[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 7 (Thursday, January 12, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S902-S907]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself, Mr. Thurmond, and Mr. Exon):
  S. 209. A bill replace the Aid to Families with Dependent Children 
Program under title IV of the Social Security Act and a portion of the 
Food Stamp Program under the Food Stamp Act of 1977 with a block grant 
to give the States the flexibility to create innovative welfare-to-work 
programs, to reduce the rate of out-of-wedlock births, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Finance.


          THE WELFARE-TO-WORK AND STRONG FAMILIES ACT OF 1995
  Mr. GRASSLEY.
  Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill that I have entitled 
``The Welfare To Work and Strong Families Act of 1995.'' This is a bill 
that we can classify as dramatic welfare reform.
  I look forward to working with the leaders of the House and the 
Senate, as we have already been working with the State Governors to 
arrive at a consensus in developing a new and hopefully very effective 
welfare system. I am pleased to be joining my colleagues in this effort 
to dramatically change the welfare system as we know it through the 
introduction of this bill.
  This reform proposal would fundamentally alter the way that we 
administer welfare. At least fundamentally from the way we have 
administered over the last half century. It would move the decision 
makingprocess closer to those who can best address the needs and 
concerns of our citizens, the States, their Governors, and State 
legislatures. There are not many issues that all my colleagues agree 
upon, particularly on both sides of the aisle. But there appears to be 
agreement on the fact that the current welfare system is a dismal 
failure. That goes back to statements that the President made in his 
State of the Union message 12 months ago, including what both 
Republicans and Democrats, in both Houses of Congress, have said.
  The current system has contributed toward the breakdown of the 
family, destroyed independence and self-reliance, and it has 
discouraged work and productivity by the people of this country who are 
on welfare. The system simply does not serve the needs of welfare 
recipients. It does not serve the needs of those who are supposed to be 
helped. It surely does not serve the needs of the tax-paying citizens 
who are funding the program and want to get the most bang for their 
buck.
  Of course, the failure of our welfare system shows up in the 
weaknesses of society in many, many, different ways. In addition, the 
current system requires States that want to be very innovative in 
welfare reform to jump through tremendous number of hoops to receive 
Federal waivers.
  My own State of Iowa sought and received, but it did take months, Mr. 
President, a whole series of such waivers from the Department of Health 
and Human Services [HHS]. The waiver process theoretically allows 
States to develop programs that best meet the needs of each State. But 
the lengthy and the very burdensome process often inhibits States' 
initiatives and innovations.
  From visiting with the Governors and State legislatures we know that 
there are more States that want to try to solve this problem because 
they do not see it solved in Washington, DC. However, those few States 
that have waded through the time-consuming process have been partially 
successful in developing a welfare system more tailored to their needs.
  Although many of the State initiatives are still in their infancy, 
State governments have been very supportive of proposals at the Federal 
level to design a program tailored to the States' unique environment. 
As well as to allow them more leeway to use their own ingenuity to 
solve the welfare problems in their own States.
  Mr. President, I recognize that in order for welfare reform to work 
we must establish three goals: First we must reduce the rising cost of 
welfare programs; second, welfare reform must address the social crisis 
of out-of-wedlock births; finally, it must require real work from its 
recipients.
  Mr. President, under my proposal, the entire Federal Aid to Families 
With Dependent Children, the AFDC program, the AFDC Job Opportunity and 
Basic Skills [JOBS] Program, as well as the Food Stamp Program as it 
applies to AFDC recipients, would simply be repealed.
  They would be ended. The role of the Federal Government would be 
unalterably changed as we transfer these moneys to the States in block 
grants to accomplish our goal and let them use their ingenuity to do 
what we have not been able to accomplish through several reforms that 
have passed the Congress in recent decades.
  This is important because this is a reform effort first. This is not 
just simply a budget effort and would fail if it were just a budget 
effort. The goal is to make the program work more effectively by giving 
control of it to those people who are ingenious and have shown that 
ingenuity in past activities to accomplish a better approach to welfare 
than what we have been able to accomplish in Washington.
  The resulting budget and deficit reductions are important, but they 
are secondary. The focus must be on reform of welfare. This legislation 
requires only two reform goals be achieved by the States: First, an 
increase in the number of welfare recipients working each year as 
compared to the previous year and, second, a reduction in the number of 
out-of-wedlock births in the State.
  Apart from those requirements, the States would be completely free--
let me emphasize, completely free--to create their own welfare reform 
plan that would work best for them and meet the needs of their 
citizens.
  While reform is clearly the primary goal, there are also clear budget 
implications in this bill. It would establish a cap on Federal spending 
on assistance programs for low-income Americans at the 1995 levels, and 
it would then block grant the money that the States now receive in 1995 
at those levels to the States for their use, using their own ingenuity 
to operate their own welfare programs.
  States would be free to experiment with new ideas for dramatic 
change. That is the essence of our approach. They would also be 
responsible for making the changes work because they have funding caps 
and those caps would be at the present level. The incentive is for 
States to get people off welfare and to get them into work. My bill 
sets forth measurable performance standards that reward work and change 
the culture of welfare. It would allow States that have met or exceeded 
the two goals of this legislation to be awarded additional bonus 
payments in their block grant.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in this effort to reform welfare and 
devise a more effective program. This bill would allow States to have a 
greater decisionmaking role and to have the freedom to create welfare 
programs that fit the individual needs of their respective States. I 
urge Senators to join me in cosponsoring the Welfare-to-Work and Strong 
Families Act of 1995.
  Mr. President, this country of the United States of America--with all 
50 States, is too diverse of a country to administer the distribution 
of the Food Stamp Program to meet the needs of States or how they are 
spent in Puerto Rico because of the heterogeneity of our population. It 
is too geographically 
[[Page S903]] vast to pour from one mold in Washington, DC, to solve 
the welfare problems of New York City just like Des Moines, IA.
  It is better under those conditions where our country is so different 
from one end to the other to leave it to the individual States to 
devise a plan. We have tried to reform welfare in Washington. We have 
not been successful. Several States have been successful. We want to 
build upon that success, and that is why this bill is being introduced.
  I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:
                                 S. 209
       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,
     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Welfare-
     to-Work and Strong Families Act of 1995''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Findings.
Sec. 3. Purpose.
Sec. 4. Definition of State.
Sec. 5. Applications by States.
Sec. 6. State welfare-to-work and stronger families program described.
Sec. 7. State grants.
Sec. 8. Termination of certain Federal welfare programs.
Sec. 9. Secretarial submission of legislative proposal for amendments 
              to medicaid eligibility criteria and technical and 
              conforming amendments.
Sec. 10. Savings.
     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       The Congress finds the following:
       (1) The current welfare system is broken and requires 
     replacement.
       (2) ``Work'' is what works best for American families.
       (3) Since State and local governments know the best methods 
     of connecting welfare recipients to work and since each 
     community faces different circumstances, Federal assistance 
     to the States should be flexible.
       (4) Government has the responsibility to provide a helping 
     hand to assist individuals but individuals have the 
     responsibility to use the assistance to help themselves.
       (5) Between 1970 and 1991, the total number of all out-of-
     wedlock births in the United States has increased from 10 to 
     30 percent and, if that rate of increase continues, by 2015, 
     50 percent of all births in the United States will be out-of-
     wedlock.
       (6) The negative consequences of out-of-wedlock births on 
     the child, mother, and society are well-documented as 
     follows:
       (A) Children born into families receiving welfare 
     assistance are 3 times more likely to receive welfare 
     assistance when they reach adulthood than children born into 
     families that do not receive welfare.
       (B) Young women who have children before finishing high 
     school are more likely to receive welfare assistance for a 
     substantial period of time.
       (C) A single parent family is 6 times more likely to live 
     in poverty than a two-parent family.
       (7) Due to the crisis caused by the growing rate of out-of-
     wedlock births in the United States, the Congress deems the 
     reduction of out-of-wedlock births to be an important 
     governmental interest.

     SEC. 3. PURPOSE.

       The purpose of this Act is to create a block grant program 
     to replace the aid to families with dependent children 
     program under title IV of the Social Security Act and a 
     portion of the food stamp program under the Food Stamp Act of 
     1977 and give the States the flexibility to create innovative 
     welfare-to-work programs and programs designed to reduce the 
     increasing rate of children born out-of-wedlock.

     SEC. 4. DEFINITION OF STATE.

       For purposes of this Act, the term ``State'' means each of 
     the several States of the United States, the District of 
     Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin 
     Islands, Guam, and American Samoa.

     SEC. 5. APPLICATIONS BY STATES.

       (a) In General.--Each State desiring to receive a grant to 
     operate a State welfare-to-work and stronger families program 
     described in section 6 shall annually submit an application 
     to the Secretary of Health and Human Services (hereafter in 
     this Act referred to as the ``Secretary'') containing the 
     matter described in subsection (b) in such manner as the 
     Secretary may require.
       (b) Contents.--
       (1) Fiscal year 1996.--An application for a grant to 
     operate a State welfare-to-work and stronger families program 
     during fiscal year 1996 shall contain a description of the 
     program in accordance with section 6.
       (2) Subsequent fiscal years.--
       (A) Contents.--
       (i) In general.--Except as provided in clause (ii), an 
     application for a grant to operate a State welfare-to-work 
     and stronger families program during fiscal year 1997 and 
     each subsequent fiscal year shall contain--

       (I) a description of the program in accordance with section 
     6;
       (II) the State work percentage (as determined under 
     subparagraph (B)) for each of the 2 preceding fiscal years;
       (III) a statement of the number of participants who became 
     ineligible for participation in the program due to increased 
     income for each of the 2 preceding fiscal years;
       (IV) the State out-of-wedlock birth rate percentage (as 
     determined under subparagraph (D)) for each of the 2 
     preceding fiscal years; and
       (V) a statement of the amount of non-Federal resources that 
     the State invested in the program in the preceding fiscal 
     year.

       (ii) Special rule for fiscal year 1997.--An application for 
     fiscal year 1997 need only contain the information described 
     in subclauses (II), (III), and (IV) of clause (i) for fiscal 
     year 1996.
       (B) State work percentage.--For purposes of subparagraph 
     (A)(i)(II), the State work percentage (prior to any 
     adjustment under subparagraph (C)) for a fiscal year is equal 
     to--
       (i) the average weekly number of participants in the State 
     welfare-to-work and stronger families program who were 
     employed in private sector or public sector jobs for at least 
     20 hours per week, divided by
       (ii) the average weekly number of participants in the State 
     welfare-to-work and stronger families program.
       (C) Adjustment.--
       (i) In general.--The State work percentage determined under 
     subparagraph (B) for a fiscal year shall be adjusted by 
     subtracting 1 percentage point from such State work 
     percentage for each 5 percentage points by which the 
     percentage of individuals described in subparagraph (B)(i) 
     who are also described in clause (ii) of this subparagraph 
     participating in the program in such fiscal year falls below 
     75 percent of the number of individuals described in 
     subparagraph (B)(i) in such fiscal year.
       (ii) Individual described.--An individual described in this 
     clause is a custodial parent or other individual who is 
     primarily responsible for the care of a child under the age 
     of 18.
       (D) State out-of-wedlock birth rate percentage.--For 
     purposes of subparagraph (A)(i)(IV), the State out-of-wedlock 
     birth rate percentage for a fiscal year is equal to--
       (i) the total number of children in the State who were born 
     out-of-wedlock during the fiscal year, divided by
       (ii) the total number of children in the State who were 
     born during the fiscal year.
       (E) Monitoring of data.--The Secretary shall ensure the 
     validity of the data provided by a State under this 
     paragraph.
       (c) Approval.--
       (1) Fiscal years 1996 and 1997.--The Secretary shall 
     approve each application for a grant to operate a State 
     welfare-to-work and stronger families program--
       (A) during fiscal year 1996, if the application contains 
     the information described in subsection (b)(1); and
       (B) during fiscal year 1997, if the application contains 
     the information described in subsection (b)(2).
       (2) Automatic approval in subsequent fiscal years.--The 
     Secretary shall approve any application for a grant to 
     operate a State welfare-to-work and stronger families program 
     during fiscal year 1998 and each succeeding fiscal year if--
       (A) the State's application reports that--
       (i) the State work percentage for the preceding fiscal year 
     is greater than the State work percentage for the second 
     preceding fiscal year; or
       (ii) more participants became ineligible for participation 
     in the State welfare-to-work and stronger families program 
     during the preceding fiscal year due to increased income than 
     became ineligible for participation in the program in the 
     second preceding fiscal year as a result of increased income;
       (B) the State's application reports that the State out-of-
     wedlock birth rate percentage for the preceding fiscal year 
     is less than the State out-of-wedlock birth rate percentage 
     for the second preceding fiscal year; and
       (C) the State's application reports that the number of 
     participants in the State welfare-to-work and stronger 
     families program for the preceding fiscal year is less than 
     the number of participants in the State welfare-to-work and 
     stronger families program for the second preceding fiscal 
     year.
       (3) Secretarial review.--
       (A) In general.--If a State application for a grant under 
     this Act is not automatically approved under paragraph (2), 
     the Secretary shall approve the application upon a finding 
     that the application--
       (i) provides an adequate explanation of why the application 
     was not automatically approved; and
       (ii) provides a plan of remedial action which is 
     satisfactory to the Secretary.
       (B) Adequate explanations.--An adequate explanation under 
     subparagraph (A) may include an explanation of economic 
     conditions in the State, failed program innovations, or other 
     relevant circumstances.
       (4) Resubmission.--A State may resubmit an application for 
     a grant under this Act until the Secretary finds that the 
     application meets the requirements of paragraph (3)(A).

     SEC. 6. STATE WELFARE-TO-WORK AND STRONGER FAMILIES PROGRAM 
                   DESCRIBED.

       (a) In General.--A State welfare-to-work and stronger 
     families program described in this section shall--
     [[Page S904]]   (1) provide that during fiscal year 1996, the 
     State shall designate individuals who are eligible for 
     participation in the program and such individuals may include 
     those individuals who received benefits under the State plan 
     approved under part A of title IV of the Social Security Act 
     during fiscal year 1995;
       (2) provide that during fiscal year 1997 and each 
     subsequent fiscal year, the State shall designate individuals 
     who are eligible for participation in the program (as 
     determined by the State), with priority given to those 
     individuals most in need of such services;
       (3) with respect to increasing the State work percentage, 
     be designed to move individuals from welfare to self-
     sufficiency and may include--
       (A) job placement and training;
       (B) supplementation of earned income;
       (C) nutrition assistance and education;
       (D) education;
       (E) vouchers to be used for rental of privately owned 
     housing;
       (F) child care;
       (G) State tax credits;
       (H) health care;
       (I) supportive services;
       (J) community service employment;
       (K) asset building programs; or
       (L) any other assistance designed to move such individuals 
     from welfare to self-sufficiency; and
       (4) with respect to reducing the State out-of-wedlock birth 
     rate percentage, be designed to strengthen two-parent 
     families and may include--
       (A) education;
       (B) family planning services (except abortion-related 
     services);
       (C) a cap of benefits under the program with respect to 
     additional children conceived out-of-wedlock after a 
     participant has entered the program;
       (D) the denial of benefits under the program to a potential 
     participant in the program if that potential participant has 
     a child born out-of-wedlock after a date established by the 
     State;
       (E) State tax credits for marriage; or
       (F) any other assistance designed to reduce out-of-wedlock 
     births and encourage marriage.
       (b) No Entitlement.--Notwithstanding any criteria a State 
     may establish for participation in a State welfare-to-work 
     and stronger families program created in accordance with this 
     Act, no individual shall be considered to be entitled to 
     participate in that program.
     SEC. 7. STATE GRANTS.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall annually award to each 
     State with an application approved under section 5(c) an 
     amount equal to--
       (1) in fiscal year 1996, 100 percent of the State's base 
     amount;
       (2) in fiscal year 1997, the sum of 80 percent of the 
     State's base amount, 20 percent of the State's share of the 
     national grant amount, and any applicable bonus payment;
       (3) in fiscal year 1998, the sum of 60 percent of the 
     State's base amount, 40 percent of the State's share of the 
     national grant amount, and any applicable bonus payment;
       (4) in fiscal year 1999, the sum of 40 percent of the 
     State's base amount, 60 percent of the State's share of the 
     national grant amount, and any applicable bonus payment;
       (5) in fiscal year 2000, the sum of 20 percent of the 
     State's base amount, 80 percent of the State's share of the 
     national grant amount, and any applicable bonus payment; and
       (6) in fiscal year 2001 and each subsequent fiscal year, 
     the sum of 100 percent of the State's share of the national 
     grant amount and any applicable bonus payment.
       (b) State Base Amount.--
       (1) In general.--For purposes of subsection (a), a State's 
     base amount is equal to--
       (A) for fiscal year 1996, 100 percent of the amount 
     determined under paragraph (2); and
       (B) for fiscal year 1997 and succeeding fiscal years, 96 
     percent of the amount determined under paragraph (2).
       (2) Amount determined.--The amount determined under this 
     paragraph for a State is an amount equal to the sum of--
       (A) the amount of Federal financial participation received 
     by the State under section 403 of the Social Security Act (42 
     U.S.C. 603) during fiscal year 1995; and
       (B) an amount equal to the sum of--
       (i) the benefits under the food stamp program under the 
     Food Stamp Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.), including 
     benefits provided under section 19 of such Act (7 U.S.C. 
     2028), during fiscal year 1995 other than benefits provided 
     to elderly or disabled individuals in the State (as 
     determined under section 3(r)) of such Act (7 U.S.C. 2012); 
     and
       (ii) the amount paid to the State under section 16 of the 
     Food Stamp Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 2025) during fiscal year 
     1995 for administrative expenses for providing benefits to 
     nonelderly and nondisabled individuals.
       (c) State Share of the National Grant Amount.--
       (1) In general.--For purposes of subsection (a), the 
     State's share of the national grant amount for a fiscal year 
     is equal to the sum of the amounts determined under paragraph 
     (2) (relating to economic need) and paragraph (3) (relating 
     to State effort) for the State.
       (2) Economic need.--The amount determined under this 
     paragraph is equal to the sum of the following amounts:
       (A) State per capita income measure.--The amount which 
     bears the same ratio to one-quarter of the national grant 
     amount as the product of--
       (i) the population of the State; and
       (ii) the allotment percentage of the State (as determined 
     under paragraph (4)),

     bears to the sum of the corresponding products for all 
     States.
       (B) State unemployment measure.--The amount which bears the 
     same ratio to one-quarter of the national grant amount as the 
     number of individuals in the State who are estimated as being 
     unemployed (determined in accordance with the Department of 
     Labor's annual estimates) bears to the number of individuals 
     in all States who are estimated as being unemployed (as so 
     determined).
       (3) State effort.--The amount determined under this 
     paragraph is the amount which bears the same ratio to one-
     half of the national grant amount as the product of--
       (A) the dollar amount the State invested in the State 
     welfare-to-work and stronger families program in the previous 
     fiscal year, as reported in section 5(b)(2)(A)(i)(V); and
       (B) the allotment percentage of the State (as determined 
     under paragraph (4)),

     bears to the sum of the corresponding products for all 
     States.
       (4) Allotment percentage.--
       (A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (C), 
     the allotment percentage for any State shall be 100 percent, 
     less the State percentage.
       (B) State percentage.--The State percentage shall be the 
     percentage which bears the same ratio to 50 percent as the 
     per capita income of such State bears to the per capita 
     income of all States.
       (C) Exception.--The allotment percentage shall be 70 
     percent in the case of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, 
     and American Samoa.
       (5) Determination of grant amounts.--Each State's share of 
     the national grant amount shall be determined under this 
     subsection on the basis of the average per capita income of 
     each State and all States for the most recent fiscal year for 
     which satisfactory data are available from the Department of 
     Commerce and the Department of Labor.
       (6) National grant amount.--The term ``national grant 
     amount'' means an amount equal to 96 percent of the sum of 
     the amounts determined under subsection (b)(2) for all 
     States.
       (d) Bonus Payments.--
       (1) Criteria.--Beginning with fiscal year 1997, the 
     Secretary may use 4 percent of the sum of the amounts 
     determined under subsection (b)(2) for all States to award 
     additional bonus payments under this section to those States 
     which have the highest or most improved State work 
     percentages as determined under section 5(b)(2)(B) and the 
     lowest or most improved State out-of-wedlock birth rate 
     percentages as determined under section 5(b)(2)(D).
       (2) Leading job placement and leading out-of-wedlock birth 
     rate reduction states.--The Secretary shall designate one 
     State as the leading job placement State and one State (which 
     may be the same State as the designated leading job placement 
     State) as the leading out-of-wedlock birth rate reduction 
     State and such State or States shall receive the highest 
     bonus payments under paragraph (1).
       (3) Presidential award.--The President is authorized and 
     requested to acknowledge a State designated under paragraph 
     (2) with a special Presidential award.
       (e) Use of Funds for Administrative Purposes.--A State 
     shall not use more than 10 percent of the amount it receives 
     under this section for the administration of the State 
     welfare-to-work and stronger families program.
       (f) Capped Entitlement.--This section constitutes budget 
     authority in advance of appropriations Acts, and represents 
     the obligation of the Federal Government to provide the 
     payments described in subsection (a) (in an amount not to 
     exceed the sum of the amounts determined under subsection 
     (b)(2) for all States).

     SEC. 8. TERMINATION OF CERTAIN FEDERAL WELFARE PROGRAMS.

       (a) Termination of AFDC and JOBS Programs.--
       (1) AFDC.--Part A of title IV of the Social Security Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new section:


                       ``termination of authority

       ``Sec. 418. The authority provided by this part shall 
     terminate on October 1, 1995.''.
       (2) JOBS.--Part F of title IV of the Social Security Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 681 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new section:


                       ``termination of authority

       ``Sec. 488. The authority provided by this part shall 
     terminate on October 1, 1995.''.
       (b) Food Stamp Program To Serve Only Elderly and Disabled 
     Individuals.--
       (1) Definitions.--Section 3 of the Food Stamp Act of 1977 
     (7 U.S.C. 2012) is amended--
       (A) in subsection (g)--
       (i) in paragraph (4), by striking ``(and their spouses)'';
       (ii) in paragraph (5)--

       (I) by striking ``in the case of'' and inserting ``in the 
     case of elderly or disabled''; and
       (II) by inserting ``disabled'' before ``children''; and

       (iii) in paragraph (8), by inserting ``elderly or 
     disabled'' before ``women and children temporarily'';
       (B) in subsection (i)--
       (i) in the first sentence--
     [[Page S905]]   (I) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``elderly 
     or disabled'' before ``individual''; and
       (II) in paragraph (2), by inserting ``, each of whom is 
     elderly or disabled,'' after ``individuals'';
       (ii) in the second sentence, by inserting before the period 
     at the end the following: ``, if each of the individuals is 
     elderly or disabled'';
       (iii) in the third sentence--

       (I) by striking ``, together'' and all that follows through 
     ``of such individual,''; and
       (II) by striking ``, excluding the spouse,''; and

       (iv) in the fifth sentence--

       (I) by striking ``coupons, and'' and inserting ``coupons, 
     and elderly or disabled''; and
       (II) by inserting ``disabled'' after ``together with 
     their''; and

       (C) in subsection (r), by striking ```Elderly'' and all 
     that follows through ``who'' and inserting the following: 
     ```Elderly or disabled', with respect to a member of a 
     household or other individual, means a member or other 
     individual who''.
       (2) Conforming amendments.--
       (A) Eligibility.--Section 5 of the Food Stamp Act of 1977 
     (7 U.S.C. 2014) is amended--
       (i) in the first sentence of subsection (c)--

       (I) by striking ``program if--'' and all that follows 
     through ``household's income'' and inserting ``program if the 
     income of the household'';
       (II) by striking ``respectively; and'' and inserting 
     ``respectively.''; and
       (III) by striking paragraph (2); and

       (ii) in subsection (e)--

       (I) in the first sentence, by striking ``containing an 
     elderly or disabled member and determining benefit levels 
     only for all other households'';
       (II) in the fifteenth sentence--

       (aa) by striking ``containing an elderly or disabled 
     member''; and
       (bb) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``elderly or disabled 
     members'' and inserting ``the members'';

       (III) in the seventeenth sentence, by striking ``elderly 
     and disabled''; and
       (IV) by striking the fourth through fourteenth sentences.

       (B) Periodic reporting.--Section 6(c)(1)(A)(iii) of the 
     Food Stamp Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 2015(c)(1)(A)(iii)) is 
     amended by striking ``and in which all adult members are 
     elderly or disabled''.
       (3) Effective date.--The amendments made by this subsection 
     shall apply on and after October 1, 1995.
       (c) References in Other Laws.--
       (1) In general.--Any reference in any law, regulation, 
     document, paper, or other record of the United States to any 
     provision that has been terminated by reason of the 
     amendments made in subsection (a) shall, unless the context 
     otherwise requires, be considered to be a reference to such 
     provision, as in effect immediately before the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.
       (2) State plans.--Any reference in any law, regulation, 
     document, paper, or other record of the United States to a 
     State plan that has been terminated by reason of the 
     amendments made in subsection (a), shall, unless the context 
     otherwise requires, be considered to be a reference to such 
     plan as in effect immediately before the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 9. SECRETARIAL SUBMISSION OF LEGISLATIVE PROPOSAL FOR 
                   AMENDMENTS TO MEDICAID ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA AND 
                   TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.

       The Secretary shall, within 90 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, submit to the appropriate committees 
     of the Congress, a legislative proposal providing eligibility 
     criteria for medical assistance under a State plan under 
     title XIX of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396 et seq.) 
     in lieu of the eligibility criteria under section 
     1902(a)(10)(A)(i) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1396a(a)(10)(A)(i)) 
     relating to the receipt of aid to families with dependent 
     children under a State plan under part A of title IV of the 
     Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) and such 
     technical and conforming amendments in the law as are 
     required by the provisions of this Act.

     SEC. 10. SAVINGS.

       Any savings resulting from the provisions of this Act shall 
     be dedicated to reduction of the Federal budget deficit.
                                 ______

      By Mr. THOMAS (for himself, Mr. Lott, Mr. Simpson, Mr. Stevens, 
        Mr. Inouye, and Mr. Burns):
  S. 210. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to 
provide for coverage under part B of the medicare program of emergency 
care and related services furnished by rural emergency access care 
hospitals; to the Committee on Finance.


              the rural emergency access care hospital act

  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Rural Emergency 
Access Care Hospital Act, [REACH] to help small rural hospitals across 
the country serve their communities. It will provide the vital medical 
care rural Americans need in times of emergency.
  The outlook for many rural hospitals is grim. Many contemplate 
closure on a daily basis as Medicare reimbursement rates continue to 
drop the Federal Government enforces costly regulations, and low 
inpatient stays become the norm. Currently, if a hospital fails to meet 
all Medicare conditions of participation, they will lose certification. 
That means, facilities will not be reimbursed by HCFA for the medical 
services they provide.
  Closing hospitals in Wyoming is not an acceptable option. In my 
State, if a town loses its most important point of service--the 
emergency room--it is typical for patients to drive 100 miles or more 
to the closest territory care center.
  There is no doubt that excess capacity in our hospitals is a 
financial drain on the Nation's health care system. However, emergency 
medical care is not a fringe benefit. It must be available to all 
Americans--rural and urban alike.
  Mr. President, the REACH bill presents rural areas with a viable 
option. It
 accommodates different levels of medical care throughout the State 
while providing stabilization services needed in remote areas.

  Under my bill, rural facilities could convert to rural emergency 
access care hospitals, provided they meet the following qualifications: 
First, be able to transfer patients to a nearby, full-service hospital; 
second, be located in a rural area; third, keep a practitioner, who is 
certified by the State in advanced cardiac life support onsite 24-hours 
a day; and fourth, retain a physician on-call 24 hours a day. Hospital 
administrators view this as a solid solution to improve the rural 
health care delivery system.
  There are several distinctions between the REACH bill and other 
limited hospital service programs. Under my bill, facilities are not 
required to be an arbitrary 35 miles or more apart. What happens if 
they are 34 miles apart? It is still a long drive in a snowstorm.
  In addition, hospitals would not have to surrender their license and 
States would not be required to go through a lengthy application 
process, unlike current demonstration grant programs.
  Mr. President, the REACH bill has a history of wide bipartisan 
support. Last year it was folded into Majority Leader Bob Dole's 
alternative health care reform plan and Senator John Chafee's Health 
Equity and Access Reform Today Act. It was also included in the House 
GOP leadership's Affordable Health Care Now Act, Representative Jim 
Cooper's Managed Competition Act, and the House Rural Health Care 
Coalition's Rural Health Delivery System Development Act.
  As we search for affordable solutions to improve the health care 
delivery system, the REACH bill is one proposal that should be added to 
the list. The legislation is in lockstep with other reforms, such as 
portability, prohibition of preexisting conditions, malpractice reform, 
and administrative simplification. If there were two thresholds 
established by last year's debate on health care reform--flexibility 
and affordability--then you cannot go wrong with supporting the REACH 
bill.
                                 ______

      By Mr. BOND:
  S. 211. A bill to provide for new program accountability; to the 
Committee on Governmental Affairs.


     THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT NEW PROGRAM ACCOUNTABILITY ACT OF 1995

 Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I introduce the Federal Government 
New Program Accountability Act of 1995. This legislation would require 
on a government-wide basis for each Federal agency and department, upon 
the submission of legislation to Congress, to include an implementation 
plan for each new program, project, or activity authorized in the 
legislation.
  The implementation plan would be required to include a description 
of: First, resource requirements of the program, including staff and 
data system requirements; second, the estimated cost of implementation 
of the new program, both in the initial year and over a 5-year period; 
third, an analysis impact statement assessing the ability of the agency 
or department to manage the operations of all the agency's or 
department's programs; and fourth, an implementation schedule, 
including a timetable for the promulgation of regulations.
  I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. It is time that the 
administration recognizes that not every good idea is appropriate for 
legislation; that 
[[Page S906]] there is a cost to new initiatives and that part of the 
responsibility of Federal agencies and departments is to assess the 
capacity of the agency or department to appropriately administer a new 
program. It is also important that the Congress have adequate 
information to determine whether an agency or department can correctly 
administer a new program.
                                 ______

      By Mr. KERRY (for himself and Mr. Kennedy):
  S. 212. A bill to authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue 
a certificate of documentation with appropriate endorsement for 
employment in the coastwise trade for vessel Shamrock V; to the 
Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation.
  S. 213. A bill to authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue 
a certificate of documentation with appropriate endorsement for 
employment in the coastwise trade for the vessel Endeavour; to the 
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.


                      JONES ACT WAIVER LEGISLATION

 Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague, 
the distinguished senior Senator from Massachusetts, in introducing two 
bills to allow the vessels Shamrock V and Endeavour to be employed in 
coastwise trade of the United States. These boats have a small 
passenger capacity, normally 8 to 12 passengers on overnight trips and 
up to 30 passengers on day trips, and their owner intends to operate a 
charter business based out of Boston Harbor. The purpose of these bills 
is to waive sections of the Jones Act which prohibit foreign-made 
vessels from operating in coastwise trade. The waiver is necessary 
because, under the law, a vessel is considered built in the United 
States if all major components of its hull and superstructure are 
fabricated in the United States, and the vessel is assembled entirely 
in the United States. These boats were originally built in foreign 
shipyards in the 1930's, but since the mid-1980's they have been owned 
and operated by American citizens, repaired in American shipyards, and 
maintained with American products. The owner bought these boats due to 
their historic significance. These vessels are the only two remaining 
boats from a class of enormous sailing yachts built during the 1930's 
to compete for the America's Cup. As such, they are a very significant 
part of American maritime and yachting history. To better showcase 
these historic vessels the owner now wants to start a charter boat 
operation based out of Boston offering voyages of various durations to 
various destinations.
  After reviewing the facts in the cases of the Shamrock V and the 
Endeavour, I do not believe that these waivers would compromise our 
national readiness in times of national emergency, which is the 
fundamental purpose of the Jones Act requirement. While I generally 
support the provisions of the Jones Act, I believe the specific facts 
in these two cases warrant waivers to permit the Shamrock V and the 
Endeavour to engage in coastwise trade. I hope and trust the Senate 
will agree and will speedily approve the bills being introduced today. 
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent, that a complete copy of the 
bills be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bills were ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 212

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled, That 
     notwithstanding sections 12106, 12107, and 12108 of title 46, 
     United States Code, and section 27 of the Merchant Marine 
     Act, 1920 (46 App. U.S.C. 883), as applicable on the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Transportation may 
     issue a certificate of documentation with appropriate 
     endorsement for employment in the coastwise trade for the 
     vessel Shamrock V, (United States official number 900936).
                                                                    ____


                                 S. 213

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled, That 
     notwithstanding sections 12106, 12107, and 12108 of title 46, 
     United States Code, and section 27 of the Merchant Marine 
     Act, 1920 (46 App. U.S.C. 883), as applicable on the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Transportation may 
     issue a certificate of documentation with appropriate 
     endorsement for employment in the coastwise trade for the 
     vessel Endeavour, (United States official number 
     947869).
                                 ______

      By Mr. INOUYE (for himself, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Bryan, Mr. Reid, Mr. 
        Smith, Mr. Coats, Mr. Johnston, Mr. Faircloth, Mr. Shelby, Mr. 
        Stevens, and Mr. Hollings):
  S. 216 A bill to repeal the reduction in the deductible portion of 
expenses for business meals and entertainment; to the Committee on 
Finance.


     the business meals and entertainment tax deduction act of 1995

 Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, today, I introduce legislation to 
restore the business meals and entertainment tax deduction to 80 
percent. I am joined by Senators Hatch, Bryan, Reid, Smith, Coats, 
Johnston, Faircloth, Shelby, Stevens, and Hollings. Restoration of this 
deduction is essential to the livelihood of the food service, travel 
and tourism, and entertainment industries throughout the United States. 
These industries are being economically harmed as a result of this 
reduction. All are major industries which employ millions of people, 
many of whom are already feeling the effects of the reduction.
  The deduction for business meals and entertainment was reduced from 
80 to 50 percent under the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, 
and went into effect on January 1, 1994. Five months later, the 
American Express Travel Related Services Company, Inc., Conducted 
research between May 16 and June 17, 1994, to obtain an early 
indication of whether companies were aware of the new tax law and 
whether it was likely to impact on their spending on business meals. 
Telephone interviews involving 154 small size, 1 to 100 employees, and 
152 mid-sized 101 to 1,500 employees, companies were made to travel and 
entertainment policy decisionmakers. Of those interviewed, 68 percent 
of the small size and 74 percent of the mid-sized companies indicated 
that they have either taken or anticipate taking some action that could 
potentially reduce restaurant spending. Some companies were prompted to 
change its policy and guidelines on travel and entertainment expenses 
as a result of the tax reduction in the business meals and 
entertainment expenses deduction.
  Corporate businesses have also been forced to curtail their company 
reimbursement policies because of the reduction in the business meals 
and entertainment expenses deduction. In some cases, businesses have 
eliminated their expense accounts. Consequently, restaurant 
establishments, which have relied heavily on business lunch and dinner 
services, are being adversely affected by the reduction in business 
meals. For example:
  Jay's Restaurant in Dayton, OH, was forced to close its lunch service 
because of the decline in business. This decision was based on 2,005 
fewer lunch customers from January through June 1994 as compared to the 
same period in 1993. The result was a loss of 17 to 20 jobs.
  Bianco's in Denver, CO, closed its lunch service in April 1994 
because of the decline in business. Staff was reduced from 26 to 15 
employees.
  The Wall Street Restaurant in Des Monies, IA, has seen a 40-percent 
decline in revenues since the beginning of 1994. Staff was reduced from 
50 to 35 employees.
  In Middlesex County, NJ, the Boca Restaurant averaged 40 to 60 
lunches per day prior to the beginning of 1994. The restaurant now 
serves between 5 to 15 lunches per day. Staff was reduced from 18 to 14 
employees.
  Le Grenadin, located in the garment district of Manhattan, averaged 
60 to 70 lunches a day prior to the beginning of 1994. Lunch business 
has now declined by 30 percent. Staff hours have been reduced from a 5- 
to a 3-day workweek.
  I sincerely hope that the business meals reduction to 50 percent does 
not become a Luxury Tax Two, in which the Congress moves toward 
restoration only after the damage has been done and huge job losses 
have occurred. Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to join me in 
cosponsoring this important legislation.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill text be printed 
in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:
                          [[Page S907]] S. 216

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. REPEAL OF REDUCTION IN BUSINESS MEALS AND 
                   ENTERTAINMENT TAX DEDUCTION.

       (a) In General.--Paragraph (1) of section 274(n) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to only 50 percent of 
     meal and entertainment expenses allowed as deduction) is 
     amended by striking ``50 percent'' and inserting ``80 
     percent''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--The heading for section 274(n) 
     is amended by striking ``50'' and inserting ``80''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     1993.

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleague from 
Hawaii, Senator Inouye, in introducing a bill to restore the deductible 
portion of the meals and entertainment expenses to 80 percent. As my 
colleagues know, the deduction was drastically reduced from 80 percent 
to 50 percent as part of the 1993 tax bill.
  This change was a counterproductive way to raise revenue and comes at 
the expense of working Americans. Although this provision was 
ostensibly aimed at large corporations that have an undeserved 
reputation of abusing the meals and entertainment deduction, it has 
primarily hurt women, minority workers, and small businesses. This 
provision is similar to the ill-conceived luxury tax in that it so 
badly misses its intended target. In fact, almost 60 percent of 
employees in the food service industry are women, 20 percent are 
teenagers, and 12 percent are minorities. These are the people that the 
deduction limitation has hurt through lost jobs and reduced wages.
  Contrary to what many might believe, most individuals who purchase 
business meals are small business persons; 70 percent have incomes 
below $50,000, 39 percent have incomes below $35,000, and 25 percent 
are self-employed. Moreover, 78 percent of business lunches and 50 
percent of business dinners are purchased in low- to moderately-priced 
restaurants. The average amount spent on a business meal, per person, 
is about $9.39 for lunch and $19.58 for dinner. The business meal 
deduction is hardly the exclusive realm of the fat cats, Mr. President.
  The deduction for meals and entertainment expenses is a legitimate 
business expense and should be deductible. The owners of most small and 
large businesses incur these costs in the everyday maintenance of their 
businesses. These expenses should be given the same treatment that 
other ordinary and necessary business expenses receive.
  One group that has been particularly punished by the 50-percent 
limitation is the truckers. I have had hundreds of letters from Utah 
truckers who have been hurt by this unfair change in the law. Many 
truckers, as they transport important goods across the country, are 
forced to take their meals on the road. Because of the lower deduction, 
these truckers may pay an additional $200 to $300 or more a year in 
tax, depending upon their circumstances. By restoring the deduction to 
80 percent, truckers, as well as many others, will receive fairer 
treatment.
  Mr. President, I believe the 1993 tax bill went too far in reducing 
the deduction for meals and entertainment expenses. It is the small 
business owners, the truckdrivers, the traveling salespeople, and the 
restaurant workers who have suffered reduced wages or layoffs who are 
carrying the burden of this change. A restoration of the 80-percent 
limitation would bring this deduction back to a more equitable level 
for America's small business people and restaurant workers and is the 
right thing to do.
  The restaurant industry employs millions of Americans across the 
Nation. Are we going to continue to allow the Tax Code to restrain job 
growth in certain industries with limitations such as this? The way to 
cut the deficit is not through raising taxes on lower and middle income 
Americans and through lost jobs, but through responsible fiscal 
constraint.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
  

                          ____________________