Sander Levin

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, here is why I think everybody should be on the floor, why on this historic matter, this important debate, people should not be in various committees, but right here. There has been a lot of talk about various aspects, not enough discussion about the impact of the Republican bill on disabled children now receiving cash benefits through SSI. This chart spells it out very clearly. I just urge everybody to look. Under the Republican plan, 21 percent of the children now covered would continue to be covered, and 79 percent would not be. There is abuse in the program, and I see the gentleman from Wisconsin here on our side. He has delved into this. There is abuse in the SSI program. It has been rampant, apparently, in several States, including Louisiana and Arkansas. However, it is a mistake to take those abuses and to completely redo this program, ending cash benefits for parents whose kids are disabled. There is a better way to do this. It is contained in the Deal bill. There is a better way to do it. We should get at the abuse, the abuse under the IFA program. We should eliminate from the rolls kids who have behavioral problems, who are not seriously disabled. However, the disabled kids of America should not be thrown out on the street. The disabled kids need some help. Their families want nothing but a little bit of assistance. In many cases one of the parents has stopped working so they can take care of this seriously ill child. Mr. Speaker, this program is income-related. We are talking about middle- and low-income families with a disabled kid, so when we talk about the harshness, look at this chart. It shows it. Members should talk to the families in their districts. Go beyond the numbers to the real people. The SSI provision in the Republican bill is not a humane approach; it is not an effective approach. We can do better. We can adopt the Deal bill, which pays attention to the need for reform, but for the needs of families of disabled kids.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I just want to register my protest to the shell game that is going on here. One moment you see it, and one moment you do not. One moment something is going for deficit reduction, and then another moment it is going for tax cuts. We need welfare reform. We greatly need it. But I want everybody to know, for example, regarding SSI kids, where there is going to be a reduction of about $15 billion, that is not downsizing government. That is handicapping the families of handicapped children. We need to get the inequities and the holes out of SSI, the abuses, but not by hurting families with handicapped children. Therefore, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, let me just pick up on the point of the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Deal]. You raise the participation rates. But two things: You do not provide a single dollar more; and second, your participation rate is not based on people going to work, your participation rates can be based on knocking people off the rolls. I care so much about the link between welfare and work. It is the critical link here. We are darn worried about the children. We also have to help the parent and make sure the parent gets out of the cycle of dependency for the sake of the parent and the children. And it is not a question of vision. Whatever your vision is, you are not willing to act and the Deal bill and the rest of us are willing to act and say we are going to link welfare and work and put resources behind it to make sure it is done, and to grade States not on the basis of knocking people off the rolls but getting them to work. We are proud to stand for work.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, let us have a good, rational discussion of this amendment. There is a lot of emotion in these issues when we are talking about tough on kids; we can understand that, and I very much share it. When we talk about weakness on work, I think there should be some emotion, too, and I have said forcefully, I think respectfully, that the Republican bill is weak on work, and I think the gentleman is trying to shore it up. But here is the trouble. I say to the gentleman, Mr. Talent, your amendment has put in a provision regarding a State plan, and it isn't at all clear, its impact, as a result. I think it's unenforceable. You don't put any more resources into the States so they can meet this if it's meaningful. Just a few months ago you were the second name on a bill, H.R. 4, that had $9 billion in resources for the States. You were the second name. This bill has no resources whatsoever. It really has less for linking people on welfare to work, and I feel strongly that is the key linkage. No one is excusing, or apologizing, or justifying the status quo; it is gone. How are we going to make it better? We desperately need to do that. Now CBO, in its now-not-under-Democratic-control says this: The literature on welfare to work programs, as well as the experience with the jobs program to date, indicates that States are unlikely to obtain such high rates of participation. Mr. Deal's bill puts some resources for the States to meet meaningful participation rates that are based on work, and I say to the gentleman, You have participation rates that don't require the States to put anybody to work, and then you come in with this amendment that is probably unenforceable. The last point I want to make is it is probably unduly federally bureaucratic. We are telling the States how they can best meet work participation requirements, taking parents with kids under 5 now. In a sense that makes sense, but in a sense it may not. Some of the most trainable people may be people who have a kid who is three. The gentleman is trying to save money for day care, I guess. I say to the gentleman, You're trying to do this on the cheap, and you bring in this unenforceable requirement. I suggest you face up to the fact your bill is fatally flawed in being work weak.

Mr. LEVIN. I just think the gentleman realizes there is a weakness here, and he is trying to shore it up, but it is not enforceable, likely, and it says Washington has all the answers. I thought we were going to give the States flexibility to carry out linking people on welfare to work, and here comes the gentleman with a very inflexible provision that is probably unenforceable. deal for the American people.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I asked for two amendments and they were turned down. By the way, I do not think it is very appealing to come here and say you have to bargain with the Committee on Rules to get an amendment, you have to say you are going to vote for the rule to get an amendment. I thought we were acting here on a matter of urgency and a matter of principle. Let me just make two points. You turned down two amendments. One was close to the Bunn amendment. I do not know why you keep on turning your back on this issue. If you punish mothers, you are going to affect their kids and also you, I think, arguably could increase the chances of abortion. You turned it down. We have been trying for weeks to get this amendment accepted. Second, you turned down an amendment on SSI for kids. I just want to emphasize what is involved. You are cutting $14.8 billion and restoring only $3.8 billion in the block grant. You talk piously; you act punitively.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, let me just talk about welfare reform for a few minutes. Look, the status quo is dead. The only issue is what is going to replace the present welfare system, and here is the quandary before the Committee on rules. We have only a partial rule, but they are faced with a bill that is extreme. It is extreme. The school lunch program was just the tip of the iceberg. Then over the weekend we heard complaints about the provisions on mothers under 18, kids being punished if they are mothers under 18, or if they are the second kid of a retreat from that extreme provision. Then we also heard over the weekend about day-care. The troops are a little restless over there on the Republican side with the extreme provision. We had urged in committee and subcommittee, make welfare reform work, have day-care. Now maybe you are beginning to get the message. The trouble is that you have many other extreme provisions in your bill. For example, there is no linkage of welfare to work. States can meet the participation requirements simply by knocking people off the rolls. Period. There is not one more dollar, in fact there are dollars less, for work to give States the ability to link welfare with work. SSI, there is a potential of knocking 700,000 kids off the SSI rolls. There is some abuse in the program, but do not punish truly handicapped children because of the abuse of some families. That is harsh. Foster care, we put a provision in the bill so you could not divert moneys from foster care to some other program and you delete that. Legal immigrants, this bill takes billions and billions, about $15 billion under some estimates, in terms of benefits from legal immigrants. There needs to be reform, but there does not need to be a drastic, drastic kind of measure here. The bill that was presented by the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Deal] and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm], unlike the GOP bill, in my judgment has attempted to face these issues fairly and squarely. When it was urged that they fell short, their sponsors had an open mind, rather than a deaf ear. The Republicans, in contrast, have it backwards. Weak on work and tough on kids. The only hope for a bipartisan response now is to set aside this bill and see if we can put together one that will truly put into effect workable welfare reform. We owe it to our constituents to do that. The bill before us miserably fails. We Democrats stand ready to work with you. The problem is, you have been totally unwilling to work with us.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, you know, as I listened to the majority, this is, I think, very clear, Americans, the American people, want firmness. They do not want harshness. And you come across as harsh, harshly partisan, and also harsh on people and soft on work. And let me explain why you are soft on work. It is very simple. The structure of this bill and other bills requires States to meet participation rights. It is a certain percent the first year, a certain percent the second year, et cetera into the next century. Under the Republican bill, the States do not have to put a single person to work to meet participation requirements, not a single person. That is just the truth. On page 22 of the bill it says that in plain English. And why does it say that? Because the majority bill does not provide any money to the States to help them put people on welfare to work. It was in your bill of a year ago. What happened to it? You want to save money, I guess, for tax cuts for a privileged few instead of helping people get off of welfare into work. That is why you come across as soft on work, because you are, and that is why you come across as harsh, because you are. Firmness, yes; harshness, no. And a rainy day fund? The Republican Governors themselves said $1 billion over 5 years is not enough to provide in cases of recession, in cases of inflation, and you just look the other way. Now, why tough on kids? Look, we have done a lot of work on SSI. There is abuse in this program for kids. Some families are gaming the system, but most of these families are handicapped kids, parents struggling to provide a decent life for their handicapped children, and SSI says what you do to them; 21 percent would still qualify under the present program. And the rest of them would be at the mercy of a State bureaucracy or off the rolls altogether. Those are the facts. You are going to eliminate from the rolls 700,000 kids by the year 2000. Now, look, there is abuse, let us make that clear; but you are abusive in getting at abuse, you are harsh. You use a meat ax against handicapped children and their parents. And they say they do not want a bureaucracy, State or Federal, telling them what to do. They will account for the money, but they know best for their kids. You turn your back on kids, you are soft on work, and that is why your bill is not worthy of passage.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, the House Republican extremist express is headed into overdrive next week. The Republican welfare reform proposal is soft on linking welfare to work, which must be the linchpin of welfare reform, and it is hard on punishing children, when the aim of welfare reform should be to help children break out of the cycle of dependency and poverty. The Republican plan would allow States to meet participation rates if not a single person on welfare in the State were moved from welfare to work, and it would punish kids if their mother is under 18, if they are a second child in a family, or handicapped, or in foster care. Republicans are saying ``Live by the book, by the words of the Contract,'' regardless of the consequences. Welfare reform is vitally needed, real welfare reform. Democrats will work next week to bring that about, not to recklessly ride over the cliff with the Republican proposal.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, last year I made a commitment to the people of my district to put more cops in our local communities, and add 100,000 more cops across this country. That is a commitment I intend to keep. The bill before us does not ensure a single new officer will be added to our communities so I must oppose it. In fact, it ensures nothing. The bill permits the $10 billion block grant to be used for anything that generally reduces crime or improves public safety. Proponents of the bill argue this is just the sort of flexibility we need: no limits, no guidelines. But just how flexible is this bill? Could it be used to construct highways or roads? Absolutely. In fact, an amendment I supported that would have prevented the $10 billion from being used for these very purposes was defeated. Taxpayers deserve more accountability than this. They deserve to know how their money is used. And when they ask for a crime bill they deserve to see more police in their neighborhoods. The current law meets these goals with responsible flexibility for local government, and accountability for the taxpayers. The funding can be used to hire cops, purchase police technology and equipment, and bring on civilian clerks to free up officers from desk duty. Under an amendment I wrote, it can also be used to fund multijurisdictional task forces that allow local communities to pool their resources to focus on specific crime problems that don't respect suburban municipal boundaries. The law we passed last year with bipartisan support ensures the purpose of the people, the purpose to which I committed, to put more cops in our communities, to help local law enforcement increase its presence across this country, cannot be subverted by any politician-- Federal, State, or local. The bill before us does not. I say: Maintain the commitment, uphold the purpose of the people, stay the course.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, we must pass legislation to assure deduction of health costs for the self-employed. We also need to make sure that the present section 1071 is not violated in letter or spirit. I believe that the Viacom transaction is so large that it goes beyond an appropriate use of section 1071, and the Gibbons amendment provides a reasonable middle path. It is appropriate to review programs that aim to encourage opportunities for minorities as to their specific purposes, their structure, and their effectiveness or lack of it. But there has not been a comprehensive review of section 1071. There was no hearing at all at full committee. The facts are that since the FCC began to apply the tax certificate program to minorities, minority ownership has risen from a tiny half present to 3 percent. The vast majority of transactions have been quite small and the average holding period by the new owners has been 5 years, and in more than 100 transactions the original owners still hold the license. The McDermott language limits the use of 1071 to transactions with these characteristics. It is said the law should be color-blind. That does not mean it should be blind to racial or other discrimination. If the House does not adopt the Gibbons-McDermott amendment it will be up to the Senate to take a more comprehensive look at section 1071. It deserves that careful look, just as the deduction for health insurance deserves action tonight. I support the Gibbons-McDermott amendment.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, the key test of any welfare reform is how quickly and how effectively people on welfare move into work. The main objective must be not to penalize children but help put to work their custodial parent and hold both of their parents responsible for their welfare. According to press reports, Republicans are unveiling their welfare reform plan this morning. I have two major concerns, among others. One is that it appears that the Republican proposal will be strong on punishing children and will be weak on getting their parents into work. Washington, our responsibility is more than just doing this, punting, paying, and then praying. I favor State flexibility, but this must be within a new partnership with the States. A second concern I have is the lack of bipartisanship. The Republicans are making the same mistake as the Democrats did on health reform, going it alone. As we on the Human Resources Subcommittee begin to mark up the bill next week, I hope there will be a more bipartisan approach. Welfare reform deserves it.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. I favor major reform. I think there has to be a major change. But I think this is an extreme change. What was true of special ed I think would have been true and would be true today in terms of clean air, in terms of clean water. I am not sure the Americans With Disabilities Act would have ever passed. So let us be sensible. Let us have some kind of balance here. I am for a highly reformed federalism, but not for the end of it. And I think that this bill, without this substitute, is a step backward several hundred years instead of forward to a new era where there is a true partnership. So I just urge my colleagues, though the vote may be difficult, to vote their conscience and, indeed, vote their local interests, acknowledge at times there is a need for a merger, a melding of national, State, and local interests.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the substitute of the distinguished gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran]. Clearly, we have to be much more sensitive to the costs that are imposed on the State and local governments as well as the private sector. I support very much legislation in this amendment to rein in unnecessary Federal mandates. That is why I cosponsored it last year. I received almost 250 cosponsors. Now we have before us the proposal to go beyond the Moran substitute and to adopt the contract proposal. Might I say a word mostly to those who are for the Moran substitute but who are thinking of voting for the contract provision. I recognize very much that it is not easy to vote simply for the Moran substitute and then against the final proposal if the Moran substitute fails, as it is likely to do. But I want to speak from personal experience, if I might. As I said, it is not easy when you favor reining in mandates to oppose the contract provision. But let me suggest what would happen. Because of its presumptions, because it so stacks the deck, because of the technical roadblocks that are set up, I think that a lot or some legislation that is in the national interest will probably never see the light of day. Thirty years ago, when I was in the State legislature, I worked on special education legislation. I did so because I was initiated into the problem by somebody who worked with me on my campaign and had simply one request: That if I were elected, I would work on special education. In those days, half of the handicapped children in Michigan did not have a single hour of special education opportunity. Well, an event occurred. We got moving on a bipartisan basis in Michigan 30 years ago, and we passed a major special education reform. There was a lot of resistance to its from general education, believe me. Most of the superintendents looked at it, I think, very provincially. But we passed it. But what we could not enact was any form of mandatory special education within the State. And that meant still hundreds of students and in other States tens of thousands of students with a handicap who had no educational opportunity at all. Some years later, the Federal Government passed the mandatory special education law. What it said was there children in this country, wherever they lived, having a special education opportunity. And there was some funding, but also what was created was a local- State-national partnership, when it came to handicapped children. If there had not been that shared effort, that partnership effort, in my judgment today tens of thousands of handicapped children today would be without an educational opportunity. I am not for blind unfunded mandates. I am in favor of this substitute because I think it would slow us down and make us look, that it would not handcuff us when national leadership was necessary. The technical roadblocks are immense, the necessity to look at tens of thousands of units to see their impact when it comes, for example, to special education, tens of thousands and essentially the major advantage, the presumptions that are given to those who want to avoid national action. What probably makes it worse is that this heightens the expectations of local units that they are going to have a free ride, that if there is a national interest, there cannot be a partnership of local-State- national entities. That is probably the worst impact of this. So in a word, I very much favor the Moran substitute. I favor major reform.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Jess Soltess as he retires from the position of Ferndale city manager after 24 years of distinguished service to Ferndale, MI, and the surrounding community. In 1971, Jess began his distinguished career serving Ferndale as community development services director. In 1978, he was elevated to his current position of city manager. Mr. Speaker, I have had the pleasure to represent the city of Ferndale for 13 years. It is a dynamic community growing and changing to better serve its citizens. Jess has truly played a key role in Ferndale's development and success. On the occasion of his retirement, I would like to congratulate and thank Jess Soltess for his commitment and dedication to the city of Ferndale. I would like to extend my best wishes to Jess and his wife Sue for many years of health and happiness.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the distinguished service of Sgt. Kenneth J. Nash. Sergeant Nash is retiring after 27\1/2\ years of diligent service in the Hazel Park Police Department. His career has been marked by numerous commendations and citations including the prestigious ``Citation for Professional Excellence'' awarded to him by the Michigan State Police. Sergeant Nash's distinguished record of service is not limited only to the Hazel Park Police Department. He has been active in the Boy Scouts serving as Cubmaster, Scoutmaster, and district commissioner. His outstanding service to the community earned him the ``Citizen of the Month'' honor, which was awarded to him by the Hazel Park City Council. Mr. Speaker, I am certain his retirement will not be so much the ending of his career, but rather the beginning of new endeavors. I am privileged to join Kenneth Nash's friends and colleagues in thanking him for his years of distinguished service and wish him a rewarding retirement.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, Dick Austin's decades of public service deserve more than the typical testimonial accolades. His career has indeed been unique. In his own quiet but determined fashion, Dick has truly been a pioneer, breaking through a number of barriers in the State of Michigan. He has represented an important embodiment of the dream of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.--that we be judged by the content of our character rather than the color of our skin. He has been an ambassador of good will among us as citizens of Michigan, in every corner, indeed virtually every nook and cranny of our State. He has done so by bringing high competence and full integrity to a major office affecting the lives of us all. From our physical security or our highways to honesty in the voting booth, Dick Austin has stood up for Michigan's interests. Twenty-five years ago, I had the privilege of campaigning statewide with Dick Austin. Our earlier friendship deepened with that experience and has increased with each year's passing. May Dick continue in good health, so that we will continue to be blessed with his good cheer, warn friendship, and usual talents.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the distinguished service of Det. Lt. Daniel Paterson III of the Ferndale Police Department. Lieutenant Paterson has devoted over 29 years of service to the people of Ferndale. These 29 years of service have been marked by numerous promotions, and 13 different awards and commendations. For the past 8 years he has directed the detective bureau of the department. Mr. Speaker, I can attest to the excellence of the Ferndale Police Department, and I am certain Lieutenant Paterson played a role in making it so. I am privileged to join his family, friends, and colleagues in thanking him for 29 years of service and wish him a restful and rewarding retirement.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 25th anniversary of Bruce Collins Elementary School in Sterling Heights, MI. This anniversary was celebrated November 23, 1994. Many times this body has heard discussions about problems with our education system. Collins Elementary School clearly does not fit this category. Collins Elementary school has actively pursued a partnership with the parents in order to form a better learning environment. The teaching staff has also played a major role in the school's 25 successful years. The teachers' 100 percent participation on the school improvement team is just one example of their commitment to the students. The major leader in Collins' success has been Principal Don Santilli who has directed the school for over 15 years. With over 448 students the school has developed and implemented many programs to extend beyond the standard classroom learning environment. One such program is HOT in which students learn about the hazards of tobacco from the American Cancer Society. Another more renown program is DARE. This is an innovative drug prevention program which not only teaches the danger of tobacco, alcohol, and drugs but also instructs the students through practical situations, how to avoid these substances. Bruce Collins Elementary School is much more than the simple brick and mortar of some facilities. This school has been instrumental in the teaching of students for over 25 years in the important early years of elementary school. Mr. Speaker, I applaud the 25 years of successful education at Bruce Collins Elementary School and am sure that the next 25 years of this fine institution will be equally, if not more, successful.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, as this historic 104th Congress convenes, I am reintroducing the Child Support Credit Bureau Reporting Act of 1995, to require all States to participate in a simplified, nationally uniform child-support credit-bureau reporting system. I first introduced this bill in 1994. It is aimed at combatting the woefully low rate of child support payments in the United States, without creating a new Federal Government program to do it. Credit bureaus and, through them, individual lenders will know on a monthly basis whether or not parents are fulfilling this most basic obligation. With negligible Federal costs, this bill will begin to get the private sector involved in addressing those adults who don't pay their court- ordered child support. Children are created by two people, and both of them must accept personal and financial responsibility for raising their children. In broken, or never-formed families, financial responsibility is often defined by court-ordered child support payments. Unfortunately, too many noncustodial parents fail to comply with the court orders. A year ago, I received a letter from a constituent of mine in Warren, MI. This mother of two ran away from her husband, and moved into a shelter for abused women. She writes: I have been working as a secretary for almost eight years now, and it still seems that there is never enough money. My ex-husband doesn't even pay the ordered $55 per week, an amount so small it won't even buy them both new shoes or new coats. It won't pay for Little League registration * * * and if I saved every penny, it wouldn't put them half way through college. Why does he do this? Because he feels he can get away with it and I say he's right. Unfortunately, she's not alone. The Office of Child Support Enforcement in the Department of Health and Human Services reports that of $35 billion of cumulative court-ordered child support owed through 1992, $27 billion remains uncollected. In 1992, nearly six million absentee parents made no child support payments at all. This is simply wrong and my child support credit bureau reporting bill will help to change this. Very simply, State agencies responsible for child support enforcement will report the status of all child support accounts to the Nation's three major credit bureaus--TRW, Equifax, and Trans-Union. With this information appearing on credit reports, individual lenders will know on a monthly basis whether parents owe court-ordered child support and whether they are fulfilling this most basic obligations. After all, is a parent's obligation to pay court-ordered child support any less important than that parent's obligation to make a car payment or pay their credit card bills? Last year, I asked the GAO to survey 16 States, credit bureaus, and some lenders regarding this proposal. I introduced my bill after receiving the favorable GAO report, entitled ``Child Support Enforcement--Credit Bureau Reporting Shows Promise,'' on June 3, 1994. Generally, the GAO found that my proposal can increase child support collections, that it is administratively feasible, and, most importantly, it can be implemented with little cost to either State or Federal governments. In short, over time, my bill will help save money and increase court-ordered child support collections. Mr. Speaker, we have done nearly all we can in the way of Federal statute; we already mandate tax-refund intercepts, the withholding of court-ordered support from wages, liens on property, and so on. But government cannot do this alone. The private sector must also reinforce the principle of parental responsibility. My bill will provide private- sector banks, credit card agencies, merchants, and businesses the information they should weigh when making loan decisions. Private sector lenders should attach at least as much importance to a parent's track record for paying court-ordered child support as they do to credit card balances and loan payments. And failure to pay court- ordered child support should carry grave consequences. Mr. Speaker, if we support family values, then surely this is a sensible and necessary step. Those in the private sector--banks, credit card agencies, and businesses--should put court-ordered child support on the scale when weighing the decision to make a loan. We must send the message that both parents are responsible for supporting their children and that child support is a debt parents cannot afford to ignore. Mr. Speaker, I ask that a copy of the bill be inserted in the Record at this point.