[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 139 (Friday, September 8, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S12879-S12893]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                    THE FAMILY SELF-SUFFICIENCY ACT

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. MOYNIHAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.


                           Amendment No. 2466

  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may 
require for an opening statement.
  Mr. President, I rise in an all but empty Chamber to offer an 
amendment which is in the nature of a substitute for the bill reported 
from the Committee on Finance and later amended by the distinguished 
Republican leader.
  On May 26, the committee considered the chairman's mark and the bill 
that I offered, the Family Support Act of 1995. It failed by a vote of 
12 to 8 in our committee on party lines, with one exception, and it was 
not a happy moment, much less a promising moment. It was, indeed, a 
foreboding one.
  Had it not been for the 1994 congressional elections, the wave of 
what George Will called a cymbal-clash change of the electorate, this 
measure now before the Senate is pretty much the measure we would have 
been considering. It brings the Family Support Act of 1988 up to the 
higher standards, higher expectations that we assumed would come with 
time and which we also assumed in what might seem the innocence of the 
last decade would be as bipartisan an effort as was the original.
  The Family Support Act passed the Senate on June 16, 1988, by a vote 
of 93 to 3. We went to conference. The conference committee agreed. It 
came back, and on September 29 it passed out of this Senate 96 to 1, 
and then the following day the conference report was agreed to in the 
House by a vote of 347 to 53, near to an overwhelming vote. And on 
October 13, it was signed by President Reagan in a ceremony in the Rose 
Garden. Then Governor William J. Clinton of Arkansas, the Chairman of 
the Governors' Association was on hand, as was Governor Mike Castle, 
then Republican Governor of Delaware. The two of them had helped this 
bipartisan effort in the Governors' Association.
  President Reagan said:

       I'm pleased to sign into law today a major reform of our 
     Nation's welfare system, the Family Support Act. This bill 
     creates a new emphasis on the importance of work for 
     individuals in the welfare system.

  It basically redefined the Aid to Families with Dependent Children 
legislation, which dates back to 1935. What had been a widow's pension, 
meant to phase out as survivor's insurance matured in Social Security, 
had become a wholly different program for a wholly different 
population, and within a certain measure of delay, when the time came, 
we redefined the program, redefined its objectives. We did so, Mr. 
President, with a measure of realism, even of modesty, in the face of 
extraordinary change in our social structure, our social system, if you 
will. This change came suddenly and without warning and to this day it 
can be quantified but scarcely explained. I refer to the subject that 
has been spoken about with candor and, I think, understanding, with an 
openness on the floor in this debate already, which is the rise of out-
of-wedlock births, from about 6 percent nationwide in 1960 to about 33 
percent today.
  I have commented several times that this is something we did not know 
how to talk about, were not sure we ought to talk about, but which 
Presidents now openly discuss. President Bush was the first President 
to raise this issue in a State of the Union Message. President Clinton 
has done the same. President Clinton has suggested projections that we 
have made in our office which could take us surely to 40 percent, a 
number without meaning until this moment in history. We could not have 
imagined it.
  We created the JOBS Program, one of those acronyms, Jobs 
Opportunities and Basic Skills. We set quotas, percentages that States 
had to meet as they moved along with the funds available, and we began 
to see results.
  We never promised a very great deal. We made very clear that the 
persons we were concerned about were the persons most in need, and they 
are not difficult to define, Mr. President.
  About 42 percent of persons who enter the welfare system are there 
for 24 months or less. They typically are women with children whose 
marriages have dissolved, and it takes them a period to put their life 
back, their affairs back in order, and they do.
 A fairly considerable amount of research has indicated they do not 
need anything but time and a certain amount of income support, which is 
what the Social Security system is all about.

  On the other hand, a very large proportion of our children enter this 
system and stay in it for more than 5 

[[Page S 12880]]
years, stay in it for much of their childhood. Seventy-six percent of 
persons on the AFDC rolls at any given time will be on more than 5 
years. They are the ones who are most in need. They are the ones who 
are most difficult to help. Those are the ones, when something 
succeeds, you have saved a life. We should concentrate on that.
  We were off to a slow start. We had a recession. We had a rise in the 
number of out-of-wedlock births. What is worrisome is that the cohort 
of women age 15-24, the age group disproportionately responsible for 
out-of-wedlock births, is expected to rise over the next 10 years. We 
will have more illegitimacy, and consequently more of a need for 
welfare assistance. That phrase ``demography is destiny''--demography 
is destiny for the welfare system.
  In the face of these massive, disturbing, changes in the structure of 
the family, we enacted the Family Support Act of 1988. For the first 
time, we said that the single mothers on the welfare rolls must be in 
education, training, or work to receive their benefits, to the extent 
State resources permit. We gave States great flexibility to experiment. 
And we began to get good news from around the country as these programs 
took effect. The word came out that you can innovate, you ought to try.
  How many Senators have we heard talking about Riverside, CA? We had 
the director of that jobs program in to testify before us this spring 
in the Finance Committee, with enthusiasm, full of energy. He had a 
blue button that says ``Life works when you work.'' That sort of energy 
in the executive establishment is to be praised. All across the 
country, we began to hear of this program and that program taking hold. 
But still, the welfare caseload grew.
  As I said yesterday, our assessment in the Congressional Budget 
Office is that about half the growth was due to the increase in out-of-
wedlock births. About a quarter of the decline of the economy is the 
increase in unemployment. There is a measure in which the economy 
affects welfare dependency. But primarily, welfare dependency derives 
from single-parent families. It is affected by the rise in the business 
cycle--but marginally. We are dealing with something very different, 
very new, just learning our way. And yet, while we simply do not know 
how to change the behavior which is driving illegitimacy, we are 
learning how to get welfare recipients off the rolls and into jobs. 
What we have learned we have learned under the Family Support Act.
  That is why it has come as a source of dismay to many students of the 
subject, scholars such as Lawrence Mead, of New York University, who 
certainly wishes himself to be understood as conservative in these 
matters. He said recently of the legislation before us, what we voted 
on yesterday and what we will vote on:

       The main effect of block grants would be to disestablish 
     the jobs program which has been the major force pushing 
     States with large caseloads to reform.

  Dr. Meade has commented that even New York is beginning to get the 
message. Well, that is a large event. You cannot break the mindset of a 
half century instantly. There is a sort of law of retarded response, 
that large bureaucracies established to provide benefits on a permanent 
basis to permanently dependent persons, widows react slowly to change, 
and it will take a generation to get it understood that this is no 
longer the reality.
  I knew Frances Perkins rather well. She was very much in evidence 
here in Washington in the early sixties. We began to notice this 
welfare problem, and I would talk with her about it. When it began, she 
would describe the typical recipient of the Aid to Families with 
Dependent Children. The typical recipient was a West Virginia miner's 
widow. There was no expectation that she would go to work in the mines. 
In time, the survivors insurance would take care of that. In time the 
survivors insurance did. Only about 71 percent of the persons receiving 
Social Security benefits are retired persons. The rest are spouses, 
children of deceased workers, and persons of that order.
  We knew we were changing and we knew the change would be difficult, 
but we built into our legislation very careful evaluation to find what 
works. We particularly looked to the Manpower Demonstration Research 
Corporation based in New York, which had provided the basic data on 
which we enacted the legislation, and they have now reported. They are 
not easily impressed. They quantify, they measure, and they are very 
realistic. This is what they recently wrote about an assessment of the 
program Nationwide:

       This report represents early evidence that well-
     implemented, highly mandatory jobs programs that use job 
     search followed by a range of short-term education, training, 
     and other services to promote rapid job entry can produce 
     dramatic reductions in welfare receipt and substantial 
     increases in employment and earnings.

  May I say, Mr. President, the MDRC is not in the habit of referring 
to dramatic reductions. But they have done it. Indeed, we see our 
caseloads beginning to decline over the last year. They have dropped by 
a quarter of a million, 240,000 or almost 5 percent. Most of the 
decline has come in the 44 smaller States that have about half the 
caseload. Forty-four States have half of the AFDC cases; six have the 
other half.
  I have spoken to you, Mr. President, about the degree to which so 
many of our cities are effectively overwhelmed by this social disorder, 
as it now is. In the city of Chicago, in a given year, 46 percent of 
all children will be on welfare. In Detroit, 67 percent will be. In 
Philadelphia, 57 percent. In New York, 39 percent. These are numbers 
that overwhelm a political and a social system. They will stay 
overwhelmed. It will be a generation before we are out of this.
  But if we now abandon efforts which are beginning to show results, we 
will regret it. We will regret it if we remember having done it. I 
have, several times, referred to a remark made on the Charlie Rose show 
by the new director of the National Urban League, Mr. Hugh Price, who 
said that what we are proposing is something equal to the measures of 
the deinstitutionalization of mental patients in the 1960's.
  I happen to have been much involved in that. The program began in the 
1950's in New York State, where the first tranquilizers were developed. 
I was on hand, Mr. President, when on October 31, 1963, President John 
F. Kennedy had his last public bill signing ceremony. He signed the 
Community Mental Health Construction Act of 1963. He gave me a pen, and 
I have had it framed. We were going to build 2,000 community mental 
health centers between then and 1980. We were going to empty out our 
mental institutions and treat people in their communities. Well, we 
emptied out our mental institutions, but we did not build the centers. 
We built about 400 and then forgot what we were doing. Then the problem 
of the homeless appeared, and people said, ``Where did these homeless 
persons come from?"
  In my city of New York they said, well, it is obviously the problem 
of lack of affordable housing. It was not a lack of affordable housing. 
It is schizophrenia, found in a basic incidence of large populations. 
We did something terribly wrong and we cannot even recover the memory.
  If in 10 years' time we find children sleeping on grates, picked up 
in the morning frozen, and we ask, why are they scavenging, being awful 
to themselves, awful to one another? Would anyone remember how it 
began? It would have begun on the House floor this spring and the 
Senate Chamber this autumn.
  You will have half a million children in New York City with 
altogether inadequate provision, if any. It will almost be forgotten. 
Such is the amnesiac quality of so much of our politics, that there was 
a time when the Federal Government said it had a responsibility.
  These children are all our children and we are all responsible for 
them. If you had more intelligent federalism it would sort so many 
things out. We have so many things we are doing at the Federal level in 
which we have no business.
  It was remarked yesterday that when the Food Stamp Program began, 
States were free to set their own levels and they set them at wildly 
different levels, and many were quite inadequate. President Nixon came 
along and said, no, children are children, they are all American 
children. We will have a national standard.
  President Nixon proposed a guaranteed income. The distinguished 
Presiding Officer was presiding the other day when just by coincidence 
a Brazilian 

[[Page S 12881]]
Senator happened to be in Washington and came to watch us, observe us. 
I went out to introduce myself and asked him to come and join us on the 
floor. Senator Eduardo Suplicy, who gave us a copy of a bill that has 
passed the Brazilian Senate which provided a guaranteed minimum 
income--all families with children up to age 14.
  Brazil is doing it, moving in the direction we were. We are moving 
away. We are moving away amidst all manner of myth and misinformation.
  First of all there is the myth that there is, in fact, an individual 
entitlement to welfare benefits. There is not, sir. States are entitled 
to a Federal matching share of any outlays they make on their own State 
programs.
  The Federal share for various States ranges from 50 percent to about 
78 percent. A State may have any program it wishes; it may have no 
program and provide $1 per year per child or $1,000 per year per child.
  The number of actual Federal requirements are relatively few. The 
Federal statute says you can have only $1,000 in assets. All these 
children are paupers.
  The bureaucracy has been too presciptive in detailing how States may 
implement their programs, and has often taken much too long to approve 
various State experiments. But the fact remains that under current law 
States have a good deal of flexibility, and through the waiver process 
they can do almost anything they please. There exists now flexibility 
for innovation, as there exists a Federal commitment to provide a share 
of provision to impoverished dependent children. If we abandon that, we 
abandon those children.
  The legislation offered in the Finance Committee--I see my 
distinguished friend from Illinois was there--and now here as an 
amendment in the nature of the substitute, would build on the Family 
Support Act of 1988.
  We would increase the funding for the Jobs Program from $1.2 billion 
in this coming fiscal year to $2.5 billion. The Federal matching rate 
for JOBS and child care would go from 60 to 70 percent. The 
participation rates would increase from 20 percent this year in stages 
to 50 percent in the year 2001.
  These are increases we anticipated would be made as we got the hang 
of this effort, got to learn more about it. We learned, for example, 
that immediate job search is the most important thing; that a focus 
solely on educational training delays the reality of getting a job.
  We are even learning to break one of the worst habits we ever 
acquired on this subject, which is disparaging entry-level jobs. My 
Lord, how I have spent 30 years listening to ``advocates'' talk about 
dead end jobs. Now the cliche is ``flipping hamburgers.''
  The present chief executive officer of McDonald's, Ed Rensi, began 
flipping hamburgers. As I recall, he entered his entry wage at 83 cents 
an hour. Everybody starts. It is getting started that matters most.
  This was our program, Mr. President. We had great hopes for it. It 
was bipartisan--96 to 1. It has taken hold.
  If we look around, a great majority of the States have been coming 
in, proposing innovative measures of this kind, such as increasing 
income--disregards, moving people into the work force.
  We have a transition from Medicaid provision for a year after leaving 
the AFDC rolls. We have child care provisions. We thought this out. We 
have done it. We have done it well. That we should abandon it now would 
be a great loss to our children. The United States will end up looking 
to the rest of the world as a place that cannot handle its affairs. We 
will wonder what we did. We have an opportunity to avoid that. We will 
vote in a very short while now.
  Three years ago we would routinely have upgraded, updated, brought up 
to the expected higher standards the Family Support Act. If we are 
unwilling to do so today, at least in 10 years' time, when the horrors 
we shall have visited upon the children of the United States begin to 
be unmistakable, there will be those who can remember this day in this 
Chamber and say, ``I saw that coming and I voted to prevent it.''
  Mr. President, I yield the floor. I see the distinguished Senator 
from Iowa is managing and would like to speak.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I might 
consume. But I would like to have the Chair notify me when I have used 
20 minutes because if I have colleagues who want to speak, I want to 
make sure that they have an opportunity to do so.
  Mr. President, we have heard a defense of the 1988 act from the 
distinguished Senator from New York. I believe, as one who voted for 
the 1988 act, that it was pursued from beginning to end with the best 
of intentions. The goals were to move people from welfare to work, from 
dependence to independence, to strengthen the family and even to save 
the taxpayers money.
  I have to look back on those efforts as work being sincerely done, 
but as I look at the evolution of that act, the use of it and what it 
set out to accomplish and has accomplished, I believe I failed when I 
voted for that bill. I do not want to say that anyone else failed, but 
I look back at our efforts and see 3.1 million more people on AFDC now 
than we had then as one measure of failure. I see a lot more tax 
dollars being spent as another measure of failure.
  Now we are being asked by the other side, by the amendment of the 
distinguished Senator from New York, to build on the 1988 act. Albeit, 
I am sure, they are suggesting changes in the amendment before us that 
reflect what they see as failures of that 1988 act. But the difference 
between the leadership proposal under the distinguished leadership of 
Senator Dole and what the loyal opposition offers is the difference 
between night and day.
  We have seen the Federal Government failing in welfare reform, not 
just since the 1988 act but, we would have to say, over the last 
several decades. In contrast, we have seen States succeed where we have 
failed, States like Missouri and Iowa and Wisconsin, Michigan, 
Massachusetts, New Jersey, and others. That is why we propose to get 
the Federal Government out of the business of welfare and turn it over 
to the States with the resources to accomplish the goal of ending 
welfare as we know it.
  The major difference between what my distinguished friend from New 
York suggests and what Senator Dole and the Finance Committee on this 
side suggests is whether or not we are going to maintain what is called 
the Federal entitlement. We propose to end the Federal entitlement. The 
Moynihan proposal maintains it.
  Republicans propose to save the taxpayers $70 billion. Under the 
Moynihan proposal, the savings is only $2.1 billion. That is $2.1 
billion in savings with the proposal on that side of the aisle; $70 
billion in savings on the program from this side of the aisle.
  Now, we do not propose our bill just to save money. We do not propose 
the ending of the entitlement just to save money. In fact, even if 
there was not an issue of balancing the budget, the failure of the 
Federal Government, after decades in the welfare business, is why it 
should be reformed on its own merits, and that is the way we proceed.
  The litmus test of whether or not there is going to be change in 
Washington, the litmus test of whether it is no longer business as 
usual, is this issue of the Federal entitlement. Our proposal ends the 
Federal entitlement. That side would preserve the Federal entitlement.
  As I look back at the 1988 legislation, there are things that I see 
as wrong now that I did not see then. It loosened some of the tough 
eligibility requirements that were enacted in the 1981 Reagan welfare 
reforms. It expanded the eligibility to two-parent families. It 
provided for State waivers that would make it possible to reverse still 
more of those 1981 reforms.
  I know some people would say we made those waivers available, that is 
why these States today are doing what they are doing. That is true. 
But, also, in the first instance, States were able to seek waivers of 
the 1981 reforms that were enacted.
  We also permitted waivers to redefine who was unemployed by basing it 
on income earned rather than hours worked. We allowed the term ``strict 
work requirements'' to be undermined by creating an exemption for 
mothers having another child under 6. We promised a lot of education. 
We promised a lot of job training. We promised other attractive social 
services including 

[[Page S 12882]]
child care and medical services to AFDC recipients who leave the 
welfare rolls. And the sole price for admission to those rolls was 
having that first baby.
  Now, you can say to me, that any one of those things are very, very 
small. These are precisely the reasons, though, why AFDC has grown by 
3.1 million people since 1988. Yes, these results demonstrate, as I 
look back at the 1988 legislation, that some of those changes were 
wrong. Though each of the changes might have been slight, they created 
incentives which, taken together, have caused the dramatic explosion in 
the AFDC rolls from 1989 to 1995.
  Now, I anticipate some will say, ``Well, Grassley, you forget that we 
had a recession in 1991 and 1992. That obviously had something to do 
with the explosion of people on AFDC.''
  Before I respond to that, let me give the statistics on the growth of 
AFDC. There were 3 million in 1960. It rose rapidly through the 1960's 
and early 1970's. It rose rapidly, yes, even into the 1970's and then 
leveled off in 1972.
  We had a very, very deep recession in 1974 and 1975, and the numbers 
dropped in the middle of that recession. That recession was deeper than 
what we had in 1991. The numbers stayed fairly level, though they did 
rise a little bit during the Carter administration, to 11.1 million in 
1981, then they leveled off. They were 10.3 million in 1982, 11 million 
in 1989, and then we had that dramatic increase of another 3 million 
people that I believe is blamed on the 1988 law.
 We were promised that the numbers would go down as a result of the 
1988 legislation. We thought that the act would steer AFDC parents to 
work and off the dole. Obviously, the legislation was praised by 
Democrats as well as Republicans as a final means of reducing welfare 
dependency.

  We heard earlier that President Reagan praised the 1988 act when he 
signed it into law. But I still maintain, looking back over the 
history, that there was a period of time when President Reagan was 
against what was going on in the Congress. But we had a candidate for 
President in 1988 by the name of President Bush who, all of a sudden, 
at the time of the conference committee, came out and supported the 
legislation. I think that pulling of the rug out from the efforts to 
modify the legislation nixed what opportunity we had at that late 
moment to do more. And that legislation passed with only one dissenting 
vote. It was bipartisan, and I suppose for that reason nobody wants to 
expose the dramatic failures.
  I can only speak for myself. But I do see the six or seven reasons 
that I gave of changes in the 1981 law, some expansion of eligibility 
and the redefinition of unemployed, and the redefinition of strict work 
requirements as opening up the opportunity for the dramatic growth we 
then saw. I do not see the growth, Mr. President, in any direct way 
related to a recession because we did not have that dramatic of an 
increase in the last recession that we had in 1974 and 1975.
  So, we are at the point where we have to consider the new approach to 
welfare reform, an approach that establishes faith in State governments 
and local governments because they have done a lot to reduce welfare. 
Their plans are working. Yet, they had to come to the Federal 
Government on bended knees, hat in hand, even to get limited waivers to 
accomplish what they wanted to do. I will bet that in most instances 
they would have been more dramatic, more dynamic in what they would 
want to try in the way of reform if they had not had to get those 
waivers. I know my own State of Iowa had to wait 8 months for waivers.
  Iowa has moved 2,000 people off the welfare rolls and reduced the 
monthly check from $360 to $340. My State has the highest percentage of 
anybody on AFDC at work, 34 percent. That has been a dramatic increase 
from under 18 percent when our program started, less than 2 years ago.
  President Clinton ran for office in 1992. When he was running for 
office, he promised to end welfare as we know it. After 2 years of 
inaction, the American people rendered a very dramatic change in 
Congress, so dramatic that some historians say you have to go back to 
1930 to see such a political change at the grassroots in America 
reflected in the membership of Congress. But for the first time since 
1954, Republicans control both Houses of the Congress.
  The American people said that they wanted change. The people had not 
seen the President and a Congress of the President's party so that 
there would be no gridlock delivered, as was promised in that 1992 
election. They wanted change and they did not receive it. So they voted 
out the old and voted in the new.
  I stated how in 1988 we passed welfare reform. Unfortunately, it 
failed our hopes and expectations. We have more people on welfare today 
than we did then.
  The proposal that is before us from the other side of the aisle is 
basically a modification and continuation of the 1988 plan. The only 
positive thing to come out of the 1988 Family Support Act is that some 
States sought out waivers and came up with changes. As our political 
laboratories, our State legislatures, they suggested changes which 
could be made. They began to move people from welfare to work and save 
the taxpayers' money.
  The example of the States then is what moved us on this side of the 
aisle to our block grant approach as a means of addressing the crisis 
in the current welfare system. We are ending the entitlement approach, 
by ending the attitude that the Federal Government knows the answers to 
all the welfare problems, that we can decide in Washington and we can 
pay for them as well.
  Well, we learned that we do not have all the answers. We have learned 
that we have not solved all of the problems. And we are finally, after 
30 years, facing up to the fact that we cannot afford all of these 
entitlements.
  I am surprised when I hear that if we give authority back to the 
States, children will be left starving in the streets. That has not 
been said this morning, but the implication is there when we are told 
that 10 years from now if we vote for a block grant approach, we are 
going to look back and see that it is a mistake. That could be. And we 
have constitutional authority to reevaluate what we have done. But I 
think I have seen enough change and improvement in the programs at the 
State level to give me courage to move forward with ending the Federal 
entitlement and to ignore the warnings that I have received from my 
good friend.
  Somehow I think some in this body have bought into the idea that we 
at the Federal level know what's best and that we can fix everything. I 
think it is a fairly arrogant approach to assume that only the Federal 
leaders as opposed to State leaders have compassion towards the needs 
of those less fortunate in our society.
  In 40 years of Federal control we have seen an increase in 
dependency. We have seen an increase in the number of people on 
welfare. We have seen an increase in all of the social pathological 
problems that come from single-parent families.
  We have heard these statistics over and over, but 70 percent of the 
juveniles in reformatories come from single-parent families, 60 percent 
of the rapists, 72 percent of the adolescent murderers. Kids that come 
from broken families are 40 percent more likely to fail a grade, 70 
percent more likely to be expelled from school. Girls from broken 
families are more likely to have out-of-wedlock births and continue the 
problem.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will advise the Senator he has used 
20 minutes.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. OK. I am going to take just a few more minutes and then 
yield the floor to my colleagues.
  We have seen well-intended Federal programs destroy the nuclear 
family. And then we see amendments like we have before us today to 
continue that form of Federal control.
  There is something I believe that we as Republicans and Democrats do 
agree on, and that is that the current system must be changed and 
changed dramatically. How dramatically?
  Well, not very dramatically from the ideas we are getting from the 
other side of the aisle. When you want to end a Federal entitlement and 
let the States make the decisions, that is very dramatic.
  We do not all agree that the welfare state is broken, but both 
Republicans and Democrats agree that the welfare 

[[Page S 12883]]
system within the welfare state is broken, or we would not even have 
these ideas from the other side of the aisle.
  The leadership bill meets the basic goals of welfare reform. That is 
to provide a system that meets the short-term needs of low-income 
Americans as they prepare for independence, to provide for much greater 
State flexibility, to reduce the incidence of out-of-wedlock births and 
strengthen the family, and finally to save the taxpayers some of their 
hard-earned money.
  It is interesting to me that many Members will oppose the leadership 
bill and support the Moynihan bill because they say our proposal might 
hurt children. Yet I wish that these same Members would admit that the 
current system has hurt children.
  The system I have described has not been good for our children. If we 
truly care about these children, we will reform very dramatically the 
current detrimental system.
  Then you have to consider: If you are concerned about children, you 
also have to be concerned about children who are not on welfare. And if 
we are not concerned about doing something about this out-of-control 
Federal spending--though welfare is a small part of it--then we do not 
show the proper concern for each child born this day who inherits at 
the first breath $18,000 of responsibility for the $4.9 trillion debt 
we have. If we do not reverse the deficit crisis, our children, all 
children, will pay 80 percent of their lifetime earnings in taxes. Mr. 
President, that is wrong. We have to be concerned about the children 
who are not on welfare as well as children who are on welfare.
  It is appropriate for us to be concerned about the children of low-
income Americans but, frankly, I think it is about time that we are 
concerned about all the children of America. That means we have to 
reduce the deficit while we change the welfare system to free those who 
are trapped in it. If we take steps to move people from welfare to 
work, to give more flexibility to the States, to reduce illegitimacy 
and to strengthen the family, we will in the long run save the 
taxpayers money. This will be the natural result of positive changes to 
the current system.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I understand the distinguished Senator 
from West Virginia would like to offer an amendment, and to do so with 
celerity. I yield 30 seconds for such purpose.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I thank my ranking member.


     Amendments Nos. 2491 and 2492, en bloc, to Amendment No. 2280

  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, pursuant to the unanimous consent, I 
send two amendments, en bloc, to the desk and ask they be read and the 
pending amendment be laid aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Rockefeller] proposes, 
     en bloc, amendments numbered 2491 and 2492 to amendment No. 
     2280.

  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading 
of the amendments be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendments are as follows:

                           amendment no. 2491

(Purpose: To provide States with the option to exempt families residing 
           in areas of high unemployment from the time limit)

       On page 36, between lines 18 and 19, insert the following:
       ``(4) Areas of high unemployment.--
       ``(A) In general.--At the State's option, the State may, on 
     a uniform basis, exempt a family from the application of 
     paragraph (1) if--
       ``(i) such family resides in an area of high unemployment 
     designated by the State under subparagraph (B); and
       ``(ii) the State makes available, and requires an 
     individual in the family to participate in, work activities 
     described in subparagraphs (B), (D), or (F) of section 
     404(c)(3).
       ``(B) Areas of high unemployment.--The State may designate 
     a sub-State area as an area of high unemployment if such 
     area--
       ``(i) is a major political subdivision (or is comprised of 
     2 or more geographically contiguous political subdivisions);
       ``(ii) has an average annual unemployment rate (as 
     determined by the Bureau of Labor Statistics) of at least 10 
     percent; and
       ``(iii) has at least 25,000 residents.

     The State may waive the requirement of clause (iii) in the 
     case of a sub-State area that is an Indian reservation.
                           amendment no. 2492

 (Purpose: To provide for a State option to exempt certain individuals 
      from the participation rate calculation and the time limit)

       On page 35, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following:
       ``(6) State option for participation requirement 
     exemptions.--For any fiscal year, a State may opt to not 
     require an individual described in subclause (I) or (II) of 
     section 405(a)(3)(B)(ii) to engage in work activities and may 
     exclude such an individual from the determination of the 
     minimum participation rate specified for such fiscal year in 
     subsection (a).
       On page 40, strike lines 6 through 16, and insert the 
     following:
       ``(B) Limitation.--
       ``(i) 15 percent.--In addition to any families provided 
     with exemptions by the State under clause (ii), the number of 
     families with respect to which an exemption made by a State 
     under subparagraph (A) is in effect for a fiscal year shall 
     not exceed 15 percent of the average monthly number of 
     families to which the State is providing assistance under the 
     program operated under this part.
       ``(ii) Certain families.--At the State's option, the State 
     may provide an exemption under subparagraph (A) to a family--
       ``(I) of an individual who is ill, incapacitated, or of 
     advanced age; and
       ``(II) of an individual who is providing full-time care for 
     a disabled dependent of the individual.

  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I thank the Senator from New York. I ask unanimous 
consent to lay the amendments aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
Senator from New York.


                           Amendment No. 2466

  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I yield myself 90 seconds, first to say 
in response to my friend from Iowa, my long associate on the Committee 
on Finance, he was this morning talking of the achievements of the 
State of Iowa in this area, and did so the other day, and he was 
talking about the achievements under the Family Support Act. There is 
yet a new proposal that came from Iowa, a request for a new set of 
disregards, and such like, received in April and approved in August for 
the Iowa Family Investment Program.
  The Senator is right to be proud, but why not associate what Iowa has 
done with the legislation that encouraged it. I do not ask a response. 
I do not expect a response. But I would like to put that new Iowa 
Family Investment Program in the Record at this point, Mr. President. 
It is one page.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                     Iowa Family Investment Program

             (Request: April 1993. Approved: August, 1993)


                               Statewide

       Disregard 20% of earnings as work expense deduction; in 
     addition, disregard 50% of earned income after all other 
     deductions applied; disregard all earnings in first four 
     months of employment if individual reports employment in 
     timely manner and had less than $1200 in earnings in 12 
     months before the employment began.
       $2,000 asset limit for applicants, $5,000 for recipients; 
     exempt equity value of automobile up to $3,000, adjusted 
     annually by CPI; income deposited in IDA will not be counted 
     as income and funds in IDA not counted toward asset limit.
       Limit exemptions from requirement of Family Investment 
     Agreement to individuals: 1) with a child under 6 months; 2) 
     already employed 30 hours per week or more; or 3) disabled.
       Plan specifies that families will be given individualized 
     time limits based on their circumstances. At the end of the 
     specified period, all benefits terminated. Extensions 
     available for good cause.
       For noncompliance, family will receive ``Limited Benefit 
     Plan,'' full benefits for three months of benefits, followed 
     by three months of benefits for children only, followed by 
     full family ineligibility for six months.
       TCC for 24 months.
       Eliminate 100-hour rule and work history requirements.
       Allow stepparents same earned income disregards as 
     available to recipients, as described above. Stepparents also 
     allowed to receive regular child care expense deduction.
       Allow grandparents same earned income disregards as 
     available to recipients, as described above.

  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, again, in response to my friend, it is 
the fact that in the 1992 campaign, then candidate, now President 
Clinton proposed to end welfare as we know it. 

[[Page S 12884]]
 In an address to Georgetown University opening his campaign in 1991, 
he proposed a 2-year limit and now we begin to see the consequences. I 
have nothing more to say than that except to concede, I hope 
graciously, the Senator is right. We are ending the Federal entitlement 
to States for the support of dependent children and it is ending what 
we have known as welfare.
  Sir, my able colleague and friend from Louisiana would like to speak 
to the experience of Louisiana under the Family Support Act. I am happy 
to yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. BREAUX. I thank very much the ranking member for giving me some 
time.
  I, too, was a little confused when the Senator from Iowa was talking 
about the situation in his State. I have heard many, many times in many 
forums the success of Iowa in being innovative, in creating new 
programs and ideas of how to solve the problems of welfare reform in 
their particular State. And those accomplishments really were 
accomplished under the Family Support Act that was passed in this 
Congress in 1988.
  That bill, which passed this body by a vote of 96 to 1, allowed 
States to be creative, allowed States to put in new ideas and new 
programs. Iowa took advantage of that and I think made some great 
progress. I think they should be proud of it. But it also is a result 
of actions that this Senate, this body took when we enacted the Family 
Support Act of 1988, the principal author of which was the ranking 
member of the Senate Finance Committee, the senior Senator from the 
State of New York.
  Is it perfect? Of course not. Is anything we do ever perfect? Of 
course not. But it has allowed for great progress in permitting States 
to be innovative in creating programs that best fit the needs of their 
particular State.
  In keeping with that, I wanted to share the experience of my State of 
Louisiana. The headline in the Monroe News Star World of August 14 of 
this year: ``Project Independence Trims Welfare Rolls Across State.'' 
This is good news. This was done under the existing program, under the 
Family Support Act of 1988. There is good news in the land, in many 
States that have done substantially positive things in getting people 
off welfare. I read from the article. It says:
  ``In Louisiana, welfare reform is nothing new. Since October of 1990, 
the number of Louisiana residents receiving Aid to Families with 
Dependent Children has dropped 20 percent,'' said Howard Prejeau, 
Assistant Secretary for the Office of Family Support.
  ``Since 1990, it has dropped 20 percent.'' The article further 
continues:
  ``That decrease,'' he said, ``is due in large part to Project 
Independence, a program that helps AFDC recipients find jobs and 
increase their education.''
 Project Independence was created under the Family Support Act of 1988.

  As of June 1995, 11,260 participants received jobs with 8,332 making 
enough money to get off welfare completely, according to a report 
released by the Department of Social Services.
   A program in my State provides child care and transportation, 
absolutely essential ingredients if we are going to have real reform 
for those looking for work. Also it helps build up self-esteem by 
teaching the value of working and showing them their own self-worth.
  Project Independence also has programs to help participants receive 
their GED's or high school diplomas, receive associate and 4-year 
degrees or job-skills training and build resumes through community 
service work.
  A report issued by the Public Welfare Association in 1994, Louisiana 
ranked last in AFDC caseload growth in the country for 1989 through 
1993.
  Mr. President, it is not a coincidence that this achievement and this 
accomplishment for my State of Louisiana was produced as a direct 
product of the Family Support Act of 1988 offered by the distinguished 
Senator from New York, Senator Moynihan. We should recognize and 
congratulate success where it has occurred. And under this program 
there have been outstanding examples of real success. We should not 
ignore it.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. GRASSLEY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I would yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Oklahoma.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. I thank the Senator from Iowa for yielding the time.
  Mr. President, I think it is appropriate during this debate to be 
aware of something that is going on around the Nation today that there 
are those individuals trying to hold on to the past with white knuckles 
and using taxpayers' money to do that.
  I was shocked to find out yesterday that in my hometown of Tulsa, OK, 
we had a traveling troupe from Texas. These are the regional directors 
of the various agencies: Mr. Steve Weatherford from Housing and Urban 
Development, he is the regional director; Pat Montoya, Health and Human 
Services; and Jim Cantu, of Labor, all converging upon one city, to 
scare the people of Tulsa, OK, into thinking that if we go along with 
the changes that we are advocating in the welfare system, the changes 
in Government as we know it, the changes that are consistent with the 
revolution that took place on November 8, 1994, that somehow people are 
going to be starving.
  I am just going to read a couple of the quotes here. And it happens 
that our mayor in Tulsa is a very strong supporter of President 
Clinton, so I am sure she joined in. But Steve Weatherford of HUD said, 
``We are talking about major cuts to our social fabric. * * * We are 
talking about hundreds of thousands of children and poor people who 
will be affected in Oklahoma.''
  We have Pat Montoya with Health and Human Services, ``Tulsa would 
lose more than $5 billion in Federal funding between 1995 and the year 
2002 if the GOP program is adopted.''
  Jim Cantu of Labor said that GOP budget cuts would ``take food out of 
the mouths of children and punish 15-year-old mothers.''
  And on and on and on.
  You know, I have to join with my fellow Senator from Oklahoma, Don 
Nickles, as well as Congressman Steve Largent whose district this city 
of Tulsa is, when we say that there is no better case that can be made 
of the bloated Government and the waste that has taken place today than 
to have these top officials with all their entourage trouping around 
going from city to city to scare people and into maintaining the status 
quo.
  I think that the stories that we are hearing today in conjunction 
with the welfare bill are very similar to that.
  I think the most profound thing that was said by the Senator from 
Iowa was that if you are really concerned and really having compassion, 
look at the children who will be born today, if we do not make these 
major changes, having to spend 82 percent--I think it has been 
calculated of their lifetime earnings--on supporting Government. So I 
hope that we can keep this in mind that there is an army of bureaucrats 
trouping around the country right now, trying to scare people into 
thinking that we cannot afford a major change.
  Let us keep in mind that in November there was a change, that there 
is a mandate that came with that, and that is, let us end these age-old 
programs that have been proven failures and change the role of 
Government as we have come to know it since the 1960's.
  Mr. GRASSLEY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I would like to defer to the Senator from Maine on the 
same basis we just did a little while ago to the Senator from West 
Virginia.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Would my friend mind if we alternate at this point?
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I will yield the floor to the Senator from New York.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. I am very happy to yield 5 minutes of our remaining 
time to my strong colleague on the Committee on Finance, the Senator 
from Illinois.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Thank you very much, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. I want to thank the Senator from New York for his 
exemplary leadership in this area and for what I consider to be a 
brilliant statement earlier.
  There is so much to say about this subject, one scarcely can say it 
all in 5 minutes. But I am going to just talk about an observation I 
had a few minutes ago listening to Pat Moynihan on this subject. 

[[Page S 12885]]

  The observation had to do with the whole notion of perspective, of 
how one perceives an issue often dictates the kind of conclusions that 
one reaches about it, whether the facts support that perception or not.
  I was reminded of a fact that Pat Moynihan has been an oracle, if you 
will, a visionary for a number of years about a number of these issues 
going to the social fabric in our country. He has found himself over 
time derided, criticized for his observations. Then, with the passage 
of time, people come back and say, oh, by the way, that Pat Moynihan 
was right 20 years ago. He warned us about the increase in 
illegitimacy. He warned us about this development, or he warned us 
about another development.
  And so, frankly, it has got to be a little frustrating to him to be 
that kind of prophet in his own time, pointing the way and trying to 
give people the facts, the basic information that should influence 
debates like this one, but I daresay unfortunately all too often do not 
influence debates like this one.
  The fact of the matter is, this is more of a political debate than it 
is anything having to do with reality. The fact of the matter is, this 
debate is being shaped by hot buttons and wedge issues and frustration 
and, frankly, campaign dynamics more than anything going to the 
experience, the history, the reality or anything that can be projected 
for the future.
  I heard a lot of conversation about this as a revolution we are going 
to go and do things a new way. We are going to get the Federal 
Government out of the business of providing for poor children and out 
of setting up the welfare system and the like.
  The reality is, Mr. President, that there is an old expression that 
those who do not learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat its 
mistakes. I think that is ancient wisdom that still applies.
  The fact of the matter is that the Federal Government was not always 
in the business of providing for poor children.
  Last night, when I made a statement about this issue, I talked about 
the friendless foundlings and homeless half-orphans, the experience of 
this country in dealing with the poverty, child poverty particularly, 
before the Federal Government ingratiated itself and got involved in 
providing a national safety net, a national base, if you will, below 
which we expect no American child to fall.
  Well, we apparently did not learn that history or have chosen, 
because of our frustration and our aggravation with our inability to 
fix this problem, decided to go back to that, to go back to the model 
that says the Federal Government has no role and, more to the point, as 
a national community because it is not a Federal Government that sets 
out there. We are all as Americans in this democracy--really the 
Federal Government is an expression of all of us as a national 
community. And this legislation, as has been admitted and spoken to 
very candidly on the floor, says that as a national community we have 
no obligation to poor children in the various locations and locales 
around this country, that a child's situation and the level and degree 
of poverty or privation may well depend on an accident of that child's 
geography, and that that is OK by this body with the pending 
legislation.
  Well, that may be the case. But I submit to you, Mr. President, we 
have, at a minimum, an obligation to do no harm. As we talk about our 
political revolution and anger about politicians making statements or 
whatever, and we go through all of that, it seems to me we have an 
obligation to do no harm.
  In my mind, that means that we do not allow ourselves to construct a 
response to poverty that will leave the possibility wide open that Pat 
Moynihan might once again be right, will leave the possibility that we 
could very well wind up with children being found frozen on the grates 
on the street corners, that children will no longer have a national 
safety net, that we will not, as a national community, have a sense of 
obligation and responsibility to poor children.
  There are estimates that given the leadership proposal, should the 
leadership proposal pass, and this is a preliminary estimate, in my 
State of Illinois alone, it is projected that the number of children by 
the 21st century--which is not that far from now--the number of 
children that will be cut off will be 598,000 children, or 34 percent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair advises the Senator 5 minutes have 
expired.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. I yield 1 additional minute.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Mr. President, I will be brief. Nationally, the 
number of children who are likely to be affected and left with no 
safety net for their welfare whatsoever in this country will be 12 
million children--12 million children, a third of the children.
  We already know in this country, in America, right now we have the 
highest child poverty rate in the entire industrialized world. That, in 
and of itself, ought to make us mindful of our obligation to do better 
by the response to poverty that we construct in this legislative body 
than the hot button and the politics that is apparently driving the 
debate today. If anything, that perspective makes me very sad.
  I want to congratulate Senator Moynihan for continuing to raise the 
issues that these are a phenomenon that transcends anything the Federal 
Government standing alone can do or any bill standing alone will do. 
These are the issues that go to the core of fundamental issues having 
to do with the functioning of our economy, with the existence of 
poverty and with the breakdown of the family as a unit.
  Those kinds of concerns are not being addressed by the leadership 
bill, and I hope that the Members will support Senator Moynihan's 
amendment, at least with the prescription that as we move in this very 
sensitive and important area, we do no harm to the children.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair advises the Senator from New York he 
has 2 minutes and 15 seconds. The Senator from Iowa has 17 minutes and 
6 seconds. Who yields time?
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I yield the floor to the Senator from Maine, on the 
same basis that we did the Senator from West Virginia earlier today.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for yielding.
  I ask unanimous consent to temporarily set aside the pending 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                Amendment No. 2493 to Amendment No. 2280

    (Purpose: To clarify provisions relating to the distribution to 
             families of collected child support payments)

  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Maine [Ms. Snowe], for herself and Mr. 
     Bradley, proposes an amendment No. 2493 to amendment No. 
     2280.

  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:
       Beginning on page 582, strike line 3 and all that follows 
     through line 2 on page 583, and insert the following:
       ``(ii) Distribution to the family to satisfy arrearages 
     that accrued before the family received assistance.--From any 
     remainder after the application of clause (i), in order to 
     satisfy arrearages of support obligations that accrued before 
     the family received assistance from the State, the State--
       ``(I) may distribute to the family the amount so collected 
     with respect to such arrearages accruing (and assigned to the 
     State as a condition of receiving assistance) before the 
     effective date of this subsection; and
       ``(II) shall distribute to the family the amount so 
     collected with respect to such arrearages accruing after such 
     effective date.
       ``(iii) Retention by the state of a portion of assigned 
     arrearages to repay assistance furnished to the family.--From 
     any remainder after the application of clauses (i) and (ii), 
     the State shall retain (with appropriate distribution to the 
     Federal Government) amounts necessary to reimburse the State 
     and Federal Government for assistance furnished to the 
     family.
       ``(iv) Distribution of the remainder to the family.--The 
     State shall distribute to the family any remainder after the 
     application of clauses (i), (ii), and (iii).''
       On page 585, between lines 10 and 11, insert the following:
       (c) Amendments to Internal Revenue Code Concerning 
     Collection of Child Support Arrearages Through Income Tax 
     Refund Offset.--

[[Page S 12886]]

       (1) Section 6402(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is 
     amended by striking the third sentence.
       (2) Section 6402(d)(2) of such Code is amended in the first 
     sentence by striking all that follows ``subsection (c)'' and 
     inserting a period.
       On page 585, line 11, strike ``(c)'' and insert ``(d)''.

  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, this amendment is also being cosponsored by 
Senator Bradley of New Jersey.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                Amendment No. 2494 to Amendment No. 2280
   (Purpose: To clarify that the penalty provisions do not apply to 
 certain single custodial parents in need of child care and to exempt 
 certain single custodial parents in need of child care from the work 
                             requirements)

  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I send another amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Maine [Ms. Snowe] proposes an amendment 
     No. 2494 to amendment No. 2280.

  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 36, strike lines 14 through 25, and insert the 
     following:
       ``(d) Penalties Against Individuals.--
       ``(1) In General.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), if 
     an adult in a family receiving assistance under the State 
     program funded under this part refuses to engage in work 
     required under subsection (c)(1) or (c)(2), a State to which 
     a grant is made under section 403 shall--
       ``(A) reduce the amount of assistance otherwise payable to 
     the family pro rate (or more, at the option of the State) 
     with respect to any period during a month in which the adult 
     so refuses; or
       ``(B) terminate such assistance, subject to such good cause 
     and other exceptions as the State may establish.
       ``(2) Exception.--Notwithstanding paragraph (1), a state 
     may not reduce or terminate assistance under the State 
     program based on a refusal of an adult to work if such adult 
     is a single custodial parent caring for a child age 5 or 
     under and has a demonstrated inability to obtain needed child 
     care, for one or more of the following reasons:
       ``(A) Unavailability of appropriate child care within a 
     reasonable distance of the individual's home or work site.
       ``(B) Unavailability or unsuitability of informal child 
     care by a relative or under other arrangements.
       ``(C) Unavailability of appropriate and affordable formal 
     child care arrangements.''

  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the 
pending amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Who yields time?
  Mr. PRYOR addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.


                Amendment No. 2495 to Amendment No. 2280

              (Purpose: To modify the penalty provisions)

  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I have an amendment which I send to the 
desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment is 
set aside. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Pryor] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2495 to amendment No. 2280.

  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 52, lines 4 through 6, strike ``so used, plus 5 
     percent of such grant (determined without regard to this 
     section).'' and insert ``so used. If the Secretary determines 
     that such unlawful expenditure was made by the State in 
     intentional violation of the requirements of this part, then 
     the Secretary shall impose an additional penalty of up to 5 
     percent of such grant (determined without regard to this 
     section).''.
       On page 56, between lines 9 and 10, insert the following:
       ``(d) Compliance Plan.--
       ``(1) In general.--Prior to the deduction from the grant of 
     aggregate penalties under subsection (a) in excess of 5 
     percent of a State's grant payable under section 403, a State 
     may develop jointly with the Secretary a plan which outlines 
     how the State will correct any violations for which such 
     penalties would be deducted and how the State will insure 
     continuing compliance with the requirements of this part.
       ``(2) Failure to correct.--If the Secretary determines that 
     a State has not corrected the violations described in 
     paragraph (1) in a timely manner, the Secretary shall deduct 
     some or all of the penalties described in paragraph (1) from 
     the grant.''.
       On page 56, strike lines 11 through 14, and insert the 
     following:
       ``(1) In general.--The penalties described in paragraphs 
     (2) through (6) of subsection (a) shall apply--
       ``(A) with respect to periods beginning 6 months after the 
     Secretary issues final rules with respect to such penalties; 
     or
       ``(B) with respect to fiscal years beginning on or after 
     October 1, 1996;

     whichever is later.''.

  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment 
just sent to the desk be set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Who 
yields time?
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished Senator from 
Arkansas.
  Mr. PRYOR. The Senator from Arkansas just offered the amendment. So I 
yield back my few seconds. I thank the chairman.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. GRASSLEY. How much time does Senator Moynihan have left?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York has 1 minute 
remaining. The Senator from Iowa has 15 minutes, 30 seconds remaining.


                           Amendment No. 2466

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am going to use the same amount of 
time Senator Moynihan has left, and then I will yield back my time.
  I would like to respond to a couple statements that have been made, I 
think one by Senator Moynihan, the other one by Senator Breaux. They 
each made the point that since my State of Iowa has been doing so well 
in getting waivers, why should we not just continue building upon the 
1988 act.
  The point here, Mr. President, is first, that it takes such a very, 
very long time to get a waiver. Second, I believe state legislatures, 
in changing their welfare laws with the hopes of getting a waiver, are 
relatively less dynamic and venturesome than they would be if they had 
the sole authority to make a determination of what they wanted in 
welfare reform for their State.
  Just to show you how complicated it is to get such a waiver approved, 
a State can sometimes be caught getting waivers from four different 
Federal Departments: The Department of Health and Human Services, the 
Department of Agriculture, the Department of Housing and Urban 
Development, and the Department of Labor.
  All four of these Departments are, in one way or another, responsible 
for programs that affect low-income families served by our current 
welfare system. However, there is no coordination among these 
Departments in granting waivers to the States. In fact, each specific 
program has its own set of statutes and rules defining the parameters 
of possible waivers.
  I could give you description after description of what my State of 
Iowa has gone through. In the first days of debate on this legislation, 
we heard speeches by the Senator from Oregon about the complicated 
process of waivers that Oregon had to go through, the multitudes of 
meetings, the multitudes of trips to Washington, DC, the changes that 
were required, and then they had to go back through the approval 
process again. We want to end the process by which the coequal States 
of our Union come to Washington hat in hand on bended knee to get these 
waivers.
  The last point I will make is this. We have had the opportunity again 
today to hear from the Senator from Illinois about the plight of 
children. She does this very well.
  There is no disputing anything she says, including the facts and 
figures that she has given of the rapid increase in the number of 
children in those circumstances.
  But let me remind her--let me remind everybody--as we debate welfare 

[[Page S 12887]]
  reform, as we consider a change of this system, that all the problems 
she describes are under a failed system. All those statistics that have 
increased in number, such as the number of people in poverty--the 
system that is being defended today, is the cause of those increases.
  It is about time that we try something new. I think we have seen the 
success of the States, and we ought to move to a new approach.
  I ask my colleagues to vote against the Moynihan amendment.
  I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from New York.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. And I yield 1 minute of the 2 minutes, generously 
provided by the Senator from Iowa, to the Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
measure be set aside for the purposes of sending amendments to the 
desk, not being counted against my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Frist). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


  Amendments Nos. 2496, 2497, and 2498, en bloc, to Amendment No. 2280

  Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, I send all three amendments to the desk, 
en bloc, and ask for their immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New York [Mr. Moynihan] proposes 
     amendments numbered 2496, 2497, and 2498.

  Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendments be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendments are as follows:
                           amendment no. 2496

      (Purpose: To modify the provisions regarding the State plan 
                             requirements)

       At the end of section 402(a), insert the following:
       ``(9) Additional requirements.--
       ``(A) Eligibility.--The terms and conditions under which 
     families are deemed needy and eligible for assistance under 
     the program.
       ``(B) Terms and conditions.--The terms and conditions 
     described in subparagraph (A) shall include--
       ``(i) a need standard based on family income and size;
       ``(ii) a standard for benefits or schedule of benefits for 
     families based on family size and income;
       ``(iii) explicit rules regarding the treatment of earned 
     and unearned income, resources, and assets; and
       ``(iv) a description of any variations in the terms and 
     conditions described in clauses (i), (ii), and (iii) that are 
     applicable in--
       ``(I) regions or localities within the State; or
       ``(II) particular circumstances.
       ``(C) Identification of families categorically ineligible 
     for assistance.--Identification of any categories of 
     families, or individuals with such families, that are deemed 
     by the State to be categorically ineligible for assistance 
     under the program, regardless of family income or other terms 
     and conditions developed under subparagraph (A).
       ``(D) Assurances regarding the provision of assistance.--
     Assurances that all families deemed eligible for assistance 
     under the program under subparagraph (A) shall be provided 
     assistance under the standard for benefits or the benefit 
     schedule described in subparagraph (B)(ii), unless--
       ``(i) the family or an individual member of the family is 
     categorically ineligible for assistance under subparagraph 
     (C); or
       ``(ii) the family is subject to sanctions or reductions in 
     benefits under terms of another provision of the State plan, 
     this part, Federal or State law, or an agreement between an 
     individual recipient of assistance in such family and the 
     State that may contain terms and conditions applicable only 
     to the individual recipient.
       ``(E) Procedures for ensuring the availability of funds.--
     The procedures under which the State shall ensure that funds 
     will remain available to provide assistance under the program 
     to all eligible families during a fiscal year if the State 
     exhausts the grant provided to the State for such fiscal year 
     under section 403.
       ``(F) Waiting lists.--Assurances that no family otherwise 
     eligible for assistance under the program shall be placed on 
     a waiting list for assistance or instructed to reapply at 
     such time that additional Federal funds may become 
     available.''.
                           amendment no. 2497

    (Purpose: To prohibit a State from shifting the costs of aid or 
 assistance provided under the aid to families with dependent children 
               or the JOBS programs to local governments)

       At the end of section 405, insert the following:
       ``(f) No Unfunded Local Mandates.--A State to which a grant 
     is made under section 403 may not, by mandate or policy, 
     shift the costs of providing aid or assistance that, prior to 
     October 1, 1995 (or March 31, 1996, in the case of a State 
     exercising the option described in section 110(b) of the 
     Family Self-Sufficiency Act of 1995) was provided under the 
     aid to families with dependent children or the JOBS programs 
     (as such programs were in effect on September 30, 1995) to--
       ``(1) counties;
       ``(2) localities;
       ``(3) school boards; or
       ``(4) other units of local government.''.


                           amendment no. 2498

   (Purpose: To provide that existing civil rights laws shall not be 
                         preempted by this Act)

       At the appropriate place at the end of Title I, add the 
     following:
       Nothing in this Act shall be interpreted to preempt the 
     enforcement of existing civil rights laws.

                           amendment no. 2466

  Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, I rise to congratulate Senator Moynihan 
for putting together the only welfare alternative that is really based 
on what we know about welfare, what the problems are, what we can fix, 
and what we can't fix.
  As a member of the Finance Committee, I was struck by the fact that 
we held several months of hearings, heard from academic experts, State 
administrators, Governors, people who work with young mothers in 
residential programs, and job placement specialists. We heard all their 
suggestions about what could be improved, and then we proceeded to 
ignore all their advice. We simply ignored it.
  Instead we adopted a solution that serves the political purpose of 
claiming that we've eliminated welfare, but in reality, does nothing. 
It turns over the whole thing, with all its problems, to the States, in 
the hopes that they can figure it out.
  Senator Moynihan took the right approach. He looked at his own 
greatest accomplishment, the Family Support Act of 1988, and was 
willing to acknowledge that it had fallen short of our expectations in 
some very distinct ways:
  First, the JOBS Program overall was not successful at moving people 
into work. It put too little emphasis on real work and discouraged real 
education, leaving people to waste their time in empty job search 
programs and structured study halls. Some programs actually delayed 
recipients getting jobs longer than if they hadn't been in the program. 
But several counties and States found ways to do much better, by 
striving to place people directly into real jobs and building the 
training around those jobs. This amendment shifts the focus of the JOBS 
Program to build on its strengths rather than its shortcomings.
  Second, AFDC overall, and the JOBS Program in particular, don't give 
States enough flexibility to find their own solutions. That's not an 
argument for handing the States a fixed pot of money and washing our 
hands of the whole thing. Instead, it's an argument for giving the 
States flexibility within clear standards, requiring the States to 
structure the JOBS Program as they see fit but requiring results. This 
amendment does just that.
  Third, we made a mistake in 1988 that we are now on the verge of 
making all over again, in much greater magnitude: We made big promises 
and failed to invest. Taking individuals from the middle of the turmoil 
of America's cities, from the turmoil of their own families and 
neighborhoods, individuals who are caring for children, and helping 
them to become economically self-sufficient is an enormous challenge. 
It means giving each person almost constant attention, helping them 
find a way to balance work and family, helping them master new skills, 
compensating for the failures of the elementary and secondary school 
system. It means sticking with people after they find their first job, 
helping them keep that job and move on to a better one. It cannot be 
done with slogans or wishes. It requires an investment.
  Since 1988, we have spent only $1 billion a year on the JOBS Program, 
and much of that has gone unspent because States have not been willing 
or able to come up with their share. This amendment is the only 
alternative that makes realistic promises about getting people to work 
and puts the investment behind it.
  The argument I have heard against this amendment is simply that it 
retains the entitlement. That's an evil 

[[Page S 12888]]
work, but what does it really mean? It means that States will get an 
amount of money equal to what they need--when hardship increases 
because of the economy, States will have the resources they need. It 
means that individuals who need help will get it, as long as they make 
an effort to become self-sufficient. Nobody is entitled to anything if 
they don't follow the rules. And the States can set the rules with 
greater flexibility under this amendment.
  Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support Senator Moynihan's 
alternative. It is the only welfare bill we will vote on that is based 
on reality and not slogans. It builds on the successful piece of 
legislation in 1988 by repairing its most glaring flaws. It will not 
end welfare as we know it, but it will reform welfare into a system 
that strengthens families, that connects parents to work, that brings 
fathers back into the family, and that promotes innovation.
  Those may seem like modest expectations compared to the slogans that 
we hear on this floor throughout this debate. But if we can accomplish 
this much, we will have reason to be proud.
  This amendment and this alternative deserves the Senate's support.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, we all owe a debt of gratitude to Senator 
Moynihan for his tireless efforts to educate this body and indeed the 
American people about the causes of poverty in modern society. Spanning 
four decades, Senator Moynihan has performed several roles in the 
effort to end poverty. Throughout his distinguished career, he has been 
a professor, a planner, an economist, a social scientist, an advocate, 
and an author, as well as a brilliant legislator and dedicated public 
servant.
  But most of all, he has been right about the causes of poverty amidst 
the wealthiest nation on earth. He has given us, chapter and verse, the 
reasons why the number of children receiving AFDC has increased 
threefold since a small group in the Office of Economic Opportunity 
mapped out the War on Poverty 30 years ago.
  Senator Moynihan predicted the growing tragedy of the American 
welfare system. He was right because he knew then, as he maintains 
today that there are consequences to behavior.
  But we are here today because knowing why something happens does not 
necessarily tell us how to modify the predictable results. In fact, we 
now have 30 years of experience which tells us that despite the best of 
intentions, the Federal Government cannot replace strong families. The 
needs of children and families cannot be reduced to mathematical 
diagrams. The wisdom of Solomon is rarely found in the Federal 
Register.
  Under the present welfare system, we now have over 9 million children 
receiving AFDC benefits. If we do nothing, the Department of Health and 
Human Services projects there will be 12 million children on AFDC 
within 10 years. That is what the present system will bring. This fact 
alone should embolden us to act in a dramatic way to change the status 
quo.
  Today, we have the choice between two different approaches to 
changing the welfare system. There are several important, fundamental 
differences between Senator Moynihan's proposal and the Republican 
legislation. Perhaps the most important difference is the role of the 
Federal Government. It is time to release the grasp of Washington which 
for too long has choked off the initiative and creativity of the States 
in answering the challenges of the welfare system. If the States remain 
dependent on Washington, they will not take the bold steps we need and 
should encourage to the vexing problems of our welfare system. The 
States do not need another Washington-based approach. They do not need 
another revision based on a faulty premise. Our block grant approach 
will free the 50 sovereign States to serve their needy citizens in the 
most effective manner possible. It is time to leave the past behind and 
place our confidence in the states to meet the challenges of the 
future.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I yield back what time I have remaining.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I yield back such time as we may have 
remaining.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment 
of the Senator from New York.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. I announce that the Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Cochran] 
and the Senator from Alaska [Mr. Murkowski] are necessarily absent.
  I also announce that the Senator from Tennessee [Mr. Thompson] is 
absent due to illness.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Tennessee [Mr. Thompson] would each vote ``nay.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 41, nays 56, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 403 Leg.]

                                YEAS--41

     Akaka
     Biden
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Graham
     Heflin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Johnston
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Pell
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Wellstone

                                NAYS--56

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Brown
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cohen
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Faircloth
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Packwood
     Pressler
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thurmond
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Cochran
     Murkowski
     Thompson
  So the amendment (No. 2466) was rejected.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Missouri to 
offer an amendment.
  Mr. BOND addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.


                Amendment No. 2499 to Amendment No. 2280

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I will only take a moment. I want to offer 
an amendment. I will send it to the desk and ask it be set aside so it 
may be covered--may be discussed and acted upon next week.
  Yesterday I told this Chamber about a situation in Sedalia, MO, where 
we are attempting to get people off of welfare into an employment 
situation. The program is working well except we found that when 
welfare recipients, AFDC recipients, went to the employer and tested 
positively for drugs and were refused a job, the State was prohibited 
under Federal regulations from cutting them off from their AFDC aid. So 
we have a situation where, if someone wants to stay on welfare and does 
not want to have to take a job, they could use drugs, be disqualified 
from taking a position because of drug tests, and could not be 
sanctioned by the State.
  This measure very simply states that notwithstanding any other 
provision of law, a State shall not be prohibited by the Federal 
Government from sanctioning welfare recipients who test positive for 
use of controlled substances.
  Mr. President, I send the amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Missouri [Mr. Bond] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2499 to amendment No. 2280.


[[Page S 12889]]

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following:
       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, States shall 
     not be prohibited by the federal government from sanctioning 
     welfare recipients who test positive for use of controlled 
     substances.

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the amendment be set 
aside to be called up pursuant to agreement by the manager and ranking 
member.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, the Senator from Ohio wishes to be 
recognized.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.


                Amendment No. 2500 to Amendment No. 2280

(Purpose: To ensure that training for displaced homemakers is included 
     among workforce employment activities and workforce education 
         activities for which funds may be used under this Act)

  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for 
its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Ohio [Mr. Glenn] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2500 to amendment No. 2280.

  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 322, strike lines 8 through 14 and insert the 
     following:
       (8) Displaced homemaker.--The term ``displaced homemaker'' 
     means an individual who--
       (A) has been dependent--
       (i) on assistance under part A of title IV of the Social 
     Security Act and whose youngest child is not younger than 16; 
     or
       (ii) on the income of another family member, but is no 
     longer supported by such income; and
       (B) is unemployed or underemployed, and is experiencing 
     difficulty in obtaining or upgrading employment.
       On page 359, line 13, strike ``and''.
       On page 359, line 16, strike the period and insert ``; 
     and''.
       On page 359, between lines 16 and 17, insert the following:
       (P) preemployment training for displaced homemakers.
       On page 364, between lines 9 and 10, insert the following:
       (6) providing programs for single parents, displaced 
     homemakers, and single pregnant women;
       On page 364, line 10, strike ``(6)'' and insert ``(7)''.
       On page 364, line 12, strike ``(7)'' and insert ``(8)''.
       On page 412, line 4, strike ``and''.
       On page 412, line 5, strike the period and inset ``; and''.
       On page 412, between 5 and 6, insert the following:
       (G) displaced homemakers.

  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I rise today to offer this amendment 
because I am extremely concerned that the current provisions in this 
bill will neglect and ignore a very important segment of our 
population--displaced homemakers. Nationwide, there are over 17 million 
displaced homemakers with close to 700,000 in Ohio. The current Perkins 
Vocational programs for displaced homemakers and single parents has 
been extremely effective. Approximately 80 percent of women served in 
these programs are placed in employment and/or post-secondary 
education. I repeat, 80 percent. Now, if this is not considered a 
success story, I do not know what is.
  This is a good example in which something that we created many years 
ago, works and works well. Recent statistics show that 85 percent of 
former program participants across the Nation rated the displaced
 homemakers programs excellent or very good. Over 75 percent said that 
these programs were better than other government-funded programs they 
had participated in.

  You know why the success rate is so high? It's because people like 
Amber McDonald of Akron, OH take their training very seriously and are 
dead set on getting off welfare.
  In a recent letter to me, Amber wrote:

       I'd like to state that I am on public assistance at this 
     time in my life and have one child. I don't take pride in the 
     fact I receive welfare. I am grateful to the State of Ohio 
     for their help. It has allowed me to survive and keep my 
     child. It's a long hard road to getting off assistance. One I 
     believe I'm on now. I am attending displaced homemaker 
     classes and these classes have helped me make decisions--good 
     solid decisions. Not the ``please-the-system-decisions I've 
     made in the past. The Displaced Homemaker classes educated me 
     about where I could go, what I would need to succeed and how 
     to go about it. We need this program and others like it. A 
     lot of us want off welfare. We are as tired of being on the 
     system as the system is of having us.

  Before 1984, when States were not required to fund displaced 
homemakers' training activities, States unfortunately spent less than 1 
percent of their funding on specialized services for displaced 
homemakers. This is unfortunate because programs for single parents and 
displaced homemakers have been effective in both preventing families 
from entering the welfare system and helping families move from the 
welfare system. And displaced homemakers remain an at-risk population. 
According to the 1980 census, more than half of the displaced 
homemakers live in or near poverty.
  My amendment will not, I repeat, will not result in a set aside. This 
amendment will only make it permissible for States to fund for 
specialized vocational training programs. States will have the 
flexibility in determining the funding amount and the types of programs 
to institute. I just want to make sure that States are encouraged to 
continue these programs that are working.
  I have been hearing from many people from Ohio who have benefited 
from these services. These women are now gainfully employed; they are 
off welfare. And they are providing for their families. Are these not 
the outcomes we want?
  For example, Rebecca Richards from Fairfield, OH, wrote how her and 
her child's life changed since she participated in a displaced 
homemaker program. She said ``As a result of the programs available, I 
was able to become a productive person in society.'' and she concluded 
by saying ``With the program, I found a friend who counseled me, 
listened to complaints and successes, gave me useful information and 
training, and helped me meet with other single parents to form a 
network of friends.'' Let us face it, the traditional vocational 
training programs will not provide this type of training.
  Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment which 
is central to the welfare reform debate. Another Ohioan--Diane Cook--
wrote me saying that ``Everyone makes mistakes but they all should be 
allowed a second chance. Give us that second chance.''
  The bottom line is to get people off welfare and to keep them off 
welfare. What better way to accomplish this objective than encouraging 
the States to tailor training programs which will affect over 17 
million women. Mr. President, let us give them that second chance. I 
yield the floor.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the amendment be set aside 
pending consideration of the next amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.


          Amendments Nos. 2501 and 2502 to Amendment No. 2280

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I send to the desk an amendment for 
Senator Pressler and an amendment for Senator Cohen.
  I ask unanimous consent these amendments be read and filed and laid 
aside under the usual procedure.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Iowa [Mr. Grassley], for Mr. Pressler, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 2501 to amendment No. 2280 
     and, for Mr. Cohen, an amendment numbered 2502 to amendment 
     No. 2280.

  The amendments are as follows:
                           amendment no. 2501

 (Purpose: To provide a State option to use an income tax intercept to 
collect overpayments in assistance under the State program funded under 
             part A of title IV of the Social Security Act)

       On page 77, line 21, strike the end quotation marks and the 
     end period.

[[Page S 12890]]

       On page 77, between lines 21 and 22, insert the following:

     ``SEC. 418. COLLECTION OF OVERPAYMENTS FROM FEDERAL TAX 
                   REFUNDS.

       ``(a) In General.--Upon receiving notice from the Secretary 
     of Health and Human Services that a State agency 
     administering a plan approved under this part has notified 
     the Secretary that a named individual has been overpaid under 
     the State plan approved under this part, the Secretary of the 
     Treasury shall determine whether any amounts as refunds of 
     Federal taxes paid are payable to such individual, regardless 
     of whether such individual filed a tax return as a married or 
     unmarried individual. If the Secretary of the Treasury finds 
     that any such amount is payable, the Secretary shall withhold 
     from such refunds an amount equal to the overpayment sought 
     to be collected by the State and pay such amount to the State 
     agency.
       ``(b) Regulations.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall 
     issue regulations, after review by the Secretary of Health 
     and Human Services, that provide--
       ``(1) that a State may only submit under subsection (a) 
     requests for collection of overpayments with respect to 
     individuals--
       ``(A) who are no longer receiving assistance under the 
     State plan approved under this part,
       ``(B) with respect to whom the State has already taken 
     appropriate action under State law against the income or 
     resources of the individuals or families involved to collect 
     the past-due legally enforceable debt; and
       ``(C) to whom the State agency has given notice of its 
     intent to request withholding by the Secretary of the 
     Treasury from the income tax refunds of such individuals;
       ``(2) that the Secretary of the Treasury will give a timely 
     and appropriate notice to any other person filing a joint 
     return with the individual whose refund is subject to 
     withholding under subsection (a); and
       ``(3) the procedures that the State and the Secretary of 
     the Treasury will follow in carrying out this section which, 
     to the maximum extent feasible and consistent with the 
     specific provisions of this section, will be the same as 
     those issued pursuant to section 464(b) applicable to 
     collection of past-due child support.''.
       (c) Conforming Amendments Relating To Collection of 
     Overpayments.--
       (1) Section 6402 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
     (relating to authority to make credits or refunds) is 
     amended--
       (A) in subsection (a), by striking ``(c) and (d)'' and 
     inserting ``(c), (d), and (e)'';
       (B) by redesignating subsections (e) through (i) as 
     subsections (f) through (j), respectively; and
       (C) by inserting after subsection (d) the following:
       ``(e) Collection of Overpayments Under Title IV-A of the 
     Social Security Act.--The amount of any overpayment to be 
     refunded to the person making the overpayment shall be 
     reduced (after reductions pursuant to subsection (c) and (d), 
     but before a credit against future liability for an internal 
     revenue tax) in accordance with section 418 of the Social 
     Security Act (concerning recovery of overpayments to 
     individuals under State plans approved under part A of title 
     IV of such Act).''.
       (2) Paragraph (10) of section 6103(l) of such Code is 
     amended--
       (A) by striking ``(c) or (d)'' each place it appears and 
     inserting ``(c), (d), or (e)''; and
       (B) by adding at the end of subparagraph (B) the following 
     new sentence: ``Any return information disclosed with respect 
     to section 6402(e) shall only be disclosed to officers and 
     employees of the State agency requesting such information.''.
       (3) The matter preceding subparagraph (A) of section 
     6103(p)(4) of such Code is amended--
       (A) by striking ``(5), (10)'' and inserting ``(5)''; and
       (B) by striking ``(9), or (12)'' and inserting ``(9), (10), 
     or (12)''.
       (4) Section 552a(a)(8)(B)(iv)(III) of title 5, United 
     States Code, is amended by striking ``section 464 or 1137 of 
     the Social Security Act'' and inserting ``section 418, 464, 
     or 1137 of the Social Security Act.''


                           amendment no. 2502

 (Purpose: To ensure that programs are implemented consistent with the 
                            first amendment)

       On page 78, line 18, insert after ``subsection (a)(2)'' the 
     following: ``so long as the programs are implemented 
     consistent with the Establishment Clause of the United States 
     Constitution''.
       On page 80, line 13, add ``;'' after ``governance'' and 
     delete lines 14-16.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection the amendments will be laid 
aside.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I defer to the Senator from Minnesota.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota is recognized.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I thank the Chair.


Amendments Numbered 2503, 2504, 2505, and 2506 En Bloc to Amendment No. 
                                  2280

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I send amendments en bloc to the desk 
and ask for their consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Wellstone], proposes 
     amendments numbered 2503, 2504, 2505, and 2506 en bloc to 
     amendment No. 2280.

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendments be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendments are as follows:
                           amendment no. 2503

 (Purpose: to prevent an increase in the number of hungry children in 
   states that elect to participate in a food assistance block grant 
                                program)

       On page 229, between lines 13 and 14, insert the following:
       ``(4) Sunset of election upon increase in number of hungry 
     children.--
       ``(A) Findings.--The Congress finds that--
       ``(i) on March 29, 1995 the Senate adopted a resolution 
     stating that Congress should not enact or adopt any 
     legislation that will increase the number of children who are 
     hungry;
       ``(ii) it is not the intent of this bill to cause more 
     children to be hungry;'
       ``(iii) the Food Stamp Program serves to prevent child 
     hunger;
       ``(iv) a State's election to participate in the optional 
     state food assistance block grant program should not serve to 
     increase the number of hungry children in that State; and
       ``(v) one indicator of hunger among children is the child 
     poverty rate.
       ``(B) Sunset.--If the Secretary of Health and Human 
     Services makes two successive findings that the poverty rate 
     among children in a State is significantly higher in a State 
     that has elected to participate in a program established 
     under subsection (a) than it would have been had there been 
     no such election, 180 days after the second such finding such 
     election shall be permanently and irreversibly revoked and 
     the provisions of paragraphs (1) and (2) shall not be 
     applicable to that State.
       ``(C) Procedure for finding by Secretary.--In making the 
     finding described in subparagraph (B), the Secretary shall 
     adhere to the following procedure:
       ``(i) Every three years, the Secretary shall develop data 
     and report to Congress with respect to each State that has 
     elected to participate in a program established under 
     subsection (a) whether the child poverty rate in such State 
     is significantly higher than it would have been had the State 
     not made such election.
       ``(ii) The Secretary shall provide the report required 
     under clause (i) to all States that have elected to 
     participate in a program established under subsection (a), 
     and the Secretary shall provide each State for which the 
     Secretary determined that the child poverty rate is 
     significantly higher than it would have been had the State 
     not made such election with an opportunity to respond to such 
     determination.
       ``(iii) If the response by a State under clause (ii) does 
     not result in the Secretary reversing the determination that 
     the child poverty rate in that State is significantly higher 
     than it would have been had the State not made such election, 
     then the Secretary shall publish a finding as described in 
     subparagraph (B).
                           amendment no. 2504

 (Purpose: To prevent an increase in the number of hungry and homeless 
 children in states that receive block grants for temporary assistance 
                          for needy families)

       On page 124, between lines 12 and 13, insert the following:

     ``SEC. 113. SUNSET UPON OF INCREASE IN NUMBER OF HUNGRY OR 
                   HOMELESS CHILDREN.

       ``(a)Findings.--The Congress finds that--
       ``(1) on March 29, 1995 the Senate adopted a resolution 
     stating that Congress should not enact or adopt any 
     legislation that will increase the number of children who are 
     hungry or homeless;
       ``(2) it is not the intent of this bill to cause more 
     children to be hungry or homeless;
       ``(3) the Aid to Families with Dependent Children program, 
     which is repealed by this title, has helped prevent hunger 
     and homelessness among children;
       ``(4) the operation of block grants for temporary 
     assistance for needy families under this title should not 
     serve to increase significantly the number of hungry or 
     homeless children in any State; and
       ``(5) one indicator of hunger and homelessness among 
     children is the child poverty rate.
       ``(b) Sunset.--If the Secretary of Health and Human 
     Services makes two successive findings that the poverty rate 
     among children in a State is significantly higher in the 
     State than it would have been had this title not been 
     implemented, then all of the provisions of this title shall 
     cease to be effective with regard to the State 180 days after 
     the second such finding, making effective any provisions of 
     law repealed by this title.
       ``(c) Procedure for finding by Secretary.--In making the 
     finding described in subsection (b), the Secretary shall 
     adhere to the following procedure:
       ``(1) Every three years, the Secretary shall develop data 
     and report to Congress with respect to each State whether the 
     child poverty rate in that State is significantly higher than 
     it would have been had this title not been implemented.
       ``(2) The Secretary shall provide the report required under 
     paragraph (1) to all States, 

[[Page S 12891]]
     and the Secretary shall provide each State for which the Secretary 
     determined that the child poverty rate is significantly 
     higher than it would have been had this title not been 
     implemented with an opportunity to respond to such 
     determination.
       ``(3) If the response by a State under paragraph (2) does 
     not result in the Secretary reversing the determination that 
     the child poverty rate in that State is significantly higher 
     than it would have been had this title not been implemented, 
     then the Secretary shall publish a finding as described in 
     subsection (b), and the State must implement a plan to 
     decrease the child poverty rate.''


                           amendment no. 2505

   (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate regarding continuing 
  medicaid coverage for individuals who lose eligibility for welfare 
       benefits because of more earnings or hours of employment)

       On page 86, between lines 3 and 4, insert the following:

     SEC. 104A. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING CONTINUING MEDICAID 
                   COVERAGE.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
       (1) the potential loss of medicaid coverage represents a 
     large disincentive for recipients of welfare benefits to 
     accept jobs that offer no health insurance;
       (2) thousands of the Nation's employers continue to find 
     the cost of health insurance out of reach;
       (3) the percentage of working people who receive health 
     insurance from their employer has dipped to its lowest point 
     since the early 1980s; and
       (4) children have accounted for the largest proportion of 
     the increase in the number of uninsured in recent years.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that any medicaid reform enacted by the Senate this year 
     should require that States continue to provide medicaid for 
     12 months to families who lose eligibility for welfare 
     benefits because of more earnings or hours of employment.
                           amendment no. 2506

    (Purpose: To provide for an extension of transitional medicaid 
                               benefits)

       On page 86, between lines 3 and 4, insert the following:

     SEC. 104A. EXTENSION OF TRANSITIONAL MEDICAID BENEFITS.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
       (1) the potential loss of medicaid coverage represents a 
     large disincentive for recipients of welfare benefits to 
     accept jobs that offer no health insurance;
       (2) thousands of the Nation's employers continue to find 
     the cost of health insurance out of reach;
       (3) the percentage of working people who receive health 
     insurance from their employer has dipped to its lowest point 
     since the early 1980s; and
       (4) children have accounted for the largest proportion of 
     the increase in the number of uninsured in recent years.
       (b) Extension of Medicaid Enrollment for Former Temporary 
     Employment Assistance Recipients for 1 Additional Year.--
       (1) In general.--Section 1925(b)(1) (42 U.S.C. 1396r-
     6(b)(1)) is amended by striking the period at the end and 
     inserting the following: ``, and shall provide that the State 
     shall offer to each such family the option of extending 
     coverage under this subsection for an additional 2 succeeding 
     6-month periods in the same manner and under the same 
     conditions as the option of extending coverage under this 
     subsection for the first succeeding 6-month period.''.
       (2) Conforming amendments.--
       (A) In general.--Section 1925 (42 U.S.C. 1396r-6) is 
     amended--
       (i) in subsection (b)--
       (I) in the heading, by striking ``Extension'' and inserting 
     ``Extensions'';
       (II) in the heading of paragraph (1), by striking 
     ``Requirement'' and inserting ``In general'';
       (III) in paragraph (2)(B)(ii)--
       (aa) in the heading, by striking ``period'' and inserting 
     ``periods''; and
       (bb) by striking ``in the period'' and inserting ``in each 
     of the 6-month periods'';
       (IV) in paragraph (3)(A), by striking ``the 6-month 
     period'' and inserting ``any 6-month period'';
       (V) in paragraph (4)(A), by striking ``the extension 
     period'' and inserting ``any extension period''; and
       (VI) in paragraph (5)(D)(i), by striking ``is a 3-month 
     period'' and all that follows and inserting the following: 
     ``is, with respect to a particular 6-month additional 
     extension period provided under this subsection, a 3-month 
     period beginning with the first or fourth month of such 
     extension period.''; and
       (ii) by striking subsection (f).
       (B) Family support act.--Section 303(f)(2) of the Family 
     Support Act of 1988 (42 U.S.C. 602 note) is amended--
       (i) by striking ``(A)''; and
       (ii) by striking subparagraphs (B) and (C).
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to medical assistance furnished for calendar 
     quarters beginning on or after October 1, 1995.
                Amendment No. 2507 to Amendment No. 2280

 (Purpose: To exclude energy assistance payments for one-time costs of 
   weatherization or repair or replacement of unsafe or inoperative 
       heating devices from income under the food stamp program)

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Minnesota (Mr. Wellstone), for himself and 
     Mr. Feingold, proposes an amendment numbered 2507 to 
     amendment No. 2280.

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       Beginning on page 161, strike line 7 and all that follows 
     through page 163, line 1, and insert the following:

     SEC. 308. ENERGY ASSISTANCE.

       (a) In General.--Section 5(d)(11) of the Food Stamp Act of 
     1977 (7 U.S.C. 2014(d)(11)) is amended by striking ``any 
     payments or allowances'' and inserting the following: ``a 
     one-time payment or allowance for the costs of weatherization 
     or emergency repair or replacement of an unsafe or 
     inoperative furnace or other heating or cooling device,''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--Section 5(k)(1)(A) of the Act 
     (7 U.S.C. 2014(k)(1)(A) is amended by striking ``plan for aid 
     to families with dependent children approved'' and inserting 
     ``program funded''.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I ask unanimous consent that the amendments be laid 
aside and be considered next week.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I defer to the Senator from Colorado for 
the purposes of offering an amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.


                Amendment No. 2508 to Amendment No. 2280

 (Purpose: To impose a cap on the amount of funds that can be used for 
                        administrative purposes)

  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for 
its consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Colorado (Mr. Brown) proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2508 to amendment No. 2280.
       On page 25, strike line 4 and insert the following: ``1, 
     1995;

     except that not more than 15 percent of the grant may be used 
     for administrative purposes.''.

  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment 
be laid over until next week for consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I will not interfere with people offering 
their amendments. But I wonder if I might be permitted to modify my 
amendment at a later time this afternoon.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I defer to the Senator from Illinois.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.


          Amendments Nos. 2509 and 2510 to Amendment No. 2280

  Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I send two amendments to the desk and ask 
for their consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Illinois (Mr. Simon) proposes amendments 
     numbered 2509 and 2510 to amendment No. 2280.

  Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the 
amendments be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:
                           amendment no. 2509

(Purpose: To eliminate retroactive deeming requirements for those legal 
                immigrants already in the United States)

       On page 289, lines 2 through 5, strike ``, or for a period 
     of 5 years beginning on the day such individual was first 
     lawfully in the United States after the execution of such 
     affidavit or agreement, whichever period is longer''.

  (The text of the amendment No. 2510 is printed in today's Record 
under ``Amendments Submitted.'')
  Mr. SIMON. I ask unanimous consent that the amendments be set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I defer to the Senator from Michigan for 
the purposes of offering an amendment. 

[[Page S 12892]]



          Amendments Nos. 2511 and 2512 to Amendment No. 2280

  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I send two amendments to the desk and ask 
for their consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Michigan (Mr. Abraham) proposes amendments 
     numbered 2511 and 2512 to amendment No. 2280.

  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendments be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendments are as follows:

                           amendment no. 2511

       At the appropriate place in the bill, add the following new 
     section:

     ``SEC.   . SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING ENTERPRISE ZONES.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
       (1) Many of the Nation's urban centers are places with high 
     levels of poverty, high rates of welfare dependency, high 
     crime rates, poor schools, and joblessness;
       (2) Federal tax incentives and regulatory reforms can 
     encourage economic growth, job creation and small business 
     formation in many urban centers;
       (3) Encouraging private sector investment in America's 
     economically distressed urban and rural areas is essential to 
     breaking the cycle of poverty and the related ills of crime, 
     drug abuse, illiteracy, welfare dependency, and unemployment;
       (4) The empowerment zones enacted in 1993 should be 
     enhanced by providing incentives to increase entrepreneurial 
     growth, capital formation, job creation, educational 
     opportunities and homeownership in the designated communities 
     and zones;
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--Therefore, it is the Sense of the 
     Senate that the Congress should adopt enterprise zone 
     legislation in the 104th Congress, and that such enterprise 
     zone legislation provide the following incentives and 
     provisions:
       (1) Federal tax incentives that expand access to capital, 
     increase the formation and expansion of small businesses, and 
     promote commercial revitalization;
       (2) Regulatory reforms that allow localities to petition 
     Federal agencies, subject to the relevant agencies' approval, 
     for waivers or modifications of regulations to improve job 
     creation, small business formation and expansion, community 
     development, or economic revitalization objectives of the 
     enterprise zones;
       (3) Homeownership incentives and grants to encourage 
     resident management of public housing and home ownership of 
     public housing;
       (4) School reform pilot projects in certain designated 
     enterprise zones to provide low-income parents with new and 
     expanded educational options for their children's elementary 
     and secondary schooling.
                           Amendment No. 2512

(Purpose: To increase the block grant amount to States that reduce out-
                           of-wedlock births)

       On page 46, after line 24, insert the following:
       ``(a) Grant Increased to Reward States That Reduce Out-of-
     wedlock Births.--
       ``(1) In general.--The amount of the grant payable to a 
     State under section 403(a)(1)(A) for fiscal years 1998, 1999, 
     and 2000 shall be increased by--
       ``(A) 5 percent if--
       ``(i) the illegitimacy ratio of the State for the fiscal 
     year is at least 1 percentage point lower than the 
     illegitimacy ratio of the State for fiscal year 1995; and
       ``(ii) the rate of induced pregnancy terminations in the 
     State for the same fiscal year is not higher than the rate of 
     induced pregnancy terminations in the State for fiscal year 
     1995; or
       ``(B) 10 percent if--
       ``(i) the illegitimacy ratio of the State for the fiscal 
     year is at least 2 percentage points lower than the 
     illegitimacy ratio of the State for fiscal year 1995; and
       ``(ii) the rate of induced pregnancy terminations in the 
     State for the same fiscal year is not higher than the rate of 
     induced pregnancy termination in the State for fiscal year 
     1995.
       ``(2) Determination of the secretary.--The Secretary shall 
     not increase the grant amount under paragraph (1) if the 
     Secretary determines that the relevant difference between the 
     illegitimacy ratio of a State for an applicable fiscal year 
     and the illegitimacy ratio of such State for fiscal year 1995 
     is the result of a change in State methods of reporting data 
     used to calculate the illegitimacy ratio or if the Secretary 
     determines that the relevant non-increase in the rate of 
     induced pregnancy terminations for an applicable fiscal year 
     as compared to fiscal year 1995 is the result of a change in 
     State methods of reporting data used to calculate the rate of 
     induced pregnancy terminations.
       ``(3) Illegitimacy ratio.--For purposes of this subsection, 
     the term ``illegitimacy ratio'' means, with respect to a 
     State and a fiscal year--
       ``(A) the number of out-of-wedlock births that occurred in 
     the State during the fiscal year; divided by
       ``(B) the number of births that occurred in the State 
     during the same fiscal year.
       ``(4) Availability of amounts.--There are authorized to be 
     appropriated and there are appropriated such sums as may be 
     necessary for fiscal years 1998, 1999, and 2000 for the 
     purpose of increasing the amount of the grant payable to a 
     State under section 403(a)(1) in accordance with this 
     subsection.

  Mr. ABRAHAM. I ask unanimous consent that the amendments be set 
aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I defer to the distinguished Senator 
from California.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Chair. I thank the Senator from New York.


                Amendment No. 2513 to Amendment No. 2280

 (Purpose: To limit deeming of income to cash and cash-like programs, 
and to retain SSI eligibility and exempt deeming of income requirements 
                   for victims of domestic violence)

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and 
ask for its consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein) proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2513 to amendment No. 2280.

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:
       On page 276, line 22, strike ``or''.
       On page 276, line 23, insert ``, or (VI)'' after ``(V)''.
       On page 277, line 10, strike ``and''.
       On page 277, line 16, strike the period and insert a 
     semicolon.
       On page 277, between lines 16 and 17, insert the following:
       (F) assistance or services provided to abused or neglected 
     children and their families; and
       (G) assistance or benefits under other Federal non-cash 
     programs.
       On page 278, line 22, strike ``or''.
       On page 278, line 25, insert ``; or (VI) an alien lawfully 
     admitted to the United States for permanent residence who has 
     been subjected to domestic violence, or whose household 
     members have been subjected to domestic violence, by the 
     alien's sponsor or by members of the sponsor's household'' 
     after ``title II''.

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
amendment be set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Chair.


                Amendment No. 2514 to Amendment No. 2280

(Purpose: To establish a job placement performance bonus that provides 
     an incentive for States to successfully place individuals in 
               unsubsidized jobs, and for other purposes)

  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, on behalf of the Senator from 
Connecticut [Mr. Lieberman], I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New York [Mr. Moynihan], for Mr. 
     Lieberman, for himself and Mr. Breaux and Mr. Conrad, 
     proposes amendment numbered 2514 to amendment No. 2280.

  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:
       On page 17, line 8, insert ``and for each of fiscal years 
     1998, 1999, and 2000, the amount of the State's job placement 
     performance bonus determined under subsection (f)(1) for the 
     fiscal year'' after ``year''.
       On page 17, line 22, insert ``and the applicable percent 
     specified under subsection (f)(2)(B)(ii) for such fiscal 
     year'' after ``(B)''.
       On page 29, between lines 15 and 16, insert:
       ``(f) Job Placement Performance Bonus--
       ``(1) In general.--The job placement performance bonus 
     determined with respect to a State and a fiscal year is an 
     amount equal to the amount of the State's allocation of the 
     job placement performance fund determined in accordance with 
     the formula developed under paragraph (2).
       ``(2) Allocation formula: bonus fund.--
       ``(A) Allocation formula.--
       ``(i) In general.--Not later than September 30, 1996, the 
     Secretary of Health and Human Services shall develop and 
     publish in the Federal Register a formula for allocating 
     amounts in the job placement performance bonus fund to States 
     based on the number of families that received assistance 
     under a State program funded under this part in the preceding 
     fiscal year that became ineligible for assistance under the 
     State program as a result of unsubsidized employment during 
     such year.
       ``(ii) Factors to consider.--In developing the allocation 
     formula under clause (i), the Secretary shall--

[[Page S 12893]]

       ``(I) provide a greater financial bonus for individuals in 
     families described in clause (i) who remain employed for 
     greater periods of time or are at greater risk of long-term 
     welfare dependency; and
       ``(I) take into account the unemployment conditions of each 
     State or geographic area.
       ``(B) Job placement performance bonus fund.--
       ``(i) In general.--The amount in the job placement 
     performance bonus fund for a fiscal year shall be an amount 
     equal to--
       ``(I) the applicable percentage of the amount appropriated 
     under section 403(a)(2)(A) for such fiscal year; and
       ``(II) the amount of the reduction in grants made under 
     this section for the preceding fiscal year resulting from the 
     application of section 407.
       ``(ii) Applicable percentage.--For purposes of clause 
     (i)(I), the applicable percentage shall be determined in 
     accordance with the following table:

                                                         The applicable
                                                         percentage is:
``For fiscal year:
  1998................................................................3
  1999................................................................4
  2000 and each fiscal year thereafter...............................5.

       On page 29, line 16, strike ``(f)'' and insert ``(g)''.
       On page 66, line 13, insert ``and a preliminary assessment 
     of the job placement performance bonus established under 
     section 403(f)'' before the end period.
                Amendment No. 2515 to Amendment No. 2280

 (Purpose: To establish a national clearinghouse on teenage pregnancy, 
  set national goals for the reduction of out-of-wedlock and teenage 
   pregnancies, require States to establish a set-aside for teenage 
        pregnancy prevention activities, and for other purposes)

  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk in 
behalf of Senator Lieberman and I ask for its consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New York [Mr. Moynihan], for Mr. 
     Lieberman, proposes an amendment numbered 2515 to amendment 
     No. 2280.

  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:
       At the appropriate place, insert:

     SEC.   . NATIONAL CLEARINGHOUSE ON TEENAGE PREGNANCY.

       (a) Establishment.--The Secretary of Education and the 
     Secretary of Health and Human Services shall establish a 
     national center for the collection and provision of 
     information that relates to adolescent pregnancy prevention 
     programs, to be known as the ``National Clearinghouse on 
     Teenage Pregnancy Prevention Programs''.
       (b) Functions.--The national center established under 
     subsection (a) shall serve as a national information and data 
     clearinghouse, and as a material development source for 
     adolescent pregnancy prevention programs. Such center shall--
       (1) develop and maintain a system for disseminating 
     information on all types of adolescent pregnancy prevention 
     programs and on the state of adolescent pregnancy prevention 
     program development, including information concerning the 
     most effective model programs;
       (2) identify model programs representing the various types 
     of adolescent pregnancy prevention programs;
       (3) develop networks of adolescent pregnancy prevention 
     programs for the purpose of sharing and disseminating 
     information;
       (4) develop technical assistance materials to assist other 
     entities in establishing and improving adolescent pregnancy 
     prevention programs;
       (5) participate in activities designed to encourage and 
     enhance public media campaigns on the issue of adolescent 
     pregnancy; and
       (6) conduct such other activities as the responsible 
     Federal officials find will assist in developing and carrying 
     out programs or activities to reduce adolescent pregnancy.
       (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out 
     the purposes of this section.

     SEC.   . ESTABLISHING NATIONAL GOALS TO REDUCE OUT-OF WEDLOCK 
                   PREGNANCIES AND TO PREVENT TEENAGE PREGNANCIES.

       (a) In General.--Not later than January 1, 1997, the 
     Secretary of Health and Human Services shall establish and 
     implement a strategy for--
       (1) reducing out-of-wedlock teenage pregnancies by at least 
     5 percent a year, and
       (2) assuring that at least 25 percent of the communities in 
     the United States have teenage pregnancy prevention programs 
     in place.
       (b) Report.--Not later than June 30, 1998, and annually 
     thereafter, the Secretary shall report to the Congress with 
     respect to the progress that has been made in meeting the 
     goals described in paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection (a).
       (c) Out-of-Wedlock and Teenage Pregnancy Prevention 
     Programs.--Section 2002 (42 U.S.C. 1397a) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(f)(1) Beginning in fiscal year 1996 and each fiscal year 
     thereafter, each State shall use at least 5 percent of its 
     allotment under section 2003 for the fiscal year to develop 
     and implement a State program to reduce the incidence of out-
     of-wedlock and teenage pregnancies in the State.
       ``(2) The Secretary shall conduct a study with respect to 
     the State programs implemented under paragraph (1) to 
     determine the relative effectiveness of the different 
     approaches for reducing out-of-wedlock pregnancies and 
     preventing teenage pregnancy utilized in the programs 
     conducted under this subsection and the approaches that can 
     be best replicated by other States.
       ``(3) Each State conducting a program under this subsection 
     shall provide to the Secretary, in such form and with such 
     frequency as the Secretary requires, data from the programs 
     conducted under this subsection. The Secretary shall report 
     to the Congress annually on the progress of the programs and 
     shall, not later than June 30, 1998, submit to the Congress a 
     report on the study required under paragraph (2).''.

     SEC.   . SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING ENFORCEMENT OF 
                   STATUTORY RAPE LAWS.

       It is the sense of the Senate that States and local 
     jurisdictions should aggressively enforce statutory rape 
     laws.

  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
amendments numbered 2514 and 2515 be set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, we are waiting for a few minutes for 
Senator Craig to get here to offer the next amendment that will be 
considered this afternoon. So, until he arrives, I would like to have 
permission to speak as if in morning business to introduce a bill that 
Senator Levin and I are introducing.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. Grassley pertaining to the introduction of S. 
1224 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced 
Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________