careful
balancing of the goals of welfare reform, the availability of
resources, and the recognition that economic and demographic
circumstances differ among states. Imposing any additional
limitations or modifications to the work requirements would
limit state flexibility.
[[Page S8397]]
the governors urge you to oppose the following amendments or revisions
in the area of work
Oppose the revision in the Chairman's mark to increase the
number of hours of work required per week to thirty-five
hours in future years. NGA's recommendation that the work
requirement be set at twenty-five hours was incorporated into
S. 1795. Many states will set higher hourly requirements, but
this flexibility will enable states to design programs that
are consistent with local labor market opportunities and the
availability of child care.
Oppose the revision in the Chairman's mark to decrease to
four weeks the number of weeks that job search can count as
work. NGA supports the twelve weeks of job search contained
in S. 1795, as introduced. Job search has proven to be
effective when an individual first enters a program and also
after the completion of individual work components, such as
workfare or community service. A reduction to four weeks
would limit state flexibility to use this cost-effective
strategy to move recipients into work.
Oppose the revision in the Chairman's mark to increase the
work participation rates. NGA opposes any increase in the
work participation rates above the original S. 1795
requirements. Many training and education activities that are
currently counted under JOBS will not count toward the new
work requirements. Consequently, states will face the
challenge of transforming their current JOBS program into a
program that emphasizes quick movement into the labor force.
An increase in the work rates will result in increased costs
to states for child care and work programs.
Oppose the revision in the Chairman's mark to increase
penalties for failure to meet the work participation
requirements. The proposed amendment to increase the penalty
by 5 percent for each consecutive failure to meet the work
rate is unduly harsh, particularly given the stringent nature
of the work requirements. Ironically, the loss of block grant
funds due to penalties will make it even more difficult for a
state to meet the work requirements.
Oppose the amendment requiring states to count exempt
families in the work participation rate calculation (Gramm).
This amendment would retain the state option to exempt
families with children below age one from the work
requirements but add the requirement that such families count
in the denominator for purposes of determining the work
participation rate. This penalizes states that grant the
exemption, effectively eliminating this option. The exemption
in S. 1795 is an acknowledgment that child care costs for
infants are very high and that there often is a shortage of
infant care.
Oppose the amendment to increase work hours by ten hours a
week for families receiving subsidized child care (Gramm).
This amendment would greatly increase child care costs as
well as impose a higher work requirement on families with
younger children, because families with other children--
particularly teenagers--are less likely to need subsidized
child care assistance.
Oppose the revision in the Chairman's mark to exempt
families with children below age eleven. S. 1795, as
introduced, prohibits states from sanctioning families with
children below age six for failure to participate in work if
failure to participate was because of a lack of child care.
This revision would raise the age to eleven. NGA is concerned
that this revision effectively penalizes states because they
still would be required to count these individuals in the
denominator of the work participation rate.
the governors urge you to oppose the following amendments or revisions
in the chairman's mark in these additional areas
Oppose the revision in the Chairman's mark to increase the
maintenance-of-effort requirement above the 75 percent in the
cash assistance block grant or further narrow the definition
of what counts toward maintenance-of-effort.
Oppose the revisions in the Chairman's mark that increase
state plan requirements and include additional state
penalties.
Oppose the amendment to limit hardship exemption to 15
percent (Gramm). NGA policy supports the current provision in
S. 1795, as introduced, that allows states to exempt up to 20
percent of their caseload from the five-year lifetime limit
on benefits.
Oppose the amendment to mandate that states provide in-kind
vouchers to families after a state or federal time limit on
benefits is triggered (Breaux, Moseley-Braun). NGA believes
that states should have the option to provide non-cash forms
of assistance after the time limit, but they should not be
mandated to do so.
Oppose the provision in the Chairman's mark to restrict the
transferability of funds out of the cash assistance block
grant to the child care block grant only. The Governors
believe that it is appropriate to allow a transfer of funds
into the foster care program or the Social Services Block
Grant.
Oppose a family cap mandate in the Chairman's mark. NGA
supports a family cap as an option, rather than a mandate, to
prohibit benefits to additional children born or conceived
while the parent is on welfare.
Governors urge you to consider the above recommendations.
Sincerely,
Raymond C. Scheppach.
Mr. FORD. The administration supports this amendment, Mr. President.
In a letter dated July 16, 1996, the acting OMB Director urges the
adoption of voucher language that protects children.
I ask unanimous consent that a copy of this letter be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
Executive Office of the President, Office of Management
and Budget,
Washington, DC, July 16, 1996.
Hon. John R. Kasich,
Chairman, Committee on the Budget, U.S. House of
Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing to transmit the
Administration's views on the welfare provisions of H.R.
3734, the ``Welfare and Medicaid Reform Act of 1996.'' We
understand that the Rules Committee plans to separate the
welfare and Medicaid portions of the bill and consider only
the welfare provisions on the House floor.
We are pleased that the Congress has decided to separate
welfare reform from a proposal to repeal Medicaid's guarantee
of health care for the elderly, poor, pregnant and people
with disabilities. We hope that removing this ``poison pill''
from welfare reform is a breakthrough that indicates that the
Congressional leadership is serious about passing bipartisan
welfare reform this year.
It is among the Administration's highest priorities to
achieve bipartisan welfare reform reflecting the principles
of work, family, and responsibility. For the past three and a
half years, the President has demonstrated his commitment to
enacting real welfare reform by working with Congress to
create legislation that moves people from welfare to work,
encourages responsibility, and protects children. The
Administration sent to Congress a stand-alone welfare bill
that requires welfare recipients to work, imposes strict time
limits on welfare, toughens child support enforcement, is
fair to children, and is consistent with the President's
commitment to balance the budget.
The Administration is also pleased that the bill makes many
of the important improvements to H.R. 4 that we recommended--
improvements that were also included in the bipartisan
National Governors' Association and Castle-Tanner proposals.
We urge the Committee to build upon these improvements. At
the same time, however, the Administration is deeply
concerned about certain provisions of H.R. 3734 that would
adversely affect benefits for food stamp households and legal
immigrants, as well as with the need for strong State
accountability and flexibility. And, the bill would still
raise taxes on millions of working families by cutting the
Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC).
improvements contained in H.R. 3734
We appreciate the Committees' efforts to strengthen
provisions that are central to work-based reform, such as
child care, and to provide some additional protections for
children and families. In rejecting H.R. 4, the President
singled out a number of provisions that were tough on
children and did too little to move people from welfare to
work. H.R. 3734 includes important changes to these
provisions that move the legislation closer to the
President's vision of true welfare reform. We are
particularly pleased with the following improvements:
Child Care. As the President has insisted throughout the
welfare reform debate, child care is essential to move people
from welfare to work. The bill reflects a better
understanding of the child care resources that States will
need to implement welfare reform, adding $4 billion for child
care above the level in H.R. 4. The bill also recognizes that
parents of school-age children need child care in order to
work and protect the health and safety of children in care.
Food Stamps. The bill removes the annual spending cap on
Food Stamps that was included in H.R. 4, preserving the
program's ability to expand during periods of economic
recession and help families when they are most in need.
Child Nutrition. The bill no longer includes the H.R. 4
provisions for a child nutrition block-grant demonstration,
which would have undermined the program's ability to respond
automatically to economic changes and maintain national
nutrition standards.
Child Protection. We commend the Committee for preserving
the open-ended nature of Title IV-E foster care and adoption
assistance programs, current Medicaid coverage of eligible
children, and the national child data collection initiative.
Supplemental Security Income (SSI). The bill removes the
proposed two-tiered benefit system for disabled children
receiving SSI that was included in H.R. 4, and retains full
cash benefits for all eligible children.
Work Performance Bonus. We commend the Committee for giving
states an incentive to move people from welfare to work by
providing $1 billion in work performance bonuses by 2003.
This provision is an important element of the
Administration's bill, and will help change the culture of
the welfare office.
Contingency Fund. The bill adopts the National Governors
Association (NGA) recommendation to double the size of the
Contingency Fund to $2 billion, and add a more responsive
trigger based on the Food Stamp caseload changes. Further
steps the Congress should take to strengthen this provision
are outlined below.
[[Page S8398]]
Hardship Exemption. We commend the Committee for following
the NGA recommendation and the Senate-passed welfare reform
bill by allowing states to exempt up to 20% of hardship cases
that reach the five-year time limit.
We remain pleased that Congress has decided to include
central elements of the President's approach--time limits,
work requirements, the toughest possible child support
enforcement, requiring minor mothers to live at home as a
condition of assistance--in this legislation.
The Administration strongly supports several provisions
included in S. 1795, as reported by the Senate Finance
Committee. These provisions include: allowing transfers only
to the child care block grant, increasing the maintenance of
effort requirement with a tightened definition of what counts
toward this requirement, improving the fair and equitable
treatment and enforcement language, and eliminating the child
protection block grant. We urge the Congress to include these
provisions in H.R. 3734.
Key Concerns With H.R. 3734
The Administration however remains deeply concerned that
the bill still lacks other important provisions that have
earned bipartisan endorsement.
Size of the cuts. The welfare provisions incorporate most
of the cuts that were in the vetoed bill--$59 billion over 6
years (including the EITC and related savings in Medicaid)
over six years. These cuts far exceed those proposed by the
NGA or the Administration. Cuts in Food Stamps and benefits
to legal immigrants are particularly deep. The President's
budget demonstrates that cuts of this size are not necessary
to achieve real welfare reform, nor are they needed to
balance the budget.
Food Stamps. The Administration strongly opposes the
inclusion of a Food Stamp block grant, which has the
potential to seriously undermine the Federal nature of the
program, jeopardizing the nutrition and health of millions of
children, working families, and the elderly, and eliminating
the program's ability to respond to economic changes. The
Administration is also concerned that the bill makes deep
cuts in the Food Stamp program, including a cut in benefits
to households with high shelter costs that disproportionately
affects families with children, and a four-month time limit
on childless adults who are willing to work, but are not
offered a work slot.
Legal Immigrants. The bill retains the excessively harsh
and uncompromising immigration provisions of last year's
vetoed bill. While we support the strengthening of
requirements on the sponsors of legal immigrants applying for
SSI, Food Stamps, and AFDC, the bill bans SSI and Food Stamps
for virtually all legal immigrants, and imposes a five-year
ban on all other Federal programs, including non-emergency
Medicaid, for new legal immigrants. These bans would even
cover legal immigrants who become disabled after entering the
country, families with children, and current recipients. The
bill would deny benefits to 0.3 million immigrant children
and would affect many more children whose parents are denied
assistance. The proposal unfairly shifts costs to States with
high numbers of legal immigrants. In addition, the bill
requires virtually all Federal, State, and local benefits
programs to verify recipients' citizenship or alien status.
These mandates would create significant administrative
burdens for State, local, and non-profit service providers,
and barriers to participation for citizens.
Medical Assistance Guarantee. Even after the proposed
removal of the Medicaid reconciliation provisions from H.R.
3734, the Administration opposes provisions that do not
guarantee continued Medicaid eligibility when States change
AFDC rules. Specifically, we are concerned that families who
reach the 5 year time limit or additional children born to
families that are already receiving assistance could lose
their Medicaid eligibility and would be unable to receive the
health care services that they need.
Protection in Economic Downturn. Although the contingency
fund is twice the size of that contained in the vetoed bill,
it still does not allow for further expansions during poor
economic conditions and periods of increased need. We are
also concerned about provisions that reduce the match rate on
contingency funds for states that access the fund for periods
of less than one year.
State Maintenance of Effort. Under H.R. 3437, States could
reduce the resources they provide to poor children. We are
deeply concerned that the bill provides the proposed cash
assistance block grant with transfer authority to the Social
Services Block Grant(SSBG). Transfers to SSBG could lead
States to substitute Federal dollars for State dollars in an
array of State social services activities, potentially
cutting the effective State maintenance of effort levels
required for the cash block grant.
Resources for Work. Based on Congressional Budget Office
(CBO) estimates, H.R. 3734 would leave states with a $9
billion shortfall over six years in resources for work if
they maintained their current level of cash assistance.
Morever, the Economic and Educational Opportunity Committee
increased this shortfall and cut State flexibility by raising
the weekly number of hours that States must place recipients
in work activities and increasing the participation rates.
The Economic and Educational Opportunities amendments would
also create a shortfall in child care funding. As CBO has
noted, most states would probably accept block grant
penalties rather than meet the bill's participation rates and
truly refocus the system on work.
Vouchers. The bill actually reduces State flexibility by
prohibiting States from using block grant funds to provide
vouchers to children whose parents reach the time limit. H.R.
4 contained no such prohibition, and the NGA opposes it. We
strongly urge the adoption of the voucher language that
protects children similar to that in the Administration's
bill and Castle-Tanner.
Worker Displacement. We are deeply concerned that the bill
does not include adequate protections against worker
displacement. Workers are not protected from partial
displacement such as reduction in hours, wages, or benefits,
and the bill does not establish any avenue for displaced
employees to seek redress.
Family Caps. The House bill reverts back to the opt-out
provision on family caps which would restrict State
flexibility in this area. The Administration, as well as NGA,
seeks complete State flexibility to set family cap policy.
EITC. The Administration opposes the provisions in H.R.
3734 that increase the EITC phase-out rates thereby raising
taxes on more than four million low-income working families,
with seven million children. In addition, the budget
resolution instructs the revenue committees to cut up to
$18.5 billion more from the EITC. Thus, EITC cuts could total
over $2 billion, and such large increases on working families
are particularly ill-conceived when considered in the context
of real welfare reform--that is, encouraging work and making
work pay.
We are also concerned that the bill repeals the Family
Preservation and Support program, which may mean less State
spending on abuse and neglect prevention activities.
We strongly support the bipartisan welfare reform
initiatives from moderate Republicans and Democrats in both
Houses of Congress. The Castle-Tanner proposal addresses many
of our concerns, and it would strengthen State accountability
efforts, welfare to work measures, and protections for
children. It provides a foundation on which this Committee
should build in order to provide more State flexibility,
incentives for AFDC recipients to move from welfare to work;
more parental responsibility; and protections for children.
It is a good strong bill that would end welfare as we know
it. Castle-Tanner provides the much needed opportunity for a
real bipartisan compromise and should be the basis for a
quick agreement between the parties.
The President stands ready to work with the Congress to
address the outstanding concerns so that we can enact a
strong bipartisan welfare reform bill to replace the current
system with one that demands responsibility, strengthens
families, protects children, and gives States broad
flexibility and the needed resources to get the job done.
Sincerely,
Jacob J. Lew,
Acting Director.
Mr. FORD. As I have stated, my amendment makes the bill identical to
H.R. 4. If we are serious about passing a welfare reform bill
acceptable to both the Congress and the administration, why should we
allow this bill to be even tougher on children than H.R. 4 which the
President vetoed?
Mr. President, the American Public Welfare Association also supports
this amendment. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of a June 26, 1996,
letter from APWA be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
American Public
Welfare Association,
Washington, DC, June 26, 1996.
Dear Senator: As the Senate Finance Committee considers
amendments to S. 1795, the Personal Responsibility and Work
Opportunity Act of 1996, the American Public Welfare
Association (APWA) urges your commitment to increased state
flexibility in the design and implementation of welfare
programs in light of the promising reform efforts underway in
states throughout the country. Listed below are amendments
that may be offered during the Committee's consideration of
S. 1795. In accordance with the policies adopted by the APWA,
we urge your support or opposition to the following
amendments:
amendments to support
Calculation of Work Participation Rate (Breaux): An
amendment to count clients who leave welfare for work in the
work participation rate calculation. States would be
permitted to count their participation for the first 6 months
they are engaged in at least 25 hours of work per week in a
private sector job. APWA strongly supports this amendment to
credit states with successfully moving welfare clients off
welfare and into private sector employment.
Child Welfare Information Systems (Chafee/Rockefeller): An
amendment to extend the enhanced match rate of 75% for
federal fiscal year 1997 for the statewide automated child
welfare information systems (SACWIS). APWA strongly supports
continued funding for SACWIS systems which are critical to
improving child welfare services.
Title XX Reductions (Rockefeller): An amendment to reduce
the proposed 20 percent cut in the Social Services Block
Grant
[[Page S8399]]
(Title XX) to 10 percent. APWA urges the adoption of this
amendment to reduce cuts in the Title XX Block Grant which
states use to provide critical supportive work and family
services.
amendments to support
Contingency Fund (Breaux): An amendment to clarify the
calculation of state maintenance of effort in the contingency
fund. APWA strongly supports this clarification of qualified
state expenditures for the purpose of calculating state
maintenance of effort.
Contingency Fund (Breaux): An amendment to modify the
contingency fund to provide that states which access
contingency fund during only part of the year are not
penalized. APWA strongly supports this amendment to ensure
that states do not have their federal match rate for
contingency funds reduced if these states only require funds
for part of the year.
Child Welfare Services (Chafee): An amendment to retain
current law that makes alien children, who do not qualify for
AFDC, eligible for IV-E foster care and adoption assistance
if they meet the other eligibility requirements. APWA policy
supports current law for Title IV-E or its optional block
grant proposal for this program. Consistent with this policy,
APWA supports retaining this particular provision in current
law that has been omitted in the bill.
Five Year Time Limit (Breaux): An amendment to provide
states with the flexibility to use Temporary Assistance to
Needy Family (TANF) block grant funds as in-kind assistance
to children of families which have reached the 5 year
lifetime time limit.
amendments to oppose
Work Exemption (Conrad): An amendment to exempt single
parents with children under age 11 who cannot find child care
from the penalties for refusing to meet work requirements.
APWA opposes this amendment because it would exempt single
adults from work requirements, yet financially penalizes
states for failure to meet the bills work participation
rates.
Increased Hours of Work (Pressler): An amendment to
increase hours of work required per week. APWA opposes this
amendment because it fails to provide additional funds for
the provision of child care services needed to meet increased
hours of work.
amendments to oppose
Decreased Job Search (Pressler): An amendment to decrease
the number of weeks job search activities can count towards
the work participation rate. APWA supports job search as a
valid work activity that should count toward work
participation.
Increase work participation rate (Pressler): An amendment
to increase work participation rates contained in the bill.
APWA opposes this amendment because it fails to provide
additional funds for placement, child care and other
supportive work services needed to meet increased work
participation rates.
Work Participation Rate Penalties (Gramm): An amendment to
impose an additional 5 percent penalty on states for
consecutive failure to meet the work participation
requirements. APWA opposes this amendment to increase
penalties on states beyond those contained in the bill.
Work Participation Rate (Gramm): An amendment to limit to
one year the exception to the work participation rate
calculation for families with children under 1 year of age.
Exemption (Gramm): An amendment to allow states to exempt
families with children under 1 year of age from the work
requirement, but require that such exempt families count for
purposes of determining the work participation rate. APWA
opposes this amendment because it would exempt single adults
from work requirements, yet financially penalizes states for
failure to meet the bills work participation rates.
Work Requirement (Gramm): An amendment to increase the work
requirement on families if they receive federally funded
child care assistance by: 1) 10 additional hours a week for a
single parents and b) 30 hours per week for the nonworking
spouse in a two-parent family. APWA opposes this amendment
because it fails to recognize the additional funds required
for placement, child care and other supportive work services
needed to meet increased work requirements.
Paternity Establishment (Gramm): An amendment to strengthen
the requirements for paternity establishment as a condition
for receiving benefits, with a state option to exempt as much
as 25% of the population. APWA believes states should have
the option to impose this requirement, but it should not be a
mandate.
Hardship Exemption (Gramm): An amendment to limit the
hardship exemption from the five year lifetime time limit to
15 percent from the 20 percent exemption in S. 1795. APWA
supports the hardship exemption of at least 20 percent of the
entire caseload.
Thank you for your consideration of these APWA positions.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or
Elaine Ryan at (202) 682-0100.
Sincerely,
A. Sidney Johnson III,
Executive Director.
Mr. FORD. Mr. President, we can keep the restriction on cash
assistance after 5 years, but let us not take a step backward and
prohibit all forms of noncash assistance. This prohibition is aimed
directly at our children, and I think it is misguided.
If we want a welfare reform compromise, if we want to avoid being
unnecessarily harsh on our children, if we want to maximize State
flexibility, we should pass this amendment. It is supported by the
National Governors' Association, and it makes the bill identical to
H.R. 4, which passed the Congress last year. It does not add to the
cost of the bill and it promotes State flexibility.
During the conference last year, the Governors lobbied hard for this
particular amendment. I know none of my colleagues take these decisions
lightly, but I hope you will remember that each one of us will be
forever wedded to these decisions. We are essentially providing a road
map for the future, the futures of hundreds of thousands of children in
this country. Make no mistake about it, 5 or 10 or 15 years from now,
when these children have become young adults, you and I must take some
responsibility for their successes or failures.
Of course, they will have their setbacks, just like you and me. But
let us assure that those setbacks are not set in motion by the
decisions we make today. By passing this amendment, I believe one day
each of us can look at our future parents, doctors, lawyers, farmers
and teachers, taking pride in our role to assure they grew up with a
safe place to sleep at night, clothes on their backs, and food in their
stomachs.
If we fail to pass this amendment, the children who become trapped in
lives of mediocrity or fall through the cracks to obscurity will belong
to us as well.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent a letter from my Governor in
Kentucky, who is now part of the leadership of the National Governors'
Association, supporting this amendment be printed in the Record at this
point.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
Commonwealth of Kentucky,
Office of the Governor,
Frankfort, KY, July 18, 1996.
Hon. Wendell Ford,
Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Ford: As the Senate begins its welfare debate
this week, I understand you plan to offer an amendment that
would allow states to use federal block grant funds to
provide non-cash assistance to the children of welfare
families, after a family has reached the proposed five-year
lifetime limit on benefits. I am writing to offer my full
support of that amendment.
Welfare has always been a federal-state partnership and
responsibility. The federal government must continue to
assist states' efforts to support children of welfare
parents. To abandon these children after any amount of time
is a horrible breach of this partnership and adds up to
nothing but an over-burdensome unfunded mandate on the
states. As a nation, we have committed ourselves to
protecting the lives and well-being of the innocent. In this
case, we are talking about the most innocent of all--our
children.
Any welfare reform legislation must include provisions to
move recipients to work. I support a tough and responsible
approach that makes welfare recipients work and urges them to
move off the program. However, any welfare reform must also
continue to provide a safety net for those recipients'
children. These children have no control over the direction
of their young lives.
It is also conceivable that in a span of 20-30 years, a
hard working family trying to carry their own weight in our
society and provide for their families could fall on hard
times during downturns in the economy. It would be
particularly unfortunate to punish these families who are
attempting to contribute to society but who from time to time
need limited assistance.
Therefore, I fully support your amendment to insure the
federal government does not shirk its responsibility to our
children and lay an inappropriate fiscal burden on the
states. You will find that other governors across the nation
will also support this action. The National Governors'
Association, in a June 26 letter to Congress, expressed its
support for the content included in this amendment. Congress
should defer to this bipartisan support from the nation's
governors. After all, it is we governors who will be charged
with implementing any national welfare reform program.
Thank you and please contact me if I can be of any further
assistance on this matter.
Sincerely,
Paul E. Patton.
Mr. FORD. Mr. President, the Catholic Bishops' Conference supports
this amendment. I ask unanimous consent a letter from the Catholic
Bishops' Conference in support of my amendment be printed in the
Record.
[[Page S8400]]
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
U.S. Catholic Conference,
Washington, DC, July 17, 1996.
Dear Senator: The Catholic Bishops' Conference has long
suggested genuine welfare reform that strengthens families,
encourages productive work, and protects vulnerable children.
We believe genuine welfare reform is an urgent national
priority, but we oppose abandonment of the federal
government's necessary role in helping families overcome
poverty and meet their children's basic needs. Simply cutting
resources and transferring responsibility is not genuine
reform.
As Chairman of the Domestic Policy Committee of the United
States Catholic Conference, I share the goals of reducing
illegitimacy and dependency, promoting work and empowering
families. However, I am writing to you to express our concern
about provisions in S 1795, (Senate Budget Committee's
Reconciliation report S 1956), which would result in more
poverty, hunger and illness for poor children. As the Senate
considers this bill, we strongly urge you to support
amendments in five essential areas.
(1) family cap
We urge the Senate to support efforts to remove the family
cap which denies increased assistance for additional children
born to mothers on welfare unless state law repeals it. See
the attached briefing sheet on why the ``opt out'' is
effectively a mandatory cap which the Senate rejected on a
bipartisan basis 66-34. We urge the Senate again to reject
this measure which will encourage abortions and hurt
children.
We believe the so-called ``opt-out'' provision is, in
reality, a federally mandated family cap because it can only
be removed by the unprecedented and extreme requirement that
both houses of a state legislative pass and the Governor sign
a law repealing the federal mandate. The Bishops'
Conference's opposition to the family cap is based on the
belief that children should not be denied benefits because of
their mothers' age or dependence on welfare. These
provisions, whatever their intentions, are likely to
encourage abortion, especially in those states which pay for
abortions, but not for assistance to these children. These
states say to a young woman, we will pay for your abortion,
but we will not help you to raise your child in dignity.
New Jersey is the state with the most experience with a
family cap. In May 1995, New Jersey welfare officials
announced that the abortion rate among poor women increased
3.6% in the eight months after New Jersey barred additional
payments to women on welfare who gave birth to additional
children. This increase is exactly what pro-life opponents of
the family cap predicted. A study conducted by Rutgers
University also has shown that the New Jersey law barring
additional payments to welfare mothers who have more children
has not affected birthrates significantly among those women.
The study refutes several earlier announcements that
birth rates among New Jersey welfare mothers had dropped
dramatically since the state implemented the policy in
1992. While state officials recently reported a drop in
the birth rate among welfare mothers, officials are wary
of linking this deline with imposition of the family cap.
Although these results are prelimary, the abortion increase
coupled with the absence of an association between the family
cap and birth rates suggest that the policy of denying
children benefits doesn't do much to reduce illegitimate
births except by increasing abortions.
On a related matter, we support efforts to assure that teen
parents are offered the education, training and supervision
necessary for them to become good parents and productive
adults. We also believe that teen parents should be
discouraged from setting up independent households and
endorsed this approach in our own statement on welfare
reform.
(2) National Safety Net
We urge the Senate to permit states to provide vouchers or
cash payments for the needs of children after the time limits
have been reached. The Senate bill cuts off all assistance
after two consecutive years on welfare and five years in a
lifetime, regardless of the efforts of the family or the
needs of children.
We support more creative and responsive federal-state-
community partnership, but we cannot support destruction of
the social safety net which will make it more difficult for
poor children to grow into productive individuals. We cannot
support reform that destroys the structures, ends
entitlements, and eliminates resources that have provided an
essential safety net for vulnerable children or permits
states to reduce their commitment in these areas. Society has
a responsibility to help meet the needs of those who cannot
care for themselves especially young children. In the absence
of cash benefits, vouchers would provide essential support
for poor children.
(3) Food and Nutrition
We urge the Senate to remove the optional state block grant
and reduce the cuts in food stamps. The Senate bill cuts more
than $25 billion in food assistance to poor children and
families, permits a state block grant of the federal food
stamp program, and cuts single adults (18-50) from food
stamps even if they have made every effort to find a job or a
training slot.
We cannot support ``reform'' that eliminates resources that
have provided an essential safety net for vulnerable families
and children. Over half the cuts in this bill are in the Food
Stamp program. These cuts will likely create an even greater
burden on children and families when coupled with other
changes called for in this bill. The optional food stamp
block grant also troubles us. These fixed payments will make
it difficult for states to respond to increased need in times
of economic downturns.
(4) Earned Income Tax Credit
We urge the Senate to reduce the cuts in the EITC. S 1795,
as passed by the Finance Committee, includes $5 billion in
EITC cuts, nearly 40% coming from the credit for low-income
working families without significant assets. These reductions
would affect nearly five million families with children.
We support real welfare reform which leads to productive
work with wages and benefits that permit a family to live in
dignity. Real jobs at decent wages, and tax policies like an
effective Earned Income Tax Credit [EITC], can help keep
families off welfare.
(4) Legal Immigrants
We urge the Senate to permit legal immigrants to receive
essential benefits and at the very least to receive health
care through Medicaid. The Senate bill denies assistance to
all legal immigrants in ``means-tested programs'' (i.e.,
AFDC, Medicaid, Food Stamps). We urge the Senate to reject
this unfair provision and, at least, substitute the less
punitive restrictions contained in the recently passed
Immigration bill (i.e., permit Medicaid assistance, etc.).
We cannot support punitive approaches that target
immigrants, including legal residents, and take away the
minimal benefits that they now receive. The provisions in the
Immigration and Reform Act of 1995 [H.R.2202] would at least
leave fewer families and children without essential health
care and cash supports, even though these provisions go
beyond what the bishops would support.
In summary, we urge you to support genuine welfare reform,
not this legislation which simply reduces resources and
reallocates responsibilities without adequately protecting
children and helping families overcome poverty. Without
substantial changes, this legislation falls short of the
criteria for welfare reform articulated by the nation's Roman
Catholic bishops and we urge you to oppose it.
Sincerely,
Rev. William S. Skylstad,
Bishop of Spokane,
Chair, Domestic Policy Committee.
Mr. FORD. Mr. President, the Catholic Conference of Kentucky has
written a letter endorsing and supporting my amendment. I ask unanimous
consent it be printed in the Record also.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
Catholic Conference of Kentucky,
Frankfort, KY, July 19, 1996.
Senator Wendell Ford,
Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Ford: As you are well aware from previous
correspondence with the Catholic Conference of Kentucky, the
Bishops have major concerns about the welfare reform
legislation which passed the House on Thursday. The United
States Catholic Conference Office of Government Liaison has
informed staff that the Senate is expected to take this up
immediately. On behalf of the Bishops, I'd like to touch upon
key issues with you.
The Family Cap, which your voting record has been perfect
on, will prohibit states from using federal funds to provide
cash assistance to children born to current welfare
recipients. The ``opt-out'' provision is virtually a federal
mandatory cap. We ask you to continue to support removing
this prohibition on Kentucky's use of federal funds for
Kentucky's children.
The Social Safety Net would no longer exist as this bill
ends the guarantee of basic assistance to poor children and
families. Please support any amendments which would allow
Kentucky to meet their needs through continued support either
as cash payments or vouchers when they reach the time limit.
The Food Stamp program would experience massive spending
reductions. Please support any amendments to remove the
optional food stamp block grant and ease the harshness of the
provision which terminates food stamps to individuals, 18 to
50 years old, who cannot find work.
Legal Immigrants would be denied benefits when, despite
their contributions through work and taxes, they fall on hard
times. Please support any amendments which would permit legal
immigrants to receive benefits and, at the very least, to
receive health care though Medicaid.
We know that the debate will be heated and the rhetoric
will flow, but we know that Kentuckians can look to their
Senior Senator for balance. Thanks so much for your
consideration of these matters and for all that you do for us
in Washington, D.C. Please do not hesitate to call if you
have questions concerning any of this. See you at Fancy Farm!
Sincerely,
Jane J. Chiles.
Mr. FORD. So, Mr. President, I think this amendment moves us closer
to compromise. I urge the adoption of my amendment. As I said earlier,
this is
[[Page S8401]]
one that ought to be accepted. The distinguished former Governor of New
Hampshire, on the floor of the Senate last week said, as it related to
the Breaux amendment, he did not like the first half, but the second
half of the amendment he liked very much, which is basically the
amendment I offered here today.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The distinguished chairman of the Budget
Committee is recognized.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, as I understand it, nothing we are doing
here today precludes us from raising a point of order on this
amendment?
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator is correct.
Mr. DOMENICI. If one lies. We are not sure at this point. We are
going to go see if it does.
Mr. FORD. If I may say to my friend, Mr. President, the point of
order would lie against the Breaux amendment. But in talking with the
Parliamentarian and others, this particular amendment would not have a
point of order against it. I hope the Senator would not do that.
Mr. DOMENICI. We are not going to do that unless it lies. If it lies,
we will do that.
Mr. FORD. Fine. Let us find out.
Mr. DOMENICI. Let me say, the arguments have been made more
eloquently than I can make them. As I understand it, tomorrow, when
this matter comes up for a vote, we will each have a minute to respond.
I think I will not respond at this point other than to say clearly
there are benefits beyond the cash assistance benefit that is being
modified here. That program called AFDC, the cash assistance, we are
trying to terminate that as a way of life after 5 years. That does not
mean that other programs that assist people who are poor, including
poor children, are terminated by this bill. So voucher-type programs in
the housing area and others are still going to be available.
The question is, Do you want to break the cycle of dependency in this
basic AFDC Program at 5 years, or do you want to break that and then
start up another one? That is the issue. Do you want to start up a
whole new bureaucracy of vouchers and the like, or do you want to break
that dependency and get on with changing the very culture of the
welfare system.
I think part of that is what this amendment addresses. We will have
to decide as a Senate what we want to do about that.
I yield back any time I have in opposition to the amendment at this
point. I assume the Senator is going to yield his back shortly, I say
to my colleague?
Mr. FORD. Yes, I will.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The distinguished Democratic whip is
recognized.
Mr. FORD. Mr. President, flexibility by the Governors of the various
States, I think, is very important. Regarding the Governors who will be
responsible for this, their association has asked they be allowed to do
this without being cut off.
Last week they said this amendment would be unnecessary because
States can already use title XX money, the social services block grant,
to fund these vouchers. Social services block grant, title XX, is
simply inadequate to meet those needs. Title XX has been funded at
essentially the same level since 1991. There is a greater demand on
these funds today than ever before.
Title XX funds are used to provide--now listen to this--title XX
funds are used to provide aid to the homebound elderly. What the
opponents of this amendment are saying to States is: Choose between
your homebound elderly and your poorest children, but do not expect any
State flexibility to use your welfare block grant. That is what they
are saying.
I have never seen and heard people being against poor children as I
have heard for the last several days. Everyone says to Governors, to
whom we want to give flexibility and give this block grant to, that you
cannot have flexibility with children. It just does not make sense. I
have been a Governor. We have had hard times. My State is one of the
States that has not asked for a waiver. Our welfare rolls are down 23
percent. It is because of the economy, basically. We still have about
14 or 15 counties that are in double-digit unemployment. They have
problems.
What if we have an economic downturn? We are going to need all the
flexibility in the States we can have. But we come here and listen, day
after day after day: ``There are other programs you can use. You can
use title XX,'' the Republicans said last week. But that is aid to the
homebound elderly. Are you going to force a Governor to make the
decision between the homebound elderly and our poorest children? Do not
expect any State flexibility to use your welfare block grant, Governor.
Title XX block grants are also used for preventing or remedying
neglect, abuse, exploitation of children unable to protect their own
interests, like preventing or reducing inappropriate institutional care
by providing community-based or home-based care, or other alternatives.
That is title XX.
Why not give the Governors and the States the flexibility they are
asking for? All we are doing is just returning this bill to the same
position as H.R. 4, in the last session, that most people on the other
side voted for.
Now we say, ``Oh, they've got other places.'' This bill allows States
to exempt 20 percent of the welfare rolls, it does not count time spent
on welfare as a minor--it allows all these things. But after 5 years,
you are through. Period.
If you are going to give them the welfare block grant, they ought to
have an opportunity. It is just beyond me, after you work your heart
out to try to eliminate poverty in your State and your counties and
your cities and you know what needs to be done, that we say up here,
for sound bites--sound bites--we are going to give it back to the
States, but we are going to tell the States how to do it. That does not
make sense to a former Governor. It does not make sense. If you are
going to put the responsibility on my back, if you are going to put the
responsibility on a Governor somewhere, give him the ability to make
decisions and not strip him of that ability, do not keep him in a box
where he cannot reach out and help children.
That is all I am asking for, Mr. President, is the ability of a
Governor to have flexibility to use the money that we send to him, and
it will be shorter than it is this year. Do not kid yourself about
title XX. It has not been increased in 5 years. It is the same amount
of money, and we are growing--more people. The percentage of elderly is
growing every year, but we are not sending any more money. It is the
same amount. It has been level, it has been flat for 5 years, and they
say, take it out of title XX, take it out of homebound elderly, and
give it to the poorest of children? That is a heck of a choice to give
to an individual who has the responsibility of leading his State.
So, Mr. President, I hope that my colleagues will join with me in
saying to those Governors out there, ``We're going to give you a very
heavy load to carry, and that load is trying to work out welfare reform
and make it work in your State.'' Let's not handcuff him or her. Let's
give him or her the flexibility to do what is in the best interest,
particularly for children.
I yield the floor.
I yield back the remainder of my time.
Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The distinguished chairman of the Budget
Committee.
Mr. DOMENICI. I yield back the remainder of my time.
I gather now, under previous arrangements, Senator Ashcroft is going
to offer an amendment. Mr. President, is the Senator ready?
Mr. ASHCROFT. Yes, I am.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The junior Senator from Missouri is
recognized.
Mr. FORD. Will the Senator yield for 10 seconds? I apologize for
this.
Mr. ASHCROFT. No problem at all.
Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Reid be
added as a cosponsor of my amendment.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. FORD. I thank the Senator from Missouri.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The able Senator from Missouri is
recognized.
[[Page S8402]]
Amendment No. 4941
(Purpose: To provide that a family may not receive TANF assistance for
more than 24 consecutive months at a time unless an adult in the family
is working or a State exempts an adult in the family from working for
reasons of hardship, and that a family may not receive TANF assistance
if the family includes an adult who fails to ensure that their minor
dependent children attend school or such adult does not have, or is not
working toward attaining, a high school diploma or its equivalent)
Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk for
consideration.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Missouri [Mr. Ashcroft] proposes an
amendment numbered 4941.
Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading
of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
Strike section 408(a)(8) of the Social Security Act, as
added by section 2103(a)(1), and insert the following:
(8) No assistance for more than 5 years; for failure to
ensure minor dependent children are in school; or for failing
to have or work toward a high school diploma or its
equivalent.--
(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraphs (B)
and (C), a State to which a grant is made under section 403
shall not use any part of the grant to provide assistance--
(i) to a family that includes an adult who has received
assistance under any State program funded under this part
attributable to funds provided by the Federal Government--
(I) for 60 months (whether or not consecutive) after the
date the State program funded under this part commences; or
(II) for more than 24 consecutive months after the date the
State program funded under this part commences unless such
adult is engaged in work as required by section
402(a)(1)(A)(ii) or exempted by the State by reason of
hardship pursuant to subparagraph (C); or,
(ii) to a family that includes an adult who has received
assistance under any State program funded under this part
attributable to funds provided by the Federal Government or
under the food stamp program, as defined in section 3(h) of
the Food Stamp Act of 1977, unless such adult ensures that
the minor dependent children of such adult attend school as
required by the law of the State in which the minor children
reside; or,
(iii) to a family that includes an adult who is older than
age 20 and younger than age 51 who has received assistance
under any State program funded under this part attributable
to funds provided by the Federal Government or under the food
stamp program, as defined in section 3(h) of the Food Stamp
Act of 1977, if such adult does not have, or is not working
toward attaining, a secondary school diploma or its
recognized equivalent unless such adult has been determined
in the judgment of medical, psychiatric, or other appropriate
professionals to lack the requisite capacity to complete
successfully a course of study that would lead to a secondary
school diploma or its recognized equivalent.
(B) minor child exception.--In determining the number of
months for which an individual who is a parent or pregnant
has received assistance under the State program funded under
this part for purposes of subparagraph (A)(i), the State
shall disregard any month for which such assistance was
provided with respect to the individual and during which the
individual was--
(i) a minor child; and
(ii) not the head of a household or married to the head of
a household.
(C) Hardship exception.--
(i) In general.--The State may exempt a family from the
application of subparagraph (A) of this paragraph, or
subparagraph (B) of paragraph (1), by reason of hardship or
if the family includes an individual who has been battered or
subjected to extreme cruelty.
(ii) Limitation.--The number of families with respect to
which an exemption made by a State under clause (i) is in
effect for a fiscal year shall not exceed 20 percent of the
average monthly number of families to which assistance is
provided under the State program funded under this part.
(iii) Battered or subject to extreme cruelty defined.--For
purposes of clause (i), an individual has been battered or
subjected to extreme cruelty if the individual has been
subjected to--
(I) physical acts that resulted in, or threatened to result
in, physical injury to the individual;
(II) sexual abuse;
(III) sexual activity involving a dependent child;
(IV) being forced as the caretaker relative of a dependent
child to engage in nonconsensual acts or activities;
(V) threats of, or attempts at, physical or sexual abuse;
(VI) mental abuse; or
(VII) neglect or deprivation of medical care.
(D) Rule of interpretation.--Subparagraph (A)(i) of this
paragraph and subparagraph (B) of paragraph (1) shall not be
interpreted to require any State to provided assistance to
any individual for any period of time under the State program
funded under this part.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I say to the Senator from Missouri, do
we have a copy of the Senator's amendment?
Mr. ASHCROFT. The Senator will be pleased to send a copy of the
amendment to the Senator from New Mexico.
The Senator from Missouri inquires, should we be operating under a
time agreement here?
Mr. DOMENICI. We do not have to. I know of no other Senator prepared
to offer an amendment. Take as much time as you like. You are entitled
to an hour.
Mr. ASHCROFT. I am sure we will be able to accomplish what we need to
accomplish in substantially less time.
Mr. President, thank you for this opportunity to offer an amendment.
I believe that it is important for us in this Congress, and in the bill
which is before the Senate, to change the character of welfare. That is
the challenge which is before us. We have to change a system which has
provided people with a condition--a condition of dependence, a
condition of relying on others, a condition which has been a trap--and
we need to change welfare from being a condition to being a transition.
The welfare situation should be a time when we prepare ourselves for
the next step in our lives, when we prepare ourselves to be out of
dependence and out of reliance on others, we prepare ourselves to be
industrious, to be independent and reliant upon ourselves.
Welfare cannot be something that is a lifestyle. It has to be
something that is just for a while. It has to be something that moves
us forward. I believe there are fundamental components of this bill
which will do that, but we can enhance them substantially in their
capacity to change the character of welfare, to change it from a way of
life, to change it to a way of escape, to change it from a lifestyle,
to change it to being a transition, to change it from a condition to
being a transition.
Mr. President, according to Senator Moynihan, the average welfare
recipient spends 12.98 years on the rolls. That is a substantial and
monumental waste of human resource. We have individuals who are
reliant, who are dependent, whose level of contribution and
productivity in our culture is very, very, very low, and that 12 years
is a teaching time as well as a time of existence.
Unfortunately, that 12 years becomes a time when young people are
taught dependence instead of independence. They are taught reliance on
Government instead of self-reliance.
One of the things we should ask ourselves about everything we do in
Government is: What does it teach? What does it reinforce? What basic
principles and values are advanced by it? And a welfare system that
provides for 12.98 years as the average time a welfare recipient spends
on the rolls--what about those that are on there longer? This is not
teaching something that is valuable to our culture. We need to be
reinforcing, providing incentives for support for a system that does
not institute a condition for life, making a career of welfare, but
energizes a transition for life, leaving welfare and going to work.
The 12.98 years is reflected in the fact that we have had soaring
rates in the kind of social conditions that intensify the challenge and
the condition of welfare--a 600-percent increase in illegitimacy over
the last three decades. I think we can agree that the welfare system we
now have is a miserable failure, but if we do not build into this
system things to change the outcomes, we are going to end up with the
same problems just being tougher and tougher to solve.
Industrialist friends of mine tell me that whatever system you have,
you can be assured that it is perfectly designed to give you what you
are getting, and if you do not like what you are getting, you need to
change the system.
This welfare bill that we are debating today will shorten the time
from 12.98 years down. It will limit most welfare recipients to a 5-
year lifetime limit on temporary assistance to needy families.
The big challenge of the 12-year problem is, What kind of habits do
you build in 12 years?
[[Page S8403]]
I suspect that if you involve yourself in a routine for 12 years, it
is very difficult ever to break that routine. Sociologists tell us, if
you want to lose weight--that is one of the things I want to do--they
say you have to change your habits for about 6 or 7 weeks in order to
have a new habit of diet, a new way to consume food. We are talking
about changing habits that people have hardened for 12.98 years on
average.
One of the problems I have is that we have said we are going to
change this by shortening the time period to 5 years. Well, 5 years
will build a habit which is so strong that it is almost impossible to
break. I think we need to find a way to restructure the system so that
everyone looks at that 5-year period as if it is an insurance policy
and they do not want to take any more out of that bank of 5 years than
they need to at the moment because there might come a time sometime
later in life when they would have a desperate need for assistance. I
believe that is what we need to do.
So we need to help people understand that there is 5 years. That is a
lifetime limit. You should only draw from that savings account or
reserve for emergencies what you desperately need and not use that 5
years as a way to create the habit of dependence which will be almost
impossible for you to break.
But this bill would allow for most individuals 5 years--5 years--
without work. Five years without work would build such a habit that I
believe we would nearly disable the individuals, as we have with our
current system.
I was stunned when I read in one of my home State papers last year
that there was an experiment under a waiver granted by the Federal
Government where they invited 140 welfare recipients to show up at a
Tyson Foods plant. Only half of them showed up for work. They were
invited to come in to look for a job. Of the half that showed up, only
39 accepted jobs. Of the 39 that accepted jobs, fewer than 30 were on
the job a week after.
See, what we have done is we have built habits. We have established a
condition for welfare. We do not have welfare as a transition, as a
place of movement; it has become a place of repose. I believe we need
to change that. For us to say that, even under this bill, which is a
significant reform, for us to say that we would allow people to have 5
straight years without work, where your self-esteem or your skills,
your motivation would atrophy, would wither--if you do not use a muscle
for 5 weeks, it gets weak. If you do not do not use it for 5 months, it
almost disappears. If you do not use it for 5 years, it is gone.
We have here the most important muscle in human character--self-
esteem, skills, motivations. We are still providing in this bill that
for as long as 5 years you can simply be there not working. The bill,
as it stands, requires 15 percent of the unexempted population to work
in the first year period, and 25 percent in the second year period--25
percent. That is one out of four. So for three out of four, they could
go right by the first 2-year period and not even be involved in work.
I believe, though, as a result of this, that welfare recipients,
other than that 25 percent who actually went to work, could just choose
to coast along for the full 5 years of benefits with no additional
incentive to get a job. I think that is where this bill needs
correction. It needs dramatic correction.
I propose to amend this welfare bill to allow welfare recipients,
able-bodied welfare recipients without infant children, to collect only
24 months of consecutive temporary assistance-to-needy-families
benefits. At the end of those 2 years, if the recipient still refuses
to work, I say, cut the benefit. What this really does is not result in
cut benefits; this results in more people being willing to work.
Instead of saying to an individual who gets on welfare, if you work
the system, you can last for 5 years, create the habits of reliance,
create the habits of repose, reject the habits of industry and work;
this would basically say, you better get to work, learning to get a job
right away, because after 2 years, in spite of the fact that there is a
5-year lifetime limit, there is a 24-month consecutive receipt-of-
benefit limit for able-bodied adults without infant children.
If a welfare recipient then decides not to work in the 2-year time
span, the payment would cease. By doing this, we simply hope to inject
a concept which is too novel which ought to be commonplace. That is the
concept that work is beneficial and that it pays better and is better
than welfare. Otherwise, we are simply going to be tempting people to
stay on and approximate, or approach at least, as much as they can of
the 12.98 years of time on welfare, which is now a debilitating and
disabling influence in the American culture for too many Americans.
Our intention is to leave the time period between any times you
consume your 24 consecutive months total up to the States, so that
recipients could not leave the welfare rolls and sign up again a week
later. I think States could make these judgments about what kind of
interval that would be needed between the 24-month periods. Our central
point, our responsibility here, is to say that we want to provide as
part of the structure of our reform the energy to change, legislation
that changes welfare from being a lifestyle to being a transition. We
want to start to energize a commitment on the part of recipients to
make the changes in the way they live so that they avoid prolonged
exposures to the welfare system and find themselves at an earlier time
being capable of sustaining themselves.
We want welfare recipients to look at this 5-year period as a
lifetime cushion, not to be consumed in the first need or the second
need, hopefully never to be consumed. Our objective should be that no
one ever bumps the 5-year limit. Our objective should be that we
energize people to go to work so quickly and so enthusiastically that
they maintain their reserve to the day they die.
Permitting able-bodied welfare recipients to remain on assistance for
a straight 5-year-long block of time simply would reinforce, reteach,
perpetuate, and underscore the current cycle of dependence. We need to
stop this cycle of dependence, not just for individuals, but for what
it teaches to our children. Welfare has become an intergenerational
phenomenon, where people are on so long that their children grow up
knowing only one lifestyle--it is welfare. By limiting the
uninterrupted block of time that welfare recipients remain on the
rolls, we will reduce the level of dependence on government assistance.
Welfare can be habit forming, and has been habit forming. It can be
addictive. It can be destructive, and it has been. We need to take the
structural components of the welfare system, which are dehumanizing,
demeaning and disabling, out of the system. We need to energize each
individual to view welfare as transitional. We should do that by saying
there can be no more than 24 consecutive months on welfare for any
able-bodied individual without infant children, unless they will work.
I just indicate that on Tuesday of this last week President Clinton
ordered that in case we do not pass welfare reform in the next few
months, the Department of Health and Human Services will give States
the power to cut off benefits if an able-bodied adult refuses to work
after 2 years. This is not a Draconian message. This is a message and
this is a concept called for by the President of the United States.
For us to deliver a welfare system back to the American people which
reinforces, underlines, and strengthens the bad habit of long-term
dependency would not only be an affront to the American people, but it
would be our failure to respond to a President who has asked us to do
much better. There is something much better that we should be doing,
and something we can do. If we want to break the long-term aspects, the
intergenerational aspects of welfare, we have to be a part of this
teaching idea in a real way.
When I was Governor of the State of Missouri and I had the great
privilege of serving the people of my State, we came to Washington to
ask for a waiver, a waiver from the regulations of the Federal
Government. The waiver was simply this: We said, please give Missouri
the right to say to welfare recipients, if you do not make sure your
kids are in school, you will not get your full benefit. It was a way of
saying welfare is not a place where you can throw responsibility to the
wind. It was a way of saying, if you are a parent, you have to be
responsible for at least some fundamental basic things, like getting
[[Page S8404]]
your kids to school, because we do not want your kids to stay at home
and learn welfare, we want your kids to go to school and learn how to
be productive. We were able to get that waiver. The program was called
People Attaining Self-Sufficiency, PASS. PASS had some reference to
school. We wanted kids to pass in school by having good attendance.
I think there is another part of the structure of welfare reform that
we should embrace as we send the bill to the President of the United
States. We should not have to have States coming to Washington, waiting
2 or 3 years, filling out enough paperwork to choke a horse in order to
have the privilege of saying to people, ``We expect you to make sure
your kids are in school or we are not going to make sure your check is
in the mail.'' It is that simple. It is very fundamental. If you are on
welfare, your kids should be in school, because it is especially
important to break the intergenerational chain of dependence. Part of
this measure is to make sure we say to the individuals, ``You have some
responsibility.''
Another important concept of this amendment is that it would allow
States to require temporary assistance to needy families and food stamp
recipients to either have a high school education or work toward
attaining a high school education. It is my judgment that it is not
very realistic to say to people, ``We are sending you to work, but you
do not have to have the kind of fundamental and basic skills that come
from education.'' I am not talking about worker training here, I am
talking about education. I am talking about the fact that an educated
person can read the manual and train himself or herself. I am talking
about the fundamental responsibility of culture, not the responsibility
of a business to train people to do its business. I am talking about
the fundamental responsibility of a culture to train its citizens by
way of education.
Education is different, really, from training. Education is the basis
upon which training builds. A person who cannot read or write will have
a hard time, no matter how much training she gets. I believe if a
person is going to be receiving this assistance that we need to say to
them, ``You are going to have to invest in yourself to the extent of
having a high school education or a general equivalency diploma. The
truth of the matter is you have a responsibility, and you have to be
prepared to meet that responsibility.''
As a matter of fact, this is a far more important thing than it has
ever been before, because once we put a time limit on these matters, we
need to energize people to be ready in order to fend for themselves
when the time limit has expired. I hope we will have a 2-year time
length on consecutive months of benefits, 24 months, and I believe in a
5-year lifetime benefit, as well. With that in mind we will have to
make sure that people can fend for themselves at the expiration of that
time.
Mr. President, I reserve the balance of my time, but I am happy to
yield back my time on the amendment when all time is ready to be
yielded back.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I see the distinguished chairman of the
Budget Committee on the floor; is he seeking recognition?
Mr. DOMENICI. I wondered who on the Democratic side was going to
oppose this amendment.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I was going to make a general statement. I
will be introducing an amendment later. I was going to be making a
short but general statement, if there is no objection to that.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, might I ask staff, perhaps they could
confer with Senator Leahy.
Is there somebody on your side that wants to respond to this
amendment?
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I say to the distinguished Senator from New
Mexico, I came to the floor because there was not anybody on the floor
at this moment. I notice there that have been some quorum calls. I
thought rather than hold up anything later on, as I would take probably
less time than it would take now in discussing this, if I could just
make a couple of comments about the nutrition aspects of the
reconciliation bill.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I have no objection if the distinguished
Senator from Missouri has no objection to temporarily setting this
aside while the Senator from Vermont proceeds.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I wish to speak just briefly on matters
involving nutrition aspects of the reconciliation bill. I will, later
on, have amendments in that regard. It seems like this was a good time
to speak.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, we need not set anything aside, but give
him unanimous consent to proceed on a matter not related to this
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. McCain). The unanimous-consent request by
the Senator from New Mexico is agreed to, and the Senator from Vermont
is recognized to speak.
Mr. LEAHY. I thank my distinguished friend from New Mexico, the
distinguished Presiding Officer from Arizona, and the distinguished
Senator from Missouri.
Mr. President, my message today is very simple--my concern is that
the nutrition cuts in the reconciliation bill are going to make
children go hungry if they are allowed to stay as they are.
At the beginning of this Congress, I attacked some of those people
with the Contract With America crowd because they wanted to repeal the
School Lunch Act, at that time in the name of balancing the budget. I
also attacked them because they wanted to repeal the school breakfast
program and then they wanted to repeal the summer food service program.
I am not sure why they did that, but it was interesting to see how the
American public reacted. They reacted with outrage.
Now I am afraid that the same American public is being fooled,
because these nutrition cuts are now being made in a reconciliation
bill. The same nutrition cuts that could not be made frontally are
going to be made indirectly in the reconciliation bill.
It appears to me that the Contract With America crowd has totally
abandoned its effort to balance the budget. Now they will settle for
just taking food from children. The amendment to strike Medicaid
without an offset means that senior citizens vote, but it shows they
understand that children do not vote. If children could vote, there is
no doubt in my mind these nutrition cuts would not be in this bill. In
fact, if children could vote, the nutrition cuts that cut the school
lunch, school breakfast, and summer reading programs would not even be
attempted.
Nationwide, the nutrition cuts will take the equivalent of 20 billion
meals from low-income families over the next 6 years. Children do not
have political PAC's. Children do not vote. But now we find out what
happens, children are the ones that will be hurt by these cuts.
If these cuts had something to do with balancing the budget, or were
part of a larger effort to balance the budget, that would at least
provide some justification. These programs that the Republican majority
propose in child care food programs, these cuts hurt preschool-age
children in day care homes in my home State of Vermont and in the rest
of the Nation. Families with children will absorb at least 70 percent
of the food stamp reductions. The impact on Vermont will be
significant. The average food stamp benefit will drop to 65 cents per
person per meal. Defy anybody to eat at 65 cents per meal. I think
parents will have a very difficult time feeding hungry children on a
65-cent budget. I remember my three children when they were going up
could eat you out of house and home. They certainly could not be fed on
65 cents a meal.
Most of these food stamp cuts are done cleverly. There is $23 billion
that comes from provisions that alter the mathematical factors and
formula used in computer software, so nobody sees or figures it out.
But the end result is there are lower benefits for children.
Children will go hungry because new computer programs are used. These
hungry children will not even know they have been reformed; neither
will their parents. All they will know is they are going to be a lot,
lot hungrier once the computers turn on.
Over 95 percent of the cuts in nutrition programs are unrelated to
welfare reform. Most cuts are simply implemented by computer software.
I do not know how that represents reform--unless somebody feels that a
computer can think and feed and knows hunger, and a computer can
recognize hungry children.
In fact, in a couple of years, hunger among Vermont children will
dramatically increase under this bill. As it is
[[Page S8405]]
now written in the nutrition areas, it is antifamily, antichild, it is
mean-spirited, and it is really beneath what a great country should
stand for. It takes food from children, and it does virtually nothing
to reform or improve nutrition programs. In fact, it is not even an
attempt to balance the budget, so we can at least say we are doing that
for the children in future years.
A lot of talk was made last year about the Contract With America and
about how the budget will be balanced with real cuts. I said at that
time that I did not think the people who were ``talking that talk''
would ``walk the walk'' by making the real cuts. I was right.
That net result of this Congress will be that the Agriculture
Committee baseline is greatly reduced, and that other committees will
get away without contributing a penny, let alone their fair share,
toward balancing the budget. But what that means is, when it works its
way down, it works its way down to children. Why? As I said before,
children do not vote, children do not contribute to PAC's, children do
not hire lobbyists, children do not get involved in campaigns. So
children will go hungry. It is as simple as that. Everybody else gets
protected.
The distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee was on the floor
here a minute ago. I remember when he came before the Agriculture
Committee in 1990. He called the Food Stamp Program ``the backbone of
our way of helping the needy in this country.'' I agreed with Senator
Domenici when he said that. But now that backbone is being broken in
this bill. In a couple of years, there will be a stream of news stories
about hungry children standing in lines at soup kitchens, because over
80 percent of food stamp benefits go to families with children.
Let us not have a bill that punishes children because they cannot
vote. Let us do what the distinguished Senator from New Mexico said in
1990. Let us remember our children. Let us remember the Food Stamp
Program, which, as he said so eloquently, ``is the backbone of our way
of helping the needy in this country.''
So, Mr. President, I will have amendments later on to improve this,
unless improvements are made before that time. I yield the floor.
Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico is recognized.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I understand that the Democratic side
will have no one responding to the Senator from Missouri. If the
Senator finishes, he can yield back the remainder of his time, and we
will ask that they yield back any time they have, and the Senator's
amendment will be final, unless the point of order lies, and the
Senator will have time tomorrow to explain it.
I appreciate the comments of the distinguished Senator from Vermont.
I say, however, that statements I made with reference to food stamps
should not mean that the Senator from New Mexico does not think that,
from time to time, we must look at the program, because it is
frequently abused and abused in many ways. We have lent ourselves to
some of that abuse by the way we have written the law.
I know we are setting about in this bill to reform food stamps and
make sure that it is less fraudulently used. But I wanted to make sure
that my entire thoughts about it, as I went before the committee in
1990, are at least here in principle in the Record today.
Mr. LEAHY. If the Senator will yield on that point, would the Senator
from New Mexico agree with me that the Food Stamp Program, properly
used, can be of extreme benefit to low-income children.
Mr. DOMENICI. There is no question about it. We do not have a better
program----
The PRESIDING OFFICER. I admonish both Senators to observe the rules
of the Senate. You must address each other through the Chair.
Mr. LEAHY. I believe I had, Mr. President. I believe I asked if the
Senator would yield so I might ask him a question.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. But the Chair did not rule. Without objection,
the Senator from Vermont is recognized to ask a question of the Senator
from New Mexico.
I think the Senator from Vermont knows the rules.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I repeat my question to the Senator from
New Mexico. Would he not agree that the food stamp proposal, properly
used, is extremely helpful in feeding low-income children in this
country?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico is recognized.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I was going to respond to the question.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico is recognized.
Mr. DOMENICI. Certainly, I agree. I do not know that we have found a
better way, yet, even with all of its faults, to get nutrition into the
hands of the poor. I repeat that, however, I think the Senator from
Vermont knows that no matter how good it is, it is frequently abused.
We sometimes ``right it'' in ways that make it subject to being abused
more so. I only wanted to make that comment. I agree that we have not
yet found a better way. Cash benefits do not seem to work as well
because, indeed, they are not used for nutritional items. If we keep a
tight grasp on making sure they are not fraudulently traded and they
are used for nutrition, we do not have anything better yet that I am
aware of.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, my point is that we have seen some great
changes in the Food Stamp Program, some very significant improvements,
over the years. We have seen other improvements that we wait to come
forth, like the use of electronic benefit transfer.
I have been very proud to work very closely with the now chairman of
the Senate Agriculture Committee and, before that, the ranking member
of the Senate Agriculture Committee, the senior Senator from Indiana,
in making these improvements. They have saved a lot of money. I also
point out that the Food Stamp Program is extremely important.
During the last administration, 40,000 to 45,000 people were added
every single week in the 4 years President Bush was President--40,000
to 45,000 every single week for 4 years were added. That is, in over
200 weeks they were added to the food stamp rolls.
Let me just remind my friend from New Mexico and others about this.
When we talk about whether this program is utilized in a Republican or
Democratic administration, it is a program for everybody. During the
Bush administration, every single week, because of the way the economy
was, 40,000 people were added, at the taxpayers' expense, to the food
stamp rolls.
We have been fortunate with the efforts to balance the budget and
improve the economy, and since President Clinton came in, 2 million
people have been able to drop from the food stamp rolls, as compared to
40,000 people a week being added in the 200 weeks during the past
administration. Two million people have now been taken off in this
administration. That is good news for the economy and good news for the
taxpayers. But it also points out that in both Democratic and
Republican administrations, we should be protecting the Food Stamp
Program.
Reform it? Yes. My point is, of course, that a computer program that
simply cuts children off without reform is not reform. We should be
willing to stand up as legislators and make the tough decisions on how
to reform the Food Stamp Program, and not simply say to a computer
program: Here, you do it. We cannot totally cut off children because
they do not vote, they do not contribute, and they are not part of the
political process. They will never complain.
We will not touch anything in areas of senior citizens, or anybody
else, because they do vote and they do complain. By golly, those
children--tough. Go hungry.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hatfield). Who seeks recognition?
Mr. ASHCROFT addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
Mr. ASHCROFT. Thank you, Mr. President. I will make a few remarks
about the amendment which I proposed.
I want to reinforce again the concept that we need to change the
character of welfare. We need to change welfare from being a condition
in which people exist to being a transition from dependency--not only
from dependency but long-term dependency--to independence, to work, to
growth, and to opportunity. If we are going to do that,
[[Page S8406]]
we should not acquiesce to a 5-year limit which allows people to go
onto welfare and just get on it and stay for 5 years without doing
anything. We should require of individuals--or at least provide that
States require of individuals--that a number of things be done.
One, we should say no longer can you stay on welfare for more than 24
months in any one stretch without going to work or preparing for work
by taking work training and getting an education.
Second, we should say never can you stay on welfare if you do not
fulfill your responsibility to send your kids to school. If you are
going to be on welfare, your kids ought to be in school. Children who
are in school are less of a burden to individuals on welfare than
children who are allowed to stay home or otherwise avoid their
responsibility.
Third, if we expect people eventually to become self-reliant in their
own setting, we are going to have to ask those individuals to have
fundamental educational qualifications as well. In my judgment, that is
the reason we ought to allow States to require that individuals who are
seeking to continue to receive welfare benefits either have or be in
the process of attaining the kind of educational qualifications that
would come with a high school diploma or a GED.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that all time be yielded back
on the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. ASHCROFT addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
Amendment No. 4942 to Amendment No. 4941
(Purpose: To provide that a family may not receive TANF assistance for
more than 24 consecutive months at a time unless an adult in the family
is working or a State exempts an adult in the family from working for
reasons of hardship)
Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I send my 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 4942 to amendment No. 4941.
Mr. ASHCROFT. 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 lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the
amendment, insert the following:
``(8) No assistance for more than 5 years.--
(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraphs (B)
and (C), a State to which a grant is made under section 403
shall not use any part of the grant to provide assistance to
a family that includes an adult who has received assistance
under any State program funded under this part attributable
to funds provided by the Federal Government for 60 months
(whether or not consecutive) after the date the State program
funded under this part commences. However, a State shall not
use any part of such grant to provide assistance to a family
that includes an adult who has received assistance under any
State program funded under this part attributable to funds
provided by the Federal Government for more than 24
consecutive months unless such an adult is--
(i) engaged in work as required by Section
402(a)(1)(A)(ii); or,
(ii) exempted by the State from such 24 consecutive month
limitation by reason of hardship, pursuant to subparagraph
(C).''.
(B) Minor child exception.--In determining the number of
months for which an individual who is a parent or pregnant
has received assistance under the State program funded under
this part for purposes of subparagraph (A), the State shall
disregard any month for which such assistance was provided
with respect to the individual and during which the
individual was--
(i) a minor child; and
(ii) not the head of a household or married to the head of
a household.
(C) Hardship exception.--
(i) In general.--The State may exempt a family from the
application of subparagraph (A) of this paragraph, or
subparagraph (B) of paragraph (1), by reason of hardship or
if the family includes an individual who has been battered or
subjected to extreme cruelty.
(ii) Limitation.--The number of families with respect to
which an exemption made by a State under clause (i) is in
effect for a fiscal year shall not exceed 20 percent of the
average monthly number of families to which assistance is
provided under the State program funded under this part.
(iii) Battered or subject to extreme cruelty defined.--For
purposes of clause (i), an individual has been battered or
subjected to extreme cruelty if the individual has been
subjected to--
(I) physical acts that resulted in, or threatened to result
in, physical injury to the individual;
(II) sexual abuse;
(III) sexual activity involving a dependent child;
(IV) being forced as the caretaker relative of a dependent
child to engage in nonconsensual acts or activities;
(V) threats of, or attempts at, physical or sexual abuse;
(VI) mental abuse; or
(VII) neglect or deprivation of medical care.
(D) Rule of interpretation.--Subparagraph (A) of this
paragraph and subparagraph (B) of paragraph (1) shall not be
interpreted to require any State to provided assistance to
any individual for any period of time under the State program
funded under this part.
Mr. ASHCROFT. I ask unanimous consent that all time be yielded back
on the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 4943 to Amendment No. 4941
(Purpose: To provide that a state may sanction a family's TANF
assistance if the family includes an adult who fails to ensure that
their minor dependent children attend school)
Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. 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 4943 to amendment No. 4941.
Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
Mr. DOMENICI. I object. I do not know what the amendment is.
Mr. President, I no longer have an objection, if he would renew his
request. I understand what he is doing now. I did not understand. I do
now.
Mr. ASHCROFT. 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 language proposed to be inserted by the amendment,
strike all after the first word and insert the following:
Sanction Welfare Recipients for Failing To Ensure That
Minor Dependent Children Attend School.--
(A) In general.--A State to which a grant is made under
section 403 shall not be prohibited from sanctioning a family
that includes an adult who has received assistance under any
State program funded under this part attributable to funds
provided by the Federal Government or under the food stamp
program, as defined in section 3(h) of the Food Stamp Act of
1977, if such adult fails to ensure that the minor dependent
children of such adult attend school as required by the law
of the State in which the minor children reside.
Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, without the Senator losing his right to
the floor, might I ask unanimous consent to have the privilege of the
floor to ask a question of the Senator?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DOMENICI. Is it the purpose of the amendment--it is perfectly
legitimate and proper--to make sure that there is no second-degree
amendment offered to the Senator's amendment?
Mr. ASHCROFT. That is correct.
Mr. DOMENICI. I believe I have authority from the other side. If the
Senator wants to propose a unanimous consent request that there be no
second-degree amendment, it would be granted. Does the Senator prefer
not to do that?
Mr. ASHCROFT. Yes. I would prefer to have the amendment.
Amendment No. 4944 to Amendment No. 4941
(Purpose: To provide that a state may sanction a family's TANF
assistance if the family includes an adult who does not have, or is not
working toward attaining, a secondary school diploma or its recognized
equivalent)
Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk, and I
ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Missouri (Mr. Ashcroft) proposes an
amendment numbered 4944 to amendment No. 4941.
Mr. ASHCROFT. 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:
[[Page S8407]]
In the language proposed to be stricken by the amendment,
strike all after the first word and insert the following:
Requirement for high school diploma or equivalent.--
(A) In general.--A State to which a grant is made under
section 403 shall not be prohibited from sanctioning a family
that includes an adult who is older than age 20 and younger
than age 51 and who has received assistance under any State
program funded under this part attributable to funds provided
by the Federal Government or under the food stamp program, as
defined in section 3(h) of the Food Stamp Act of 1977, if
such adult does not have, or is not working toward attaining,
a secondary school diploma or its recognized equivalent
unless such adult has been determined in the judgment of
medical, psychiatric, or other appropriate professionals to
lack the requisite capacity to complete successfully a course
of study that would lead to a secondary school diploma or its
recognized equivalent.
Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, there are three basic thrusts that are
undertaken in these amendments. They are the conversion of a system
from being a system of conditioning people to be dependent to
transitioning people to be at work.
The first thrust is that we would have a 24-consecutive-month limit
on welfare for those who refuse to work or get training at the end of
the 24 months. It seems to me that is something that the President of
the United States called for last week and which we ought to have.
The second component of this strategy is to say that those who are on
welfare should have their children in school. It is not something that
is unknown or mysterious. The fact of the matter is that high school
dropouts average $12,809 a year, a poverty-level standard of living for
a family of three. For an individual who has a high school degree, the
average is $18,737, a 46-percent higher income than the average for
dropouts.
Half of those arrested for drug violations in 1995 did not have a
high school diploma. And the preponderance of all crimes, 40 percent of
all crimes, were committed by those who did not finish high school. It
is time for us to ask those who are involved in the welfare system by
way of receiving benefits under temporary assistance to needy families
to make sure that their children are in school.
A high school degree is a key to escaping from the welfare trap.
Statistics show that it keeps kids out of jail. Every parent has a
principal and primary responsibility to make sure their children
receive the kinds of fundamentals that will allow them to fend for
themselves. Every child can attend school in America. Every child can
earn a high school diploma. It costs nothing but commitment and
responsibility. Too often this opportunity is ignored--even trashed.
Teens drop out of school, grade school, or skip classes. This is a
tragic waste of a precious resource, one on which our culture must
rely.
All of our Government institutions should do everything possible to
ensure that children go to school and earn a degree. Government should
certainly not be paying parents to let their kids play hooky and skip
school. If you are on welfare, your kids should be in school. Parents
should not be coconspirators in perpetuating their children in a
lifetime on and off of welfare, in and out of minimum-wage jobs, and
irresponsibility. Children must go to school in order to break the
cycle of dependency, to change welfare from being a long-term condition
into being a transition.
The amendment that I propose allows States--I repeat, allows States--
to sanction welfare recipients of the temporary assistance to needy
families that do not ensure that their children are attending school.
It also allows States to sanction food stamp recipients who do not send
their children to school. Children who graduate from a welfare system
should be armed with a degree rather than with a habit of dependence.
It is the key to self-reliance and success.
We have watched, as the Nation has watched, the Olympics. We need our
full team on the field whenever we play. Even ``The Dream Team'' would
have a tough time if they did not have the entire capacity of the team
available as a resource. And yet we allow our citizens sometimes to ask
for our help and to persist in receiving it without equipping
themselves, without making a commitment to themselves. The last
component of my amendments is really a way of saying if you are going
to be on welfare, you have to have or be working toward a high school
diploma so you can work for yourself and help yourself.
It is no mystery. States may require that temporary assistance to
needy families and food stamp recipients work toward attaining a high
school diploma or its equivalent as a condition of receiving welfare
assistance. This requirement would not apply if an individual was
determined in the judgment of medical, psychiatric, or other
appropriate professionals to lack the requisite capacity to attain a
high school diploma or GED.
During the debate this year in the Senate, Senator Simon once said,
``We can have all the job training in the world, but if we do not face
the problem of basic education, we are not going to do what we ought to
do for this country.''
I cannot agree more with that statement. It does not pay us to
provide job training upon job training upon job training when welfare
recipients have not achieved proficiency in the fundamental underlying
skills of mathematics, English, and reading which provide people with
the tools to benefit from job training and to assimilate changes in the
job market. We do not have jobs and crafts that do not change. They all
have new processes and new procedures. As technology marches on, it is
important to make sure that individuals cannot only get the right kind
of job training but they possess the fundamental characteristic of
being educated in order to be able to take advantage of job training
when it comes along.
A person over 18 without a high school diploma averages $12,800 in
earnings; with a high school diploma, $18,700 in earnings. A $6,000
difference is the difference between dependence and independence, the
difference between self-reliance and reliance on Government. The U.S.
Sentencing Commission determined that 40 percent of the individuals who
commit crimes are individuals without high school diplomas. The
Commission also found that these individuals are responsible for 50
percent of all drug violations. If people are going to receive welfare
benefits, they should at least be working toward the fundamental
equipping, enabling, freeing achievement of having a high school
education.
Mr. President, I would be pleased together with the opponents of this
amendment on the other side of the aisle to yield back the remainder of
the time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has yielded back the remainder----
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I need somebody from the other side of
the aisle to yield back their time or we cannot proceed with any other
amendments.
Mr. CONRAD. We are willing to yield back the time on this side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has been yielded back.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, pursuant to the previous understanding,
I believe the distinguished Senator is entitled to offer his amendment
at this point.
Amendment No. 4945
(Purpose: To expand State flexibility in order to encourage food stamp
recipients to look for work and to prevent hardship)
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I would call up my amendment that is at
the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Conrad], for himself and
Mr. Leahy, proposes an amendment numbered 4945.
Mr. CONRAD. 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 6, strike lines 14 through 16 and insert the
following:
Section 5(d)(7) of the Food Stamp Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C.
2014(d)(7)) is amended by striking ``21 years of age or
younger'' and inserting ``19 years of age or younger (17
years of age or younger in fiscal year 2002)''.
On page 21, line 3, strike ``$5,100'' and insert
``$4,650''.
On page 49, line 3, strike ``10'' and insert ``20''.
On page 49, line 12, strike ``1 month'' and insert ``2
months''.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
[[Page S8408]]
Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Chair.
I am joined in this amendment by my colleague from Vermont, Senator
Leahy, the ranking member of the Senate Agriculture Committee. This
amendment addresses a serious problem with the food stamp provisions of
the welfare bill that is before us now.
As I describe our amendment, I would like to bring my colleagues'
attention to the chart beside me and the number 600,000 because that is
the impact of the food stamp provisions before us; 600,000 Americans
will lose eligibility each month under the provision that is in the
bill before us.
The 600,000 estimated by the Congressional Budget Office is to be the
number of people who would be terminated from the Food Stamp Program in
any given month because they are unable to find a job within the 4-
month time limit provided for in this legislation. Our amendment
insists on work, and that is as it should be. But it promotes State
flexibility by giving States an option to assist people who would
otherwise be at risk of going hungry. Our amendment achieves these
goals in two ways. First, the amendment would expand the State option
to exercise a hardship exemption. The amendment increases the hardship
exemption from 10 percent to 20 percent of the eligible population and
makes it consistent with the AFDC block grant.
Simply stated, we are allowing States, instead of being able to
declare 10 percent of their eligible population hardship cases not
bound by the 4-month limit, to increase that at State option to 20
percent.
Second, the amendment allows States to count job search as work for 2
months instead of the 1 month provided in the bill before us. I want to
be clear to my colleagues that the cost of this amendment is fully
offset over the 6-year budget period. The Agriculture Committee will
still be in full compliance with its budget reconciliation target.
Mr. DOMENICI. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. CONRAD. I would be happy to yield to my colleague if we do not
have an interruption.
Mr. DOMENICI. I want to use my time.
Mr. President, in behalf of the distinguished chairman of the
Agriculture Committee, I understand the amendment offered by Senator
Conrad allows States to exempt up to 20 percent of the able-bodied 18
to 50-year-olds from the work requirement and allow up to 2 months of
job search per year to count as work.
Mr. CONRAD. That is correct.
Mr. DOMENICI. I believe the Food Stamp Program should have a strong
work requirement as the Senator has indicated. I am now speaking in
behalf of the chairman of the Agriculture Committee. Senator Lugar
understands the Senator's concern about the individuals who are willing
to work may be unable to find a job due to circumstances beyond their
control. Senator Lugar continues on that in behalf of the Agriculture
Committee, he finds the offsets acceptable and the amendment
acceptable.
So at this point I want the Senator to know I am going to yield back
all the time we have in opposition and indicate for the Record we are
willing to accept the amendment.
Mr. CONRAD. I appreciate that from the able manager of the bill. I
will just proceed briefly to outline the rationale for the amendment
and then yield back our time as well.
Mr. President, everybody here agrees that work is important and that
food stamp benefits should be temporary. But the work requirement
provision in the pending welfare bill would have the unintended effect
of preventing people who want to find work from securing a job. How can
my colleagues seriously argue that people can be expected to find a
job, to sit through an interview when they have not eaten? It does not
work. I understand and support the work ethic in America, but I also
believe our society has achieved a level of decency where we will not
deny food assistance to people who have been unable to find a job in
just 4 months.
The reason I felt it was important to offer this amendment is I have
dealt with people who are in this exact circumstance. I remember very
well a young fellow who worked construction in my State--very frankly,
not the smartest guy in the world, and he had a hard time finding work,
but he was able to work construction. He was a strong kid and he was
able to work in that way. But the construction season in my state is
not very long. You are lucky if you can be in construction 6 months out
of the year in North Dakota some years.
This young fellow would work during the construction season, which
usually starts in April in North Dakota, but come winter, November, the
construction season ended. He was not able to find additional work. And
I tell you, he came from a family that had next to nothing. He had next
to nothing, lived in a very modest basement apartment, and that fellow
needed some help during the winter to eat. That is just the reality of
the circumstance.
Under this legislation, after 4 months, that guy would not get any
help. Is that really what we want to do in America? Is that really what
we want to do? We want to say to somebody, if you cannot find a job in
4 months, you do not get any food assistance? Is that what we have come
to in this country? I find that hard to believe.
I really must say to my colleagues, if that is where we are, then
something is radically wrong in this country. America is better than
that. We are a wealthy nation, with a rich and abundant food supply. We
should not knowingly adopt a national policy which promotes hunger.
Certainly we should promote work, but not cut people off from food if
they have not been able to find a job in 4 months. This amendment gives
States the option to provide food for people who are unable to find a
job within 4 months, at least 20 percent they can exempt as hardship
cases, and they can count 2 months of looking for work as part of work.
As I already mentioned and as the chart serves to remind us, in
addition to the number of people cut off the Food Stamp Program because
of the tightened eligibility requirements and work registration
requirements, the Congressional Budget Office has estimated the welfare
bill before us will cut 600,000 people off of food stamps each month
because they cannot find a job within the 4-month time limit. These
600,000 people will then be at risk of going hungry, more worried about
finding their next meal than finding a job.
I cannot believe that is what we are about here in the U.S. Senate.
According to a study done in 1993, 83 percent of the people who would
be affected by this draconian provision are below 50 percent of the
poverty line. We are talking about folks who do not have anything. Now
we are going to say to them, ``If you do not get a job within 4 months,
you do not get to eat''? I cannot believe we are going to do that.
I am all for strong work requirements. I introduced my own welfare
reform bill that had the toughest work requirements of any bill before
us. But this is not a work provision. This is a hunger provision. We
are talking about food for people who cannot find a job. I think it is
entirely reasonable to give States the option to continue food stamp
coverage for an additional month of intensive job search, to help make
sure that poor people complete the transition from welfare to work.
The Senate-passed welfare reform bill that was supported by 87
Senators contained 6 months of food stamp eligibility for people in
this category. Bipartisan efforts to reform the welfare system,
including the Chafee-Breaux approach and the Specter-Biden proposal,
also contained a 6-month food stamp time limit. These are far more
humane and realistic provisions.
Mr. President, for those who think the majority of people affected by
this provision are just scamming the system and are not interested in
working, let me put this in perspective by translating it into dollar
terms. Under the Food Stamp Program, the maximum level of benefits for
a single person is $119 a month. That is about $4 a day. The
Congressional Budget Office estimates that every one of the 600,000 who
cannot find a job would accept job training or a work slot if one was
available through the Food Stamp Employment Training Program. These
600,000 people are, consequently, receiving less than $4 a day in food
stamps.
I ask my colleagues to think seriously about what this means, less
than $4 a day in food stamps. Does it not make sense if there were
actually minimum wage jobs available for $4.25 an
[[Page S8409]]
hour that individuals would work at these jobs? Why would anyone trade
a $4.25-an-hour job for $4 a day in food stamps? I do not think the
vast majority of people would make that kind of trade. Clearly, we are
talking about circumstances in which those jobs are not available.
People cannot find those jobs. This is not a case of they are better
off taking welfare than taking a job for $4 in food assistance. You
would be much better off, clearly, with $4 an hour in a job.
Before I close, I want to spend just a minute talking about the
hardship exemption. Again, I share the view of those who believe we
must set limits and push people from welfare to work. But I think it is
important to recognize there are people who just do not have the skills
to find a job, or else have some personal hardship that means they will
not be employed after 4 months on food stamps. Every one of us know
people who, frankly, are marginal in the employment arena. They cannot
find work. They are not educated, they are not trained, they may have
one or more disabilities.
It is important, I think, also, to consider the devastating effects
of natural disasters or economic downturn on a particular area, which
may make it difficult for people to find employment in 4 months. If you
have a natural disaster like a hurricane, tornado, earthquake, or a
series of disasters as we have seen in California, all of a sudden an
area may not have much in the way of employment. People may not be able
to find a job.
I think it is also important for us to understand this issue affects
urban areas and could cause increased tensions in some of America's
biggest cities. A recent study showed that for every McDonald's opening
in New York City, there were 14 applicants. They wanted to work, wanted
to have a job. For whatever reason, they were not able to find a job.
That circumstance has improved because the national economy has
improved, but we all know the economy is subjected to cycles. Sometimes
it is good and strong and sometimes it is not so good, not so strong.
What are we going to say to people who cannot find a job after 4
months? We are going to deny them food stamps? What are we telling
them? Telling them to go to the garbage can to find something to eat?
I have people right now going through my neighborhood who are looking
in garbage cans trying to find something to eat, and my neighborhood in
this town is eight blocks from where we are right now, eight blocks due
east of the Capitol of the United States. I have people every day going
through my neighborhood, going through garbage cans. If we want more of
it, I suppose we just stick with what is in the underlying bill.
I might say it is not just urban areas, but rural areas as well.
There are parts of my State which have very low populations, small
communities, and jobs are scarce in some of these areas. An individual
who has worked hard for 20 years in a small business in a rural area,
and maybe that business fails, now this person may be willing to work
all night and all day if given the chance, but the harsh reality is he
or she may not be able to find a job. The truth of the matter is, it
may take more than 4 months for a new business to come to that
community.
We need to give States the option to offer food assistance to hard-
working people who experience extreme hardship. It is wrong to force
States to cut these people off from food assistance. Instead, we should
give States the flexibility to continue to provide food stamps to a
limited number, up to 20 percent of individuals who face some special
hardship, Mr. President, 20 percent of the eligible population, instead
of 10 percent that is in the underlying bill.
Mr. President, it may not be politically popular to care about adults
who are hungry and cannot find a job, but I want my colleagues to think
about what it would be like to be without food. We are not talking here
about the luxuries. We are talking about food. It strikes me it is bad
policy, and bad for the country, to knowingly create a class of
desperate people across the country, struggling for the most basic
human necessity, food.
Fundamentally, it does not make sense to deny food to people who are
working hard to find a job and cannot find one. These people are less,
not more likely to find a job if they are spending their time trying to
find their next meal instead of trying to find their next job.
I ask my colleagues to join me in giving States additional
flexibility to continue to provide food assistance to people who are
unable to find work within the 4 months provided for in this
legislation.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is
on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 4945) was agreed to.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move
to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DOMENICI. 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. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I have two amendments by Senator
Lieberman which we are going to accept.
Amendment No. 4946
(Purpose: To add provisions to reduce the incidence of statutory rape)
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Lieberman, I send
an amendment to the desk. This amendment has been agreed to on both
sides. I ask unanimous consent that it be agreed to and that the motion
to reconsider be laid upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk
will report the amendment.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Domenici], for Mr.
Lieberman, proposes an amendment numbered 4946.
Mr. DOMENICI. 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:
Section 2101 is amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraphs (7) through (9) as
paragraphs (8) through (10), respectively;
(2) in paragraph (10), as so redesignated, by inserting ``,
and protection of teenage girls from pregnancy as well as
predatory sexual behavior'' after ``birth''; and
(3) by inserting after paragraph (6), the following:
(7) An effective strategy to combat teenage pregnancy must
address the issue of male responsibility, including statutory
rape culpability and prevention. The increase of teenage
pregnancies among the youngest girls is particularly severe
and is linked to predatory sexual practices by men who are
significantly older.
(A) It is estimated that in the late 1980's the rate for
girls age 14 and under giving birth increased 26 percent.
(B) Data indicates that at least half of the children born
to teenage mothers are fathered by adult men. Available data
suggests that almost 70 percent of births to teenage girls
are fathered by men over age 20.
(C) Surveys of teen mothers have revealed that a majority
of such mothers have histories of sexual and physical abuse,
primarily with older adult men.
Section 402(a)(1)(A) of the Social Security Act, as added
by section 2103(a)(1), is amended--
(1) by redesignating clauses (vi) and (vii) as clauses
(vii) and (viii), respectively; and
(2) by inserting after clause (v), the following:
``(vi) Conduct a program, designed to reach State and local
law enforcement officials, the education system, and relevant
counseling services, that provides education and training on
the problem of statutory rape so that teenage pregnancy
prevention programs may be expanded in scope to include men.
Section 2908 is amended--
(1) by inserting ``(a) Sense of the Senate.--'' before
``It''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
(b) Justice Department Program on Statutory Rape.--
(1) Establishment.--Not later than January 1, 1997, the
Attorney General shall establish and implement a program
that--
(A) studies the linkage between statutory rape and teenage
pregnancy, particularly by predatory older men committing
repeat offenses; and
(B) educates State and local criminal law enforcement
officials on the prevention and prosecution of statutory
rape, focusing in
[[Page S8410]]
particular on the commission of statutory rape by predatory
older men committing repeat offenses, and any links to
teenage pregnancy.
(c) ``Violence Against Women Initiative.--The Attorney
General shall ensure that the Department of Justice's
Violence Against Women initiative addresses the issue of
statutory rape, particularly the commission of statutory rape
by predatory older men committing repeat offenses.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 4946) was agreed to.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, that was an amendment to minimize the
incidence of statutory rape that is occurring in the United States.
Amendment No. 4947
(Purpose: To require States which receive grants under title XX of the
Social Security Act to dedicate 1 percent of such grants to programs
and services for minors)
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I have a second amendment on behalf of
Senator Lieberman. I make the same unanimous-consent request. I ask
unanimous consent that this amendment be agreed to and that the motion
to reconsider be laid upon the table.
I send the amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk
will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Domenici], for Mr.
Lieberman, proposes an amendment numbered 4947.
Mr. DOMENICI. 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:
Section 2903 is amended--
(1) by inserting ``(a) In General.)--'' before ``Section'';
and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
(b) Dedication of Block Grant Share.--Section 2001 of the
Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1397) is amended--
(1) in the matter of preceding paragraph (1), by inserting
``(a)'' before ``For''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(b) For any fiscal year in which a State receives an
allotment under section 2003, such State shall dedicate an
amount equal to 1 percent of such allotment to fund programs
and services that teach minors to--
``(1) avoid out-of-wedlock pregnancies; and''.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 4947) was agreed to.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, the subject matter of this amendment is
a 1 percent setaside from the social services block grant which has
been agreed to on our side by the respective chairman of the committee.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DORGAN. 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. DORGAN. If I might ask the manager of the bill, Senator Byrd and
I would like to introduce a piece of legislation. Inasmuch as I see no
other Member seeking recognition to offer an amendment to the pending
business, I ask unanimous consent to proceed as if in morning business
with the understanding that if additional amendments become available,
we----
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. DOMENICI. Reserving the right to object, could you give us an
estimate as to how much time you might use?
Mr. DORGAN. I ask for 30 minutes and would expect not to use the
entire 30 minutes.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I will not object so long as the Senator
would add that the time used, even though it is as in morning business,
would be charged against the time remaining on the bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I thank the Chair.
(The remarks of Mr. Dorgan and Mr. Byrd pertaining to the
introduction of S. 1978 are located in today's Record under
``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
Mr. BUMPERS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Mack). The Senator from Arkansas.
Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, the Senator from Florida, Senator Graham,
offered an amendment on behalf of himself and the Senator from Arkansas
Friday afternoon. Unhappily, I was not here and did not get a chance to
speak on it. I would like to seize the opportunity now to just make a
few remarks.
Before doing that, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to
yield to the Senator from North Dakota to allow him to lay down an
amendment without debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 4948
(Purpose: To strike provisions relating to the Indian child care set
aside)
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk sponsored
by myself and cosponsored by Senator McCain and Senator Inouye.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Dorgan], for himself,
Mr. McCain, and Mr. Inouye, proposes an amendment numbered
4948.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
In section 2813(1), strike subparagraph (B).
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I intend to discuss this amendment briefly
at some point following the presentation by the Senator from Arkansas,
and I very much appreciate his indulgence.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a moment?
Mr. BUMPERS. Yes.
Mr. DOMENICI. This is child support regarding Indians?
We passed it on voice vote on Thursday.
Mr. BUMPERS. Will the Senator repeat that. I am sorry; I did not hear
him.
Mr. DOMENICI. I just addressed the amendment sent to the desk.
Mr. DORGAN. It is a different amendment. It deals with the 3 percent
set aside, and I do not believe it has been passed.
Mr. DOMENICI. Could we have the amendment?
I thank the Senator.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
Amendment No. 4936
Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, the amendment being offered by Senator
Graham of Florida and me is the same one we offered last year. It might
have a few minor changes in it, but essentially it simply says that the
block grant formula in this welfare bill should be changed to take into
consideration the number of poor children in each State.
I am not very crazy about this bill to begin with, but I cannot
possibly vote for a bill that discriminates against the State of
Arkansas to the extent this one does. It is not just Arkansas, it is
particularly Southern States, but a lot of other States get caught up
in it, too.
Under the formula, the District of Columbia will get $4,222 for each
welfare recipient and the State of Arkansas will get $390. Why is a
child in the District of Columbia worth 11 times as much as a poor
child in Arkansas? That is a legitimate question, is it not?
I will tell you the answer. The answer is, through the years, the
Federal Government has matched the States to some percentage or
another. It is not the same in every State. For example, in my State,
because we are a relatively poor State, we get a big match, I think 73
to 75 percent. So for every dollar we put up, we get about $3 from the
Federal Government. The District of Columbia does not do quite as well.
But the reason the District of Columbia gets such a staggering amount
of money per child is because they have used a tremendous amount of
their resources to put into the AFDC Program.
That is perfectly laudable and I am not criticizing the District of
Columbia. But I will tell you something, and it gives me no joy to say
it publicly, I come from a State which has one of the lowest per capita
incomes in the Nation. We are a poor State. We have been ever since the
War Between the States. We have tried everything in the world and
continue to strive to do everything we can to improve the plight of our
people. We tried to improve our
[[Page S8411]]
economy so there would be more jobs and better paying jobs, and in the
past several years we have met with some success. But we are not New
York, California, or New Jersey in per capita income.
The reason this bill is fundamentally flawed and unfair is because it
says to you, the State of Arkansas, this is what you have received for
the last 3 years, 1991 through 1994, and that is what you are going to
continue to receive. In short, if you were poor, no matter how hard you
tried to do better under the AFDC program, if you were poor and simply
could not do it, it is tough.
What does this bill do? It says we are locking you in on the basis of
what you got during that 3-year period. I do not care if you had
floods, tornadoes, if you had a wave of immigrants move into your
State, which brings a lot of poverty to States like Florida, you are
still going to get what you got for 3 years, on average. There is a
little 2\1/2\ percent ``gimmie'' in the bill, but not enough to amount
to anything.
One of the things that really is a travesty in this bill is the
treatment of AFDC administrative costs. I hate to say these things
because I am not jumping on other States. I am simply trying to defend
my own. But look what has happened in New York and New Jersey. The
nationwide average, in 1994, of administrative costs for administering
the program we have now was $53.42. During that same period of time,
the average cost of administering the program in New York was $106.68
and in New Jersey $105.26. What do we do under this bill? We lock that
administrative cost in and say we will continue to compensate you, no
matter how inefficient you may have been.
I am sorry the Senator from West Virginia left the floor. The average
administrative cost for administering the AFDC Program in West Virginia
is $13.34, and that is what they are going to get through the year 2000
if this bill passes, while New York will be receiving eight times as
much. We are going to give them that, lock them in, no matter how
inefficient they may be in administering the program.
One of the interesting things about this bill was pointed out in the
New York Times this morning. Let us take my State as an example, and
let us assume push comes to shove and we are running out of money, we
are suddenly not going to be able to continue. The Federal Government
says, ``That's tough, we gave you the block grant, you have to live
with it. We do not care how many poor children you have, we are going
to give you what you got as an average between 1991 and 1994, and you
will live with it. Do not come back up here with your hand out.''
Do you know what they allow the States to do? Kick people off
welfare. Each State can make it's work requirements as stringent as
they want to make them. What does the Federal Government do in such a
case? We do not say, ``If you kick those people off welfare we are
going to quit giving you the money for that family.'' We continue to
give them the money for the family. So there is an incentive to the
States, if they have any difficulty at all with the program, to kick
people off, knowing they are going to continue to get the same amount
of money.
I do not want to take too much time. I know there is not a lot of
time between now and 2 o'clock when we go to the agricultural
appropriations bill. But one of the most troubling things about this
bill, completely aside from this grossly unfair funding formula, is
that I have heard people in the U.S. Senate and in Congress say things
that are so punitive in nature. It is as though we are passing this
bill to punish people for being poor. You can call that bleeding heart
liberalism--call it whatever you want to call it. I am not for keeping
people on the welfare cycle. I am for reforming welfare, to make jobs a
lot more attractive to those people. I am for reforming welfare so
women can have day care for their children and get job training and
find a job, preferably one that provides health care so we do not have
to pay for Medicaid for them.
But in the debate, just to use my own State as an example, there is
sort of the suggestion that the youngsters, the babies that are born in
College Station, AR, which is an unspeakably poor area, have the same
opportunities as the children born in Pleasant Valley, our most
affluent suburb. And everybody who does not happen to make it as well
as the people in Pleasant Valley, somehow or another we seem to think
they are lowdown.
I said on the floor before and I will say it again, my brother went
to Harvard Law School, courtesy of the taxpayers of the United States
on the GI bill. We have a little difficult time sometimes discussing
these issues, but I remind him that it was more than Harvard Law School
that made him successful.
I would not be a U.S. Senator if I had not been able to go to a good
law school, like Northwestern, also compliments of the U.S. Government,
who paid for all of it, except what Betty made working.
So I remind my brother about the largess of the Federal Government,
which I have been trying to pay back all of my life, by thanking the
taxpayers, being a good public servant, and doing my dead-level best to
make this a better country for my children and grandchildren to grow up
in. But I also remind my brother that we were also fortunate because we
chose our parents well. These AFDC children did not choose their
parents well. Somehow there is a certain vindictiveness, a punitive
aspect to this bill toward those children, a lot of whom are going to
suffer under the terms of this bill, and suffer a lot, because they had
the temerity not to choose their parents well.
So, I do not have any trouble voting against this bill, especially
because it discriminates against my State in a totally unacceptable
way. I know my State. I was Governor of my State. I know where the
money comes from, and I know where it goes. We have areas along the
Mississippi River, which we call the delta, and if we are going to pass
a bill to alleviate the tax burden on people in the District of
Columbia because their people are moving out because of crime or the
tax rate or something else, I want to include the delta.
I can tell you, you will not find an inner city in America with more
deplorable poverty than you will find in the delta of Mississippi and
Arkansas. So I want them to have the same break.
As I say, if we were not struggling to do the best we can, I would
not object. But we do not have the money that New York, New Jersey,
California, and other States have to put into this program. It is not
just Arkansas. Mr. President, your home State of Florida, as you know
all too well without me saying it, will lose $1 billion under this
bill.
The two Senators from Texas voted against the Graham-Bumpers proposal
last year--and I assume they will do it again--and it cost the State of
Texas $3 billion. And on it goes. It is a grossly unfair formula. It is
indefensible.
In this morning's New York Times, my position is vindicated at least
by one columnist, David Ellwood, who is professor of public policy at
Harvard School of Government. He says, and this is just a portion of
it:
States would get block grants to use for welfare and work
programs. But the grants for child care, job training,
workfare, and cash assistance combined would amount to less
than $15 per poor child per week in * * * Mississippi and
Arkansas.
Mr. President, $15 a week for all of those things.
Mr. DOMENICI. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. BUMPERS. I will be happy to yield.
Mr. DOMENICI. Does that not mean that is what they are getting now?
Mr. BUMPERS. I beg your pardon?
Mr. DOMENICI. Does that not mean that is what they are getting now?
Mr. BUMPERS. It means that is what they have gotten as an average for
1991 and 1994.
Mr. DOMENICI. Are you suggesting it is appreciably better than 1994?
Mr. BUMPERS. Well, I am sure it is somewhat better.
Mr. DOMENICI. Will the formula become more satisfactory if it was
brought to 1995? I do not think we got the evidence. My point is,
however we go--I do not know which way the Senate is going to go--the
truth of the matter is, those poor children you are speaking of in
those two States are not getting very much now. That is the reason they
are not going to get very much under this bill.
Mr. BUMPERS. They are not going to get very much, but why do you want
[[Page S8412]]
to lock in an inequity? You say it has always been unequal but want to
lock it in?
Mr. DOMENICI. I did not say that. I wanted to make sure the Record
reflected when you expressed yourself--and I have great respect for
you. You are representing a cause and an approach that ought to be
looked at carefully. But when you say they are only going to get $15 on
average, it has to be made clear they are not getting much more than
$15 now.
Mr. BUMPERS. That's true, they are not getting much more than that. I
can tell you the number of poor children in my State is higher by far
than the national average.
What I am saying is that if you want to address the problems of poor
people, go where the poor people are, not where the people are more
affluent. That is the reason I object; I object to these staggering
sums going to the other States.
In 1994, Arkansas had a terrible Medicaid shortage of funds. We could
not come up with our matching share to the extent that was necessary to
provide health care for all of our poor children. Do you know what the
State legislature did under the Governor's leadership? They passed one
of the most unpopular taxes you can pass in any State. It was a nickel
a bottle on soft drinks, and the money it raised kept us from kicking
people out of nursing homes, and it kept us from having poor children
on the streets who need health care and are not able to get it.
That is the reason I am complaining today. It was a monumental effort
on the part of Arkansas to come up with our share of the money so we
could take care of our children.
So here we have a formula that says in the future you are going to
get $390 a year per poor child. And there are 38 additional States that
will be hurt by this bill. You would think it would be adopted with
flying colors.
If I may continue with the article from Mr. Ellwood of the New York
Times:
Governor Thompson says he can make reform succeed with
block grants. But the legislation provides more than three
times as much money per poor child in wealthier States like
Wisconsin, California, and New York as it does for many
States with much higher levels of poverty. Even if they
wanted to, there is no way poor States could carry out plans
like Governor Thompson's.
Here is a man who spent his entire life studying this problem. He
closes this article by saying:
Welfare politics has turned ugly.
Rhetoric has replaced reality: saying a bill is about work
or that cuts are in the best interests of children does not
make it so. Apparently the legislation is being driven by
election-year fears. But Members of Congress and President
Clinton need to stand up for our children. This bill should
not be passed. If legislation like this is adopted, I hope
the President vetoes it in the name of real welfare reform.
Mr. President, I spoke about election-year issues the other day in
the Energy Committee, on which I sit, when we were dealing with the
Boundary Water Canoe Wilderness Area, about 1,100 lakes along the
Minnesota-Canadian border. I went out there in 1978 for Wendy Anderson,
who was serving in the Senate from the State of Minnesota at the time
and with whom I served as Governor. The Boundary Water Canoe Wilderness
Area came up the year Wendy was running for re-election. It was a big
political issue. Wendy lost his seat, not for that reason only. But he
lost plenty of votes because of the Boundary Water Canoe Wilderness
Area dispute.
Now we have another big Boundary Water Canoe Wilderness Area dispute
in Minnesota. I am not taking sides on that necessarily, but there are
a lot of ads being run in Minnesota right now. I said in the
committee--and I mean it--I will do everything I can to keep a bill of
this kind from passing this year, because it is entirely too important
for the U.S. Congress to be dealing with in an election year.
That is exactly the way I feel about this welfare bill. It ought to
be passed next year, not now in an election year where everybody is
trying to grow hair on their chest to prove they are tougher on welfare
than everyone else. But we are not going to wait. As a consequence, we
are getting ready to pass a bad bill.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the article by David T.
Ellwood in the New York Times be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Welfare Reform in Name Only
(By David T. Ellwood)
Bondurant, Wy.--I have spent much of my professional life
seeking to reform welfare. I have worked with Republican and
Democratic governors. And until I returned to academia a year
ago, I was fortunate to be a co-chairman of President
Clinton's welfare reform effort. I deeply believe that the
well-being of the nation's children depends on real reform.
We must turn away from the failed system focused on
determining eligibility and check writing and create a new
one based on work and responsibility.
But the Republican bills in the House and Senate are far
more about budget-cutting than work. Bathed in the rhetoric
of reform, they are more dangerous than most people realize.
No bill that is likely to push more than a million additional
children into poverty--many in working families--is real
reform.
Proponents claim the bills are about work, and the
legislation does obligate states to require large numbers of
recipients to work. Fair enough. Serious work requirements
are crucial to meaningful change. But it's one thing to write
work into legislation, and it's another to get recipients
jobs.
Gov. Tommy Thompson of Wisconsin, a Republican, has
emphasized that reform often involves spending more, not
less, money on things like job training and child care.
Instead, the Congressional bills would make major cuts--
reducing food stamps for the working poor, aid to disabled
children and to legal immigrants who are not yet citizens.
When the dust settles, there would not be much money for
welfare reform at all.
States would get block grants to use for welfare and work
programs. But the grants for child care, job training,
workfare and cash assistance combined would amount to less
than $15 per poor child per week in poor Southern states like
Mississippi and Arkansas. Moving people from welfare to work
is hard. On $15 a week--whom are we kidding?
Governor Thompson says he can make reform succeed with
block grants. But the legislation provides more than three
times as much money per poor child in wealthier states like
Wisconsin, California and New York as it does for many states
with much higher levels of poverty. Even if they wanted to,
there is no way poor states could carry out plans like
Governor Thompson's.
States cannot and will not do the impossible. The
legislation gives them an out. They may set time limits of
any length and simply cut families off welfare regardless of
their circumstances--and still get their full Federal block
grants.
It won't matter if the people want to work. It won't matter
if they would happily take workfare jobs so they could
provide something for their families. It won't matter if
there are no private jobs available.
States may want to offer workfare jobs, but limited Federal
grants may preclude that. People who are willing to work but
are unable to find a job should not be abandoned. If they
are, what happens to their children?
What is dangerous about the Republican legislation is not
that it gives states the lead or reduces Federal rules.
States really are the source of most creative work on true
reform. Witness the approximately 40 states for which some
Federal regulations have been waived.
It is worrisome that this legislation places new and often
mean-spirited demands on states while changing the social and
financial rules of the game in a way that strongly encourages
cutting support rather than getting people jobs.
What is particularly distressing about the pre-election
rush to enact legislation is that significant reform is
finally starting at the state level, with active support from
the Clinton Administration. Some remarkably exciting ideas
(as well as some alarming ones) are being tried. There is no
evidence that a lack of Federal legislation has seriously
slowed this momentum.
Indeed, President Clinton has talked about issuing an
executive order requiring states to put people to work after
two years--without new legislation and without any danger of
sizable rises in child poverty or major benefit cuts. Passing
the legislation now in Congress seems far more likely to slow
reform than speed it--and it could result not in greater
independence of poor families but in a spiral of ever-
increasing desperation.
Welfare politics has turned ugly. Rhetoric has replaced
reality: saying a bill is about work or that cuts are in the
best interests of children does not make it so. Apparently
the legislation is being driven by election-year fears. But
members of Congress and President Clinton need to stand up
for our children. These bills should not be passed. And if
legislation like this is adopted, I hope the President vetoes
it in the name of real welfare reform.
Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I am certain that we will have some
arguments in opposition to the amendment for doing the formula
differently than Senator Bumpers has addressed. I am
[[Page S8413]]
trying to see if one of those who is from the committee that wrote the
bill would come down and do that. If not, I will address the issue.
But I say, the part of your argument--I say this to Senator Bumpers--
that says we ought to put this matter off, I do not think so. I think
you ought to get your chance here to present your case. I think we
ought to proceed.
Part of the argument you make indicates that we have waited far too
long to do something to reform this system and reforming the system in
the context I am speaking of right now. I am not necessarily speaking
about the workfare approach. It is way past due for that.
But essentially we have sat by for years since AFDC, a cash program,
came into being decades ago. We have let it develop to the extent it
has characteristics of the type you are speaking to. Obviously, poor
States were given the option to have very poor programs. But if we
would have told them, ``You ought to have richer programs,'' they would
have said, ``We can't afford any richer program.''
A State like New York, which you speak of, has very, very high taxes.
They have had a very, very liberal approach to taxing their people.
Thus, they can put up a lot of money for welfare. Since it is a high-
pay State, they decided to have a very hefty welfare program. As a
matter of fact, they have plenty of poor people in spite of all that.
I did not interrupt when you said we ought to put the money where the
poor people are, but I would venture to say that there are far more
poor people in the State of New York than there are in three or four of
the States you spoke of combined, certainly more than Arkansas,
Mississippi, States of that size.
Just because New York has a very high wage scale does not mean there
are not a lot of poor people there. But the problem is, we are
confronted with a welfare program that grew in an environment where we
asked States to match. We gave them options as to how much they wanted
to put into welfare. We even gave them options of how much they would
pay the beneficiaries and how much per child in a welfare home. We have
just left it there for years and did not do anything about it.
Now we have States with hardly a program in terms of real dollars and
States like New York, which has spent a lot of money on the program.
Sooner or later we have to decide, in reform, what do we do about that?
Perhaps you suggest that you have a better idea on what we do to make
that a situation in the future that is not as bad as you see it in the
past. But this is not an easy one. Nor is it an easy one in Medicare.
You addressed Medicare for a fleeting moment about----
Mr. BUMPERS. Medicaid.
Mr. DOMENICI. Excuse me. Medicaid. About your State being unable to
pay. One of the things we are forgetting here in the United States and
in this land when we debate Medicaid reform is that States cannot
afford the Medicaid Program we are telling them to have.
Your State fell short of money a few years ago. Mine is short this
year. There is $21 million they do not have to pay for the program in
Medicaid. We only match it with 25 cents on the dollar. I do not know
what yours is, but I would imagine, considering the profile of poverty,
the demographics of poverty, you are probably at a 25-percent match,
meaning that the Feds pay most of it, but it is so expensive to provide
the service under the current system the States cannot even pay for it.
If we think here the evolution of a formula in transition was
difficult for welfare, it is much more difficult on Medicaid because of
the very same facts, plus the program is much, much more encompassing
in terms of how many billions of dollars it spent. Welfare is a small
program in terms of the dollars spent on Medicaid, even in your State
and my State.
So it is not going to be easy to come up with a formula because we
have let them grow up side by side with States like New York and States
like Arkansas and States like Mississippi or New Mexico. I take that
back. New Mexico's welfare program is in the middle of the ranks. Its
Medicaid is about in the middle of the Nation.
So I would have asked that Harvard professor who wrote that article
you quoted from--it sounded brilliant--I would ask--maybe he has done
it--but where is his welfare program? He says we ought to have welfare
reform. We need one. It is easy to say, throw one out. We need one. We
have to make some decisions and get on with trying it. I yield the
floor at this point.
Mr. BUMPERS. I wonder if the Senator would yield for a moment? Would
the Senator yield for a unanimous consent request?
Mr. DOMENICI. I would be pleased to.
Mr. BUMPERS. Let me make one other observation, because I know the
Senator has labored in the vineyard a long time on welfare. It is one
of those issues for which the time never seems right. I said we ought
to do it next year. We tried to do it last year, which was not an
election year. It did not work out.
But I think the Senator, for whom I have the utmost respect--and when
I talk about Members of Congress that seem to lack some compassion, I
am certainly not talking about my friend from New Mexico. I know he has
labored long and hard for this. It is a complex issue. The deeper I got
into it on this amendment, the more complex it became.
But I will say this--and I think the Senator would agree with me--you
cannot make a program like this work, not the way it ought to work,
when, for example, a child in Massachusetts or New York or someplace
else is worth 10 times as much as a child in Arkansas or Mississippi.
We are not ever going to get our act together when we have that much
disparity. I am not saying there does not have to be effort, because
effort is important.
Some of these States have made monumental efforts. But effort is a
comparative thing. We have made efforts, too. Compared to some others
maybe it was not as great. When the Senator talks about how many poor
children there are in New York, I know the Senator is correct when he
says there are probably more poor children in New York than there are
in Mississippi, Alabama, and Arkansas put together.
But we are talking about poor children as a percentage of the
population. We are talking about how many poor children you have
compared to all the children in the State or all the people in the
State. When you get to that point, New York is not in the running with
Arkansas. I want to say to the Senator from New Mexico, I appreciate
his comments. As I say, I have the utmost respect for his efforts to
get this bill passed and all the effort he has made in the past. I just
happen to disagree with him. I yield the floor.
Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. I wonder if we could do this, I say to Senator Bumpers.
The time is 1 o'clock. We are going to be finished and run out of time
at 2 o'clock. I want to offer an opportunity for a couple of Senators
who would be very adversely affected by the Senator's amendment to
speak, not as long as the Senator did, but for some period of time. I
am going to make one observation and then ask consent.
I say to Senators, they should know, for instance, under this
amendment the State of Arkansas will have 151 percent increase; the
State of Louisiana will have 170 percent; New Mexico would have an
increase of 3 percent; California would have a reduction of $1.2
billion, a 31 percent reduction, New York a reduction of 49 percent;
Massachusetts, 50 percent; and on and on. I think some of those
Senators might want to come down and make their case as to why the
formula should be based on what they have been putting into the program
during the immediate past decade or so.
Having said that, I ask unanimous consent we set aside the Bumpers
amendment, but from the Republican side we reserve up to 10 minutes of
the hour that we might have in rebuttal, and that Senator Bumpers be
allowed, if that occurs, an additional 5 minutes, if we use 10.
Mr. BUMPERS. Either Senator Graham or myself.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, let me make one other observation:
According the charts Senator Graham has compiled, I do not know where
the Senator got the figure that we will get such a
[[Page S8414]]
big increase. The truth is we will get $282 million less per capita
over the next 6 years simply because we are using the 1991 and 1994
formula.
Mr. DOMENICI. I will be happy to make available the formula of the
Congressional Research Service, July 18, 1996. This formula has a chart
for the increase in every State, and we just took your increase and put
the percentage on it. That is where we got that number. We will be
happy to make the chart available.
Mr. President, let me make one last point, then we will move to the
next amendment. I use this time off the bill.
Mr. President, whatever the distinguished Senator from Arkansas has
said relative to what we have been paying as part of the welfare
program of the United States for children and this huge disparity of 10
to 1, the point I want to make is that is not the feature of this bill.
That is what has transpired over time. It is the reality today. Maybe
Senator Bumpers and others would say that is why welfare has failed. I
did not hear that before. I thought it was some other characteristic,
but that is the truth.
Now we are confronted with, if you are going to change the basic
quality of welfare and what is expected, what do you do about that
financial disparity that existed over time, which is extreme. This bill
tends to perpetuate that for 5 years in the form of a block grants, but
there is a lot of flexibility added.
I do not want to speak to that amendment any more because we reserved
time. I yield the floor.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, just prior to Senator Bumpers making his
statement, I offered an amendment. This is not the amendment that was
agreed to last week. This is a different amendment. We have provided
the amendment, I believe, or at least discussed it with both sides.
I wanted to take just 2 or 3 minutes to discuss that amendment, and I
also wanted to introduce a second amendment which I believe is going to
be agreed to. I am offering the second amendment on behalf of Senator
Daschle, myself, Senator Domenici and Senator McCain. It is an
amendment that has been worked out by both sides to exempt certain
individuals living in areas of low labor market participation from the
5-year limitation on assistance.
If I might, in a capsule, point out that the welfare reform bill
provides a 20-percent exemption that is available to the States. What
we could have and likely would have are circumstances where there are
areas in which virtually no jobs are available and you have very high
unemployment. That situation would soak up the exemption almost
immediately. This amendment addresses and corrects that and provides
some more flexibility to the States.
Amendment No. 4949
(Purpose: To exempt certain individuals living in areas of low labor
market participation from the 5-year limitation on assistance)
Mr. DORGAN. I offer this amendment, and I send it to the desk.
Mr. DOMENICI. I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be in order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Jeffords). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
The clerk will report the amendment.
The bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Dorgan], for Mr.
Daschle, for himself, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Domenici, and Mr.
McCain, proposes an amendment No. 4949.
Mr. DORGAN. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be
dispensed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 250, line 2, strike ``and (C)'' and insert ``, (C),
and (D)''.
On page 252, between lines 9 and 10, insert the following:
``(D) Exception for extremely low labor market
participation.--
``(i) In general.--In determining the number of months for
which an adult received assistance under the State program
funded under this part, the State may disregard any and all
months in which the individual resided in an area of
extremely low labor market participation (as defined under
clause (ii).
``(ii) Extremely low labor market participation area.--For
purposes of clause (i), an adult is considered to be living
in an area of extremely low labor market participation if
such adult resides on a reservation of an Indian Tribe--
``(I) with a population of at least 1,000 individuals; and
``(II) with at least 50% of the adult population not
employed, as determined by the Secretary using the best
available data from a Federal agency.
On page 252, line 10, strike ``(D)'' and insert ``(E)''.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I am a cosponsor, and I indicate so that
everybody would understand this does not say this is mandated. This
says that the Governors, in putting together their plan for their
State, can, if they find an area--and this is pretty much going to be
Indian areas, I believe, because of the enormous unemployment number;
it is 50 percent--it will be available as a flexible tool in terms of
putting together packages.
Mr. DORGAN. The Senator is correct.
Mr. DOMENICI. We accept the amendment on our side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 4949) was agreed to.
Mr. DORGAN. I move to table the amendment.
Mr. DOMENICI. I move to reconsider the vote.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Amendment No. 4948
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, if I might just for a couple of minutes
address the previous amendment that I offered that deals with the
tribal child care set-aside. I hope we perhaps might be able to see
this amendment accepted before we go to votes tomorrow.
The amendment I have offered on behalf of myself, Senator McCain, and
Senator Inouye, restores the current set-aside for Indian child care
funding. The current set-aside is 3 percent of the child care
development block grant, which is now available to Indian tribes for
child care. The welfare reform bill cuts that 3 percent down to 1
percent.
The funds the Indian tribes are now able to access with the child
care development block grant have been very important. They have
allowed the tribes to successfully run a wide range of child care
programs. In 1994, that set-aside helped more than 500 tribes provide
child care.
Last year, when the welfare reform bills passed both the House and
the Senate, they retained the 3-percent set-aside for tribal child care
programs. The conference bill inexplicably reduced that tribal
allocation from 3 percent to 1 percent, the same level that is now
contained in this reconciliation bill.
The reduction in the tribal set-aside occurs at the very same time
that State child care funds would increase substantially. The question
I ask is, if an increase in child care is critical to State efforts to
move people from welfare to work, and I believe it is, then why is it
not also critical for real welfare reform in Indian country and for
Indian tribes to provide child care?
I want to make a point that Indian children under age 6 are more than
twice as likely as the average child in America to live in
circumstances of poverty. Indian children under 6 who live on
reservations are three times more likely to live in circumstances of
poverty than non-Indian children.
I toured, not so long ago, a child care center on a facility in North
Dakota that is jointly run by four tribes, United Tribes Technical
College. It is a wonderful place where American Indians come to receive
educational and vocational training. They study, they graduate, they go
out and get work. That center is run by a wonderful man named David
Gipp, who does an extraordinarily good job. They have a child care
center at U-Tech. I have toured that child care center a couple of
times.
U-Tech reminds you of the need and the importance of child care in
this building-block process to move people from welfare to work. You
have to be able to get the job skills. Often, to get job skills, if you
have children, you have to try to find child care. All of us know that
it is not just in Indian country, but across this country,
increasingly, that poverty is a problem often faced by young women with
children in single-parent households.
Now, when they try to get skills and then get a job, the question is,
What
[[Page S8415]]
kind of child care can they access to take care of their children? To
them, just like in every other household, the most important thing in
their lives are their children. They want to make sure the children
have an opportunity. If they go to work, when they go to work, they
want to have an opportunity to place their children in child care in a
place where they have some confidence and trust. That is why this
amendment is so important.
It breaks your heart to take a look at what is happening in some
areas of the country with very high unemployment, especially Indian
reservations, with people who want an opportunity to work. They want a
job. On many of these reservations--and we have a couple in North
Dakota--there virtually are no jobs. If you look at the map and try to
figure out, where do we carve out a reservation and say these are
Indian reservations, do you think they carved out the fertile Red River
Valley? No. They carved out reservations where there are no great
opportunities and where there has not been a substantial amount of
economic activity, not very many jobs, not very many companies moving
in to provide opportunities.
As we attempt to decide how to reform the welfare system--and we
should, because it does not work very well--we need to understand that
the two linchpins that can help people move from welfare to work are
child care and health care. The absence of one or both means that you
cannot succeed in moving someone from welfare to work. The presence of
both means that you can say to people that we expect something from you
in response to what we are going to offer for you. Part of that is job
training and employment, but also attendant to it is adequate and
proper child care. I do hope that, between now and tomorrow, we might
find an opportunity to see whether this amendment might be accepted.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the amendment
offered by my colleague, Senator Dorgan. The amendment ensures that
Indian tribes will continue to receive 3 percent of funding provided
under the child care development block grant program, as it stands
under current law.
I am pleased that the proposed budget reconciliation measure under
consideration includes provisions which I and other Senators sponsored
to address the unique needs and requirements of Indian country to
directly administer welfare programs.
Mr. President, welfare assistance programs are intended to protect
poor people and children. As reported, the bill does not go far enough
to ensure that Indian tribes, particularly Indian children, who are the
most vulnerable of our population and among the poorest of the poor,
will be protected. Indian children under the age of 6 are more than
twice as likely as the average non-Indian child to live in poverty.
Indian children under the age of 6 residing on Indian reservations are
three times more likely than non-Indian children to live in poverty.
The need in Indian country is enormous and far outweighs the limited
Federal dollars allocated to Indian tribal governments. Because the
need for assistance to Indian children is so compelling, I have been
quite concerned that the reported bill reduced the tribal allocation
from 3 percent to 1 percent. Such a cut would have harmed tribal
efforts to bring more Indian people into the work force and resulted in
diminishment of existing tribal child care programs.
Mr. President, I believe we should maintain the 3-percent-funding
allocation under present law to ensure that Indian children receive an
equal and fair opportunity to a brighter future as is provided to all
other American children. This commitment also honors the unique trust
relationship that the United States has with Indian tribal governments.
I am pleased that we have reached agreement to adopt this amendment
and thank Senator Domenici, chairman of the Budget Committee, and
Senator Roth, chairman of the Finance Committee, for accepting it. I
also want to thank Senator Dorgan for once again demonstrating his
commitment to improve the lives of Indian children. I urge my
colleagues to work diligently at conference with the House to ensure
that the welfare bill we send to the President maintains this
provision.
Amendment No. 4934
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I want to make one additional comment, not
on this amendment, but on the one offered by Senator Conrad. That
amendment is the issue of the optional food stamp block grant.
My understanding of the amendment is that the block grant option that
exists in the bill is a problem, and the amendment would repeal the
block grant. The amendment's supporters believe--and I firmly believe--
that if we decide that it is a function of national will, a national
objective to decide that those who do not have enough to eat, then we
are going to try to help get them some food.
If that is a national issue, it is not an issue between one county
and another county, or one State and another State, or one city and
another city. It is an issue of national determination that we do not
want people in this country to be hungry. We do not want kids to go
without meals. We want to develop a national standard that makes sure
this country, as good and generous and as strong as this country is,
can feed those people among us who have suffered some difficulties, who
were unfortunate enough to be born into circumstances of poverty, who
have had some other disadvantages, and who find themselves down and
out, down on their luck, and also hungry.
We know what to do about hunger. This is not some mysterious disease
for which there is no cure. We know what causes hunger and how to
resolve it.
Part of this bill deals with the issues of resolving hunger and
helping people get prepared for the workplace. Another part says you
cannot prepare 8-year-olds for a job. We ought not to prepare 10-year-
olds for a job. If we have kids living in poverty, or grownups living
in poverty, we want to make sure that we have a system to say that we
will help them get back on their feet. While we are helping them get
back on their feet, we do not want them to be hungry--kids, adults,
anybody in this country. That is why we have had a Food Stamp Program.
Is it perfect? No. Has it worked well? Sure. We ought not, in any way,
decide that we should retreat from that. That is why I so strongly
support the amendment offered by Senator Conrad and Senator Jeffords.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Amendment No. 4948
Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, on the amendment which is pending, with
reference to the 1 versus 3 percent set-aside, we have cleared this
with the committee of jurisdiction. What will happen when we adopt this
amendment is that we will return the percentage to its current law.
This is a ceiling, not a mandated level. For those reasons, the
committee indicates that we will accept it on our side.
Therefore, I yield back any time on the amendment and indicate that
we are willing to accept the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back.
The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 4948) was agreed to.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. DORGAN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Senator for offering the amendment.
Mr. DORGAN. I thank the Senator from New Mexico for his help.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 4950
(Purpose: To strike amendments to the summer food service program for
children)
Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. Ford], for Mrs. Murray,
proposes an amendment numbered 4950.
[[Page S8416]]
Mr. FORD. 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:
Strike section 1206.
Mr. FORD. Mr. President, Senator Murray is unavoidably detained. I am
proposing her amendment.
This is an amendment she discussed last week and withdrew with the
opportunity to be able to submit it today. It strikes section 1206. The
bill reduces the rate of the Summer Food Service Program.
The Food Research Action Council's surveys and past experience leads
them to conclude that the cut could result in:
A 30- to 35-percent drop in the number of sponsors;
A 20-percent cut in the number of children participating;
Many larger sponsors dropping their smaller sites;
A significant decline in meat quality as sponsors cut food costs.
I ask unanimous consent that ``the need for the Murray amendment
striking provisions relating to the Summer Food Program'' be printed in
the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
The need for the Murray amendment striking provisions
relating to the summer food program:
The Senate bill makes an eleven percent cut to the
reimbursement rate for lunches provided in the summer food
program. The reduction (a 23/20 cent cut on each lunch, from
$2.16/$2.12 to $1.93) is substantial. Many programs around
the country serve 50 or fewer children. Over half of current
sponsors already lose money under current rates. Their
margins to absorb cuts are extremely narrow. Estimates vary
by state, but the Food Research Action Council's surveys and
past experience lead them to conclude that the cut could
result in: a 30-35 percent drop in the number of sponsors
(especially in rural districts); a 20 percent cut in the
number of children participating; many larger sponsors
dropping their smaller sites; weaker supervision and
monitoring and a decline in program integrity; a significant
decline in meal quality as sponsors cut food costs; and very
few new sponsors. It is already difficult to recruit new
sponsors, even though only one in six eligible children
receive meals. The recruitment of new sponsors by advocacy
groups would likely stop, and with it, future growth.
The effect of the amendment:
Strikes section 1206 of the bill, which reduces the rates
for the Summer Food Program.
Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum. We
are not going to respond yet. We are just beginning to understand the
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 4951
(Purpose: To provide additional amendments)
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I offer in behalf of Senator Roth
technical amendments to the bill. These have been requested by the
Finance Committee and been approved and recommended for adoption by the
majority and the minority of the Finance Committee. I send the
technical amendments to the desk and ask for their immediate
consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows.
The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Domenici], for Mr. Roth,
proposes an amendment numbered 4951.
Mr. DOMENICI. 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 193, line 8, strike ``is'' and insert ``has been''.
On page 238, line 4, insert ``any temporary layoffs and''
after ``including''.
On page 238, line 6, strike ``overtime'' and insert
``nonovertime''.
On page 238, strike line 7 through 13, and insert the
following:
``wages, or employment benefits; and''.
Mr. EXON. No objection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 4951) was agreed to.
Amendment No. 4952
(Purpose: To strike additional penalties for consecutive failure to
satisfy minimum participation rates)
Mr. GRAHAM addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida is recognized.
Mr. GRAHAM. I rise for purposes of offering an amendment. I send an
amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows.
The Senator from Florida [Mr. Graham] proposes an amendment
numbered 4952:
Strike section 409(a)(3)(C) of the Social Security Act, as
added by section 2103(a)(1).
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, as read, the purpose of this motion to
strike is to strike section 409(a)(3)(C) which was added to this bill
during its consideration before the Senate Finance Committee. The
provision which I would offer to strike provides:
Notwithstanding the limitation described in Subparagraph
(A), the Secretary shall reduce the grant payable to the
State . . . for a fiscal year, in addition to the reduction
imposed under subsection (A), by an amount equal to 5 percent
of the State family assistance grant, if the Secretary
determines that the State failed to comply with section
407(a) for 2 or more consecutive preceding fiscal years.
That language was added in the Senate Finance Committee to language
that had been in the bill in its previous form, in its current
reconciliation version, as well as in other versions of welfare reform.
That previous version states that the Secretary can sanction a State
which fails to meet its work requirements by an amount up to 5 percent
of the State's family assistance grant.
The amendment that was offered, first, removes the discretion from
the Secretary; second, instead of saying up to 5 percent, it makes it
an absolute 5 percent in addition to whatever sanction has been levied
in the previous fiscal year against a State which failed to meet its
work requirement.
Why am I offering this amendment? I am offering it, first, because
the language of the amendment is very obscure. In its claimed reading,
it seems to say that there will be an additional amount, equal to 5
percent of the State's family assistance grant, as a sanction if the
State had failed for 2 consecutive years to meet its work requirements.
That, apparently, is not the way it is being interpreted by others,
including one of the groups which is strongly opposed to this
provision, which is the National Conference of State Legislatures. They
are interpreting this to be a cumulative sanction. That it would be, if
you failed to meet your work requirements for 2 consecutive years and
had been subject to a penalty because of failure to do so, you would be
subject to an additional mandatory 5-percent cut in the third year; an
additional 5-percent cut, or a cumulative 15 percent in the next year;
an additional 5 percent in the year after that, up to a maximum of a
25-percent reduction in your grant.
So one of my concerns with this very important provision that was
added--frankly, as a member of the Finance Committee, I can stipulate,
without any consideration by the committee--is, just what does it mean?
It could be very draconian in its impact. It could be only very
serious.
So that is one issue. A second issue is the fact that the States,
through the organizations that we have looked to, to do much of the
policy work for a bill which purports to grant increased authority to
States, are opposed to this provision.
I ask unanimous consent to have a series of letters from State-based
organizations printed at the conclusion of my remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 1.)
Mr. GRAHAM. I would like to use, illustrative of the letters I
received, this letter dated today, July 22, from the National
Conference of State Legislatures. This letter states, in part:
State legislators want welfare reform to succeed. In order
to succeed, we need adequate implementation time to craft
comprehensive welfare reform that best fits the needs in our
individual states. In S. 1956, both the work participation
rate requirements and penalties begin the first year of the
block grant. Therefore, we strongly support Senator Bob
Graham's amendment to
[[Page S8417]]
strike the language imposing a cumulative penalty of five
percent of the block grant per year on states that fail to
meet the mandated work requirements. Imposing harsh and
excessive penalties will only make it more difficult for
states to succeed. State legislators are committed to welfare
reform and have proved it through passage of numerous laws
reforming their welfare systems. We have asked the federal
government for flexibility to change the current system and
hope for legislation to empower the states.
The Congress has challenged us to go even further, yet the
current bill leaves no room for adjustment, even if a state
experiences a recession, high unemployment or natural
disaster. Despite our best effort, there may be states who
cannot meet the work requirements. To add compounding
financial penalties will severely restrict state efforts even
further--just at the moment when they could use assistance
from their federal partner.
Mr. President, the letter from the National Conference of State
Legislatures points out a fundamental difference between the sanction
that we had previously proposed, and which stays in this bill, and that
which was added in the Finance Committee. The previous sanction made it
in the discretion of the Secretary of HHS as to whether to levy such a
penalty, and at what level to do it up to 5 percent. So the Secretary
could take into consideration--maybe the reason the State of Vermont
failed to meet its work requirement was because they had an unexpected
natural disaster in Vermont, as we did in Florida with Hurricane
Andrew, or maybe they had an unusual economic recession and more people
were unable to find work, and therefore they could not meet the work
requirements for those persons who are coming off welfare. The
cumulative language gives no such discretion to the Secretary to take
those kinds of real-world conditions into account.
A third reason for offering this amendment is the reason that was the
basis of discussion earlier today by my colleague, Senator Bumpers, and
myself on Friday. That is, we start this process from a very
inequitable allocation of funds among the 50 States. The reason it is
so inequitable is because we are basically using the status quo which
was based on a State's financial ability and political willingness to
put up substantial amounts of money for welfare and then draw down an
equivalent amount of Federal matching funds. That formula has resulted
in disparities of in the range of 4 and 5 to 1 between high-benefit
States and low-benefit States in the amount of funds that they have per
poor person.
For instance, in the State of Arkansas, for every person in their
State who has an income below the poverty level, they would get $397 of
Federal support. In the State of New York, under this legislation, in
the year 2000 they would get $1,961 for every person below 100 percent
of poverty level. When you compound that large inequity in the amount
of Federal funds per State with a common requirement that all States
have to meet in terms of getting a proportion of their welfare
population off welfare and into work, you have enormous differences in
the impact of this legislation.
Mr. President, I am going to truncate my remarks because I know there
are some amendments that have to be offered before 2 o'clock. But let
me, just for my colleagues, point out that the State of Arkansas, in
the year 2000, has estimated it will have to spend 49 percent of the
funds which today go to provide economic support to pay for everything
from school supplies to clothing to diapers to utilities, 49 percent of
those funds will have to go to meet the work requirements, that is, to
pay for the job training, to pay for the child care, to pay for the
other support services such as job placement. That is in the State of
Arkansas.
In my State, which is a middle State in terms of benefits, 36 percent
of our funds would have to go to meet those requirements, whereas in
New York State, only 14 percent of their combined State-Federal funds
would be required in order to pay for exactly the same work assistance
that Arkansas and Florida would have to provide, thus leaving a very
inequitable amount left over for the fundamental economic support that
this program for 60 years has been providing to indigent families in
America.
So, for those three reasons--lack of clarity as to what this
amendment is supposed to mean; second, the strong opposition of the
States because of its lack of flexibility; and, third, the inequitable
application of this cumulative sanction amendment--I offer this
amendment. At the appropriate time, I will urge its support.
Exhibit 1
National Conference of
State Legislatures,
Washington, DC, July 22, 1996.
Dear Senator: The National Conference of State Legislatures
(NCSL) is committed to continuing our work with the Congress
to enact comprehensive, bipartisan welfare reform legislation
this year. As you consider amendments to S. 1956, state
legislators offer the following positions for your
consideration. We strongly believe that the final welfare
reform bill must: (1) provide maximum flexibility to state
and local governments; (2) preserve existing state authority
and avoid preemption; (3) fund federally-mandated activities;
(4) avoid cost-shifts to states; and (5) ensure that states
have adequate implementation time for programs fully- or
partially-devolved to the states.
State legislators want welfare reform to succeed. In order
to succeed, we need adequate implementation time to craft
comprehensive welfare reform that best fits the needs in our
individual states. In S. 1956, both the work participation
rate requirements and penalties begin in the first year of
the block grant. Therefore, we strongly support Senator Bob
Graham's amendment to strike the language imposing a
cumulative penalty of five percent of the block grant per
year on states that fail to meet the mandated work
requirements. Imposing harsh and excessive penalties will
only make it more difficult for states to succeed. State
legislators are committed to welfare reform and have proved
it through passage of numerous laws reforming their welfare
systems. We have asked the federal government for flexibility
to change the current system and hope for legislation to
empower the states.
The Congress has challenged us to go even further, yet the
current bill leaves no room for adjustment, even if a state
experiences a recession, high employment or natural disaster.
Despite our best effort, there may be states who cannot meet
the work requirements. To add compounding financial penalties
will severely restrict state efforts even further--just at
the moment when they could use assistance from their federal
partner. Senator Graham's amendment also allows the Secretary
to reduce state penalties after assessing the individual
experience of that state. We have always opposed cookie-
cutter welfare reform. The current bill does not allow for
the diversity of state experience in reforming the system and
the timing of state legislative sessions to enact the laws
necessary to change the system.
The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that there is
a $13 billion shortfall in the cash assistance block grant to
meet the work requirements. NCSL has always supported deficit
reduction and we understand the limitation on available funds
for work. However, the current bill as drafted penalizes us
as we charter unknown waters to create a new system to
retrain state workers, create employment slots, verify work
slots and, of course, be successful at moving recipients to
work. A distinction is not made for states who have made a
good faith effort but fail to meet the requirements for
reasons beyond their control. We are very concerned that this
will hamper state creativity, innovation and excellence.
State legislators urge you to support Senator Graham's
amendment.
Sincerely,
Carl Tubbesing,
Deputy Executive Director.
____
National Government Association,
Washington, DC, June 26, 1996.
Senate Finance Committee,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC
Dear Finance Committee Member: The nation's Governors
appreciate that S. 1795, as introduced, incorporated many of
the National Governors' Association's (NGA) recommendations
on welfare reform. NGA hopes that Congress will continue to
look to the Governor's bipartisan efforts on a welfare reform
policy and build on the lessons learned through a decade of
state experimentation in welfare reform.
However, upon initial review of the Chairman's mark, NGA
believes that many of the changes contained in the mark are
contradictory to the NGA bipartisan agreement. The mark
includes unreasonable modifications to the work requirement,
and additional administrative burdens, restrictions and
penalties that are unacceptable. Governors believe these
changes in the Chairman's mark greatly restrict state
flexibility and will result in increased, unfunded costs for
states, while at the same time undermining states ability to
implement effective welfare reform programs. These changes
threaten the ability of Governors to provide any support for
the revised welfare package, and may, in fact, result in
Governors opposing the bill.
As you mark up the welfare provisions of S. 1795, the
Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act of 1996, NGA
strongly urges you to consider the recommendations contained
in the welfare reform policy adopted unanimously by the
nation's Governors in February. Governors believe that these
changes are needed to create a welfare
[[Page S8418]]
reform measure that will foster independence and promote
responsibility, provide adequate support for families that
are engaged in work, and accord states the flexibility and
resources they need to transform welfare into a transitional
program leading to work.
Below is a partial list of amendments that may be offered
during the committee markup and revisions included in the
Chairman's mark that are either opposed or supported by NGA.
This list is not meant to be exhaustive, and there may be
other amendments or revisions of interest or concern to
Governors that are not on this list. In the NGA welfare
reform policy, the Governors did not take a position on the
provisions related to benefits for immigrants, and NGA will
not be making recommendations on amendments in these areas.
As you markup S. 1795, NGA urges you to consider the
following recommendations based on the policy statement of
the nation's Governors on welfare reform.
The Governors urge to support the following amendments:
Support the amendment to permit states to count toward the
work participation rate calculation those individuals who
have left welfare for work for the first six months that they
are in the workforce (Breaux). The Governors believe states
should receive credit in the participation rate for
successfully moving people off of welfare and into
employment, thereby meeting one of the primary goals of
welfare reform. This will also provide states with an
incentive to expand their job retention efforts.
Support the amendment that applies the time limit only to
cash assistance (Breaux). S. 1795 sets a sixty-month lifetime
limit on any federally funded assistance under the block
grant. This would prohibit states from using the block grant
for important work supports such as transportation or job
retention counseling after the five-year limit. Consistent
with the NGA welfare reform policy, NGA urges you to support
the Breaux amendment that would apply the time limit only to
cash assistance.
Support the amendment to restore funding for the Social
Services Block Grant (Rockefeller). This amendment would
limit the cut in the Social Services Block Grant (SSBG) to 10
percent rather than 20 percent. States use a significant
portion of their SSBG funds for child care for low-income
families. Thus, the additional cut currently contained in S.
1795 negates much of the increase in child care funding
provided under the bill.
Support technical improvements to the contingency fund
(Breaux). Access to additional matching funds is critical to
states during periods of economic recession. NGA supports two
amendments proposed by Senator Breaux. One clarifies the
language relating to maintenance of effort in the contingency
fund and another modifies the fund so states that access the
contingency fund during only part of the year are not
penalized with a less advantageous match rate.
Support the amendment to extend the 75 percent enhanced
match rate through fiscal 1997 for statewide automated child
welfare information systems (SACWIS), (Chafee, Rockefeller).
Although not specifically addressed in the NGA policy, this
extension is important for many states that are trying to
meet systems requirements that will strengthen their child
welfare and child protection efforts.
Governors urge you to oppose amendments or revisions to the
Chairman's mark that would limit state flexibility, create
unreasonable work requirements, impose new mandates, or
encroach on the ability of each state to direct resources and
design a welfare reform program to meet its unique needs.
In the area of work, Governors strongly oppose any efforts
to increase penalties, increase work participation rates,
further restrict what activities count toward the work
participation rate, or change the hours of work required. The
Governor's policy included specific recommendations in these
areas, many of which were subsequently incorporated into S.
1795, as introduced. The recommendations reflect a careful
balancing of the goals of welfare reform, the availability of
resources, and the recognition that economic and demographic
circumstances differ among states. Imposing any additional
limitations or modifications to the work requirement would
limit state flexibility.
The Governors urge you to oppose the following amendments
or revisions in the area of work:
Oppose the revision in the Chairman's mark to increase the
number of hours of work required per week to thirty-five
hours in future years. NGA's recommendation that the work
requirement be set at twenty-five hours was incorporated into
S. 1795. Many states will set higher hourly requirements, but
this flexibility will enable states to design programs that
are consistent with local labor market opportunities and the
availability of child care.
Oppose the revision in the Chairman's mark to decrease to
four weeks the number of weeks that job search can count as
work. NGA supports the twelve weeks of job search contained
in S. 1795, as introduced. Job search has proven to be
effective when an individual first enters a program and also
after the completion of individual work components, such as
workfare or community service. A reduction to four weeks
would limit state flexibility to use this cost-effective
strategy to move recipients into work.
Oppose the revision in the Chairman's mark to increase the
work participation rates. NGA opposes any increase in the
work participation rates above the original S. 1795
requirements. Many training and education activities that are
currently counted under JOBS will not count toward the new
work requirements. Consequently, states will face the
challenge of transforming their current JOBS program into a
program that emphasizes quick movement into the labor force.
An increase in the work rates will result in increased costs
to states for child care and work programs.
Oppose the revision in the Chairman's mark to increase
penalties for failure to meet the work participation
requirements. The proposed amendment to increase the penalty
by 5 percent for each consecutive failure to meet the work
rate is unduly harsh, particularly given the stringent nature
of the work requirements. Ironically, the loss of block grant
funds due to penalties will make it even more difficult for a
state to meet the work requirements.
Oppose the amendment requiring states to count exempt
families in the work participation rate calculation (Gramm).
This amendment would retain the state option to exempt
families with children below age one from the work
requirements but add the requirement that such families count
in the denominator for purposes of determining the work
participation rate. This penalizes states that grant the
exemption, effectively eliminating this option. The exemption
in S. 1795 is an acknowledgment that child care costs for
infants are very high and that there often is a shortage of
infant care.
Oppose the amendment to increase work hours by ten hours a
week for families receiving subsidized child care (Gramm).
This amendment would greatly increase child care costs as
well as impose a higher work requirement on families with
younger children, because families with other children--
particularly teenagers--are less likely to need subsidized
child care assistance.
Oppose the revision in the Chairman's mark to exempt
families with children below age eleven. S. 1795, as
introduced, prohibits states from sanctioning families with
children below age six for failure to participate in work if
failure to participate was because of a lack of child care.
This revision would raise the age to eleven. NGA is concerned
that this revision effectively penalizes states because they
still would be required to count these individuals in the
denominator of the work participation rate.
The Governors urge you to oppose the following amendments
or revisions in the chairman's mark in these additional
areas:
Oppose the revision in the Chairman's mark to increase the
maintenance-of-effort requirement above the 75 percent in the
cash assistance block grant or further narrow the definition
of what counts toward maintenance-of-effort.
Oppose the revisions in the Chairman's mark that increase
state plan requirements and include additional state
penalties.
Oppose the amendment to limit hardship exemption to 15
percent (Gramm). NGA policy supports the current provision in
S. 1795, as introduced, that allows states to exempt up to 20
percent of their caseload from the five-year lifetime limit
on benefits.
Oppose the amendment to mandate that states provide in-kind
vouchers to families after a state or federal time limit on
benefits is triggered (Breaux, Mosely-Braun). NGA believes
that states should have the option to provide non-cash forms
of assistance after the time limit, but they should not be
mandated to do so.
Oppose the provision in the Chairman's mark to restrict the
transferability of funds out of the cash assistance block
grant to the child care block grant only. The governors
believe that it is appropriate to allow a transfer of funds
into the foster care program or the Social Services Block
Grant.
Oppose a family cap mandate in the Chairman's mark. NGA
supports a family cap as an option, rather than a mandate, to
prohibit benefits to additional children born or conceived
while the parent is on welfare.
Governors urge you to consider the above recommendations.
Sincerely,
Raymond C. Scheppach,
Executive Director.
____
National Association of Counties,
Washington, DC, July 12, 1996.
Dear Member of Congress: You may be voting soon on the
Welfare and Medicaid reform bill (H.R. 3507/S. 1795). The
National Association of Counties (NACo) is encouraged that
there were improvements to the welfare section of the bill,
including: increased funds for child care; maintaining
current law for foster care adoption assistance maintenance
and administration payments; and no funding cap for food
stamps nor a block grant for child nutrition. However, there
are not enough improvements to warrant our support. In some
respects, particularly the work requirements, the bill has
become even more burdensome. NACo particularly opposes the
following welfare provisions:
1. The bill ends the entitlement of Aid to Families with
Dependent Children, thereby dismantling the safety net for
children and their families.
2. The eligibility restriction for legal immigrants goes
too far. The most objectionable provisions include denying
Supplemental Security Income and Food Stamps, particularly to
older immigrants. In fact, by changing the implementation
date for these provisions, the bill has become more onerous.
NACo is also very concerned about the effect of the deeming
requirements particularly with regard to Medicaid and
children in need of protective services.
[[Page S8419]]
3. The participation requirements have become even more
unrealistic. NACo particularly opposes the increased work
participation rates and increased penalties, the changes in
the hours of work required, and the new restrictions on the
activities that may count toward the participation rates.
As the level of government closest to the people, local
elected officials understand the importance of reforming the
welfare system. While NACo is glad that the bill does contain
language that requires some consultation with local officials
we prefer the stronger language that is contained in the
bipartisan welfare reform bill (H.R. 3266).
NACo also continues to oppose the Medicaid provisions. By
capping the fiscal responsibility of the federal government
and reducing the state match for the majority of the states,
the bill could potentially shift billions of dollars to
counties with responsibility for the uninsured. Allowing the
states to determine the amount, duration and scope of
services even for the remaining populations which would still
be guaranteed coverage, will mean that counties will be
ultimately responsible for services not covered adequately by
the states. While we support the increased use of managed
care and additional state and local flexibility in operating
the Medicaid program, we do not support the repeal of
Medicare as envisioned in the current legislation.
As it is currently written, the Medicaid and Welfare Reform
bill could potentially shift costs and liabilities, create
new unfunded mandates upon local governments, and penalize
low income families. Such a bill, in combination with federal
cuts and increased demands for services, will leave local
governments with two options: cut other essential services,
such as law enforcement, or raise revenues. NACo therefore
urges you to vote against H.R. 3507/S. 1795.
Sincerely,
Douglas R. Bovin,
President.
Mr. GRAHAM. 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.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority manager is recognized.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I take 1 minute from our side to
indicate our objection to the amendment. In the bill on page 273, there
is a section that reads: ``Reasonable Cause for Exception.--'' And it
applies to the areas the Senator from Florida is referring to.
It says:
The Secretary may not impose a penalty on a State under
subsection (a) with respect to a requirement if the Secretary
determines that the State has reasonable cause for failing to
comply with the requirement.
Then it has two exceptions to this, and neither of the two are
matters covered by the concern of the Senator. So I believe there is
flexibility, and for those State legislators and staff up here who
looked at it, I suggest they read that provision.
In addition, there is a whole process following that provision for
how a State would determine that they had reasonable cause.
Having said that, I am going to yield back any time I have on the
amendment.
ELECTRONIC BENEFIT TRANSFER SYSTEMS AND WELFARE REFORM
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, a number of consumer groups have
expressed concern about a provision in the pending welfare reform bill
that exempts users of electronic benefit transfer systems [EBT's] users
from the protections of the Electronic Benefit Transfer Act.
EBT's are a useful reform to modernize the distribution of welfare
benefits. They are comparable to automated teller machines. They offer
a convenient way for welfare recipients to use a card to withdraw their
cash benefits from a bank machine or pay for food at a grocery store.
Although a few States may now have in place such a program, it is
likely to become much more common in the years ahead. Massachusetts is
in the process of implementing such a system for its 80,000 welfare
recipients.
If the final welfare reform bill includes the exemption from consumer
protections, EBT users will not have the same basic safeguards against
benefit losses caused by computer error, merchant fraud, or theft that
other credit card holders now have. Clearly, it is unfair to deny
reasonable safeguards to welfare beneficiaries.
I understand that a realistic compromise is being developed to
protect EBT users from benefit losses while ensuring that States are
not exposed to unmanageable costs. I am hopeful that any welfare reform
bill enacted into law will contain such protections, and I urge all
Senators to support them.
teen pregnancy and statutory rape
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate has made
progress in two areas critical to reforming welfare--teen pregnancy and
statutory rape. Both sides of the aisle have worked together to bring
about this progress, and I am left hopeful that we can infuse future
negotiations on other welfare issues with this bipartisan spirit of
cooperation.
Mindful of the American public's demand for legislative progress this
year, I joined other colleagues in sponsoring initiatives that would
not only benefit children, but also reduce welfare spending. Budget
specialists and community leaders emphasized the necessity of dealing
with two underlying welfare problems--teen pregnancy and statutory
rape. In examining these problems, we answered two necessary questions:
First, who is on welfare? and Second, how did they get there?
Teenage out-of-wedlock pregnancy is a primary cause of long-term
welfare dependency. Currently, 53 percent of AFDC funds go to
households begun by teenage births. Senator Conrad and I proposed an
amendment to last year's Senate bill which requires teen mothers to
live at home or in adult-supervised settings, establishes national
goals regarding education strategies and reduction of pregnancy rates,
and rewards States who meet these goals with a cash bonus.
The Senate included these provisions in the bill in front of us and
strengthened the Federal role in combating this problem. However, teen
pregnancy prevention is a battle that must be fought at the local
level, as troubled teens demand direct individual attention and
investment. By accepting my amendment which compels States to devote 1
percent of their Social Security block grant--$23.8 million--to
prevention services, the Senate has spurred them to assume this
responsibility. We are succeeding in aiding President Clinton as he
endeavors, in his own words, ``to get all the leaders of all sectors of
our society involved in this fight.''
The Federal Government, too, recently assumed more responsibility in
accepting my amendment which targets the crime of statutory rape, a
direct and indirect cause of teen pregnancy. The great majority of
babies born to teen mothers are fathered by adult men, and the partners
of the youngest mothers under the age of 14 are on average 10 to 15
years older than them. This Senate is sending sexual predators an
unequivocally stern message--that we choose abstinence for children,
and that we will not tolerate those who take advantage of a child's
inability to form and articulate a decision about her body. Previously,
we concurred that it is the Sense of the Senate that States should
aggressively enforce statutory rape laws. Now, we are taking additional
steps. The amendment requires the Justice Department to pay strict
attention to this crime. They are to research the link between
statutory rape and teen pregnancy, as well as those predatory men who
commit these crimes repeatedly. They will also educate State and local
law enforcement officials to effectively prevent and prosecute
statutory rape.
Again, we include the States in this fight. This amendment compels
the States to create and expand criminal law enforcement, public
education, and counseling initiatives and to restructure teen pregnancy
prevention programs to include men. Finally, States must certify to the
Federal Government that they are engaged in such activities to stop
statutory rape.
By focusing on the problems of teen pregnancy and statutory rape
through these amendments, we are economizing our future welfare
expenditures and improving the lives of poor children. The reality of
mothers sacrificing educational opportunities to give birth to
fatherless babies and live in poverty is not a choice. It is partly a
result of the greater problems these amendments address.
I appreciate, and the American public will appreciate our bipartisan
unity in demanding responsibility from fathers. They must own up to
their paternity, pay child support, and set a good example for their
children by working in private sector or community service jobs. A
certain group of men must refrain from sexually preying upon young
girls and dispossessing them of their fundamental right to make sexual,
educational, and career choices.
[[Page S8420]]
Problems remain in this bill. I appeal to my colleagues to work
together so that we can present not just a few amendments, not just one
improvement, but an entire bill to the American citizenry that truly
reforms the current system.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I know Senator Exon needs some time.
Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I thank the chairman for his consideration.
I will say, there are several matters that I must, as manager of the
bill on this side, have very limited and short debate on, things I need
to enter. I might be able to do that between now and 2 o'clock, but if
not, in order to protect the interests of those I represent, I ask
unanimous consent that the 2 o'clock hour be extended by 10 minutes, to
10 minutes past 2, if necessary, to accommodate the Senator from
Nebraska to carry out the duties that I must address.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. DOMENICI. Reserving the right to object, I do not know what it is
you want to do. Do you want to offer amendments on behalf of Senators?
Mr. EXON. Yes, these are things I have to do as a manager of the bill
on this side, including points of order requests.
Mr. DOMENICI. Let me make one further request. Are any of those
amendments for Senators who did not come today to offer their
amendments? How many are those?
Mr. EXON. There are three amendments that were on the list that the
Senators have not come to formally offer today, and I intend to perform
that duty for them.
Mr. DOMENICI. So long as we clearly understand, this does not flow to
Senators who come in here at 5 minutes after, this applies to you.
Mr. EXON. I amend the request, if I might. I ask unanimous consent
that, if necessary to discharge the duties assigned to the Democratic
leader of the Budget Committee, that the additional 10 minutes be
assigned to this Senator and this Senator only.
Mr. DOMENICI. I have no objection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. EXON. I thank my friend for his usual good cooperation. There are
two amendments I will offer. They have been cleared on both sides. I
think we can dispose of them quickly.
Amendment No. 4953
(Purpose: To allow States to choose the most appropriate agency to
assist abused and neglected children, by enabling them to choose
proprietary as well as non-profit or government agencies to care for
children in foster care, as provided in report number 104-430 (the
conference report to H.R. 4 as passed during the 1st session of the
104th Congress), and S. 1795, as introduced in the Senate during the 2d
session of the 104th Congress, and before the Finance Committee
Chairman's modifications to such bill)
Mr. EXON. Mr. President, on behalf of the Senator from Louisiana [Mr.
Breaux], 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 Nebraska [Mr. Exon], for Mr. Breaux,
proposes an amendment numbered 4953.
Mr. EXON. 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:
At the end of section 2109(a), add the following:
(17) Section 472(c)(2) (42 U.S.C. 672(c)(2)) is amended by
striking ``nonprofit''.
Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment
be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid on the table.
Mr. DOMENICI. We have no objection. We accept that amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment (No. 4953) was agreed to.
Amendment No. 4954
(Purpose: To provide for community steering committees demonstration
projects)
Mr. EXON. Mr. President, in similar fashion, on behalf of the Senator
from Nebraska [Senator Kerrey] 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 Nebraska [Mr. Exon], for Mr. Kerrey,
proposes an amendment numbered 4954.
Mr. EXON. 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:
At the end of chapter 1 of subtitle A of title II, add the
following:
SEC. . COMMUNITY STEERING COMMITTEES DEMONSTRATION
PROJECTS.
(a) In General.--The Secretary of Health and Human Services
(in this section referred to as the ``Secretary'') shall
enter into agreements with not more than 5 States that submit
an application under this section, in such form and such
manner as the Secretary may specify, for the purpose of
conducting a demonstration project described in subsection
(b).
(b) Description of Project.--
(1) Community steering committees.--
(A) Establishment.--A demonstration project conducted under
this section shall establish within a State in each
participating county a Community Steering Committee that
shall be designed to help recipients of temporary assistance
to needy families under a State program under part A of title
IV of the Social Security Act who are parents move into the
non-subsidized workforce and to develop a holistic approach
to the development needs of such recipient's family.
(B) Membership.--A Community Steering Committee shall
consist of local educators, business representatives, and
social service providers.
(C) Goals and duties.--
(i) Goals.--The goals of a Community Steering Committee
are--
(I) to ensure that recipients of temporary assistance to
needy families who are parents obtain and retain unsubsidized
employment; and
(II) to reduce the incidence of intergenerational receipt
of welfare assistance by addressing the needs of children of
recipients of temporary assistance to needy families.
(ii) Duties.--A Community Steering Committee shall--
(I) identify and create unsubsidized employment positions
for recipients of temporary assistance to needy families;
(II) propose and implement solutions to barriers to
unsubsidized employment of recipients of temporary assistance
to needy families;
(III) assess the needs of children of recipients of
temporary assistance to needy families; and
(IV) provide services that are designed to ensure that
children of recipients of temporary assistance to needy
families enter school ready to learn and that, once enrolled,
such children stay in school.
(iii) Primary responsibility.--A primary responsibility of
a Community Steering Committee shall be to work on an ongoing
basis with parents who are recipients of temporary assistance
to needy families and who have obtained nonsubsidized
employment in order to ensure that such recipients retain
their employment. Activities to carry out this responsibility
may include--
(I) counseling;
(II) emergency day care;
(III) sick day care;
(IV) transportation;
(V) provision of clothing;
(VI) housing assistance; or
(VII) any other assistance that may be necessary on an
emergency and temporary basis to ensure that such parents can
manage the responsibility of being employed and the demands
of having a family.
(iv) Follow-up services for children.--A Community Steering
Committee may provide special follow-up services for children
of recipients of temporary assistance to needy families that
are designed to ensure that the children reach their fullest
potential and do not, as they mature, receive welfare
assistance as the head of their own household.
(c) Report.--Not later than October 1, 2001, the Secretary
shall submit a report to the Congress on the results of the
demonstration projects conducted under this section.
Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment
be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, let me just mention that amendment we
had agreed to over the weekend. We worked on that with Senator Kerrey.
We have no objection. We had already agreed to it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment (No. 4954) was agreed to.
Amendment No. 4935
Mr. EXON. Mr. President, under the previous order, all points of
order must be raised today before the 2 o'clock deadline, or under the
extended time that we have agreed to.
Pursuant to that order, I now address amendment No. 4935, offered by
the Senator from Texas, Senator Gramm. Mr. President, the amendment is
not
[[Page S8421]]
germane, and I raise a point of order that the Gramm amendment violates
section 305(b) of the Congressional Budget Act.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I move to waive the point of order and
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.
Amendment No. 4901
Mr. EXON. Mr. President, also pursuant to the previous order, I now
address amendment No. 4901, offered by the Senator from North Carolina,
Senator Faircloth.
The amendment is not germane, and I raise a point of order that the
Faircloth amendment violates section 305 of the Congressional Budget
Act.
Mr. DOMENICI. Pursuant to the appropriate provisions of the Budget
Act, I move to waive the point of order against the amendment, and 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.
Amendment No. 4955
(Purpose: To permit assistance to be provided to needy or disabled
legal immigrant children when sponsors cannot provide reimbursement)
Mr. EXON. Mr. President, on behalf of the Senator from Massachusetts,
Senator Kennedy, 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 Nebraska [Mr. Exon], for Mr. Kennedy,
proposes an amendment numbered 4955.
Mr. EXON. 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 572, strike out line 10 and all that follows
through page 577, line 10, and insert the following:
(E) Exception for children.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply
to the following:
(i) SSI.--An alien who has not attained the age of 18 years
and who is eligible by reasons of disability for supplemental
security income under title XVI of the Social Security Act.
(ii) Food stamps.--An alien who has not attained the age of
18 years, only for purposes of eligibility for the food stamp
program as defined in section 3(h) of the Food Stamp Act of
1977 (7 U.S.C. 2012(h)).
(3) Specified federal program defined.--For purposes of
this chapter, the term ``specified Federal program'' means
any of the following:
(A) SSI.--The supplemental security income program under
title XVI of the Social Security Act, including supplementary
payments pursuant to an agreement for Federal administration
under section 1616(a) of the Social Security Act and payments
pursuant to an agreement entered into under section 212(b) of
Public Law 93-66.
(B) Food stamps.--The food stamp program as defined in
section 3(h) of the Food Stamp Act of 1977.
(b) Limited Eligibility for Designated Federal Programs.--
(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law
and except as provided in section 2403 and paragraph (2), a
State is authorized to determine the eligibility of an alien
who is a qualified alien (as defined in section 2431) for any
designated Federal program (as defined in paragraph (3)),
except that States shall not ban from such programs qualified
aliens who have not attained the age of 18 years.
(2) Exceptions.--Qualified aliens under this paragraph
shall be eligible for any designated Federal program.
(A) Time-limited exception for refugees and asylees.--
(i) An alien who is admitted to the United States as a
refugee under section 207 of the Immigration and Nationality
Act until 5 years after the date of an alien's entry into the
United States.
(ii) An alien who is granted asylum under section 208 of
such Act until 5 years after the date of such grant of
asylum.
(iii) An alien whose deportation is being withheld under
section 243(h) of such Act until 5 years after such
withholding.
(B) Certain permanent resident aliens.--An alien who--
(i) is lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent
residence under the Immigration and Nationality Act; and
(ii)(I) has worked 40 qualifying quarters of coverage as
defined under title II of the Social Security Act or can be
credited with such qualifying quarters as provided under
section 2435, and (II) did not receive any Federal means-
tested public benefit (as defined in section 2403(c)) during
any such quarter.
(C) Veteran and active duty exception.--An alien who is
lawfully residing in any State and is--
(i) a veteran (as defined in section 101 of title 38,
United States Code) with a discharge characterized as an
honorable discharge and not on account of alienage,
(ii) on active duty (other than active duty for training)
in the Armed Forces of the United States, or
(iii) the spouse or unmarried dependent child of an
individual described in clause (i) or (ii).
(D) Transition for those currently receiving benefits.--An
alien who on the date of the enactment of this Act is
lawfully residing in any State and is receiving benefits
under such program on the date of the enactment of this Act
shall continue to be eligible to receive such benefits until
January 1, 1997.
(3) Designated federal program defined.--For purposes of
this chapter, the term ``designated Federal program'' means
any of the following:
(A) Temporary assistance for needy families.--The program
of block grants to States for temporary assistance for needy
families under part A of title IV of the Social Security Act.
(B) Social services block grant.--The program of block
grants to States for social services under title XX of the
Social Security Act.
(C) Medicaid.--The program of medical assistance under
title XV and XIX of the Social Security Act.
SEC. 2403. FIVE-YEAR LIMITED ELIGIBILITY OF QUALIFIED ALIENS
FOR FEDERAL MEANS-TESTED PUBLIC BENEFIT.
(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law
and except as provided in subsection (b), an alien who is a
qualified alien (as defined in section 2431) and who enters
the United States on or after the date of the enactment of
this Act is not eligible for any Federal means-tested public
benefit (as defined in subsection (c)) for a period of five
years beginning on the date of the alien's entry into the
United States with a status within the meaning of the term
``qualified alien''.
(b) Exceptions.--The limitation under subsection (a) shall
not apply to the following aliens:
(1) Exception for refugees and asylees.--
(A) An alien who is admitted to the United States as a
refugee under section 207 of the Immigration and Nationality
Act.
(B) An alien who is granted asylum under section 208 of
such Act.
(C) An alien whose deportation is being withheld under
section 243(h) of such Act.
(2) Veteran and active duty exception.--An alien who is
lawfully residing in any State and is--
(A) a veteran (as defined in section 101 of title 38,
United States Code) with a discharge characterized as an
honorable discharge and not on account of alienage,
(B) on active duty (other than active duty for training) in
the Armed Forces of the United States, or
(C) the spouse or unmarried dependent child of an
individual described in subparagraph (A) or (B).
(3) Exception for children.--An alien who has not attained
the age of 18 years.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I am deeply concerned that for the first
time in history, Congress will ban legal immigrants from most
assistance programs. Banning legal immigrants from these programs will
also deny their children the assistance they need to become healthy,
productive members of society. The amendment I am offering will exempt
children from these bans.
The Republican bill permanently bans legal immigrants from SSI and
food stamps. It bans them for 5 years from Medicaid, AFDC and other
programs. It also gives States the option of going even farther, and
permanently banning them from Medicaid, AFDC, and social service block
grants.
Several preliminary points are important to understand about this
issue.
First, this bill is a ban. Banning is not the same as deeming. In
deeming, we look to the sponsor for payment before the Government pays.
Under banning, the sponsor is not involved. The ban covers legal
immigrants, with or without sponsors.
Second, we are not talking about illegal immigrants. This bill bans
legal immigrants from safety net programs. These are individuals and
families who come here legally, play by the rules, and pay their taxes.
They are future citizens trying to make it in this country. Yet this
bill would repay them by banning them from assistance if they fall on
hard times.
Third, the ban's application to children makes no sense. Many
children will be affected and harmed, but many others will not. It
depends entirely on where they were born. Children born in the United
States are U.S. citizens and will be eligible for assistance, even if
their parents are legal immigrants. But children born overseas will be
caught by the ban. So children in the same
[[Page S8422]]
family will be treated differently, depending on where they were born.
This is unfair.
Fourth, the children involved often live in the families of U.S.
citizens. A typical case involves a citizen who has married and brought
his new spouse and the spouse's child to America. Surely, they deserve
help.
AFDC, SSI, food stamps and Medicaid are programs which are especially
critical to children's health and development. Banning legal immigrant
children from these programs puts their well-being at stake, and it
puts the public at risk, too.
Legal immigrants can get sick like everyone else. Their families can
fall on hard times. They can become disabled. Banning them from basic
assistance programs means that when their sponsors can't provide
support, immigrants won't get the help they need. Their medical
conditions will go untreated and their disabilities will worsen.
These children are future citizens. Like all other children in
America, they need and deserve to be assured of good health and good
nutrition. If the Federal Government abandons them, communities will
suffer.
When immigrant children get sick, they infect other children. By
banning them from Medicaid, we are also banning them from school-based
care under the Early and Periodic Screening, Detection, and Treatment
Program, which provides basic health care to school-age children. It is
part of Medicaid in most states.
Under this bill, legal immigrant children will be banned from going
to the school nurse when they feel sick in school. If they try to see
the nurse, the nurse cannot treat them because they are immigrants.
They have no private insurance and they are banned from Medicaid. If
the illness gets worse, their parents may take them to the local
emergency room--a very expensive alternative and not likely to be
pursued unless the illness seems severe.
Suppose a child has tuberculosis. In the time it took for the illness
to worsen enough to be covered by emergency Medicaid, many classmates
have been exposed--all because no early help was available.
In addition to Medicaid, the Republican bill bans legal immigrant
children from SSI, which provided assistance to the blind and disabled.
Nine thousand legal immigrant children are blind or disabled. They have
some of the most complex and life-threatening needs of all. As a
practical matter, such cases often involve tragic accidents, where
expensive long-term care is needed to deal with debilitating
conditions. If SSI is not available, children literally will die.
The Republican bill also bans legal immigrant children from food
stamps, which could sentence them to a lifetime of health problems due
to poor nutrition. Parents will have to turn to soup kitchens and food
pantries just to feed their children. Yet, soup kitchens are already
stretched beyond their capacity. Almost all soup kitchens limit the
number of times a person can come to the kitchen for food. Some
kitchens allow one visit a month. Others allow only three to six visits
a year. If we cut off food stamps, many legal immigrant children will
have nowhere to turn for food.
Nutrition is vital to the development of a child. Immigrant children
are no exception. Without access to food stamps, some immigrant
children will suffer a lifetime of anemia, stunted growth, and even
permanent brain damage.
Finally, it makes no sense to ban legal immigrants from AFDC
payments. AFDC allows mothers to place their children in child care, so
that the parent can work or go to school. Without AFDC, parents will
have to stay home to take care of their children. This bill is not
welfare reform for legal immigrants. It will push families further into
poverty, with no chance of escape.
For all of these reasons, I urge the Senate to adopt this amendment,
and reject this harsh and extreme attack on immigrant children.
Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I yield back time on the amendment.
Mr. DOMENICI. Pursuant to section 310(d)(2), I raise a point of order
against the pending Kennedy amendment on behalf of the Finance
Committee.
Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I move to waive the point of order and 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. 4956
(Purpose: To allow a 2-year implementation period under the Medicaid
program for implementation of the attribution of sponsor's income, the
5-year ban, and other provisions)
Mr. EXON. Mr. President, on behalf of the Senator from Massachusetts,
Senator Kennedy, I send another 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 Nebraska [Mr. Exon], for Mr. Kennedy,
proposes an amendment numbered 4956.
Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under
``Amendments Submitted.'')
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the changes in Medicaid for legal
immigrants in this legislation will have a major impact on health care
institutions and on the public health.
Virtually all of the Nation's hospitals have called on Congress to
delay implementation of these changes for at least 2 years because of
their far-reaching consequences. Those who have urged such a transition
include:
The American Association of Eye and Ear Hospitals,
The American Hospital Association,
The Association of American Medical Colleges,
The American Osteopathic Healthcare Association,
The Federation of American Health Systems, InterHealth,
The National Association of Children's Hospitals,
The National Association of Community Health Centers,
The National Association of Psychiatric Health Systems,
The National Association of Public Hospitals,
Premier, Inc.; and
The Catholic Health Association of the United States.
My amendment responds to their concern by postponing the
implementation of the Medicaid changes on immigrants for 2 years, in
order to enable State and local governments and hospitals and clinics
to make the major adjustments required under this bill.
Even with this transition, these changes will hurt the health care
system and harm the public health. It is bad public health policy to
deny Medicaid to legal immigrants. Last April, the National Conference
of State Legislatures, the National Association of Counties, and the
National League of Cities wrote to Congress stating:
Without this program eligibility, many legal immigrants
will not have access to health care. Legal immigrants will be
forced to turn to State indigent health care programs, public
hospitals, and emergency rooms for assistance or avoid
treatment altogether. This will in turn endanger the public
health and increase the cost of providing health care to
everyone.
But if these changes are to take place, then we should at least give
health providers the time they need to adjust.
Although the bill continues emergency Medicaid for legal immigrants,
they would be banned from regular Medicaid for 5 years. After that,
they can qualify for Medicaid only if their sponsor's income and
resources are too low to assist them. But States can decide to ban
legal immigrants permanently from Medicaid.
Hospitals fear that if Medicaid is restricted, the loss of funds will
require them to reduce services for everyone--citizens and non-citizens
alike. Especially vulnerable are the most costly services, such as
trauma care, burn treatment, and neonatal intensive care.
This crisis in funding will particularly affect hospitals that serve
communities with large numbers of immigrants. In the case of public
hospitals, most patients have Medicaid coverage. Today, at Cambridge
City Hospital in Massachusetts, 48 percent of the patients are
immigrants. That means the hospital could lose half of its Medicaid
funding under this bill.
[[Page S8423]]
For Los Angeles County Hospital, the figure is 60 percent. For
Jackson Memorial Hospital in Miami, 40 percent. For San Francisco
General Hospital, 30 percent. For Harris County Hospital in Houston, 30
percent.
The sudden loss of Medicaid income when the immigrant population is
denied coverage may well jeopardize the quality of health care in the
entire community those hospitals serve.
In addition, those without health coverage through insurance or
Medicaid are less likely to receive preventive medical care and timely
immunization. The result is unnecessarily higher risks of disease in
the community as a whole. The care system will try to prevent this
result, but it is a gamble that Congress should not impose.
At a minimum, the health care system needs time to adjust. Under this
bill, the Medicaid changes go into effect immediately for future
immigrants. States may choose to deny Medicaid starting on January 1,
1997. That's unfair and unrealistic. Hospitals and State and local
governments need time to adjust. Community health centers need to find
ways to expand, as Medicaid resources dry up for hospital care. State
legislatures will need to adopt new laws and adjust spending to
compensate for the loss of Medicaid.
These complicated changes cannot occur overnight, especially in
California, Texas, Florida, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts,
Pennsylvania, Illinois, and other States with large immigrant
populations..
These changes should not go into effect at all. But if they do, I
urge my colleagues at least to hear the pleas and heed the plight of
the hospitals. They need more time and they deserve it.
I urge the adoption of this amendment.
Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I yield back time on the amendment.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, pursuant to appropriate sections of the
Budget Act, I raise a point of order against the pending Kennedy
amendment on behalf of the Finance Committee.
Mr. EXON. Mr. President, at this point, I move to waive all points of
order against the pending 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.
Amendment No. 4957
(Purpose: To modify remittance requirement from 5 to 7 days for child
support enforcement payments)
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, since the hour of 2 is arriving and we
have agreed to extra time just for Senator Exon, I send an amendment to
the desk in behalf of Senator Nickles. It was on the list. It modifies
the requirement for remittance, making it 7 days instead of 5 for child
support payments. I send that amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Domenici], for Mr.
Nickles, proposes an amendment numbered 4957.
Mr. DOMENICI. 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 438, line 15, strike ``5'' and insert ``7''.
Mr. EXON. We have no objection to this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 4957) was agreed to.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which
the amendment was agreed to.
Mr. EXON. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. EXON. Mr. President, in 1986, the Congress enacted the so-called
``Byrd rule,'' named for our esteemed colleague, Senator Byrd, now
incorporated into the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 as section 313.
Although it may seem arcane to those not immediately involved in the
budget process, the Byrd rule has become a very important tool to curb
provisions in the reconciliation bill that are extraneous to the
purpose of deficit reduction. It helped close Pandora's box of
reconciliation abuse, of which Senator Byrd so eloquently warned more
than 10 years ago.
The Byrd rule provides six definitions of what constitute extraneous
matter, but the term generally applies to provisions unrelated to the
reconciliation deficit reduction goals.
For example, a provision in reconciliation could be challenged by a
Senator if it produces no changes in revenue or spending or if such
changes are merely incidental. Sixty votes are necessary to waive a
point of order raised under the Byrd rule. Last year's reconciliation
bill contained numerous Byrd rule violations. This year's bill is also
brimming with violations. I will shortly present a full list to the
Chair and raise a point of order, but I want to highlight two of them.
First, there is a provision that deletes a requirement that the
Secretary of Agriculture promulgate rules so that school lunch
contracts comply with the applicable meat inspection laws.
Second, there is a provision that strikes the requirement that
positive efforts shall be made by service institutions to use small
business and minority-owned businesses as sources of supplies and
services for these school lunch programs.
Mr. President, once again, these are simply other add-ons that we
should look to. Once again, this is not an all-inclusive list, but it
gives the Senate a flavor of the violations that I will shortly raise.
With that, Mr. President, I send a list of provisions to the desk
that I have referenced, and pursuant to section 313(d) of the
Congressional Budget Act, I raise a point of order that these
provisions violate section 313(b)(1) of that act.
The list follows:
EXTRANEOUS PROVISIONS IN S. 1956
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section Subject Violation Rationale
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 1206(h)................... Positive efforts.......... ..................... .........................
Title I--Committee on Agriculture--Agriculture and Related Provisions
Subtitle A--Food Stamps and Commodity Distribution
Chapter 1--Food Stamp Program
Section 1126...................... Caretaker exemption....... 313(b)(1)(A)......... No budgetary impact.
Sec. 1148......................... Expedited service......... 313(b)(1)(A)......... No budgetary impact.
Sec. 1159......................... Waiver authority.......... 313(b)(1)(A)......... No budgetary impact.
Subtitle B--Child Nutrition programs
Chapter 1--Amendments to the School Lunch Act
Sec. 1202(b)...................... Annual announcement of 313(b)(1)(A)......... No budgetary impact.
child nutrition income
eligibility limits.
Sec. 1205(g)...................... Vermont food works........ 313(b)(1)(A)......... No budgetary impact.
Sec. 1207(b)...................... Meat inspection........... ..................... .........................
Sec. 1209(c)...................... Eliminating projects...... 313(b)(1)(A)......... No budgetary impact
Subtitle B--Child Nutrition programs
Chapter 2--Amendments to the Child Nutrition Act of 1966
Sec. 1259(d)(1)................... Delete requirement for WIC 313(b)(1)(A)......... No budgetary impact.
particpants to be
provided drug abuse
education.
Sec. 1259(e)(2) line 13 strike Announcing annual WIC 313(b)(1)(A)......... No budgetary impact.
``(2)'' and ``(8)''. income.
Sec. 1259(g)(1)(C)................ Deletes USDA's authority 313(b)(1)(A)......... No budgetary impact.
to use a portion of WIC
carryover funds for
innovative demonstration
projects to find more
innovative ways of
promoting breastfeeding
among WIC participants..
[[Page S8424]]
Title II--Committee on Finance
Subtitle A--Welfare Reform
In Chapter 1:
``Sec. 403(b)(9)''............ Budget Scoring--directs 313(b)(1)(C)......... Not in Finance's
CBO not to include jurisdiction.
program in the baseline
after 2001.
``Sec. 405(e)................. Collection of State 313(b)(1)(A)......... No budgetary impact.
overpayments to families
from Federal tax refunds.
``Sec. 408(a)(2)''............ No additional cash 313(b)(1)(A)......... No budgetary impact.
assistance for children
born to families
receiving assistance.
``Sec. 409(a)(7)(C)''......... Applicable percentage 313(b)(1)(A)......... No budgetary impact.
reduced for high
performance States.
Sec. 2104..................... Services provided by 313(b)(1)(A)......... No budgetary impact.
charitable, or private
organizations.
Sec. 2113..................... Disclosure of receipt of 313(b)(1)(A)......... No budgetary impact.
Federal funds.
In Chapter 2:
Sec. 2225..................... Repeal of maintenance of 313(b)(1)(D)......... Budget impact is merely
effort requirement-- incidental to policy
applicable to optional change.
State programs for
supplementation of SSI
benefits.
In Chapter 4:
Sec. 2403(c)(1)............... Federal means-tested 313(b)(1)(C)......... Aspects are not in
public benefits. Finance Committee's
jurisdiction.
Sec. 2412(c).................. State public benefits 313(b)(1)(A)......... No budgetary impact.
defined.
In Sec. 2423:
``Sec. 213A(f)(2)............. Federal means-tested 313(b)(1)(C)......... Aspects are not in
public benefits. Finance Committee's
jurisdiction.
Sec. 2424......................... Consignature of alien 313(b)(1)(C)......... The Higher Education Act
student loans. is in the jurisdiction
of the Labor Committee,
not the Finance
Committee.
Sec. 2424......................... Cosignature of alien 313(b)(1)(C)......... The Higher Education Act
student loans. is in the jurisdiction
of the Labor Committee,
not the Finance
Committee.
Chapter 5......................... Reductions in Federal 313(b)(1)(A)......... No budgetary impact.
Government. 313(b)(1)(C)......... Not in Finance's
jurisdiction.
In Chapter 8:
Sec. 2815..................... Repeals................... 313(b)(1)(A)......... No budgetary impact.
313(b)(1)(C)......... Discretionary programs.
Not in Finance's
jurisdiction.
In Chapter 9:
Sec. 2909..................... Abstinence education...... 313(b)(1)(A)......... No budgetary impact.
Affects discretionary
programs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bennett). The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, might I inquire of the distinguished
Senator, before I lodge my waiver with this, have we finished the work
that you had alluded to that you had to do?
Mr. EXON. We have one other matter. It is simply something to offer
into the Record, a letter from the President on the matter that I think
you will have no objection to. Other than that, I have nothing further,
after the motion that I have just made.
Mr. DOMENICI. I assume when we dispose of that, and you get your
insertion, we are finished and have complied with the order about
completing the work on this bill?
Mr. EXON. The Senator is correct.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, since I have not had time nor has our
staff had time to review the list of subject matters for Byrd rule
points of order--and I want to state in a very specific way that I
totally agree with the statements of the Senator from Nebraska as to
why we have a Byrd rule. It is not totally perfect, but it is much
better than having this law and this reconciliation without that kind
of limitation. Nonetheless, we have not had a chance to review them. So
what I would like to do--and I am going to do this now; I want to
explain it to Senator Exon--I am going to move to waive each one and
then we will reserve until tomorrow and consult with all of you on
which ones we may indeed seek a vote, if any.
Mr. EXON. Mr. President, the request from the Senator is entirely in
order. I had anticipated that they would have some time to look at the
list because we have just completed it ourselves and sent it to the
desk. Therefore, I have no objection to the request just made and would
agree to it.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I move to waive the Budget Act with
respect to each individual point of order that has just been sent to
the desk and lodged by the minority.
I might inform the Senate that, without votes on the points of order
if we elect to seek waiver, there are 22 stacked votes now in the event
we vote on everything that we have heretofore cleared. The starting
time, according to the previous order, unless changed, will be 9:30
a.m. tomorrow morning.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. EXON addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter
stating the administration's position on the bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
Executive Office of the President, Office of Management
and Budget,
Washington, DC, July 18, 1996.
Hon. J. James Exon,
Committee on the Budget, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Exon: I am writing to transmit the
Administration's views on S. 1956, the ``Personal
Responsibility, Work Opportunity, and Medicaid Restructuring
Act of 1996.''
We understand that the Senate Republican leadership plans
to move to strike the Medicaid provisions of this
reconciliation legislation--leaving a welfare-only bill for
Senate floor consideration.
We are pleased with this decision to separate welfare
reform from provisions to repeal Medicaid's guarantee of
health care for the elderly, the poor, pregnant women, and
people with disabilities. We hope that removing this ``poison
pill'' from welfare reform is a breakthrough that shows that
the Republican leadership seriously wants to pass bipartisan
welfare reform this year.
Enacting bipartisan welfare reform reflecting the
principles of work, family, and responsibility is among the
Administration's highest priorities. For the past three-and-
a-half years, the President has demonstrated his commitment
to enacting real welfare reform by working with Congress to
enact legislation that moves people from welfare to work,
encourages responsibility, and protects children. The
Administration sent Congress a stand-alone welfare bill that
requires welfare recipients to work, imposes strict time
limits on welfare, toughens child support enforcement, is
fair to children, and is consistent with the President's
commitment to balance the budget.
The Administration is pleased that the bill makes many of
the important improvements to H.R. 4 that we recommended--
improvements also included in the bipartisan National
Governors' Association (NGA) and Breaux-Chafee proposals. The
Senate bill improves upon the bill that the House is now
considering. We urge the Senate to build on these
improvements, and to continue the bipartisan spirit displayed
in last year's debate on welfare reform. At the same time,
however, the Administration is deeply concerned about certain
provisions of S. 1956 that would adversely affect benefits
for Food Stamp households and legal immigrants, as well as
the need for strong State accountability and flexibility.
And, the bill would still raise taxes on millions of workers
by cutting the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC).
improvements contained in s. 1956
We appreciate the Finance and Agriculture Committees'
efforts to strengthen provisions central to work-based
reform, such as child care, and to provide additional
protections for children and families. In rejecting H.R. 4,
the President singled out a number of provisions that were
tough on children and did too little to move people from
welfare to work. S. 1956 includes important changes to these
provisions that move the legislation closer to the
President's vision of true welfare reform. We are
particularly pleased with the following improvements:
Child Care. As the President has insisted throughout the
welfare reform debate, child care is essential to move people
from welfare to work. The bill reflects a better
understanding of the child care resources that States will
need to implement welfare reform, adding $4 billion for child
care above the level in H.R. 4. The bill also recognizes that
parents of school-age children need child care in order to
work.
Food Stamps. The bill removes the annual spending cap on
Food Stamps, preserving the program's ability to expand
during periods of economic recession and help families when
they are most in need. We are concerned, however, with other
Food Stamp proposals, as discussed below.
Maintenance of Effort. The Administration strongly supports
the Finance Committee's changes to State maintenance of
effort
[[Page S8425]]
(MOE) and transfer provisions and believes these are critical
elements of bipartisan welfare reform. The Committee removed
the objectionable transfer authority to the Title XX Social
Services Block Grant and other programs and would allow
transfers to child care only. In addition, the Committee
restored the 80 percent MOE level in last year's Senate bill
and tightened the definition of what counts toward this
requirement.
Work Performance Bonus. We commend the Committee for giving
States an incentive to move people from welfare to work by
providing $1 billion in work program performance bonuses by
2003. This provision was an important element of last year's
Senate bill and the Administration's bill, and will help
change the culture of the welfare office.
Contingency Fund. The bill adopts the NGA recommendation to
double the Contingency Fund to $2 billion, and add a more
responsive trigger based on the Food Stamp caseload. Below,
the Administration recommends further steps that Congress
should take to strengthen this provision.
Equal Protection. The Committee includes provisions that
would require States to establish objective criteria for
delivery of benefits and to ensure equitable treatment. We
are pleased that the Committee also incorporates appropriate
State accountability measures.
Hardship Exemption. We commend the Finance Committee for
following the NGA recommendation and restoring last year's
Senate provisions allowing States to exempt up to 20 percent
of hardship cases that reach the five-year limit.
Transitional Medicaid. We are pleased that the Finance
Committee has taken steps to ensure the continuation of
Medicaid coverage for some of those who are transitioning
from welfare to work. We are concerned, however, that States
could deny this transitional Medicaid to many who would lose
cash benefits for various reasons. In addition, we still have
concerned with Medicaid coverage for those on cash
assistance, as noted below.
Worker Displacement. We are pleased that the bill
incorporates provisions against worker displacement,
including protections from partial displacement as well as
avenues for displaced employees to seek redress.
Child Nutrition. The bill now includes many provisions
proposed by the Administration, and no longer includes H.R.
4's provisions for a child nutrition block-grant
demonstration. In addition, the bill exempts the child
nutrition program from burdensome administrative provisions
related to its alien provisions. We believe that the Senate
could further improve the bill by including the
Administration's proposed 8 percent commodity floor.
Child Protection. We commend the Finance Committee for
preserving the Title IV-E foster care and adoption assistance
programs (including related Medicaid coverage), and other
family support and child abuse prevention efforts.
Supplemental Security Income (SSI). The bill removes the
proposed two-tiered benefit system for disabled children
receiving SSI, and retains full cash benefits for all
eligible children.
We remain pleased that Congress has decided to include
central elements of the President's approach--time limits,
work requirements, the toughest possible child support
enforcement, and the requirement that minor mothers live at
home as a condition of assistance--in this legislation.
key concerns with s. 1956
The Administration, however, remains deeply concerned that
S. 1956 still lacks other important provisions that have
earned bipartisan endorsement.
Size of the cuts. The welfare provisions incorporate most
of the cuts in the vetoed bill--about $60 billion over six
years (including the EITC and related savings in Medicaid).
These cuts far exceed those proposed by the NGA or the
Administration. Cuts in Food Stamps and benefits to legal
immigrants are particularly deep. The President's Budget
demonstrates that cuts of this size are not necessary to
achieve real welfare reform, nor are they needed to balance
the budget.
Food Stamps. The Administration strongly opposed the
inclusion of a Food Stamp grant option, which could seriously
undermine the Federal nature of the program, jeopardizing the
nutrition and health of millions of children, working
families, and the elderly, and eliminating the program's
ability to respond to economic changes. The Administration
also is concerned that the bill makes deep cuts in the Food
Stamp program, including a cut in benefits to households with
high shelter costs that disproportionately affects families
with children, and a four-month time limit on childless
adults who are willing to work but are not offered a work
slot.
Legal Immigrants. The bill retains the excessively harsh
and uncompromising immigration provisions of last year's
vetoed bill. While we support the strengthening of
requirements on the sponsors of legal immigrants applying for
SSI, Food Stamps, and Aid to Families with Dependent Children
(AFDC), the bill bans SSI and Food Stamps for virtually all
legal immigrants, and imposes a five-year ban on most other
Federal programs, including non-emergency Medicaid, for new
legal immigrants. These bans would even cover legal
immigrants who become disabled after entering the country,
families with children, and current recipients. The bill
would deny benefits to 300,000 immigrant children and would
affect many more children whose parents are denied
assistance. The proposal unfairly shifts costs to States with
high numbers of legal immigrants. In addition, the bill
requires most Federal, State, and local benefits programs to
verify recipients' citizenship or alien status. These
mandates would create extremely difficult and costly
administrative burdens for State, local, and non-profit
service providers, as well as barriers to participation for
citizens. Also, the Administration urges that Senate not go
in the harsh direction that the House Rules Committee did
yesterday in reporting a provision that would broaden the ban
on current immigrants from receiving Medicaid coverage.
Medical Assistance Guarantee. The Administration opposes
provisions that do not guarantee continued Medicaid
eligibility when States change AFDC rules. We are concerned
that families who lose cash assistance for various reasons,
such as reaching the five-year limit or having additional
children while they are receiving assistance, could lose
their Medicaid eligibility and be unable to receive the
health care services that they need. In addition, State
flexibility to change these AFDC rules could adversely affect
Medicaid eligibility determinations, including eligibility
for poverty-related pregnant women and children.
Protection in Economic Downturn. Although the Contingency
Fund is twice what it was in the vetoed bill, it still does
not allow for further expansions during poor economic
conditions and periods of increased need. We are also
concerned about provisions that reduce the match rate on
contingency funds for States that access the fund for
periods of under a year.
Resources for Work. S. 1956 would not provide the resources
States need to move recipients into work. The bill increases
the work mandates on States above the levels in H.R. 4 while
providing no additional resources for States to meet these
more stringent rates. Based on CBO estimates, the Senate bill
would provide $12 billion less over six years than is
required to meet the bill's work requirements and maintain
the current level of cash assistance to poor families. CBO
notes that ``most States would be unlikely to satisfy this
requirement.'' Moreover, the Senate bill would lead to a $2.4
billion shortfall in child care resources (assuming States
maintain their current level of cash assistance benefits,
continue current law Transitional and At-Risk child care
levels, and do not transfer amounts from the cash block grant
to child care).
Vouchers. The bill actually reduces State flexibility by
prohibiting States from using block grant funds to provide
vouchers to children whose parents reach the time limit. H.R.
4 contained no such prohibition, and the NGA opposes it. We
strongly urge the adoption of voucher language, similar to
that in the Administration's bill and Breaux-Chafee, that
protects children.
Child Care Health and Safety Protections. The bill repeals
current child care health and safety protections and cuts
set-aside funds to the States to improve the safety and
quality care. We strongly urge the Senate to restore these
basic health and safety protections, which were enacted with
strong bipartisan support in 1990 and maintained in last
year's Senate bill and are essential to the safety and well-
being of millions of young children.
Family Caps. The Senate bill reverts back to the opt-out
provision on family caps which would restrict State
flexibility in this area. The Administration, as well as the
NGA, seeks complete State flexibility to set family cap
policy.
EITC. The Administration opposes the provision in S. 1956
that raises taxes on over four million low-income adult
workers by ending inflation adjustments for working
households without dependent children, and thereby
substantially cutting the real value of their tax credit over
time. Raising taxes on these workers is wrong. In addition,
the budget resolution instructs the revenue committees to cut
up to $18.5 billion more from the EITC. Thus, EITC cuts could
total over $20 billion. Such large tax increases on working
families are particularly ill-conceived when considered in
the context of real welfare reform--that is, encouraging work
and making work pay.
We strongly support the bipartisan welfare reform
initiatives of moderate Republicans and Democrats in both the
House and Senate. The Breaux-Chafee proposal addresses many
of our concerns, and it would strengthen State accountability
efforts, welfare to work measures, and protections for
children. It provides a foundation on which the Senate should
build in order to provide more State flexibility; incentives
for AFDC recipients to move from welfare to work; more
parental responsibility; and protections for children. It is
a good, strong proposal that would end welfare as we know it.
Breaux-Chafee provides the much needed opportunity for a real
bipartisan compromise, and it should be the basis for a quick
agreement between the parties.
The President stands ready to work with Congress to address
the outstanding concerns so we can enact a strong, bipartisan
welfare reform bill to replace the current system with one
that demands responsibility, strengthens families, protects
children, and gives States broad flexibility and the needed
resources to get the job done.
Sincerely,
Jacob J. Lew,
Acting Director.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry. Is it correct,
pursuant to the regular order, we would
[[Page S8426]]
now proceed with the agriculture appropriations bill?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the
absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. COCHRAN. 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. COCHRAN. Mr. President, what is the business now before the
Senate?
____________________