Tom Daschle

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I want to thank the chairman and the ranking member of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Foreign Operations for their clarification and assurances.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I would like to engage the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Senator McConnell, and the distinguished ranking member of the subcommittee, Senator Leahy, in a colloquy on microenterprise programs and H.R. 1868, the fiscal year 1996 Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs appropriation bill.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today I introduce the Crow Creek Sioux Tribe Infrastructure Development Trust Fund Act of 1995. This bill will provide for the development of certain tribal infrastructure projects funded by a trust fund set up for the Crow Creek Tribe within the Department of the Treasury. The trust fund would be capitalized from a percentage of hydropower revenues and would be capped at $27.5 million. The tribe would then receive the interest from the fund to be used according to a development plan prepared in conjunction with the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Indian Health Service. The Flood Control Act of 1944 created five massive earthen dams on the Missouri River. This public works project known as the Pick-Sloan Plan provides flood control, irrigation, and hydropower. Four of the Pick-Sloan dams are located in South Dakota. The impact of the Pick-Sloan plan on the Crow Creek Sioux Tribe has been devastating. The Big Bend and Fort Randall dams created losses to the Crow Creek Tribe for which they have not been adequately compensated. Over 15,000 acres of the tribe's most fertile and productive land, the Missouri River wooded bottom lands, were inundated as a result of the Fort Randall and Big Bend components of the Pick- Sloan project. By and through the Big Bend Act of 1962, Congress directed the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Department of the Interior to take certain actions to alleviate the problems caused by the dislocation of communities and inundation of tribal resources. These directives were either carried out inadequately or not carried out at all. Congress established precedent for this legislation in 1992 by the passage of the Three Affiliated Tribes and Standing Rock Sioux Tribe Equitable Compensation Act which I cosponsored. At that time, Congress determined that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers failed to provide adequate compensation to the tribes when their land was acquired for the Pick-Sloan projects. There is little controversy on finding that the tribes bore an inordinate share of the cost of implementing the Pick-Sloan program. The Secretary of the Interior established the Joint Tribal Advisory Committee to resolve the inequities and find ways to finance the compensation of tribal claims. As a result, the Three Affiliated Tribes and Standing Rock Sioux Tribe Equitable Compensation Act set up a recovery fund financed entirely from a percentage of Pick- Sloan power revenues. The Crow Creek Sioux Tribe Infrastructure Development Fund Act of 1995 will enable the Crow Creek Tribe to address and improve their infrastructure and will provide the needed resources for further economic development of the Crow Creek Indian Reservation. This legislation has broad support in South Dakota. Gov. Bill Janklow strongly endorses this proposal to develop the infrastructure at the Crow Creek Indian Reservation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record and a letter from Gov. Bill Janklow.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that both the majority leader and I have each have 10 minutes remaining in the final moments of this debate.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, first let me begin by thanking Senators Mikulski, Breaux, Dodd, and Moynihan for the great effort they have put forth to bring us to this point. Were it not for their leadership and their participation, we would not be here today. I also want to thank the majority leader for his willingness to work with us and address many of the concerns that we have raised during the course of the last several months. Most of us began this debate with the realization that the current welfare system needs repair. It does not enable people to become self- sufficient. It does not contain the resources to put people to work. It is not flexible enough for many States. It sends the wrong messages to welfare recipients--that work does not pay and that welfare can become a trap. As a result, most people agree that reform--or whatever term we may want to use to address those problems--be addressed legislatively. We recognize that there is no perfect solution. There is no easy solution. As Senator Moynihan has said, in spite of our best efforts, we have not found one today. The disagreement really has been about the solution. In the view of most Democrats, the original Republican bill was extreme and misguided. It boxed up all of the current system and shipped it off to the States, saying, ``You do it.'' It was our view that that was not reform. The bill we have before us today is a better bill. The bill before us today requires that the States provide at least an 80 percent maintenance of effort, and 100 percent maintenance of effort for child care. There is a $1 billion contingency grant fund, and there are no mandates from the extreme right wing. In our view, the original bill was not about work. In fact, the Finance Committee bill did not even require work. It did not measure work. It only measured what we call participation in the welfare system. No work was required for two years, and in our view that was not reform. We have a better bill now, a bill reached in agreement over the last several days that measures real work and provides a work bonus when States exceed the goals that we lay out in this legislation. It sets out $8 billion in child care funds, dollars that can only be used for child care and nothing else. It requires 80 percent maintenance of effort from states. It deletes the job training titles that ought to be outside the realm of welfare itself, and provides for them to be addressed in other legislation later on. It establishes a personal responsibility contract very similar to the parent empowerment contract that was required in the Work First bill. It allows a work exemption for mothers with children under 1, and requires work after 3 months. Mr. President, we have made very significant improvements in many areas of the legislation that I believe warrant our support today. The original bill hurt children. It included no funds for child care. In fact, many of us originally called it the ``home alone bill'' simply because of our concern for what it meant for children whose mothers and fathers would have to go out and find jobs. It sanctioned mothers who could not find or afford child care. It allowed 30 percent of the funding under the child care development block grant to be transferred. It included no safety net for children and only a 10-percent exemption to the time limit. And that, in our view, was not reform at all. That is aiming at the mother and hitting the child. But we have a better bill now, reached in agreement over the last several days--$8 billion in child care: $5 billion as part of the block grant, and $3 billion in additional funding to address the very needs that we have talked about for the last several weeks. One hundred percent maintenance of effort is required on child care. Transfer of funds from the child care development block grant is prohibited. Mothers with children under 6 will not be sanctioned if they cannot find or afford day care. We gave States the option to allow mothers with children under 6 to work no more than 20 hours per week in lieu of the 35 hours per week that was originally required. We increased the time-limit exemption from 15 to 20 percent. We require teen mothers to stay at home or live in an adult-supervised environment, just as required in the Work First bill. We provide $150 million for second chance homes, and we do not have any mandates that deny aid to teen mothers or impose family caps. This is a better bill. The original bill was an unfunded mandate of enormous proportion. It provided no funds for child care, even though child care is the linchpin between welfare and work. Although work rates increased from 20 to 50 percent, the CBO originally projected that 44 States would have failed to meet them. There was no contingency grant fund for uncontrollable circumstances. That is not reform. That is shifting the welfare problem to the States. That is telling local taxpayers that they have to pick up the tab. But Mr. President, it is a better bill now. Through agreements reached over the last several days, we provide the $3 billion in additional child care money, and $1 billion in contingency grant funds. We passed an amendment offered by the distinguished Senator from Minnesota, Senator Wellstone, to revert the Food Stamp Program back to an entitlement if the number of hungry children increases. It is a better bill now. It is not perfect. It is not the bill I would have drafted alone. It is not the bill that would have passed 5 years ago or perhaps even last year. It does reflect, in my view, the political reality of today. It is the best bill that we are going to get under the circumstances that exist in the caucus, in the Senate, in the Congress, and in the country. I have a number of reservations about this bill. There were provisions in the Work First bill that I regret were not adopted. I regret, for example, that the bill does not have the vouchers we proposed to address the needs of children after the time limit. I regret that the bill ends the Federal-State matching responsibility for all those who qualify based on State-set criteria. I regret the bill does not exempt families from time limits based upon specific criteria like high unemployment or serious disability. I regret that there is no increased funding, beyond child care, for States to really put people to work. I regret that the contingency fund is probably underfunded and we will likely have to revisit that issue again in the future. I regret that the food stamp block grant option was not eliminated. Many food stamp recipients are working poor trying to stay off welfare; similarly, many food stamp recipients are elderly, and their problems will only be exacerbated. I remain concerned about the food stamp block grant choice. So, as other Senators have indicated, we will be watching what the conference does. We were successful in enacting more than 20 major changes in this legislation, and those changes, Mr. President, are absolutely critical to retaining our support in the future. If the conference bill is not very close to the Senate bill, I will oppose it and I will recommend the President veto that bill when it reaches his desk. The American people want a welfare system that is truly reformed. The American people want changes, not through rhetoric, but through reality. They want able-bodied adults to work. But they also want children to be protected. Children left home alone is no good for anybody. Arbitrary time limits alone will mean local taxpayers pick up the tab. We have to ensure that we maintain the broad bipartisan support that final passage in just a few moments will represent. We will be watching the conference closely. This is the beginning, Mr. President. If we can, indeed, come back from the conference with what we have accomplished in the Senate intact, then I believe it is the beginning of a series of changes over the course of the next several years that can move us to a welfare system that truly will work as we want it to. This cannot be the final word on what happens on welfare this decade. I support this legislation with reservations. I will watch closely as work continues in the conference committee. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE. The Senators from North Dakota and Florida have raised a very important issue. I believe this issue should be looked at more closely during conference. The trigger provision in the amendment is identical to the trigger for extended benefits under the unemployment program. I think it's fair to say that few of us are completely comfortable with using that trigger in this context. We clearly need more information than time currently allows before finalizing this issue.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be laid aside until later today.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, on behalf of Senators Kerrey and Kohl, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, let me make a couple of additional points on the agreement we have reached with regard to modifying the original Dole bill. A lot of people deserve recognition this afternoon for their contribution. I think on our side there are two Senators who certainly deserve special recognition for the contribution and leadership they have shown. Of course, I refer to Senators Dodd and Kennedy. First on children's issues and, second, on work. On a number of the legislative provisions relating to work and job skills, they have done a remarkable job over the years and have certainly shown, again, their leadership, and the tremendous effort they have put forth to allow us the progress that we have made this week on welfare reform. But, in particular, on child care itself, it would not have been possible were it not for their work and their effort. I applaud them and publicly want to thank them for all of the help and leadership that they have given on that issue. Let me also say we will have some time to talk about the overall agreement next week. I intend to vote for this bill. I do so with mixed feelings, frankly. I think there are many things in the bill we can cite with some satisfaction. There are many concerns that I have, as well. I hope as people take a look at the overall context of what it is we have attempted to do, that they appreciate the difficulty that we have under any circumstances to come to agreement and to actually accomplish as much as we have done here. In my view, it goes a long way to doing what we all want to do: fundamentally reform the welfare system. It does not go anywhere near as far in some areas as we would like it to, but that is the essence of compromise. I will have more to say on that on Tuesday. I appreciate the good work that everyone has put forth to get us to this point this afternoon. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. DASCHLE. The unanimous-consent agreement does include a reference to when votes will take place?

Mr. DASCHLE. If the majority leader will yield, just for the information of Senators, is it still the majority leader's intention to bring up the Agriculture appropriations bill on Monday?

Mr. DASCHLE. Let me thank the majority leader for his cooperation in bringing us to this point. Obviously, this was a matter of a great deal of discussion over the last several days, and I think it represents our best effort at attempting to reconcile a number of issues for which there is interest on both sides. Obviously, child care was the most significant. As the distinguished leader indicated, this bill provides for $3 billion over 5 years for childcare services to be provided by the States. That is in addition to the $5 billion over the next 5 years that was originally contemplated in the original Dole bill as well as the Democratic bill that we voted upon earlier. So it represents, in my view, the most significant commitment the Senate has made thus far to the realization that there is a very important investment required in child care if, indeed, we want the recipients of welfare ultimately to find work and to obtain the job skills necessary to work. In my view, as many of us have indicated, this is the linchpin to making welfare work better. Good child care means better participation, means greater success at what it is we are trying to do. So this is really the key of this amendment as well. Not only is it the key of the bill, but it was critical to finding some resolution to the issue. And as a result of a good deal of discussion and negotiation on both sides, we have now come to this point. I am very pleased that we can say with some satisfaction that we are providing States with resources that will be critical to their success in making welfare work. In addition, of course, we have had a good debate about what ought to be the level of maintenance that will be required of States over the next 5 years, what will be required of them, not just what will the Federal Government do, but what will the States do. We offered an amendment for which there was a very close vote in recognition of the need to require States to do a certain level of responsibility. We have agreed that an 80-percent real maintenance of effort is something that is prudent and something for which there ought to be strong bipartisan support. We also, as we have just indicated with this unanimous-consent agreement relating to job training, taken out those segments of the original Dole bill that would have authorized job training outside of the welfare context. Our view is that it is important for us to find ways to ensure that people who are not on welfare have good job training, people who have lost jobs who otherwise would be productive citizens may need to be skilled in new jobs. This whole section of the bill is designed to provide opportunities for that to happen. But it is not a welfare program, so we do not want to give it that welfare connotation. That is really, in essence, what this agreement does. It allows us to separate out job training and provide for the necessary legislation, as soon as we dispose of this bill and the appropriations bills, to return to job training and allow us to do that. Fourth, and just as importantly, we recognize that States on many occasions will find that the current allotment is not going to work. I am very concerned about whether the provisions in this bill will allow that to be addressed adequately. We provide $1 billion over 5 years. I recognize we are working under constraints in resources, but I am concerned that we may have to revisit this issue at some point in the future. But $1 billion is better than none at all. States have indicated they need it. This provides it. So we also, in a bipartisan way, I think, recognize that there will be emergencies, and this fund will allow us to deal with them in a meaningful way. It also provides a change in the time limits that are provided under the exemption. The original Dole bill allowed Governors a 15-percent exemption. This raises it to 20 percent. We provide $75 million per year in abstinence education and then, finally, at least $50 million over the next 4 years each year for substance abuse treatment. That was the Cohen amendment. Mr. President, this is a good compromise, a good amendment. I hope that it enjoys broad support next Tuesday when we have the opportunity to vote on it. I propose we have a little bit of time to revisit the issue, maybe 10, 15 minutes on a side prior to the point we vote on final passage and on this amendment. It is worthy of our support, and I appreciate the cooperation of Senators on both sides of the aisle who brought us to this point this afternoon. I yield the floor. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mr. DASCHLE. Yes.

Mr. DASCHLE. Yes.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, that concludes my list of amendments. I have no others to offer. Motion to Strike Amendment No. 2496

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. DASCHLE. I have an amendment at the desk that I call up.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I will be very brief. We have had a good debate about a number of issues relating to welfare. The one that I do not think we have talked enough about, and I will be brief as we talk about it this afternoon, is what happens to children under circumstances that are not of their control. I believe we have to ensure, regardless of what else we do, that children do not pay for the mistakes or circumstances of their parents. Of the 14 [[Page S 13645]] million people on AFDC, 9 million are children. They did not ask to be born into these circumstances. They cannot get their parents out of these circumstances. Most importantly, these 9 million children are part of our future. We talk a lot about State flexibility, but the pending bill does not allow States to provide any assistance to children after 5 years. What my amendment does is simply say we will not prohibit the States from providing care for children if they so desire. If ever there was an argument for State flexibility, this is it. We are simply giving States the option to assist poor children, clothe children, or help children to stay off the streets. We are not telling States they have to do it; we are simply saying we will not prevent them from doing it. You have heard a lot about making people get out of the cart and pull it. That is right. We should make people get out of the cart and pull it when they can take responsibility. Able-bodied adults should work. But children, infants, and toddlers cannot be expected to pull the cart. This really just gives States the opportunity to recognize that fact. The amendment is very simple. It provides States with flexibility. It allows States to use block grant funds to provide vouchers for goods and services for children and their needs once the time limit hits, to ensure that children are protected. I do not understand why Washington should make such a critical decision about what is best for a State when it comes to children. We have talked about flexibility. We have talked about the need to protect kids. It would seem to me that simply saying we will not prohibit the States from issuing vouchers if they choose to do so and see it as in their best interests is reasonable. I think we ought to allow them to do that. Once the time limit hits, hopefully families will be off welfare, but we do not know. Maybe yes, maybe no. Children, however, did not cause this situation. Children cannot rectify it. This amendment is pretty harmless, but the ramifications for children could be great if we do not have this State option. Nine million kids-- it is simply a matter of giving the States the flexibility. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Dole amendment be set aside in order to accommodate one final amendment. It would be my understanding I will offer this amendment and then we would have two votes, perhaps three votes stacked, at least two votes, following debate on the Daschle amendment.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. If I could just add not only that concern, but because we have made a lot of changes throughout the day, I think everybody ought to have plenty of opportunity to look at it prior to the time they are going to be casting their vote. So for both reasons, I think it would be good if we held it over until next week.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I wonder if we might suggest a quorum call for a brief period of time for us to be able to see if we can finalize some of the understandings as it relates to this agreement. I think there are some misunderstandings here that may be clarified that could accommodate this agreement, even now. I thought we had exhausted all possibilities, but maybe not. If that is the case, I think it is worth one more quorum call to see if we can resolve it.