Tom Harkin

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Senator.

Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Senator for making that clear. I have another question. The Welfare-To-Work Program provides formula grants to States and requires States to develop a formula for distribution of the funds within the State in consultation with sub-State areas. However, it is not clear what types of entities are eligible to provide the welfare- to-work services and that States have flexibility on this score. In 1989, Iowa established 11 Family Development and Self-Sufficiency Programs to work with welfare recipients with a history of long-term dependency on the program and those who were at risk of long term dependency. These projects, 10 at nonprofit organizations, have been evaluated and have demonstrated success in moving welfare recipients off of welfare and into self-sufficient employment. In addition, a number of community action agencies and community development corporations have also been working with welfare recipients on exactly the kind of activities envisioned by the pending legislation. I just want to make sure that a State may provide funding from the Welfare-To-Work Program to entities such as community action agencies, community development corporations and other nonprofit organizations.

Mr. HARKIN. Over the past several years I have met with a number of welfare recipients, caseworkers and others to discuss the issue of welfare reform in the State of Iowa. The discussions have also included a number of individuals who have successfully made the transition from welfare to self-sufficient employment. In many cases, the key to this successful transition was participation in post-secondary classroom training. I understand that the pending legislation prohibits use of the Welfare-To-Work Programs funds for this purpose but want to clarify that States may continue to use Federal funds received under the temporary Assistance for Needy Families Program or their own resources for post-secondary classroom training.

Mr. HARKIN. I appreciate that very much. I thank the chairman.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I rise to express support for the Welfare- to-Work Microloan Pilot Program Act of 1997. The existing Small Business Administration [SBA] Microloan Program has enjoyed great success in moving people off welfare and helping them start their own business. The welfare-to-work initiative will not only continue this success, but it will also improve the services provided by the current Microloan Program. The existing Microloan Program has two components. First, it works to provide short-term loans of up to $25,000 to small businesses. SBA makes these loans through various nonprofit organizations that have close ties to their communities. Second, the Microloan Program also provides technical assistance to help clients learn important skills such as accounting, marketing, and advertising. It is important that we continue the Microloan Program, and we must also look to implement other services that will make it more effective. The welfare-to-work initiative does just that by establishing a 3-year program that will continue and expand upon the existing program. Like the current law, this bill will extend loans and technical assistance, but it will also allow for more business planning and training assistance prior to extending loans to welfare recipients. It will also allow intermediaries to use supplemental grants to help borrowers with transportation and child care expenses. Extending these services is essential in order to allow welfare recipients who don't have the money for transportation and child care to participate in the program. An example of the Microloan Program's success is the Institute for Social and Economic Development [ISED] in Iowa City, IA. ISED is different from most development corporations in the Microloan Program because it does not extend loans to its clients. Rather, it provides technical assistance and will act as an intermediary to set up a loan between their client and a bank. ISED's technical assistance program provides structured training in which clients develop plans for a profitable business. Due to this effort, ISED has enjoyed an extremely high success rate, with 70 percent of its client's businesses still operational. This statistic becomes even more impressive considering that of all the small businesses started across the Nation in the last 8 years over 70 percent no longer exist. We must recognize that the welfare-to-work initiative benefits both welfare recipients and our taxpayers. The Microloan Program presents welfare recipients with the preferable option of self-employment as a means to move off welfare. At the same time, it saves the State money and moves people from being welfare recipients to taxpayers. In Iowa, nearly 400 welfare recipients have started and maintained their own small business, and the total savings to the State have been $1 million in welfare benefits alone. The welfare-to-work initiative gives welfare recipients the opportunity to be self-sufficient. It provides the entrepreneur with the money to start a business, and the skills and services to maintain it.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I rise to express support for the Welfare- to-Work Microloan Pilot Program Act of 1997. The existing Small Business Administration [SBA] Microloan Program has enjoyed great success in moving people off welfare and helping them start their own business. The welfare-to-work initiative will not only continue this success, but it will also improve the services provided by the current Microloan Program. The existing Microloan Program has two components. First, it works to provide short-term loans of up to $25,000 to small businesses. SBA makes these loans through various nonprofit organizations that have close ties to their communities. Second, the Microloan Program also provides technical assistance to help clients learn important skills such as accounting, marketing, and advertising. It is important that we continue the Microloan Program, and we must also look to implement other services that will make it more effective. The welfare-to-work initiative does just that by establishing a 3-year program that will continue and expand upon the existing program. Like the current law, this bill will extend loans and technical assistance, but it will also allow for more business planning and training assistance prior to extending loans to welfare recipients. It will also allow intermediaries to use supplemental grants to help borrowers with transportation and child care expenses. Extending these services is essential in order to allow welfare recipients who don't have the money for transportation and child care to participate in the program. An example of the Microloan Program's success is the Institute for Social and Economic Development [ISED] in Iowa City, IA. ISED is different from most development corporations in the Microloan Program because it does not extend loans to its clients. Rather, it provides technical assistance and will act as an intermediary to set up a loan between their client and a bank. ISED's technical assistance program provides structured training in which clients develop plans for a profitable business. Due to this effort, ISED has enjoyed an extremely high success rate, with 70 percent of its client's businesses still operational. This statistic becomes even more impressive considering that of all the small businesses started across the Nation in the last 8 years over 70 percent no longer exist. We must recognize that the welfare-to-work initiative benefits both welfare recipients and our taxpayers. The Microloan Program presents welfare recipients with the preferable option of self-employment as a means to move off welfare. At the same time, it saves the State money and moves people from being welfare recipients to taxpayers. In Iowa, nearly 400 welfare recipients have started and maintained their own small business, and the total savings to the State have been $1 million in welfare benefits alone. The welfare-to-work initiative gives welfare recipients the opportunity to be self-sufficient. It provides the entrepreneur with the money to start a business, and the skills and services to maintain it.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, are there 10 seconds left?

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Don't think about it.

Mr. HARKIN. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. HARKIN. Did the Senator say under his proposal that for each year that the age increased by 2 months?

Mr. HARKIN. In 6 years it would increase by 1 year and, therefore, in 12 years it would increase by 2 years, not 24 years.

Mr. HARKIN. That is 1 month per year.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I want to echo what the Senator from Massachusetts just said. If anything, this provision is the ultimate anti-blue-collar provision that I have ever seen on the Senate floor. This strikes right at the heart of the Americans we ought to be here protecting today. There is a difference. There is a difference between a corporate executive for Xerox and someone who is out there working hard every day of their life on a construction job, in a factory, in a plant. There is a difference between a Senator sitting on this floor or a Member of the House and that worker who is out there on the line day after day, the women who suffer from carpel tunnel syndrome, the people who work in our packing plants. Try that on for size. Do that for 5 years, 10 years, 20, 30, 40 years of your life. There is a difference. Sure, if you are a corporate executive, you have nothing to worry about. If you are a Senator, you have nothing to worry about. But I will tell you, if you are a blue-collar worker out there and you have worked hard all your life, you have raised your kids, you have sent them to school, you are now 62, you are worn out, maybe you are not physically able to continue working. Have you ever thought of that? So they retire. They get Social Security. God bless them. But they can't get health care coverage. What this amendment does, it just sticks it right in their back one more time. You can say, oh, it's just 1 more month a year, 2 more months a year for 6 years. Then there is this gap and it takes all this time. But if this provision stays in there, the die will be cast. And we will have sent a strong message to our seniors: Sorry, when it comes to health care, you're out of luck; you're on the street some place. We have a commission, a national bipartisan commission looking at this. It is supposed to report next year. Why are we jumping the gun on it? Now, I would agree with Senators who are supporting this provision that, yes, we have to do things to ensure the viability of Medicare. There are a lot of things we can do to preserve the viability of Medicare. But this is not one of them. This will destroy Medicare because it destroys the compact we have had all these years. This is an antiworker provision. That is all it is. Now, if you want to vote for this provision, sure, fine, keep it in the bill, but I am telling you, for that working stiff who is out there who wants to retire, their physical health may not be the best; they have to retire at age 62, if anything, what we ought to be doing on this Senate floor is we ought to be closing the gap. We ought to provide medical care for elderly who have to retire early. But, no, we won't even do that. Now we are going to make it even a longer period of time. Well, I think this provision is really unconscionable, should have no place in this bill, and I hope that we will vote to strke it overwhelmingly.

Mr. HARKIN. I yield to the Senator.

Mr. HARKIN. I appreciate the comments of the Senator from California. It just seems that when I hear this debate about this provision and I hear proponents of this provision talk, it is as if everybody in America is like us. Everybody in America is not like us. They do not have the kind of health care benefits we have. They do not have the kind of protections we have. They do not have the incomes that we have. They do not have the lifestyles we have.

Mr. HARKIN. It is time we start fighting for the working people in America.

Mr. HARKIN. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I will not even take 2 minutes. I listened to the impassioned argument of my friend from Pennsylvania. I just had two observations. No. 1, along the lines of what Senator Lautenberg said, No. 1, what retirement income will a Senator have when a Senator retires here? What is that retirement income going to be? A lot of money. When a Senator retires at age 65, you get a lot of money--big time money for retirement. It is not a blue collar worker retiring on Social Security, No. 1. No. 2, if you retire as a Federal Government employee or as a U.S. Senator, you can keep your Federal employee's health benefits. There is no gap for you. You can keep it. It costs you, what, $100-something a month, $110, $120 a month. So it is easy for a Senator to stand here and talk about saving his generation. But those in his generation are not all U.S. Senators. Those in his generation are not all people who can go on Federal Employee health benefits when they reach age 62. They need Medicare. That is where most of America is, not sitting in the U.S. Senate. I yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. HARKIN. I have two amendments I would like to just lay down.

Mr. HARKIN. Ten minutes each.

Mr. HARKIN. Ten minutes. I need about 10 minutes.

Mr. HARKIN. That is a good amendment.

Mr. HARKIN. I will give them to Senator Lautenberg. I thank you. I yield the floor.

Mr. HARKIN. I would like to have 10 minutes.

Mr. HARKIN. I just wonder if I could ask--I was just informed of this amendment as ranking member on authorization. I just want to make sure I understand it fully. I would ask the Senator from Texas to yield for a question.