[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 12]
[Senate]
[Pages 15878-15879]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




               RETURNED AMERICANS PROTECTION ACT OF 2006

  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 5865, which was received 
from the House.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report the bill by 
title.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 5865) to amend the Social Security Act to 
     increase the limit on payments for temporary assistance to 
     U.S. citizens returned from foreign countries.

  There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, recent events in the Middle East have 
led to the evacuation of thousands of U.S. citizens from Lebanon. This 
evacuation is being conducted by the U.S. State Department.
  However, the Department of Health and Human Services, or more 
specifically, the Administration for Children and Families, ACF, is 
responsible for assisting U.S. citizens upon their return to the United 
States.
  Over the past several days, ACF has established repatriation 
facilities at the Baltimore/Washington airport, the Philadelphia 
airport, and McGuire Air Force Base in New Jersey. More than 5,000 
Americans have been offered assistance at these facilities in recent 
days. Thousands more are expected within the week.
  These repatriation facilities are staffed by Federal and State 
employees who provide assistance with travel, lodging, and access to 
medical facilities, as necessary. These employees are doing a 
tremendous job assisting all of the evacuees.
  Unfortunately, under current law, this critical assistance is subject 
to a statutory cap of $1 million dollars. Given the expected number of 
evacuees, the statutory cap could be reached at any moment. Unless 
Congress acts quickly to raise the cap, the ongoing repatriation 
efforts will be suspended. We must not allow that to happen.
  The legislation I have offered today, along with my colleague from 
Montana, Senator Baucus, will raise the cap to $6 million through the 
end of this fiscal year. This increase is expected to fully cover the 
anticipated costs of the evacuation this year, as well as provide for 
the continued operation of the repatriation program next year.
  In addition to temporarily raising the cap, this legislation would 
provide the States with the option to use the National Directory of New 
Hires to verify eligibility under the Food Stamp Program. This language 
is similar to the provisions in current law now being used to verify 
eligibility for the SSI Program and to collect delinquent child support 
payments.
  According to the Congressional Budget Office, the utilization of this 
option in the Food Stamp Program would save roughly $1 million a year, 
thus offsetting the cost of raising the cap.
  In contrast to the legislation passed by the House yesterday, this 
legislation does not sunset the repatriation program. The repatriation 
program has been in operation, in one form or another, since the 1930s. 
There is no reason to believe this program should be abolished. Thus, 
the sunset provision contained in the House bill is merely a gimmick to 
create the appearance that the bill is paid for when in fact it is not.
  On another matter, the House language includes a requirement for an 
IG report on the repatriation program. However, it does not appear such 
a report is necessary.
  According to ACF, under the emergency repatriation program each State 
has an approved plan which they implement when needed. They are allowed 
to assume costs for all of the activities contained in their approved 
plan. The States then submit a detailed explanation of how the funds 
were spent, along with supporting documentation.
  Finally, it should be noted that the language in the House bill was 
intended to lift the million-dollar cap for the current fiscal year. 
But it is not entirely clear it accomplishes that goal. Under current 
law, the cap is effective for fiscal years beginning after September 
30, 2003. Under the House-passed language, the cap is effective for 
fiscal years beginning after September 30, 2006. Since the current 
fiscal year occurs after 2003 but before 2006, that begs the question--
what is the cap for this year? The answer to this question should not 
be ambiguous. The Senate language clearly states the cap for the 
current fiscal year is $6 million.
  Given all of these concerns, I urge my colleagues to reject the House 
language and support the Senate alternative. The Senate alternative 
will maintain the critical assistance now being provided to evacuees, 
while at the same time offsetting the cost of this assistance in a 
reasonable and responsible manner.
  I urge its adoption.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I urge the Senate to adopt the Grassley-
Baucus amendment to the bill H.R. 5864--The Returned Americans 
Protection Act of 2006. This bill provides needed resources to the 
United States Repatriation Program, which is currently assisting U.S. 
citizens who are returning to United States from Lebanon.
  The United States Repatriation Program was established by title XI, 
section 1113 of the Social Security Act to provide temporary assistance 
to U.S. citizens and their dependents who have been identified by the 
Department of State as having returned, or been brought from a foreign 
country to the U.S. because of destitution, illness, war, threat of 
war, or a similar crisis. The program is currently being used to 
provide assistance to citizens returning from Lebanon, but estimates 
indicate that the program could reach its statutory spending cap at any 
moment. The cap is currently $1 million per fiscal year. We have been 
asked by HHS to increase the cap for fiscal year 2006 to $6 million.
  The Grassley-Baucus amendment lifts the cap for fiscal year 2006 from 
$1 million to $6 million. The amendment also includes an offset from 
the President's fiscal year 2006 budget to use the National Directory 
of New Hires, NDNH, to improve the administration of the Food Stamp 
Program. Access to the NDNH will help USDA verify wage and employment 
information on food stamp applications. That proposal was scored by CBO 
has providing $11 million in savings over 10 years.
  We have worked with the Department of Health and Human Services and 
other Government agencies in creating this legislation. We believe we 
have a reasonable and fiscally responsible solution to this relatively 
minor problem. We urge the Senate to adopt our amendment, pass the 
bill, and send the bill to the House for their immediate consideration.
  This bill involves a small and, thankfully, seldom-used Federal 
program. But as recent news events have made clear, this is a program 
that can provide much-needed assistance to our constituents during 
difficult circumstances. We should not allow these

[[Page 15879]]

 important resources to be needlessly delayed.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
Grassley-Baucus substitute amendment at the desk be agreed to, the 
bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed, the motion to 
reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to 
the bill be printed in the Record.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The amendment (No. 4695) was agreed to, as follows:

       Strike all after the enacting clause and insert:

     SECTION 1. PAYMENTS FOR TEMPORARY ASSISTANCE TO UNITED STATES 
                   CITIZENS RETURNED FROM FOREIGN COUNTRIES.

       (a) Increase in Aggregate Payments Limit for Fiscal Year 
     2006.--Section 1113(d) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1313(d)) is amended by inserting ``, except that, in the case 
     of fiscal year 2006, the total amount of such assistance 
     provided during that fiscal year shall not exceed 
     $6,000,000'' after ``2003''.

     SEC. 2. DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION IN THE DIRECTORY OF NEW 
                   HIRES TO ASSIST ADMINISTRATION OF FOOD STAMP 
                   PROGRAMS.

       Section 453(j) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     653(j)) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating the second paragraph (7) as paragraph 
     (9); and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph
       ``(10) Information comparisons and disclosure to assist in 
     administration of food stamp programs.--
       ``(A) In general.--If, for purposes of administering a food 
     stamp program under the Food Stamp Act of 1977, a State 
     agency responsible for the administration of the program 
     transmits to the Secretary the names and social security 
     account numbers of individuals, the Secretary shall disclose 
     to the State agency information on the individuals and their 
     employers maintained in the National Directory of New Hires, 
     subject to this paragraph.
       ``(B) Condition on disclosure by the secretary.--The 
     Secretary shall make a disclosure under subparagraph (A) only 
     to the extent that the Secretary determines that the 
     disclosure would not interfere with the effective operation 
     of the program under this part.
       ``(C) Use and disclosure of information by state 
     agencies.--
       ``(i) In general.--A State agency may not use or disclose 
     information provided under this paragraph except for purposes 
     of administering a program referred to in subparagraph (A).
       ``(ii) Information security.--The State agency shall have 
     in effect data security and control policies that the 
     Secretary finds adequate to ensure the security of 
     information obtained under this paragraph and to ensure that 
     access to such information is restricted to authorized 
     persons for purposes of authorized uses and disclosures.
       ``(iii) Penalty for misuse of information.--An officer or 
     employee of the State agency who fails to comply with this 
     subparagraph shall be subject to the sanctions under 
     subsection (l)(2) to the same extent as if the officer or 
     employee were an officer or employee of the United States.
       ``(D) Procedural requirements.--State agencies requesting 
     information under this paragraph shall adhere to uniform 
     procedures established by the Secretary governing information 
     requests and data matching under this paragraph.
       ``(E) Reimbursement of costs.--The State agency shall 
     reimburse the Secretary, in accordance with subsection 
     (k)(3), for the costs incurred by the Secretary in furnishing 
     the information requested under this paragraph.''.

  The amendment was ordered to be engrossed and the bill to be read a 
third time.
  The bill (H.R. 5865), as amended, was read the third time, and 
passed.

                          ____________________