Dianne Feinstein

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Chair. Amendment No. 2514 to Amendment No. 2280 (Purpose: To establish a job placement performance bonus that provides an incentive for States to successfully place individuals in unsubsidized jobs, and for other purposes)

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Chair. I thank the Senator from New York. Amendment No. 2513 to Amendment No. 2280 (Purpose: To limit deeming of income to cash and cash-like programs, and to retain SSI eligibility and exempt deeming of income requirements for victims of domestic violence)

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its consideration.

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

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be set aside.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. There are four charts. If I can take a look at them when we finish, I would be happy to. The Senator is absolutely correct. I know the formula is going to be difficult to change. If it looks like a growth formula, if it is named like a growth formula, it ought to talk and walk like a growth formula. That is all I am saying. More States are benefited by this. I think 27 States fare better than in the underlying bill are clearly benefited by this, and States which do not experience an increase are held harmless.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. That is correct any and all States.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. It is the same basis. That is correct.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to offer an amendment that would provide additional funding to States to accommodate growth which may occur in their welfare caseloads. Legislation which provides the basis for this amendment is included in the welfare reform bill already passed by the House of Representatives entitled H.R. 4, the Personal Responsibility Act. Title 1 of that bill includes a supplemental grant to adjust for population increases. In the House version, the grant is $100 million annually for each of fiscal years 1997, 1998, 1999, and the year 2000. In the Dole bill, the supplemental grant is $877 million over 5 years. The House supplemental grant is distributed to States based on each State's proportion of the total growth. However, the Dole bill handles this formula in a very complicated manner which only benefits 19 out of the 50 States. Frankly, by providing zero funding for growth, it does in the State of California. I have got to make that very clear. The amendment I am proposing today takes the same approach, as the legislation that passed the House of Representatives, with respect to growth, and would apply it to the Dole bill. California, which is projected to experience a significant growth in its poor population over the next 5 years, under the present draft of the Dole bill, would receive zero--zero. There is no additional cost associated with this amendment. In fact, there is some reason to believe that this method of accommodating growth equitably and objectively among all States might result in some cost savings when compared to the underlying bill. In any event, the authorization of appropriations, for the supplemental grant for each of the fiscal years, remains the same as in the Dole bill, and distribution of the additional funds is capped by those amounts which total $877 million over 5 years. I would add another point. All States will be held harmless under this legislation. That is to say, no State's grant will be reduced if the State experiences a decline in its poor population. But each and every State which experiences an increase in its poor population will receive a corresponding increase in its Federal grant to help them carry out the mandates of this legislation. Let me briefly contrast this with the approach in the underlying bill. As I said, only 19 States, meet the definition for use of this money under the language of the Dole bill, and that is irrespective of their actual growth of in poor youngsters. And, it excludes many States that will experience growth in their caseloads. Under the Dole bill, 19 States receive automatic additional funding, 2.5 percent of the fiscal year 1996 grant in each of the years 1997 to the year 2000 if, first, their State's welfare spending is less than the national average level of State spending and, second, population growth is greater than the average national population growth. In addition, for reasons which are unclear, certain States are deemed as qualifying if their level of State welfare spending is less than 35 percent of the national average level of State welfare spending per poor person in fiscal year 1996. As I understand it, only two States qualify. Mississippi and Arkansas are the only two States that would qualify under that portion of the drafting. This formula penalizes States which have traditionally had higher levels of State welfare spending. So, in other words, if you have been a high benefit State, you are actually penalized by the bill. And, it rewards States, irrespective of their projected, or actual, population growth or decline. I must say I am astonished that many States which are projected to have significant increases in their poor populations do not meet the definition required by the Dole bill. It leads me to conclude that this supplemental grant is not necessarily to accommodate growth at all. Federal taxpayers are being asked to spend almost $1 billion over 5 years in the name of growth. But, in fact, the result is that States which, until now, have spent less than the average in assisting the poor will now be subsidized. So, until now, they have not spent much, and, now, they are going to be subsidized by the taxpayers of all 50 States. What kind of a bill is that? Let me take a moment to review for you what some of the benefit levels have been from some of the States who will be beneficiaries of this so-called growth fund. In Mississippi the maximum monthly AFDC benefit for one-parent families with two children has been $120. That is $120 in combined Federal-State AFDC grants. In Alabama, the combined maximum has been $164. In Texas, the maximum benefit has been $188. In Tennessee, $185. Louisiana, $190. Arkansas, $204. Kentucky, $228. Let us look at one or two States with similar benefit levels. In Indiana, the monthly benefit is $288. In Missouri, it is $292. But even though these levels are similar to other States, they will receive nothing, zero, zip--nothing--to accommodate any increase in their poor populations. Why? Who would draw this kind of growth formula? Let us look now at some high growth States. Let us see what they get--Washington, for example. While the [[Page S 12809]] Bureau of the Census projects a general population growth of almost 10 percent, the Dole bill provides zero funding for growth. Idaho is projected to experience a general increase in its population of almost 11 percent, Mr. President. Is it a growth State under the Dole bill? The answer is no. Finally, let us take a look at California, the most populous State in the Nation and one which is projected to grow by 6.25 percent over the next 5 years. It, too, receives no additional funds to meet the anticipated growth in caseload. Clearly, the growth fund in the underlying bill is, as I have said, not a true growth fund. It is a fund for some other reason, but I do not think anyone in this body should call it a growth fund. I believe this is a fundamental flaw in the Dole bill, as compared to the House version of the welfare reform bill. None of us in this body knows what the future holds for our States-- whether it is economic recession in a rust belt State, regional downturn in a sunbelt State, natural disaster in any part of our country, or even Federal base closures. What we do know is there will be unanticipated regional economic conditions and corresponding fluctuations in the incidence of poverty. Any State is susceptible to these circumstances. This amendment, the amendment I am proposing, simply uses the same approach as in the House bill, applies it to the $877 million, and says that you receive additional funding for growth proportionate to your numbers published by the Bureau of the Census. If your poor population goes up, you will get the corresponding proportional share of that fund. This, to me, is the fair way of doing it. No gimmicks, you use the census figures. If you are a growth State, you get extra funding to carry out the mandate. Frankly, most of the States, the overwhelming number of States, are projected to benefit, and also States with no growth, or actual declines in population, are held harmless. And, finally again, it costs no more money. You will have proposals before you that use a little sleight of hand. Some will reduce the base funding level currently in the Dole bill and then add to it. This amendment does not alter the initial grant in the Dole bill. This takes the initial grant level, applies the poverty data supplied by the Bureau of the Census, and simply says, as the House in its wisdom did, that that data is used objectively to determine any additional funds which are provided to each and every State. So, Mr. President, your State would benefit from that. My State would benefit from that for sure. That is what this amendment does. Let me conclude on this amendment by saying that this is not a matter of ``winners'' and ``losers.'' It is a matter of accuracy and fairness involving the distribution of Federal funds. I think it is very difficult for anyone to argue against that. I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be temporarily set aside.

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

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I understand there is a pending amendment. I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be set aside.

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

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, throughout the welfare debate it has often been stated that people closest to the problem know how to best deal with it. In fact, many States assign administration of Federal welfare programs to counties. As a former mayor, and a former county supervisor, that certainly is the case in California. Many of the innovations and successes currently under discussion have been initiated at the local level. In my earlier remarks on welfare reform, I mentioned several of them--initiatives made by counties to put people to work, to devise programs to really run their programs with efficiency, and appropriate for their local communities. This amendment affirms that there will be no limitation on the ability of a State to conduct innovative and effective demonstration projects in one or more of its political subdivisions. It empowers the Secretary of Health and Human Services to jointly negotiate with any county or group of counties having a population greater than 500,000 to conduct a demonstration project where the county would have the authority and duty to administer the operation of the welfare program covered by this bill. In essence, what it is saying, for large counties, or a group of small counties, like in Wisconsin for example, the Secretary would have the authority to be able to negotiate so that the grant would go directly from Washington to the counties. What does this mean? It means you take the State out of it. Why do I want to take the State out of it? Because I know what States do. They charge a cost, they set up a bureaucracy, and therefore a portion of the money will end up in the State. The State can often not send that money to the counties, or find a reason not to send it, and even use it for other purposes. So in this amendment, the State in which the demonstration county is located would pass directly to the county the portion of the grant determined by [[Page S 12828]] the State as attributable to the residents of that county. The duration of the demonstration project is 5 years, after which time the Secretary is directed to report to the Congress on the description, rules, and innovations initiated under the project. Essentially, the block grants of the large counties could go directly to the counties, thereby I believe, based on my experience, it would save money and be more efficiently used. This was in the bill, my understanding is, as it was originally drafted, and it was removed. We would by this amendment place it back. It is similar to an amendment which was in the prior Daschle bill. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

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

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I send another amendment to the desk.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Senator from Oklahoma very much. Amendment No. 2479 to Amendment No. 2280 (Purpose: To provide for State and county demonstration programs)

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. This is not just a legal immigrant, but a naturalized citizen too. We are not talking here about removing that requirement for legal immigrants in this amendment. This is just for naturalized citizens.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I did know and I cannot remember what it was.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Only if they have become United States citizens. In other words, the deeming provision does not apply if you are naturalized. In this bill, the deeming provision extends even to naturalized citizens. Therefore, they would not be eligible.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Yes.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, to a great extent, we are a Nation of immigrants. There are very few of us in this body who could claim not to have been a product, in some way, of immigrants. My mother was born in St. Petersburg, Russia. She left that country hiding in a hay cart during the revolution. They crossed Siberia on their long journey to California. My grandmother was widowed shortly after arriving in this country, left with four small children. My uncle was a carpenter. My mother did not enjoy good health as a child and was hospitalized for many years. There was no widow's pension then, no AFDC. And I am not one that believes that immigrants should come to the United States to get on the dole. But we do have a naturalization process which, after the designated waiting period, and after meeting certain requirements, immigrants take an oath, they become citizens of the United States, with all of the privileges and benefits accorded to native-born citizens, save the one spelled out in the Constitution that I have read today. This bill essentially says that even if naturalized--even if a naturalized citizen for 20 years, your sponsor's income will be deemed as yours, and you will not be eligible for Federal benefits. Even if that sponsor is dying from cancer, and no matter what happens to the naturalized citizen, that naturalized citizen is exempted from coverage under this bill. I believe that violates the equal protection clause of our Constitution and jeopardizes the fairness of the legislation. So the amendment that I am submitting is essentially equal treatment for naturalized and native-born citizens.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, the Dole bill requires that income and resources of an immigrant sponsor be deemed as available to the immigrant when determining eligibility for all federally funded, means- tested programs. This is the case, whether or not the immigrant is a United States citizen. In other words, it creates two classes of citizens. A naturalized citizen, under the Dole bill, could not be eligible for any form of assistance. I believe this is unprecedented and, as I said, creates two classes of American citizens, which will surely be challenged in the courts on constitutional grounds. So I rise today to offer an amendment to this bill to provide equal treatment for naturalized and native-born U.S. citizens. This amendment is cosponsored by Senators Kohl and Simon. It is supported by the National Governors Association, the National Conference of State Legislatures, the National Association of Counties, the National League of Cities, the United States Catholic Conference, and the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, as well as several other organizations. The amendment simply removes any reference to citizens in all places in the underlying bill that require deeming, and leaves in place the deeming requirements for benefits to legal aliens. I think the question before the Senate is this: Does the Constitution of the United States of America provide for two distinct classes of United States citizens--those who are naturalized and those who are native-born? I know of only one benefit which is denied by the Constitution to citizens of our country who were not born in this country, and that one thing is the Presidency of the United States. Article II, section 1 of the Constitution expressly states that ``no person, except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President.'' That is where the line is drawn for me. I do not believe that, absent a constitutional amendment, the Constitution gives this body the authority to deny outright any benefits, save that one, to naturalized citizens. Article I of the Constitution does contain one other distinction with regard to naturalized citizens and their qualifications to be Members of Congress. It says, ``No person shall be a representative who shall not have attained the age of 25 years and been 7 years a citizen of the United States.'' That is whether they are native-born or naturalized. It also says, ``No person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained the age of 30 years, and been 9 years a citizen of the United States.'' I do not believe our forefathers necessarily foresaw the specifics of the debate which is before us today. But I do believe they considered what distinctions should be made between naturalized and native-born citizens. And the result of that consideration is reflected in the Constitution. The Department of Justice has expressed serious concerns about the constitutionality on the proscription of benefits as applied to naturalized citizens in this bill. In a letter to Senator Kennedy, dated July 18, a copy of which was also provided to me, Assistant Attorney General, Andrew Fois states: The deeming provision, as applied to citizens, would contravene the basic equal protection tenet that ``the rights of citizenship of the native born and of the naturalized person are of the same dignity and are coextensive.'' The letter goes on to say: To the same effect, the provision might be viewed as a classification based on national origin; among citizens otherwise eligible for government assistance, the class excluded by operation of the deeming provision is limited to those born outside the United States. A classification based on national origin, of course, is subject to strict scrutiny under equal protection review, and it is unlikely that the deeming provision could be justified under this standard. At this time, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the letter from the Justice Department be printed in the Record.

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

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I did not know Senator Packwood well, but I have watched him. I heard him on CNN last evening. I have heard him on other shows. I have listened to him, as the leader and the Senator from Wyoming have pointed out, explain complicated issues in a vital and easily understood way. I have listened as the heads of various women's organizations have indicated their respect for him and for his long record of help. I recognize that service in this institution is not easy, that people are held to a standard, and after all, we are just mere reflections of everyone around us. We are complete with moles and warts and our own problems. So this is not a happy day for me. I do not believe it is a happy day for the U.S. Senate. I do believe it is a day of some courage and bravery on the part of Senator Packwood, because even those of us who did not know him well know of his love for this body--you could see it, it is palpable, it is there--and his respect for this body as an institution. I really think that kind of performance goes beyond any party label, and it goes beyond any trial and tribulation. My father used to always say to me, ``Dianne, do not let a man be known for the last thing he does. Let him be known for the best thing he does.'' I think that is a legacy that hopefully is being written here this afternoon. This is a sad day in a chapter of history of the U.S. Senate, but it says one thing: We do have our failings, and we do make our mistakes. But it is a sign of a wise man, and even a giant man, who stands and does what has to be done and goes on to fight another day. I thank you, Senator Packwood, for a long and distinguished service to the U.S. Senate.