Barbara Mikulski

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. You know what? I am.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Ms. MIKULSKI. This amendment is offered by Senator Bradley and myself. Its purpose is to bring men back into the family: No. 1, to have tough child support; No 2, to promote marriage, and, No. 3, to end the parent trap that is in the GOP welfare reform bill. The GOP welfare reform bill does nothing to restore men in families. What this amendment does is provide job placement for noncustodial fathers, meaning if a dad wants a job and to go to work, if he does not have work, we work to place him in it. No. 2, we prevent States creating welfare rules that penalize marriage [[Page S 13604]] and push men out of the family, particularly where they work more than 100 hours a month. We also promote marriage. It says that where there is a family cap, this amendment would require them to come up with incentives that promote marriage. The other is we would pay child support to mothers, not to child support.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Our amendment is good for fathers, for kids, for America. I urge its adoption.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New Jersey. I also thank the Senator from Rhode Island for yielding him some time. I will ask for the yeas and nays, but I presume the Senator from Rhode Island wants to speak.

Ms. MIKULSKI. I believe this will cost $920 million over a 7-year period. We hope that part of the money will come from, first of all, child support itself. No. 2, by bringing men back into the family, which will decrease the need for public assistance. I am looking at the memo here on exactly where that comes from. I do not have an offset for this. I believe we were going to accept an adoption amendment which will cost $3 billion--and, by the way, I was a foster care worker and also involved in adoption work many years ago. So I support that amendment. But, there is not a cost that you can put on bringing a dad back into the home. If it is going to cost us a couple of bucks to do that, I think the long-term savings--you might think it is amusing, but I do not think it is.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Ms. MIKULSKI. Does the Senator think that simply because a father is [[Page S 13590]] in arrears on child support, he is a deadbeat and wants to abdicate his responsibility? Because, for whatever reason, earlier in their life, maybe he did not complete school, and he needs job training to get back into the labor market in order to assume his responsibility. That is what is behind our motivation in that part.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I wish to send an amendment to the desk.

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

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays and that the vote occur in whatever order or whatever time that was in the unanimous-consent agreement.

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

Ms. MIKULSKI. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, my amendment deals with the role of men and how we can bring men back into the family, how we can eliminate marriage penalties and begin to really work toward two-parent households once again among the poor. One of the missing discussions in this year's welfare debate is how we involve fathers with their families. We can do that through tougher child support laws and, yes, it is true we need to crack down on deadbeat dads. But you know, Democrats and Republicans all agree that we need to have major child support reform to do that. But, quite frankly, men, fathers are more than a child support check. Our focus needs to be on the issues related to child rearing as much as child support. We need to get the men involved in the rearing of their own children and we do that by promoting two-parent families. Earlier this year, the nonpartisan Casey Foundation, which I am proud to say is headquartered in Baltimore, released their 1995 report called ``Kids Count.'' It focused exclusively on the need to promote fathers as part of our Nation's strategy to reform welfare. One of the most compelling things that they outlined was the devastating effect on children when fathers are absent from the home. The Casey Foundation said this: Children in father-absent families are five times more likely to be poor and 10 times more likely to be extremely poor. Children of single mothers are twice as likely to become high-school dropouts. These kids are more likely to end up in foster or group care or, even worse, in juvenile justice facilities. The Casey Foundation went on to tell us that: Girls from single-parent families have three times greater risk of bearing children as unwed teenagers. Often in the debate, and I know the Senator from New York, Senator Moynihan, has often commented on the problems related to single-parent families, we often overlook the role of what happens to girls. And boys whose fathers are absent face a much higher probability of growing up unemployed, incarcerated, and uninvolved with their own children. During this welfare debate, we have heard about the staggering rise in illegitimacy and the households headed by single parents. Much of this rhetoric has focused on solving the problems through punishing the mother. They aim for the mother but, in turn, hit the child. The proposed solutions do not get at the heart of why we have fewer two-parent families, which is simply the decline in jobs that pay a family wage and the penalties in our public policy that work against the two-parent family. The chart next to me contains data from the ``1995 Kids Count'' report and it makes it graphically. Between 1969 and 1993, the percentage of children under 18 living in households headed by women jumped from 11 percent to 24 percent. During that same 23-year period, the number of men between the ages of 25 and 34 who did not earn enough to support a family of four jumped from 14 percent to 32 percent. The link is clear. If employment opportunities do not exist for men who are poor, it is unlikely they will get married. In fact, the ``Kids Count'' report points out most women consider a stable income an important element in choosing someone to marry. The Republican welfare bill is either silent on solutions or it focuses on the mother as the only solution, or actually it attacks the mother. In fact, it is what I have called ``the parent trap.'' They say they want women on welfare to get married and require tougher work requirements for people who end up getting married. The Republican bill allows States to impose family caps, but it never asks States to develop programs that will bring families together. Their bill also allows State welfare programs to cut families off if a father actually works too many hours. So we are going to penalize the father for being in the home, and we are going to penalize him for working too many hours. Hey, that is not the way to reform welfare or to move the poor out of poverty. It also allows a father's child support check to go to a State bureaucracy instead of directly to the family. We Democrats are serious about welfare reform, and we are serious about strengthening the family in this process. We aim for real reform by protecting the child, helping the mother and involving the father. The amendment that the Senator from New Jersey and I have proposed seeks to end this ``parent trap'' and instead include real solutions that promote two-parent families. We will do this in our amendment by, first, job placement for noncustodial fathers. This amendment sets aside a very small amount of money in the welfare block grant for States to enroll unemployed fathers in job training and placement so they can meet their child support and family obligations. Employing these fathers is the most significant step we can take to promote two- parent families. In addition, the cost of this effort will be partially offset by increased child support payments as a result of the jobs which these fathers would have. Second, our amendment prevents States from creating welfare rules that penalize marriage. The amendment prevents States from reenacting the current AFDC man in the house rule at the State level that pushes the man out of the family. Third, it promotes marriage and not punishment. And fourth, we pay child support to mothers, not State bureaucrats. What do I mean? It means that, first of all, we have a rule called the man in the house rule. If you are a father living at home and you work over 100 hours a month, regardless of what you earn, your family is cut off from assistance. This is unacceptable. We need to promote and require work, and eligibility for assistance should be based on what you earn, not the number of hours it takes to earn it. Third, promote marriage. For those States that impose a family cap, the amendment would require them to come up with some incentives that promote marriage. If we are serious about strengthening families, let us not just cut people off and make no effort to encourage marriage. And fourth, pay child support to mothers not State bureaucrats. In my own State of Maryland, I had a roundtable with dads who are meeting their family obligations, but they told me how frustrating it was when they wrote their child support check it went into some big bureaucracy and when they went to visit their child, there had been no linkage between dad being the [[Page S 13589]] provider and their family actually experiencing that and the check still coming from the welfare department. As a result, our amendment requires States to pass through the first $50 in a monthly child support payment to the family. Mr. President, my amendment has many other components to it. I could speak on many elements in this program. We deal particularly with helping interstate child custody orders and others. But I want to say this. Our amendment is good for fathers and their children. It recognizes that men are not only child support checks, but they must be involved as fathers. I want them not only paying child support, I want them to be a link within the family itself. The dad is not in the home, but still there is a relationship. Second, where possible, to be able to promote the family and get the dad back in the home. Mr. President, I know that the Senator from New Jersey wishes to speak on this amendment. How much time do we have left on our side?

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I yield myself 3 minutes on this amendment, and then I will yield to the Senator from Iowa. I also ask unanimous consent that Senator Wellstone be a cosponsor of the amendment.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on this amendment.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Ms. MIKULSKI. I did not hear the tap, but having heard the tap I now yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Iowa, a supporter of my amendment.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I correct myself. I yield myself 3 minutes, and then I will yield to the Senator from Iowa [Mr. Grassley], 2 minutes. [[Page S 13492]] Mr. President, today I rise to save the Senior Community Service Employment Program of title V of the Older Americans Act. I do this to preserve over 100,000 senior citizen jobs. Title V provides part-time, minimum wage employment, and community service to low-income workers as well as training for placement in unsubsidized employment. Its participants provide millions of dollars of community service at on-the-job sites making a critical difference in care centers, hospitals, senior centers, libraries, and so on. The Dole substitute now before us repeals the Senior Community Service Employment Program. My amendment strikes this repeal. It saves the Senior Community Service Employment Program of title V of the Older Americans Act. If title V is not removed from the welfare reform bill, it will be repealed, along with 100 Federal job training programs, and rolled into a block grant. This will have a devastating consequence on these older workers. It serves directly in the communities across the Nation that benefits from these. My amendment is supported by senior organizations across this country, including AARP, the National Council of Senior Citizens, and others. Mr. President, there are so many good reasons to support the Senior Community Service Employment Program. Title V is our country's only work force development program designed to maximize the productive contributions of a rapidly growing older population. It does this through training, retraining, and community service. We should leave title V in the Older Americans Act. It does not belong in welfare reform, and it does not belong in the reform of the job training bills. Title V is primarily operated by private nonprofit national aging organizations. This is not big bureaucracy. It is a critical part of that Older Americans Act and has consistently exceeded all goals established by Congress and the Department of Labor, surpassing a 20 percent placement goal for the past 6 years and achieving a record of 135 percent in the last year. Title V, this Senior Community Service Employment Program, provides a positive return on taxpayer investment, returning $1.47 for every $1 invested. It is means tested, and it also serves the oldest and the poorest in our society; 40 percent are minorities, 70 percent are women, 30 percent are over the age of 70, 81 percent are age 60 and older, and 9 percent have disabilities. Surely they deserve to have their own protection. Title V ensures national responsiveness to local needs by directly involving participants in meeting critical human needs in their communities, from child and elder care to public safety and environmental preservation. Title V has demonstrated high standards of performance and fiscal accountability unique to Government programs. Less than 15 percent of funding is spent on administrative costs. Title V historically has enjoyed strong public support because it is based on the principles of personal responsibility, lifelong learning, and service to community. I urge your support for my amendment. Is the Chair tapping?

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, today, I rise to save the Senior Community Service Employment Program--title V of the Older Americans Act--and preserve over 100,000 senior citizens' jobs. Title V provides part-time, minimum wage employment in community services to low-income older workers, as well as training for placement in unsubsidized employment. Its participants provide millions of hours of community service work at their on-the-job sites, making a critical difference at day care centers, hospitals, senior centers, libraries, and so on. The Dole substitute now before us repeals the Senior Community Service Employment Program. My amendment strikes this repeal and saves the Senior Community Service Employment Program, title V of the Older Americans Act. If title V is not removed from the welfare reform bill, it will be repealed along with over 100 Federal job training programs and rolled into a block grant. This will have devastating consequences on over 100,000 low-income older workers it serves directly, and [[Page S 13494]] the many communities across the Nation that benefit from these workers' job activities. My amendment is supported by senior organizations across this country including the American Association of Retired Persons, Green Thumb, the National Council of Senior Citizens, National Council of Black Aged, National Council on Aging, and the Urban League. The purpose of title V is to assure resources reach low-income older workers. The special needs of low-income seniors are often ignored or neglected by other employment and training programs: Seniors with limited education; seniors with outmoded work skills; seniors with limited English-speaking ability; and seniors with a long-term detachment from the workforce, such as widows. The purpose of having a separate title V of the Older Americans Act is to assure that funds are actually used to serve low-income persons 55 and older. Title V merges two important concepts: Community service employment for seniors who would otherwise have a difficult time locating employment in the private sector, and the delivery of services in their communities. Eliminating title V places seniors at-risk on winding up on welfare. Title V enables low-income seniors to be economically self- sufficient, rather than depend upon welfare. How ironic as we debate the welfare reform bill, that the result of repealing title V could swell the welfare rolls for seniors. Many title V participants are now self-sufficient. If this program is repealed and seniors lose their community service employment positions, these seniors may be forced to accept SSI, Medicaid, food stamps, and housing assistance. Title V seniors would rather have a hand-up not a hand-out. There are 10 good reasons to support the Senior Community Service Employment Program. First, title V is our country's only work force development program designed to maximize the productive contributions of a radidly growing older population through training, retraining, and community service. Second, title V is primarily operated by private, nonprofit national aging organizations that are customer-focused, mission driven, and experienced in serving older, low-income people. Third, title V is a critical part of the Older Americans Act, balancing the dual goals of community service and employment and training for low-income seniors. Fourth, title V has consistently exceeded all goals established by Congress and the Department of Labor, surpassing the 20 percent placement goal for the past 6 years and achieving a record 135 percent of goal in 1993-94. Fifth, title V provides a positive return on taxpayer investment, returning $1.47 for every $1 invested. Sixth, title V is a means-tested program, serving Americans age 55+ with income at or below 125 percent of the poverty level, or $9,200 for a family of one. Seventh, title V serves the oldest and poorest in our society, and those most in need--39 percent are minorities; 72 percent are women; 32 percent are age 70 and older; 81 percent are age 60 and older; 9 percent have disabilities. Eighth, title V ensures national responsiveness to local needs by directly involving participants in meeting critical human needs in their communities, from child and elder care to public safety and environmental preservation. Ninth, title V has demonstrated high standards of performance and fiscal accountability unique to Government programs. Less than 15 percent of funding is spent on administrative costs. Tenth, title V historically has enjoyed strong public support because it is based on the principles of personal responsibility, lifelong learning, and service to community. I urge your support for my amendment. Mrs. KASSEBAUM addressed the Chair.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in opposition to the proposed fair share amendment to change the amount of Federal funds States receive for welfare reform. I cannot stand here today and vote for a formula that will penalize my State of Maryland in order to reward other States that have been unwilling to help themselves over the past decades. Our current welfare system says to States that if you are a poor state, we will give you more Federal dollars. We do this through a Federal match. Some States are told that for every dollar you spend, we will give you a dollar. That is what Maryland is told. Other poorer States are told that for every dollar you spend, we will give you two. That may seem unfair, but we have done that because we know some States are less well off. Even under this system, States must still decide just how much they want to spend. Some States, including Maryland, I am proud to say, have placed a high priority on ending poverty. The amendment before us will take all the Federal dollars we currently spend and give more to States that have a history of little commitment to welfare reform. We do that by taking from States that have made a great effort at ending poverty. This is not an approach that will create welfare reform. Instead we will force States to fight each other for limited resources. Mr. President, changing the funding formula in a bad bill is a lot like moving around the furniture on the deck of the Titanic. We need to do more then that. We need real welfare reform. One step in that direction is to vote this amendment down.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, today, I am introducing the Access to Emergency Medical Services Act of 1995. This bill prohibits health plans from denying coverage and payment for emergency room visits. Currently, payment for emergency room services may be denied because a patient does not have pre-authorization for treatment; the diagnosis after reaching the emergency room determined the condition was not an emergency; or the health plan may not have a contract with the hospital rendering the emergency service. Denial of payment places a significant burden on the patient, who now has higher health care costs and is more cautious about seeking medical treatment. This is a significant health risk. A patient thinks twice about going to an emergency room and receiving emergency medical treatment for conditions that really pose a serious health problem. Federal law requires physicians and hospitals to render emergency services immediately for an injury or sudden illness. The law also requires that emergency services not be delayed until the health insurance status of a patient has been determined. However, too often patients are not receiving treatment until their health plan has given authorization for services. This bill would prohibit health plans from denying coverage and payment for services because of a lack of authorization from the health plan. The bill also requires health plans to pay emergency physicians and hospital emergency departments for emergency services rendered in compliance with Federal law. Most importantly, the Access to Emergency Medical Services Act provides a uniform definition of emergency. This definition would base payment upon a patient's symptoms and not upon the doctor's diagnosis. Therefore, health plans could not deny coverage and payment for medical services after a diagnosis is given. The State of Maryland has established a uniform definition of emergency, as have Virginia and Arkansas. The Maryland law giving a uniform definition of emergency was enacted in 1993. Since the enactment of the bill, complaints to the Maryland Insurance Administration have decreased by 90 percent. In [[Page S 13475]] addition, patients are able to have urgent symptoms treated in the emergency rooms without any problems regarding pre-authorization from the health plan. There has not been a denial of coverage or payment for services even if the final diagnosis is different from the symptoms. The Maryland law has proven to be cost-effective to patients and to the health plans. Providing a uniform definition of emergency allows persons to be treated for their symptoms even if the final diagnosis determines the medical problem causing the symptoms was not an emergency. This policy is able to prevent much more serious health problems. By not denying coverage and prohibiting persons from receiving treatment in the emergency department, more serious illnesses are prevented or detected sooner. This will allow for medical treatment for existing conditions that prevent the onset of a life threatening illness for which a person may have to be hospitalized. Let me give an example. A person has chest pains but believes he is having a heart attack. The emergency room diagnosis determines that the person is not having a heart attack. However, if the person had not received treatment for the chest pains, he could have later had a heart attack requiring hospital admission. The cost for treatment in the emergency department is less than if the person had to be admitted to the hospital for any length of time. The Access to Emergency Medical Services Act of 1995 saves money for patients and for health plans. Health plans that deny emergency care coverage are taking a deadly toll on American families. We, as lawmakers, have an obligation to protect our constituents and end this very real problem. I urge my colleagues to support the Access to Emergency Medical Service Act of 1995.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in support of the amendment offered by the Senator from Louisiana. This amendment is straight forward. It says to States, all States, if the Federal Government turns over a block of money to do as you please in welfare reform, we ask that you commit your own resources as well. That is a fair deal. [[Page S 13327]] Welfare reform is a partnership. It isn't just a State problem and it isn't just a national problem. It's everybody's problem. Unfortunately not every State has viewed it that way over these past decades. Some States simply don't want to make a commitment. If this legislation passes without a requirement that the States maintain their commitment, I have no doubt some Governors and State governments will quickly cut their funding to real welfare reform at the very same time they are accepting Federal dollars. Mr. President, what of those States that are sincere about welfare reform? What happens when the next recession hits? Will political pressures force them to fund other programs from current State welfare funding? There will be more people who will need assistance but at the same time many school budgets will be squeezed by that recession and they will be asking for some of these welfare dollars. In the next recession what if the crime rates increase? If the prison system needs more dollars where will these Governors get the money? And what about a race to the bottom? If one State cuts its spending on welfare will the neighboring State be forced to do the same? One State may decide it can attract new jobs and companies from another State by offering a business tax cut funded from State welfare dollars. In my state of Maryland we have not received an overly generous Federal match when it comes to welfare funding. We are willing to do our part. What we do not want is to be forced into a race with another State that is more concerned about cutting benefits as a substitute for real welfare reform. If we are serious about welfare reform then it is time we demand that the State governments as well as the Federal Government make a commitment. That commitment demands more than just different ideas, it demands both Federal and State resources and dollars. Mr. BREAUX addressed the Chair.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in opposition to the Ashcroft amendment on food stamps. For the second straight day we are being asked to launch an attack on the Food Stamp Program. Once again I want to restate that Democrats support real reform of food stamps, not an effort to take food away from people. This amendment block-grants food stamps and in the process denies a safety net for kids. Once we turn this program into a block grant we end our commitment to feed all those children who fall victim to the next recession. I am serious about reforming this program. I am pleased that Maryland has lead the country in introducing ways to cut down on fraud by going to an electronic system. Democrats have included reform of food stamps in our welfare reform bill. We included increased civil and criminal forfeiture for grocers who violate the Food Stamp Act. We tell stores that they must reapply for the Food Stamp Program so that we make sure that fraud is not happening. Retailers who have already been disqualified from the WIC Program are disqualified from food stamps. We encourage States to enact their own reforms including the use of an electronic card and a picture ID. Democrats don't stop there. We are willing to require able-bodied people to work. Mr. President, the fight here is over food, not fraud. This amendment would take the current system and throw it out. After we eliminate the current system we then turn it over to State governments. There are no guarantees in this amendment that States will not create their own bureaucratic wasteland. No guarantees that money going for food won't be diverted to nonnutrition needs. If we block-grant food stamps, what guarantees U.S. taxpayers that the dollars going for food stamps won't be converted to fund other programs in the next recession? What guarantees do we have that these nutrition funds won't become a bailout fund for some politically vulnerable Governor? Mr. President, I repeat, I am for welfare reform--all Democrats are. That is why we worked hard at a real reform bill. That bill includes reforms to the Food Stamp Program. This amendment replaces reform with regression. Regression back to a time when we did not commit our Nation to a goal of feeding hungry people. It is time we focused our attention back on reform. We can do that by voting down this amendment.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I am proud to be one of the co-sponsors of the Kennedy-Dodd child-care amendment to the Republican welfare reform bill. No issue more clearly defines the differences in this welfare debate than child care. Both sides have said that the goal of welfare must be to move people to work, but Democrats have maintained that it is not just about moving them to work, it is is about keeping them on the job. We want to provide welfare recipients with the tools to stay on the job. What the facts prove time and time again is that the most necessary tool is child care for children. Child care is the No. 1 barrier keeping mothers out of the work force, and one in four mothers between the ages of 21 and 29 are not working today because of child care. Among welfare mothers, 34 percent are not working because of either inability to find reliable child care or inability to afford child care. No single parent can look for or keep a job without child care, and single parents make up 88 percent of the AFDC caseload. Without child care, we will have no success in moving people to work and keeping them there. But child care is costly, and the average middle-class family spends 9 percent of its income on child care. However, the average poor family spends almost 25 percent of its income on child care. The Republican plan will leave four million children under the age of six home alone. Today, almost 650,000 of them receive child care with assistance that would be eliminated under the Dole plan. In fact, the plan would repeal the child care guarantee passed by the Senate in 1988. If the States implement the proposed welfare reform plan, the need for child care will increase by more than 200 percent by the year 2000. States will need over $4 billion more a year. In Maryland, the unfunded mandate will amount to more than $1 million a week that Maryland taxpayers will pay to cover child care costs. This child care policy proves that the Republican bill does not look at the day-to-day lives of real people. Welfare recipients who we send to work will not have high-paying jobs, and will not be able to afford child care. Suppose a mother lives in suburban Maryland and decides to do the right thing. She gets an entry-level, minimum-wage job in the food service industry. With this job, she is making almost $9,000 a year, but gets no benefits. After taxes and Social Security, this mother takes home $175 a week, but her child care costs her $125 a week. How is she going to pay for rent, food, clothing, and transportation costs with only $50 left over a week? Our Democratic Work First plan recognizes that child care is the vital link between leaving welfare and going to work. Our plan consolidates four current programs into one expanded child care block grant, eliminating duplicate paperwork and reporting requirements, and reducing bureaucratic structure. This block grant will help provide child care for welfare recipients, those transitioning from welfare to work, and the working poor. Under our plan, a family of four making less than $15,000 a year will be eligible for child care. On the other hand, the Republican plan forces States into an impossible position. Either the State does not provide child care and welfare reform fails, or they do provide child care by raising taxes and cutting other State programs. States also can divert aid from the working poor to pay for welfare, but in doing so send a perverse incentive--if you go on welfare, you get help; if you go to work every day and barely make ends meet, you never get a break. Welfare reform is about ending the cycle and the culture of poverty. Ending the cycle of poverty is an economic challenge, but Democrats are providing the tools to overcome this challenge. The Republicans have no plan. Ending the culture of poverty is about personal responsibility. Democrats have proposed a tough plan based on tough love. It is a hand up, not a hand out. But Republicans have proposed a punitive plan based on tough luck. It aims for the mother, but hits the child. This debate should be about ending welfare as a way of life, and making it a step to a better life. That means real work requirements, with the tools to get the job done. If we are to have a bipartisan framework for welfare reform, we must address the work challenge in a way that is real, and deals with people's day-to-day needs. We must adopt the Kennedy-Dodd amendment and fix the Dole home alone child care policy. the need for child care in welfare reform

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to speak out against the amendment offered by the senior Senator from North Carolina. Let me be clear. I am for reform of the Food Stamp Program. I am willing to toughen up work requirements. I am for elimination of fraud. That is why Democrats included reforms in our welfare reform. We include increased civil and criminal forfeiture for grocers who violate the Food Stamp Act. We require stores to reapply for the Food Stamp Program so that we make sure that fraud is not taking place. We disqualify grocers who have already been disqualified from the WIC Program. We encourage States to use the electronic benefits transfer program and we allow them to require a picture ID. We require able- bodied people who are between 18 to 50 to work after a period. The fight here is over food, not fraud. This amendment would say to workers in my State and States across this country that if you are a victim of a plant closing, you won't get any food stamps unless you go out and work. This amendment is tough on new mothers. Under this amendment, if you are about to have your first child and for some reason you lose your job, you are cut off from food stamps unless you work. Cut off at the most critical time in life for good nutrition. This amendment doesn't recognize that some areas are hit by high unemployment. This proposal fails to realize that we do have recessions. In a time when we denounce mandates to the States, this is exactly what the proposal does--it mandates further costs. This amendment offers no funding to help these workers find work or create jobs. It is assumed that State and local governments can do this on their own. State and local governments will have to enforce these new Food Stamp requirements at the very time they are reinventing their welfare program. Mr. President, I am for welfare reform including the Food Stamp Program. I am not for denying help to those who truly need it and that is what this amendment does. I urge my [[Page S 13198]] colleagues to vote this amendment down so we can get on to real reform.