Congressional Record, Volume 141 Issue 139 (Friday, September 8, 1995)

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 139 (Friday, September 8, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S12893-S12923]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

FAMILY SELF-SUFFICIENCY ACT

The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
Mr. BROWN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, what is the pending business before the
Senate?

[[Page S 12894]]

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending business is the Boxer amendment
No. 2482.

Amendment No. 2508
Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous-consent that the pending
amendment be set aside and that the portion of the unanimous-consent
agreement which laid aside consideration of the Brown amendment until
next Monday be waived and that I be allowed to bring up the Brown
amendment at this time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I therefore call up amendment No. 2508, the
Brown amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, this is a very straightforward amendment.
When it was initially offered, it was read.
Let me simply reiterate for the benefit of Members who may not have
been here at the time, what it does is place a limit of 15 percent on
the Federal funds that may be used for administrative expenditures
under the temporary assistance block grant. This is under title I.
Mr. President, what this suggests is that at least 85 percent of the
money that is given in a block grant go to actual assistance and only
15 percent, or a maximum of 15 percent go for bureaucracy or
administrative costs.
History shows that the vast majority of our States can and do live
within this limitation already. Frankly, my purpose in offering it is
to make it clear that this money is not simply to be consumed in
administrative costs but to go to programs and to go to the people
where it will do some good.
One may reasonably ask, is 15 percent reasonable?
I might say that three-fourths of the States already operate within
that for comparable programs. But I also might mention that the other
parts of the welfare bill have limitations on administrative costs and
that this is perhaps more generous than most of those.
Let me be specific. In the child care block grant the cap is 5
percent whereas this is 15 percent. Job training coordination for
statewide work force education is a 1-percent cap--that is 5 percent of
the 20 percent. The statewide work force employment program versus the
education program is a 5-percent cap. The food stamp block grant option
is a 6-percent cap. So by suggesting a 15-percent cap for
administrative costs we are not trying to be overly tight with the
States but we do think some upper limit with regard to administrative
costs is appropriate, that is, essential.
How many times have we heard from our States and counties where we
have said most of the money that was sent to them, or a large portion
of the money that was sent to them, to deal with a problem is consumed
at the State level for administrative costs, money that does not go to
help people, money that may not go to directly dealing with the people
at hand.
The 50-percent maximum limit is reasonable. It is one that States can
live with. And, frankly, Mr. President, what it says is this money is
meant to help people and goes to effect a program, not to simply be
consumed by new bureaucracies at a State level.
With the broad new discretion given the States, this sort of
reasonable upper limit for bureaucracy, I think, is appropriate and
needed. The saddest commentary of all would be if delineating the money
to the States, doing away with the Federal bureaucracy, ended up
producing a whole new huge bureaucracy on the State level. So a
reasonable limit is needed, appropriate.
I urge its adoption, Mr. President.
Mr. President, on this amendment 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.
Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GRASSLEY addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. GRASSLEY. I would rise in support of the amendment by the Senator
from Colorado. I think in this whole process of moving from categorical
programs administered from Washington to more flexible programs, you
can also call block grants to the States. I think we have an
appropriate responsibility to the Federal taxpayers to make sure that
money is not eaten up in excess administrative costs.
I think the Brown amendment is a step in the right
direction. I do not think very many States would exceed that anyway,
and probably very few States exceed that presently. But we are moving
into a program of what we think is of considerable length. And I have
always said that to meet the Federal responsibilities on block grants
it is legitimate to put limits on administrative expenses, to have some
national goals that ought to be met, and to have a targeted population
described by the Federal taxpayers.

It seems to me that this solves one of those major, legitimate issues
that we ought to deal with here, albeit at the same time we are going
to give the maximum discretion to the States on the administering of
the welfare program. So I compliment the Senator from Colorado for his
amendment.
I yield the floor.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, the Brown amendment to the welfare bill
sounds good on the surface, and I suspect it will pass by a large
margin. But, I will vote against it, and I want to explain why.
The fact is, this amendment would be prejudicial to my State of
Delaware. It would require all States to treat their Federal welfare
block grant funds as if they were State revenues, thus requiring the
moneys to be appropriated by the State legislature.
However, Delaware is one of only six States where the General
Assembly has decided that Federal moneys can bypass the State
legislature and be directly appropriated to a State agency by the
governor. In other words, State legislators in Delaware have decided
themselves to forego the right to appropriate Federal funds.
I simply do not believe that this bill is the time or the place to
change my State's budget law and longstanding appropriations process.
If the Delaware General Assembly wants to appropriate the Federal funds
that Delaware receives, the General Assembly is fully within its rights
to change Delaware's law. But, I cannot support imposing that on my
State--especially in a bill that is intended, according to its
sponsors, to give States more rights and flexibility.
Mr. President, I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. 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. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further
proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, this appears to me to be another
amendment that will make the block grant unworkable. And I entirely
support that.
I believe the yeas and nays have been requested?
Mr. GRASSLEY. Yes.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No.
2508 offered by the Senator from Colorado.
The yeas and nays have been ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. LOTT. I announce that the Senator from Colorado [Mr. Campbell],
the Senator from Mississippi [Mr.

[[Page S 12895]]
Cochran], the Senator from Florida [Mr. Mack], the Senator from Arizona
[Mr. McCain], the Senator from Alaska [Mr. Murkowski], and the Senator
from Alabama [Mr. Shelby] are necessarily absent.
I also announce that the Senator from Tennessee [Mr. Thompson] is
absent due to illness.
Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Pryor] is
necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Grams). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 87, nays 5, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 404 Leg.]

YEAS--87

Abraham
Akaka
Baucus
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Bradley
Breaux
Brown
Bryan
Bumpers
Burns
Byrd
Chafee
Coats
Cohen
Conrad
Coverdell
Craig
D'Amato
Daschle
DeWine
Dodd
Dole
Domenici
Dorgan
Exon
Faircloth
Feingold
Feinstein
Ford
Frist
Glenn
Graham
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Harkin
Hatfield
Heflin
Helms
Hollings
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnston
Kassebaum
Kempthorne
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Kyl
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lott
McConnell
Mikulski
Moseley-Braun
Moynihan
Murray
Nickles
Nunn
Packwood
Pell
Pressler
Reid
Robb
Rockefeller
Roth
Santorum
Sarbanes
Simon
Simpson
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thurmond
Warner
Wellstone

NAYS--5

Ashcroft
Bond
Gorton
Hatch
Lugar

NOT VOTING--8

Campbell
Cochran
Mack
McCain
Murkowski
Pryor
Shelby
Thompson
So, the amendment (No. 2508) was agreed to.
Mr. HATCH. 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.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, pursuant to the previous agreement, I ask
unanimous consent that the pending amendment be briefly set aside so
that I and Senator Helms, in that order, may send amendments to the
desk and ask for their immediate consideration in accordance with the
unanimous consent agreement already agreed to.
Mrs. BOXER. Reserving the right to object, I assume after those two
are laid down we will go to my amendment. I need only 1 minute to
explain it.
Mr. HATCH. As soon as we do this procedural matter and we conclude
this, we will move right to the Senator from California. I include that
in the unanimous consent agreement.
Mr. EXON. Reserving the right to object, may I please have an
understanding of what the procedure is?
The Senator from Nebraska also has an amendment to offer that I have
been waiting to offer for some time. I am not in any particular rush.
Are we setting up an order?
If the unanimous consent request is granted, as I understand it,
there would be some motion taken up offered by the Senators from North
Carolina and Utah, and following that we will go to the Senator from
California; is that correct?
Mr. HATCH. That is correct. We would be happy to have the Senator put
his in, but we are not making arguments at this time.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, it is my understanding that the Senator
from Nebraska would like to speak, and we had anticipated after the
vote on the Boxer amendment other Senators would speak. I see the
Senator from Idaho may wish to speak.
Mr. HATCH. My understanding is that the Boxer amendment will require
a vote so we want to move forward as fast as we can.
Mr. EXON. With that understanding, I have no objection, and after the
vote on the Boxer amendment I will proceed at that time.
Mr. HATCH. I have been informed immediately following the Boxer vote
that Senator Craig has reserved some time; will the Senator from
Nebraska wait until after Senator Craig?
Mr. EXON. Sure. With the understanding I be recognized sometime prior
to 5 p.m.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending
amendment be briefly set aside.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 2516 to Amendment No. 2280

(Purpose: To establish a block grant program for the provision of child
care services)

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

The Senator from Utah [Mr. Hatch], for himself and Mr.
Kohl, proposes an amendment numbered 2516 to amendment No.
2280.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the
amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under
``Amendments Submitted.'')
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined in this amendment
by the Senator from Wisconsin, Senator Kohl. I invite all my colleagues
to review this amendment and join us as cosponsors.
This is not a partisan proposal. It is intended to assist States in
making child care services a key component of their title I temporary
assistance programs.
We will be discussing this amendment in more detail later, but let me
simply say today that I believe this amendment addresses a broadly
recognized need for child care by families who are on welfare and
struggling to get off.
Obviously, for a single parent, child care is necessary in order for
that parent to work. A mother or father cannot leave a young child at
home alone.
Mr. President, I believe in the work requirements incorporated in the
Dole substitute. I happen to believe that work--and the sense of
personal accomplishment that comes from it--is one of the single most
important things we can provide to welfare recipients. But, we cannot
do it without child care.
My amendment simply provides a child care block grant into the title
I temporary assistance block grant. It is not complicated. It carries
no new administrative requirements.
Mr. President, I will have more to say about this next week. I invite
my colleagues to join Senator Kohl and me in sponsoring this important
amendment.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be
briefly set aside.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendments Nos. 2517, 2518, and 2519, En Bloc, to Amendment No. 2280

Mr. HATCH. I send three amendments to the desk on behalf of Senator
DeWine.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Utah [Mr. Hatch], for Mr. DeWine, proposes
amendments, en bloc, numbered 2517 through 2519 to amendment
No. 2280.

Mr. HATCH. 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. 2517
(Purpose: To provide for quarterly reporting by banks with respect to
common trust funds)

On page 712, between lines 9 and 10, insert the following:

SEC. . QUARTERLY REPORTS WITH RESPECT TO COMMON TRUST
FUNDS.

(a) In General.--Section 6032 of the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986 (relating to returns of banks with respect to common
trust funds) is amended by striking ``each taxable year'' and
inserting ``each quarter of the taxable year''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after the date of the
enactment of this Act.

amendment no. 2518

(Purpose: To modify the method for calculating participation rates to
more accurately reflect the total case load of families receiving
assistance in the State, and for other purposes)

On page 31, line 15, insert ``and'' after the semicolon.

[[Page S 12896]]

On page 31, line 23, strike ``and'' and insert ``divided
by''.
Beginning on page 31, line 24, strike all through page 32,
line 10.
Beginning on page 33, line 10, strike all through page 34,
line 5, and insert the following:
``(3) Pro rata reduction of participation rate due to
caseload reductions not required by federal law.--
``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall prescribe
regulations for reducing the minimum participation rate
otherwise required by this section for a fiscal year by the
number of percentage points equal to the number of percentage
points (if any) by which--
``(i) the number of families receiving assistance during
the fiscal year under the State program funded under this
part is less than
``(ii) the number of families that received aid under the
State plan approved under part A of this title (as in effect
before October 1, 1995) during the fiscal year immediately
preceding such effective date.

The minimum participation rate shall not be reduced to the
extent that the Secretary determines that the reduction in
the number of families receiving such assistance is required
by Federal law.
``(B) Eligibility changes not counted.--The regulations
described in subparagraph (A) shall not take into account
families that are diverted from a State program funded under
this part as a result of differences in eligibility criteria
under a State program funded under this part and eligibility
criteria under such State's plan under the aid to families
with dependent children program, as such plan was in effect
on the day before the date of the enactment of the Work
Opportunity Act of 1995.
amendment no. 2519

(Purpose: To provide for a rainy day contingency fund)

On page 29, between lines 17 and 18, insert the following:
``(g) Rainy Day Contingency Fund.--
``(1) Establishment.--There is hereby established in the
Treasury of the United States a fund which shall be known as
the `Rainy Day Contingency Fund' (hereafter in this section
referred to as the `Rainy Day Fund').
``(2) Deposits into fund.--Out of any money in the Treasury
of the United States not otherwise appropriated, there are
hereby appropriated for fiscal years 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999,
and 2000 such sums as are necessary for payment to the Rainy
Day Fund in a total amount not to exceed $525,000,000.
``(3) Computation of grant.--
``(A) In general.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall pay
to each State for each quarter in a fiscal year following the
quarter in which such State becomes an eligible State under
this subsection, an amount equal to the Federal medical
assistance percentage for such State for such fiscal year (as
defined in section 1905(b)) of so much of the expenditures by
the State in such year under the State program funded under
this part as exceed the historic State expenditures for such
State.
``(B) Method of computation, payment, and reconciliation.--
``(i) Method of computation.--The method of computing and
paying such amounts shall be as follows:
``(I) The Secretary of Health and Human Services shall
estimate the amount to be paid to the State for such quarter
under the provisions of subparagraph (A), such estimate to be
based on a report filed by the State containing its estimate
of the total sum to be expended in such quarter and such
other information as the Secretary may find necessary.
``(II) The Secretary of Health and Human Services shall
then certify to the Secretary of the Treasury the amount so
estimated by the Secretary of Health and Human Services.
``(ii) Method of payment.--The Secretary of the Treasury
shall thereupon, through the Fiscal Service of the Department
of the Treasury and prior to audit or settlement by the
General Accounting Office, pay to the State, at the time or
times fixed by the Secretary of Health and Human Services,
the amount so certified.
``(iii) Method of reconciliation.--If at the end of each
fiscal year, the Secretary of Health and Human Services finds
that a State which received amounts from the Rainy Day Fund
in such fiscal year did not meet the maintenance of effort
requirement under paragraph (5)(B)
for such fiscal year, the Secretary shall reduce the State
family assistance grant for such State for the succeeding
fiscal year by such amounts.
``(4) Use of grant.--
``(A) In general.--An eligible State may use the grant--
``(i) in any manner that is reasonably calculated to
accomplish the purpose of this part; or
``(ii) in any manner that such State used amounts received
under part A or F of this title, as such parts were in effect
before October 1, 1995.
``(B) Refund of unused portion.--Any amount of a grant
under this subsection not used during the fiscal year shall
be returned to the Rainy Day Fund.
``(5) Eligible state.--
``(A) In general.--For purposes of this subsection, a State
is an eligible State with respect to any quarter in a fiscal
year, if such State--
``(i) has an average total unemployment rate for such
quarter which exceeds by at least 2 percentage points such
average total rate for the same quarter of either the
preceding or second preceding fiscal year; and
``(ii) has met the maintenance of effort requirement under
subparagraph (B) for the State program funded under this part
for the preceding fiscal year.
``(B) Maintenance of effort.--
``(i) In general.--The maintenance of effort requirement
for any State under this subparagraph for any fiscal year is
the expenditure of an amount at least equal to 100 percent of
the level of historic State expenditures for such State.
``(ii) Historic state expenditures.--For purposes of this
subparagraph, the term `historic State expenditures' means
payments of cash assistance to recipients of aid to families
with dependent children under the State plan under part A of
title IV for fiscal year 1994, as in effect during such
fiscal year.
``(iii) Determining state expenditures.--For purposes of
this subparagraph, State expenditures shall not include any
expenditures from amounts made available by the Federal
Government.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, pursuant to the previous agreement, I ask
unanimous consent that the pending amendment be briefly set aside.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 2520 to Amendment No. 2280

Mr. HATCH. I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate
consideration for and on behalf of Senator Burns.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Utah [Mr. Hatch] for Mr. Burns, proposes
an amendment numbered 2520 to amendment No. 2280.

Mr. HATCH. 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:

Amend section 105 (a) to read:
(a) In General.--The Secretary of Health and Human Services
shall take such actions as may be necessary, including
reduction in force actions, consistent with sections 3502 and
3595 of title 5, United States Code, to ensure that at least
50 percent of the personnel in positions that relate to a
covered activity are separated from service. Where possible,
reductions should come from headquarters before reductions
are made in the field. In the case of a program that is
repealed, 100% of the positions shall be eliminated.
Elimination of positions may begin upon passage of this Act
but shall be completed no later than six (6) months following
the date of implementation.

Mr. HATCH. I ask unanimous consent the pending amendment be set
aside.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 2521 to Amendment No. 2280

(Purpose: To ensure state eligibility and benefit restrictions for
immigrants are no more restrictive than those of the Federal
Government)

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk for and on
behalf of Senator Simpson and ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Utah [Mr. Hatch], for Mr. Simpson,
proposes an amendment numbered 2521 to amendment No. 2280.

Mr. HATCH. 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 287, strike lines 13-17 and insert the following:
``(a) In General.--(1) Subject to paragraph (2) and
subsection (b), a State may, at its option, limit or restrict
the eligibility of noncitizens of the United States for any
means-tested public assistance program, whether funded by the
Federal Government or by the State.
``(2)(A) The authority under subsection (a) may be
exercised only to the extent that any prohibitions,
limitations, or restrictions are not more restrictive or of a
longer duration than comparable Federal programs.
``(B) For the purposes of this subsection, attribution to a
noncitizen of the income or resources of any person who (as a
sponsor of such noncitizen's entry into the United States)
executed an affidavit of support or similar agreement with
respect to such noncitizen, for purposes of determining the
eligibility for or amount of benefits of such noncitizen,
shall not be considered more restrictive than a prohibition
of eligibility.''

Mr. HATCH. I ask unanimous consent the pending amendment be set
aside.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 2522 to Amendment No. 2280

(Purpose: To modify provisions relating to funds for other child care
programs)

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I send another amendment to the desk for
and

[[Page S 12897]]
on behalf of Senator Kassebaum and ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Utah [Mr. Hatch], for Mrs. Kassebaum,
proposes an amendment numbered 2522 to amendment No. 2280.

Mr. HATCH. 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 313, strike line 13 and all that follows
through line 5 on page 314, and insert the following new
subsection:
(l) Application of Subchapter.--The Child Care and
Development Block Grant Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 9858 et seq.)
is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new
section:

``SEC. 658T. APPLICATION TO OTHER PROGRAMS.

``Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a State that
uses funding for child care services under any Federal
program shall ensure that activities carried out using such
funds meet the requirements, standards, and criteria of this
subchapter, except for the quality set-aside provisions of
section 685G, and the regulations promulgated under this
subchapter. Such sums shall be administered through a uniform
State plan. To the maximum extent practicable, amounts
provided to a State under such programs shall be transferred
to the lead agency and integrated into the program
established under this subchapter by the State.''.

Mr. HELMS. I ask unanimous consent the pending amendment be set
aside.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 2523 to Amendment No. 2280

(Purpose: To require single, able-bodied individuals receiving food
stamps to work at least 40 hours every 4 weeks)

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask it
be stated.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from North Carolina [Mr. Helms] for himself,
Mr. Faircloth, Mr. Shelby, and Mr. Grams, proposes an
amendment numbered 2523 to amendment No. 2280.

Mr. HELMS. 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 195, strike line 22 and all that follows
through page 198, line 14, and insert the following:

SEC. 319. WORK REQUIREMENT.

Section 6 of the Food Stamp Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 2015) (as
amended by section 318) is further amended by inserting after
subsection (m) the following:
``(n) Work Requirement.--
``(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (3), no individual
shall be eligible to participate in the food stamp program as
a member of any household if the individual did not work at
least 40 hours during the preceding 4-week period.
``(2) Work program.--For purposes of paragraph (1), an
individual may perform community service or work for a State
or political subdivision of a State through a program
established by the State or political subdivision.
``(3) Exemptions.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply to an
individual if the individual is--
``(A) a parent residing with a dependent child under 18
years of age;
``(B) a member of a household with responsibility for the
care of an incapacitated person;
``(C) mentally or physically unfit;
``(D) under 18 years of age; or
``(E) 55 years of age or older.''.

Mrs. BOXER. I ask unanimous consent the pending amendment be set
aside.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is set aside.

Amendment No. 2482

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment
of Senator Boxer, amendment No. 2482.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I understand I have 60 seconds. I will use
30 seconds to explain my amendment.
What we are saying here is if you are a deadbeat dad or a deadbeat
mom and have fallen behind on your child support more than 2 months,
you must not be eligible for means-tested Federal benefits.
I have modified that amendment with the help of Senator Santorum. We
exclude emergency medical care and nutrition assistance for teenage
parents, but basically if you do not sign a repayment schedule
committing yourself to make up for those delinquent payments, you will
not get benefits such as housing assistance or SSI or food stamps.
We feel it is very important to send a message to deadbeat parents. I
ask Senators to give us an aye vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is so modified.
The amendment (No. 2482), as modified, is as follows:

On page 712, between lines 9 and 10, insert the following:

SEC. 972. DENIAL OF MEANS-TESTED FEDERAL BENEFITS TO
NONCUSTODIAL PARENTS WHO ARE DELINQUENT IN
PAYING CHILD SUPPORT.

(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, a non-custodial parent who is more than 2 months
delinquent in paying child support shall not be eligible to
receive any means-tested Federal benefits.
(b) Exception.--
(1) In general.--Subsection (a) shall not apply to an
unemployed non-custodial parent who is more than 2 months
delinquent in paying child support if such parent--
(A) enters into a schedule of repayment for past due child
support with the entity that issued the underlying child
support order; and
(B) meets all of the terms of repayment specified in the
schedule of repayment as forced by the appropriate disbursing
entity.
(2) 2-year exclusion.--(A) A non-custodial parent who
becomes delinquent in child support a second time or any
subsequent time shall not be eligible to receive any means-
tested Federal benefits for a 2-year period beginning on the
date that such parent failed to meet such terms.
(B) At the end of that two-year period, paragraph (A) shall
once again apply to that individual.
(c) Means-tested Federal Benefits.--For purposes of this
section, the term ``means-tested Federal benefits'' means
benefits under any program of assistance, funded in whole or
in part, by the Federal Government, for which eligibility for
benefits is based on need.

Mrs. BOXER. 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 clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. LOTT. I announce that the Senator from Colorado [Mr. Campbell],
the Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Cochran], the Senator from Florida
[Mr. Mack], the Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain], the Senator from
Kentucky [Mr. McConnell], and the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Murkowski]
are necessarily absent.
I also announce that the Senator from Tennessee [Mr. Thompson] is
absent due to illness.
Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Louisana [Mr. Breaux] and
the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Pryor] are necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 91, nays 0, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 405 Leg.]

YEAS--91

Abraham
Akaka
Ashcroft
Baucus
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Bradley
Brown
Bryan
Bumpers
Burns
Byrd
Chafee
Coats
Cohen
Conrad
Coverdell
Craig
D'Amato
Daschle
DeWine
Dodd
Dole
Domenici
Dorgan
Exon
Faircloth
Feingold
Feinstein
Ford
Frist
Glenn
Gorton
Graham
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Harkin
Hatch
Hatfield
Heflin
Helms
Hollings
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnston
Kassebaum
Kempthorne
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Kyl
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lott
Lugar
Mikulski
Moseley-Braun
Moynihan
Murray
Nickles
Nunn
Packwood
Pell
Pressler
Reid
Robb
Rockefeller
Roth
Santorum
Sarbanes
Shelby
Simon
Simpson
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thurmond
Warner
Wellstone

NOT VOTING--9

Breaux
Campbell
Cochran
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Pryor
Thompson
So the amendment (No. 2482) was agreed to.
Mr. HATCH. 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.

[[Page S 12898]]

Amendment No. 2524 to Amendment No. 2280

(Purpose: To provide for a good cause exception for hospital-based
programs providing for voluntary acknowledgment of paternity)

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk for myself
and Senator Shelby.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows.

The Senator from Idaho [Mr. Craig], for himself and Mr.
Shelby, proposes an amendment numbered 2524 to amendment No.
2280.

Mr. CRAIG. 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 643, line 16, insert ``, subject to such good cause
and other exceptions as the State shall establish and taking
into account the best interests of the child'' before the end
period.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, it is my understanding that this amendment
has received recognition from both sides and is acceptable.
The amendment would simply allow the States to establish good cause
and other exceptions and thus will not override State laws defining
paternity. Moreover, it requires all hospital bed programs providing
for voluntary acknowledgment of paternity to take into account the best
interests of the child. It provides consistency between Federal AFDC
law and the laws regarding in-hospital paternity establishment.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, we think the amendment is an excellent
amendment, and we are prepared to accept it on this side. I understand
the other side is prepared to accept it. I turn to the distinguished
Senator from New York.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, we surely agree this a commendable
amendment. We thank the Senator from Idaho for offering it. It would be
agreed to on this side if the question is asked.
Mr. HATCH. I urge adoption of the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the question is
on agreeing to amendment No. 2524.
So the amendment (No. 2524) was agreed to.
Mr. HATCH. 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.
Mr. EXON. Mr. President, first, an inquiry of the Chair.
As I understand it, the present measure before the Senate is the
amendment numbered 2280 by Senator Dole. Is that correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is the first-degree amendment pending.
There have been second-degree amendments offered that have been set
aside.
Mr. EXON. That is what I wished to clarify. The Senator from Nebraska
is ready to offer an amendment to that amendment.

Amendment No. 2525 to Amendment No. 2280

(Purpose: To prohibit the payment of certain Federal benefits to any
person not lawfully present within the United States, and for other
purposes)

Mr. EXON. I send the amendment to the desk at this time and ask for
its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows.

The Senator from Nebraska [Mr. Exon] proposes an amendment
numbered 2525 to amendment No. 2280.

Mr. EXON. 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 302, between lines 5 and 6, insert the following:

SEC. 506. PROHIBITION ON PAYMENT OF FEDERAL BENEFITS TO
CERTAIN PERSONS.

(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law
and except as provided in subsection (b), Federal benefits
shall not be paid or provided to any person who is not a
person lawfully present within the United States.
(b) Exceptions.--Subsection (a) shall not apply with
respect to the following benefits:
(1) Emergency medical services under title XIX of the
Social Security Act.
(2) Short-term emergency disaster relief.
(3) Assistance or benefits under the National School Lunch
Act.
(4) Assistance or benefits under the Child Nutrition Act of
1966.
(5) Public health assistance for immunizations and, if the
Secretary of Health and Human Services determines that it is
necessary to prevent the spread of a serious communicable
disease, for testing and treatment of such disease.
(c) Definitions.--For purposes of this section:
(1) Federal benefit.--The term ``Federal benefit'' means--
(A) the issuance of any grant, contract, loan, professional
license, or commercial license provided by an agency of the
United States or by appropriated funds of the United States;
and
(B) any retirement, welfare, Social Security, health,
disability, veterans benefit, public housing, education, food
stamps, unemployment benefit, or any other similar benefit
for which payments or assistance are provided by an agency of
the United States or by appropriated funds of the United
States.
(2) Veterans benefit.--The term ``veterans benefit'' means
all benefits provided to veterans, their families, or
survivors by virtue of the service of a veteran in the Armed
Forces of the United States.
(3) Person lawfully present within the united states.--The
term ``person lawfully present within the United States''
means a person who, at the time the person applies for,
receives, or attempts to receive a Federal benefit, is a
United States citizen, a permanent resident alien, an alien
whose deportation has been withheld under section 243(h) of
the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1253(h)), and
asylee, a refugee, a parolee who has been paroled for a
period of at least 1 year, a national, or a national of the
United States for purposes of the immigration laws of the
United States (as defined in section 101(a)(17) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(17)).
(d) State Obligation.--Notwithstanding any other provision
of law, a State that administers a program that provides a
Federal benefit (described in section 506(c)(1)) or provides
State bene
fits pursuant to such a program shall not be required to
provide such benefit to a person who is not a person
lawfully present within the United States (as defined in
section 506(c)(3)) through a State agency or with
appropriated funds of such State.
(e) Verification of Eligibility.--
(1) In General.--Not later than 18 months after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Attorney General of the United
States, after consultation with the Secretary of Health and
Human Services, shall promulgate regulations requiring
verification that a person applying for a Federal benefit,
including a benefit described in section 506(b), is a person
lawfully present within the United States and is eligible to
receive such benefit. Such regulations shall, to the extent
feasible, require that information requested and exchanged be
similar in form and manner to information requested and
exchanged under section 1137 of the Social Security Act.
(2) State Compliance.--Not later than 24 months after the
date the regulations described in subsection (1) are adopted,
a State that administers a program that provides a Federal
benefit described in such subsection shall have in effect a
verification system that complies with the regulations.
(3) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out
the purpose of this section.
(f) Severability.--If any provision of this title or the
application of such provision to any person or circumstance
is held to be unconstitutional, the remainder of this title
and the application of the provisions of such to any person
or circumstance shall not be affected thereby.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I rise today to offer an amendment to the
pending welfare reform bill to address the issue of payment of Federal
benefits to illegal aliens. I have talked with the managers of the
bill, and I have agreed to offer it now, to briefly debate the matter,
and we will schedule a vote and possibly limited debate sometime next
week as we move through the whole series of amendments we have pending.
Mr. President, I introduced a similar measure, S. 918, earlier in
this Congress. As many Senators know, I have long supported blocking
Federal benefits to illegal aliens as a matter of both sound
immigration policy and as a matter of sound fiscal policy. I have
introduced this measure as either a stand-alone bill or as an amendment
in every Congress since 1989.
In 1993, when we debated the comprehensive crime bill, the Senate
accepted my amendment to restrict benefits to illegal aliens by a vote
of 85 to 2. Unfortunately, Mr. President, the provision was dropped in
conference with the House of Representatives. Simply stated, my
amendment says that Federal benefits shall not be paid or provided to
those not lawfully present within the United States. My

[[Page S 12899]]
amendment is well crafted to only deny illegals the benefit of Federal
support and specifically defines who is a person lawfully present
within the United States.
My amendment also provides for a number of exemptions. Federal funds
could be provided to illegal aliens for emergency medical services,
disaster relief, school lunches, child nutrition and immunization. Sick
people would not be turned away at the hospital emergency rooms, nor
would the public health be threatened by a communicable disease.
We must draw the line and say that illegal aliens should not be
receiving scarce resources except for true emergencies and public
health concerns.
Also, States would not be obligated to provide benefits to those not
lawfully present in our country. Following the publishing of the rules
by the Attorney General, the States would have 2 years to comply with
the verification requirements, and necessary funds would be authorized.
It should be noted that the long-awaited report of the U.S.
Commission on Immigration Reform, headed by former Representative
Barbara Jordan, has generally recommended that illegal aliens not
receive publicly funded services or assistance.
Mr. President, it is true that many Federal programs specifically
exclude by statute illegal aliens in their criteria for eligibility,
but in many cases the benefits continue to flow to these illegal aliens
due to the expansive and misguided agency regulations and court
interpretation.
Many Federal programs allow benefits to go to aliens permanently
residing in the United States under color of law. However, this
category is not defined by statute, and the categories of aliens it
covers vary from program to program because various court decisions
have defined it differently. I am sure that my fellow colleagues are
well aware of the published growing concern with our country's
haphazard immigration policy and porous border. I believe this debate
over welfare reform provides us with a golden opportunity to create a
new and more coherent policy regarding immigrants and to stop, once and
for all, the payment of benefits to illegal aliens.
The Senate appears ready to give the States more flexibility and
responsibility to oversee Federal programs. I think it is only fair
that in exchange for the increased flexibility and discretion, the
Federal Government should ask the States to stand with us in verifying
immigrant status and help identify illegal aliens.
With the assistance of the States in the verification process, few
illegals will receive benefits. And both Federal and State budgets will
reflect those savings. It is the simple fact that a deported alien will
not be available to collect welfare benefits that are desperately
needed by many of our citizens.
Mr. President, in my opinion, the Federal Government and the States
have been working at cross-purposes in enforcing our immigration laws.
The States have decried the inability of the Federal Government to
police our borders. Yet when Congress proposes dropping the payment of
benefits to illegal aliens, the States complain that they will be
saddled with the full cost of providing these services.
It is only reasonable to require States to verify the status of
applicants provided we help give them the resources to do the job. By
allowing States to deny benefits to these not lawfully present and
providing funds for States to set up verification systems, my amendment
is actually a fully funded mandate.
I believe we must do more regarding immigration reform itself. I feel
strongly that deportation proceedings should be expedited, and there
needs to be greater enforcement when holders of temporary visas
intentionally overstay their visit. I also believe that there needs to
be a stricter enforcement of sponsor affidavits and the deeming
provision to ensure that immigrants will not be a burden to taxpayers.
Efforts to provide better border patrols and to attack asylum abuse are
also needed. The widespread abuse of identification cards by illegal
aliens is a major problem. The production of false resident alien
cards, drivers' licenses, and Social Security cards is a multimillion
dollar national crime which only aids illegal aliens receiving
Government benefits. It must be stopped.
The word is out, if you want to receive welfare benefits more
generous than any, come to America. Do not even bother to enter
legally. By allowing the payment of benefits to illegal aliens, we have
become a magnet. In the past, immigrants came to America to work hard
and prosper under freedom, but today too many are coming to receive the
free ride.
Finally, and in closing, Mr. President, I must address briefly the
overall context in which this issue is being discussed. Right now we
are debating the welfare bill which will have great impact on those in
our country who are in need. While I believe that our welfare system
needs a major overhaul, I am concerned that those who are truly in need
will bear an undue share of the burden. In these times of massive
budget reductions, I must remind all that our Government is still
there. It still has the responsibility to help its needy citizens. By
providing Federal funds to those that are in our country illegally, we
are misusing scarce resources. We simply cannot justify nor can we
afford giving Federal benefits to people who are in our country
illegally.
Mr. President, I thank the Chair. And I will make an understanding
with the managers of the bill when we will take up this matter again at
the beginning of next week.
I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.
Mr. SHELBY addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Inhofe). The Senator from Alabama.

Amendments Nos. 2526 and 2527 To Amendment No. 2280

Mr. SHELBY. I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set
aside so that I may send two amendments to the desk.
I ask for their immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report the amendments.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Alabama [Mr. Shelby] proposes amendments,
en bloc, numbered 2526 and 2527 to amendment No. 2280.

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading
of the amendments be dispensed with.
The amendments are as follows:

Amendment No. 2526
At the appropriate place, insert:

SEC. . REFUNDABLE CREDIT FOR ADOPTION EXPENSES.

(a) In General.--Subpart C of part IV of subchapter A of
chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to
refundable credits) is amended by redesignating section 35 as
section 36 and by inserting after section 34 the following
new section:

``SEC. 35. ADOPTION EXPENSES.

``(a) Allowance of Credit.--In the case of an individual,
there shall be allowed as a credit against the tax imposed by
this subtitle for the taxable year the amount of the
qualified adoption expenses paid or incurred by the taxpayer
during such taxable year.
``(b) Limitations.--
``(1) Dollar limitation.--The aggregate amount of qualified
adoption expenses which may be taken into account under
subsection (a) with respect to the adoption of a child shall
not exceed $5,000.
``(2) Income limitation.--The amount allowable as a credit
under subsection (a) for any taxable year shall be reduced
(but not below zero) by an amount which bears the same ratio
to the amount so allowable (determined without regard to this
paragraph but with regard to paragraph (1)) as--
``(A) the amount (if any) by which the taxpayer's adjusted
gross income exceeds $60,000, bears to
``(B) $40,000.
``(3) Denial of double benefit.--
``(A) In general.--No credit shall be allowed under
subsection (a) for any expense for which a deduction or
credit is allowable under any other provision of this
chapter.
``(B) Grants.--No credit shall be allowed under subsection
(a) for any expense to the extent that funds for such expense
are received under any Federal, State, or local program.
``(c) Qualified Adoption Expenses.--For purposes of this
section, the term `qualified adoption expenses' means
reasonable and necessary adoption fees, court costs, attorney
fees, and other expenses which are directly related to the
legal and finalized adoption of a child by the taxpayer and
which are not incurred in violation of State or Federal law
or in carrying out any surrogate parenting arrangement. The
term `qualified adoption expenses' shall not include any
expenses in connection with the adoption by an individual of
a child who is the child of such individual's spouse.
``(d) Married Couples Must File Joint Returns.--Rules
similar to the rules of paragraphs (2), (3), and (4) of
section 21(e) shall apply for purposes of this section.''

[[Page S 12900]]

(b) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Paragraph (2) of section 1324(b) of title 31, United
States Code, is amended by inserting before the period ``, or
from section 35 of such Code''.
(2) The table of sections for subpart C of part IV of
subchapter A of chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 is amended by striking the last item and inserting the
following:

``Sec. 35. Adoption expenses.
``Sec. 36. Overpayments of tax.''.

SEC. . EXCLUSION OF ADOPTION ASSISTANCE.

(a) In General.--Part III of subchapter B of chapter 1 of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by redesignating
section 137 as section 138 and by inserting after section 136
the following new section:

``SEC. 137. ADOPTION ASSISTANCE.

``(a) In General.--Gross income of an employee does not
include employee adoption assistance benefits, or military
adoption assistance benefits, received by the employee with
respect to the employee's adoption of a child.
``(b) Definitions.--For purposes of this section--
``(1) Employee adoption assistance benefits.--The term
`employee adoption assistance benefits' means payment by an
employer of qualified adoption expenses with respect to an
employee's adoption of a child, or reimbursement by the
employer of such qualified adoption expenses paid or incurred
by the employee in the taxable year.
``(2) Employer and employee.--The terms `employer' and
`employee' have the respective meanings given such terms by
section 127(c).
``(3) Military adoption assistance benefits.--The term
`military adoption assistance benefits' means benefits
provided under section 1502 of title 10, United States Code,
or section 514 of title 14, United States Code.
``(4) Qualified adoption Expenses.--
``(A) In general.--The term `qualified adoption expenses'
means reasonable and necessary adoption fees, court costs,
attorney fees, and other expenses--
``(i) which are directly related to, and the principal
purpose of which is for, the legal and finalized adoption of
an eligible child by the taxpayer, and
``(ii) which are not incurred in violation of State or
Federal law or in carrying out any surrogate parenting
arrangement.
``(B) Eligible Child.--The term `eligible child' means any
individual--
``(i) who has not attained age 18 as of the time of the
adoption, or
``(ii) who is physically or mentally incapable of caring
for himself.
``(c) Coordination With Other Provision.--The Secretary
shall issue regulations to coordinate the application of this
section with the application of any other provision of this
title which allows a credit or deduction with respect to
qualified adoption expenses.''
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for part III
of subchapter 1 of such Code is amended by striking the item
relating to section 137 and inserting the following new
items:

``Sec. 137. Adoption assistance.
``Sec. 138. Cross references to other Acts.''

SEC. . WITHDRAWAL FROM IRA FOR ADOPTION EXPENSES.

(a) In General.--Subsection (d) of section 408 of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end
the following new paragraph:
``(8) Qualified adoption expenses.--
``(A) In general.--Any amount which is paid or distributed
out of an individual retirement plan of the taxpayer, and
which would (but for this paragraph) be includible in gross
income, shall be excluded from gross income to the extent
that--
``(i) such amount exceeds the sum of--
``(I) the amount excludable under section 137, and
``(II) any amount allowable as a credit under this title
with respect to qualified adoption expenses; and
``(ii) such amount does not exceed the qualified adoption
expenses paid or incurred by the taxpayer during the taxable
year.
``(B) Qualified adoption expenses.--For purposes of this
paragraph, the term `qualified adoption expenses' has the
meaning given such term by section 137, except that such term
shall not include any expense in connection with the adoption
by an individual of a child who is the child of such
individual's spouse.''
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
1995.
amendment no. 2527

On page 216, strike lines 4 thorough 6 and insert the
following:
``(3) at the option of a State, funds to--
``(A) operate an employment and training program for needy
individuals under the program; or
``(B) operate a work program under section 404 of the
Social Security Act:
``(4) at the option of a State, funds to provide benefits
to individuals with incomes below 185 percent of the poverty
line under subsection (d)(3)(B)(v); and
On line 216, line 7, strike ``(4)'' and insert ``(5)''.
On page 216, strike lines 13 through 17 and insert the
following:
``(2) Four-year election.--
``(A) Period.--A State may elect to participate in the
program established under subsection (a) for a period of not
less than 4 years.
``(B) Election.--At the end of each 4-year period, a State
may elect to participate in the program established under
subsection (a) or in the food stamp program in accordance
with the other sections of this Act.
On page 219, strike lines 11 through 13 and insert the
following:
``(iii) at the option of a State--
``(I) to operate an employment and training program for
needy individuals under the program; or
``(II) to operate a work program under section 404 of the
Social Security Act;;
On page 219, line 15, strike the period at the end and
insert ``; and''.
On page 219, between lines 15 and 16, insert the following:
``(v) to provide other forms of benefits to individuals
with incomes below 185 percent of the poverty line, as
defined in section 673(2) of the Community Services Block
Grant Act (42 U.S.C. 9902(2)), except that not more than 20
percent of the amount allotted to a State under subsection
(l)(2) may be used under this clause.
On page 220, strike line 14 and insert the following:
``(E) Notice and hearings.--
``(i) In general.--The State
On page 220, between lines 20 and 21, insert the following:
``(ii) Limitation.--Clause (i) shall not impeded the
ability of the State to promptly and efficiently alter or
reduce benefits in response to a failure by a recipient to
perform work or other required activities.
On page 223, strike lines 7 and 8 and insert the following:
``(g) Employment and Training.--No individual or
On page 223, strike lines 14 through 17.
On page 227, strike line 8 and insert the following:
``(5) Provision of food assistance.--
``(A) In general.--A
On page 227, strike lines 14 and 15 and insert the
following:

``to food purchases, direct provision of commodities or cash
aid in lieu of coupons under subparagraph (B).
``(B) Cash aid in lieu of coupons.--
``(i) Eligible individuals.--An individual shall be
eligible under this subparagraph if the individual is--
``(I) receiving benefits under this Act;
``(II) receiving benefits under a State program funded
under part A of title IV of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 601 et seq.); and
``(III) participating in unsubsidized employment,
subsidized employment, on-the-job training, or a community
services program under section 404 of the Social Security
Act.
``(ii) State option.--In the case of an individual
described in clause (i), a State may--
``(I) convert the food stamp benefits of the household in
which the individual is a member to cash, and provide the
cash in a single integrated payment with cash aid under part
A of title IV of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.); and
``(II) sanction an individual, or a household that contains
an individual, or reduce the benefits of the individual or
household under the same rules and procedures as the State
uses under part A of title IV of the Act (42 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.).
On page 229, strike line 24 and all that follows through
page 231, line 2, and insert the following: ``97 percent of
the federal funds the Director of the Office of Management
and Budget estimates would have been expended under the food
stamp program in the State for the fiscal year if the State
had not elected to participate in the program under this
section.''.

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
amendments be set aside until next week.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SHELBY. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I have a number of amendments which I am
going to send forward and then ask to be laid aside. I am doing this at
the request of colleagues.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendments Nos. 2528 through 2532, en bloc, To Amendment No. 2280

Mr. MOYNIHAN. First, Mr. President, on behalf of Senators Conrad and
Lieberman, an amendment designed to combat teen pregnancy; second, an
amendment from Mr. Conrad and Mr. Bradley to provide State flexibility;
third, an amendment by Mr. Conrad

[[Page S 12901]]
alone to create second-chance homes; and, further, an amendment by Mr.
Conrad to encourage States to move people to payrolls; and, finally, a
complete substitute by Mr. Conrad that provides employees with work,
protects children and promotes family and State flexibility.
I send them to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the clerk will report the
amendments by number only.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from New York [Mr. Moynihan], for others,
proposes amendments, en bloc, numbered 2528 through 2532 to
amendment No. 2280.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading
of the amendments, en bloc, be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 2528

(Purpose: To provide that a State that provides assistance to unmarried
teenage parents under the State program require such parents as a
condition of receiving such assistance to live in an adult-supervised
setting and attend high school or other equivalent training program.)

On page 50, strike line 6 and all that follows through page
51, line 11, and insert the following:
``(d) Requirement That Teenage Parents Live in Adult-
supervised Settings.--
``(1) In general.--
``(A) Requirement.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), if
a State provides assistance under the State program funded
under this part to an individual described in subparagraph
(B), such individual may only receive assistance under the
program if such individual and the child of the individual
reside in a place of residence maintained by a parent, legal
guardian, or other adult relative of such individual as such
parent's, guardian's, or adult relative's own home.
``(B) Individual described.--For purposes of subparagraph
(A), an individual described in this subparagraph is an
individual who is--
``(i) under the age of 18; and
``(ii) not married and has a minor child in his or her
care.
``(2) Exception.--
``(A) Provision of, or assistance in locating, adult-
supervised living arrangement.--In the case of an individual
who is described in subparagraph (B), the State agency shall
provide, or assist such individual in locating, an
appropriate adult-supervised supportive living arrangement,
including a second chance home, another responsible adult, or
a foster home, taking into consideration the needs and
concerns of the such individual, unless the State agency
determines that the individual's current living arrangement
is appropriate, and thereafter shall require that such parent
and the child of such parent reside in such living
arrangement as a condition of the continued receipt of
assistance under the plan (or in an alternative appropriate
arrangement, should circumstances change and the current
arrangement cease to be appropriate).
``(B) Individual described.--For purposes of subparagraph
(A), an individual is described in this subparagraph if the
individual is described in paragraph (1)(B) and--
``(ii) such individual has no parent or legal guardian of
his or her own who is living or whose whereabouts are known;
``(iii) no living parent or legal guardian of such
individual allows the individual to live in the home of such
parent or guardian;
``(iv) the State agency determines that the physical or
emotional health of such individual or any minor child of the
individual would be jeopardized if such individual and such
minor child lived in the same residence with such
individual's own parent or legal guardian; or
``(v) the State agency otherwise determines that it is in
the best interest of the minor child to waive the requirement
of paragraph (1) with respect to such individual.
``(C) Second-chance home.--For purposes of this paragraph,
the term `second-chance home' means an entity that provides
individuals described in subparagraph (B) with a supportive
and supervised living arrangement in which such individuals
are required to learn parenting skills, including child
development, family budgeting, health and nutrition, and
other skills to promote their long-term economic independence
and the well-being of their children.
``(3) Assistance to states in providing or locating adult-
supervised supportive living arrangements for unmarried
teenage parents.--
``(A) In general.--For each of fiscal years 1998 through
2002, each State that
provides assistance under the State program to individuals
described in paragraph (1)(B) shall be entitled to receive
a grant in an amount determined under subparagraph (B) for
the purpose of providing or locating adult-supervised
supportive living arrangements for individuals described
in paragraph (1)(B) in accordance with this subsection.
``(B) Amount determined.--
``(i) In general.--The amount determined under this
subparagraph is an amount that bears the same ratio to the
amount specified under clause (ii) as the amount of the State
family assistance grant for the State for such fiscal year
(described in section 403(a)(2)) bears to the amount
appropriated for such fiscal year in accordance with section
403(a)(4)(A).
``(ii) Amount specified.--The amount specified in this
subparagraph is--
``(I) for fiscal year 1998, $20,000,000;
``(II) for fiscal year 1999, $40,000,000; and
``(III) for each of fiscal years 2000, 2001, and 2002,
$80,000,000.
``(C) Assistance to states in providing or locating adult-
supervised supportive living arrangements for unmarried
teenage parents.--There are authorized to be appropriated and
there are appropriated for fiscal years 1998, 1999, and 2000
such sums as may be necessary for the purpose of paying
grants to States in accordance with the provisions of the
paragraph.
``(e) Requirement That Teenage Parents Attend High School
or Other Equivalent Training Program.--If a State provides
assistance under the State program funded under this part to
an individual described in subsection (d)(1)(B) who has not
successfully completed a high-school education (or its
equivalent) and whose minor child is at least 12 weeks of
age, the State shall not provide such individual with
assistance under the program (or, at the option of the State,
shall provide a reduced level of such assistance) if the
individual does not participate in--
``(1) educational activities directed toward the attainment
of a high school diploma or its equivalent; or
``(2) an alternative educational or training program that
has been approved by the State.
On page 51, strike ``(e)'' and insert ``(f)''.
At the appropriate place, insert the following:

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 Clearninghouse 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
2 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).
(b) Out-of-Wedlock and Teenage Pregnancy Prevention
Programs.--Section 2002 of the Social Security Act (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

[[Page S 12902]]
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.
amendment no. 2529

(The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under
``Amendments Submitted.'')

amendment no. 2530

On page 50, strike line 6 and all that follows through page
51, line 11, and insert the following:
``(d) Requirement That Teenage Parents Live in Adult-
supervised Settings.--
``(1) In general.--
``(A) Requirement.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), if
a State provides assistance under the State program funded
under this part to an individual described in subparagraph
(B), such individual may only receive assistance under the
program if such individual and the child of the individual
reside in a place of residence maintained by a parent, legal
guardian, or other adult relative of such individual as such
parent's, guardian's, or adult relative's own home.
``(B) Individual described.--For purposes of subparagraph
(A), an individual described in this subparagraph is an
individual who is--
``(i) under the age of 18; and
``(ii) not married and has a minor child in his or her
care.
``(2) Exception.--
``(A) Provision of, or assistance in locating, adult-
supervised living arrangement.--In the case of an individual
who is described in subparagraph (B), the State agency shall
provide, or assist such individual in locating, an
appropriate adult-supervised supportive living arrangement,
including a second chance home, another responsible adult, or
a foster home, taking into consideration the needs and
concerns of the such individual, unless the State agency
determines that the individual's current living arrangement
is appropriate, and thereafter shall require that such parent
and the child of such parent reside in such living
arrangement as a condition of the continued receipt of
assistance under the plan (or in an alternative appropriate
arrangement, should circumstances change and the current
arrangement cease to be appropriate).
``(B) Individual described.--For purposes of subparagraph
(A), an individual is described in this subparagraph if the
individual is described in paragraph (1)(B) and--
``(ii) such individual has no parent or legal guardian of
his or her own who is living or whose whereabouts are known;
``(iii) no living parent or legal guardian of such
individual allows the individual to live in the home of such
parent or guardian;
``(iv) the State agency determines that the physical or
emotional health of such individual or any minor child of the
individual would be jeopardized if such individual and such
minor child lived in the same residence with such
individual's own parent or legal guardian; or
``(v) the State agency otherwise determines that it is in
the best interest of the minor child to waive the requirement
of paragraph (1) with respect to such individual.
``(C) Second-chance home.--For purposes of this paragraph,
the term `second-chance home' means an entity that provides
individuals described in subparagraph (B) with a supportive
and supervised living arrangement in which such individuals
are required to learn parenting skills, including child
development, family budgeting, health and nutrition, and
other skills to promote their long-term economic independence
and the well-being of their children.
``(3) Assistance to states in providing or locating adult-
supervised supportive living arrangements for unmarried
teenage parents.--
``(A) In general.--For each of fiscal years 1998 through
2002, each State that provides assistance under the State
program to
individuals described in paragraph (1)(B) shall be entitled
to receive a grant in an amount determined under
subparagraph (B) for the purpose of providing or locating
adult-supervised supportive living arrangements for
individuals described in paragraph (1)(B) in accordance
with this subsection.
``(B) Amount determined.--
``(i) In general.--The amount determined under this
subparagraph is an amount that bears the same ratio to the
amount specified under clause (ii) as the amount of the State
family assistance grant for the State for such fiscal year
(described in section 403(a)(2)) bears to the amount
appropriated for such fiscal year in accordance with section
403(a)(4)(A).
``(ii) Amount specified.--The amount specified in this
subparagraph is--
``(I) for fiscal year 1998, $20,000,000;
``(II) for fiscal year 1999, $40,000,000; and
``(III) for each of fiscal years 2000, 2001, and 2002,
$80,000,000.
``(C) Assistance to states in providing or locating adult-
supervised supportive living arrangements for unmarried
teenage parents.--There are authorized to be appropriated and
there are appropriated for fiscal years 1998, 1999, and 2000
such sums as may be necessary for the purpose of paying
grants to States in accordance with the provisions of this
paragraph.
``(e) Requirement That Teenage Parents Attend High School
or Other Equivalent Training Program.--If a State provides
assistance under the State program funded under this part to
an individual described in subsection (d)(1)(B) who has not
successfully completed a high-school education (or its
equivalent) and whose minor child is at least 12 weeks of
age, the State shall not provide such individual with
assistance under the program (or, at the option of the State,
shall provide a reduced level of such assistance) if the
individual does not participate in--
``(1) educational activities directed toward the attainment
of a high school diploma or its equivalent; or
``(2) an alternative educational or training program that
has been approved by the State.''
On page 51, strike ``(e)'' and insert ``(f)''.

amendment no. 2531

On page 31, line 23, strike ``and''.
On page 32, line 10, strike ``divided by'' and insert
``and''.
On page 32, between lines 10 and 11, insert the following:
``(V) the number of all families that became ineligible to
receive assistance under the State program during the
previous 6-month period as a result of section 405(b) that
include an adult who is engaged in work (in accordance with
subsection (c)) for the month; divided by''.
On page 32, strike lines 11 through 15, and insert the
following:
``(ii) the sum of--
``(I) the total number of all families receiving assistance
under the State program funded under this part during the
month that include an adult; and
``(II) the number of all families that became ineligible to
receive assistance under the State program during the
previous 6-month period as a result of section 405(b) that do
not include an adult who is engaged in work (in accordance
with subsection (c)) for the month.
amendment no. 2532
(The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under
``Amendments Submitted.'')
Amendment No. 2533 To Amendment No. 2280

(Purpose: To improve the provisions relating to incentive grants)

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I offer an amendment for Mr. Levin to
the underlying amendment 2280.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The pending amendments are set aside.
The clerk will report the amendment.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from New York [Mr. Moynihan], for Mr. Levin,
proposes an amendment numbered 2533 to amendment No. 2280.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. 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:

amendment no. 2533

On page 417, line 15, strike ``or'' and insert ``and''.

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

Amendments Nos. 2491 and 2492, As Modified

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Rockefeller, I send
to the desk the following modifications to amendments Nos. 2491 and
2492.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendments will be so
modified.
The amendments (No. 2491 and No. 2492), as modified, are as follows:

amendment no. 2491

On page 40, between lines 16 and 17, 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

[[Page S 12903]]

``(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

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 10 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.
Amendment No. 2475 to Amendment No. 2280

(Purpose: To clarify that each State must carry out activities through
at least one Job Corps center)

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Pell, I call up
amendment No. 2475.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from New York [Mr. Moynihan], for Mr. Pell,
proposes an amendment numbered 2475 to amendment No. 2280.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. 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 439, strike lines 10 through 15.
On page 439, line 16, strike ``(C)'' and insert ``(B)''.
On page 440, between lines 14 and 15, insert the following
new subsection:
(d) Coverage of States.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of this subtitle, prior to July 1, 1998, the
Secretary shall ensure that all States have at least 1 Job
Corps center in the State.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
amendment be laid aside.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendments Nos. 2534 and 2535 to Amendment No. 2280

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Dodd and Senator
Pell, I send forth an amendment, and an amendment by Senator Dorgan to
the underlying Dole amendment. I will just send those up at this time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the clerk will report the
amendments.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from New York [Mr. Moynihan], proposes
amendments numbered 2534 and 2535 to amendment No. 2280.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading
of the amendments be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendments are as follows:
AMENDMENT NO. 2534

(Purpose: To award national rapid response grants to address major
economic dislocations, and for other purposes)

On page 397, strike lines 5 and 6 and insert the following:
``(1) 90 percent shall be reserved for making allotments
under section 712;''.
On page 397, line 15, strike ``and'' at the end thereof.
On page 397, line 17, strike the period and insert ``;
and''.
On page 397, between lines 17 and 18, insert the following:
``(7) 2 percent shall be reserved for carrying out sections
775 and 776.''.
On page 461, between lines 18 and 19, insert the following
new sections, and redesignate the remaining sections and
cross references thereto, accordingly:

SEC. 775. NATIONAL RAPID RESPONSE GRANTS FOR DISLOCATED
WORKERS.

(a) In General.--From amounts reserved under section
734(b), the Secretary of Labor may award national rapid
response grants to eligible entities to enable the entities
to provide adjustment assistance to workers affected by major
economic dislocations that result from plant closures, base
closures, or mass layoffs.
(b) Projects and Services.--
(1) In general.--Amounts provided under grants awarded
under this section shall be used to provide employment,
training and related services through projects that relate
to--
(A) industry-wide dislocations:
(B) multistate dislocations;
(C) dislocations resulting from reductions in defense
expenditures;
(D) dislocations resulting from international trade
actions;
(E) dislocations resulting from environmental laws and
regulations, including the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et
seq.), and the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531
et seq.);
(F) dislocations affecting Indian Tribes and tribal
organizations; and
(G) other dislocations that result from special
circumstances or that State and local resources are
insufficient to address.
(2) Community projects.--The Secretary of Labor may award
grants under this section for projects that provide
comprehensive planning services to assist communities in
addressing and reducing the impact of an economic
dislocation.
(c) Administration.--
(1) Application.--To be eligible to receive a grant under
this section, an eligible entity shall submit an application
to the Secretary of Labor at such time, in such manner, and
accompanied by such information as the Secretary of Labor
determines to be appropriate.
(2) Eligible entities.--The Secretary of Labor may award a
grant under this section to--
(A) a State;
(B) a local entity administering assistance provided under
title I;
(C) an employer or employer association;
(D) a worker-management transition assistance committee or
other employer-employee entities;
(E) a representative of employees;
(F) a community development corporation or community-based
organization; or
(G) an industry consortium.
(d) Use of Funds in Emergencies.--
(1) In general.--Where the Secretary of Labor and the chief
executive officer of a State determine that an emergency
exists with respect to any particular distressed industry or
any particularly distressed area within a State, the
Secretary may use amounts made available under this section
to provide emergency financial assistance to dislocated
workers in the form of employment, training, and related
services.
(2) Arrangements.--The Secretary of Labor may enter into
arrangements with eligible entities in
a State described in paragraph (1) for the immediate
provision of emergency financial assistance under
paragraph (1) for the purposes of this section with any
necessary supportive documentation to be submitted at a
date agreed to by the chief executive officer and the
Secretary.

SEC. 776. DISASTER RELIEF EMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE.

(a) Qualification for Funds.--From amounts reserved under
section 734(b), the Secretary of Labor may provide assistance
to the chief executive officer of a State within which is
located an area that has suffered an emergency or a major
disaster as defined in paragraphs (1) and (2), respectively,
of section 102 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5122(1) and (2))
(hereafter referred to in this section as the ``disaster
area'').
(b) Use of Funds.--
(1) Projects restricted to disaster areas.--Funds provided
to a State under subsection (a)--
(A) shall be used solely to provide eligible individuals
with employment in projects to provide clothing, shelter, and
other humanitarian assistance for disaster victims and in
projects regarding the demolition, cleanup, repair,
renovation, and reconstruction of damaged and destroyed
structures, facilities, and lands located within the disaster
area; and
(B) may be expended through public and private agencies and
organizations administering such projects.
(2) Eligibility requirements.--An individual shall be
eligible for employment in a project under this section if
such individual is a dislocated worker or is temporarily or
permanently laid off as a result of an emergency or disaster
referred to in subsection (a).
(3) Limitations on disaster relief employment.--No
individual may be employed using assistance provided under
this section for a period of more than 6 months if such
employment is related to recovery from a single emergency or
disaster.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I am pleased to offer this amendment to the
Workforce Development Act, which is contained in this larger welfare
reform measure, for myself and Mr. Pell.
This amendment is very similar to one I offered in the Labor
Committee when we considered the Workforce Development bill. While I
certainly believe there is much that can be improved upon in the
Workforce Development bill, this amendment is quite modest and accepts
the basic premise of the bill of moving Federal job training programs
to the States.
However, even in a block grant environment, I believe that we should
preserve a small amount of money for the

[[Page S 12904]]
Federal Government to respond quickly to concentrated economic
dislocations--the kind no one State can predict or pay for.
Highly concentrated economic dislocations can be caused by plant
closings, base realignments, or natural disasters. These major economic
dislocations often cross State lines and effect thousands of workers.
Moreover, many mass dislocations, such as base closures, are in fact
precipitated by Federal actions and therefore clearly merit a Federal
response.
The House Workforce Development bill includes a provision on mass
layoffs and natural disasters, and my amendment draws heavily from that
language. I actually cut down on the scope of national activities found
in the House bill.

need will not go away

Mr. President, we need to understand that the need for such
assistance will not diminish in the coming years. Indeed, in some areas
of the country it could increase.
Defense-related layoffs in the private sector alone are continuing,
with up to an additional 25 to 30 percent reduction expected within the
next 2 to 3 years.
Mr. President, this amendment is not about the ups and downs of the
normal business cycle. This amendment is about the out-of-the-ordinary
event involving hundreds or thousands of workers in a dramatic and
sudden way.
It is vitally important that we be prepared for such hopefully rare
occurrences. Natural disasters, like the recent flooding in the
Midwest, cannot be predicted, and yet have grown more and more
devastating over the years. When these catastrophes occur, we cannot
just turn our backs on Americans in need. We need to have the resources
available to provide emergency funds in order to get these people back
on their feet.

examples

So that my colleagues know what I am talking about, here are a few
examples of the kinds of activities that have been funded through such
a program in the past:
Recently, the State of Connecticut was awarded a $4.3 million grant
to provide work force development services for more than 1,400 workers
laid off by Allied Signal as a result of Defense downsizing.
The State of Washington received $14.6 million to assist workers laid
off by Boeing.
More than $4 million in retraining dollars have been made available
for 9,500 GTE employees expected to be dislocated from their jobs in 22
States, including Missouri, Washington, and Illinois.
More than $100 million have been spent over the last 4 years in
response to natural disasters. For example, for the 1993 Mid-west
floods, funding was provided to Missouri, Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota,
and Kansas.

Modest amendment

My amendment would create a modest, 2 percent set-aside for these
activities: rapid response grants for mass dislocations and employment
services for those affected by natural disasters. This 2 percent set-
aside of the Workforce Development Program's $6.1 billion total
authorization would come to roughly $120 million. That would represent
a sizeable cut to what is currently spent on these activities. And even
after my set-aside, over 90 percent of this bill's funds would still go
directly to the States.
AMENDMENT NO. 2535

(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate on legislative
accountability for the unfunded mandates imposed by welfare reform
legislation)

At the appropriate place, add the following new section:

SEC. . SENSE OF THE SENATE ON LEGISLATIVE ACCOUNTABILITY
FOR UNFUNDED MANDATES IN WELFARE REFORM
LEGISLATION.

(a) Findings.--The Senate finds that the purposes of the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 are:
(1) ``to strengthen the partnership between the Federal
Government and State, local and tribal governments'';
(2) ``to end the imposition, in the absence of full
consideration by Congress, of Federal mandates on State,
local and tribal governments without adequate Federal
funding, in a manner that may displace other essential State,
local and tribal governmental priorities'';
(3) ``to assist Congress in its consideration of proposed
legislation establishing or revising Federal programs
containing Federal mandates affecting State, local and tribal
governments, and the private sector by--
(A) providing for the development of information about the
nature and size of mandates in proposed legislation; and
(B) establishing a mechanism to bring such information to
the attention of the Senate and the House of Representatives
before the Senate and the House of Representatives vote on
proposed legislation'';
(4) ``to promote informed and deliberate decisions by
Congress on the appropriateness of Federal mandates in any
particular instance''; and
(5) ``to require that Congress consider whether to provide
funding to assist State, local and tribal governments in
complying with Federal mandates''.
(b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate
that prior to the Senate acting on the conference report on
either H.R. 4 or any other legislation including welfare
reform provisions, the Congressional Budget Office shall
prepare an analysis of the conference report to include:
(1) estimates, over each of the next seven fiscal years, by
state and in total, of--
(A) the costs to states of meeting all work requirements in
the conference report, including those for single-parent
families, two-parent families, and those who have received
cash assistance for 2 years;
(B) the resources available to the states to meet these
work requirements, defined as federal appropriations
authorized in the conference report for this purpose in
addition to what states are projected to spend under current
welfare law;
(C) the amount of any additional revenue needed by the
states to meet the work requirements in the conference
report, beyond resources available as defined under
subparagraph (b)(1)(B);
(2) an estimate, based on the analysis in paragraph (b)(1),
of how many states would opt to pay any penalty provided for
by the conference report rather than raise the additional
revenue needed to meet the work requirements in the
conference report; and
(3) estimates, over each of the next 7 fiscal years, of the
costs to States of any other requirements imposed on them by
such legislation.
Amendments Nos. 2536 and 2537 to Amendment No. 2280

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, a final sequence. On behalf of Mr.
Lieberman, I send to the desk an amendment concerning the reduction of
illegitimacy and control of welfare spending and an amendment to create
a national clearing house on teenage pregnancy.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from New York [Mr. Moynihan], for Mr.
Lieberman, proposes amendments numbered 2536 and 2537 to
amendment No. 2280.

(Purpose: To establish bonus payments for States that achieve
reductions in out-of-wedlock pregnancies, 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)

On page 17, line 8, insert ``and for each of fiscal years
1998, 1999, and 2000, the amount of the State's share of the
out-of-wedlock pregnancy reduction bonus determined under
subsection (f) for the fiscal year'' after ``year''.
On page 17, line 22, insert ``and the applicable percent
specified under subsection (f)(3)(B)(ii) for such fiscal
year'' after ``(B)''.
On page 29, between lines 15 and 16, insert:
``(f) Out-of-Wedlock Pregnancy Reduction Bonus.--
``(1) In general.--Any State that meets the applicable
percentage reduction with respect to the out-of-wedlock
pregnancies in the State for a fiscal year shall be entitled
to receive a share of the out-of-wedlock pregnancy reduction
bonus for the fiscal year in accordance with the formula
developed under paragraph (3).
``(2) Applicable percentage reduction; percentage of out-
of-wedlock pregnancies.--
``(A) Applicable percentage reduction.--The term
`applicable percentage reduction' means with respect to any
fiscal year, a reduction of 2 or more whole percentage points
of the percentage of out-of-wedlock pregnancies in the State
for the preceding fiscal year over the percentage of out-of-
wedlock pregnancies in the State for fiscal year 1995.
``(B) Percentage of out-of-wedlock pregnancies.--For
purposes of this subsection, the term `percentage of out-of-
wedlock pregnancies' means--
``(i) the total number of abortions, live births, and
spontaneous abortions among single teenagers in a State in a
fiscal year, divided by--
``(ii) the total number of single teenagers in the State in
the fiscal year.

[[Page S 12905]]

``(3) Allocation formula; bonus fund.--
``(A) Allocation formula.--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 out-of-wedlock pregnancy reduction
bonus fund to States that achieve the applicable percentage
reduction described in paragraph (2)(A)
``(B) Out-of-wedlock pregnancy reduction bonus fund.--
``(i) In general.--The amount in the out-of-wedlock
pregnancy reduction 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
``For fiscal year: percentage is:
1998................................................................3
1999................................................................4
2000 and each fiscal year thereafter................................5

On page 29, line 16, strike ``(f)'' and insert ``(g)''.
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
clearninghouse, 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) Appointment of Federal Coordinator and Spokesperson.--
The Secretary of Health and Human Services, after
consultation with the President, shall appoint an employee of
the Department of Health and Human Services to coordinate all
the activities of the Federal Government relating to the
reduction of teenage pregnancies and to serve as the
spokesperson for the Federal Government on issues related to
teenage pregnancies.
(d) 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
2 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 Jan 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).
(b) 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
jurisdiction should aggressively enforce statutory rape laws.
____

amendment no. 2537

(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)

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) Appointment of Federal Coordinator and Spokesperson.--
The Secretary of Health and Human Services, after
consultation with the President, shall appoint an employee of
the Department of Health and Human Services to coordinate all
the activities of the Federal Government relating to the
reduction of teenage pregnancies and to serve as the
spokesperson for the Federal Government on issues related to
teenage pregnancies.
(d) 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
2 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.

[[Page S 12906]]

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
amendments be laid aside.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 2538 To Amendment No. 2280

(Purpose: To strike the provisions repealing trade adjustment
assistance, and for other purposes)

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, finally, in this seemingly endless
sequence, I send an amendment of my own to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from New York [Mr. Moynihan] proposes an
amendment numbered 2538 to amendment No. 2280.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. 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:

In section 781(b), strike paragraph (1) (relating to the
Trade Act of 1974).
In section 781(b)(2), strike ``(2)'' and insert ``(1)''.
In section 781(b)(3), strike ``(3)'' and insert ``(2)''.
In section 781(b)(4), strike ``(4)'' and insert ``(3)''.
In section 781(b)(5), strike ``(5)'' and insert ``(4)''.
In section 781(b)(6), strike ``(6)'' and insert ``(5)''.
In section 781(b)(7), strike ``(7)'' and insert ``(6)''.
In section 781(b)(8), strike ``(8)'' and insert ``(7)''.

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

Amendment No. 2539 To Amendment No. 2280

(Purpose: To provide a tax credit for charitable contributions to
organizations providing poverty assistance, and for other purposes)

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk for and on
behalf of Senators Coats and Ashcroft.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Utah [Mr. Hatch], for Mr. Coats, for
himself and Mr. Ashcroft, proposes an amendment numbered 2539
to amendment No. 2280.

Mr. HATCH. 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:

At the end of the amendment, add the following new title:

TITLE XIII--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

SEC. 1301. CREDIT FOR CHARITABLE CONTRIBUTIONS TO CERTAIN
PRIVATE CHARITIES PROVIDING ASSISTANCE TO THE
POOR.
(a) In General.--Subpart A of part IV of subchapter A of
chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to
nonrefundable personal credits) is amended by inserting after
section 22 the following new section:

``SEC. 23. CREDIT FOR CERTAIN CHARITABLE CONTRIBUTIONS.

``(a) In General.--In the case of an eligible individual,
there shall be allowed as a credit against the tax imposed by
this chapter for the taxable year an amount equal to the
qualified charitable contributions which are paid by the
taxpayer during the taxable year.
``(b) Limitation.--The credit allowed by subsection (a) for
the taxable year shall not exceed $500 ($1,000 in the case of
a joint return under section 6013).
``(c) Eligible Individual; Qualified Charitable
Contribution.--for purposes of this section--
``(1) Eligible individual.--The term `eligible individual'
means, with respect to any charitable contribution, an
individual who is certified by the qualified charity to whom
the contribution was made by the individual as having
performed at least 50 hours of volunteer service for the
charity during the calendar year in which the taxable year
begins.
``(2) Qualified charitable contribution.--The term
`qualified charitable contribution' means any charitable
contribution (as defined in section 170(c)) made in cash to a
qualified charity but only if the amount of each such
contribution, and the recipient thereof, are identified on
the return for the taxable year during which such
contribution is made.
``(d) Qualified Charity.--
``(1) In general.--For purposes of this section, the term
`qualified charity' means, with respect to the taxpayer, any
organization--
``(A) which is described in section 501(c)(3) and exempt
from tax under section 501(a), and
``(B) which, upon request by the organization, is certified
by the Secretary as meeting the requirements of paragraphs
(2) and (3).
``(2) Charity must primarily assist the poor.--An
organization meets the requirements of this paragraph only if
the Secretary reasonably expects that the predominant
activity of such organization will be the provision of
services to individuals and families which are designed to
prevent or alleviate poverty among individuals and families
whose incomes fall below 150 percent of the official poverty
line (as defined by the Office of Management and Budget).
``(3) Minimum expense requirement.--
``(A) In general.--An organization meets the requirements
of this paragraph only if the Secretary reasonably expects
that the annual poverty program expenses of such organization
will not be less than 70 percent of the annual aggregate
expenses of such organization.
``(B) Poverty program expense.--For purposes of
subparagraph (A)--
``(i) In general.--The term `poverty program expense' means
any expense in providing program services referred to in
paragraph (2).
``(ii) Exceptions.--Such term shall not include--
``(I) any management or general expense,
``(II) any expense for the purpose of influencing
legislation (as defined in section 4911(d)),
``(III) any expense primarily for the purpose of
fundraising, and
``(IV) any expense for a legal service provided on behalf
of any individual referred to in paragraph (2).
``(4) Election to treat poverty programs as separate
organization.--
``(A) In general.--An organization may elect to treat one
or more programs operated by it as a separate organization
for purposes of this section.
``(B) Effect of election.--If an organization elects the
application of this paragraph, the organization, in
accordance with regulations, shall--
``(i) maintain separate accounting for revenues and
expenses of programs with respect to which the election was
made,
``(ii) ensure that contributions to which this section
applies be used only for such programs, and
``(iii) provide for the proportional allocation of
management, general, and fund-raising expenses to such
programs to the extent not allocable to a specific program.
``(C) Reporting requirements.--
``(i) Organization not otherwise required to file.--An
organization not otherwise required to file any return under
section 6033 shall be required to file such a return with
respect to any poverty program treated as a separate
organization under this paragraph.
``(ii) Organizations required to file.--An organization
otherwise required to file a return under section 6033--
``(I) shall file a separate return with respect to any
poverty program treated as a separate organization under this
section, and
``(II) shall include on its own return the percentages
equivalent to those required of qualified charities under the
last sentence of section 6033(b) and determined with respect
to such organization (without regard to the expenses of any
poverty program under subclause (I)).
``(e) Coordination With Deduction for Charitable
Contributions.--
``(1) Credit in lieu of deduction.--The credit provided by
subsection (a) for any qualified charitable contribution
shall be in lieu of any deduction otherwise allowable under
this chapter for such contribution.
``(2) Election to have section not apply.--A taxpayer may
elect for any taxable year to have this section not apply.''
(b) Returns.--
(1) Qualified charities required to provide copies of
annual return.--Subsection (e) of section 6104 of such Code
(relating to public inspection of certain annual returns and
applications for exemption) is amended by adding at the end
the following new paragraph:
``(3) Qualified charities required to provide copies of
annual return.--
``(A) In general.--Every qualified charity (as defined in
section 23(d)) shall, upon request of an individual made at
an office where such organization's annual return filed under
section 6033 is required under paragraph (1) to be available
for inspection, provide a copy of such return to such
individual without charge other than a reasonable fee for any
reproduction and mailing costs. If the request is made in
person, such copies shall be provided immediately and, if
made other than in person, shall be provided within 30 days.
``(B) Period of availability.--Subparagraph (A) shall apply
only during the 3-year period beginning on the filing date
(as defined in paragraph (1)(D) of the return requested).''
(2) Additional information.--Section 6033(b) of such Code
is amended by adding at the end the following new flush
sentence:

``Each qualified charity (as defined in section 23(d)) to
which this subsection otherwise applies shall also furnish
each of the percentage determined by dividing each of the
following categories of the organization's expenses for the
year by its total expenses for the year: program services;
management and general; fundraising; and payments to
affiliates.''
(c) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for subpart
A of part IV of subchapter A of chapter 1 of such Code is

[[Page S 12907]]
amended by inserting after the item relating to section 22 the
following new item:

``Sec. 23. Credit for certain charitable contributions.''

(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to contributions made after the 90th day after
the date of the enactment of this Act in taxable years ending
after such date.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I rise to offer on behalf of myself and
Senator Ashcroft, the charity tax credit amendment. This amendment is
designed to expand the ability of private and faith based charities to
serve the poor by making it easier for taxpayers to make donations to
these organizations. It is an important, urgently needed reform, but it
also symbolizes a broader point.
The Congress is currently focused on the essential task of clearing
away the ruins of the Great Society. Centralized, bureaucratic anti-
poverty programs have failed--and that failure has had a human cost. It
is measured in broken homes and violent streets. Our current system has
undermined families and fostered dependence.
This is undeniable. But while our Great Society illusions have ended,
the suffering of many of our people has not. Indifference to that fact
is not an option. We cannot retreat into the cocoon of our affluence.
We cannot accept the survival of the fittest. No society can live
without hope--hope that its suffering and anguish are not endless.
I think we have seen the shape of that hope it is not found in the
ivory towers of academia. It is not found in the marble temples of
official Washington. I found it five blocks from here, in a place so
distant from Congress it is almost another world.
The Reverend John Woods came to a desolate Washington neighborhood in
1990 to take over the Gospel Mission, a shelter and drug treatment
center for homeless men. The day he arrived, he found crack cocaine
being processed in the back yard. A few days later, the local gang
fired shots into his office to scare him away. Instead of leaving, he
hung a sign on the door extending this invitation: ``If you haven't got
a friend in the world you can find one here. Come in.''
The Gospel Mission is a place that offers unconditional love, but
accepts no excuses. Men in rehabilitation are given random drug tests.
If they violate the rules, they are told to leave the program. But the
success of the mission comes down to something simple: It does more
than provide a meal and treat an addiction, it offers spiritual
challenge and renewal.
Listen to one addict who came to Reverend Woods after failing in
several governmental rehabilitation programs:

Those programs generally take addictions from you, but
don't place anything within you. I needed a spiritual
lifting. People like Reverend Woods are like God walking into
your life. Not only am I drug-free, but more than that, I can
be a person again.

Reverend Woods's success is particularly clear compared to government
approaches. The Gospel Mission has a 12-month rehabilitation rate of 66
percent, while a once heralded government program just 3 blocks away
rehabilitates less than 10 percent of those it serves--while spending
20 times as much as Reverend Woods.
This is just one example. It is important, not because it is rare,
but because it is common. It takes place in every community, in places
distant from the center of government. But it is the only compassion
that consistently works--a war on poverty that marches from victory to
victory. It makes every new deal, new frontier and new covenant look
small in comparison.
Several months ago, I asked a question: How can we get resources into
the hands of these private and religious institutions where individuals
are actually being helped? And, How can we do this without either
undermining their work with restrictions, or offending the first
amendment? I introduced S. 1120, the Comprehensive Charity Reform Act,
a major portion of which we have incorporated in today's amendment. Our
amendment has two central features.
First, it provides a $500 charity tax credit ($1,000 for married
taxpayers filing jointly) which will provide more generous tax benefits
to taxpayers who decide to donate a portion of their tax liability to
charities that focus on fighting or preventing poverty.
Second, it requires that individuals volunteer their time, as well as
donate their money, to qualify for the credit.
The purpose of this legislation is twofold: First, we want to take a
small portion of welfare spending in America and give it through the
Tax Code to private and religious institutions that effectively provide
individuals with hope, dignity, help and independence. Without
eliminating a public safety net, we want to focus some attention and
resources where it can make all the difference.
Second, we want to promote an ethic of giving in America. When
individuals make these contributions to effective charities, it is a
form of involvement beyond writing a check to the Federal Government.
It encourages a new definition of citizenship, one in which men and
women examine and support the programs in their own communities that
serve the poor. This amendment adopts Senator Ashcroft's proposal that
requires individuals to volunteer their time, as well as donate their
money, to local poverty relief programs.
I hope that my colleagues take a careful look at this new approach to
compassion. It is important for us not only to spread authority and
resources within the levels of Government, but to spread them beyond
Government altogether--to institutions that can not only feed the body
but touch the soul. It is an issue I look forward to debating more
fully next week.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment
be set aside.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendments Nos. 2540 through 2544, En Bloc, to Amendment No. 2280

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I send five amendments to the desk for and
on behalf of the honorable John McCain of Arizona, and I ask unanimous
consent that they be considered en bloc.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk
will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Utah [Mr. Hatch], for Mr. McCain, proposes
amendments numbered 2540 through 2544, en bloc, to amendment
No. 2280.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of
the amendments be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendments are as follows:
amendment no. 2540

(Purpose: To remove barriers to interracial and interethnic adoptions,
and for other purposes)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. . REMOVAL OF BARRIERS TO INTERRACIAL AND INTERETHNIC
ADOPTIONS.

(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) nearly 500,000 children are in foster care in the
United States;
(2) tens of thousands of children in foster care are
waiting for adoption;
(3) 2 years and 8 months is the median length of time that
children wait to be adopted, and minority children often wait
twice as long as other children to be adopted; and
(4) child welfare agencies should work to eliminate racial,
ethnic, and national origin discrimination and bias in
adoption and foster care recruitment, selection, and
placement procedures.
(b) Purpose.--The purpose of this section is to promote the
best interests of children by--
(1) decreasing the length of time that children wait to be
adopted; and
(2) preventing discrimination in the placement of children
on the basis of race, color, or national origin.
(c) Removal of Barriers to Interracial and Interethnic
Adoptions.--
(1) Prohibition.--A State or other entity that receives
funds from the Federal Government and is involved in adoption
or foster care placements may not--
(A) deny to any person the opportunity to become an
adoptive or a foster parent, on the basis of the race, color,
or national origin of the person, or of the child, involved;
or
(B) delay or deny the placement of a child for adoption or
into foster care, or otherwise discriminate in making a
placement decision, on the basis of the race, color, or
national origin of the adoptive or foster parent, or the
child, involved.
(2) Penalties.--
(A) State violators.--A State that violates paragraph (1)
shall remit to the Secretary of Health and Human Services all
funds that were paid to the State under part E of title IV of
the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 670 et seq.) (relating to
foster care and adoption assistance) during the period of the
violation.
(B) Private violators.--Any other entity that violates
paragraph (1) shall remit to the Secretary of Health and
Human Services all funds that were paid to the entity during
the

[[Page S 12908]]
period under part E of title IV of the Social Security Act.
(3) Private cause of action.--
(A) In general.--Any individual or class of individuals
aggrieved by a violation of paragraph (1) by a State or other
entity may bring an action seeking relief in any United
States
district court or State court of appropriate jurisdiction.
(B) Statute of limitations.--An action under this
subsection may not be brought more than 2 years after the
date the alleged violation occurred.
(4) Attorney's fees.--In any action or proceeding under
this Act, the court, in the discretion of the court, may
allow the prevailing party, other than the United States, a
reasonable attorney's fee, including litigation expenses and
costs, and the States and the United States shall be liable
for the fee to the same extent as a private individual.
(5) State immunity.--A State not be immune under the 11th
amendment to the Constitution from an action in Federal or
State court of appropriate jurisdiction for a violation of
this section.
(6) No effect on indian child welfare act of 1978.--Nothing
in this Act shall be construed to affect the application of
the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (25 U.S.C. 1901 et
seq.).
(d) Repeal.--Subpart 1 of part E of title V of the
Improving America's Schools Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 5115a) is
amended--
(1) by repealing sections 551 through 553; and
(2) by redesignating section 554 and section 551.
(e) Effective Date.--This section, and the amendments made
by this section, shall take effect 90 days after the date of
enactment of this Act.

Amendment No. 2541

(Purpose: To provide that States are not required to comply with
excessive data collection and reporting requirements unless the Federal
Government provides sufficient funding to allow States to meet such
excessive requirements)

On page 122, between lines 11 and 12, insert the following:

SEC. 110A. FEDERAL FUNDING FOR EXCESSIVE DATA REPORTING
REQUIREMENTS.

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a State shall
not be required to comply with any data collection or data
reporting requirement added by this Act that the General
Accounting Office determines is in excess of normal Federal
management needs (including systems development costs) unless
the Federal Government provides the State with funding
sufficient to allow States to comply with such requirements.

Amendment No. 2542

(Purpose: To remove the maximum length of participation in the work
supplementation or support program)

On page 215, line 24, add closing quotation marks and a
period at the end.
On page 216, strike lines 1 through 5.
Amendment No. 2543

(Purpose: To make job readiness workshops as work activity)

On page 36, line 10, strike ``and''.
On page 36, line 13, strike the end period.
On page 36, between lines 13 and 14, insert the following:
``(G) job readiness workshops in which an individual
attends pre-employment classes to obtain business or industry
specific training required to meet employer-specific needs
(not to exceed 4 weeks with respect to any individual).''

Amendment No. 2544

(Purpose: To permit States to enter into a corrective action plan prior
to the deduction of penalties from the block grant)

On page 122, between lines 11 and 12, insert the following:

SEC. 110A. CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN.

(a) In General.--
(1) Notification of violation.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, the Federal Government shall, prior to
assessing a penalty against a State under any program
established or modified under this Act, notify the State of
the violation of law for which such penalty would be assessed
and allow the State the opportunity to enter into a
corrective action plan in accordance with this section.
(2) 60-Day period to propose a corrective action plan.--Any
State notified under paragraph (1) shall have 60 days in
which to submit to the Federal Government a corrective action
plan to correct any violations described in such paragraph.
(3) Acceptance of plan.--The Federal Government shall have
60 days to accept or reject the State's corrective action
plan and may consult with the State during this period to
modify the plan. If the Federal Government does not accept or
reject the corrective action plan during the period, the
corrective action plan shall be deemed to be accepted.
(b) 90-Day Grace Period.--If a corrective action plan is
accepted by the Federal Government, no penalty shall be
imposed with respect to a violation described in subsection
(a) if the State corrects the violation pursuant to the plan
within 90 days after the date on which the plan is accepted
(or within such other period specified in the plan).

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Amendment No. 2545 to Amendment No. 2280

(Purpose: To require each family receiving assistance under the State
program funded under part A of title IV of the Social Security Act to
enter into a personal responsibility contract or a limited benefit
plan)

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

The Senator from Iowa [Mr. Harkin] proposes an amendment
numbered 2545 to amendment No. 2280.

Mr. HARKIN. 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 39, strike lines 4 through 10, and insert the
following:
``(a) State Required To Enter Into a Personal
Responsibility Contract With Each Family Receiving
Assistance.--
``(1) In general.--Each State to which a grant is made
under section 403 shall require each family receiving
assistance under the State program funded under this part to
enter into--
``(A) a personal responsibility contract (as developed by
the State) with the State; or
``(B) a limited benefit plan.
``(2) Personal responsibility contract.--For purposes of
this subsection, the term `personal responsibility contract'
means a binding contract between the State and each family
receiving assistance under the State program funded under
this part that--
``(A) outlines the steps each family and the State will
take to get the family off of welfare and to become self-
sufficient;
``(B) specifies a negotiated time-limited period of
eligibility for receipt of assistance that is consistent with
unique family circumstances and is based on a reasonable plan
to facilitate the transition of the family to self-
sufficiency;
``(C) provides that the family will automatically enter
into a limited benefit plan if the family is out of
compliance with the personal responsibility contract; and
``(D) provides that the contract shall be invalid if the
State agency fails to comply with the contract.
``(3) Limited benefit plan.--For purposes of this
subsection, the term `limited benefit plan' means a plan
which provides for a reduced level of assistance and later
termination of assistance to a family that has entered into
the plan in accordance with a schedule to be determined by
the State.
``(4) Assessment.--The State agency shall provide, through
a case manager, an initial and thorough assessment of the
skills, prior work experience, and employability of each
parent for use in developing and negotiating a personal
responsibility contract.
``(5) Dispute resolution.--The State agency described in
section 402(a)(6) shall establish a dispute resolution
procedure for disputes related to participation in the
personal responsibility contract that provides the
opportunity for a hearing.''

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, when an individual is hired for a job,
they are handed a job description. A job description outlines their
responsibilities. On day one, they know what is expected of them in
order to earn a paycheck.
However, when an individual goes into the welfare office to sign up
for benefits, they fill out an application and then the Government
sends them a check. There is no job description. Nothing is expected on
day one. The individual simply goes home and collects a paycheck.
I believe that is wrong, and I believe it saps an individual's self-
esteem and makes the family dependent.
Mr. President, we must fundamentally change the way we think about
welfare, not just to reform welfare, but we have to change the way we
think about it. We should be guided by common sense and build a system
based on a foundation of responsibility. If you want a check, you must
work for it. You must follow a job description. We must stop looking at
welfare as a Government giveaway program. Instead, it should be a
contract demanding mutual responsibility between the Government and the
individual receiving benefits. The contract should outline the steps a
recipient will take to become self-sufficient and also a date certain
by which they will be off welfare.
Responsibility should start on day one with benefits conditioned on
compliance with the terms of the contract. Essentially, the contract
should outline the responsibilities for an individual in the same
manner that a job description describes a worker's duties. It would
build greater accountability in the welfare system and it would send
the clear message that welfare, as

[[Page S 12909]]
usual, is history. Mr. President, a binding contract of this nature not
only makes common sense, it works.
As I have noted previously, the State of Iowa has a relatively new
welfare reform program. The centerpiece of the Iowa Family Investment
Program is just such a contract which charts an individual's course off
welfare and a date when welfare benefits will end. Failure to follow
the contract means the elimination of welfare benefits.
Over the past 18 months, I have held numerous meetings with welfare
recipients, case managers and others to discuss welfare. I often hear
that the Iowa contract really does make a difference. Dennette Kellogg
of Dubuque can receive benefits for several years before the new
program began. She served honorably in the U.S. Marines and then
married and started a family. But she was an unfortunate victim of
domestic abuse and left California for her hometown with one child and
pregnant with a second child. She ended up on welfare and wanted out
but felt she had few options and felt she was trapped.
She recently told me:
``The family investment contract gave me a sense of self-
worth, something the old system lacks. . .and now I had a
reason to look forward to the future instead of feeling being
trapped.''

She has escaped. She is now working as a housing specialist and is no
longer on welfare. But for her, she had a contract which outlined what
she was expected to do. The contract also outlined what the State of
Iowa was going to do. So both sides knew what was expected.
In addition to making it clear what is expected of individuals on
welfare, a contract of mutual responsibility also makes it possible not
only for families to simply move off welfare but to stay off
permanently.
Self-sufficiency is the only way to end the cycle of dependency and
poverty that is claiming more and more victims each year. A well-
designed and enforced contract is a way to make families self-
sufficient, not Government dependent. It is the way to stop treating
the symptoms of the disease and to go after the cause.
The proposal that we have before us, the amendment offered by Senator
Dole, at least recognizes the important principle of a contract.
However, it does not define the personal responsibility contract in any
way. It could be anything or it could be nothing.
My amendment, which I just sent to the desk, would add clarity to
make sure that it works as envisioned and does not become just another
failed promise for welfare recipients and the taxpayers.
Without further definition, I am concerned that the provision in the
Dole-Packwood bill will not provide us with the desired result in terms
of a contract.
My amendment is simple. It just says that a State would provide an
assessment to determine the strengths and the barriers to employment.
That information then would be used to draw up a binding contract that
outlines the steps a family would take to move off welfare and a date
certain when welfare benefits would end.
Failure to follow the terms of the contract would result in serious
consequences--the elimination of cash welfare benefits. The experience
we have had in Iowa has shown us that individuality is critical.
Families have different needs, and a cookie cutter that stamps out one
plan for everyone will fail. You cannot force families into a preshaped
mold. But instead, we need to form the mold around the family. The last
thing we need is a one size fits all contract. My amendment would
clarify that individual family characteristics must be paramount in
negotiating the terms of the contract.
Accountability, responsibility, and common sense must guide us as we
reform the welfare system. Strengthening the personal responsibility
contract will send a clear message that the rules have changed and that
responsibility is required from day one on welfare--just as a worker
knows the rules on the first day of a new job.
We have a responsibility for the taxpayers' money. The taxpayers of
Iowa want to make sure that their money is well spent, whether it is in
Oklahoma, Nevada, California, or Pennsylvania. A contract such as I
have outlined here will ensure greater accountability in the welfare
system.
Mr. President, I have an editorial from the Omaha World Herald
entitled ``Welfare Contract a Worthwhile Idea.'' I ask unanimous
consent that it be printed in the Record at the end of my statement.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 1.)
Mr. HARKIN. I thought I might take a few minutes to buttress my
remarks for the need for a well-defined contract by once again bringing
to my colleagues an illustration of what has happened in Iowa since we
changed our welfare system.
I always point with pride to the fact that in Iowa, we now have the
distinction of having a higher percentage of people on welfare who work
than any State in the Nation.
Mr. President, before we started our welfare reform program, about 18
percent of the people on welfare worked. It is now up to about 35
percent, which is just about double. So what we have is more people on
welfare who are also working. Again, that is one of the objectives of
welfare reform.
What has happened to our caseload? We knew at the beginning that, in
changing the rules, the initial thing that would happen is that we
would have more people on welfare. Everyone knew that. Sure enough,
after we enacted the bill, we went from 36,000 to almost 40,000 in the
space of just about a year. But look at what has happened since then.
Our caseload has come down, and we now have fewer people by about 2,000
caseload 2 years after we started our program. The first year it went
up, and then it came down dramatically. So in 2 years we have done two
things. We have more people on welfare working--we doubled it--and we
have cut the total caseload of people on welfare in Iowa.
With all the talk about what all of the States are doing, I point out
that Iowa, to this date, as far as I know, is the only State that has
actually cut people off of welfare. We did it with the contract. People
have a contract. They sign it and they have to live up to it. If they
do not, they are cut off. The chart shows that we have less of a
caseload than we did when we started.
How much are we spending on welfare in Iowa? Has the cost gone up or
down? Here is total what we spend in Iowa. The yellow, blue, and green
lines are 1992, 1993 and 1994. The amount we totally spent on welfare
basically stayed about the same in the State of Iowa. We enacted a
welfare reform program in October 1993, and almost 2 years later you
can see what happened. Our total spending on welfare has dropped, and
dropped dramatically, since we have had our welfare reform program.
So, again, people say, No. 1, we want more people to work. Well, in
Iowa we have doubled it. Second, we want fewer people on welfare. Well,
we have fewer people on welfare, as I have shown. Third, we want to
spend less money. Well, here it is, we are spending less money on
welfare.
The average grant--now, we had the total, and this is the total
amount of money the State of Iowa is spending on welfare. It has come
down dramatically. What happened to the average person on welfare? It
was about $373 average per family, and we are now down to $336. That is
about a 10, 11, 12 percent drop in what we are spending per caseload in
the State of Iowa. So, by any yardstick of measuring, the Iowa
experiment has worked and has worked well.
Some people might say that in Iowa you do not have high unemployment
and all that kind of stuff. Mr. President, when we enacted welfare
reform, the Department of Health and Human Services insisted--and I
admit I fought this for some time--that we have a control group, a
certain group of individuals in Iowa who would not come under the new
reform program. They would stay under the old system. So, 2 years
later, we were able to compare the control group to the new group. What
we have found is that under the old group, they are still down to about
18 percent of those who are working, not 36 percent. The average
caseload cost is still high. And so we have that control group to show
that it is not just because of the Iowa circumstance, it is because of
how we reformed the system.

[[Page S 12910]]

That brings me back to my amendment. The central feature of the Iowa
welfare reform program is a contract. When the person comes in to get
welfare, an assessment is done. Who are you? What are you? What is your
background? Do you have disabilities? How many children do you have?
Tests are given; assessments are made by a case manager. Based upon
that, an individual contract is drawn up. That person signs that
contract. It is a binding contract. That contract spells out, from day
one, what that individual must do to continue to receive benefits. It
also spells out what the State will do in terms of child care and that
type of thing. As I stated, if the welfare recipient does not live up
to the terms of the contract, after 3 months benefits are ended. And
that has happened in the State of Iowa. That is why I feel so strongly
about having a contract as a part of whatever welfare reform program
passes here.
As I stated, the Dole proposal does mention a contract, but it does
not say what it is. All my amendment seeks to do is to further define
and outline what the personal responsibility contract is, and to make
sure that it is a contract that is molded around the family. Under the
proposal that we have before us, the Dole-Packwood proposal, it just
states a contract. Well, the State can set up one contract for
everybody. Again, that just will not work.
We need a contract for each individual family that is on welfare. It
needs to be molded around that family. So that is why I feel that the
provision for a personal responsibility contract needs to be
strengthened. It is in the bill and that is what my amendment seeks to
do.
With that, Mr. President, I will inquire of the managers of the bill.
I would like to ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment. I do not
know if they are in the mode of accepting amendments or not. I have not
checked.
I yield the floor.

Exhibit 1

[From the Omaha World Herald]

Welfare Contract a Worthwhile Idea

The idea that welfare should involve a form of social
contract continues to deserve attention.
Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, has introduced a bill in the
Senate that reflects ideas from a welfare reform plan enacted
by Governor Branstad and the Iowa Legislature. One idea is
that welfare isn't an automatic entitlement. A recipient must
sign a contract with state government. The contract spells
out the services the government will provide, and it contains
specific steps to be taken by the recipient to become self-
reliant.
A similar provision has been included in the welfare reform
program under consideration in Nebraska. Jerry Oligmueller of
the State Department of Social Services said that recipients
would sign a ``self-sufficiency contract'' charting a two-
year course to self-sufficiency.
Emphasis on personal responsibility, he said, is part of
the state's effort to recognize and encourage a change in
attitudes about welfare.
The idea of changing society's thinking about welfare is
all to the good. In the case of people who have no physical
or mental ailments, welfare should not be an open-ended
arrangement. It's not fair for the government to take money
from tax-paying citizens to provide for the permanent support
of an able-bodied person. State and federal officials who are
trying to re-establish welfare as a temporary, rehabilitative
program are doing the right thing.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, if the Senator from Iowa would be good
enough, it would seem to me that we could put the amendment over until
Monday. We will begin voting Monday at 5 o'clock. We can arrange for
him to have a vote after 5 o'clock if that is possible. I see the
majority leader on the floor.
Mr. HARKIN. If I might inquire, Mr. President, if the Senator would
yield, would now be the appropriate time to ask for the yeas and nays?
Mr. MOYNIHAN. Yes.
Mr. HARKIN. 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.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. The Republican manager would have to agree to any
sequence on the Senator's vote. If he could be patient, that will be
done.
Mr. DOLE. I think under the agreement they did want to vote on the
Dodd amendment first.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. I said the sequence depends on the Republican manager.
Mr. DOLE. I say to my colleagues, hopefully in the next minute or so
we will be able to get a consent agreement that is now being cleared by
the Democratic leader. If it is clear, there will be no further votes.

Amendment No. 2546 to Amendment No. 2280

(Purpose: To maintain the welfare partnership between the States and
the Federal Government)

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I send to the desk an amendment, and ask
for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending amendment is set aside.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. Chafee] proposes an
amendment numbered 2546 to amendment No. 2280.

Mr. CHAFEE. 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 23, beginning on line 7, strike all through page
24, line 18, and insert the following:
``(5) Welfare partnership.--
``(A) In general.--The amount of the grant otherwise
determined under paragraph (1) for fiscal year 1997, 1998,
1999, or 2000 shall be reduced by the amount by which State
expenditures under the State program funded under this part
for the preceding fiscal year is less than 75 percent of
historic State expenditures.
``(B) Historic state expenditures.--For purposes of this
paragraph--
``(i) In general.--The term `historic State expenditures'
means expenditures by a State under parts A and F of title IV
for fiscal year 1994, as in effect during such fiscal year.
``(ii) Hold harmless.--In no event shall the historic State
expenditures applicable to any fiscal year exceed the amount
which bears the same ratio to the amount determined under
clause (i) as--
``(I) the grant amount otherwise determined under paragraph
(1) for the preceding fiscal year (without regard to section
407), bears to
``(II) the total amount of Federal payments to the State
under section 403 for fiscal year 1994 (as in effect during
such fiscal year).
``(C) Determination of state expenditures for preceding
fiscal year.--
``(i) In general.--For purposes of this paragraph, the
expenditures of a State under the State program funded under
this part for a preceding fiscal year shall be equal to the
sum of the State's expenditures under the program in the
preceding fiscal year for--
``(I) cash assistance;
``(II) child care assistance;
``(III) education, job training, and work; and
``(IV) administrative costs.
``(ii) Transfers from other state and local programs.--In
determining State expenditures under clause (i), such
expenditures shall not include funding supplanted by
transfers from other State and local programs.
``(D) Exclusion of federal amounts.--For purposes of this
paragraph, State expenditures shall not include any
expenditures from amounts made available by the Federal
Government.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, just a brief explanation.
Under the rules that we are operating, as I understand it, we are
required to file any amendments that we have reserved spots for by 5
o'clock this evening. As such, this is that type of amendment.
I do not seek its immediate consideration now. I will call it up in
some sequence next week, whenever is a proper time. Basically, this
amendment is the maintenance-of-effort amendment that requires 75
percent maintenance of effort based on 1964 State expenditures, and the
maintenance of effort shall continue for 5 years. The State
expenditures shall only be for those existing categories that State
expenditures are now made for, to qualify for matching funds under the
AFDC and the other payments. In other words, the Federal contribution.
The point I am making here is that the State maintenance-of-efforts
funds cannot be used, for example, for Medicaid, which they are not
currently committed to be used for.
Mr. President, I ask that the amendment be set aside and we take it
up in whatever sequence is deemed proper next week.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Unanimous-Consent Agreement

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I understand this consent agreement has been
cleared by my colleagues on the other side. I will propound it. I ask
unanimous consent when the Senate completes its business today, it
stand in recess until 10 a.m. Monday, September 11, 1995, and
immediately resume consideration of the welfare bill, H.R. 4.

[[Page S 12911]]

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DOLE. I further ask at 10 o'clock a.m. Senator Kassebaum be
recognized to offer an amendment concerning block grants, and following
the conclusion of debate the amendment be laid aside and the vote occur
on or in relation to the amendment second in the voting sequence to be
outlined before for Monday, September 11.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DOLE. I further ask that following the debate on the above-
mentioned amendment, Senator Helms be recognized to offer an amendment
regarding work for food stamps, and following conclusion of the debate
the amendment be laid aside and the vote occur on or in relation to the
amendment third in the voting sequence on Monday.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DOLE. I further ask following debate, Senator Dodd be recognized
to offer an amendment regarding child care, and that debate be limited
to 4 hours to be equally divided in the usual form and the vote occur
on or in relation to that amendment at 5 p.m. on September 11.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DOLE. That would be the first vote.
We need to work out additional time, I think, on the Feinstein
amendments. We can do that on Monday.
I also ask there be 4 minutes for debate to be equally divided in the
usual form between the second and third rollcall votes ordered on
Monday.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DOLE. And that the first vote be for 15 minutes and the other two
or any other subsequent votes be limited to 10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DOLE. I say to my colleagues I think we are making progress. We
have had five votes today. We have been able to dispose of other
amendments. Members are offering their amendments to be considered and
they still have until 5:00 p.m. to do so.
In light of this agreement, in lining up the three rollcall votes
beginning at 5 p.m. on Monday, there will be no further votes today.
Members are reminded if you intend to offer an amendment to this
bill, those amendments must be offered by 5 p.m. this evening.

Amendment No. 2280, as Further Modified

Mr. DOLE. At this time, I have consent to modify my amendment. I send
that modification to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the amendment is so
modified.
The amendment (No. 2280), as further modified, is as follows:

On page 23, beginning on line 7, strike all through page
24, line 18, and insert the following:
``(5) Maintenance of effort.--
``(A) In general.--The amount of the grant otherwise
determined under paragraph (1) for fiscal year 1997, 1998, or
1999 shall be reduced by the amount by which State
expenditures under the State programs described in
subparagraph (B) for the preceding fiscal year is less than
75 percent of historic State expenditures.
``(B) Programs described.--The programs described in this
subparagraph are--
``(i) the State program funded under this part; and
``(ii) any other program for low-income individuals (other
than the medicaid program under title XIX of this Act)
established or modified under the Work Opportunity Act of
1995.
``(C) Historic state expenditures.--For purposes of this
paragraph, the term `historic State expenditures' means
amounts expended by the State under parts A and F of this
title for fiscal year 1994, as in effect during such fiscal
year.
``(D) Determining state expenditures.--For purposes of this
paragraph, State expenditures shall not include any
expenditures from amounts made available by the Federal
Government.''.
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 rata (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 (as determined by the
State) 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.''.
On page 49, beginning with line 20, strike all through page
50, line 5, and insert the following:
``(c) No Additional Cash Assistance for Children Born to
Families Receiving Assistance.--
``(1) General rule.--A State to which a grant is made under
section 403 may not use any part of the grant to provide cash
assistance for a minor child who is born to--
``(A) a recipient of assistance under the program operated
under this part; or
``(B) a person who received such assistance at any time
during the 10-month period ending with the birth of the
child.
``(2) Exception for vouchers.--Paragraph (1) shall not
apply to vouchers which are provided in lieu of cash
assistance and which may be used only to pay for particular
goods and services specified by the State as suitable for the
care of the child involved.
``(3) Exception for rape or incest.--Paragraph (1) shall
not apply with respect to a child who is born as a result of
rape or incest.''.
On page 51, between lines 11 and 12, insert the following:
``(e) 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 for the
fiscal year in the State 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 terminations 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 most recent fiscal year for which such
information is available; divided by
``(B) the number of births that occurred in the State
during the most recent fiscal year for which such information
is available.
``(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.
On page 51, line 12, strike ``(e)'' and insert ``(f)''.
On page 77, strike line 22 and all that follows through
page 83, line 15, and insert the following:

SEC. 102. SERVICES PROVIDED BY CHARITABLE, RELIGIOUS, OR
PRIVATE ORGANIZATIONS.

(a) General.--
(1) State options.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, a State may--
(A) administer and provide services under the programs
described in subparagraphs (A) and (B)(i) of paragraph (2)
through contracts with charitable, religious, or private
organizations; and
(B) provide beneficiaries of assistance under the programs
described in subparagraphs (A) and (B)(ii) of paragraph (2)
with certificates, vouchers, or other forms of disbursement
which are redeemable with such organizations.
(2) Programs described.--The programs described in this
paragraph are the following programs:

[[Page S 12912]]

(A) A State program funded under part A of title IV of the
Social Security Act (as amended by section 101).
(B) Any other program that is established or modified under
titles, I, II, or X that--
(i) permits contracts with organizations; or
(ii) permits certificates, vouchers, or other forms of
disbursement to be provided to, beneficiaries, as a means of
providing assistance.
(b) Religious Organizations.--The purpose of this section
is to allow religious organizations to contract, or to accept
certificates, vouchers, or other forms of disbursement under
any program described in subsection (a)(2), on the same basis
as any other provider without impairing the religious
character of such organizations, and without diminishing the
religious freedom of beneficiaries of assistance funded under
such program.
(c) Nondiscrimination Against Religious Organizations.--
Religious organizations are eligible, on the same basis as
any other private organization, as contractors to provide
assistance, or to accept certificates, vouchers, or other
forms of disbursement, under any program described in
subsection (a)(2). Neither the Federal Government nor a State
receiving funds under such programs shall discriminate
against an organization which is or applies to be a
contractor to provide assistance, or which accepts
certificates, vouchers, or other forms of disbursement, on
the basis that the organization has a religious character.
(d) Religious Character and Freedom.--
(1) Religious organizations.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, any religious organization with a contract
described in subsection (a)(1)(A), or which accepts
certificates, vouchers, or other forms of disbursement under
subsection (a)(1)(B), shall retain its independence from
Federal, State, and local governments, including such
organization's control over the definition, development,
practice, and expression of its religious beliefs.
(2) Additional safeguards.--Neither the Federal Government
nor a State shall require a religious organization to--
(A) alter its form of internal governance;
(B) form a separate, nonprofit corporation to receive and
administer the assistance funded under a program described in
subsection (a)(2) solely on the basis that it is a religious
organization; or
(C) remove religious art, icons, scripture, or other
symbols;

in order to be eligible to contract to provide assistance, or
to accept certificates, vouchers, or other forms of
disbursement, funded under a program described in subsection
(a)(2).
(e) Rights of Beneficiaries of Assistance.--
(1) In general.--If an individual described in paragraph
(2) has an objection to the religious character of the
organization or institution from which the individual
receives, or would receive, assistance funded under any
program described in subsection (a)(2), the State in which
the individual resides shall provide such individual (if
otherwise eligible for such assistance) with assistance from
an alternative provider the value of which is not less than
the value of the assistance which the individual would have
received from such organization.
(2) Individual described.--An individual described in this
paragraph is an individual who receives, applies for, or
requests to apply for, assistance under a program described
in subsection (a)(2).
(f) Nondiscrimination in Employment.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2),
nothing in this section shall be construed to modify or
affect the provisions of any other Federal or State law or
regulation that relates to discrimination in employment on
the basis of religion.
(2) Exception.--A religious organization with a contract
described in subsection (a)(1)(A), or which accepts
certificates, vouchers, or other forms of disbursement under
subsection (a)(1)(B), may require that an employee rendering
service pursuant to such contract, or pursuant to the
organization's acceptance of certificates, vouchers, or other
forms of disbursement adhere to--
(A) the religious tenets and teachings of such
organization; and
(B) any rules of the organization regarding the use of
drugs or alcohol.
(g) Nondiscrimination Against Beneficiaries.--Except as
otherwise provided in law, a religious organization shall not
discriminate against an individual
in regard to rendering assistance funded under any program
described in subsection (a)(2) on the basis of religion, a
religious belief, or refusal to actively participate in a
religious practice.
(h) Fiscal Accountability.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), any
religious organization contracting to provide assistance
funded under any program described in subsection (a)(2) shall
be subject to the same regulations as other contractors to
account in accord with generally accepted auditing principles
for the use of such funds provided under section programs.
(2) Limited audit.--If such organization segregates Federal
funds provided under such programs into separate accounts,
then only the financial assistance provided with such funds
shall be subject to audit.
(i) Compliance.--A religious organization which has its
rights under this section violated may enforce its claim
exclusively by asserting a civil action for such relief as
may be appropriate, including injunctive relief or damages,
in an appropriate State court against the entity or agency
that allegedly commits such violation.

SEC. 103. LIMITATIONS ON USE OF FUNDS FOR CERTAIN PURPOSES.

No funds provided directly to institutions or organizations
to provide services and administer programs described in
section 102(a)(2) and programs established or modified under
this Act shall be expended for sectarian worship or
instruction. This section shall not apply to financial
assistance provided to or on behalf of beneficiaries of
assistance in the form of certificates, vouchers, or other
forms of disbursement, if such beneficiary may chose where
such assistance shall be redeemed.
On page 20, beginning on line 8, strike all through line 17
and insert in lieu thereof the following:
``(ii) Certain States Deemed Qualifying States--For
purposes of this paragraph, a State shall be deemed to be a
qualifying State for fiscal years 1997, 1998, 1999, and 2000
if--
``(I) the level of State welfare spending per poor person
in fiscal year 1996 was less than 35 percent of the national
average level of State welfare spending per poor person in
fiscal year 1996; or
``(II) a State has extremely high population growth (which
for purposes of this clause shall be defined as a greater
than ten percent increase in population from April 1, 1990 to
July 1, 1994, as determined by the Bureau of the Census).''.
On page 17, line 8, insert ``and for fiscal year 2000, the
amount of the State's share of the performance bonus and high
performance bonus determined under section 418 for such
fiscal year'' after ``year''.
On page 17, line 22, insert ``and for fiscal year 2000,
reduced by the percent specified in section 418(a)(3)'' after
``(B)''.
On page 59, between lines 22 and 23, insert the following:
``(14) Any other data necessary to measure the progress the
State is making in achieving performance with respect to the
measurement categories described in section 418(c)(1).''.
On page 77, line 21, strike the end quotes and the end
period.
On page 77, between lines 21 and 22, insert the following:

``SEC. 418. PERFORMANCE BONUS AND HIGH PERFORMANCE BONUS.

``(a) In General.--
``(1) Performance bonus.--In addition to the State family
assistance grant, for fiscal year 2000, the Secretary shall
pay to each qualified State an amount equal to the State's
share of the performance bonus fund described in paragraph
(3).
``(2) Qualified state.--For purposes of this subsection,
the term `qualified State' means a State that during the
measurement period--
``(A) exceeds the overall average performance achieved by
all States with respect to a measurement category, or
``(B) improves the State's performance in a measurement
category by at least 15 percent over the State's baseline
period.
``(3) Bonus fund.--The amount of the bonus fund for fiscal
year 2000 shall be an amount equal to 5 percent of the amount
appropriated under section 403(a)(2)(A) for such fiscal year.
``(b) High Performance Bonus.--
``(1) In general.--In addition to the amount provided under
subsection (a), each of the 10 high performance States in
each measurement category shall be entitled to receive a
share of the high performance bonus fund described in
paragraph (3).
``(2) High performance states.--For purposes of this
subsection, the term `high performance States' means with
respect to each measurement category during the measurement
period--
``(A) the 5 States that have the highest percentage of
improvement with respect to the State's performance in the
measurement category over the State's baseline period; and
``(B) the 5 States that have the highest overall average
performance with respect to the measurement category.
``(3) High performance bonus fund.--There are authorized to
be appropriated and there are appropriated the amount of the
high performance bonus fund for fiscal year 2000 equal to--
``(A) the amount of the reduction in State family
assistance grants for all States for fiscal years 1996, 1997,
1998, and 1999 resulting from the application of section 407;
plus
``(c) Definitions and Special Rules.--For purposes of this
section:
``(1) Measurement category.--A measurement category means
any of the following categories:
``(A) A reduction in the average length of time families in
the State receive assistance during a fiscal year under the
State program funded under this part.
``(B) An increase in the percentage of families receiving
such assistance under this part that receive child support
payments under part D.
``(C) An increase in the percentage of families receiving
assistance under this part that earn an income.
``(D) An increase in the amount earned by families that
receive assistance under this part.
``(E) A reduction in the percentage of families that become
eligible for assistance under

[[Page S 12913]]
this part within 18 months after becoming ineligible for such
assistance.
``(2) Measurement Period; Baseline Period.--
``(A) Measurement period.--The term `measurement period'
means the period beginning not later than 6 months after the
date of the enactment of the Work Opportunity Act of 1995 and
ending on September 30, 1999.
``(B) Baseline period.--The term `base-line period' means
fiscal year 1994.
``(3) Allocation formula.--For purposes of determining a
State's share of the performance bonus fund under subsection
(a)(1), and the State's share of the high performance bonus
fund under subsection (b)(1), the Secretary shall, not later
than June 30, 1999, develop and publish in the Federal
Register a formula for allocating amounts in the performance
bonus fund to qualified States and a formula for allocating
amounts in the high performance bonus fund to high
performance States. Such formulas shall be based on each
State's proportional share of the total amount appropriated
under section 403(a)(2)(A) for fiscal year 2000.''.

Mr. DOLE. I will briefly explain the first modification which
provides no additional cash assistance for children born of families
receiving assistance. States may provide vouchers in lieu of cash
assistance, and they may be used to pay for particular goods and
services suitable for the care of the child involved.
The second one provides a bonus to States reducing out-of-wedlock
births.
Third is a maintenance of effort. We are still trying to reconcile
that with the distinguished Senator from Rhode Island. He just offered
an amendment. We have a little different amendment. We are very close
to an agreement. Maybe we can agree on something by Monday.
The fourth would be a work family provision relating to child care.
States cannot sanction a single custodial parent for failure to work if
the parent shows a demonstrated need for child care and the States
define what constitutes demonstrated need.
No. 5, services provided by charitable, religious, or private
organizations, limitation on the use of funds for certain purposes--
just a modification of the current provision, and a modification of the
supplemental growth fund.
And finally, a performance bonus fund that provides additional money
for States that exceed performance goals.
These are modifications to the amendment. There will still be other
amendments.
I ask unanimous consent to have this printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the modifications ordered to be printed in
the Record, are as follows:

Modifications To Leadership Welfare Bill

title I--temporary assistance to needy families block grant

1. Provides No Additional Cash Assistance for Children Born
to Families Receiving Assistance (``Family Cap''). States may
not provide additional cash assistance for children born to
families receiving assistance. States may provide vouchers in
lieu of cash assistance. Vouchers may be used only to pay for
particular goods and services that are suitable for the care
of the child involved.
2. Out-of-Wedlock Birth Ratio. Provides a bonus to States
that reduce out-of wedlock births.
3. Maintenance of Effort. For the first three years, States
must spend 75 percent of what the State spent on AFDC
benefits including JOBS and child care, for the preceding
fiscal year. This is a modification to current provisions.
4. Work Penalty Provisions Relating to Child Care. States
can not sanction a single custodial parent for failure to
work if the parent shows a demonstrated need for child care.
The States define what constitutes demonstrated need.
5. Services Provided by Charitable, Religious or Private
Organizations and Limitations on Use of Funds for Certain
Purposes. Modifications to current provisions.
6. Modification to Supplemental Growth Fund. Qualifies
States with extraordinary population increases for the
supplemental growth fund.
7. Performance Bonus Fund. Provides additional money for
States that exceed performance goals.

Mr. DOLE. There may be other amendments. Senator Hatch is here,
Senator Chafee is here, both members of the Finance Committee, the
distinguished Senator from New York, ranking member on the committee is
here. If there are some amendments that can be taken, I assume we would
be open for business for a while. Otherwise, as I indicated, there are
no further votes today. There may be additional debate, and Members are
reminded of the 5 o'clock deadline.
In my view, I do not see why we cannot complete action on this bill
by Wednesday or perhaps early Thursday because we would like to do the
State, Justice Department appropriations bill on Thursday and Friday.
We have done seven appropriations bills. That gives us No. 8. That
would leave five to do before the end of this month. The only one
available to us next week will be State, Justice, Commerce
appropriations bill. The others come out the following week.
I do not think it will be necessary because I think we have had good
cooperation--we would rather not file cloture. We like to have a good
debate and let everybody have a chance to debate their amendments up or
down and then have a vote on final passage.
Of course, if there should be some effort to frustrate the process,
then it would be my suggestion we wrap all this up and put it in
reconciliation. Welfare reform is very important, and if we are
frustrated here, we will try to do it in another way.
So far, we have had good cooperation on both sides. Members have been
offering amendments. We have had good debates. I think we are making
progress.
Mr. KENNEDY. Would the Senator yield for a brief question?
Mr. DOLE. I yield.
Mr. KENNEDY. The changes included in the amendment are those child
care provisions which will give the State, even, an option, open to the
States, that will exclude the parent from the sanctions if the child is
less than 1 year old? As I understand it, that was going to be the
intention of the Senator. I am just asking now whether that was--if the
Senator will just be kind enough to repeat the provisions dealing with
day care?
We had inquired of the majority leader a week or so ago, or just
before the break, about the child care provisions and the Senator had
indicated that there would be some modifications. I had understood, in
the modification that was sent to the desk, it did provide for the
State's flexibility to exclude from the punitive provisions of the
legislation if the child was less than 1 year old.
But that was one provision. I am just inquiring of the leader if that
is the only change that was made with regard to child care? I think
later on in the afternoon, Senator Dodd and myself, and I think others,
are going to be introducing an amendment on the child care which the
majority leader referenced, which we will dispose of early next week. I
just want to try to understand exactly what modification has been
included by the leader relating to the child care, which I consider to
be, perhaps, the most important provisions, along with the work
requirements, in the bill.
Mr. DOLE. I might say in response, this is an amendment suggested by
the Senator from Maine, Senator Snowe. The State would not sanction if
they are of preschool age, which I think is a step in the direction the
Senator would want us to go.
Mr. KENNEDY. I see. So, as I understand it, then----
Mr. DOLE. I will be happy to furnish the Senator with a copy of the
legislative language, too.
Mr. KENNEDY. Fine. I will not, then, take up the time. As I
understand the amendment of the Senator from Maine, it will, therefore,
increase the age of the child? I think it is up to 5 years of age,
which effectively will--5 years of age----
Mr. DOLE. Five?
Mr. KENNEDY. Exclude 60 percent of those who are currently on welfare
today, since 60 percent of those who are on welfare have children under
that age.
The purpose of the legislation, as I understood it, was to try to get
people to work and also to provide for their children with day care. We
will have a chance later to debate this, but as I understand the
changes in the child care provision, they effectively will say those
welfare mothers can stay home and continue to take care of the
children. Then, after that child gets to 6, they will be subject to the
other provisions of the legislation.
I hope we will have a chance to debate that because it seems to me to
be both undermining the thrust of the legislation, in terms of moving
people from welfare to work, because they will

[[Page S 12914]]
be excluded and we do not have additional kinds of child care
provisions that will permit them to move to work, which I know is the
objective of the majority leader.
So I thank the Senator for his explanation, but this is the kind of
issue I hope we will have an opportunity to debate before we get to
closure.
Mr. DOLE. I thank the Senator from Massachusetts for his statement,
as I understood his statement on the participation rates. But we do not
sanction a single custodial parent for failure to work if the parent
shows a demonstrated need for child care. And that would be determined
by the States, what constitutes a demonstrated need.
We will have that debate on Monday. Senator Snowe will be here, and I
am certain she will be happy to go into it in more detail.
Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I have just a procedural question. We are
open for business for filing the amendments until 5, and to have an
amendment count you have to send it to the desk. That is what offering
an amendment is.
So, as I understand it--so, therefore, presumably, the establishment
has to stay in business until 5?
Mr. DOLE. Oh, yes. We will be around until 5. The Senator from Utah
suggests maybe we can go into recess until a quarter of 5. But we are
not going to try to shut off anybody because there may be Members now
in the process of drafting amendments. So I hope we could continue to
maybe accept amendments, maybe have some debate. There may be other
amendments to be offered.
In fact, if some have been offered where we could do the debate this
afternoon and take up the votes on Monday, we will be happy to do that,
too.
Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, if this is complete, I have an amendment
on behalf of Mr. Cohen. I will send it to the desk.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. There is a Moynihan-Dole amendment we can accept right
now.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.

Amendment No. 2502, As Modified

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Cohen, I send to the
desk a modification to a prior amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will be modified.
The amendment (No. 2502), as modified, is as follows:
On page 79, 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, after ``governance'' replace ``,''
with ``;'' and delete lines 14-16.
Amendment No. 2547 to Amendment No. 2280

(Purpose: To deny supplemental security income cash benefits by reason
of disability to drug addicts and alcoholics, to require beneficiaries
with accompanying addiction to comply with appropriate treatment
requirements as determined by the Commissioner, and for other purposes)

Mr. CHAFEE. Now, Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Cohen I send an
amendment to the desk dealing with supplemental security income
benefits, so-called SSI, and ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. Chafee], for Mr. Cohen,
proposes an amendment numbered 2547 to amendment No. 2280.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, further reading will be
dispensed with.
The amendment is as follows:

Beginning on page 112, line 13, strike all through page
114, line 23, and insert the following:

SEC. 201. DRUG ADDICTS AND ALCOHOLICS UNDER THE SUPPLEMENTAL
SECURITY INCOME PROGRAM.

(a) Termination of SSI Cash Benefits for Drug Addicts and
Alcoholics.--Section 1611(e)(3) (42 U.S.C. 1382(e)(3)) is
amended--
(1) by striking ``(B)'' and inserting ``(C)'';
(2) by striking ``(3)(A) and inserting ``(B)''; and
(3) by inserting before subparagraph (B) as redesignated by
paragraph (2) the following new subparagraph:
``(3)(A) No cash benefits shall be payable under this title
to any individual who is otherwise eligible for benefits
under this title by reason of disability, if such
individual's alcoholism or drug addiction is a contributing
factor material to the Commissioner's determination that such
individual is disabled.''.
(b) Treatment Requirements.--
(1) Section 1611(e)(3)(B)(i)(I) (42 U.S.C.
1382(e)(3)(B)(i)(I)), as redesignated by subsection (a), is
amended to read as follows:
``(B)(i)(I)(aa) Any individual who would be eligible for
cash benefits under this title but for the application of
subparagraph (A) may elect to comply with the provisions of
this subparagraph.''
``(bb) Any individual who is eligible for cash benefits
under this title by reason of disability (or whose
eligibility for such benefits is suspended) or is eligible
for benefits pursuant to section 1619(b), and who was
eligible for such benefits by reason of disability, for which
such individual's alcoholism or drug addiction was a
contributing factor material to the Commissioner's
determination that such individual was disabled, for the
month preceding the month in which section 201 of the Work
Opportunity Act of 1995 takes effect, shall be required to
comply with the provisions of this subparagraph.''
(2) Section 1611(e)(3)(B)(i)(II) (42 U.S.C.
1382(e)(3)(B)(i)(II)), as so redesignated, is amended by
striking ``who is required under subclause (I)'' and
inserting ``described in division (bb) of subclause (I) who
is required''.
(3) Subclauses (I) and (II) of section 1611(e)(3)(B)(ii)
(42 U.S.C. 1382(e)(3)(B)(ii)), as so redesignated, are each
amended by striking ``clause (i)'' and inserting ``clause
(i)(I)''.
(4) Section 1611(e)(3)(B) (42 U.S.C. 1382(e)(3)(B)), as so
redesignated, is amended by striking clause (v) and by
redesignating clause (vi) as clause (v).
(5) Section 1611(e)(3)(B)(v) (42 U.S.C. 1382(e)(3)(B)(v)),
as redesignated by paragraph (4), is amended--
(A) in subclause (I), by striking ``who is eligible'' and
all that follows through ``is disabled'' and inserting
``described in clause (i)(I)''; and
(B) in subclause (V), by striking ``or v''.
(6) Section 1611(e)(3)(C)(i) (42 U.S.C. 1382(e)(3)(C)(i)),
as redesignated by subsection (a), is amended by striking
``who are receiving benefits under this title and who as a
condition of such benefits'' and inserting ``described in
subparagraph (B)(i)(I)(aa) who elect to undergo treatment;
and the monitoring and testing of all individuals described
in subparagraph (B)(i)(I)(bb) who''.
(7) Section 1611(e)(3)(C)(iii)(II)(aa) (42 U.S.C.
1382(e)(3)(C)(iii)(II)(aa)), as so redesignated, is amended
by striking ``residing in the State'' and all that follows
through ``they are disabled'' and inserting ``described in
subparagraph (B)(i)(I) residing in the State''.
(8) Section 1611(e)(3)(C)(iii) (42 U.S.C.
1382(e)(3)(C)(iii)), as so redesignated, is amended by adding
at the end the following:
``(III) The monitoring requirements of subclause (II) shall
not apply in the case of any individual described in
subparagraph (B)(i)(I)(aa) who fails to comply with the
requirements of subparagraph (B).''.
(9) Section 1611(e)(3) (42 U.S.C. 1382(e)(3)), as amended
by subsection (a), is amended by adding at the end the
following new subparagraphs:
``(D) The Commissioner shall provide appropriate
notification to each individual subject to the limitation on
cash benefits contained in subparagraph (A) and the treatment
provisions contained in subparagraph (B).
``(E) The requirements of subparagraph (B) shall cease to
apply to any individual--
``(i) after three years of treatment, or
``(ii) if the Commissioner determines that such individual
no longer needs treatment.''.
(c) Representative Payee Requirements.--
(1) Section 1631(a)(2)(A)(ii)(II) (42 U.S.C.
1383(a)(2)(A)(ii)(II)) is amended to read as follows:
``(II) In the case of an individual eligible for benefits
under this title by reason of disability, if such individual
also has an alcoholism or drug addiction condition (as
determined by the Commissioner of Social Security), the
payment of such benefits to a representative payee shall be
deemed to serve the interest of the individual. In any case
in which such payment is so deemed under this subclause to
serve the interest of an individual, the Commissioner shall
include, in the individual's notification of such
eligibility, a notice that such alcoholism or drug addiction
condition accompanies the disability upon which such
eligibility is based and that the Commissioner is therefore
required to pay the individual's benefits to a representative
payee.''.
(2) Section 1631(a)(2)(B)(vii) (42 U.S.C.
1383(a)(2)(B)(vii)) is amended by striking ``eligible for
benefits'' and all that follows through ``is disabled'' and
inserting ``described in subparagraph (A)(ii)(II)''.
(3) Section 1631(a)(2)(B)(ix)(II) (42 U.S.C.
1383(a)(2)(B)(ix)(II)) is amended by striking all that
follows ``15 years, or'' and inserting ``described in
subparagraph (A)(ii)(II)''.
(4) Section 1631(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) (42 U.S.C.
1383(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)) is amended by striking ``eligible for
benefits'' and all that follows through ``is disabled'' and
inserting ``described in subparagraph (A)(ii)(II)''.
(d) Preservation of Medicaid Eligibility.--Section 1634(e)
(42 U.S.C. 1382(e)) is amended--

[[Page S 12915]]

(1) by striking ``clause (i) or (v) of section
1611(e)(3)(A)'' and inserting ``subparagraph (A) or
subparagraph (B)(i)(II) of section 1611(e)(3)''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following: ``This subsection
shall not apply to any such person--
``(i) after three years of treatment, or
``(ii) if earlier, if the Commissioner determines that such
individual no longer needs treatment, or
``(iii) if such person has previously received such
treatment.''.
(e) Effective Date.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the
amendments made by this section shall apply to applicants for
benefits for months beginning on or after the date of the
enactment of this Act, without regard to whether regulations
have been issued to implement such amendments.
(2) Application to current recipients.--Notwithstanding any
other provision of law, in the case of an individual who is
receiving supplemental security income benefits under title
XVI of the Social Security Act as of the date of the
enactment of this Act and whose eligibility for such benefits
would terminate by reason of the amendments made by this
section, such amendments shall apply with respect to the
benefits of such individual for months beginning after the
cessation of the individual's treatment provided pursuant to
such title as in effect on the day before the date of such
enactment, and the Commissioner of Social Security shall so
notify the individual not later than 90 days after the date
of the enactment of this Act.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.

Amendment No. 2548 to Amendment No. 2280

(Purpose: To direct the Commissioner of Social Security to develop a
prototype of a counterfeit-resistant social security card, and to
provide for a study and report on the development of such card)

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk for
myself and Senator Dole. It is an amendment for the development of a
prototype counterfeit resistant Social Security card. I ask for its
immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, we will set aside the
pending amendment.
The clerk will report the amendment.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from New York [Mr. Moynihan], for himself and
Mr. Dole, proposes an amendment numbered 2548 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 87, between lines 5 and 6, insert the following:

SEC. 105A. DEVELOPING OF PROTOTYPE OF COUNTERFEIT-RESISTANT
SOCIAL SECURITY CARD REQUIRED.

(a) Development.--
(1) In general.--The Commissioner of Social Security
(hereafter in this section referred to as the
``Commissioner'') shall in accordance with the provisions of
this section develop a prototype of a counterfeit-resistant
social security card. Such prototype card shall--
(A) be made of a durable, tamper-resistant material such as
plastic or polyester,
(B) employ technologies that provide security features,
such as magnetic stripes, holograms, and integrated circuits,
and
(C) be developed so as to provide individuals with reliable
proof of citizenship or legal resident alien status.
(2) Assistance by attorney general.--The Attorney General
of the United States shall provide such information and
assistance as the Commissioner deems necessary to achieve the
purposes of this section.
(b) Study and Report.--
(1) In general.--The Commissioner shall conduct a study and
issue a report to Congress which examines different methods
of improving the social security card application process.
(2) Elements of study.--The study shall include an
evaluation of the cost and work load implications of issuing
a counterfeit-resistant social security card for all
individuals over a 3, 5, and 10 year period. The study shall
also evaluate the feasibility and cost implications of
imposing a user fee for replacement cards and cards issued to
individuals who apply for such a card prior to the scheduled
3, 5, and 10 year phase-in options.
(3) Distribution of report.--Copies of the report described
in this subsection along with a facsimile of the prototype
card as described in subsection (a) shall be submitted to the
Committees on Ways and Means and Judiciary of the House of
Representatives and the Committees on Finance and Judiciary
of the Senate within 1 year of the date of the enactment of
this Act.
(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated and are appropriated from the Federal Old-
Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund such sums as may be
necessary to carry out the purposes of this section.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, it was 18 years ago that I first
proposed we produce a new tamper-resistant Social Security card to
reduce fraud and enhance public confidence in our Social Security
system. This has been an ongoing battle, and I think there should be a
new sense of urgency about this issue in light of the current welfare
debate.
The amendment I offer today is very simple. It would require two
things. First, it would require the Commissioner of the Social Security
Administration to develop a prototype of a counter-proof Social
Security card. The prototype card would be designed with the security
features necessary so that it could be used reliably to confirm U.S.
citizenship or legal resident alien status.
Second, it would require the Commissioner to study and report to
Congress on ways to improve the Social Security card application
process so as to reduce the process' vulnerability to fraud. An
evaluation of cost and workload implications of issuing a counterfeit-
resistant Social Security card is also required.
The Congressional Budget Office has informed me that this amendment
would result in an insignificant increase--less than $500,000--in
administrative expenses for the Social Security Administration.
When the Social Security amendments were before us in 1983, we
approved a provision to require the production of a new tamper-
resistant Social Security card. The law, section 345 of Public Law 98-
21, stated:

The social security card shall be made of banknote paper,
and (to the maximum extent practicable) shall be a card which
cannot be counterfeited.

What a disappointment when late in 1983, the Social Security
Administration began to issue the new card, and it became clear that
the agency simply had not understood what Congress intended. The new
card looks much like the old, a pasteboard card really much like the
first ones produced by Social Security in 1936. It has the same design
framing the name and nearly the same colors. It feels the same. An
expert examining a card with a magnifying glass can certainly detect
whether or not one of the new ones is genuine, but therein lies the
problem. We should have a distinguished, durable card that can hold
vital information and can be authenticated easily.
There is a history here. The Social Security Administration, from its
earlier years, has resisted any use of the Social Security card for
identification purposes. In fact, the card actually said it could not
be so used.
In 1977, when I first proposed that we produce a new card, the Social
Security Administration objected and the proposal was not adopted. I
tried again and again, and succeeded only on the fifth try.
Or so I thought. Until the card was introduced.
A new Social Security card--one very difficult to
counterfeit and easily verified as genuine--could be manufactured at
a low cost. The major expense, if we were to approve new cards, would
be the cost of the interview process and that is why the amendment
requires a study to include the cost and workload implications of a new
card. Let us explore our options--we must try to improve the system.

A Social Security card could be designed along the lines of today's
high technology credit cards. The card could be highly tamper-
resistant, and its authenticity could be readily discerned by the
untrained eye. It must be seen as a special document; one which would
be visually and tactilely more difficult to counterfeit than the
current paper card.
The magnetic stripe would contain the Social Security number, encoded
with an algorithm known only to the Social Security Administration. A
so-called watermark stripe could be placed over it, making it nearly
impossible to counterfeit without technology that currently costs $10
million. The decoding algorithm could be integrated with the Social
Security Administration computers.
The new cards will not eliminate all fraudulent use of Social
Security cards. But it will close down the shopfront operations that
flood America with false Social Security cards.
That is what the Congress intended in the 1983 legislation.
Let us try again. We have seen that it can be done. It is what the
Clinton

[[Page S 12916]]
administration intended last year when they introduced the health
security card. As many of you remember, it has a magnetic stripe to
hold whatever information may be necessary.
A key reform in our ongoing welfare debate is the restriction of
benefits to U.S. citizens. I think it is safe to say that when this
restriction is enforced there will be a revitalized black market for
documentation of U.S. citizenship. It would be wise to head off this
foreseeable problem. A high technology Social Security card would also
facilitate the disbursement of benefits to our citizens. A simpler,
more effective way of providing citizenship would strengthen public
confidence in our immigration system and improve the efficiency of our
welfare system.
I offer the present amendment, which as I said earlier, would require
only the development of a prototype counterfeit-resistant card and a
study on ways to reduce the vulnerability of the card application
process to fraud. The Attorney General would assist the Commissioner of
Social Security with determining what is needed here.
I ask for the support of my colleagues on this important matter once
again--this time for a simple prototype card and a study.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is
on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 2548) was agreed to.
Mr. DOLE. 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.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I have just a short list of amendments
to be called up and set aside, on behalf of other Senators.

Amendment No. 2549 to Amendment No. 2280

(Purpose: To allow a State to revoke an election to participate in the
optional State food assistance block grant)

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, Senator Kerrey has an amendment on the
Food Stamp Program which I send to the desk and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from New York [Mr. Moynihan] for Mr. Kerrey,
proposes an amendment numbered 2549 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 229, strike lines 4 through 8 and insert the
following:
``(2) Election revocable.--A State that elects to
participate in the program established under subsection (a)
may subsequently elect to participate in the food stamp
program in accordance with the other sections of this Act.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I ask that amendment be laid aside.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendments Nos. 2550 and 2551 to Amendment No. 2280

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I have two amendments I send forward on
behalf of Senator Kohl. Each concerns the Food Stamp Program.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from New York [Mr. Moynihan], for Mr. Kohl,
proposes amendments numbered 2550 and 2551 to amendment No.
2280.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. 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. 2550

(Purpose: To exempt the elderly, disabled, and children from an
optional State food assistance block grant)

On page 244, strike lines 3 through 13 and insert the
following:
``(B) Reductions in allotments.--
``(i) Reduction for exempted individuals.--
``(I) Determination.--The Secretary shall determine the
Federal costs of providing benefits to and administering the
food stamp program for exempted individuals in each State
participating in the program established under this section.
``(II) Reduction.--The Secretary shall reduce the allotment
to each State participating in the program established under
this section by the amount determined under subclause (I).
``(ii) Insufficient funds.--If the Secretary finds that the
total amount of allotments to which States would otherwise be
entitled for a fiscal year under subparagraph (A) will exceed
the amount of funds that will be made available to provide
the allotments for the fiscal year, the Secretary shall
reduce the allotments made to States under this subsection,
on a pro rata basis, to the extent necessary to allot under
this subsection a total amount that is equal to the funds
that will be made available.
``(m) Exempted Individuals.--
``(1) Definition.--Subject to paragraph (2), in this
subsection, the term `exempted individual' means an
individual who is--
``(A) elderly;
``(B) a child; or
``(C) disabled.
``(2) Exemption.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
this section, an exempted individual shall not be subject to
this section and shall be subject to the other sections of
this Act.''.
AMENDMENT NO. 2551

(Purpose: To expand the food stamp employment and training program)

On page 158, between lines 14 and 15, insert the following:

SEC. 301. DECLARATION OF POLICY.

Section 2 of the Food Stamp Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 2011) is
amended by adding at the end the following: ``Congress
intends that the food stamp program support the employment
focus and family strengthening mission of public welfare and
welfare replacement programs by--
``(1) facilitating the transition of low-income families
and households from economic dependency to economic self-
sufficiency through work;
``(2) promoting employment as the primary means of income
support for economically dependent families and households
and reducing the barriers to employment of economically
dependent families and households; and
``(3) maintaining and strengthening healthy family
functioning and family life.''.
On page 185, line 7, strike ``and''.
On page 185, between lines 13 and 14, insert the following:
(D) by redesignating clauses (vi) and (vii) as clauses
(vii) and (viii), respectively; and
(E) by inserting after clause (v) the following:
``(vi) Case management, casework, and other services
necessary to support healthy family functioning, enable
participation in an employment and training program, or
otherwise facilitate the transition from economic dependency
to self-sufficiency through work.'';

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the amendments
be laid aside.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendments Nos. 2552 through 2555 to Amendment No. 2280

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Finally, Mr. President, I have four amendments
concerning the legislation before us on the American family, restoring
the American family, which I send to the desk on behalf of Mr. Bryan. I
ask for their immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from New York [Mr. Moynihan], for Mr. Bryan,
proposes amendments numbered 2552 through 2555 to amendment
No. 2280.

(Purpose: To provide that a recipient of welfare benefits under a
means-tested program for which Federal funds are appropriated is not
unjustly enriched as a result of defrauding another means-tested
welfare or public assistance program)

At the appropriate place in the title X, insert the
following new section:

SEC. . FRAUD UNDER MEANS-TESTED WELFARE AND PUBLIC
ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS.

(a) In General.--If an individual's benefits under a
Federal, State, or local law relating to a means-tested
welfare or a public assistance program are reduced because of
an act of fraud by the individual under the law or program,
the individual may not, for the duration of the reduction,
receive an increased benefit under any other means-tested
welfare or public assistance program for which Federal funds
are appropriated as a result of a decrease in the income of
the individual (determined under the applicable program)
attributable to such reduction.
(b) Welfare or Public Assistance Programs for Which Federal
Funds are Appropriated.--For purposes of subsection (a), the
term ``means-tested welfare or public assistance program for
which Federal funds are

[[Page S 12917]]
appropriated'' shall include the food stamp program under the Food
Stamp Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.), any program of
public or assisted housing under title I of the United States
Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437 et seq.), and State
programs funded under part A of title IV of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).

AMENDMENT NO. 2553

(Purpose: To require a recipient of assistance based on need, funded in
whole or in part by Federal funds, and the noncustodial parent to
cooperate with paternity establishment and child support enforcement in
order to maintain eligibility for such assistance)

On page 87, between lines 5 and 6, insert the following:

SEC. . COOPERATION REQUIRED WITH RESPECT TO PATERNITY
ESTABLISHMENT AND CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT FOR
ELIGIBILITY FOR ASSISTANCE.

Subject to the provisions of titles IV and XIX of the
Social Security Act and the Food Stamp Act of 1977, and
notwithstanding any other provision of law, no Federal funds
may be used to provide assistance based on need to, or on
behalf of, a child in a family that includes an individual
(including the noncustodial parent, if any) whom the agency
responsible for administering such assistance determines is
not cooperating in establishing the paternity of such child,
or in establishing, modifying, or enforcing a support order
with respect to such child, without good cause as determined
by such agency in accordance with standards prescribed by
such agency which shall take into consideration the best
interests of the child.
amendment no. 2554

(Purpose: To provide that State welfare and public assistance agencies
can notify the Internal Revenue Service to intercept Federal income tax
refunds to recapture over-payments of welfare or public assistance
benefits)

At the appropriate place in the amendment, insert the
following new section:

SEC. . COLLECTION OF WELFARE OR PUBLIC ASSISTANCE BENEFIT
OVERPAYMENTS FROM FEDERAL TAX REFUNDS.

(a) In General.--Paragraph (1) of section 6402(d) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to collection of
debts owed to Federal agencies) is amended by inserting ``or
upon receiving notice from any State agency that a named
person owes a past-due legally enforceable debt arising out
of an overpayment under an applicable welfare program,''
before ``the Secretary shall''.
(b) Applicable Welfare Programs.--Section 6402(d) of such
Code is amended by adding at the end the following new
paragraph:
``(4) Applicable Welfare Program.--For purposes of this
subsection, the term `applicable welfare program' means any
program established or significantly modified by the Work
Opportunity Act of 1995.''
(c) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Section 6402(d)(2) of such Code is amended by inserting
``or State'' after ``Federal''.
(2) The heading for section 6402(d) of such Code is amended
by inserting ``or certain State'' after ``Federal''.
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to refunds payable after December 31, 1995.

amendment no. 2555

(Purpose: To provide state welfare or public assistance agencies an
option to determine eligibility of a household containing an ineligible
individual under the Food Stamp program)

At the appropriate place in the amendment, insert the
following new section:
Sec. . Section 6(f) of the Food Stamp Act of 1977 (7
U.S.C. 2015(f)) is amended by striking the third sentence and
inserting the following:
The state agency shall, at its option, consider either all
income and financial resources of the individual rendered
ineligible to participate in the food stamp program under
this subsection, or such income, less a pro rata share, and
the financial resources of the ineligible individual, to
determine the eligibility and the value of the allotment of
the household of which such individual is a member.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the pending
amendment be set aside.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 2467 to Amendment No. 2280

(Purpose: To increase the participation of teachers, parents, and
students in developing and improving workforce education activities)

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent amendment No. 2467
be called up and sent to the desk for immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Utah [Mr. Hatch], for Mr. Hatfield, for
himself, Mr. Dodd and Mr. Glenn, proposes an amendment
numbered 2467 to amendment No. 2280.

Mr. HATCH. 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:
In section 714(d)(1)(K), strike ``and''.
In section 714(d)(1)(L), strike the semicolon and insert
``; and''.
In section 714(d)(1), insert after subparagraph (L) the
following:
``(M) representatives of secondary school students involved
in workforce education activities carried out under this
title and parents of such students;''.
In section 716(b)(6) strike ``and''.
In section 716(b)(7) strike the period and insert ``;
and''.
In section 716(b), add at the end the following:
(8) with respect to secondary education activities--
(A) establishing effective procedures, including an
expedited appeals procedure, by which secondary school
teachers, secondary school students involved in workforce
education activities carried out under this title, parents of
such students, and residents of substate areas will be able
to directly participate in State and local decisions that
influence the character of secondary education activities
carried out under this title that affect their interests;
(B) providing technical assistance, and designing the
procedures described in subparagraph (A), to ensure that the
individuals described in subparagraph (A) obtain access to
the information needed to use such procedures; and
(C) subject to subsection (h), carrying out the secondary
education activities, and implementing the procedures
described in subparagraph (A), so as to implement the
programs, activities, and procedures for the involvement of
parents described in section 1118 of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6319) in
accordance with the requirements of such section.
In section 716, add at the end the following:
(h) Parental Involvement.--
(1) Comparable requirements.--For purposes of implementing
the requirements of section 1118 of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act (20 U.S.C. 6319) with respect to
secondary education activities as required in subsection
(b)(8)(C), a reference in such section 1118--
(A) to a local educational agency shall refer to an
eligible entity, as defined in subsection (a)(2) of section
727;
(B) to part A of title I of such Act (20 U.S.C. 6311 et
seq.) shall refer to this subtitle;
(C) to a plan developed under section 1112 of such Act (20
U.S.C. 6312) shall refer to a local application developed
under such section 727;
(D) to the process of school review and improvement under
section 1116 of such Act (20 U.S.C. 6317) shall refer to the
performance improvement process described in subsection
(b)(4) of such section 727;
(E) to an allocation under part A of title I of such Act
shall refer to the funds received by an eligible entity under
this subtitle;
(F) to the profiles, results, and interpretation described
in section 118(c)(4)(B) of such Act (20 U.S.C. 6319(c)(4)(B))
shall refer to information on the progress of secondary
school students participating in workforce education
activities carried out under this subtitle, and
interpretation of the information; and
(G) to State content or student performance standards shall
refer to the State benchmarks of the State.
(2) Noncomparable requirements.--For purposes of carrying
out the requirements of such section 1118 as described in
paragraph (1), the requirements of such section relating to a
schoolwide program plan developed under section 1114(b) of
such Act (20 U.S.C. 6314(b)) or to section 1111(b)(8) of such
Act (20 U.S.C. 6311(b)(8)), and the provisions of section
1118(e)(4) of such Act (20 U.S.C. 6319(e)(4)), shall not
apply.
In section 728(a)(2)(A), strike ``and veterans'' and insert
``veterans, secondary school students (including such
students who are at-risk youth) involved in workforce
education activities carried out under this title, and
parents of such students''.
In section 728(b)(2)(B)(iv), strike ``and''.
In section 728(b)(2)(B)(v), strike the period and insert
``; and''.
In section 728(b)(2)(B), add at the end the following:
``(vi) representatives of secondary school students
involved in workforce education activities carried out under
this title and parents of such students.''.
In section 728(b)(4)(A)(iii), strike ``participation'' and
all that follows and insert ``participation, in the
development and continuous improvement of the workforce
development activities carried out in the substate area--
``(I) of business, industry, and labor; and
``(II) with regard to workforce education activities, of
secondary school teachers, secondary school students involved
in workforce education activities carried out under this
title, and parents of such students;''.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the amendment be
laid aside.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 2556 to Amendment No. 2280

(Purpose: Transmission of quarterly wage reports in order to relay
information to the State Directory of New Hires to assist in locating
absent parents)

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and in
behalf of

[[Page S 12918]]
Senator Nickles of Oklahoma and I ask for its consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Utah [Mr. Hatch], for Mr. Nickles,
proposes an amendment numbered 2556.

Mr. HATCH. 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:
Sec. 913 page 601 of the amendment, strike line 8 thru line
21 and insert in lieu thereof the following:
``(2) Timing of report.--Each report required by paragraph
(1) shall be made in accordance with the requirements of
Section 1320b-7 (3), Title 42 of U.S.C.''
(c) Reporting Format.--Each report required under Section
1320b-7(3), Title 42 of U.S.C. shall include an indication of
those employees newly hired during such quarter.''

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I see the distinguished Senator from
Alabama.
Mr. HEFLIN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama is recognized.
Mr. HEFLIN. I thank the Chair.
(The remarks of Mr. Heflin pertaining to the introduction of S. 1227
are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills
and Joint Resolutions.'')
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending
amendment be set aside.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendments Nos. 2557 and 2558, en bloc, to Amendment No. 2280.

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

The Senator from Utah [Mr. Hatch], for Mr. Jeffords,
proposes amendments, en bloc, numbered 2557 and 2558 to
amendment No. 2280.

Mr. HATCH. 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. 2557

(Purpose: To amend the definition of work activities to include
vocational education training that does not exceed 24 months)

On page 36, line 12, strike ``12'' and insert ``24''.

amendment no. 2558

(Purpose: To provide for the State distribution of funds for secondary
school vocational education, postsecondary and adult vocational
education, and adult education)

On page 381, strike lines 18 through 21, and insert the
following:
(3) State determinations.--From the amount available to a
State educational agency under paragraph (2)(B) for a fiscal
year, such agency shall distribute such funds for workforce
education activities in such State as follows:
(A) 75 percent of such amount shall be distributed for
secondary school vocational education in accordance with
section 722, or for postsecondary and adult vocational
education in accordance with section 723, or for both; and
(B) 25 percent of such amount shall be distributed for
adult education in accordance with section 724.

Mr. HATCH. I also ask unanimous consent that those amendments be set
aside for later consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 2559 to Amendment No. 2280

(Purpose: To require the establishment of local work force development
boards)

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I send another amendment to the desk for
and on behalf of Senator Kyl and ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows.

The Senator from Utah [Mr. Hatch], for Mr. Kyl, proposes an
amendment numbered 2559.

Mr. HATCH. 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:
In section 728, strike subsections (a) and (b) and insert
the following:
(a) Local Agreements.--
(1) In general.--After a Governor submits the State plan
described in section 714 to the Federal Partnership, the
Governor shall negotiate and enter into a local agreement
regarding the workforce employment activities, school-to-work
activities, and economic development activities (within a
State that is eligible to carry out such activities, as
described in subsection (c)) to be carried out in each
substate area in the State with local workforce development
boards described in subsection (b).
(2) Contents.--
(A) State goals and state benchmarks.--Such an agreement
shall include a description of the manner in which funds
allocated to a substate area under this subtitle will be
spent to meet the State goals and reach the State benchmarks
in a manner that reflects local labor market conditions.
(B) Collaboration.--The agreement shall also include
information that demonstrates the manner in which--
(i) the Governor; and
(ii) the local workforce development board;

collaborated in reaching the agreement.
(3) Failure to reach agreement.--If, after a reasonable
effort, the Governor is unable to enter into an agreement
with the local workforce development board, the Governor
shall notify the board, and provide the board with the
opportunity to comment, not later than 30 days after the date
of the notification, on the manner in which funds allocated
to such substate area will be spent to meet the State goals
and reach the State benchmarks.
(4) Exception.--A State that indicates in the State plan
described in section 714 that the State will be treated as a
substate area for purposes of the application of this
subtitle shall not be subject to this subsection.
(b) Local Workforce Development Boards.--
(1) In general.--There shall be a local workforce
development board for every substate area in a State that
receives assistance under this title.
(2) Duties.--Such a local workforce development board
shall--
(A) have principal responsibility for implementing local
workforce development activities (other than economic
development activities), including one-stop centers or
systems, school-to-work activities, and workfare activities;
and
(B) shall have authority over economic development
activities if no comparable oversight or policy group exists
within the substate area.
(3) Appointment.--
(A) In general.--A local workforce development board shall
be appointed by the chief elected official of a unit of
general purpose local government within the substate area
involved, based on guidelines established by the Governor, in
consultation with local elected officials in the substate
area.
(B) Chief elected official.--Such chief elected official
shall be selected by the elected officials of 1 or more units
of general purpose local government within the substate area.
(C) Membership.--A majority of the members of the board
shall be representatives of business. The remainder of the
board shall consist of such other members as the Governor may
determine to be appropriate.
(4) References.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
this title, any reference in this title to a local
partnership shall be deemed to be a reference to a local
workforce development board established under this
subsection.

Mr. HATCH. I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be set aside.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, at long last, the Senate turns its
attention to an issue at the heart of the availability of any real
welfare proposal and close to the heart of all working families, and
that is access to safe, affordable child care in the next period of
time. I see in the Chamber my friend and colleague, the Senator from
Connecticut, who will offer the amendment for himself and for myself.
Mr. President, somehow amidst all the tough talk and political
posturing about welfare reform, talk of block grants and State
flexibility, funding formulas and family caps, this debate seems to
have lost sight of the clear and simple fact that a single parent with
a preschool-aged child cannot hold down a job if there is no one to
care for that child.
I think over the long course of the hearings that have been held on
the question of welfare reform in the time that I have been in the
Senate, it is very clear what the elements of a successful welfare
reform bill must be. There has to be, obviously, a job at the end of
the line for an individual, hopefully in the private sector, public
sector if necessary. There has to be some training for that individual.
There also has to be some care for the child of that parent. And when
we realize that two-thirds of those recipients today of welfare have
small children, we understand the importance of providing the child
care. And there also has to be an element of health care for that child
and for that family.
Those are essentially the elements. And what is an intolerable
situation is to present welfare reform legislation

[[Page S 12919]]
and pretend that it is really, truly a reform program without
addressing the enormously important issue of who is going to care for
the children that will be affected by this debate.
Of those that are on welfare, about 10 million of them are children,
4 to 5 million are adults. So when we talk about the welfare issue and
welfare reform, we are really talking about children and families in
this country. Many of those children are the sons and daughters of
working families. Children are always the most vulnerable individuals.
They are not here to speak for themselves. As responsible policymakers,
we must consider the impact of any legislative effort on the most
vulnerable in our society.
So throughout this debate we intend to ask over and over again the
key questions that should guide this entire debate: Who will care for
the children? As families enter the job search, who will care for the
children? As families enter workfare programs, who will care for the
children? As a single parent is mandated to take a job, who will care
for the children?
I would like to just take a few moments before my friend and
colleague from Connecticut introduces legislation that will address
this issue, and I think in an important way remedy this glaring defect
in the majority leader's proposal, to consider where we are with the
proposal that is before the Senate this afternoon.
First of all, if we look at the current situation under the existing
legislation, legislation that passed in 1988 with virtually unanimous
support in the Senate, which recognized the importance of child care
programs, there is $1 billion to take care of 643,000 children.
Under the bill that is before the Senate at the present time, that
particular funding, the $1.1 billion, which is the total of three
different child care programs, is effectively eliminated, crossed out
as separately designated child care funding.
There is an additional child care program in current law that is
provided under discretionary spending for the child care programs which
also amounts to $1 billion--some $935 million spent in the year 1995 to
take care of 750,000 children. This is $935 million for 750,000 versus
$1.1 billion for 643,000 children. These are the sons and daughters of
low-income working families and need care for a short period of time,
and that is why there is some disparity.
The majority leader's proposal not only eliminates the $1 billion
which will currently provide for the 643,000 children--eliminates
that--but also takes a third of the $1 billion which was appropriated
for child care and allows 30 percent of it to be transferred for other
purposes.
We have to ask ourselves, who is going to care for all of these
children? Who is going to care for the children who are being taken
care of under the existing discretionary program if these funds are
diverted away? Who will care for the children who would have been cared
for through the mandatory programs that would otherwise be expended in
1996 but have been effectively?
We have to ask ourselves, what is going to be the response?
When this issue was raised just before the break, the leader
indicated what his response was going to be.
In the exchange on the floor of the Senate, the majority leader said:

Let me just respond this way to the Senator from
Massachusetts. I said just a few moments ago--I do not think
the Senator was on the floor--that was an area of concern
raised by the White House, the same general area. As I said,
it is a concern raised by a number of my colleagues on this
side of the aisle.
We had our first meeting on Friday. And Senator Kassebaum,
the chairman of the committee, who did a lot of work in this
area, was present.
It is certainly true that Senator Kassebaum has been very
dedicated to child care. It was Senator Dodd who was the
leader of the development of the discretionary program, with
strong support of the Senator from Utah, Mr. Hatch, and it
was Senator Kassebaum who ensured that this valuable program
was reauthorized.

It continues on:

So I can say to the Senator in all candor, it is something
we are looking at. We know there is a problem, and we are
looking at it because under the present provision of S. 1120
it would be block granted to the States. But there is a great
deal of concern expressed. I can only say that we are going
to sit down, I think, again either tonight or tomorrow
morning to try to address that on this side.

Now, what happened? First of all, we have what I call under the
existing Dole proposal effectively the home alone program. We are
telling parents that they are going to have to leave their children
home alone. We are saying if the parent of this family does not go out
and take a job, they are going to lose any kind of support benefits and
we are going to leave the child alone at home.
That was the issue brought before the majority leader just before the
August recess and he responded that he was going to address that
particular proposal. So what happened? In the proposal sent to the
Senate just before the break, he included a provision providing the
discretion to the States the option to exempt a parent with a child
less than 1 year old--but completely at the discretion of the States.
If the State did not choose to do it, infants could find themselves
home alone again.
The new bill did not provide additional child care for families with
young children. The bill did not provide additional funding to help and
assist those families in achieving self sufficiency, allowing them to
go to work with good quality day care. All it did was say that those
families would be exempt. You will not be denied the benefits of the
program if you do not participate in the work program. And effectively
what you are saying is happy birthday to the child when they turn 1,
because that parent is going to be required to go on out and leave that
child at home alone when they are 13 months old.
I call that ``Home Alone II.'' You left the children home alone in
the initial proposal. And now we are saying we are leaving it up to the
States to exempt 10 percent of families from having to leave their
children home alone. But what about getting those parents into the work
force, which is part of the desire of this particular legislation? We
are not providing child care. All we are saying is that if you have
young children, you can stay home and do not have to work.
Mr. President, this chart gives a real reflection of what the needs
are and what the realities are under the day care proposal. We are
taking the $1 billion that was spent on child care for welfare families
and under the Dole proposal it is eliminated. But we will have to spend
$4.8 billion in the year 2000 alone to provide for day care for welfare
recipients mandated to work under the Home Alone bill. That means that
if the Dole bill is implemented and all the people required to work
actually go to work, you will need $4.8 billion to provide the day care
for them in that one single year--one single year.
This assumes that only half of the parents that are going to work
will need help finding and affording child care. It says that the
others will be able to get child care on their own, which is an
extraordinary assumption. I mean, it defies what is happening in all of
our States. I am interested in listening to Senators who have had a
different experience in their State, finding scores of people receiving
welfare that are able to get child care and pay for it. But that is one
of the assumptions.
Even with that assumption, HHS says that the Dole bill will cost $4.8
billion for child care in the year 2000. Cumulatively, under the Dole
proposal, it will be $11.2 billion from 1996 to the year 2000. And
States will only be provided $16.8 billion flat funding over that
period of time. If you are going to need all of this for day care,
where is the money going to be on job search? Where is the money going
to be in providing for the health care needs of the children? Where is
the money going to be for job training and education? Where is it going
to be? It is just not going to be there. That is why this is so
fraudulent. That is why this legislation is so basically and
fundamentally flawed when you think about the needs of the poor
children of this country.
Mr. President, I will join with my colleague and friend from
Connecticut in an amendment to address this particular problem by
restoring the existing $1 billion and making up the rest to make sure
this legislation addresses the issue of child care for the children

[[Page S 12920]]
of this country, as well as the requirements in terms of job needs.
So, Mr. President, I welcome the opportunity, as we come into the
weekend, to join with our leader here in the Senate, Senator Dodd, who
has provided leadership in this child care area. It has been a
bipartisan effort, in our committee and on the floor, with Senator
Hatch and Senator Kassebaum and others, very much involved in this
effort.
Let me just say, finally, we heard just a few moments ago, additional
changes proposed by the majority leader. As I understand, this includes
an amendment to raise the age of children whose families are exempt
from 1 to 5 years of age. This effectively will mean that sixty percent
of those who are on welfare will be excluded from welfare reform
because that many have children under 5.
So that raises some serious issues and questions about what we are
doing here if we go about excluding people from the requirements rather
than assisting them. As a way of trying to respond to this particular
need, I think this raises some serious questions about what this
legislation is all about.
Mr. SANTORUM. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. KENNEDY. I will in a second. I prefer that we provide the kind of
support that is included in the Dodd amendment because if we do that,
what we are going to do to get people to work--by providing the
training for them, the day care, and help them to find a job. That is
the objective, to care for children and to promote work. That is the
desirable end.
But certainly, if we are not going to have the kind of support and
help and the funding for the day care, as a matter of policy, it is a
lot better to have the parent at home taking care of very small
children than requiring them to make a choice between leaving a child
who is 2, 3, 4, or 5 home alone and complying with the requirements of
this legislation.
So this is a very important discussion and debate. I hope that we
will have the chance on Monday, to get into greater detail both on the
changes that have been made. But just at the opening of this, because I
see my friend and colleague from Connecticut on the floor who wants to
make a presentation, I think it is important that we understand exactly
where we are with regard to the child care proposals.
I will be glad to yield briefly for a question from the Senator, and
then I want to yield the floor so that the Senator from Connecticut
can----
Mr. SANTORUM. I just wanted to respond to the comments of the Senator
from Massachusetts about the Snowe amendment. I think there is a
mischaracterization. Maybe it is not a mischaracterization. I know the
amendment has not been presented. You received a summary. But what the
Snowe amendment does is say that the parents with children under 5 who
can demonstrate to the State--the States will determine what the
demonstration requirements would be--that their child care is either
unaffordable to them or unavailable to them, whatever, would not be
sanctioned for not working.
That does not mean that anyone who has a child under 5 would be
exempt from the work requirement. That is not the case. In fact, they
would be required to work unless they can prove that there is no child
care available. So what happens, since the Snowe amendment does not
change the participation standard, which is that 50 percent have to be
in the work program, what the Snowe amendment really attempts to do by
keeping the denominator the same is to encourage States to provide more
child care so they can increase work participation by families with
children under 5. So it is, in a sense, a roundabout way of getting
States to come up with more child care dollars so we can, in fact, give
opportunities for women, in most cases women, who have children under
5.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I appreciate that, and I will make a
brief comment. That is the very basis of the difference among the Dole,
Senator Santorum, and other proposals. You are not providing child care
for that mother that wants to be able to go out and work. What you are
saying is that mothers will have to work unless they are able to
demonstrate that for some means they cannot quite get that child care,
that they do not have the resources to do it.
I say to the Senator from Pennsylvania, travel around your own State
or my State or any of the other States and talk to those mothers and
ask them. We already know what is happening out there. We already have
that kind of information, and we just know of the availability of child
care.
I hope it is not quite as punitive as described by the Senator to say
because we know what the shortage is and what the cost is in terms of
quality child care. I do not know how many working families that are
trying to go out and work and provide for their families, let alone
those that are caught in the misfortunes of life and have a life of
dependency, are able to go on out there and get the child care and
afford to pay it, have someone tell them, ``Well, maybe your situation
is not desperate enough and you are able to stay home. You are able to
stay home. We are not going to do anything for you to get child care so
you can get off welfare, we are just going to say you can still get
your check.''
I do not think that is really what this bill should be about.
I look forward to the opportunity later this afternoon and Monday to
get into greater detail on this.
Mr. DODD addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut is recognized.

Amendment No. 2560 to Amendment No. 2280

(Purpose: To provide for the establishment of a supplemental child care
grant program)

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

The Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Dodd], for himself, Mr.
Kennedy, Mr. Kohl, Ms. Mikulski, Ms. Moseley-Braun, Mrs.
Murray, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Leahy, and Mr. Kerrey, proposes an
amendment numbered 2560 to amendment No. 2280.

Mr. DODD. 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 17, line 22, strike ``subparagraph (B)'' and insert
``subparagraphs (B) and (C)''.
On page 18, between lines 15 and 16, insert the following
new subparagraph:
``(C) Amount attributable to certain child care payments.--
For purposes of subparagraph (A), the amount determined under
this subparagraph is an amount equal to the Federal payments
to the State under subsections (g)(1)(A)(i), (g)(1)(A)(ii),
and (i) of section 402 for fiscal year 1994 (as in effect
during such fiscal year).''.
On page 18, line 16, strike ``(C)'' and insert ``(D)''.
On page 22, line 12, strike ``$16,795,323,000'' and insert
``$15,795,323,000''.
At the end of title VI, add the following new section:

SEC. . WORK PROGRAM RELATED CHILD CARE.

(a) Establishment.--The Secretary of Health and Human
Services shall, upon the application of a State under
subsection (c), provide a grant to such State for the
provision of child care services to individuals.
(b) Funding.--For the purpose of providing child care
services for eligible children through the awarding of grants
to States under this section for a fiscal year, the Secretary
of Health and Human Services shall pay, from funds in the
Treasury not otherwise appropriated, an amount equal to the
sum of--
(1) the outlays for child care services under sections
402(g)(1)(A)(i), 402(g)(1)(A)(ii), and 402(i) of the Social
Security Act (as such sections existed on the day before the
date of enactment of this Act) for fiscal year 1994; and
(2)(A) for fiscal year 1996, $246,000,000;
(B) for fiscal year 1997, $311,000,000;
(C) for fiscal year 1998, $570,000,000;
(D) for fiscal year 1999, $1,122,000,000; and
(E) for fiscal year 2000, $3,776,000,000.
(c) Application.--To be eligible to receive a grant under
this section, a State shall prepare and submit to the
Secretary of Health and Human Services an application at such
time, in such manner, and containing such information as the
Secretary may require.
(d) Amount of Grant.--From the amounts available under
subsection (b) for a fiscal year, the Secretary of Health and
Human Services shall allot to each State (with an application
approved under subsection (c)) an amount which bears the same
relationship to such amounts as the total number of eligible
children in the State bears to the total number of eligible
children in all States (with applications approved under
subsection (c)).
(e) Use of Funds.--
(1) In general.--Amounts received by a State under a grant
awarded under this section shall be used to carry out
programs and activities to provide
child care services to eligible children residing within
such State.

[[Page S 12921]]

(2) Eligible children.--For purposes of this section, the
term ``eligible child'' means an individual--
(A) who is less than 13 years of age; and
(B) who resides with a parent or parents who are working
pursuant to a work requirement contained in section 404 of
the Social Security Act (as amended by section 101), are
attending a job training or educational program, or are at
risk of falling into welfare.
(3) Guarantee.--Notwithstanding any other provision of this
Act, or of part A of title IV of the Social Security Act--
(A) no parent of a preschool age child shall be penalized
or sanctioned for failure to participate in a job training,
educational, or work program if child care assistance in an
appropriate child care program is not provided for the child
of such parent; and
(B) no parent of an elementary school age child shall be
penalized or sanctioned for failure to participate in a job
training, educational, or work program before or after normal
school hours if assistance in an appropriate before or after
school program is not provided for the child of such parent.
(f) Generl Provisions.--
(1) Other requirements.--The requirements, standards, and
criteria under the Child Care and Development Block Grant Act
of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 9858 et seq.) except for the provisions of
section 658G of such Act, shall apply to the funds
appropriated under this section to the extent that such
requirements, standards, and criteria do not directly
conflict with the provisions of this section.
(2) Maintenance of effort.--A State, in utilizing the
proceeds of a grant received under this section, shall
maintain the expenditures of the State for child care
activities at a level that is equal to not less than the
level of such expenditures maintained by the State under the
provisions of law referred to in subsection (b) for fiscal
year 1994.
(g) Sense of the Senate Regarding Financing.--
(1) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
(A) child care is essential to the success of real welfare
reform and this Act dramatically reduces the funds designated
for child care while at the same time increasing the need for
such care; and
(B) obsolete corporate subsidies and tax expenditures
consume a larger and growing portion of the funds in the
Treasury.
(2) Sense of the senate.--It is the sense of the Senate
that the new investment in child care, above the amounts
appropriated under the provisions of law referred to in
subsection (b)(1) for fiscal year 1994, provided under this
section should be offset by corresponding reductions in
corporate welfare.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, this is the child care amendment. As I
understand it, we will take some time this afternoon, and on Monday we
will resume the debate and have a vote on this amendment, I think, at 5
p.m. I stand corrected if that is not correct. My colleague from
Pennsylvania is indicating that that is the situation procedurally. We
will have people over the weekend take a look at the amendment, decide
either to support it or offer ideas to change it. But I think it is a
critically important amendment. It is one of the two or three, I think,
most significant amendments we will have during the consideration of
this bill, because it is such an important linchpin to the whole debate
on welfare. It determines whether or not the so-called welfare reform
proposal can actually work.
Let me, first of all, thank my colleague from Massachusetts for his
support in putting this amendment together, and for his support not
just today and recently, but over the years.
As he has pointed out, Mr. President, going back some 5, 6, 7 years
ago, we were able to fashion a child care proposal, the very first, I
might add, ever adopted by a Congress with the exception of the period
in about 1942 or 1943 when, in the middle of World War II, the Congress
appropriated $50 million for a national child care program for the
obvious reasons.
We had young men in uniform who were fighting in the European and
Pacific theaters. War production was critical. Women went to work in
war production facilities and, obviously, taking care of their children
was something that needed to be done.
In fact, I invite my colleagues to look at a fascinating exhibit at
the Library of Congress. There are marvelous photographs and stories
about these child care facilities and how sophisticated they were with
doctors and nurses, wonderful feeding programs and the like. In fact,
one of them still is in operation in Santa Monica, CA, the only one I
know of that is still operating from that period of time.
Obviously, that was a time of national emergency. Once World War II
was over, young men came back from the war, women left war production,
men went to work in our companies and factories across the country, and
these child care facilities, many of them, closed their doors.
It is intriguing to note, because it was, obviously, a recognized
need that we could not very well ask people to go to work in war
production without a parent being home and to leave children home
alone.
I have gone back and examined that legislation. There was no criteria
established in that bill based on the age of the children or exemptions
from work and war production. It was designed to take care of kids, and
it was a wonderful educational process as well, where those children
actually had a good education experience while being in that child care
setting.
At any rate, we are again engaged in a debate. This time another
emergency, not of the magnitude of World War II, but an emergency. We
have far too many people who are living on public assistance of one
kind or another. We are trying to break that cycle. We are trying to
make it possible for people to go back to work or to go to work for the
first time ever, and we are faced not with a dissimilar fact situation.
In World War II, the men in those families were fighting a war.
Today, in many cases, there are not any men at all in these households,
just women raising children alone. And yet we want them to go to work,
not in war production today, but we want them to get into the work
force, because we think it is not only good for them, it is good for
the country. But the issue regarding the children is the same, it is
the common denominator. In 1942 and 1943, we reached the collective
conclusion those kids should not be left home alone. We needed women in
war production; take care of the kids.
Today we are saying collectively, I think, we ought to get people to
work in this country. We are tired of watching two and three
generations and four generations live on public assistance. We want to
get them to work, and yet we know we have a staggering number of
children who need care.
What this amendment is designed to do is to come up with a means by
which we make the work requirements in this particular bill be
effective. So that is what we have crafted with this amendment. We take
$5 billion as part of the block grant--it is already in the bill--and
dedicate that to child care. We then recognize, as a result of HHS's
numbers, that you cannot possibly meet the criteria outlined in the
Dole legislation that requires that a certain percentage of people on
welfare get to work, if you do not have a child care component. So 44
States would not be in compliance according to CBO. We come up with $6
billion to come out of a corporate welfare approach that is designated
by a sense-of-the-Senate resolution.
Some will argue you do not need $6 billion, you can do with a sum
less than that. I, frankly, will be listening and more than happy to
entertain some discussion of that. Health and Human Services says
roughly $6 billion. CBO says less than that, depending on what numbers
you use as the base.
The point is, what presently exists in the bill does not meet the
criteria at all. You need to have more resources. I will get into why
that is the case in a moment.
As I pointed out yesterday during our debate, and when the
distinguished majority leader, Senator Dole, pulled his welfare reform
bill 3 weeks ago, that, in my view, the bill pretended to be serious
about work but ignored how children would fit into that equation.
At that point, I described the legislation as ``child care--less.''
There has been a lot of talk, obviously, in the past several weeks
about a modified proposal. But as far as I can tell, not much has
changed in the legislation.
The Republican proposal is still, as Senator Kennedy has pointed out,
a home alone bill. The Republican proposal amounts, in my view, to
nothing more than a bitter taste for thousands of families across the
country. You cannot throw a dab of budgetary so-called gravy on it and
call it tasty or a success. It is just window dressing, Mr. President,
and Americans simply, I think, will not take it.
The Republican proposal still imposes significant new work
requirements without acknowledging that child care is essential if
people are going to go to work. Funds previously designated for child
care and child care only disappear.

[[Page S 12922]]

I point out, on one of the charts that we have here, that in 1994, we
designated $1 billion for child care assistance in our welfare reform
programs. That was only done a year or so ago. The Dole bill, as
presently crafted, as Senator Kennedy pointed out a moment ago, takes
that money previously earmarked for child care, lumps it into general
welfare, a pool. One can argue that the States may decide to use those
resources.
Let us assume, if you want to, that they may. But there is no
requirement. They may decide to do something else with it. If you say
we are going to insist that that $1 billion be left in the bill for
child care, the fact is, that with the changes in the Dole bill we are
going to increase the need for child care slots by 165 percent. So the
$1 billion is going to be totally inadequate in order to meet this
increased demand that we have. So it is not even going to come close to
the demands that we will have on us. The bottom line here is that no
money is guaranteed at all. Not a single penny is guaranteed here at
all.
In fact, even under previous legislation, you had a requirement that
States had to dedicate some of their own resources for child care. We
even stripped that out of the bill. So there was no requirement there
at all either. So we have taken out the Federal money, and the State
requirement too. We have said that you have to go to work quickly, and
we do not provide the resources to allow that to happen.
Let me quickly add that we are seeing add-ons or modifications now.
We had the provision that was added that said if you had children under
the age of 1, you would be exempted from the work requirement. Now,
that has been raised to the age of 5. I appreciate the point of our
colleague from Pennsylvania that that exemption only exists if child
care is not available. The fact of the matter is, if you are on welfare
and you do not have any dedicated resources, child care is de facto not
going to be available.
A point I think that needs to be made here is that we need to remind
ourselves what the essence of this bill is. That is, to try and get
people to work. If we start exempting people because they have children
under the age of 1 or 5--while I appreciate the motivations behind it--
it is going to run counter to what we should be trying to do. Does that
mean if you have three children above the age of 5 and one under, that
you are exempt? Is that going to be an inducement to some families--at
a time of trying to discourage more children, is it in fact going to be
an inducement in some ways for people to have a child in order to avoid
the work requirements? I would much rather see us stick with the
criteria that you try and get people to work and then provide the child
care for them. That, it seems to me, makes more sense and goes to the
essence and heart of what we are trying to achieve, instead of trying
to come up with an exemption for each age group here. I think we ought
to be trying to assist these families to become self sufficient,
independent, and to give them the resources to achieve those goals.
As we know right now, we have been told that as a result of no
additional funds, we will have to find an $4.8 billion in the year 2000
just to meet the child care requirements. States would be required to
spend totally, we are reminded, some $11 billion over the next 5 years.
Let me emphasize again that I think there is general consensus here
that if there is one common theme in all of the various proposals that
are being discussed regarding welfare reform it is that we want to get
people to work. We are trying to figure out the best way to do that,
the most efficient way to do it.
What those who agree with that proposition are suggesting is that if
we are going to get people on public assistance to work, there are
several things we have to do.
First, we have to see if they have the training and the education in
order to meet the criteria of the job market, which is critically
important. Second, we have to recognize the reality that almost
everyone in the country understands; that is, it is difficult to get to
work if you have young children and you have no place to leave them
where they will be cared for and adequately protected.
That is an issue that everyone understands. You certainly do not have
to be on welfare to understand that. As I said yesterday and the day
before, every single family in this country whether two parents who
work, or a single parent works, knows of the anxiety of child care.
Even if you have a good child care system today in place for your
children, every week you wonder whether it will be there next week, and
how much more it may cost. Will there be a problem for one reason or
another?
Child care for working families with young children is an issue that
everyone understands, regardless of their economic situation.
What I am suggesting here and what we successfully passed a few years
ago, with the tremendous help of my colleague from Utah, Senator Hatch,
in a very strong, bipartisan way, with the ultimate support of
President Bush and the Bush administration, was the recognition that we
need to have some support for child care, for families, as we try to
move them into the workplace, and for the working poor.
What we are doing with this amendment is trying to come up with
adequate resources that make it possible for the work requirements of
this bill to become effective. If we are really going to get people
from welfare to work, where two-thirds of these families have children
that are very young, then you will have to deal with the child care
issue.
That does not require any great leap of faith. It does not require a
great understanding of the complexity of law. It merely states what
everyone ought to be able to appreciate and understand. That is what we
are trying to do with this amendment.
Now we are being told, as it stands right now, the Governors would
have to come up with $4.8 billion in the year 2000. If we are going to
just provide for the welfare recipients mandated under the home alone
bill, if you are going to get to the year 2000, you will need a total
amount of roughly $11 billion between now and then.
You can take out of the block grant $5 billion, but you have to come
up with $6 billion more, roughly, to meet the criteria. Am I absolutely
certain of the $6 billion? No, I am not. I am listening to a lot of
people who spend a lot of time on these issues, and they tell me that
is roughly the number. It could be somewhat less. But the point is, it
is roughly in that ballpark if you are going to meet the work criteria.
Now, it is being suggested by the majority leader and others, rather
than do that, why not just exempt these families that have very young
children?
First, the proposal was under age 1. Now the proposal is up to 5
years.
My suggestion here is, rather than start exempting people with young
children right and left, why not try to come up with the resources so
we get back to the heart of the welfare proposals, and that is to make
it possible for people to get to work? That seems to me to be a more
logical step to take, rather than retreating from those obligations of
work requirements.
So that is what we do with this amendment. We try to make it possible
for that to happen. Otherwise, I do not know what these Governors are
going to do. They do not have the resources, Mr. President. We are
shifting the problem to them. We are saying, you come up with the
resources or you face the penalties, because we have penalties in the
bill. And if you do not get a certain percentage of your welfare
recipients into the work force in the first year or two and then at a
higher percentage a year or two after that, then there are penalties
that we at the Federal Government levy on these States.
So what are the options? Either you do not get the child care, you do
not get people to work, and then you have a penalty, which means you
have to raise taxes to pay it; or you have to come up with $4.8 billion
in 2000, or more over the next 5 years in one form of taxation or
another.
Why not try to come up here with a means by which we make it possible
for people to make that transition, so we get from the dependency on
welfare to work by providing adequate child care for these children?
I have recommended here corporate welfare as an offset--I cannot
identify choices specifically because then you end up with bill being
transferred immediately to various committees. We have in the
amendment--because the obvious question is how do you pay for

[[Page S 12923]]
it--a section. We asked people to look at corporate welfare. There is a
lot in there. We talk about deductions and availability of certain
things. There is a lot that exists. We have a tax proposal that is
going to be submitted to us that calls for $250 billion in tax cuts,
the bulk of which will go to upper-income families. If we would just
modify that by $6 billion, I might add, or take a look at the literally
billions of dollars that exist in corporate welfare and find $6 billion
in order to achieve this desirable goal of getting people to work, it
seems to me to be a modest request. I am confident that people who are
committed to this will be able to find the resources over the next 5
years to do so.
This ought to be, in my view, an issue which people can gather
around. We may disagree on other aspects of this bill, but I do not
believe there ought to be the kind of partisan debate over child care,
over coming up with the resources to make it possible for people to go
to work and have their kids well taken care of. That is an issue
everybody understands. As I said a moment ago, anybody who is at work
today and has young children understands the problem, the worry, the
concern, the anxiety that people have.
Frankly, with all due respect to those who have made the proposal of
1 year or 5 years, you have a child that is 5 years and 6 months, or 6
years old, 7 years old, you are not going to leave that child home
alone and go to work. That is just unrealistic.
In fact, even when those children are in school, the great anxiety
that parents have at 2 or 3 o'clock in the afternoon is hoping the
child gets home safely. Look at the number of phone calls that get made
at 3:30 and 4 o'clock when people are at work to find out whether or
not that young child has made it home, and then worrying when they are
home what happens to them. Who is watching them? What are they doing?
Again, I have to believe most of my colleagues understand these
issues because they have certainly heard the general worry and concern
outside of the welfare debate when it comes to the issue of care for
children. It's obviously compared to the other things we do--my God, we
come up with criteria for parking places. We take care of people's cars
better. We have criteria for pets in this country to make sure they are
not going to get harmed. All I am saying is what about our kids? In
this day and age, we just increased the defense budget by $7 billion
for next year, $7 billion more than the Pentagon wanted. That is $1
billion more than would take care of all the child care needs under the
Dole bill for 5 years--for 5 years. One year of increased spending that
was not asked for by the Pentagon.
In a just and fair society, with the tremendous and legitimate demand
of the constituencies of this country that said we ought to get people
off of welfare and to work, understanding the element of child care, we
ought to be able to do that. And this ought to be a unanimous vote.
There ought to be no great split here on that issue, and that is what I
am offering with this amendment.
We can have, over the weekend, a talk about it. Staffs may meet.
Maybe somebody will have some other ideas how we can fashion this to
the satisfaction of everyone. I am not rigidly holding onto every
dotted ``i'' and crossed ``t.'' If there are some other numbers people
want to use, I am open to them. I am not looking for an acrimonious
debate on this issue. I am just telling you flatout that a welfare
reform bill that demands that people go to work and does not have a
child care factor to it, an element to it to allow for that transition
to occur, is just unworkable.
I promise that you can threaten families all you want, they are not
going to abandon their children. They just will not do it. I do not
care what income category, what part of the country you are talking
about. These families are not going to walk out of the house and leave
that child alone. We would condemn them if they did. You get arrested
in parts of this country if you do it. We have had cases in Connecticut
in recent times where people have gone to casinos and left children in
parked cars. We arrest them. It is a headline story when it happens.
Does anyone think that we are going to have a law that requires that
people go to work and leave their kids locked up in their houses, and
that we are not going to have a sense of outrage about it? And we are
then going to penalize those States because they have not met the
criteria because people have refused to obey the law and leave their
children alone? That is insanity. That does not make any sense at all.
So I do not know why people have so much difficulty with this
concept. This ought to be a 20-minute debate, not a great source of
controversy. If you do not understand the linkage between child care
and welfare reform, then you do not have the vaguest notion about
welfare and what needs to be done to make it work better.
So, Mr. President, I hope over the coming 2 or 3 days before we come
back on Monday afternoon, that people will take a good look at this,
come together, and see if we cannot either support this amendment or
some modifications to it so it roughly will allow the Dole bill
provisions to actually take effect and make it possible for these
States to meet the criteria without raising taxes.
In the absence of doing it, you have the biggest unfunded mandate I
have seen so far. It was S. 1, I think, the unfunded mandate bill,
where we said you cannot put mandates on States without coming up with
the resources so they do not have to raise their own taxes. Here we are
going to have a mandate that you take your welfare recipients and put
them to work or face penalties. That is an unfunded mandate if we do
not help them provide the resources to meet those criteria that we are
laying out in this legislation.
So, Mr. President, again, I thank my colleagues for listening here
this afternoon. I know I have probably bored them over the years on
this subject matter, going back 7 and 8 years ago when we started the
child care debates. But I think most people recognize today--certainly
the corporate community does. The business community has had tremendous
sophistication in understanding its employees' needs. They
understanding the value of productive workers and having good, adequate
child care alleviates worries so those employees can pay full attention
to their jobs. Every sector of our society seems to appreciate the
relationship between people's worries about their children, the
priorities that people place on their children and their children's
needs and the simultaneous need to be a productive and successful
worker.
As we now talk about getting people off public assistance and moving
them into the work force for the benefit of everyone, most importantly
that individual, the element of dealing with their young children is
something that we have to take into consideration.
I think exempting the families, as appealing as that may be to some,
confuses the issue rather than sticking to the point of trying to make
it possible for people to get to work and help them stay there through
an adequate and appropriate child care system or structure.
So with that, Mr. President I urge my colleagues to take a look at
this. We will reengage the debate on Monday and hopefully come up with
an adequate solution that will make it possible for all of us to begin
to support the Dole proposal on welfare reform.
I know, in speaking with others, that the administration is very
interested in supporting a bill that will truly be a welfare reform
bill. That is the strong desire of President Clinton. He wants to do
it. He believes that can be done if an issue like this can be
adequately addressed and several others. But this is certainly an
important element in all of that.
With that, I thank my colleagues and I yield the floor.

____________________