October 9, 1978
Page 34710
Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I submit this amendment on behalf of myself and Senators CRANSTON, RIEGLE, WILLIAMS, PELL, ANDERSON, BROOKE, DURKIN, and INOUYE, although it may be that not each of those Senators will wish to support every item in the amendment. In particular, Senator CRANSTON and I did not have an adequate opportunity over the weekend to consult all of our colleagues about the portion of the amendment dealing with the earned income disregard; hence cosponsorship of the entire amendment does not necessarily imply agreement with that particular provision.
Mr. President, this amendment would take the essential adoption assistance and child welfare provisions of title I of H.R. 7200, as reported by the Finance Committee a year ago, and put them in this tax bill.
We would also put in this tax bill changes in the income disregard provisions of the AFDC program. This provision has the support of both sides of the aisle.
I recall it having been reported unanimously from the Committee on Finance. It is of particular importance to the senior Senator from California, who, for a decade, has sought this one central change. I can describe it in 30 seconds.
At this time, the U.S. Government provides payments to families who provide foster homes for children. By contrast, no payments are provided by the Federal Government for families which adopt children. This means that a fairly considerable range of families, for financial reasons, is precluded from receiving the benefits of the act. I think it is generally agreed that it is much more desirable that children be adopted than that they be boarded in foster homes. Many foster homes are wonderful institutions; but not all are.
In any event, foster homes can never be a substitute for becoming part of a family, which occurs through adoption.
There is an income limit of 115 percent of the median income which is a cutoff point for all title XX services.
This is a humane measure, and it is a measure which is overdue. It is something we will be pleased to have done. Because of the condition of our calendar, it cannot be done under H.R. 7200.
The provisions of the earned income disregard seem to me to be reasonable. The committee has approved that. They will balance the cost of the child adoption arrangements such that we can anticipate no net cost from this measure, and possibly even some marginal savings.
I regret the necessary absence of Senator CURTIS on this occasion. He has shown great interest in and support for these matters. Senator CURTIS has been singularly concerned with child adoption and child welfare, and were he not necessarily away from the Senate, I know that he would speak with great knowledge and passion with respect to this matter.
I have no further remarks, Mr. President, and I move the adoption of the amendment.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield on my time?
Mr. MOYNIHAN. I yield.
Mr. MUSKIE. We are trying to determine whatever revenue implications there are. I do not have the answer at this point. I wonder whether the Senator from Louisiana has an answer to that question.
Mr. CRANSTON. There is a reduction in the cost.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. There is, in any event, no revenue reduction.
Mr. MUSKIE. That is what I understood.
Mr. LONG. In the long run, there would be a net saving of about $50 million a year.
Mr. MUSKIE. I use this occasion to remind Senators that we have no money left in the bank for any further revenue reductions, and that is why these questions are arising on the Hatch amendment on this one.
I hope Senators will understand that it takes a little time to run this down.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. And the law requires that the Senator from Maine make inquiries.
Mr. MUSKIE. I thank the Senator.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. But I remind the Senator that he wrote the law. [Laughter.]
Mr. MUSKIE. I have no objection to it.