[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.''.

       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     1995.

     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.''

       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made this section shall 
     apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 1995.

     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

(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 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.

  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. 2536

     (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.

  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. 2552

   (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.
  

                          ____________________