Congressional Record: April 27, 1995 (Senate) - Pages S5805 - S5843
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access - DOCID:cr27ap95-42: Part 5
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. BAUCUS (for himself and Mr. LOTT):
S. 729. A bill to provide off-budget treatment for the highway trust
fund, the airport and airway trust fund, the inland waterways trust
fund, and the harbor maintenance trust fund, and for other purposes; to
the Committee on the Budget and the Committee on Governmental Affairs,
jointly, pursuant to the order of August 4, 1977, that if one committee
reports, then the other committee have 30 days to report or be
discharged.
TRUST FUND RESTORATION ACT OF 1995
Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I want to thank the majority whip,
Senator Lott, for joining me in the introduction of this bill.
Madam President, today Senator Lott and I are introducing a bill to
take four transportation trust funds off budget, the highway, aviation,
inland waterways, and harbor maintenance trust funds. This is a
bipartisan effort.
Transportation issues tend to be bipartisan. Members on both sides of
the aisle generally support highway construction, bridge repair and
airport improvements. This support is there because infrastructure
improvements are needed for increased efficiency and mobility across
this country.
As the Senator from Mississippi said this bill also provides truth in
budgeting. By taking these four trust funds off-budget, revenue
generated from fuel and other excise taxes will be available for the
intended purpose of infrastructure improvements.
Without the enactment of the principals of this bill, not all of the
money paid into these trust funds by American consumers will be
available. Right now, excess revenue and the balances of these trust
funds is used to mask the size of the Federal deficit. The bill we are
introducing today will fix this problem. It will put truth in our
budgeting process. We need to give American taxpayers confidence that
their taxes do not go down a black hole but that these tax dollars are
used for infrastructure improvements.
This act will restore the trust in our transportation and
infrastructure trust funds, by taking those trust funds off-budget.
Thus, it will make sure we spend the money on the things the American
public expects it to buy--better highways, bridges, airports, and
waterways.
The act would also end the practice of considering this money--
collected by user fees and held for a specific public purpose--as
general revenue which can be used to reduce the deficit. That will make
sure we have an honest accounting of the size of the deficit.
Specifically, the bill would take the highway, aviation, inland
waterways, and harbor maintenance trust funds off-budget. These trust
funds now have balances of over $30 billion. But our ability to use the
money is restricted because they are counted as part of the general
Treasury funds, and thus subject to budget laws.
highway trust fund
The highway trust fund is the biggest and most egregious example.
This fund was established in 1956, to develop the system of highways on
which our economy and millions of jobs depend. It is financed by excise
taxes on gasoline, diesel, special fuels, and other items.
The fund now has a cash balance of over $19 billion--over $9 billion
in the highway account and $10 billion in the transit account. This
money was collected to pay for our Nation's infrastructure.
That is why people are paying these taxes, to pay for our Nation's
infrastructure, and that is what I submit we must use those dollars
for.
There are unmet needs across the country. The Department of
Transportation estimates that we will need to spend $212 billion to
eliminate the backlog of highway deficiencies and $78 billion to fix
our decaying bridges, and that is without even considering new needs.
Today, 24 percent of Montana's bridges are deficient and in need of
repair. There are highway projects that desperately need funding--
projects such as the expansion of Highway 93 in the Kalispell-Whitefish
area. You can find similar problems across the State--across the West--
across the country. And it is galling beyond belief that a lot of money
is right there, today, in the highway trust fund waiting for us to
spend it.
But it cannot be. Why? Because it is held hostage by arcane, backward
budget laws.
A sensible budget policy situation would let us use it for what it is
supposed to be used for--highways. That would mean continued growth in
travel and tourism. And it would give our businesses increased mobility
and efficiency, making us more competitive in this global economy. And
it would mean jobs. Remember that $1 billion in transportation spending
generates 60,000 direct and indirect jobs.
conclusion
Madam President, it is time to put trust back into these trust funds.
Let us use some common sense. Let us take these trust funds off-budget
so that the transportation user gets what he or she pays for--a better
transportation system, not an accounting gimmick that disguises the
size of the deficit.
I look forward very much to working with the Senator from Mississippi
and others to pass this bill. I ask unanimous consent that the text of
the bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 729
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Trust Fund Restoration Act
of 1995''.
SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Airport and airway trust fund.--The term ``Airport and
Airway Trust Fund'' means the Airport and Airway Trust Fund
established by section 9502 of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986.
(2) Harbor maintenance trust fund.--The term ``Harbor
Maintenance Trust Fund'' means the Harbor Maintenance Trust
Fund
[[Page S5835]] established by section 9505 of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986.
(3) Highway trust fund.--The term ``Highway Trust Fund''
means the Highway Trust Fund established by section 9503 of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
(4) Inland waterways trust fund.--The term ``Inland
Waterways Trust Fund'' means the Inland Waterways Trust Fund
established by section 9506 of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986.
SEC. 3. BUDGETARY TREATMENT OF HIGHWAY TRUST FUND, AIRPORT
AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND, INLAND WATERWAYS TRUST
FUND, AND HARBOR MAINTENANCE TRUST FUND.
(a) In General.--The receipts and disbursements of the
Highway Trust Fund, the Airport and Airway Trust Fund, the
Inland Waterways Trust Fund, and the Harbor Maintenance Trust
Fund--
(1) shall not be included in the totals of--
(A) the budget of the United States Government as submitted
by the President under section 1105 of title 31, United
States Code; or
(B) the congressional budget (including allocations of
budget authority and outlays provided in the congressional
budget);
(2) shall not be--
(A) considered to be part of any category (as defined in
section 250(c)(4) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency
Deficit Control Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C. 900(c)(4))) of
discretionary appropriations; or
(B) subject to the discretionary spending limits
established under section 251(b) of the Act (2 U.S.C.
901(b));
(3) shall not be subject to sequestration under section
251(a) of the Act (2 U.S.C. 901(a)); and
(4) shall be exempt from any general budget limitation
imposed by statute on expenditures and net lending (budget
outlays) of the United States Government.
(b) Disbursements Subject to Appropriations.--The
disbursements referred to in subsection (a) shall be subject
to appropriations.
SEC. 4. SAFEGUARDS AGAINST DEFICIT SPENDING OUT OF AIRPORT
AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND.
(a) In General.--Chapter 471 of title 49, United States
Code, is amended by inserting after section 47129 the
following:
``Sec. 47130. Safeguards against deficit spending
``(a) Estimates of Unfunded Aviation Authorizations and Net
Aviation Receipts.--Not later than March 31 of each year, the
Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of the
Treasury, shall estimate--
``(1) the amount that would (but for this section)
constitute the unfunded aviation authorizations at the
termination of the first fiscal year that begins after that
March 31; and
``(2) the net aviation receipts at the termination of the
fiscal year referred to in paragraph (1).
``(b) Procedure if Excess Unfunded Aviation
Authorizations.--If, with respect to a fiscal year, the
Secretary determines that the amount described in subsection
(a)(1) exceeds the amount described in subsection (a)(2), the
Secretary shall determine the amount of the excess.
``(c) Adjustment of Authorizations if Unfunded
Authorizations Exceed Receipts.--
``(1) Determination of percentage.--If the Secretary
determines, in accordance with subsection (b), that there is
an excess amount with respect to a fiscal year, the Secretary
shall determine the percentage that the excess amount is of
the sum of--
``(A) the amounts authorized to be appropriated from the
Airport and Airway Trust Fund for the next fiscal year; and
``(B) the amounts available for obligation from the Airport
and Airway Trust Fund for the next fiscal year.
``(2) Adjustment of authorizations.--If the Secretary
determines, in accordance with subsection (b), that there is
an excess amount with respect to a fiscal year, each amount
authorized to be appropriated or available for obligation
from the Airport and Airway Trust Fund for the next fiscal
year shall be reduced by the percentage determined in
accordance with paragraph (1).
``(d) Availability of Amounts Previously Withheld.--
``(1) Adjustment of authorizations.--Any amount authorized
to be appropriated or available for obligation from the
Airport and Airway Trust Fund that is reduced under
subsection (c)(2) shall be further adjusted in accordance
with paragraph (2) if, after an adjustment has been made
under subsection (c)(2) for a fiscal year, the Secretary
determines that, with respect to the fiscal year--
``(A) the amount described in subsection (a)(1) does not
exceed the amount described in subsection (a)(2); or
``(B) an excess amount determined under subsection (b) is
less than an excess amount determined as a result of a
previous determination.
``(2) Adjustment.--Each amount that is subject to a further
adjustment under paragraph (1) shall be increased by an equal
percentage determined by the Secretary under paragraph (3).
``(3) Percentage.--
``(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), the
percentage referred to in paragraph (2) shall be the maximum
percentage that does not cause the amount described in
subsection (a)(1) to exceed the amount described in
subsection (a)(2).
``(B) Limitation.--The amount of any increase determined
under this subsection may not exceed the amount of the
corresponding reduction under subsection (c)(2).
``(4) Apportionment.--The total amount of any increases
determined for a fiscal year under paragraph (3) shall be
made available to the Secretary for apportionment. The
Secretary shall apportion the amount in accordance with this
subsection.
``(5) Period of availability.--Any funds apportioned under
paragraph (4) shall remain available for the period for which
the funds would be available if the apportionment were made
under appropriations and obligations for the fiscal year in
which the funds are apportioned under paragraph (4).
``(e) Reports.--The Secretary shall report to Congress--
``(1) any estimate made under subsection (a); and
``(2) any determination made under subsection (b), (c), or
(d).
``(f) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) Airport and airway trust fund.--The term `Airport and
Airway Trust Fund' means the Airport and Airway Trust Fund
established by section 9502 of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986.
``(2) Net aviation receipts.--The term `net aviation
receipts' means, with respect to any period, the amount by
which--
``(A) the receipts (including interest) of the Airport and
Airway Trust Fund during the period; exceeds
``(B) the amounts to be transferred during the period from
the Airport and Airway Trust Fund under section 9502(d) of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (other than under section
9502(d)(1) of the Code).
``(3) Secretary.--The term `Secretary' means the Secretary
of Transportation.
``(4) Unfunded aviation authorizations.--The term `unfunded
aviation authorization' means, at any time, the amount by
which--
``(A) the total amount authorized to be appropriated or
available for obligation from the Airport and Airway Trust
Fund that has not been appropriated or obligated; exceeds
``(B) the amount available in the Airport and Airway Trust
Fund at that time to make the appropriation or to liquidate
the obligation (after all other unliquidated obligations at
that time that are payable from the Airport and Airway Trust
Fund have been liquidated).''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--The analysis for chapter 471 of
title 49, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end
of subchapter I the following:
``47130. Safeguards against deficit spending.''.
SEC. 5. SAFEGUARDS AGAINST DEFICIT SPENDING OUT OF INLAND
WATERWAYS TRUST FUND AND HARBOR MAINTENANCE
TRUST FUND.
(a) Estimates of Unfunded Inland Waterways Authorizations
and Net Inland Waterways Receipts.--Not later than March 31
of each year, the Secretary, in consultation with the
Secretary of the Treasury, shall estimate--
(1) the amount that would (but for this section) constitute
the unfunded inland waterways authorizations and unfunded
harbor maintenance authorizations at the termination of the
first fiscal year that begins after that March 31; and
(2) the net inland waterways receipts and net harbor
maintenance receipts at the termination of the fiscal year
referred to in paragraph (1).
(b) Procedure if Excess Unfunded Authorizations.--If, with
respect to a fiscal year, the Secretary determines with
respect to a Trust Fund that the amount described in
subsection (a)(1) exceeds the amount described in subsection
(a)(2), the Secretary shall determine the amount of the
excess.
(c) Adjustment of Authorizations if Unfunded Authorizations
Exceed Receipts.--
(1) Determination of percentage.--If the Secretary
determines, in accordance with subsection (b), that there is
an excess amount with respect to a fiscal year, the Secretary
shall determine the percentage that the excess amount is of
the sum of--
(A) the amounts authorized to be appropriated from the
Trust Fund for the next fiscal year; and
(B) the amounts available for obligation from the Trust
Fund for the next fiscal year.
(2) Adjustment of authorizations.--If the Secretary
determines, in accordance with subsection (b), that there is
an excess amount with respect to a fiscal year, each amount
authorized to be appropriated or available for obligation
from the Trust Fund for the next fiscal year shall be reduced
by the percentage determined in accordance with paragraph
(1).
(d) Availability of Amounts Previously Withheld.--
(1) Increase of authorizations.--Any amount authorized to
be appropriated or available for obligation from a Trust Fund
that is reduced under subsection (c)(2) shall be further
adjusted in accordance with paragraph (2) if, after an
adjustment has been made under subsection (c)(2) for a fiscal
year with respect to the Trust Fund, the Secretary determines
that, with respect to the Trust Fund and the fiscal year--
(A) the amount described in subsection (a)(1) does not
exceed the amount described in subsection (a)(2); or
(B) an excess amount determined under subsection (b) is
less than an excess amount determined as a result of a
previous determination.
(2) Adjustment.--Each amount that is subject to a further
adjustment under paragraph (1) shall be increased by an equal
percentage
[[Page S5836]] determined by the Secretary under paragraph
(3).
(3) Percentage.--
(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), the
percentage referred to in paragraph (2) shall be the maximum
percentage that does not cause the amount described in
subsection (a)(1) to exceed the amount described in
subsection (a)(2) with respect to the Trust Fund.
(B) Limitation.--The amount of any increase determined
under this subsection may not exceed the amount of the
corresponding reduction under subsection (c)(2).
(e) Reports.--The Secretary shall report to Congress--
(1) any estimate made under subsection (a); and
(2) any determination made under subsection (b), (c), or
(d).
(f) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Net harbor maintenance receipts.--The term ``net harbor
maintenance receipts'' means, with respect to any period, the
receipts (including interest) of the Harbor Maintenance Trust
Fund during the period.
(2) Net inland waterways receipts.--The term ``net inland
waterways receipts'' means, with respect to any period, the
receipts (including interest) of the Inland Waterways Trust
Fund during the period.
(3) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Army.
(4) Trust fund.--The term ``Trust Fund'' means the Inland
Waterways Trust Fund or the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund, as
the case may be.
(5) Unfunded harbor maintenance authorizations.--The term
``unfunded harbor maintenance authorizations'' means, at any
time, the amount by which--
(A) the total amount authorized to be appropriated or
available for obligation from the Harbor Maintenance Trust
Fund that has not been appropriated or obligated; exceeds
(B) the amount available in the Harbor Maintenance Trust
Fund at that time to make the appropriation.
(6) Unfunded inland waterways authorizations.--The term
``unfunded inland waterways authorizations'' means, at any
time, the amount by which--
(A) the total amount authorized to be appropriated or
available for obligation from the Inland Waterways Trust Fund
that has not been appropriated or obligated; exceeds
(B) the amount available in the Inland Waterways Trust Fund
at that time to make the appropriation.
SEC. 6. ENFORCEMENT.
An officer or employee of the United States Government who
fails to comply with this Act and the amendments made by this
Act shall be subject to the penalties specified in section
1350 of title 31, United States Code.
SEC. 7. APPLICABILITY.
This Act and the amendments made by this Act shall apply to
authorizations and obligations made for fiscal years 1996 and
thereafter.
Mr. LOTT. Madam President, I have seen a quote, ``As transportation
trust funds sit unused, so do Americans sit in traffic jams on beat-up
roads or in dingy airport lounges.''
That is a fact. For many years, going back to my years in the House,
I always felt as if our transportation trust funds were abused. The
American people pay funds through taxes, or fees, if you will, directly
into trust funds for highways and for airports, and yet those funds are
quite often not used. They are used, I guess, but only to make the
deficit look better.
We should have a system where, when the American people pay into a
trust fund for a specific purpose, those funds in a logical way would
be used so that the people will have the transportation infrastructure
they want; so that they will be safer; so that we will not have
highways falling apart and bridges collapsing. It is time we do
something about it.
What we have now does not make fiscal sense, and it does not make
infrastructure sense. So today I am introducing a bill with the
distinguished Senator from Montana [Mr. Baucus] and it will move to
restore the integrity of America's transportation trust funds.
I know the Senator from Montana has worked on this issue for a long
time. He is on the committee that has jurisdiction in this area, but I
also serve as chairman of the Surface Transportation Subcommittee of
the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, so I am
delighted to join with him in this effort.
The bill will require that the funds be used to complete maintenance
and expansion of America's infrastructure that is long overdue and is
already authorized.
I am talking about a procedural budget change for the following funds:
highway trust; airport and airway trust; inland waterways trust; and
harbor maintenance trust.
The effect of our bill is to remove the transportation trusts from:
Calculations of the on-budget deficit; congressional budget
resolution's spending allocations; and spending points of order under
the Budget Act.
Daily, $80 million pours into these trusts through fuel taxes while
$360 billion in documented infrastructure needs are neglected. This has
permitted a $33 billion cash balance to build up in these trusts. This
balance does not help those Americans who need their transportation
infrastructure repaired or upgraded. This balance only helps Federal
budgeteers--and I am one of them--who are using these funds to mask the
real deficit, while not doing what needs to be done in the
infrastructure.
Our legislative proposal offers a simple and direct solution--take
these transportation trust funds off budget.
We have proposed a responsible and appropriate legislative solution
because the American Government made an implied contract with taxpayers
who are paying these user fees. Why collect the fees if it is not
really going to be used for the stated purpose? The American people are
being deceived by hiding the true size of the Federal deficit. These
misleading arguments mask the real intent of the unified budget.
The American people want to get a more accurate and reliable budget.
This will not unravel the unified budget process.
Besides, transportation trusts have a unique, special antideficit
mechanism unlike other trust funds. Let me tell you why these trust
funds are different.
They are wholly self-financed by user fees. They must be self-
supported because of a pay-as-you-go requirement. They are deficit
proof because of spending limits and it only buys capital assets, not
operating expenses.
Opponents will say that taking transportation trusts off budget is
bad because unified budgets only work if we have everything included
and that the off budget status will skew national priorities.
Transportation trusts are neither more special than the other 160
trusts nor will they escape congressional review.
There is a House companion bill, a very good bill. This one is very
similar, and I presume will be basically identical, although we are
making some improvements in the bill. It was introduced by the chairman
of the appropriate committee there, Congressman Bud Shuster, of
Pennsylvania.
In the House, they already have 147 cosponsors. So I am inviting our
colleagues here in the Senate to take a look at this bill and join in
cosponsoring it. I think we will have a large majority of our
colleagues who will support it.
Let me be very clear; this bill is not about playing budget gimmicks.
It is more about trying to do what really needs to be done and what we
committed to the American people that we will do.
In fact, this is really truth in budgeting. It is time that we face
up to the infrastructure needs of America. There are dangers out there
in this country. The money is there and it is not being spent. This
would give us a logical, reasonable process in a bipartisan way to get
that done.
______
By Mrs. BOXER:
S. 732. A bill to amend chapter 81 of title 5, United States Code, to
prohibit Members of Congress from receiving Federal worker's
compensation benefits for injuries caused by stress or any other
emotional condition, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Labor
and Human Resources.
federal workers' compensation benefits legislation
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation
that would prohibit Members of Congress from receiving Federal workers'
compensation benefits based on claims of psychological stress. I am
sure it would surprise most Americans that Members of Congress are
eligible for these benefits, but it is true.
In California, a public official who pled guilty to a felony has been
able to collect hundreds of thousands of dollars in stress benefits
under the State workers compensation system. This elected official, a
former member of the Board of Equalization pled guilty in 1992 to
falsifying expense accounts. After being forced to resign in disgrace,
he claimed that the stress of political
[[Page S5837]] life, exacerbated by the stress of evading the law,
caused him such emotional trauma that he was unable to work.
Unbelievably, the State Workers Compensation Board agreed with him, and
awarded him $73,788 in workers compensation benefits plus a lifetime
disability pension.
Several bills have been introduced in the California Legislature to
correct this problem with State law, but until now, no corrective
proposal has been introduced at the Federal level. It is important to
note that this legislation applies only to stress claims by Members of
Congress and does not infringe on the ability of States to set workers
compensation law.
Mr. President, being a Member of Congress is a stressful job. I know
that and all my colleagues know it. We knew it when we ran for the job
and we know it now. There is no reason why we should be able to claim
stress and collect a taxpayer-funded lifetime Government entitlement.
I look forward to working with my colleagues on this issue and I hope
the Congress will enact this bill when it considers pension reform
later this year.
I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill be printed in
the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 732
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON WORKERS' COMPENSATION CLAIMS BY
MEMBERS OF CONGRESS.
(a) In General.--Section 8101(5) of title 5, United States
Code, is amended to read as follows:
``(5) `injury'--
``(A) includes, in addition to injury by accident, a
disease proximately caused by the employment, and damage to
or destruction of medical braces, artificial limbs, and other
prosthetic devices which shall be replaced or repaired, and
such time lost while such device or appliance is being
replaced or repaired; except that eye-glasses and hearing
aides would not be replaced, repaired, or otherwise
compensated for, unless the damages or destruction is
incident to a personal injury requiring medical services; and
``(B) shall not include, with respect to a Member of
Congress, injuries or occupational diseases caused by stress
or any mental or emotional condition.''.
(b) Effective Date.--This Act shall take effect 30 days
after the date of the enactment of this Act, and shall apply
only to claims filed under chapter 81 of title 5, United
States Code, on or after such effective date.
______
By Mr. ROTH (for himself, Mr. Biden, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Leahy, Mr.
Moynihan, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Chafee, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Cohen, and
Mr. Lautenberg):
S. 733. A bill to amend title 23, United States Code, to permit
States to use Federal highway funds for capital improvements to, and
operating support for, intercity passenger rail service, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
intercity rail investment act
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, The legislation I am introducing today has a
very simple and important purpose: To give States the much needed
flexibility to use Federal transportation money for Amtrak passenger
rail service.
Since late last year, Amtrak has begun a much needed restructuring.
This restructuring has required substantial participation by State
governments in determining which rail lines will stay in service. While
States currently have wide authority in allocating Federal
transportation dollars--whether it be on pedestrian walkways, bikeways,
buses, light rail, highway and other intermodal and commuter based
transit needs--a damaging double standard exists which by law prevents
them from utilizing these funds to improve, expand or simply maintain
vital Amtrak service if they so choose.
My legislation would eliminate this double standard and allow States
to utilize their Federal transportation dollars for Amtrak passenger
rail service.
There are a number of realistic, sensible ways this flexibility can
be achieved.
One option is to allow States to use funds available in the
Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Program [CMAQ] for passenger rail
service. This program, created in the Intermodal Surface Transportation
and Efficiency Act, provides an incentive to focus on transportation
alternatives which reduce traffic congestion, improve air quality and
lower fuel consumption. Amtrak passenger rail service clearly meets
these criteria, potentially better than any other transportation
alternative currently available. My bill would allow States to use CMAQ
funds for passenger rail service if they so choose.
More rural regions, that are less congested, receive proportionately
less CMAQ funds, but also receive additional funds through the Rural
Public Transportation Program, known as section 18. These funds can be
used for capital costs, and would be particularly appropriate for those
more rural areas that depend on passenger rail service. In addition,
funds in excess of the annual State allocation can be transferred into
this category, so expenditures on passenger rail would not detract from
other services being funded through section 18. These services include
intercity bus service. My bill would ensure that States--if they choose
to do so--could use section 18 funds for Amtrak passenger rail service.
Another important way to achieve flexibility is to designate
appropriate Amtrak routes as part of the National Highway System,
eligible for National Highway System funding. Many of Amtrak's rail
corridors meet the definition of an arterial route serving major
national population centers, popular travel destinations and key
intermodal transportation facilities and hubs. However, current law
prevents States from using their Federal transportation allocation for
Amtrak. My legislation would amend the National Highway System map to
include the Northeast rail corridor and other high speed routes--giving
States the flexibility to use National Highway System funds for Amtrak
passenger rail service if they so choose.
Passenger rail plays a critical role in this country's transportation
infrastructure. But current law does not take this into account. Most
projects that are in the same corridor as, or in proximity to, a
National Highway System segment, or that will improve the level of
service on an National Highway System segment, are eligible for
National Highway System funding. However, passenger rail, which is
often in the same corridor as an National Highway System segment, is
not eligible to receive National Highway System funding. My legislation
would eliminate this contradiction and give States the flexibility they
need to use National Highway System funds wisely and productively to
encourage passenger rail service.
Congress has recognized the need for States to have flexibility with
Federal subsidies in important local transportation decisions. I
believe it is time that that recognition be extended to allowing States
to go with something that works. This proposal is an optimal mix of
alternatives that will support long distance, intercity commuter rail
service and the benefits that we know it accrues. Amtrak is safe, fuel
efficient, speedy and the best transportation alternative for millions
of Americans. It is time for the Federal Government to remove the
barriers in place that prevent States from deploying resources in their
best interest and allowing Amtrak to reach its potential.
Mr. President, this legislation calls for no new spending. It does
not change Federal transportation allocation formulas, nor does it
mandate States to spend their Federal transportation dollars on
passenger rail service. As I have said, it simply gives States the
ability to spend Federal transportation money as they see fit and in
ways which have been repeatedly found to be good for them and good for
the country.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I would like to commend Senator Roth for
his work on this important legislation.
This Monday, May 1, residents of my State will celebrate the
introduction of a revitalized passenger rail link to Vermont. This new
service, called the Vermonter, will replace the Montrealer, which
previously ran from Washington to Montreal.
As Amtrak moved to restructure America's national passenger rail
corporation this past winter, they indicated that train service across
the country would be scaled back. The proposal called for the
elimination of the
[[Page S5838]] Montrealer, the last passenger rail service to northern
New England. In an effort to maintain rail service to our region,
Senator Leahy and I, along with the State of Vermont, held extensive
negotiations with Amtrak. The result is the Vermonter. This new train
will operate from Springfield, MA, to St. Albans, VT. This daytime
service will allow visitors from across the country to conveniently
visit our State and allow residents of northern New England to access
the national passenger rail system.
Continuation of this rail service would not have been possible
without the financial support from the State of Vermont. In fact, the
Vermont State Legislature recently agreed to provide over $700,000 to
support this service for the year. In addition, the Vermont Legislature
has included funding to study yet another passenger rail link to the
western side of Vermont. This new route would allow passengers from New
York City to reach some of Vermont's most beautiful recreation areas in
under 5 hours. I predict that many travelers will choose to take this
new train over driving or flying.
Both of these rail lines represent an opportunity to get commuters,
tourists, and travelers out of their cars. This will alleviate
congestion, reduce air pollution and reduce our reliance on imported
oil.
As noted, these rail lines also require State funding. The funding
mechanism contained in this legislation will allow States to utilize
Federal funding to maintain their rail infrastructure. Such efforts
will assist in the establishment of intercity rail travel and the
servicing of rail infrastructure for freight and other commercial rail
options.
Mr. President, this legislation will allow States to decide how they
will best use their Federal transportation dollars. I hope my
colleagues will support these efforts.
______
By Mr. REID (for himself and Mr. Bryan):
S. 734. A bill to designate the U.S. courthouse and Federal building
to be constructed at the southeastern corner of Liberty and South
Virginia Streets in Reno, NV, as the ``Bruce R. Thompson United States
Courthouse and Federal Building,'' and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Environment and Public Works.
bruce r. thompson u.s. courthouse and federal building
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I rise to offer legislation designating the
new Federal building and courthouse in Reno the ``Bruce R. Thompson
United States Courthouse and Federal Building.'' After considering the
recommendations of many first-rate candidates, I have decided to
support the naming of this new Federal building after the late Judge
Bruce Thompson.
As a member of the Nevada Bar, I take great pride in our many
distinguished members--both past and present--and believe that this
selection will enjoy widespread support throughout the State's legal
community. Judge Thompson was a honorable jurist whose years of service
on the bench contributed greatly to the betterment of the Reno
community.
One of the responsibilities I enjoy as a senior Senator is the naming
of Federal buildings. This responsibility is an honor requiring that
thoughtful deliberation be given to all of the recommendations from the
people of Nevada. Other well-qualified names recommended to me for this
building included the Laxalt family, Felice Cohn, Sarah Winnemucca, and
Alan Bible.
The Laxalt family has contributed greatly to the betterment of the
lives of many Nevadans. This family includes a distinguished former
Senator, an author, a successful attorney, and a woman who has
dedicated her life to the service of others as a Roman Catholic nun.
Felice Cohn is another prominent Nevadan whose name was recommended
by a great number of supporters. Felice Cohn was a famous woman's
suffrage activist who was admitted to the Nevada Bar in 1902 at the age
of 18.
I also received a number of letters recommending a more historic
designation honoring the truest native Nevadans, the American Indians.
These supporters promoted naming the courthouse in honor of Sarah
Winnemucca, a historic American Indian whose name all Nevadans
associate with the city of Winnemucca, NV.
Finally, I must mention the tremendous support for naming the
courthouse in honor of Senator Alan Bible. Senator Bible's dedicated
service to the State of Nevada will always be remembered and honored by
the people of Nevada.
The great number of letters and phone calls in support of these names
evidences that their significant contributions and accomplishments are
also well known and much appreciated throughout Nevada. The abundance
of well-deserving nominees made my decision that much more difficult.
In the end, however, I concluded that Judge Thompson merited this
honor. By naming the new Federal courthouse in Reno after Judge
Thompson, we honor the memory of his exemplary years of service on the
bench.
______
By Mr. HARKIN (for himself and Mr. Bond):
S. 736. A bill to amend title IV of the Social Security Act by
reforming the Aid to Families With Dependent Children Program, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
THE WELFARE TO SELF-SUFFICIENCY ACT OF 1995
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, just a short while ago, I spoke in front
of the Senate Finance Committee regarding welfare reform. I want to
take this time on the floor to outline my thoughts on welfare reform
and to announce that Senator Bond from Missouri and I are introducing a
bipartisan bill today on the issue of welfare reform.
Mr. President, Franklin Roosevelt sounded the alarm 60 years ago.
Listen to what he told Congress in 1935:
Continued dependence on relief induces a spiritual and
moral disintegration, fundamentally destructive to the
national fiber. To dole out relief in this way is to
administer a narcotic, a subtle destroyer of the human
spirit.
Well, the current welfare system stands as a monument to all that
Roosevelt warned against. Mr. President, today, Senator Bond and I are
introducing a bipartisan plan to cut off that narcotic of dependence
and inject a good strong dose of common sense into the welfare system.
It is a responsible, flexible, bipartisan plan that transforms the
system from the ground up, moving families off the dead end of welfare
and on the road to self-sufficiency.
These days, there are a lot of different approaches to reforming
welfare. But there is also a lot of common ground. We all agree that
the system is broken. It punishes work, rewards dependence, cripples
opportunity and wastes tax dollars.
We all agree that there should be a change. We have heard it on the
floor and in the other body. We have heard it from the administration,
and we have certainly heard it from our constituents.
But what have we seen? Well, we have seen plans with a lot of tough
talk but no real action. We have seen too much partisanship and not
enough results. When you get down to the bottom line, what is the
ultimate goal in welfare reform? Well, it is simple: To help families
achieve self-sufficiency.
I choose my words carefully. I did not say that the goal in welfare
reform is helping families move into a job after 2 years. I did not say
that the goal of welfare reform was creating Government dead-end, make-
work jobs for welfare recipients. I said self-sufficiency, a path to
real independence; not simply getting families off of welfare, but
keeping them off permanently.
That is the goal. So with any reform plan, let us ask the questions:
What does it do to help families achieve self-sufficiency? What about
responsibility? What about results?
Let us put the House plan to the test. Now they called it the
Personal Responsibility Act. But it is just the opposite; it is totally
irresponsible. I will give the plan credit for one thing--it reforms
welfare all right; it reforms it from bad to worse.
Well, we do not want to trade one large failed dependency-inducing
system for 50 varieties of the same thing.
We also hear a lot about flexibility. But under the House plan,
States must cut off benefits for unwed teens. States must cut off
benefits after 5 years. States must impose a family cap. And the list
goes on.
[[Page S5839]] So the House says they want to give the States
flexibility but they take that flexibility right away. So that is not
flexibility, it is more micromangement from the Federal Government that
we have seen from the House of Representatives. It is not change, it is
more of the same.
There are other plans. The administration has one, and others are
floating around. There are some good ideas but, in the end, they all
fail the test of achieving the basic goal: self-sufficiency and
independence.
Some say we should stick a 2-year straitjacket on families on
welfare. Two years maximum and you are out. One size fits all. But how
responsible is an inflexible time limit? I have said, Mr. President, if
you have a 2-year maximum, it will become a 2-year minimum. People will
be on it for 2 years, and most people do not need to be on welfare for
2 years. Where are the real incentives for families to escape the
welfare trap?
The fact is, as I said, many families do not need it for 2 years.
With a hand up, they can start climbing the ladder or ramp of
opportunity and move into the job market a lot sooner than that.
The legislation that Senator Bond and I are introducing today passes
the test for true welfare reform. It is tough but realistic. It puts
people on the path to self-sufficiency on day one, not after year two.
The centerpiece of our plan is the Family Investment Agreement, which
requires all families on welfare to enter into an individualized
contract with the State in order to receive welfare benefits.
Under our plan, each family would sit down with a case manager and
chart a course to self-sufficiency.
How can we help you get back on your feet? Do you have a high school
degree? What are your skills? Do you have a disability? Do you need
training? Do you need child care? Do you need transportation?
The plan is put on paper. The recipient signs her or his name on the
dotted line, and the State signs on the dotted line, and they put that
contract to work. The contract spells out not how someone may stay on
welfare but how they must get off.
It is based on a simple notion: We, as a society, are willing to help
you, but only if you are willing to help yourself.
We can give a person a boost through education, through health care,
through child care, or transportation, but the person must use it to
lift himself up the ladder of opportunity and become self-sufficient.
If a welfare recipient says, ``I am sick of school. I do not want
training. Just give me my check, and you keep the contract,'' what
happens then? Simple: Their benefits will be cut and ultimately
terminated.
Our plan also rewards work. Instead of keeping incentives for people
to stay on welfare, our bill helps people work their way out. If a
welfare recipient is working, we will let them keep more of what they
earn. If they are investing in themselves--saving to start a business,
buy a first home, or pay for education--the Government will no longer
hold that against them. Their assets will no longer be a liability.
This plan is about responsibility--for people and for States. The
State has a responsibility to help families in need by providing the
tools to achieve independence. Families have a responsibility to use
those tools to build a path to self-sufficiency.
Our plan is also about real flexibility for people and for States.
Instead of taking a cookie-cutter approach, each family investment
agreement is tailored to a family's unique needs. And individualized
time limits based on those circumstances are then set.
In some cases, benefits will be needed for 6 months. Others may
require more time; others less. But we recognize one size does not fit
all, whether they are individuals or whether they are States.
We also recognize that the States need more flexibility. What works
in Brooklyn, IA, may not work in Brooklyn, NY. Instead of dictating how
States must run every aspect of their programs, our plan cuts Federal
red-tape and leaves States with the option of choosing policies best
for them. We also block grant the funds States use to administer
welfare programs.
So our plan is flexible for people on welfare. It is flexible for
States, but it is inflexible when it comes to the bottom line--we
demand results.
When fully implemented, our plan would require 90 percent of
recipients to sign agreements and find work.
We also know that a critical part of welfare reform is to crack down
on deadbeat parents who fail to pay child support. At least $5 billion
in court-ordered child support goes uncollected every year. There is
over $560 million in delinquent child support owed to Iowa children.
Our bill turns the collection of some past due child support over to
the IRS--most of these cases involve parents who have crossed State
lines. And we provide States with several options for improving
paternity establishment, requiring community services, revoking
licenses, and publishing the names of deadbeat parents.
So deadbeat parents may try to run, but under our plan, they cannot
hide.
Our bill puts States in the driver's seat by giving them the option
of requiring minor parents to live with their parents or another
responsible adult. Our plan also increases funding for the title X
family planning program by $100 million to improve education services.
So our bill is a pragmatic, commonsense bill. It demands
responsibility from day one, expands State flexibility, improves child
support collection, and addresses the increase in illegitimate births.
One more thing, Mr. President. This plan works. How can I be so sure?
Because it is working right now in my home State of Iowa. If people
have not heard about it, do not feel bad. Not many people have.
I call the Iowa welfare reform plan the Rodney Dangerfield of welfare
reform. It does not get any respect, or at least not enough attention.
Mr. President, several years ago, the State of Iowa embarked upon
experimentations on how to best deliver welfare and get people off of
welfare. Based upon those experiments, a year and a half ago, Iowa
passed a welfare reform bill.
I might point out, Mr. President, that that bill passed the Iowa
Legislature with the support of conservative Republicans and liberal
Democrats. It was signed--in fact, it only got one dissenting vote--
into law by a conservative Republican Governor, Governor Branstad.
What has happened in Iowa since we have put our welfare reform to
work? The number of welfare recipients holding jobs has grown by 80
percent. These charts will show that. These are the number of families
on welfare who are working. When we started, we had about 6,500, and it
has now gone up to 12,000--almost double. We now have the distinction,
Mr. President, of having a higher percentage of people on welfare
working in Iowa than in any State in the Nation. We are proud of that.
So the plan is working. It is getting people to work.
Second, look what has happened to our case load. Now, initially, we
knew the case load would go up because we allowed people to work to
keep more of their earnings, and people were able to get on, and then
the case load started coming down dramatically in the State of Iowa as
people became self-sufficient and got off of welfare.
Here is the real icing on the cake. That is the total expenditures on
our AFDC grants in Iowa. The yellow line is just for fiscal year 1994;
the blue line is fiscal year 1992; the green line is fiscal year 1993;
the red line is fiscal year 1995.
We can see since last October what has been happening to the cost in
our program. It has dropped precipitously in the State of Iowa. In
fact, the average recipient payment has gone from $373 a month to $343
a month.
Therefore, what we have done is we have more people working, we are
reducing the case load by getting people off of welfare earlier, and we
are reducing the cost. What more could anyone want in a welfare reform
program?
It is tough. Sure, it is tough. In fact, Iowa is, I believe, now the
only State that has actually cut welfare benefits to people who refused
to sign these contracts or who violate their contracts. We have
actually stopped cash payments. Other States talk tough, but Iowa has
done it. We had the carrot and we have had the stick, and it is working
in the State of Iowa. Therefore, Mr. President, we know the right way
to go.
[[Page S5840]] Iowa and Missouri have worked together for meaningful
welfare reform. I urge my colleagues to examine the Harkin-Bond plan
and join us in this commonsense, bipartisan approach to reaching common
ground on welfare reform.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a summary of the
legislation appear in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
S. 736, Welfare to Self-Sufficiency Act of 1995--A Bipartisan Approach
to Welfare Reform
The Welfare to Self-Sufficiency Act of 1995 is a common-
sense, bipartisan plan that transforms welfare. It changes
today's failed dependency-inducing system to one that demands
responsibility from day one on the part of welfare recipients
and provides them the helping hand they need to get off
welfare and become self-sufficient. Unlike other reform plans
it does not apply a one-size fits-all two year time limit,
but sets individualized time limits (most of which should be
well under two years) based on the particular circumstances
of each family. It makes work more financially attractive
than welfare by expanding work incentives. This plan also
emphasizes moving recipients into private sector jobs, not
government jobs created solely for placement purposes.
The legislation also provides much greater flexibility to
the states so they can design welfare programs to fit their
unique characteristics. It eliminates federal bureaucracy and
red tape by consolidating the administrative costs of major
welfare programs into a block grant, while maintaining
uniform federal eligibility criteria for benefits.
In addition, the Welfare to Self-Sufficiency Act combats
the unacceptable rise in teenage pregnancy by demanding
responsibility from teens and providing them positive
incentives, but without measures that primarily punish
children who bear no responsibility for the conditions
surrounding their birth. It also fundamentally overhauls our
failed child support enforcement system, cracking down on
deadbeat parents that escape their responsibilities by moving
across state lines and failing to fulfill their obligations
to their children.
The bill is paid for by reforming and ending the rapid
growth in federal payments to states for the administration
of welfare programs, requiring sponsors of immigrants to take
greater financial responsibility for ensuring that immigrants
don't fall onto welfare rolls and through other savings
achieved in related welfare programs.
title i--family investment agreement
The centerpiece of the legislation is the Family Investment
Program which requires AFDC families to negotiate and sign
individualized Family Investment Agreements in order to
receive benefits. This agreement is a contract between the
state and family which outlines the steps each individual
family must take to become self-sufficient and move off of
welfare. The contract would outline activities such as job
training, education, job search and work that family would
have to participate in. States would have to provide
necessary services, including child care, to keep their end
of the contract. Unlike other proposals which set a one-size-
fits-all two year time limit, this plan provides for time
limits that will vary from family to family based on the
unique circumstances of each family. In Iowa, where this plan
has been put into effect, most contracts contain time limits
shorter than two years.
Families who refuse to negotiate and sign a contract or
fail at any time during the contract to meet the obligations
outlined in the individual agreement would enter a limited
benefit plan that leads to the termination of welfare
benefits. Under the limited plan, families would continue to
receive full benefits for three months, for the next three
months benefits would be reduced to the children's portion of
their benefits and benefits would be completely cut off at
the end of this six month period. These families would be
ineligible for AFDC benefits for six additional months.
title ii--increasing work and self-sufficiency
This bill promotes work in private sector jobs that are
needed to enable a family to become self-sufficient. States
would be given the option of providing the following
incentives that will encourage families to work and save:
The disregard for work expenses could be increased from $90
a month to 20% of gross earnings.
Under current law, an individual has a 12 month work
transition period. During the first 4 months, $30 per month
plus 1/3 of gross earnings are disregarded. For the following
8 months $30 is disregarded. The bill permits states to
disregard 50% of gross earnings until a family has reached
self-sufficiency.
The resource limitation for families applying for AFDC
could be increased from $1000 to $2000. To encourage saving
by AFDC families, the resource limitation for recipients
already on public assistance could be increased from $1000 to
$5000. In order to assure more reliable transportation to and
from work, recipients could be allowed to own a car worth
$3,000, rather than the current limit of $1,500.
Families are also encouraged to save and plan for long-term
expenses such as starting a small business, buying a first
home or for job training or education programs. AFDC families
could be allowed to save up to $10,000 for these purposes.
Training programs for small business development are also
included.
At state option, earnings of teen-age members of the
household would no longer be counted in determining a
family's eligibility for AFDC.
In order to promote private sector job opportunities for
welfare recipients, states would also be given the option to
implement wage supplementation programs in which employers
could add to value of AFDC and food stamp benefits to the
wages earned by AFDC eligible workers.
title iii--improving state flexibility
To help states implement education and training programs
for welfare recipients, the federal contribution for the JOBS
program is increased. This enhanced match is provided for
funds that a state spends over their 1995 level.
States need more flexibility to design welfare programs
that meet the individual characteristics of each state. The
waiver authorization of the 1988 Family Support Act was a
good start. However, too often the waiver process has been
cumbersome and time-consuming.
To provide states with added flexibility, the bill
authorizes several policy options which will not require
federal waivers. The bill provides these additional state
options:
Provides for the equivalent treatment of stepparent and
parent income; and
To make children healthier, requiring AFDC parents to have
their children receive appropriate preventive health care,
including timely immunization.
In addition, considerable federal red tape would be cut by
block granting the administrative costs associated with AFDC,
Food Stamps and Medicaid. Payments to states would be frozen
at the 1995 level. The HHS Inspector General has reported
that such an approach would save approximately $8 billion
over 5 years.
title iv--combatting teenage pregnancy
The rapid increase in out-of-wedlock births to young women
must be addressed in a logical manner. We must educate
teenagers about the problems of becoming parents at an early
age, stabilize young families, and require teen age parents
to finish high school. The bill attacks teen pregnancy on a
number of fronts.
Continues the state option requiring minor parents to live
with their parents or another responsible adult.
Provides a state option that requires teenage parents to
stay in school.
Autorizes an additional $100 million for Title X Family
Planning Grants targeted at combating teen pregnancy.
title v--improving child support collection
Many families are forced onto the welfare rolls when an
absent parent refuses to meet child support obligations. Only
one-third of court ordered child support is paid today. This
bill strengthens child support enforcement by referring
collection of certain delinquent child support orders to the
Internal Revenue Service. Cases in which less than 50% of
ordered child support was collected by the state within a
year (mostly involving out of state parents) would be
referred to the IRS for collection. The IRS would be able to
garnish wages of the deadbeat parents to recover ordered
payments.
To encourage additional improvements in the collection of
child support, the bill provides several new state options.
States may revoke the drivers, professional and
occupational licenses of delinquent parents.
States may release the names of delinquent parents to the
news media for publication.
Provides several new options to improve the process for
establishment of paternity.
title vi--financing
The Welfare to Self Sufficiency Act would be paid for
through savings achieved in three major areas:
Welfare payments to immigrants would be reduced by
requiring the sponsors of these individuals to take greater
responsibility for assuring that they don't become dependent
on Federal assistance. The income of sponsors would be
counted as available to the immigrant for purposes of
determining eligibility for Food Stamps, SSI, AFDC and
Medicaid until the immigrant becomes a U.S. citizen.
Exceptions are made for non-citizens who are American
veterans and those who have paid taxes for five or more
years.
Payments to states for the administration of the AFDC, Food
Stamps and Medicaid program would be block granted and frozen
at 1995 levels.
Payments from the AFDC Emergency Assistance program would
be capped. This program has experienced rapid growth and has
been used for purposes beyond that originally intended.
(At the request of Mr. Dole, the following statement was ordered to
be printed in the Record.)
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I am pleased to be an original
cosponsor of the welfare bill my friend from Iowa has just introduced.
Our proposal represents a fundamental change in the
[[Page S5841]] way we would approach public assistance.
Since the creation of aid to families with dependent children, public
aid has been regarded as an entitlement. If you meet the requirements
for eligibility, you receive the cash, with no strings attached.
The current system has been rightly maligned by persons from all
walks of life, including researchers, advocates, pastors, politicians,
and even the recipients. The system is impersonal, inefficient and
encourages continued dependency. Recipients can continue to receive
cash month after month after month without having to think about their
futures, and without being given any help in thinking what they might
do to become self-sufficient.
Our proposal changes that way of thinking and requires something from
the recipients in return for benefits. By the year 2003, 90 percent of
recipients would be required to sign a binding contract with the State.
The contract would outline the specific steps that each recipient will
take to move off of welfare and into self-sufficiency. The contract
states clearly when benefits will end. If a recipient fails to live up
to the terms of the agreement at any time, benefits will be reduced and
ultimately terminated.
I believe a large reason for the malaise and stagnation in today's
welfare programs is that we have not required anything in return for
benefits. This one way street, this lack of reciprocity, has bred an
ethic of dependence rather than a work ethic. The only way we can turn
this around is to require something in return for the generosity of the
American taxpayer. Most Americans believe our Government has a
responsibility to help families in need, but also believe that
individuals have a responsibility to help themselves. This plan will
help people who want to help themselves to create a better life.
The contractual arrangement between recipients and the State--
representing the taxpayer donors--is the only requirement we would
impose on the States. I believe it is fundamental to ensuring that we
move people from welfare into productive private sector work. The
House-passed bill requires States to implement a number of ideas that
make good sense, but this notion of a contract is not among them. I am
concerned that if we do not require that recipients of public
assistance work, or behave responsibly, or take steps to wean
themselves from public assistance in every case, then our efforts at
reform will result in more of the same. The principle that Senator
Harkin and I have agreed on that should govern welfare reform efforts
at every level is this: Public assistance is a two-way street. If you
want to receive benefits, you must work and behave responsibly in
return.
That said, we have also learned that our Nation's Governors are far
ahead of Washington in generating reform ideas and in implementing
them. Currently States must undertake a lengthy and cumbersome waiver
process in order to obtain permission to implement common sense
reforms. States that want to require welfare recipients to obtain
preventive health care for their children, or to ensure that their
children stay in school, or wish to allow recipients to keep more of
their earnings from a part-time job--good ideas all--must now obtain a
waiver from HHS. This is costly, time-consuming, and silly. Our bill
permits States to implement any one, a combination of, or all of a
variety of options to reform welfare without permission from the feds.
The current system penalizes work and saving by placing severe
restrictions on outside income and on assets. Our plan permits States,
at their discretion, to increase the earnings limits and amounts
families can save prior to losing benefits. We also permit States to
disregard the income of a teenage worker in the family. The current
system encourages a high rate of teenage unemployment among AFDC
households. The last thing stressed, low-income neighborhoods need is
more unemployed teenagers.
One of the major problems low-income families face today is cycling
on and off welfare. Mothers who leave welfare must often return within
a matter of months, because their child-care arrangements have fallen
through or because they simply cannot make their bills. Our bill would
extend transitional child care benefits from 1 year to 2. We permit
States to allow families to keep more outside income before losing
benefits, and to save more prior to leaving welfare so that the
transition from welfare to work runs more smoothly.
We provide a menu of welfare reform options, but leave it up to the
States to decide which combination will best suit their needs. I hope
the version that is eventually passed by the Senate will expand State
flexibility, not restrict it further. We recognize that our plan is not
the be all and end all of welfare reform. I will be open to other
options that expand State flexibility and innovation. But I believe
this bill contains many good ideas which are not being widely discussed
and hope to draw the attention of my colleagues to those ideas.
I commend the efforts of my friend from Iowa and urge other Senators
to review our bipartisan effort as we begin debating this contentious
issue.
______
By Mr. DOLE (for himself, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Nickles, Mr. Thurmond,
Mr. Simpson, Mr. Brown, Mr. Kyl, and Mr. Gramm):
S. 735. A bill to prevent and punish acts of terrorism, and for other
purposes; read the first time.
antiterrorism legislation
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, America will not be intimidated by the
madmen who masterminded last week's vicious and cowardly bomb attack in
Oklahoma City.
America will not be paralyzed into inaction by those who have
committed this evil deed.
And, yes, justice will be rendered. The guilty will be punished. And
America--slowly, but with determination--will begin to heal herself.
Our job today is not to dwell on the past, but to look to the
future--to lay the foundation for a comprehensive antiterrorism plan
for America. We must take every reasonable step, every responsible
action, to reduce the chances that other, similar tragedies will occur
elsewhere in the United States.
That is why I am pleased today to join with the chairman of the
Judiciary Committee, Senator Hatch, and with my distinguished colleague
from Oklahoma, Senator Nickles, in introducing the
Comprehensive Terrorism Prevention Act of 1995.
Many of the provisions of this act were contained in S. 3, the
anticrime bill introduced by Senate Republicans last January: Increased
penalties for those who conspire to commit firearms and explosives
offenses; expanded extradition authority for the attorney general; the
Alien Terrorist Removal Act, designed to deport alien terrorists in a
prompt manner without disclosing vital national security information;
and increased funding for Federal law enforcement, including the FBI.
Today's legislation also contains comprehensive habeas corpus reform,
which is something the Senator from Utah, the chairman of the
committee, has long sought, which should go a long way in preventing
violent criminals from gaming the system--with more delays, more
unnecessary appeals, and more grief for the victims of crime and their
families.
In fact, the President said justice is going to be swift. I am not
certain how swift it is going to be if they can appeal and appeal and
appeal in the event they are apprehended, tried and convicted--
continued appeals for 7, 8, 10, 15 years in some cases.
During a recent television interview, the President did say we needed
strong, comprehensive habeas reform so that those who committed this
evil deed will get what they deserve--punishment that is swift,
certain, and severe. This legislation will help accomplish this goal.
With respect to international efforts to counter terrorism, the
legislation expands efforts to isolate the worst of the rogue regimes:
State sponsors of terrorism. It would make it easier to support
international antiterrorism efforts. We need to send a strong signal to
our allies and our adversaries--if you are with us in fighting the
scourge of terrorism, we will try to help--but if you are aiding
terrorists and terrorist states, it is no more business as usual.
Finally, this legislation contains many of the reforms sought by
President Clinton himself--prohibitions on
[[Page S5842]] fundraising for foreign terrorist organizations; the
tagging of plastic explosives to make them more detectable; and
amendments to the Fair Credit Reporting Act to ease access to financial
and credit reports in terrorism cases.
The bottom line is that fighting terrorism is not, and should not be,
a
partisan issue. America must stand together--Democrats and
Republicans, liberals and conservatives--to confront the terrorist
threat wherever it may exist.
And, of course, I look forward to working with President Clinton and
with my distinguished colleague, Senator Daschle, in refining this
proposal, and perhaps considering other worthy proposals, to strengthen
America's antiterrorism hand. Today's legislation is not the end but
the beginning of the process that hopefully will lead to a strong
antiterrorism action plan for our country.
And I have been reminded today that we want to look back at the
legislation we pass a year from now or 2 years from now and know that
it is just as good then as it may appear to be now. In other words, we
should not be carried away because of the emotion of the moment. And I
know that under the leadership of the distinguished chairman of the
Judiciary Committee that will not happen.
But, Mr. President, as we move forward with legislation, let me add a
cautionary note: No legislation can make America completely safe. In a
free society, there is no such thing as absolute security. We must work
to make our country safer from the terrorist threat, but there are no
guarantees that every terrorist, every madman, can be stopped. The
American people deserve the straight story, and the straight story is
that America is not an impregnable fortress.
Let me also say that there has been a great deal of speculation about
the so-called Attorney General guidelines. These guidelines are the
internal Justice Department policies that govern if, and when, the FBI
can monitor and infiltrate domestic organizations suspected of being
engaged in terrorist activities. Some say the guidelines are too
restrictive and, in fact, hamstring the FBI. Others argue that the
guidelines go too far.
This is a complex issue, and one made more complex and more urgent by
the fact that our constitutional liberties are at stake. Before rushing
to judgment, we should get all the facts out on the table: Have the
guidelines been effective? Do they provide adequate authority to the
FBI to monitor the activities of domestic terrorist organizations? Have
there been any instances when an FBI agent sought authority to initiate
an investigation and this authority was denied? And if so, why?
In my view, we should hear from the law enforcement professionals
themselves first before drawing any conclusions. And that is why this
legislation asks the Director of the FBI to provide Congress with a
detailed report on the adequacy of the guidelines and any other laws
regulating the surveillance of suspected terrorist groups operating
within the United States. In other words, let us get the facts first
and then let us make decisions later. Let us not rush to judgment
without all the facts.
Let me say that in this bill--and the Senator from Utah may discuss
it also--we left out the provision as far as expanding the authority of
the military. That was in the President's request. We have not seen the
draft language. But I think that is another area where we want to be
very, very careful, before we start bringing the military into law
enforcement areas. And I believe my colleague from Utah agrees.
It is reported in the paper this morning ``to allow the military to
participate in domestic law enforcement.'' That may sound good on the
face of it, but I think there are a lot of pitfalls there and a lot of
dangers. We better be certain we look at this before we do anything by
statute. So hopefully that will be a subject of extensive hearings in
the Judiciary Committee.
Finally, I join all of my Senate colleagues in extending our thoughts
and prayers to the good people of Oklahoma City. The self-sacrifice and
heroism they have displayed in the past week has been an inspiration to
us all. They have been doing their duty. It is now our obligation to
lay the groundwork for an America that is more secure for all of her
citizens.
As I understand, Mr. President, the Senator from Utah will now speak
on this issue.
Mr. HATCH. I wish to congratulate the distinguished majority leader
for excellent leadership in this area among so many others. Without his
leadership and without his prime sponsorship of this bill, I do not
think we would be nearly as far along as we are.
We were both down at the White House yesterday with the President,
and we both committed to working with the President to making sure that
this bill is everything the President would like to have. In addition,
we have added some things that we think will strengthen the bill in
many ways including the habeas corpus provision.
Mr. President, I rise today to introduce, along with the
distinguished majority leader, the Comprehensive Terrorism Prevention
Act of 1995. The Nation continues to mourn the tragic loss of life
suffered last week in Oklahoma City.
I want to commend all the men and women who have been involved in the
rescue effort. Their courage and devotion to duty stands in stark
contrast to this cowardly act of terrorism.
I also salute the swift and efficient work of the Federal, State, and
local law enforcement officials who are working tirelessly to solve
this crime. We must not rest until all the perpetrators are discovered
and punished.
President Clinton was right when he called the people who committed
this act ``evil cowards.'' According to the twisted set of values of
these individuals, they will push their agenda even when it means
killing a 6-month-old infant--or nearly killing a 3-year-old boy like
Brandon Denny, whose brother held his hand and wished him well after
brain surgery last Thursday. There is no room in a free society for
individuals who attempt instead to effect change through violence and
who are willing to murder innocent people to make a political
statement.
For years, I have been fighting for legislation to strengthen our
counterterrorism efforts. Last week's heinous attack only underscores
the need to give Federal law enforcement officials the tools to prevent
and detect future terrorist attempts. Legislation is needed--and needed
now. If those responsible for this act thought they could intimidate
the United States, they were dead wrong.
Today, we are introducing the Comprehensive Terrorism Prevention Act
of 1995. Our legislation adds several crucial provisions to our
Nation's antiterrorism laws, and embodies much of the legislative
recommendations called for by President Clinton.
First, our bill enhances the penalties for engaging in certain
terrorist acts, and extends the crime of conspiracy to certain
terrorist crimes, something that has not been done before,
and will make it easier for law enforcement to find these terrorists,
ferret them out, and get them sent to court.
Second, our bill will give the President greater tools to fight
terrorism on an international level, as well as the domestic level. It
provides foreign aid to countries that either aid or provide military
equipment to terrorist states, eases the restrictions on the provision
of antiterroism assistance to foreign nations, and prohibits the
transfer to terrorist states of technology or products which the
Secretary of State determines can be used to promote or conduct
terrorism.
Third, our bill will give our law enforcement officials and courts
the tools they need to remove alien terrorists from our midst without
jeopardizing national security or the lives of law enforcement
personnel. It allows for a special deportation hearing and in camera,
ex parte review by a secret panel of Federal judges when the disclosure
in open court of Government evidence would pose a threat to national
security.
Fourth, it reforms our habeas corpus laws so that we can be sure that
President Clinton's promise that punishment be swift is kept.
Fifth, our bill includes provisions making it a crime to knowingly
provide material support to the terrorist functions of groups
designated by a Presidential finding to be engaged in terrorist
activities.
I am sensitive to the concerns, as is the majority leader, of some
that this
[[Page S5843]] provision impinges on freedoms protected by the first
amendment. And, the first amendment has no greater champion than the
distinguished majority leader and certainly myself. I have worked to
ensue that this provision will not violate the Constitution or place
inappropriate restrictions on cherished first amendment freedoms.
Nothing in this provision prohibits the free exercise of religion or
speech, or impinges on the freedom of association. Moreover, nothing in
the Constitution provides the right to engage in violence against
fellow citizens. Aiding and financing terrorist bombings is not
constitutionally protected
activity. Additionally, I have to believe that honest donors to any
organization would want to know if their contributions were being used
for such scurrilous purposes.
Our bill provides for numerous other needed improvements in the law
to fight the scourge of terrorism, including the authorization of in
additional appropriations--nearly $1.6 billion--to Federal law
enforcement to beef up counterterrorism efforts and increasing the
maximum rewards permitted for information concerning international
terrorism.
I would note that many of the provisions in this bill enjoy broad,
bipartisan support and, in several cases, have passed the Senate on
previous occasions. Indeed, many of the provisions in this bill have
the active support of the Clinton administration. And I believe, as the
President reads this bill, he will support the whole bill.
The people of the United States and around the world must know that
this is an issue that transcends politics and political parties. Our
resolve in this matter must be clear: our response to the terrorist
threat, and to acts of terrorism, will be certain, swift, and unified.
Mr. President, ours is a free society. Our liberties, the openness of
our institutions, and our freedom of movement are what make America a
Nation we are willing to defend. These freedoms are cherished by
virtually every American.
But this freedom is not without its costs. Because we are so open, we
are vulnerable to those who would take advantage of our liberty to
inflict terror on us. The horrific events of last week in Oklahoma City
tragically demonstrate the price we pay for our liberty. Indeed, anyone
who would do such an act, and call it a defense of liberty, mocks that
word.
We must now redouble our efforts to combat terrorism and to protect
our citizens. A worthy first step in the enactment of these sound
provisions to provide law enforcement with the tools to fight
terrorism.
Again, I thank our majority leader. Without him, we would not be this
far along. Without him, this bill would not be nearly as good. Without
his leadership, it probably would have grave difficulties. But with his
leadership and with the work that he and his staff have put in, along
with staff of other members of the Judiciary Committee, we have a bill
that we believe is sound. We believe it is efficient. We believe it is
fair. We believe it takes care of constitutional rights and liberties.
And we believe that it will solve the problem in the future and give
law enforcement the tools and the teeth in order to take the big bite
of out of terrorism worldwide, but especially in our country that needs
to be taken.
I urge all of our colleagues to support this legislation and again I
thank our distinguished majority leader.
