David Pryor

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I would like my colleagues to know at this time that over the weekend the mother of our friend Mack McLarty, who is the former White House Chief of Staff and who is the special counsel to the President--Mack McLarty's mother, Helen McLarty, lost a long battle with cancer over the weekend. She was a wonderful woman, a great citizen of our State. I had the privilege, when I was Governor of our State, of naming Helen McLarty to become the first female member of the Arkansas Industrial Development Commission. She served with honor and with distinction. She will be missed by all, and her legacy will last for a long time--remembering this wonderful woman of great spirit, from Hope, AR. The services for Helen McLarty will be this afternoon at 2 o'clock in Hope, AR., at the First Presbyterian Church. I am honored to have been asked by the family to participate in those final services for Helen McLarty.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, there is not order in the Senate.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. I wonder if the Senator from California would educate this Senator as to the California Legislature, I think in 1993, enacting the law only relating to poultry. Why is it that the State of California only objected to poultry labeling and not the labeling of beef, not the labeling of pork, and not the labeling of fish? Why is it that we are letting those groups off and concentrating only on poultry products?

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, let the Record show that the junior Senator from Arkansas was certainly willing to yield to the distinguished senior Senator from Arkansas to make his statement at this time. I have been looking forward to that statement. I think he, as the ranking member of the subcommittee, along with our friend from Mississippi, Senator Cochran, is doing a very good job of putting this issue exactly where it should be placed, and that is it is not an issue, in my opinion and I think in the opinion of many of my colleagues, of consumer protection. It is an issue basically of the protection of the State of California. That is where we see this issue coming down. There is something missing about this debate, I might say, Mr. President, that is disconcerting to me, which I think, and hope, will deserve a response certainly, if I could elicit one, from my colleague from California, Senator Boxer. I am hoping to find out why the issue of only poultry--only poultry--is today before the Senate in this so- called great debate between frozen and fresh poultry products. Mr. President, it is a known fact that beef, that pork, that fish may be frozen at any degree and they are not affected as the Senator from California, or I should say the Senators from California, would attempt to affect the products of poultry especially from the South and the Southeastern part of the United States. I might say, also, Mr. President, that the Senator from Mississippi has rightfully offered his amendment and placed it into this basic legislation, into the committee bill. The Senator from Mississippi is not trying to obliterate what the U.S. Department of Agriculture is attempting to do. He is simply trying to say that any regulation in this area, assuming that we would have hearings, as the Senator from Virginia, Senator Warner, has stated on the issue, that the Committees of Agriculture in the House and the Senate must approve ultimately any language that the U.S. Department of Agriculture would adopt in imposing and, I might say, implementing such a far-reaching, sweeping regulation, in regulatory language. Mr. President, I think it is also needful, or let us say worthwhile, at this point for us to sort of go back just a couple of years and see how this issue got to the Senate in this form. First, about 2 or 3 years ago, the State of California passed a law to prohibit fresh labeling as has been under discussion today. I think, if I am not mistaken, that was in 1992 or 1993. The American Meat Institute and the National Broiler Council and others took this issue to court, in fact to the Federal court. The court held, with the support of the Department of Agriculture, that this particular law passed by the State of California was preempting Federal law and therefore basically was struck down. The U.S. Department of Agriculture then, Mr. President, agreed to review this regulation and issued an interim or a proposed rule. During the rulemaking process, as other Members of the Senate have mentioned this morning, during that particular time of several weeks when people could comment on how they felt about this rule about to be proposed, or which assumingly was going to be proposed by the Department of Agriculture, of the 26,000 comments that came in, 23,000 stated they felt that the regulation went too far. We think it also interesting to note, and perhaps the Record could be made clear on this, we do not know of any consumer in the State of California who objected to this labeling process that we have had so long, that has been so fair. We do not know of any consumer in Senator Boxer's or Senator Feinstein's State who has objected to this process. Who objected? The California Poultry Association, which is an association made up of California poultry producers who might not be as efficient as those throughout the South and the Southeast in the field of poultry production. Once again, Mr. President, I think that there is no scientific basis today that we can see for the U.S. Department of Agriculture's arbitrary selection of 26 degrees as the threshold temperature for determining whether poultry is fresh. In fact, some say that if you kept poultry at 26 degrees, it might well spoil. What this is, I think, is a nontariff trade barrier erected by the California poultry industry, not brought about by California consumers. There is no objection from California consumers that we know of. Perhaps we might even consider initiating new GATT or NAFTA rounds for a trade agreement among the States, involving the State of California and these particular poultry concerns that they are raising this morning. Mr. President, we have time to hold hearings. And with the Cochran amendment in place, if it is kept in place, we are certainly willing and, I think, able to work out a fair solution to the issue of fresh versus frozen poultry. I sincerely hope that the Senate will defeat the amendment offered by our very good and distinguished friends, the Senators from California, Senator Boxer and Senator Feinstein. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. PRYOR. I wonder if the Senator will yield for a question.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I thank my colleague, Senator Bumpers, for yielding. I am here, Mr. President, not to participate in this debate but just to state that it is now 8:20 p.m. There seems to be a large number of Senators gathering in the Senate. I assume that means there are going to be more speakers. I am just wondering if we could get some sort of word from the distinguished manager as to whether we might set a time certain to vote on this amendment or as to the possibility of perhaps stacking this vote early in the morning with another series of votes, otherwise we might go until midnight and never have a vote. I am just wondering if the distinguished manager might comment on this.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with.

Mr. PRYOR. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I rise today to offer this amendment on behalf of myself and Senator Graham of Florida. This is an amendment that I think speaks to some real need for a common sense approach to the issues of penalties that this legislation could burden our States with. This amendment will give some flexibility to the penalty section that the States will be subjected to if they fail to quickly comply with the numerous requirements of this legislation. Mr. President, this amendment has the support of the National Governors' Association, the National Conference of State Legislatures, and the American Public Welfare Association. I would like to take this opportunity to publicly thank these fine groups for endorsing and supporting this amendment. Under the bill before us, Mr. President, as the States move to a more flexible block grant welfare system--and it appears that that is what is going to happen--the States of our Union are going to be subjected to harsh, inflexible penalties. These penalties should be designed to encourage States to play by the rules, not to injure them for unintentional mistakes made while they are trying to recreate their entire welfare systems with very, very limited resources and very little time to do it. This bill states that our States in our Union can be penalized by up to 5 percent of their block grant for each of the following violations. Let me reiterate, for each of the following violations: If a State, one, fails to submit a required report--any required report; if a State fails to use the income and eligibility verification system; if the State fails to comply with the increased paternity establishment and child support enforcement requirements; and if a State fails to meet work participation rates. The Congressional Budget Office says that most States will not be able to meet these work participation rates in the short time allowed by the proposed legislation. These penalties are very, very harsh. They are inflexible, and alone they could add up to 20 percent of a State's block grant. But a State can be penalized an additional 5 percent under this proposal for the improper use of funds, even if that misuse is not intentional. If I might cite a hypothetical example. If the State of Texas, for example, [[Page S 13584]] unknowingly and by mistake erroneously paid $184 in welfare payments to a person who has violated his prison parole, the penalties would be as follows, Mr. President: The $184 that was improperly used, that would be a part of the penalty, plus 5 percent of the State's total block grant value which works out to be $25 million in penalties for the State of Texas. In addition, the State of Texas would have to use State funds, not Federal funds but State funds, to make up this entire penalty. I am certain that this is a classic case of unintended consequences, and I feel very certain, Mr. President, that the authors of the original bill had no intention of penalizing our States in this manner. In short, a State would be penalized in this situation, in this hypothetical condition, over $25 million for an unintentional $184 violation, and that is only for one violation, unintentional as it might be. This amendment further solves a problem by applying a penalty of 5 percent only--only--if the improper use is judged to be intentional. If it is the result of an honest mistake, the State would still have to repay the amount misused, plus an additional amount of State funds to maintain the block grant. An additional part of this amendment gives the State the necessary transition time that the States are going to need to put their welfare systems in place, while not delaying reforms in areas where the State is ready to move ahead. It will postpone the penalties of all but improper use of funds until 6 months after Health and Human Services issues the final rules. In the absence of final regulations, the States that try to interpret and meet the requirements of a statute in good faith may still be subject to penalties when the details of the law are fleshed out by Federal regulations. Finally, Mr. President, the amendment I offer today, once again, in behalf of myself and Senator Graham of Florida, the amendment that we offer will allow the States to enter into an agreement with HHS called a corrective compliance plan which spells out how the State will improve its systems and comply with the requirements of the act. This section of my amendment incorporates many of the ideas that were embodied in an earlier amendment by the Senator from Arizona, Senator McCain. It is similar to a provision in the current law that we now operate under. The penalties are suspended as long as the State continues to follow the plan. If the Secretary of HHS finds that a State is not working to improve its system, then the Secretary may impose all or some of the original penalties, depending on how much progress that particular State has made. This amendment does not weaken the Federal oversight on States. In fact, even with these changes, the penalties on States in this legislation will be far more strict than those penalties in the House bill. It is narrowly drawn to be fair. It is drawn to be flexible, and it is drawn to meet the test of common sense. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that there are no costs--no costs--associated with this amendment. I am very proud to say that this amendment has, we believe, bipartisan support in the U.S. Senate. And once again, I wish to thank the American Public Welfare Association, the National Conference of State Legislatures, and the National Governors' Association for the splendid assistance they have given us in preparing this amendment. I also appreciate the understanding shown and hopefully the ultimate acceptance of this amendment by not only the majority but also the ranking manager of this legislation. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, the amendment does not have to be read, as I understand it.

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, at this time I call up amendment No. 2495 and ask unanimous consent that the amendment be sent to the desk and that it be modified to reflect the language in this amendment.

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I rise today to voice my support for the Conrad teen parent amendment and to take a few minutes to discuss a serious social problem that must be addressed--teenage pregnancy. Senator Conrad's amendment allows all States to do what my home State of Arkansas is already doing. Currently, Arkansas has a waiver to operate two programs for teen parents. The first requires minor parents to remain in their parents' or guardian's household in order to receive AFDC benefits. If a teenage parent is unable to live at home, the State places the young woman in an adult-supervised living arrangement. Teens should not be on their own raising a child. They need supervision, education, and support. The second, requires teenage parents who have not finished high school to attend school or another training program to receive benefits, the point being that these teen mothers will never become self-sufficient if they drop out of school. However, the benefits are two-fold. The parent gets the education and skills she needs to become self-sufficient, and the children of these teen parents have a better chance of completing school themselves. Mr. President, I cannot stress enough the need for programs that will educate these mothers and their children. It may be the only way we can decrease the welfare rolls. By teaching young adults about the consequences of teen pregnancies and the importance of an education, we can keep these young people out of welfare lines and focused on improving their future. Our Nation must work together to fight teen pregnancy. We should involve businesses, schools, religious institutions, and community organizations in order to bring together all facets of society in an organized effort to combat teen pregnancy both now and in the next generation. Although birth rates among all teenagers are lower now than during the 1950's, the birth rate among unmarried teenagers has risen sharply over the last 30 years. In 1970, 70 percent of births to teens were to married teens. Now, 70 percent of births are to unmarried mothers. I find this statistic frightening. My home State of Arkansas runs a close second to Mississippi for highest level of teen pregnancies. Among women ages 15 through 19, 80 out of every 1,000 give birth. In fact, in 1992, teenagers gave birth to more than 7,000 children in Arkansas. These facts cannot be ignored. Another fact that cannot be ignored: teens from poor and educationally disadvantaged families are more likely to become pregnant than those from more affluent and highly educated parents. A recent study indicated that education is the number one predictor of teen pregnancy. Teenagers whose mothers have at least a high school education are half as likely to become teen mothers themselves. I am convinced that education is the key to our teen pregnancy problem. I realize that this is not a cheap solution, nor is it a quick [[Page S 13602]] one. It could take a generation to reduce teen pregnancies significantly. The point is, of the limited amount we know about teen pregnancy prevention, we do know that education works. We should require young women who get pregnant to stay in school. It is the only chance they have to be able to provide a future for themselves or for their child. Although teenage parents make up only a very small percentage of the current AFDC caseload, many older women on welfare had their first child as teenagers. Almost half of all adolescent mothers, both married and unmarried, began receiving AFDC within 5 years of giving birth for the first time. For unmarried adolescent mothers, this number increases to three-fourths. The fact is that the birth of a child compounds the disadvantages that many young people face and makes it more likely that they will live in poverty. Mr. President, my State requires teen mothers to live with a responsible adult and to stay in school through waivers to the current AFDC program. These programs are effective because they say to these young parents that we, our society, and our Government, are willing to help them succeed, to help them learn, to allow them to have the opportunities that they, as American citizens, deserve. I do not believe that Arkansas is the only State which would benefit from such programs. This is why I support Senator Conrad's teen parent amendment, and I urge my colleagues to join me in this support.

Mr. PRYOR. Thank you, Mr. President. Amendment No. 2495, As Modified

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Biden of Delaware, I ask unanimous consent that Peter Jaffe, a detailee on the staff of the Senate Judiciary Committee, be granted floor privileges for the remainder of the 104th Congress.

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I thank the Chair for recognizing me. Privileges of the Floor

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. PRYOR. For the benefit of our colleagues, I have been informed that [[Page S 13588]] is merely the intention. But it is the intention to basically stack votes that are considered between now and 8 p.m., stack those votes at 8 p.m.

Mr. PRYOR. And are we going to, on subsequent amendments--if I might ask the Chair, is it correct that we are going to basically stack the votes at approximately 8 p.m.?

Mr. PRYOR. A point of clarification, please, from the Chair. Would the Mikulski amendment be the next amendment in order? Is there a Mikulski amendment?

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the amendment proposed by my colleague from Maryland concerning the Senior Community Service Employment Program, also known as the title V program. This amendment would remove title V from the job training block grant contained in the welfare reform bill we are considering. Mr. President, this program is unique among employment programs. It serves people whose needs are not met by the more traditional job programs. The program also has a unique character which I believe would be destroyed by the block grant approach. Title V serves seniors who are often difficult to reach. The individuals who participate in this program have very low incomes, and often they have little or no formal job experience. Most participants are over 65, many are widows, and any job experience they have may have occurred decades ago. These individuals need this program because it is the safety net separating them from extreme poverty and welfare dependency. Title V also differs from other job training programs because of its unique nature as a community service program. The jobs occupied by title V participants are in organizations which serve other seniors, children, and the community at large. Organizations which sponsor title V enrollees are those which are most likely to feel the pain of budget cuts and economic downturns, and they simply could not get the job done without the help of the title V program. Mr. President, if the job training block grant includes title V, the losses will be felt throughout our social fabric. Who will lose? Well, first of all, the individuals who participate in title V will lose. By the time the block grant is fully implemented in 1998, between 30,000 and 45,000 older people will be given pink slips. Do we really want to tell 45,000 poor people, most of whom are aged 65 and older, that they can no longer work to supplement their meager income? Do we want to tell these proud people that we would rather have them on welfare? Communities will also lose under this block grant. There will be money lost from local economies as we squeeze more people into poverty. Local communities across America will also lose vital human services which are made possible through title V--services like tutoring of disadvantaged children and meals for the poor. In this social climate, these are services we cannot do without. Another big loser will be government. We will lose tax revenue from people who are no longer employed. We will also lose because the title V participants who are forced out of jobs will be forced to go onto the welfare rolls, causing us to spend more money on the very programs in which we are trying to find savings. Mr. President, this just does not make sense to me. I want my colleagues to understand that I am not standing before you saying that this program should not be changed in any way. I acknowledge that the time has come to subject title V to a thorough examination. As you know, concerns have been raised about this program, and these are concerns which deserve to be addressed. There also comes a time in every program when it is appropriate to take a few steps back, take stock of where we are, and make whatever changes are necessary to ensure that the program is fulfilling its central mission. But Mr. President, the last thing we need to be doing is combining this program with other employment programs with which it has very little in common. Let us act decisively today to save this program--for the sake of our local communities and the many organizations which benefit from the program, and most of all, for the sake of the tens of thousands of older people who participate in title V. Over the years, this worthwhile program has freed countless senior citizens from a prison whose bars are poverty, dependency, isolation, poor self-confidence, and lack of experience. Let us not slam the doors shut on them.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I wish to add my voice to the debate over the amendment to redistribute the limited funds in this block grant based on the number of poor children in each State. First let me say that I am pleased by the bipartisan nature of this amendment. There are many areas in the debate where both Democrats and Republicans can agree. We all agree that the current system does not work. It does not put people to work. It does not give States enough flexibility to craft a system that will keep them working. We can agree on what is wrong with the current system. What is much more difficult is finding some common ground on the best way to fix it. President Clinton called on Congress to end welfare as we know it. Yet here we are building a new system on the rotting foundations of a system that we all agree has failed. Mr. President, welfare reform should be about protecting children and putting their parents to work. This bill is a step in the right direction, but it uses a formula to distribute block grant funds that fails to give States the resources they need to accomplish these goals. The children's fair share amendment gives States with high populations of poor children the resources they need to serve those children. It bases the funds a State receives on the number of needy people the State will be asked to serve. It is fair. In Arkansas, 25 percent of children live in poverty. One in every four children in my State lives below the poverty line. Under the formula in this bill, Arkansas would get $375 per poor child, while the national average is over $1,000 and some States receive over $2,000 per poor child. This block grant is to be used for cash benefits, but it also pays for work programs and for child care so parents who find work can afford to keep working. It pays for administrative costs. Arkansas needs to pay a program director and to buy pens and paper just like every other state. Why should the Federal Government pay over $2,000 for each poor child in New York and Massachusetts and less than $400 per child in Arkansas and South Carolina? I support this amendment, but I recognize that it still leaves large disparities in spending per poor child between States. Under this amendment, spending in Arkansas per poor child will rise from $375 to $563. In Massachusetts it will fall from $1,761 to $1,341. In New York, it will fall from $2,036 to $1,375. States that are getting more money per poor child now will still get more money per poor child should this amendment pass. This formula doesn't call for complete equity, but it does move us a little closer to a distribution of Federal funds that is fair. This debate is not about benefit levels. We should not lock States into the policy decisions they made in years past. I applaud States that can afford to spend more money on welfare. But, the Federal Government has a responsibility to treat children equally, regardless of where they live. This formula is based on what is really at the heart of the debate on welfare reform--poor children. And I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting it.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. The Senator from Arkansas just offered the amendment. So I yield back my few seconds. I thank the chairman.

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I have an amendment which I send to the desk.

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

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment just sent to the desk be set aside.