Tom Daschle

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. I believe, if the majority leader will yield, in answer to the question, having had the chance to look at the amendments, most Senators would agree to relatively short time limits, and I do not think there is any reason why we cannot complete work on the remaining amendments tonight. So I would again encourage Senators because it is 10 minutes to 6. There is some good time left tonight for us to accommodate Senators who come to the floor. And we will see what the list looks like. I expect it is going to be a lot less than 40. A number of these amendments will fall if they get this agreement. And we will just work through whatever remaining amendments Senators wish to offer, but we cannot do that if they do not come to the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE. I am sure we can accommodate the Senator.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I concur entirely. I think we have gotten to the point now where it may just be a matter of a period of time before we can submit the agreement and have a vote. But this is valuable time we are losing, and I know a lot of Members have come to me throughout the day expressing an interest in offering their amendments. I do not want to preclude them from doing so. I think they ought to come to the floor. I have agreed that we can go at some point tonight to third reading. So we will finish this bill tonight at some point. So to accommodate Senators who still have amendments, to ensure that we maximize what time we have left, whatever time it is going to take before we go to third reading, I encourage all of our colleagues to come over if they have amendments. As the distinguished majority leader said, working with our ranking member, who has done a remarkable job--he deserves an award for sitting in the Chamber as long as he has--we are ready to go to work. We would like to finish with those amendments that are not part of this agreement, and there are many of them. So come to the floor as quickly as you can and see if we can resolve these outstanding issues.

Mr. DASCHLE. That is what we will find out.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, will the majority leader yield? Mr. President, I must confess I looked at it--with one exception that I believe our staffs have looked at--and I am a little concerned on reflection that the 40 minutes may not be an adequate period of time for people to look at the larger compromise amendment. we want to give everybody a chance to do that. It could be that less than 40 minutes may be required. If we could just delete any reference to a period of time, that would satisfy us. Second, if we could just have two amendments to be offered by the majority leader and the minority leader, I think that would take care of any concern that we have.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I will use whatever time I may consume out of leader time to respond. Mr. President, the point I made in the short remarks that I have just [[Page S 13491]] completed is that the circumstances affecting Indian tribes are vastly different than those affecting any other cross-section of the population. We have unemployment rates in South Dakota close to 90 percent. Indian tribes nationwide have unemployment rates of up to seven times what they are for the rest of the population. Not only are we dealing with an extremely high level of unemployment, there is also little infrastructure to deliver social services on many reservations. Clearly, we have circumstances on many reservations that is far different from other areas. That is really what we are trying to do, to recognize the extraordinary difficulties that we face in a very concentrated area: Reservations where there are really no resources; reservations where there is no employment. We cannot locate businesses on reservations today. We are simply saying that if we are going to do this right, if we are going to allow tribes to do this right, we should allocate a 3 percent set-aside for tribes to allow them to begin solving these problems. Other requirements of the welfare bill before the Senate are required on the reservation. They have to work. Workfare is going to be an essential part of the requirement for the tribes, as it is for everybody else. Clearly, given the problems, given the requirements, and given the circumstances, I think this is the nominal amount of effort that we ought to put forth to do this job right.

Mr. DASCHLE. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 2671

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I will take 3 minutes of my time and then yield 1 minute to the Senator from Hawaii, Mr. Inouye, and 1 minute to the Senator from New Mexico, Senator Bingaman. Mr. President, I offer this amendment in the hope that we can find some resolution to what we all understand to be a very serious problem on reservations. My amendment would simply [[Page S 13490]] change the funding mechanism in the bill to ensure that adequate funding is provided to tribes across the country. It would establish a 3 percent national set-aside, and tribal grants would be allotted from the set-aside based on a formula to be determined by the Secretary. Tribes, in both the pending legislation as well as in this amendment, would receive direct funding from the Federal Government to administer their own programs. The difference between the pending bill and our amendment is that, under the pending legislation, tribes would receive money based on the amount the State spent on them in fiscal year 1994. The State grant would be reduced by the amount of the tribal grant. Under our amendment, tribes would be allocated funds directly from the national set-aside. The funding for the tribes would be taken out of that 3 percent set-aside, even before the money is allocated to the States. So it is simply a different mechanism for ensuring that funds are allocated in an appropriate way. Why 3 percent? Mr. President, the poverty rate for Indian children on reservations is 60.3 percent--three times the national average. I know that the percentage of the AFDC population that is represented by native Americans is less than 3 percent, but the problems tribes face are far greater than that statistic would dictate. Clearly, when you have a poverty rate of 60 percent, we have to do more than what at first glance might appear to be necessary. Per capita income in the United States is $14,000. Per capita income on the reservations is $4,000. Unemployment rates range, in South Dakota, from 29 percent all the way up to 89 percent. Nationwide, unemployment on reservations is four to seven times the national average. So we face some extraordinary circumstances on the reservations, Mr. President, and there is very little infrastructure in existence to address these problems today. We need reform. We need to recognize that reform has to mean more than just resources. We need the mechanism and infrastructure to create new opportunities to provide the services that are so needed on reservations today. For all these reasons, tribes deserve the 3 percent. I hope that the amendment will be supported. I yield a minute to the distinguished Senator from New Mexico.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. DASCHLE. I yield that to the distinguished Senator from Hawaii.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Reserving the right to object, I ask the majority leader if we could add as the next amendment an amendment by Senator Dodd, which may or may not be offered? But he would like to be added to the list. Obviously, it will be subject to our ongoing negotiation. But if we could add Senator Dodd?

Mr. DASCHLE. To the list for tonight.

Mr. DASCHLE. That is right, and I do not know that Senator Dodd will even be interested in offering the amendment, but it was at his request that we add his name. I think that would satisfy the needs on our side.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I know that other Senators are waiting to offer amendments and so I will not take a long period of time, but I want to talk about two amendments on which I hope we could find some resolution prior to the time of final passage. The first has to do with the need for a State contingency fund. As I have talked to our Governors, Republican and Democratic alike, the concern they have expressed to me with unanimity is the issue of what happens when circumstances beyond their control affect their own situation within the State. Perhaps the most illustrative example of their concern occurred earlier this decade during the recession that began in the late 1980's and went into the early 1990's. During that time, the AFDC caseload grew by 1 million families. That represented, Mr. President, a 26 percent increase in the level of AFDC cases with which States had to contend. The level of monthly benefits increased by $337 million. That was a 22 percent increase. The cumulative increase in the total benefit payments was $7.1 billion during the 36-month period between 1990 and 1992. Unfortunately, under the pending legislation, the Dole bill, there is no opportunity for States to deal with circumstances like that. The Dole bill does provide a loan fund of $1.7 billion from which States can borrow to deal with contingencies of this kind. But if the level of monthly benefits rose $337 million, as it did in the early 90's, that would amount to only 5 months of benefits. In a 36 month recession like the one in the early 90's, you would have 31 months of recession for which States would have absolutely no resources at all. Unfortunately, many Members are very concerned about the consequences of a situation like that. States could be facing economic downturns, dramatically increased unemployment levels, natural disasters, plant closings--that is why there has to be a realization that States themselves cannot be required to shoulder this entire burden. We have to ensure that families in similar circumstances, regardless of where they may be, will receive some assistance. What I am offering tonight with this amendment is a couple of things. First of all, we would change the amendment from a loan to a grant. We simply recognize that in cases like this, a loan may not provide States with the help they truly need. So the grant, something I understand Governors on both sides of the aisle feel they need, is much more prudent and much more practical in responding to the circumstances we know will be faced by States at some point in the future. The difference between this amendment and what is currently found in the Dole bill is that in our amendment, we recognize that States cannot be held 100 percent accountable for circumstances beyond their control, not only circumstances like natural disasters but the circumstances that come once they borrow the money. What happens if States are unable to repay a loan within the 3-year- period of time? Certainly in many recessions circumstances would not allow a State with very limited resources--that would be especially true in a State like South Dakota, where resources are not available-- to repay the loan with interest in the period of time required. So this recognizes, Mr. President, that there has to be a partnership. We recognize that because of recessions, huge natural disasters, or other unanticipated circumstances, no matter what level of funding we provide to States for welfare in the future, there are going to be times when that level of funding simply is not going to be enough to cope with the extraordinary circumstances that these States may have to deal with. We require that States maintain at least a minimal effort--the level they spent in 1994--if they are going to be eligible for the contingency fund. In other words, they have to make a good-faith effort to deal with their own set of circumstances. So, in essence, this is simply attempting to deal with the problem in a much more meaningful way. We recognize the need for a partnership. We recognize the responsibility of the Federal Government and States to work together to ensure that we do not exacerbate the problem when we get into an unforeseen situation of some kind. We recognize that, in many cases, smaller States in particular simply are not going to have the means by which to borrow the money and pay it back with interest in a very short timeframe. So this assists States in a much more meaningful way. I hope our colleagues recognize the need and recognize that, as Governors and State legislators have talked to us about their biggest concern regarding the transition that we will be undertaking as a result of the passage of this legislation, should it pass--the biggest concern they have is how they are going to cope with unforeseen circumstances, and how they are going to deal with all of the financial and economic ramifications of this plan when, in cases of dire need such as a recession, they do not have the resources or the ability to deal with them. So, this is a realistic approach to trying to deal with the problem in a better way, and I hope our colleagues see fit to support it tomorrow. I will have a lot more to say about it prior to the time we vote. I will return to this issue tomorrow morning. Mr. President, on the other amendment, I now ask unanimous consent that amendment No. 2672 be set aside and we call up amendment No. 2671. I am reading the top of my note here.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, with regard to this amendment, let me simply say there is a realization, I think on both sides of the aisle, that we have a special relationship with our tribal governments, and that special relationship requires a special arrangement as situations like this are addressed. It is very important that we recognize the issue of tribal sovereignty, and also the need for tribes to take responsibility for addressing the serious problems that they face, both socially and economically. The Dole bill would require that funding be provided to tribes out of the allocation given to each State. This amendment simply says we are going to set aside 3 percent of the resources allocated nationally before the money is given to the States. The allotment formula for distributing money from the set-aside would be determined by the Secretary, but it would be based on the need for services and on data common to all tribes, to the extent that is possible. We also allow tribes to borrow from the contingency loan fund. Tribes would be able to borrow up to 10 percent of their grant allocation, and the Secretary may waive the interest requirement or extend the time repayment period at times when circumstances would warrant. I do not know that there is any place in the country more deserving and more in need of special attention than reservations. The poverty rate for Indian children on reservations is three times the national average, 60.3 percent. Per capita U.S. income is about $14,420. Per capita income on the reservations is a mere $4,478. Mr. President, 36 percent of Indian children under 6 live in homes today without even a telephone. In South Dakota, over half of all Indian children live in poverty. Mr. President, 63.8 percent of all children on AFDC in South Dakota are Native American. Shannon County, the location of Pine Ridge Reservation, is the poorest county in the country. Todd County, the location of the Rosebud Reservation, is the fourth poorest county in the country. Unemployment on reservations is four to seven times the national average. In South Dakota, unemployment rates on the reservations range from 29 percent to 89 percent. There are a lot of reasons for that, no different in South Dakota, perhaps, than other States. But the barriers to work are there. Serious problems that we have to address, problems having to do with the lack of [[Page S 13374]] skills, the lack of education--these are problems that I hope we can begin to resolve much more effectively with meaningful welfare reform. States have been running these programs for many years; tribes have not. In many places tribes have attempted to work with States to create an infrastructure for running these programs. Frankly, in many places it does not exist yet. This is something in which tribes will need to invest. Tribal programs run on a smaller level and, this will take some overhead. Additionally, we have not always had a proportionate level of assistance from the private sector. Less than one-tenth of 1 percent of Combined Federal Campaign contributions go to Indian programs. Less than two-tenths of 1 percent of foundation grant money goes to support tribal human services. So, Mr. President, we need to ensure that we get an adequate level of assistance from States and the Federal Government. And I am not talking necessarily about only resources. We are talking about an infrastructure. We are talking about ways with which to make the money that we already spend work better, providing job skills and providing good education, providing help, providing a workfare opportunity. Certainly there is a need for that. There is ample precedent in current law for earmarking funds for native Americans. I believe a set-aside under this legislation is appropriate. We need to set this money aside for tribal governments. The Federal Government has a trust responsibility to assure appropriate funding. I believe this amendment will do it. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE. I ask that be laid aside and we call up amendment No. 2671.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to call up amendment No. 2672.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 2469, As Modified

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Yes.

Mr. DASCHLE. The next two Democratic amendments following those would be the two I just mentioned.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I share the view just expressed by the majority leader. I think we have made some progress. We have a long way to go. I know that some of the amendments that have been offered are duplicative amendments, so there is probably a much shorter list than 200. I think we can make a real good-faith effort tomorrow and see if we cannot accommodate both sides in not having votes on all of these. I think if we can work with the managers and accept some of these amendments, it would be very helpful as well. There are two other amendments, at least I will just put our colleagues on notice, on the Democratic side. I would like the Lieberman amendment and the Kennedy amendment having to do with work as our next two amendments, regardless of whether they are part of the unanimous-consent agreement or not. I think it would be helpful for Democrats on our side at least to know what the sequencing will be.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I will use my leadership time for whatever time I may consume to speak in behalf of the Dodd amendment. Mr. President, let me begin by thanking the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts for his excellent comments and for the leadership that he has shown on this issue throughout this debate, and certainly the Senator from Connecticut, the senior Senator, Senator Dodd, for his work in bringing us to this point this afternoon. His leadership and the effort that he has invested in this issue for many years is illustrative of the contribution that he has made on a number of issues relating to children. And this is perhaps the most important contribution of all. As the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts has indicated, you simply cannot have welfare reform if you do not address the issue of child care adequately. There can be no doubt that it is the linchpin between welfare and work. Why? Because 60 percent of AFDC families have children under 6. Why? Because, in many cases, those same families cannot find adequate day care, cannot afford day care even if they can find it, and have great anxiety about leaving their children unattended. I do not care whether it is one parent or two parents. If we want them to go out and work, if we want them to go out and get the skills necessary so they can work--time after time they have told us, and time after time virtually every social organization has indicated--you have to find a way to take care of their children. That is what this amendment does. It says in a meaningful way we are going to create a partnership. We are not going to tell you who to take your children to. We are not going to create some new governmental system to do it. We are simply going to give you the means by which you can find the best way to take care of your children. This will affect every single welfare family. You have to have a child to be on welfare, period. You do not meet the definition if you do not have a child. Child care enables mothers to go to work, to have the confidence to leave their home. Parents cannot accept their responsibilities as parents if they leave their children at home alone without any supervision, without any care, without any knowledge of what is going to happen to their children, especially at those early ages. Let me address another point that was raised in this most recent colloquy. It is not just the child who is under the age of 4 or 5 and not yet ready to go to school that we ought to be concerned about. What happens to those children who are going to school, who come back in the mid to late afternoon to a home without a parent, without anybody to take care of them through the end of the day? What happens to them? What kind of supervision, what kind of care, what kind of nutrition, what kind of attention are they going to get? This amendment addresses that concern. It is not just a concern for those who are under the age of 6 and not able to go to school. We have to be equally as concerned with those children who come home in the afternoon and have no supervision, especially in those early ages. Families below poverty spend almost 30 percent of their income on child care, Mr. President. Nonpoor families only spend about 7 percent of their income on child care. There is no secret why low-income families are not capable of addressing the need for child care in their own families. Child care costs in the District of Columbia can run as high as $150 to $175 per week. The average monthly benefit for an AFDC recipient is less than $400. So we are asking many parents today to spend more in 1 month on child care alone than they receive in AFDC. Obviously, Mr. President, it is an incredible impediment for many people. So what happens is that most people today are relegated to finding other ways of ensuring that their children are cared for. They depend on relatives who may or may not be reliable or informal arrangements that may or may not work on a daily basis. A job requires reliable child care, and often that is very hard to find. So in many cases, Mr. President, parents are simply forced to make do. And all too often, unfortunately, they do not make do. All too often they are forced to rely on low-quality care. We believe that quality child care is too important to child development to leave those children home alone or to make a way somehow on a day-to-day basis with relatives or families or people in the neighborhood to care for their children. Studies show that the first 3 years of life in some ways are the most critical of all. Quality care can clearly change the lives of children today. Quality care can truly give kids a head start. Quality care can relieve parental stress and give people the confidence they need to walk out of that door and go to their job, go on and achieve meaningful job skills, and do so with the knowledge that they can be a productive, cohesive, and successful family when the work is done. Mr. President, that is all we are asking. Let us give families an opportunity to be families. Let us give them the opportunity to be strong families. Strength is defined in part by how strong the children are, by how nourished, how educated, how guided, how attended, and how cared for they are. The Republican plan, frankly, is nonexistent in this regard. It is nice to have all the nice sounding rhetoric, but the fact is you have nothing if you do not put resources next to it. There are no resources in the Dole bill. It is estimated that the Dole bill in its current form is underfunded by almost $11 billion in the area of child care. So there is no assurance that the children of single mothers will be adequately cared for. As the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts has said over and over, the Home Alone bill is not what this piece of legislation ought to be. The modification made by the majority leader last week does not address this concern. In fact, it only exacerbates the problem. As the Senator from Pennsylvania has alluded to, the bill prohibits States from sanctioning mothers with children under 6. That may be good in some cases. But that is not the real issue. That does not help mothers become self-sufficient. It is a de facto exemption from the work requirement. We do not want to exempt mothers, and we do not want to exempt States that do not provide the resources. We want States to provide the resources so that mothers will have the tools and the opportunities they are going to need. Mr. President, the Dole bill in its current form will exempt 60 percent of those who are eligible for welfare today. Why? Because 60 percent of AFDC mothers have children under 6. [[Page S 13195]] As the Dole bill is written, it will exempt any mother among that 60 percent that cannot find or afford child care. States already had to pay for day care. It was an unfunded mandate, but they were required to pay it or exempt mothers and take a 5-percent cut in the block grant. The likelihood now is even greater that the bill has virtually no value in terms of putting people to work or providing child care. So that is why this amendment is so important. This amendment says a number of things. First of all, it says we cannot expect parents to walk out that door, achieve the desired goals of this bill--that people either acquire skills or acquire a job--if they have to leave their children at home alone. Second, it provides the resources necessary to make this happen. We ensure, not only that States are going to establish the mechanisms by which to provide those services, but that States are going to have the resources to see that that happens. Third, the Dodd-Kennedy amendment is tough on work but not on kids. We require able-bodied adults to work or to prepare for work. We ensure that when they do, we are going to enter into a partnership with them to see that their children are cared for. We guarantee that child care assistance is provided, and we do so not by exempting the mothers with children who cannot find day care, but by helping them find the child care they need to allow them to work in the first place. It is very clear. The adoption of this amendment is the linchpin to welfare reform. We are not going to get it without child care. We are not going to get it without the level of resources required to provide meaningful child care. We are not going to get it simply by exempting mothers who have no other recourse but to stay at home because child care is not available. There has been a lot of rhetoric in this debate. The most important thing we can do to change rhetoric to real action is to pass this amendment, to provide the resources, to provide the mechanisms, and, most importantly, to provide mothers the confidence that they can be a family when they come home from work at night. This investment in children is as important to kids as it is to mothers, as it is to the system itself. It deserves our support, and I hope Republicans will join us in the passage of it as we take up the vote momentarily. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Just for clarification of the schedule this evening, it is the leader's intention to take up the Moynihan amendment tomorrow and have other amendments offered if we can have them laid down tonight but no additional amendments would be voted upon tonight?

Mr. DASCHLE. Will the Senator from Nevada yield?