THIS SEARCH THIS DOCUMENT THIS CR ISSUE GO TO
Next Hit Forward Next Document New CR Search
Prev Hit Back Prev Document HomePage
Hit List Best Sections Daily Digest Help
Doc Contents
``SEC. 483. SUPPLEMENT NOT SUPPLANT.
``Funds appropriated under this part shall be used to supplement and not supplant other Federal, State, and local public funds expended to provide services for young children.
``SEC. 484. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
``There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this part--
``(1) $250,000,000 for fiscal year 2000;
``(2) $500,000,000 for fiscal year 2001;
``(3) $1,000,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2002 through 2004; and
``(4) such sums as may be necessary for fiscal year 2005 and each subsequent fiscal year.''.
TITLE II--PARENT GRANTS
SEC. 201. PARENT GRANTS.
(a) PURPOSE.--It is the purpose of this section to provide parents with grants for career development and retraining after a period of child rearing.
(b) PROGRAM AUTHORITY AND METHOD OF DISTRIBUTION.--
(1) IN GENERAL.--From amounts appropriated under subsection (f), the Secretary of Education (in this section r eferred to as the ``Secretary'') may pay to each eligible institution such sums as may be necessary to pay to each qualifying parent for each academic year that the qualifying parent is in attendance at an institution of higher education, a parent grant, i n an amount determined in accordance with subsection (c), for each child for which the qualifying parent remains outside the labor force.
(2) QUALIFYING PARENT.--In this section, the term ``qualifying parent'' means an individual who--
(A) is the custodial parent of a child under the age of 6;
(B) has no earned income as defined in section 32(c)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986; and
(C) is not receiving assistance under a State program funded under part A of title IV of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) or supplemental security income benefits under title XVI of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.).
(3) DISTRIBUTION.--Funds under this section shall be disbursed and made available to qualifying parents in the same manner as Federal Pell Grants are disbursed and made available to institutions of higher education and students under subpart 1 of part A of title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U. S.C. 1070a et seq.), except that in the case of a parent grant awarded to a qualifying parent for expenses incurred in obtaining a secondary school diploma or its recognized equivalent, the Secretary shall make the grant funds available to the qualifying parent.
(c) AMOUNT.--
(1) IN GENERAL.--Subject to paragraph (2), the amount of a parent grant for which a qualifying parent is eligible under this section for an academic year is equal to--
(A) in the case of a qualifying parent with an annual income of $50,000 or less, the maximum amount of the Federal Pell Grant awarded under subpart 1 of part A of title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965 for su ch year; and
(B) in the case of a qualifying parent with an annual income of more than $50,000 but not more than $75,000, 1/2 of the maximum amount of the Federal Pell Grant so awarded for such year.
(2) SPECIAL RULES.--
(A) CALENDAR YEAR AWARDS.--A qualifying parent is eligible for a parent grant under this section for each complete calendar year the parent is outside the labor force, except that the Secretary shall prorate the amount for which the qualifying parent is eligible for the first year in which a child is born if the qualifying parent is outside the labor force for at least 4 months of the calendar year in which the child is born.
(B) SIMULTANEOUS AWARDS.--A qualifying parent is eligible for a parent grant simultaneously for each child for which the parent remains outside the labor force.
(C) LIMITATION.--The Secretary shall not award a qualifying parent a parent grant for any period the parent remains outside the labor force to pursue education with a parent gran t awarded under this section.
(d) USES.--
(1) IN GENERAL.--A parent grant awarded under this section--
(A) shall be used not later than 15 years after the year for which the grant is awarded; and
(B) shall be used to pay--
(i) the cost of attendance (as determined in accordance with section 472 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U. S.C. 1087ll)) at an institution of higher education (as defined in sec tion 481 of such Act (20 U.S.C. 1088)); or
(ii) for expenses incurred in obtaining a secondary school diploma or its recognized equivalent.
(2) AGGREGATION OF AWARDS.--A qualifying parent may aggregate parent grants awarded for more than 1 year or more than 1 child for use in a single academic year.
(3) ROLLOVER.--A qualifying parent may use any grant funds awarded for an academic year that are not used in the academic year, for use in a subsequent academic year, subject to paragraph (1)(A).
(e) RESEARCH AND EVALUATION.--
(1) IN GENERAL.--From the amounts appropriated to carry out this section for each fiscal year, the Secretary shall reserve 2 percent of such amounts to pay for the costs of conducting, through grant, contract, or interagency agreement, research and evaluation projects regarding the parent grants awarded in accordance with the requirements of this section. In conducting such projects, the Secretary shall give priority to projects that are undertaken by independent and impartial organizations.
(2) REPORT.--Not later than 4 years after the date of enactment of this section, the Secretary shall submit a report to Congress on the research and evaluation projects conducted in accordance with this subsection.
(f) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.--There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section such sums as may be necessary for fiscal year 2000 and each succeeding fiscal year.
--
The Enhancing Family Life Act of 1999--Brief Description of Provisions
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE
This Act may be cited as the ``Enhancing Family Life Act of 1999.''
SECTION 2. FINDINGS
The Congressional findings support the importance of families in society and social policy.
TITLE I--ASSISTANCE FOR CHILDREN
SECTION 101. ``SECOND CHANCE HOMES''
The bill would provide $45 million annually to establish or expand ``second chance'' maternity homes for unwed teenage mothers. These are group homes where mothers live with their children under adult supervision and strict rules while learning good parenting skills.
SECTION 102. ADOPTION PROMOTION
The bill would expand the number of ``special needs'' children in foster care for which federal adoption subsidies are available. It ``de-links'' eligibility for these subsidies from the income level of the foster child's biological parents. (Under current law, a foster child determined to have special needs only qualifies for a federal adoption subsidy if the child's birth parents are welfare-eligible.) The subsidies would help adoptive parents meet the particular emotional and physical challenges of troubled children and so they can provide the children permanent homes.
In addition, last year's ``Adoption and Safe Families Act'' authorizes the Department of Health and Human Services to grant child welfare demonstration waivers to ten states each year. The bill would reserve three of each ten waivers to states wishing to test ``per capita'' approaches to finding permanent homes for children in foster care, as Kansas has done. Under a per capita approach, states or localities contract on a fixed sum basis with agencies to reunite foster children with their biological families or place them with adoptive parents. Because the agency, typically a non-profit social service agency, receives a fixed sum per child (rather than unlimited reimbursement of costs) the agency may settle the child in a permanent home more quickly.
SECTION 103. EARLY CHILDHOOD DEVELOPMENT
The bill provides $3.75 billion over five years for collaborative early childhood development programs. Recent research has demonstrated the importance of the earliest years in a child's life in the child's intellectual and emotional development. States could use the funds for home visiting programs, parenting education, high-quality chil d care, and preventive health services. States would have great flexibility in deciding which services to provide.
SECTION II--``PARENT GRANTS''
The bill would create a new education assistance program to provide grants to parents who choose to remain with young children. The grants would allow parents to obtain the training, or re-training, needed to prosper and advance careers after a period of time outside the labor force. A custodial parent with children under the age of six and no earned income, welfare, or SSI receipt would be eligible to receive a benefit equivalent to the largest Pell Grant available for that year (about $2,700 in FY 1998). The benefit--to be called a ``Parent Grant''--could only be used for expenses associated with post-secondary education or completion of h igh school. Parents could accumulate grants (one for each year outside of the labor market) but would be required to use the grant within 15 years of the year for which the grant was earned. Eligibility would be subjected to income limits ($75,000/year maximum, subject to revision on the basis of cost estimates). The program would be administered by the Education Department, in par allel with Pell Grants and other financial aid programs.
By Mr. MOYNIHAN:
S. 209. A bill to prohibit States from imposing a family cap under the program of temporary assistance to needy families; to the Committee on Finance.
LEGISLATION TO PROHIBIT THE FAMILY CAP
Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to prohibit states from imposing the so called ``family cap'' as part of their Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) programs. The ``family
[Page: S651] GPO's PDF
As I have said in previous debate on this subject, these children have not asked to be conceived, and they have not asked to come into the world. We have an elemental responsibility to them. And so states ought not deny benefits to these children because of the actions of their parents.
We recently received the results of an evaluation of welfare reform in New Jersey, the first state to impose such a ``family cap.'' As it is only one study, one should be cautious about generalizing from the results. Still, it was striking to note according to the study, that over the four-year observation period ``[m]embers of the experimental group [i.e. those under a family cap] also experienced an abortion rate that was 14 percent higher than the control group [i.e. those not under a cap].'' Is that really the outcome that authors of the 1996 welfare law intended? Further, the evaluation notes of the New Jersey welfare reform effort, of which the cap as a component, that ``[w]e found no evidence that [the program] had any systemic positive impact on employment, employment stability, or earnings among AFDC recipients.'' That is, it did little to move welfare recipients to work, the ostensible objective of the 1996 welfare law.
And so, with this bit of evidence to reinforce my original position, I propose today to end the family cap, and I ask unanimous consent that a summary of the legislation and its full text be included in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the materials were ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON IMPOSITION OF A FAMILY CAP UNDER THE TANF PROGRAM.
(a) PROHIBITION.--Section 408(a) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 608(a)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(12) BAN ON FAMILY CAP.--A State to which a grant is made under section 403 may not, under the State program funded under this part, deny assistance to a family in respect of an individual because the individual was born after the family became eligible for or began receiving assistance under the program.''.
(b) PENALTY.--Section 409(a) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 609(a)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(15) NO TANF FUNDS FOR PROGRAM WITH FAMILY CAP.--Notwithstanding any other provision of this part, a State that violates section 408(a)(12) during a fiscal year shall remit to the Secretary all funds paid to the State under this part for the fiscal year, and no payment shall be made under this part to a State that has in effect a program that would be funded under this part but for a law, regulation, or policy that is inconsistent with such section.''.
--
Family Cap Prohibition Act of 1999--Brief Description of Provisions
I. Prohibition on Imposition of a Family Cap
The bill prohibits a state from imposing a ``family cap'' as part of its Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program. Under the 1996 welfare law states are permitted to deny additional assistance to families on TANF when another child is born to that family and 23 states have done so in some way. This policy, known as the ``family cap,'' would be prohibited.
II. Penalty
A state found in violation of this policy would lose TANF funding.
By Mr. MOYNIHAN:
S. 210. A bill to establish a medical education trust fu nd, and fo r other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
MEDICAL EDUCATION TRUST FU ND ACT OF 1999
Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, today I introduce legislation that would establish a Medical Education Trust Fu nd to supp ort America's 144 accredited medical schools and 1,250 graduate medical education teaching instituti ons. These institutions are national treasures; they are the very best in the world. Yet today they find themselves in a precarious financial situation as market forces reshape the health care delivery system in the United States. Explicit and dedicated funding for these institutions, which this legislation will provide, will ensure that the United States continues to lead the world in the quality of its health care system.
This legislation requires that the public sector, through the Medicare and Medicaid programs, and the private sector, through an assessment on health insurance premiums, contribute broad-based and fair financial support.
My particular interest in this subject began in 1994, when the Finance Committee took up the President's Health Security Act. I was Chairman of the Committee at the time. In January of that year, I asked Dr. Paul Marks, M.D., President of Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York City, if he would arrange a ``seminar'' for me on health care issues. He agreed, and gathered a number of medical school deans toget her one morning in New York.
Early on in the meeting, one of the seminarians remarked that the University of Minnesota might have to close its medical school. In an inst ant I realized I had heard something new. Minnesota is a place where they open medical schools, not close them. How, then, could this be? The answer was that Minnesota, being Minnesota, was a leading state in the growth of competitive health care markets, in which managed care organizations try to deliver services at lower costs. In this environment, HMOs and the like do not send patients to teaching hospitals, absent which you cannot have a medical school.
& nbsp; We are in the midst of a great era of discovery in medical science. It is cer tainly not a time to close medical schools. This grea t era of medical discovery is occur ring right here in the United States, not in Europe like past ages of scientific discovery. And it is centered in New York City. This heroic age of medical science started in the late 1930s. Before then, the average patient was probably as well off, perhaps better, out of a hospital as in one. Progress from that point sixty years ago has been remarkable. The last few decades have brought us images of the inside of the human body based on the magnetic resonance of bodily tissues; laser surgery; micro surgery for reattaching limbs; and organ transplantation, among other wonders. Physicians are now working on a gene therapy that might eventually replace bypass surgery. I can hardly imagine what might be next.
After months of hearings and debate on the President's Health Security Act, I became convinced that special provisions would have to be made for medical schools, teaching hospitals, and medical research if we wer e not to see this great moment in medical science suddenly c onstrained. To that end, when the Committee on Finance voted 12 to 8 on July 2, 1994 to report the Health Security Act, it included a Graduate Medical Education and Acad emic Healt h Centers Trust Fund. The Trust Fund provided an 80 percent increase in federal funding for academic medicine; as importantly, it represented stable, long-term funding. While nothing came of the effort to enact universal health care coverage, the medical education trust fu nd enjoyed widespread support. An amendment by Senator Malcolm Wallop to kill the trust fund by striking the source of its revenue--a 1.75 percent assessment on health insurance premiums--failed on a 7-13 vote in the Finance Committee.
I continued to press the issue in the first session of the 104th Congress. On September 29, 1995, during Finance Committee consideration of budget reconciliation legislation, I offered an amendment to establish a similar trust fund. My amendment failed on a tie vote, 10 to 10. Notably, however, the House version of the reconciliation bill did include a graduate medical education trust fu nd. That p rovision ultimately passed both houses as part of the conference agreement, which was subsequently vetoed by President Clinton. The budget resolution for fiscal year 1997 as passed by Congress also appeared to assume that a similar trust fund was to be included in the Medicare reconciliation bill--a bill which never materialized.
THIS SEARCH THIS DOCUMENT THIS CR ISSUE GO TO
Next Hit Forward Next Document New CR Search
Prev Hit Back Prev Document HomePage
Hit List Best Sections Daily Digest Help
Doc Contents