[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 139 (Friday, September 8, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S12924-S12937]
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. ASHCROFT. I thank the Senator from Connecticut. I am delighted to 
have this opportunity to make a few remarks and to offer two amendments 
to the Dole modified amendment for the welfare reform proposal.
  Mr. President, the Dole modified amendment which is offered today is 
a substantial improvement, a very substantial and significant step 
toward the right kind of operation in terms of reforming welfare. I am 
pleased to see that the mechanism for delivering block grants--which 
was first recommended in the proposal I made on welfare reform called 
CIVIC, Senate bills 842, 843, 844 and 845, the proposal for delivering 
block grants directly from the Department of the Treasury to the 
States--is included and that will vastly reduce the Federal welfare 
bureaucracy, which I considered to be a bureaucratic tax upon the poor, 
and make resources available to the truly needy. It should limit 
Washington's interference in the States' welfare reform efforts.
  As I have spoken many times on the floor, ending the micromanagement 
and intermeddling involvement of HHS to the extent possible, and giving 
States the opportunity to craft and shape welfare reform so that it 
meets the needs of the people in the States, is very important. We do 
need to replace the failed system of welfare which has been a 
Washington-run system, and the modified amendment proposed by Senator 
Dole would help achieve this, in part, by adopting the proposal which 
is for direct block grants to the States that bypass much of the 
redtape of Washington.
  Also, it is important that the Dole amendment includes an independent 
audit provision which will eliminate much of the Washington 
micromanagement and prevent funds from being consumed needlessly on 
bureaucratic oversight. Under this provision, States would supply to 
the Department of the Treasury audits conducted by independent auditors 
demonstrating their compliance and that block grant funds have been 
used properly in serving the needy populations.
  I want to also say how pleased I am to see that the modified 
amendment includes a provision adapted from my welfare reform bill, 
which recognizes that Government programs alone will never solve all of 
our welfare needs. We have to allow States to involve a number of 
nongovernmental charitable organizations, including faith-based 
organizations, in serving the poor. Organizations like the Salvation 
Army and Boys and Girls Clubs are often more successful in serving 
people in need than are governmental institutions. We need to be able 
to tap these resources effectively. There is a character in the 
programs like the Boys and Girls Clubs and the Salvation Army that is 
important in meeting needs. It is a character associated with charity, 
which provides for a kind of compassion and caring that instills hope 
and aspiration in the lives of people.
  The modified amendment includes very important provisions in this 
respect, which will ensure that such organizations that are selected to 
participate in meeting the needs of the poor are not forced to 
compromise their character. Furthermore, any person eligible for 
assistance who would be offended by going to one of these organizations 
to receive assistance would have an opportunity to receive alternative 
services from the state.
 There have been clear guidelines set to protect individual rights and 
to protect the rights of the organization.

  While these are important provisions included in the modified Dole 
amendment, Mr. President, the modified amendment still I think needs 
adjustment and falls shorts of being a comprehensive welfare reform 
bill.
  That is why I intend to send a pair of amendments to the desk which 
would broaden the bill to include block grants for two major welfare 
programs: Food stamps and supplemental security income, or the SSI 
program.
  Block grants are essential for these programs because if you leave 
welfare partially open ended as entitlement programs, and partially 
block granted, there is a tendency on the part of jurisdictions to 
shift the welfare caseload from the areas which are block granted to 
the areas that are open ended and entitlements.
  As a result, rather than controlling and managing welfare 
effectively, you just push from one area of the welfare population to 
another, move people from AFDC over to SSI. In some cases, that move 
would be far more expensive.
  A single child on SSI gets $448 a month. There are AFDC programs 
which provide $200 or $300 a month, and a shift in that population 
would not be a reform at all in terms of cost containment, but a way of 
just dramatically increasing our welfare costs. As a matter of fact, it 
would make it very difficult for us to control costs.
  In addition, when you have a program which has no limit on it, 
totally entitlement and totally federally funded, the incentives on the 
part of State and local instrumentalities to combat fraud and abuse are 
low. If we give the items in block grants to the States, the incentive 
to contain fraud and abuse, to detect it, to root it out of the system, 
is elevated.
  Mr. President, fraud and abuse are rampant in the Food Stamp Program 
and SSI today because as the rolls grow, the money flows. There is no 
incentive to the welfare industry to reduce the problem. The only way 
we will be able to combat fraud and abuse is to give States the ability 
to design and enforce these programs and the incentive for them to 
limit the expenditures in these programs. I intend to send two 
amendments to the desk regarding SSI and food stamps.
  Finally, Mr. President, I join today Senator Coats in introducing an 

[[Page S 12925]]
  amendment which also recognizes we must look beyond Government to solve 
the welfare problems. Specifically, we need to encourage people to get 
involved personally in helping the needy. Our amendment combines 
proposals which we have offered in the past to accomplish this goal. It 
would provide a nonrefundable tax credit to individuals who volunteer 
time as well as money to give to charitable organizations so that 
individuals who contributed at least 50 hours per year at nonprofit 
private or religious charitable organizations which serve the needy 
would be eligible for not just the tax deduction regarding a $500 
contribution, but if they also have a $500 contribution, they would be 
eligible for a tax credit of up to $500.
  Mr. President, let me emphasize that simply rearranging the deck 
chairs on the ``Welfare Titanic'' would be turning our backs on the 
most pressing issues facing our future. We must fundamentally reform 
the entirety of our welfare system.
  We simply cannot tinker around the margins. We cannot afford to 
repeat the mistakes we made in the past. We must all admit that 
Government alone has failed miserably and will continue to fail.
  We must, I believe, have these expanded block grants so we do not 
have a partial system of block grants which invites cost-shifting and 
does not provide incentives for fraud and abuse containment.
  I believe we must invite a far broader band of our society to 
participate in meeting the needs of the needy, and for that reason we 
need to encourage involvement by a far broader group of individuals in 
society.


          Amendments Nos. 2561 and 2562 to Amendment No. 2280

  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I send two amendments to the desk and I 
ask unanimous consent they be considered as having been offered 
individually.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Missouri [Mr. Ashcroft] proposes 
     amendments numbered 2561 and 2562 to amendment No. 2280.

  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendments be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The text of the amendments are printed in today's Record under 
``Amendments Submitted.'')
  Mr. ASHCROFT. I wish to thank the Senator from Connecticut for his 
courtesy.
  Mr. DODD. I send my apologies to the Senator from Missouri and the 
people of Missouri for saying the State of Ohio.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Perhaps the Senator needs to apologize to the Senator 
from Ohio if he is offended.
  I yield to my colleague from Florida.


          Amendments Nos. 2563 and 2564 to Amendment No. 2280

  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Connecticut. On 
behalf of Senator Kennedy, I send two amendments to the desk to be 
offered, and I ask the pending amendment be set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment is 
set aside.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Florida [Mr. Graham], for Mr. Kennedy, 
     proposes amendments numbered 2563 and 2564 to amendment No. 
     2280.

  Mr. GRAHAM. 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. 2563

   (Purpose: To terminate sponsor responsibilities upon the date of 
                    naturalization of the immigrant)

       On page 289, line 5, strike the period and insert ``, but 
     in no event shall such period extend beyond the date (if any) 
     on which the alien becomes a citizen of the United States 
     under chapter 2 of title III of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act.''
       On page 291, line 14, strike the period and insert ``, but 
     in no event shall such period extend beyond the date (if any) 
     on which the alien becomes a citizen of the United States 
     under chapter 2 of title III of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act.''
       On page 293, line 16, insert ``but in no event shall the 
     sponsor be required to provide financial support beyond the 
     date (if any) on which the alien becomes a citizen of the 
     United States under chapter 2 of title III of the Immigration 
     and Nationality Act.'' after ``quarters''.
                           amendment no. 2564

 (Purpose: To grant the Attorney General flexibility in certain public 
               assistance determinations for immigrants)

       On page 292, line 5, strike ``and''.
       On page 292, line 11, strike the period and insert ``; 
     and''.
       On page 292, between lines 11 and 12, insert the following 
     new subparagraph:
       (F) benefits or services which serve a compelling 
     humanitarian or compelling public interest as specified by 
     the Attorney General in consultation with appropriate Federal 
     agencies and departments.
        Amendments Nos. 2565 through 2569 to Amendment No. 2280

  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask the pending amendment be set aside, 
and on behalf of myself and cosponsors, I send to the desk five 
amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is set aside. The clerk will 
report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Florida [Mr. Graham] proposes amendments 
     numbered 2565 through 2569 to amendment No. 2280.

  Mr. GRAHAM. 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. 2565

     (Purpose: To provide a formula for allocating funds that more 
accurately reflects the needs of States with children below the poverty 
                     line, and for other purposes)

       On page 17, line 2, strike ``paragraphs (3) and (5), 
     section 407 (relating to penalties),'' and insert ``section 
     407 (relating to penalties)''.
       On page 17, beginning on line 16, strike all through line 
     22, and insert the following: ``equal to the amount 
     determined under paragraph (3), reduced by the amount (if 
     any) determined under subparagraph (B).''
       On page 18, beginning on line 22, strike all through page 
     22, line 8, and insert the following:
       ``(3) State Family Assistance Grant.--
       ``(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraphs (B) and (C), 
     for purposes of paragraph (2), the amount of the State family 
     assistance grant to a State for a fiscal year is an amount 
     which bears the same ratio to the amount appropriated for 
     such fiscal year under paragraph (4)(A) as the average number 
     of minor children in families within the State having incomes 
     below the poverty line for the 3-preceding fiscal years bears 
     to the average number of minor children in families within 
     all States having incomes below the poverty line for such 3-
     preceding fiscal years.
       ``(B) Special rules.--
       ``(i) Ceiling.--Except as provided in clause (ii), the 
     amount of the State family assistance grant for a fiscal year 
     to a State shall not exceed--
       ``(I) for fiscal year 1996, an amount equal to 150 percent 
     of the total amount of Federal payments to the State under 
     section 403 for fiscal year 1994 (as such section was in 
     effect before October 1, 1995); and
       ``(II) for each fiscal year thereafter, an amount equal to 
     150 percent of the total amount of the State family 
     assistance grant to the State for the preceding fiscal year.
       ``(ii) Minimum Allocation.--
       ``(I) In general.--Subject to subclause (II), if the amount 
     of the State family assistance grant determined under 
     subparagraph (A) for a fiscal year is less than 0.6 percent 
     of the total amount appropriated for such fiscal year under 
     paragraph (4)(A), the amount of such grant for such fiscal 
     year shall be an amount equal to the lesser of--
       ``(aa) 0.6 percent of the amount appropriated under 
     paragraph (4)(A) for such fiscal year, or
       ``(bb) an amount equal to two times the total amount of 
     Federal payments to the State
      under section 403 for fiscal year 1994 (as such section was 
     in effect before October 1, 1995).
       ``(II) Reduction if amounts not available.--If the 
     aggregate amount by which State family assistance grants for 
     States is increased for a fiscal year under subclause (I) 
     exceeds the aggregate amount by which State family assistance 
     grants for States is decreased for the fiscal year under 
     clause (i), the amount of the State family assistance grant 
     to a State to which this clause applies shall be reduced by 
     an amount which bears the same ratio to the aggregate amount 
     of such excess as the average number of minor children in 
     families within the State having incomes below the poverty 
     line for the 3-preceding fiscal years bears to the average 
     number of minor children in families within all States to 
     which this clause applies having incomes below the poverty 
     line for such 3-preceding fiscal years.
       ``(C) Allocation of remainder.--
       ``(i) In general.--A State that is an eligible State for a 
     fiscal year shall be entitled to an increase in the State 
     family assistance grant equal to the additional allocation 
     amount determined under clause (ii) (if any) for such State 
     for the fiscal year.

[[Page S 12926]]

       ``(ii) Additional allocation amount.--The additional 
     allocation amount for an eligible State for a fiscal year 
     determined under this clause is the amount which bears the 
     same ratio to the remainder allocation amount for the fiscal 
     year determined under clause (iii) as the average number of 
     minor children in families within the eligible State having 
     incomes below the poverty line for the 3-preceding fiscal 
     years bears to the average number of minor children in 
     families within all eligible States having incomes below the 
     poverty line for such 3-preceding fiscal years.
       ``(iii) Remainder allocation amount.--The remainder 
     allocation amount determined under this clause is the
      amount (if any) that is equal to the difference between--
       ``(I) the amount appropriated for the fiscal year under 
     paragraph (4)(A), and
       ``(II) an amount equal to the sum of the family assistance 
     grants determined under this paragraph (without regard to 
     this subparagraph) for all States for such fiscal year.
       ``(iv) Eligible State.--For purposes of this subparagraph, 
     the term `eligible State' means a State whose State family 
     assistance grant for the fiscal year, as determined under 
     this paragraph (without regard to this subparagraph), is less 
     than the total amount of Federal payments to the State under 
     section 403 for fiscal year 1994 (as such section was in 
     effect before October 1, 1995).
       ``(D) Option to base allocations on preceding fiscal year 
     data.--The Secretary may in lieu of using data for the 3-
     preceding fiscal years, allocate funds under this paragraph 
     based on data for the most recent fiscal year for which 
     accurate data are available.
       ``(E) Definitions and special rules.--For purposes of this 
     paragraph--
       ``(i) Poverty line.--The term ``poverty line'' has the same 
     meaning given such term in section 673(2) of the Community 
     Services Block Grant Act (42 U.S.C. 9902(2)).
       ``(ii) 3-preceding fiscal years.--The term `3-preceding 
     fiscal years' means the 3 most recent fiscal years preceding 
     the current fiscal year for which data are available.
       ``(iv) Publication of allocations.--Not later than January 
     15th of each calendar year, the Secretary shall publish in 
     the Federal Register the amount of the family assistance 
     grant to which each State is entitled under this subsection 
     for the fiscal year that begins in such calendar year.
       On page 23, beginning on line 7, strike all through page 
     24, line 18.
                           amendment no. 2566

   (Purpose: To require each responsible Federal agency to determine 
 whether there are sufficient appropriations to carry out the Federal 
   intergovernmental mandates required by this Act, provide that the 
mandates will not be effective under certain conditions, and for other 
                               purposes)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following new section:

     SEC.   . UNFUNDED FEDERAL INTERGOVERNMENTAL MANDATES.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law--
       (1) no later than 15 days after the beginning of fiscal 
     year 1996, and annually thereafter through fiscal year 2000, 
     the Director of the Congressional Budget Office shall, in a 
     manner similar to section 424(a) (1) and (2) of the 
     Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (2 
     U.S.C. 658c(a) (1) and (2)), estimate the direct costs for 
     the fiscal year of each Federal intergovernmental mandate 
     resulting from the enactment of this Act or any other 
     legislation that includes welfare reform provisions and 
     determine whether there are sufficient appropriations for the 
     fiscal year to provide for the direct costs,
       (2) each responsible Federal agency shall, for each fiscal 
     year described in paragraph (1), identify any appropriations 
     bill or other legislation that provides Federal funding of 
     the direct costs described in paragraph (1) which relate to 
     each Federal intergovernmental mandate within the agency's 
     jurisdiction and shall determine whether there are 
     insufficient appropriations for the fiscal year to provide 
     such direct costs, and
       (3) no later than 30 days after the beginning of each 
     fiscal year described in paragraph (1), the responsible 
     Federal agency shall notify the appropriate authorizing 
     committees of Congress of the agency's determination under 
     paragraph (2) and submit either--
       (A) a statement that the agency has determined based on a 
     re-estimate of the direct costs of such mandate, after 
     consultation with State, local, and tribal governments, that 
     the amount appropriated is sufficient to pay for the direct 
     costs of such Federal intergovernmental mandate for the 
     fiscal year, or
       (B) legislative recommendations for--
       (i) implementing a less costly Federal intergovernmental 
     mandate, or
       (ii) making such mandate ineffective for the fiscal year.
       (b) Legislative Action.--
       (1) In general.--The Congress shall consider on an 
     expedited basis, under procedures similar to the procedures 
     set forth in section 425 of the Congressional Budget and 
     Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 658d), the 
     statement or legislative recommendations described in 
     subsection (a)(3) no later than 30 days after the statement 
     or recommendations are submitted to Congress.
       (2) Legislative action required.--The Federal 
     intergovernmental mandate to which a statement described in 
     subsection (a)(2) relates shall--
       (i) cease to be effective on the date that is 60 days after 
     the date the statement is submitted under subsection 
     (a)(3)(A) unless Congress has approved the agency's 
     determination under subsection (a)(3)(A) by joint resolution 
     during the 60-day period;
       (ii) cease to be effective on the date that is 60 days 
     after the date the legislative recommendations described in 
     subsection (a)(3)(B) are submitted to the Congress, unless 
     Congress provides otherwise by law; or
       (iii) in the case that such mandate has not yet taken 
     effect, continue not to be effective unless Congress provides 
     otherwise by law.
       (c) Definitions.--For purposes of this section:
       (1) Responsible federal agency.--The term ``responsible 
     Federal agency'' means the agency that has jurisdiction with 
     respect to a Federal intergovernmental mandate created by the 
     provisions of this Act or any other legislation that is 
     enacted that includes welfare reform provisions.
       (2) Federal intergovernmental mandate; direct costs.--The 
     terms ``Federal intergovernmental mandate'' and ``direct 
     costs'' have the meanings given such terms by section 421 of 
     the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 
     (2 U.S.C. 658).
       (3) Welfare reform provisions.--The term ``welfare reform 
     provisions'' means provisions of Federal law relating to any 
     Federal benefit for which eligibility is based on need.
                           amendment no. 2567

(Purpose: To provide that the Secretary, in ranking States with respect 
  to the success of their work programs, shall take into account the 
  average number of minor children in families in the State that have 
incomes below the poverty line and the amount of funding provided each 
                        State for such families)

       On page 64, line 10, after the period, insert the 
     following: ``In ranking States under this subsection, the 
     Secretary shall take into account the average number of minor 
     children in families in the State that have incomes below the 
     poverty line and the amount of funding provided each State 
     for such families.''


                           amendment no. 2568

(Purpose: To set national work participation rate goals and to provide 
 that the Secretary shall adjust the goals for individual States based 
on the amount of Federal funding the State receives for minor children 
in families in the State that have incomes below the poverty line, and 
                          for other purposes)

       On page 12, strike lines 10 and 11, and insert the 
     following:
       ``(C) Satisfy the work participation rate goals established 
     for the State pursuant to section 404(b)(6).
       On page 29, beginning with line 19, strike all through the 
     table preceding line 3, on page 30, and insert the following:

     SEC. 404. NATIONAL WORK PARTICIPATION RATE GOALS.

       ``(a) National Goals for Work Participation Rates.--A State 
     to which a grant is made under section 403 shall make every 
     effort to achieve the national work participation rate goals 
     specified in the following tables for the fiscal year with 
     respect to--
       ``(1) all families receiving assistance under the State 
     program funded under this part:

                                                           The national
                                                participation rate goal
``If the fiscal year is:                           for all families is:
  1996...............................................................25
  1997...............................................................30
  1998...............................................................35
  1999...............................................................40
  2000 or thereafter................................................50;

     and
       ``(2) with respect to 2-parent families receiving such 
     assistance:

                                                           The national
                                            participation rate goal is:
``If the fiscal year is:
  1996...............................................................60
  1997 or 1998.......................................................75
  1999 or thereafter................................................90.

       On page 35, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following:
       ``(6) Modifications to national participation rate goals to 
     reflect the number of families receiving assistance in each 
     state.--The Secretary, after consultation with the States, 
     shall establish specific work participation rate goals for 
     each State by adjusting the national participation rate goals 
     to reflect the level of Federal funds a State is receiving 
     under this part for the fiscal year and the average number of 
     minor children in families having incomes below the poverty 
     line that are estimated for the State for the fiscal year. 
     Not later January 15, 1996, and each year thereafter, the 
     Secretary shall publish in the Federal Register the 
     participation rate goals for each State for the current 
     fiscal year.
       On page 52, beginning on line 24, strike all through 
     ``fiscal year,'' on page 53, line 4, and insert the 
     following:
       ``(3) Failure to satisfy participation rate.--
       ``(A) In general.--If the Secretary determines that a State 
     has failed to satisfy the work participation rate goals 
     specified for the State pursuant to section 404(b)(6) for a 
     fiscal year,
                           amendment no. 2569

(Purpose: To provide for the perspective application of the provisions 
                              of title V)

       On page 300, line 10, insert ``other than section 506 of 
     this Act,'' after ``law,''.

[[Page S 12927]]

       On page 302, between lines 5 and 6, insert the following:

     SEC. 506. APPLICATION OF TITLE TO CERTAIN BENEFICIARIES.

       The provisions of, and amendments made by, this title shall 
     not apply to any noncitizen who is lawfully present in the 
     U.S. and receiving benefits under a program on the date of 
     the enactment of this Act.

  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I offered several amendments which I will 
explain in brief.
  My first amendment would change the formula for distributing Federal 
welfare funds to the States.
  I am offering this amendment with Senator Dale Bumpers. I would ask 
for unanimous consent to add Senators Bryan, Moseley-Braun, Pryor, 
Johnston, and Reid as cosponsors.
  In sum, our formula amendment would distribute funds under this bill 
on the basis of a State's number of children in poverty.
  In the interest of time, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in 
the Record at this point a description of the Graham-Bumpers formula 
amendment. Thank you.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

             Graham-Bumpers Children's Fair Share Proposal

  The Graham-Bumpers Children's Fair Share proposal allocates funding 
based on the number of poor children in each state.
  The amendment would be needs based, adjusts for population and 
demographic changes, treats all poor children equitably does not 
permanently disadvantage states based on previous year's spending in a 
system that is being dismantled, and allows all states a more equitable 
chance at achieving the work requirements in S. 1120. The Graham-
Bumpers Children's Fair Share measure would establish a fair, equitable 
and level playing field for poor children in America, regardless of 
where they live.
  Disparities in funding would be narrowed in the short-run and 
eliminated over time--in sharp contrast to S. 1120.
I11Children's Fair Share Allocation Formula: The Children's Fair Share 
formula would allocate funding based on a three-year average of the 
number of children in poverty. This information would come from the 
Bureau of the Census in its annual estimate through sampling data. With 
the latest data available, the Secretary would determine the state-by-
state allocations and publish the data in the Federal Register on 
  January 15 of every year.Small State Minimum Allocation: For any 
State whose allocation was less than 0.6%, the minimum allocation would 
be set at the lesser of 0.6% of the total allocation or twice the 
actual FY 1994 expenditure level.
  Allocation Increase Ceiling: For all states except those covered by 
the small state minimum allocation, the amount of the allocation would 
be restricted to increase not more than 50% over FY 1994 expenditure 
levels in the first year and to 50% increases for every subsequent 
year.
  Final Adjustment to Minimize Adverse Impact: The savings from the 
``allocation increase ceiling'' would exceed that for ``small state 
minimum allocation''. The net effect of these adjustments would be 
reallocated among the states who receive less than their FY 1994 actual 
expenditures.

  Mr. GRAHAM. My second amendment addresses the issue of unfunded 
mandates. In the spirit of S. 1, the first bill of this session that 
will seek to limit unfunded mandates in the future, a bill which was 
passed with bipartisan support and signed into law by the President, I 
am offering an amendment to apply the principles of S. 1--the unfunded 
mandates bill--to the welfare reform bill.
  My third amendment deals with the section of the Dole bill the calls 
for a ranking of States' compliance with the provisions of this bill. 
My thesis is that this ranking system would be inherently unfair, 
because of the disparate amounts that would flow to States under this 
bill. Therefore, if we're going to give the States a grade, my 
amendment would require the Secretary to take into account the number 
of poor children in each State.
  My fourth amendment deals with the work-participation goals in the 
Dole bill. My amendment would allow those work goals to be modified, 
based on the amount of funding a State receives. My final amendment 
would allow legal aliens currently receiving benefits to continue to be 
eligible under this legislation.
  Mr. SANTORUM addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. SMITH). The Senator from Pennsylvania is 
recognized.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be set aside.
  Mr. DODD. Will my colleague yield for a second?


                Amendment No. 2570 to Amendment No. 2280

(Purpose: To reduce fraud and trafficking in the Food Stamp program by 
providing incentives to States to implement Electronic Benefit Transfer 
                                systems)

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, in behalf of my colleague from Vermont, I 
would like to send an amendment to the desk
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment is 
set aside and the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Dodd), for Mr. Leahy, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 2570.

  Mr. DODD. 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.'')


                  Amendment No. 2571 to Amendment 2280

        (Purpose: To modify the maintenance of effort provision)

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

       The Senator from Vermont [Mr. Jeffords) proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2571 to amendment number 2280.

  Mr. JEFFORDS. 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 403(a)(5) of the amendment, strike B-D, and 
     insert the following:
       ``(B) Historic state expenditures.--For purposes of this 
     paragraph, 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.
       ``(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) job education, 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. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, there is a little confusion. Some time 
ago the Senator from Utah offered three amendments on my behalf. Only 
two were delivered in that package. This is the third amendment, so 
there is no confusion.
  This amendment will clarify the definition of maintenance of effort.
  I ask unanimous consent that my amendment be set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


        Amendments Nos. 2572 through 2576 to Amendment No. 2280

  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I send the following five amendments to 
the desk on behalf of the Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Domenici] and 
ask for their consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. Santorum], for Mr. 
     Domenici, proposes amendments numbered 2572 through 2576 to 
     amendment No. 2280.

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

[[Page S 12928]]

  The amendments are as follows:
                           amendment no. 2572

  (Purpose: To improve the child support enforcement system by giving 
            States better incentives to improve collections)

       On page 590, after line 23, strike (a) incentive Payments 
     and all that follows through page 595, line 2 and insert the 
     following:
       Share collections 50/50 with all States.
       Set national standards that all states must reach before 
     incentives are made.
       National standards will be set up for Paternity 
     Establishment, Support Order establishment, Percentage of 
     cases with collections, ratio of support due to support 
     collected and cost effectiveness.
       Set basic matching rate at 50 percent and allow incentive 
     matching rates up to 90 percent of expenditures for the 
     performance categories.
       Change audit process to invoke audit sanctions if States do 
     not meet 50 percent of the performance standard.
       Require IRS COBRA notices to be sent to the State Child 
     Support Agency.
                           amendment no. 2573

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

       On page 21, after line 25, insert the following:
       ``(5) Welfare partnership.--
       ``(A) In general.--Beginning with fiscal year 1997, if a 
     State does not maintain the expenditures of the State under 
     the program for the preceding fiscal year at a level equal to 
     or greater than 75% of the level of historic State 
     expenditures, the amount of the grant otherwise determined 
     under paragraph (1) shall be reduced in accordance with 
     subparagraph (B).
       ``(B) Reduction.--The amount of the reduction determined 
     under this subparagraph shall be equal to--
       (i)(I) the difference between the historic State 
     expenditures and the expenditures of the State under the 
     State program for the preceding fiscal year;
       (ii) the amount determined under clause (i)(I)
       ``(C) Historic state expenditures.--For purposes of this 
     paragraph, 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.
       ``(D) Determining state expenditures.--
       ``(i) In general.--Subject to (ii) and (iii), 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 determined by adding the expenditures of that State 
     under its State program for--
       ``(I) cash assistance;
       ``(II) child care assistance;
       ``(III) job education and training, and work; and
       ``(IV) administrative costs;

     in that fiscal year.
       ``(ii) Exclusion of grant amounts.--The determination under 
     (i) shall not include grant amounts paid under paragraph (1) 
     (or, in the case of historic State expenditures, amounts paid 
     in accordance with section 403, as in effect during fiscal 
     year 1994).
       ``(iii) Reservation of federal amounts.--For any fiscal 
     year, if a State has expended amounts reserved in accordance 
     with subsection (b)(3), such expenditure shall not be 
     considered a State expenditure under the State program.''
                           AMENDMENT NO. 2574

(Purpose: To express the Sense of the Senate regarding the inability of 
             the non-custodial parent to pay child support)

       At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following 
     new provision:

     ``SEC.   . SENSE OF THE SENATE.

       ``It is the sense of the Senate that--
       ``(a) States should diligently continue their efforts to 
     enforce child support payments by the non-custodial parent to 
     the custodial parent, regardless of the employment status or 
     location of the non-custodial parent; and
       ``(b) States are encouraged to pursue pilot programs in 
     which the parents of a non-adult, non-custodial parent who 
     refuses to or is unable to pay child support must
       ``(1) pay or contribute to the child support owned by the 
     non-custodial parent; or
       ``(2) otherwise fulfill all financial obligations and meet 
     all conditions imposed on the non-custodial parent, such as 
     participation in a work program or other related activity.''


                           AMENDMENT NO. 2575

   (Purpose: To allow States maximum flexibility in designing their 
                     Temporary Assistance programs)

       On page XX, after line XX, strike     and all that follows 
     through page XX, Line XX.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 2576

 (Purpose: To create a national child custody database, and to clarify 
exclusive continuing jurisdiction provisions of the Parental Kidnapping 
                            Prevention Act)

       On page 792, after line 22, add the following new title:

                     TITLE   --CHILD CUSTODY REFORM

     SEC.   01. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Child Custody Reform Act 
     of 1995''.
     SEC.  02. REQUIREMENTS FOR EXCLUSIVE CONTINUING JURISDICTION 
                   MODIFICATION

       Section 1738A of title 28, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (d) to read as follows:
       ``(d)(1) Subject to paragraph (2) the jurisdiction of a 
     court of a State that has made a child custody or visitation 
     determination in accordance with this section continues 
     exclusively as long as such State remains the residence of 
     the child or of any contestant.
       ``(2) Continuing jurisdiction under paragraph (1) shall be 
     subject to any applicable provision of law of the State that 
     issued the initial child custody determination in accordance 
     with this section, when such State law establishes 
     limitations on continuing jurisdiction when a child is absent 
     from such State.'';
       (2) in subsection (f)
       (A) by redesignating paragraphs (1) and (2) as paragraphs 
     (2) and (1), respectively and transferring paragraph (2) (as 
     so redesignated) so as to appear after paragraph (1) (as so 
     redesignated); and
       (B) in paragraph (1) (as so redesignated), by inserting 
     ``pursuant to subsection (d),'' after ``the court of the 
     other State no longer has jurisdiction,''; and
       (3) in subsection (g), by inserting ``or continuing 
     jurisdiction'' after ``exercising jurisdiction''.

     SEC.   03. ESTABLISHMENT OF NATIONAL CHILD CUSTODY REGISTRY.

       Section 453 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 653) (as 
     amended by section 916) is further amended by adding at the 
     end the following new subsection:
       ``(p)(1) Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment 
     of this subsection, the Secretary, in consultation with the 
     Attorney General, shall conduct and conclude a study 
     regarding the most practicable and efficient way to create a 
     national child custody registry to carry out the purposes of 
     paragraph (3). Pursuant to this study, and subject to the 
     availability of appropriations, the Secretary shall create a 
     national child custody registry and promulgate regulations 
     necessary to implement such registry. The study and 
     regulations shall include--
       ``(A) a determination concerning whether a new national 
     database should be established or whether an existing network 
     should be expanded in order to enable courts to identify 
     child custody determinations made by, or proceedings filed 
     before, any court of the United States, its territories or 
     possessions;
       ``(B) measures to encourage and provide assistance to 
     States to collect and organize the data necessary to carry 
     out subparagraph (A);
       ``(C) if necessary, measures describing how the Secretary 
     will work with the related and interested State agencies so 
     that the database described in subparagraph (A) can be linked 
     with appropriate State registries for the purpose of 
     exchanging and comparing the child custody information 
     contained therein;
       ``(D) the information that should be entered in the 
     registry (such as the court of jurisdiction where a child 
     custody proceeding has been filed or a child custody 
     determination has been made, the name of the presiding 
     officer of the court in which a child custody proceeding has 
     been filed, the telephone number of such court, the names and 
     social security numbers of the parties, the name, date of 
     birth, and social security numbers of each child) to carry 
     out the purposes of paragraph (3);
       ``(E) the standards necessary to ensure the standardization 
     of data elements, updating of information, reimbursement, 
     reports, safeguards for privacy and information security, and 
     other such provisions as the Secretary determines 
     appropriate;
       ``(F) measures to protect confidential information and 
     privacy rights (including safeguards against the unauthorized 
     use or disclosure of information) which ensure that--
       ``(i) no confidential information is entered into the 
     registry;
       ``(ii) the information contained in the registry shall be 
     available only to courts or law enforcement officers to carry 
     out the purposes in paragraph (3); and
       ``(iii) no information is entered into the registry (or 
     where information has previously been entered, that other 
     necessary means will be taken) if there is a reason to 
     believe that the information may result in physical harm to a 
     person; and
       ``(G) an analysis of costs associated with the 
     establishment of the child custody registry and the 
     implementation of the proposed regulations.
       ``(2) As used in this subsection--
       ``(A) the term `child custody determination' means a 
     judgment, decree, or other order of a court providing for 
     custody or visitation of a child, and includes permanent and 
     temporary orders, and initial orders and modifications; and
       ``(B) the term `custody proceeding'--
       ``(i) means a proceeding in which a custody determination 
     is one of several issues, such as a proceeding for divorce or 
     separation, as well as neglect, abuse, dependency, wardship, 
     guardianship, termination of parental rights, adoption, 
     protective action from domestic violence, and Hague Child 
     Abduction Convention proceedings; and
       ``(ii) does not include a judgment, decree, or other order 
     of a court made in a juvenile delinquency, or status offender 
     proceeding.
       ``(3) The purposes of this subsection are to--
       ``(A) encourage and provide assistance to State and local 
     jurisdictions to permit--
       ``(i) courts to identify child custody determinations made 
     by, and proceedings in, other States, local jurisdictions, 
     and countries;

[[Page S 12929]]

       ``(ii) law enforcement officers to enforce child custody 
     determinations and recover parentally abducted children 
     consistent with State law and regulations;
       ``(B) avoid duplicative and or contradictory child custody 
     or visitation determinations by assuring that courts have the 
     information they need to--
       ``(i) give full faith and credit to the child custody or 
     visitation determination made by a court of another State as 
     required by section 1738A of title 28, United States Code; 
     and
       ``(ii) refrain from exercising jurisdiction when another 
     court is exercising jurisdiction consistent with section 
     1738A of title 28, United States Code.
       ``(4) There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as 
     may be necessary to establish the child custody registry and 
     implement the regulations pursuant to paragraph (1).''.

     SEC.   04. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING SUPERVISED CHILD 
                   VISITATION CENTERS.

       It is the sense of the Senate that local governments should 
     take full advantage of the Local Crime Prevention Block Grant 
     Program established under subtitle B of title III of the 
     Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, to 
     establish supervised visitation centers for children who have 
     been removed from their parents and placed outside the home 
     as a result of abuse or neglect or other risk of harm to such 
     children, and for children whose parents are separated or 
     divorced and the children are at risk because of physical or 
     mental abuse or domestic violence.

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


        Amendment No. 2577, 2578 and 2579 to Amendment No. 2280

  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I send to the desk three amendments on 
behalf of the Senator from New York, Senator D'Amato and ask for their 
consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. Santorum], for Mr. 
     D'Amato, proposes amendments numbered 2577, 2578, and 2579 to 
     amendment No. 2280.

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

                           AMENDMENT NO. 2577

 (Purpose: Changing the date for the determination of fiscal year 1994 
                             expenditures)

       On page 17, line 20, strike ``February 14'' and insert 
     ``May 15''.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 2578

            (Purpose: Claims arising before effective date)

       On page 124, between lines 9 and 10, insert:
       (3) Closing out account for those programs terminated or 
     substantially modified by this title.--In closing out 
     accounts, Federal and State officials may use scientifically 
     acceptable statistical sampling techniques. Claims made under 
     programs which are repealed or substantially amended in this 
     title and which involve State expenditures in cases where 
     assistance or services were provided during a prior fiscal 
     year, shall be treated as expenditures during fiscal year 
     1995 for purposes of reimbursement even if payment was made 
     by a State on or after October 1, 1995. States shall complete 
     the filing of all claims no later than September 30, 1997. 
     Federal department heads shall--
       (A) use the single audit procedure to review and resolve 
     any claims in connection with the close out of programs, and
       (B) reimburse States for any payments made for assistance 
     or services provided during a prior fiscal year from funds 
     for fiscal year 1995, rather than the funds authorized by 
     this title.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 2579

 (Purpose: Terminating efforts to recover funds for prior fiscal years)

       On page 124, between lines 9 and 10, insert:

     Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, the Secretary of 
     Health and Human Services shall cease efforts to recover 
     previously granted funds, shall pay any amounts being 
     deferred, and shall forgive any disallowance pending appeal 
     before the Departmental Appeals Board or before any Federal 
     court unless the Secretary determines that there was not 
     substantial compliance with the program requirements 
     underlying the claims or, upon probable cause, believes that 
     there is evidence of fraud on the part of the State. The 
     preceding sentence shall not be construed as diminishing the 
     right of a State to administrative or judicial review of a 
     disallowance of funds.

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


                Amendment No. 2580 to Amendment No. 2280

  (Purpose: To limit vocational education activities counted as work)

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

       The Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. Santorum], for Mr. 
     Grams, proposes an amendment numbered 2580 to amendment No. 
     2280.

  Mr. SANTORUM. 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 36, between lines 13 and 14, insert the following;
       ``(4) Limitation on vocational Education activities counted 
     as work.--For purposes of determining monthly participation 
     rates under paragraphs (1)(B)(i)(I) and (2)(B)(i) of 
     subsection (b), not more than 20 percent of adults in all 
     families and in 2-parent families determined to be engaged in 
     work in the State for a month may meet the work activity 
     requirement through participation in vocational educational 
     training.

  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that that 
amendment be set aside for later consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2560

  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, seeing no other Senators present, I 
would like to respond to the comments of the Senator from Connecticut.
  As I said, yesterday when I made comments on the issue of child care, 
I have sympathy for what he is talking about. I was a member of the 
Ways and Means Committee which last year worked on the Republican Task 
Force on Welfare and came up with a bill, H.R. 3,500, with the Senator 
from Massachusetts spoke to and came over and said we should adopt the 
Santorum bill over here from last session because indeed in the last 
session we introduced a bill that, as chairman of the task force, will 
provide more money for child care recognizing the need that if we are 
going to put people into work that we would in fact be required to come 
up with some more money for child care.
  I say that under H.R. 3,500 we did not block grant the program. We 
did not give States the kind of flexibility that we do in this bill, 
and that Governors from across the country--as I said, yesterday, 80 
percent of the people who are on welfare today are represented by 
Republican Governors. Those Governors have almost unanimously--I think 
there is one Governor so far that has not come out and endorsed this 
proposal--said that they are willing to take the allocation of 
resources provided in this bill and can in fact run programs that will 
put people to work and provide day care and the other support services 
that are necessary to get people into work.
  So while we did provide money in that bill in the House, we did not 
provide the flexibility that the Governors wanted. They believe, as 
sort of the age-old tradeoff, as most Governors will tell you, if you 
are going to give us all these requirements give us the money to live 
with them. If you are going to give us responsibility, give us the 
flexibility and we will not need as much money.
  That is pretty much the bottom line here. We believe we are actually 
able to provide more money overall if we give more flexibility to run 
the programs and not have the bureaucratic hoops to jump through here 
in Washington which cost a lot of money for the States to comply with. 
So that is one comment.
  The other comment I would make is that in the programs that have in 
fact required work and in fact did put people into work. I cite the 
example of Riverside, CA, Grand Rapids, MI and Atlanta. In those 
programs where you had these work requirements you had substantial cost 
savings from the existing programs as a result of implementing this 
program.
  You had I believe about a 15 percent reduction in food stamps, over 
20 percent reduction in AFDC payments and over 25 percent reduction in 
AFDC caseload. So you got a lot of people off welfare who maybe should 
not have been on welfare in the first place and you had a reduction in 
the expenditures which that pool of resources 

[[Page S 12930]]
could be used to provide the supplemental benefits that are necessary 
to put people to work. In fact, that is what was done in these 
experimental cities that I referenced.
  So it is a matter of better targeting resources. It is not a matter 
that we have to keep putting up more and more money.
  The final point I wanted to make on child care, and it is a sensitive 
one, is that I share the concern, and in fact I support the Snowe 
amendment which now is the modified Dole package which would provide 
for mothers who have children under 5 to be able to be exempted from 
the work requirement if they can demonstrate that they simply do not 
have child care available or the child care available is simply 
unaffordable under the circumstances that they are in.
  I support that because I think we first have to make sure that before 
we create an entitlement for someone to get child care we have to make 
sure there are not any other sources of day care available. There are 
people on welfare who have parents and grandparents who can help 
provide day care for children, who have neighbors, who have other 
situations in which they can in fact find child care for their children 
without resorting to government entitlement. The government entitlement 
and the big concern I have with the Government entitlement is it 
becomes the first resort for day care, not the last, and that it 
becomes another program that just simply grows and grows and grows and 
we continue to break down the family, the need for parents and 
grandparents as we have done historically not just in this country, in 
every civilization known, to have parents and grandparents of the 
mother be able to be there and help provide for the extended family.
  We can continue to say that is not as important, or the Government is 
going to take their place now, that the Government is going to be in 
there first to provide this day care. I think that is harmful. I do not 
think that should be the first resort. I think we should say that 
families should continue to work together and not look to the 
Government to provide day care for children. If you are going to have 
children, there should be a responsibility of not only the parents but 
the grandparents involved to be a participant in helping. And in fact 
that is what happens today in most cases in America.
  If we create this entitlement, which is what has been talked about, I 
think we really potentially damage. Unintended as it may be, I think we 
damage the nucleus of the relationships of families in America, and the 
dependency which I think is so necessary between generations to hold 
families together.
  The other point I would want to make on that is that if we provided 
an entitlement for mothers--and it is predominantly mothers--for 
mothers on welfare, we say if you go on welfare and then go to work 
under a work program, we will provide you day care, but if you do not 
go on welfare and you just are trying to make ends meet as a single 
mom, you are on your own, wow. What are we saying here? What are we 
saying to single mothers who are out there, as they are, in the 
millions today just trying to get kids to day care and get to work and 
not be late and get home on time and the rest, and we say if you get on 
welfare, we will make it easy for you; the Government will pay for it? 
What are we saying?
  Mr. DODD. Will my colleague yield?
  Mr. SANTORUM. I will be happy to yield.
  Mr. DODD. It is an interesting point because presently we provide 
about 640,000 children in a program with assistance. What we need to 
talk about is not just people on welfare but people going to work at 
125 percent or so of poverty. And there is a transition where people 
should start to contribute to their own child care needs.
  I did not mention this in my remarks, but one of the dangers I think 
of what is going to happen here is that you have people working right 
now that are out there, they are getting help with their child care. If 
we are now going to say to the welfare recipient that you have got to 
go to work, and we are going to say, take what exists out there today, 
we may be taking care from some of the very people working right now, 
managing to stay at work because they are getting help with child care. 
They are going to be put into a second-class status because the person 
on welfare is going to utilize that dollar.
  My colleague is correct. We have provided, not to any great extent, 
for some families to try and keep them off of welfare because even if 
you get off welfare, you have to stay off and staying off requires a 
bit of time so you can get up to a point where you can afford the rent. 
Setting aside health care and looking just at food, rent and so forth, 
average day care costs, private costs are $80, $100 a week, for the 
least expensive programs in many cases, and if you are pulling down 
something a bit above minimum wage that gets almost impossible.
  So it is a good point, but it seems to me it does not necessarily 
argue against trying to get people off welfare and providing that 
transitional assistance. I think the Senator was making that point.
  Mr. SANTORUM. I am not making the point that we should not provide 
child care for women who are on welfare who want to work. I am not 
saying we should not do that. The point I was making is I do not think 
we should create a guaranteed entitlement for it. There is a 
difference. The Senator mentioned in fact for working mothers today 
there is no entitlement to day care. There simply is not. We do, as the 
Senator mentioned, have some 600,000 people who are in need of day care 
assistance, that assistance, but it is a very tough program. You have 
to walk through the hoops to be able to qualify. You have to prove that 
there is no family or other kind of support necessary.
  It is not easy to qualify. And even at that, even if you qualify, you 
are not guaranteed a slot.
  Mr. DODD. Will my colleague yield on that point?
  Mr. SANTORUM. Sure.
  Mr. DODD. Just to make the case. We have no entitlement. This 
amendment is not an entitlement. There is no provision here saying that 
you are entitled to it. We have been told this is the rough amount of 
money--with the 165 percent increase under the Dole work provisions, 
this is the amount of money we have been told would be adequate to 
provide for child care. There is no entitlement here at all. In the 
past, I have argued for entitlement.
  Mr. SANTORUM. The Senator has.
  Mr. DODD. But not on this one. This is no entitlement.
  Mr. SANTORUM. If you provide the amount of money that will be 
necessary to fully fund the program, in a sense you have not created an 
entitlement but you have created a slot for everyone.
  Mr. DODD. Hopefully. But you do not have a right to go to court, as 
you do under an entitlement program, and say I have met the criteria; 
therefore, you must provide me.
  Mr. SANTORUM. I think that is a distinction without a difference.
  Mr. DODD. That is an entitlement program.
  Mr. SANTORUM. OK. Then if we are going to provide sufficient money 
for everyone to get child care as a first resort and a last resort, 
while it may not be an entitlement, it has in effect the same 
consequence which is everyone will have a day care slot, and that is a 
Federal day care slot which I think is a dangerous precedent and a 
counterproductive one.
  Again, I want to emphasize that I think through the Snowe amendment 
we are going to without a doubt encourage States--and I think a lot of 
States would do this without our encouragement--encourage States to 
move forward and to provide day care support for working single 
parents. And I will go through that rationale again. I think it is 
important.
  Under the Dole provision, we are going to require eventually 50 
percent of all people who participate in this program, the welfare 
program, 50 percent will have to be in the work program. There will be 
a substantial number, roughly a third is usually the number, a third 
considered to be incapacitated, disabled, whatever the term you want to 
use, who will never be in a work program because of either their own 
incapacity or disability of a child that would make that parent really 
ineligible to have to leave that child and go to work.
  So you are setting aside a third that you pretty well know are not 
ever going to be in that program. So you have 50 percent of the whole 
thing and 

[[Page S 12931]]
again a third of that is gone, so you have a pretty good chunk of the 
remaining caseload that are going to be required to work.
  If you say that single parents are going to be required to work 
irrespective of the age of the child, so they are going to be in the 
denominator of the equation, but they are not required to work if they 
can demonstrate that child care is not available to them--and again the 
State will set the criteria--that means they are not going to be in the 
enumerator, and if you have a pool here of roughly 67 percent of the 
whole group, and you have to get 50 percent to work, you have a pretty 
slim margin to work with to exclude people because they cannot get day 
care.
  So what you are going to do is to meet your 50 percent number the 
State really is going to be forced to go out and provide day care 
opportunities for younger mothers, and I think that is what we want to 
do. We want to make sure that as efficiently as possible we can direct 
the States to in effect go out and provide those dollars.
  So we think we have gotten around the problem without getting into 
the--I will not use the term entitlement because it is not 
entitlement--without getting used to, I would say, the guaranteed slot 
that is being provided for in the Dodd amendment, however well-
intentioned I think--I know the Senator from Connecticut has been a 
champion in trying to expand the number of day care guarantees for 
parents. However well-intentioned that is, I do not think that is the 
right direction we should be taking at this time.
  Mr. DODD. If my colleague will yield for just one more point, I 
appreciate his concerns, and I was not aware of his efforts in the 
previous Congress in the other body with H.R. 3500, with the Senator's 
own welfare reform and child care proposals, but I will take a look at 
them. Maybe I will offer that as an amendment, the Santorum bill--
  Mr. SANTORUM. Do not put me on the spot.
  Mr. DODD. From the previous Congress. I just raise this because it is 
a good point. States under the Dole proposals I suspect--I am sure they 
are going to be wanting to do what they can in child care, but I 
suspect they are also going to weigh the cost of doing that, through 
whatever mechanism they have to do it, either by cutting spending in 
other areas or raising taxes, and the penalties imposed upon them if 
they do not meet the criteria of the legislation regarding a certain 
percentage of the welfare recipients going to work. They will decide 
which they would rather do, pay the penalty, which I presume would be 
lower--I do not know exactly, but I suspect it is lower than what it 
would be to come up with the resources to see to it that the welfare 
recipient makes the transition. That is one of my concerns here. So we 
will end up with States paying the penalties in some cases because it 
is cheaper to pay the penalties than it is to meet that criteria, or 
that race to the bottom approach where they will say: Look, we are 
going to lower this thing so that people will not stay around in this 
State and they will find some other State, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, 
some other place to go to, so you will have a competition as to who 
will get this thing done and we have another national problem.
  Mr. SANTORUM. I would say to the Senator again in the Dole bill as 
recently modified there is a provision that States have to do 75 
percent maintenance of effort over 3 years. There really is no attempt 
to race to the bottom. I do not know how many States are going to be 
willing to sort of give back dollars as opposed to reallocating 
existing dollars.
  We are not really asking to spend more money. We are telling them to 
reallocate dollars to child care, to implement the work program. And 
that is not costing them any Federal funds to do that. If they violate 
and suffer penalties, they will lose Federal dollars. And that is a 
pretty powerful incentive, I think. I will get those numbers as to what 
the penalties will be.
  Mr. DODD. Yes.
  Mr. SANTORUM. I think it is important to look. If, in fact, we see 
the penalties are not particularly stiff, I would look at dealing with 
that down the road.
  I thank the Senator.
  Mr. DODD. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. JEFFORDS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.


                Amendment No. 2581 To Amendment No. 2280

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

  Mr. JEFFORDS. I have an amendment at the desk 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 Vermont [Mr. Jeffords], proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2581.

  Mr. JEFFORDS. 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:

       Strike the matter between lines 11 and 12 of page 51 (as 
     inserted by the modification of September 8, 1995).

  Mr. DODD. Will my colleague yield for one second?
  Mr. JEFFORDS. I will be happy to.


  Amendment Nos. 2582, 2583, and 2584, En Bloc, To Amendment No. 2280

  Mr. DODD. I send to the desk three amendments on behalf of Senator 
Wellstone.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report the amendments.
  To assistant legislative clerk read as follows:.

       The Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Dodd] for Mr. Wellstone 
     proposes amendments numbered 2582, 2583, and 2584, en bloc.

  Mr. DODD. 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. 2582

(Purpose: To amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to increase the 
                   minimum wage rate under such Act)

       On page 576, between lines 12 and 13, insert the following:

                     Subtitle D--Minimum Wage Rate

     SEC. 841. INCREASE IN THE MINIMUM WAGE RATE.

       Section 6(a)(1) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 
     U.S.C. 206(a)(1)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(1) except as otherwise provided in this section, not 
     less than $4.25 an hour during the period ending December 31, 
     1995, not less than $4.70 an hour during the year beginning 
     January 1, 1996, and not less than $5.15 an hour after 
     December 31, 1996;''.
                           Amendment No. 2583

   (Purpose: To exempt women and children who have been battered or 
   subject to extreme cruelty from certain requirements of the bill)

       On page 14, between lines 12 and 13, insert the following:
       ``(8) Certification regarding battered individuals.--A 
     certification from the chief executive officer of the State 
     specifying that--
       ``(A) the State will exempt from the requirements of 
     sections 404, 405 (a) and (b), and 406 (b), (c), and (d), or 
     modify the application of such sections to, any woman, child, 
     or relative applying for or receiving assistance under this 
     part, if such woman, child, or relative was battered or 
     subjected to extreme cruelty and the physical, mental, and 
     emotional well-being of the woman, child, or relative will be 
     endangered by application of such sections to such woman, 
     child, or relative, and
       ``(B) the State will take into consideration the family 
     circumstances and the counseling and other supportive service 
     needs of the woman, child, or relative.
       On page 14, line 13, strike ``(8)'' and insert ``(9)''.
       On page 16, between lines 22 and 23, insert the following:
       ``(6) Battered or subjected to extreme cruelty.--The term 
     `battered or subjected to extreme cruelty' includes, but is 
     not limited to--
       ``(A) physical acts resulting in, or threatening to result 
     in physical injury;
       ``(B) sexual abuse, sexual activity involving a dependent 
     child, forcing the caretaker relative of a dependent child to 
     engage in nonconsensual sexual acts or activities, or threats 
     of or attempts at physical or sexual abuse;
       ``(C) mental abuse; and
       ``(D) neglect or deprivation of medical care.
       On page 35, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following:
       ``(6) Certain individuals excluded in calculation of 
     participation rates.--An individual who is battered or 
     subjected to extreme cruelty and with respect to whom an 
     exemption or modification is in effect at any time during a 
     fiscal year by reason of section 402(a)(8) shall not be 
     included for purposes of calculating the State's 
     participation rate for the fiscal year under this subsection.
       On page 36, after line 25, add the following:

[[Page S 12932]]

     The penalties described in paragraphs (1) and (2) shall not 
     apply with respect to an individual who is battered or 
     subjected to extreme cruelty and with respect to whom an 
     exemption or modification is in effect by reason of section 
     402(a)(8).
       On page 74, between lines 2 and 3, insert:
     Such requirements, limits, and penalties shall contain 
     exemptions described in section 402(a)(8) for individuals who 
     have been battered or subject to extreme cruelty.
       On page 175, line 16, strike ``and''.
       On page 175, line 20, strike the period and insert ``; 
     and''.
       On page 175, between lines 20 and 21, insert the following:
       (C) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
       `'(F) The provisions of this subsection shall not apply 
     with respect to any alien who has been battered or subjected 
     to extreme cruelty (within the meaning of section 402(d)(6) 
     of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 602(d)(6)).''
       On page 183, line 11, strike the end quotation marks and 
     the end period.
       On page 183, between lines 11 and 12, insert:
       ``(E) Exception for battered individuals.--The requirements 
     of this paragraph shall not apply to an individual who has 
     been battered or subjected to extreme cruelty (within the 
     meaning of section 402(d)(6) of the Social Security Act) if 
     such application would endanger the physical, mental, or 
     emotional well-being of the individual.''.
       On page 192, between line 16 insert at the end: ``The 
     standards shall provide a good cause exception to protect 
     individuals who have been battered or subjected to extreme 
     cruelty (within the meaning of section 402(d)(6) of the 
     Social Security Act).''
       On page 197, line 13, after ``section'' insert ``6(d)(1)(E) 
     or''.
       On page 287, line 21, strike ``or (V)'' and insert ``(V), 
     or (VI)''.
       On page 291, lines 18 and 19, strike ``or (V)'' and insert 
     ``(V), or (VI)''.
       On page 299, line 11, strike ``or''.
       On page 299, line 14, strike ``title II'' and insert 
     ``title II; or (VI) a noncitizen who has been battered or 
     subjected to extreme cruelty (within the meaning of section 
     402(d)(6))''.
       On page 612, line 24, strike ``rights'' and inserting 
     ``rights, and only if such resident parent or such resident 
     parent's child is not an individual who has been battered or 
     subjected to extreme cruelty (within the meaning of section 
     402(d)(6)) by such absent parent''.
       On page 715, line 8, strike ``arrangements.'' and insert 
     ``arrangements. Such programs shall not provide for access or 
     visitation if any individual involved is an individual who 
     has been battered or subjected to extreme cruelty (within the 
     meaning of section 402(d)(6)) by the absent parent.''.
                           amendment no. 2584

   (Purpose: To exempt women and children who have been battered or 
   subject to extreme cruelty from certain requirements of the bill)

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

             TITLE     --PROTECTION OF BATTERED INDIVIDUALS

     SEC.      01. EXEMPTION OF BATTERED INDIVIDUALS FROM CERTAIN 
                   REQUIREMENTS.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of, or 
     amendment made by, this Act, the applicable administering 
     authority of any specified provision shall exempt from (or 
     modify) the application of such provision to any individual 
     who was battered or subjected to extreme cruelty if the 
     physical, mental, or emotional well-being of the individual 
     would be endangered by the application of such provision to 
     such individual. The applicable administering authority shall 
     take into consideration the family circumstances and the 
     counseling and other supportive service needs of the 
     individual.
       (b) Specified Provisions.--For purposes of this section, 
     the term ``specified provision'' means any requirement, 
     limitation, or penalty under any of the following:
       (1) Sections 404, 405 (a) and (b), 406 (b), (c), and (d), 
     414(d), 453(c), 469A, and 1614(a)(1) of the Social Security 
     Act.
       (2) Sections 5(i) and 6 (d), (j), and (n) of the Food Stamp 
     Act of 1977.
       (3) Sections 501(a) and 502 of this Act.
       (c) Definitions and Special Rules.--For purposes of this 
     section--
       (1) Battered or subjected to extreme cruelty.--The term 
     ``battered or subjected to extreme cruelty'' includes, but is 
     not limited to--
       (A) physical acts resulting in, or threatening to result 
     in, physical injury;
       (B) sexual abuse, sexual activity involving a dependent 
     child, forcing the caretaker relative of a dependent child to 
     engage in nonconsensual sexual acts or activities, or threats 
     of or attempts at physical or sexual abuse;
       (C) mental abuse; and
       (D) neglect or deprivation of medical care.
       (2) Calculation of participation rates.--An individual 
     exempted from the work requirements under section 404 of the 
     Social Security Act by reason of subsection (a) shall not be 
     included for purposes of calculating the State's 
     participation rate under such section.
  Mr. DODD. I thank my colleague.
  Mr. JEFFORDS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont is recognized.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. I ask unanimous consent that my amendment be set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.


                Amendment No. 2585 To Amendment No. 2280

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

       The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens], for himself and Mr. 
     Murkowski, proposes an amendment numbered 2585.

  Mr. STEVENS. 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 16 of the pending amendment, beginning on line 13, 
     strike all through line 17 and insert in lieu thereof the 
     following:
       ``(4) Indian, indian tribe, and tribal organization.--
       ``(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B), 
     the terms `Indian', `Indian tribe', and `tribal organization' 
     have the meaning given such terms by section 4 of the Indian 
     Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 
     450b).
       ``(B) In alaska.--For purposes of grants under section 414 
     on behalf of Indians in Alaska, the term `Indian tribe' shall 
     mean only the following Alaska Native regional non-profit 
     corporations--
       ``(i) Arctic Slope Native Association,
       ``(ii) Kawerak, Inc.,
       ``(iii) Maniilaq Association,
       ``(iv) Association of Village Council Presidents,
       ``(v) Tanana Chiefs Conference,
       ``(vi) Cook Inlet Tribal Council,
       ``(vii) Bristol Bay Native Association,
       ``(viii) Aleutian and Pribilof Island Association,
       ``(ix) Chugachmuit,
       ``(x) Tlingit Haida Central Council,
       ``(xi) Kodiak Area Native Association, and
       ``(xii) Copper River Native Association.

  Mr. STEVENS. I want to make a brief explanation of this amendment. I 
hope it will be adopted as a technical amendment. I have provided a 
copy to each side.
  I think this is a necessary change in the provision that is in the 
Dole amendment dealing with Indians, Indian tribes and tribal 
organizations. It will provide in Alaska there be a specific regional 
framework for block granting welfare funds. We think that is necessary 
to meet the circumstances of our State. After all, it is one-fifth the 
size of the United States.
  The administrative costs of just having the welfare assistance 
programs administered from Juneau are almost the same as administering 
the whole east coast of the United States from Washington, DC. It is 
something we are trying to get away from through block granting.
  This amendment would apply only to Alaska and specify that there are 
12 Alaska Native regional nonprofit corporations that are the only 
native organizations in Alaska which would be eligible to receive 
family subsistence block grants directly under the concepts of this 
bill. I think that this will limit the eligible organizations. There 
are some 170 different organizations that would be entitled otherwise 
if we would block grant directly to those organizations.
  We prefer to do it on a regional basis to keep administrative costs 
to a minimum and it is my hope that having decided to do this, if it is 
approved by Congress, that within each region the regional nonprofits 
themselves will work with the villages so that these moneys can be 
administered with the very least administrative costs and will not be 
spending money on people flying planes or going to visit these 
individual areas from far distant places. Let the people of the area 
determine what the basic family assistance money should be used for.
  It is consistent with the law. We are not changing the law at all. It 
merely changes the concept of the tribal organization that is specified 
in the previous subsection (a) of subsection 4, which is the Indian 
tribe and tribal organization section. I am hopeful that it will be 
accepted as a technical amendment.
  I ask that the amendment be set aside temporarily until there is a 
report from the two sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. 

[[Page S 12933]]



                Amendment No. 2586 To Amendment No. 2280

         (Purpose: To modify the religious provider provision)

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

       The Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. Santorum] for Mr. Cohen 
     proposes an amendment numbered 2586.

  Mr. SANTORUM. 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 102(c) of the amendment, insert ``so long as the 
     programs are implemented consistent with the Establishment 
     Clause of the United States Constitution'' after ``subsection 
     (a)(2)''.
       In section 102(d)(2) of the amendment, strike subparagraph 
     (B), and redesignate subparagraph (C) as subparagraph (B).
  Mr. SANTORUM. I ask unanimous consent that that amendment be set 
aside for later consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                Amendment No. 2587 To Amendment No. 2280

  (Purpose: To maintain a national Job Corps program, carried out in 
                partnership with States and communities)

  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I send to the desk an amendment on 
behalf of the Senator from Pennsylvania, Senator Specter, 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 Pennsylvania [Mr. Santorum] for Mr. 
     Specter proposes an amendment numbered 2587.

  Mr. SANTORUM. 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 text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under 
``Amendments Submitted.'')
  Mr. SANTORUM. I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be set aside 
for later consideration.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise in strong opposition to the 
Dole-Packwood welfare reform bill.
  Mr. President, we live in the greatest nation on Earth. We are the 
wealthiest country in the world. But it is clear that some in our 
society do not share in this wealth. They are poor. They are jobless 
and in some cases homeless. And they must rely on public assistance to 
survive. In America, this is unacceptable. And we should be committed 
to improving their lives.
  Mr. President, there is no question that the current welfare system 
needs reform. But the central goal for any welfare reform bill should 
be to move welfare recipients into productive work.
  This will only happen if we provide welfare recipients with education 
and job training to prepare them for employment. It will only happen if 
we provide families with affordable child care. It will only happen if 
we can place them into jobs, preferably in the private sector or--as a 
last resort--in community service.
  But the Dole-Packwood bill is not designed to help welfare recipients 
get on their feet and go to work. It is only designed to cut programs--
pure and simple.
  It is designed to take money from the poor so that Republicans can 
provide huge tax cuts for the rich. That is what is really going on 
here!
  Unfortunately, Mr. President, the radical experiment proposed in this 
legislation will inflict problems on our society while producing 
defenseless victims. Those victims are not represented in the Senate 
offices. They are not here lobbying against this bill. They do not even 
know they are at risk.
  The victims will be America's children. And there will be millions of 
them.
  Mr. President, the AFDC Program provides a safety net for 9 million 
children. These young people are innocent. They did not ask to be born 
into poverty. And they do not deserve to be punished.
  These children are African-American, Hispanic, Asian, and white. They 
live in urban areas and rural areas. But, most importantly, they are 
American children. And we as a Nation have a responsibility to provide 
them with a safety net.
  The children we are talking about are desperately poor, Mr. 
President, They are not living high off the hog. These kids live in 
poverty.
  Consider the following:
  The median AFDC grant for a family of three is $366 per month. This 
is the same amount a Member of Congress makes in one day; $366 per 
month does not buy much these days. As a matter of fact, it gets a 
family of three to 38 percent of the Federal poverty level.
  Mr. President, this is the median. Consider the conditions some 
children live under in certain States.
  In Mississippi, the maximum a family of three can receive is $120 per 
month. This will get a family to 13 percent of the poverty level.
  In Texas, the maximum a family of three can receive is $184 per 
month. This will get a family to 19 percent of the poverty level.
  Mr. President, it is hard for many of us to appreciate what life is 
like for the 9 million children who live in poverty and who benefit 
from AFDC.
  I grew up to a working class family in Paterson, NJ, in the heart of 
the Depression. Times were tough. And I learned all too well what it 
meant to struggle economically.
  But as bad as things were for my own family, they still were not as 
bad as for millions of today's children.
  These are children who are not always sure whether they will
   get their next meal. Not always sure that they will have a roof over 
their heads. Not always sure they will get the health care they need.

  Mr. President, these children are vulnerable. They are living on the 
edge of homelessness and hunger. And they did not do anything to 
deserve this fate.
  Mr. President, if we are serious about reforming a program that keeps 
these children afloat, we will not adopt a radical proposal like the 
Dole-Packwood bill. We will not put millions of American children at 
risk. And we will not simply give a blank check to States and throw up 
our hands.
  Mr. President, this Republican bill is not a serious policy document. 
It is a budget document. It's a down payment on a Republican tax cut 
that targets huge benefits for millionaires and other wealthy 
Americans. A tax cut that, as passed by the House, would provide 
$20,000 to those who make $350,000 per year.
  Mr. President, if the Republicans were serious about improving 
opportunities for those on welfare, they would be talking about 
increasing our commitment to education and job training. In fact, only 
last year, the House Republican welfare reform bill, authored in part 
by Senator Santorum, would have increased spending on education and 
training by $10 billion.
  This year, by contrast, the House Republican welfare bill actually 
cuts $65 billion, including huge reductions in education and training.
  So what has changed? The answer is simple. This year, the Republicans 
need the money for their tax cuts for the rich.
  Mr. President, shifting our welfare system to 50 State bureaucracies 
may give Congress more money to provide tax cuts. But it is not going 
to solve the serious problems facing our welfare system, or the people 
it serves.
  To really reform welfare, Mr. President, we first must emphasize a 
very basic American value: the value of work.
  We should expect recipients to work. In fact, we should demand that 
they work, if they can.
  Of course, Mr. President, that kind of emphasis on work is important. 
But it is not enough. We also have to help people get the skills they 
need to get a job in the private sector. I am not talking about 
handouts.
  I am talking about teaching people to read. Teaching people how to 
run a cash register or a computer. Teaching people what it takes to be 
self-sufficient in today's economy.
  We also have to provide child care.
  Mr. President, how is a woman with several young children supposed to 
find a job if she can not find someone to take care of her kids? It is 
simply impossible. There is just no point in pretending otherwise.

[[Page S 12934]]

  Unfortunately, the Dole-Packwood bill does not even begin to address 
these kind of needs. It does not even try to promote work. It does not 
even try to give people job training. It does not even try to provide 
child care.
  All it does is throw up its hands and ship the program to the States. 
That is it.
  Mr. President, that is not real welfare reform. It is simply
   passing the buck to save a buck. And who's going to get the buck 
that's saved? The people the Republicans really care about: the rich.

  Mr. President, if we are serious about welfare reform, I would 
suggest that we start with adopting provisions that were contained in 
the ``Work First'' alternative developed by Senators Daschle, Breaux, 
and Mikulski. Unlike the Dole-Packwood bill, this proposal addresses 
the real problems facing our welfare system.
  It emphasizes moving people into productive work by providing 
education, training, child care, and health care for those who leave 
the welfare rolls. And after 2 years, recipients would have to work, 
either in the private sector or in community service.
  It provides flexibility for States to run welfare experiments, while 
preserving the Federal commitment to poor children.
  It encourages families to stay together and discourages teen 
pregnancy.
  It contains tough new measures to better collect child support.
  Finally, it makes savings in the Food Stamp and SSI Programs by 
cracking down on waste, fraud, and abuse.
  This is a much preferable approach to welfare reform, Mr. President. 
It emphasizes work and protects the safety net for children. It is the 
type of balance we need to truly reform our welfare system.
  Therefore, I will work with my colleagues to try to improve this 
Dole-Packwood bill through amendments.
  Mr. President, we have an enormous opportunity to improve the welfare 
system. President Clinton has made welfare reform a priority, and the 
American people are demanding action.
  But to do the job right, we are going to have to work on a bipartisan 
basis. That means that my Republican colleagues will have to sit down 
with Senate Democrats and the administration and produce a balanced 
reform bill. A bill that protects children. And a bill that promotes 
work.
  Mr. President, there is a precedent for such a bipartisan effort, and 
it can happen again. In 1988, the Senate passed the Family Support Act 
which provided funds for States to train AFDC recipients so that they 
could move permanently into the work force.
  We passed that legislation by a vote of 96 to 1 when the Democrats 
controlled both Houses of Congress. It was signed by President Reagan. 
And you know who attended the bill signing ceremony at the White House? 
Then-Gov. Bill Clinton.
  I would hope that we could repeat this kind of bipartisanship. But to 
do so, we are going to have to move well beyond budget-driven proposals 
that simply shift the welfare problem to the States, and that threaten 
millions of children in the process.
  So I would strongly urge my colleagues to reject the Dole-Packwood 
bill. Let us reform our welfare system. But let us do it right.
  I yield the floor.
                 tribal block grants and welfare reform

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the Indian 
provisions contained in the Dole substitute to H.R. 4, the Work 
Opportunity Act of 1995. I commend the distinguished majority leader, 
Senator Dole, and the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Senator 
Packwood, for their efforts to overhaul our Nation's welfare system and 
for including provisions which responsibly address the unique needs and 
requirements of Indian country. Senators Dole and Packwood have taken 
great care to draft a welfare plan that effects real change in a system 
that is greatly in need of repair while ensuring that all citizens, 
including our Nation's Indian population, receive equitable access to 
necessary welfare assistance. It is important to point out that the 
Dole substitute bill honors in many practical ways the special 
relationship that the United States has with Indian tribal governments.
  Clearly, our welfare system has failed to meet its goals. Dependency 
is the off-spring of the current welfare system. In order to foster 
independence, we must completely replace the welfare system that breeds 
this dependency.
  Let me put it plain and simple--the great social programs of the past 
have failed American Indians as much or even more than they have failed 
the rest of America's citizens. These programs have failed Indians 
because they have largely ignored the existence of Indian tribal 
governments and the unique needs and of the Indian population. Recent 
attempts to fix this problem have been like placing a bandaid on a 
gaping wound. Under existing programs, Indians remain the worst-off and 
yet benefit the least. If we are to truly reform welfare then we cannot 
ignore Indians, who year-after-year rank the highest in poverty and 
unemployment.
  I believe that the Dole substitute bill promises greater hope for 
Indians because it allows their own tribal governments to serve Indians 
now living in poverty. It empowers tribes themselves to assist in 
ending the welfare dependency often created by existing programs by 
placing resources necessary to fight local welfare problems into the 
hands of local tribal governments. Mr. President, I believe this bill 
demonstrates a real commitment to ending welfare as Indians have known 
it. As I have said on many occasions, our successes as a nation should 
be measured by the impact that we have made in the lives of our most 
vulnerable citizens--American Indians.
  Early in the 104th Congress, the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs 
held several hearings on the potential impact to Indians of various 
welfare reform proposals such as block grants. During these hearings, 
tribal leaders spoke out in strong favor of direct Federal funding 
which would allow tribal governments flexibility in administering local 
welfare assistance programs and stated their hopes of receiving no less 
authority than the Congress chooses to give to State governments in 
this regard. The committee also received testimony from the Inspector 
General of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services who 
testified to how poorly Indians fare under block grants as currently 
administered by State governments. In response to the record adduced at 
these hearings, the Indian Affairs Committee developed provisions for 
direct, block grant funding to tribal governments which are now 
contained in the Dole substitute bill. These provisions reflect the 
efforts of many members on both the Indian Affairs and Finance 
Committees, and to them I express my gratitude.
  Let me take several minutes to explain the Indian provisions related 
to temporary assistance for needy families contained in the leader's 
bill and the goals and purposes of those governments. In general terms, 
the bill authorizes Indian governments, like State governments, to 
receive direct Federal funding to design and administer local tribal 
welfare programs. Let me be clear--an Indian tribe retains the complete 
freedom to choose whether or not it will exercise this authority. If it 
does not, the State retains the authority and the funds it otherwise 
has under the Dole substitute bill.
  Section 402(b) requires a State to certify, as it does with several 
other important Federal priorities, that it will provide equitable 
access to Indians not covered by a tribal plan. This provision 
expressly recognizes the Federal Government's trust responsibility to, 
and government-to-government relationship with Indian tribes.
  Section 402(d) provides standard definitions of the terms ``Indian'', 
``Indian tribe'', and ``tribal organization'' in order to clarify the 
respective limits of State and tribal government responsibilities under 
the bill.
  Section 403(a) establishes the method by which tribal plans are 
funded, basing tribal grants on the amount attributable to Federal 
funds spent by a State in fiscal year 1994 on Indian families residing 
in the service area of an approved tribal plan. Under this Section, 
States are given advance notice before the tribal grant amounts are 
deducted from their quarterly payment. Once deducted, the State has no 
responsibility under the bill for those Indian families and service 
areas so identified in an approved tribal plan.
  Section 403(e) provides that the secretary shall continue to provide 
direct 

[[Page S 12935]]
funding, for fiscal years 1996 through 2000, to those Indian tribes or 
tribal organizations who conducted a job opportunities and basic skills 
training program in fiscal year 1995, in an amount equal to the amount 
received by such tribal JOBS programs in fiscal year 1995.
  Section 404(b)(4) provides that a state may, at its option, count 
those Indian families receiving assistance under a tribal family 
assistance plan as part of the calculation of a State's monthly 
participation rates in accordance with paragraphs (1)(B) and (2)(B) of 
section 404.
  Section 414 is the main Indian provision setting forth the basic 
authority for tribal direct funding and the express requirements of 
tribal family assistance plans. It requires the Secretary to make 
direct funding available to Indian tribes exercising this option in 
order to strengthen and enhance the control and flexibility of local 
governments over local programs, consistent with well-settled 
principles of Indian self-determination. In particular, section 414(a) 
describes how the goals of welfare reform pursued under this bill and 
the goals of Indian self-determination and self-governance authorized 
under separate authority are consistent. Section 414(b) establishes the 
methodology for funding an approved tribal family assistance plan, 
including the use of data submitted by State and tribal governments. 
This provision anticipates that the data involved is already collected 
or the added burden of data collection required will be de minimus. 
Section 414(c) provides that in order to be eligible to receive direct 
funding, an Indian tribe must submit a 3-year family assistance plan. 
Each approved plan must outline the tribe's approach to providing 
welfare-related services consistent with the purposes of this section. 
Each plan must specify whether the services provided by the tribe will 
be provided through agreements, contracts, or compacts with intertribal 
consortia, States, or other entities. This allows small tribes to join 
with other tribes in order to economize on administrative costs and 
pool their talents to address their common problems. Each plan must 
identify with specificity the population and service area or areas 
which the tribe will serve. This requirement is designed to ensure that 
there is no overlap in service administration and to provide a clear 
outline to affected State administrations of the boundaries of their 
responsibilities under the Act. Each plan must also provide guarantees 
that tribal administration of the plan will not result in families 
receiving duplicative assistance from other State or tribal programs 
funded under this part. Each plan must identify employment 
opportunities in or near the service area of the tribe and the manner 
in which the tribe will cooperate and participate in enhancing such 
opportunities for recipients of assistance under the plan consistent 
with any applicable State standards. And finally, each plan must apply 
fiscal accounting principles in accordance with chapter 75 of title 31, 
United States Code. This last requirement is consistent with other 
Federal authority governing the administration by tribes and tribal 
organizations of similar block grant programs under authority of the 
Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975, as 
amended. Section 414(d) requires the establishment of minimum work 
participation requirements, time limits on receipt of welfare-related 
services, and individual penalties consistent with the purposes of this 
section and the economic conditions of a tribe's service area and the 
availability to a tribe of other employment-related resources. These 
restrictions must be developed with the full participation of the 
tribes and tribal organizations, and must be similar to comparable 
provisions in Section 404(d). The remaining provisions of Section 414 
further ensure that funding accountability will be maintained by tribes 
and tribal organizations in administering funds under an approved 
tribal family assistance plan.
  The funds provided to a tribe under section 414 are deducted from the 
State allocation, but only after advance notice to the State. Having 
lost the Federal support for temporary assistance to needy Indian 
families in a tribal plan's service area, the State no longer has any 
responsibility under the bill for those families. The Indian Affairs 
Committee has been informed by various State representatives that it is 
administratively more difficult and costly for States to provide 
services to Indians who reside in remote locations of their States. 
While these States acknowledge a responsibility to provide services, 
circumstances such as geographic isolation make it more difficult to do 
so. States are, therefore, well-served by these provisions, because if 
Indian families in a geographical area are identified in an approved 
and funded tribal plan, a State government no longer has the 
responsibility to serve those families unless the tribe and the State 
agree otherwise.
  Some tribal representatives have pointed out that some tribes may 
choose not to exercise the option to administer a tribal plan, because 
the bill does not require a State to provide State funding to 
supplement the Federal funding provided to a tribe. As originally 
drafted, the Indian provisions expressly permitted States to agree to 
provide State funding or services to an Indian tribe with an approved 
plan in order to maintain equitable services. It is my understanding 
that this language was deleted because other provisions in the bill 
provide sufficient guarantees that States will ensure the delivery of 
equitable services. But under the bill's current provisions, a State is 
not prohibited from entering into an agreement with a tribe for the 
transfer of State funds or the provision of specific State services to 
a tribe for the benefit of Indians within that State. Indeed, a State 
government may choose to enter into an agreement with a tribal 
government to induce the tribe to take over administration of these 
programs, and one of the inducements could be a transfer of State funds 
to the tribe that would otherwise have been used by the State to serve 
those who would now be served under the tribal plan. If State 
administrators are sincere about making real progress on welfare 
reform, and I think they are, I expect they will act responsibly and 
sensitively with tribes that wish to join the State in administering 
programs that end welfare dependency.
  Mr. President, it is important to point out that these Indian 
provisions are consistent with the purposes of the Dole substitute 
bill. They do not seek to circumvent these purposes nor give preferable 
treatment to Indian tribal governments. The tribal plans remain subject 
to minimum requirements and penalties similar to those applied to State 
governments. The Dole substitute also requires a tribe to comply with 
the fiscal accountability requirements of chapter 75 of title 31, 
United States Code and the Indian Self-Determination and Education 
Assistance Act of 1975, as amended. I would also submit that giving 
tribal governments the authority to administer a tribal welfare program 
is consistent with our goal of empowering local government control over 
local programs. It only stands to reason that, like States, Indian 
tribal governments are most familiar with the problems that plague 
their local communities.
  Many of my colleagues in the Senate know that some Indian tribal 
governments may not have existing capacity or infrastructure to 
administer complex welfare programs. Consequently, the Dole substitute 
bill includes provisions authorizing tribes to enter into cooperative 
agreements with States or other tribal governments for the provision of 
welfare assistance. This will allow small tribes to join with other 
tribes in order to economize on administrative costs and pool their 
talents and resources to address their common problems. However, I 
believe it is very important to permit and encourage those Indian 
tribal governments that do possess such capacity to participate in 
these new welfare initiatives by addressing welfare issues at a local 
level.
  It should go without saying that any State may enter into any 
agreement it chooses with a tribe for the transfer of State funds to 
that tribe for the purpose of administering a welfare program that 
benefits Indians within that State. In my view, it is in both a State 
and tribe's best interest to work out supplemental agreements for 
funding and services where necessary because to do otherwise could 
undermine the goals of the bill.
  I know that many Members in this body are aware that Indian Country 
has historically been plagued by high 

[[Page S 12936]]
unemployment and therefore its residents suffer from extremely high 
poverty rates. Therefore, I was pleased to learn that the Finance 
Committee Chairman drafted provisions that enable Indian tribes that 
are
 currently administering tribal JOBS programs to continue to do so. 
Section 403 of the Dole substitute provides that the Secretary shall 
provide direct funding in an amount equal to the amount received by the 
existing tribal JOBS programs in fiscal year 1995. By keeping the JOBS 
programs in Indian country intact, we will acknowledge the positive 
impact it has made in the lives of thousands of Indians. Indians 
residing in communities where a tribal JOBS program is in operation 
have experienced a new sense of hope by developing basic job skills 
that have helped them to secure stable job opportunities both on and 
off the reservation. The Dole substitute bill also contains provisions 
in titles VI and VIII which provide continuing resources for programs 
that have proven successful in Indian country, such as the Child Care 
and Development Block Program as well as new programs that are critical 
to ending the high Indian unemployment rates such as the proposed 
workforce development and training activities. These provisions, along 
with the JOBS component will greatly assist in helping Indian country 
contribute to the goals of welfare reform and the purposes of the act.

  Mr. President, I believe it is important to point out that with 
passage of these provisions in the Dole substitute bill the Senate will 
discharge some of its continuing responsibilities under the U.S. 
Constitution--the very foundation of our treaty, trust, and legal 
relationship with the Nation's Indian tribes, and which vests the 
Congress with plenary power over Indian affairs. I was deeply troubled 
to learn that H.R. 4, as passed by the House, did not address the 
unique status of Indian tribal governments or the trust responsibility 
of the Federal Government to the Indian tribes. There was no House 
debate on the status of the welfare state on many Indian reservations 
nor the impact that the proposed changes to welfare programs would have 
on access to services already in existence in Indian country. Nor was 
there any mention made in the House welfare debate of the significant 
legal and trust responsibility that the Federal Government has to the 
Indian tribes. Therefore, it is extremely important that the Senate do 
so. to do otherwise would be to abrogate our responsibilities. I was 
pleased to learn that the distinguished chairman of the House Ways and 
Means Committee has acknowledged with some regret the failure of the 
House to address the Indian issues and has given his assurance to 
address this oversight during conference on the bill.
  As the chairman of the Indian Affairs Committee, I feel it is my 
responsibility to take a moment to briefly expand my remarks to a 
discussion of the responsibilities of the Congress toward Indians under 
the U.S. Constitution. The Constitution provides that the Congress has 
plenary power to prescribe Federal Indian policy. These powers are 
provided for pursuant to the Commerce and the Treaty Power clauses. 
Sadly, over the last two centuries, the Congress has poorly exercised 
its power and responsibility--subjecting Indian tribal governments to 
inconsistent or contradictory policies--policies of termination and 
assimilation. These policies have served to weaken well established 
Indian systems of government and, in my view, have greatly contributed 
to the welfare state that exists today on most Indian reservations.
  I know that time and time again, I have stood on this floor to recite 
grim statistics revealing that Indians are, and consistently remain--
even in 1995--the poorest of the poor and always the last to benefit. 
Today, I will withhold from reciting that data because I believe that 
this bill begins to turn the tide in this Nation's treatment of Indians 
and their tribal governments. Similar to the unfunded mandates bill we 
enacted into law earlier their year, the Dole substitute bill under 
consideration will treat tribal governments like State governments by 
allowing them the flexibility and authority to directly administer 
their own programs free of Federal bureaucratic intrusion and control. 
Due in large part to the leadership of the late President Nixon, the 
Congress for more than two decades have responsibly exercised its 
plenary authority by replacing the distorted and dismal policy of 
termination of Indian tribal governments with empowering policies of 
tribal self-determination and self-governance--policies that respect 
and honor the government-to-government relationship between the Federal 
Government and the Indian tribes--policies that are consistent with the 
Federal trust responsibility and that set a new course of fairness in 
the Federal Government's dealings with Indian tribal governments.
  Given the renewed commitment by Congress to deal fairly with the 
Indian tribes, I fully understood why many tribal leaders became 
concerned when the Congress earlier this year began moving toward a 
system of block grants to States. The
 concerns were that if the Congress did not revise the block grant 
model to reflect its responsibility to Indian tribal governments, the 
government-to-government relationship between the tribes and the United 
States would be soon eroded and the Federal trust responsibility held 
sacred in our Constitution and the decisions of our Supreme Court would 
be relegated to the States.

  These tribal concerns are likewise valid in a practical sense. A 
Federal Inspector General's report issued in August 1994 found that 
Federal block grants to States, in some instances have not resulted in 
equitable services being provided to Indians. That report found that in 
15 of the 24 States with the largest Indian populations, eligible 
Indian tribes did not receive funds even though Indian population 
figures were used to justify the State's receipt of Federal funding. In 
addition, findings of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs revealed 
that even when States were attempting to serve Indians, the 
programmatic and administrative costs of providing welfare services to 
Indians are often greater than providing local services to others. What 
these findings revealed to me is that when either the Federal or State 
governments have administered programs for Indians, Indians have not 
received an equitable share of services.
  Mr. President, the whole purpose of welfare reform is to provide the 
tools to State governments to design and administer local welfare 
programs. After all, we have come to understand that local governments 
want and have the ability to create local solutions to address what 
are, in essence, local problems. I would suggest that this policy is no 
different than the Federal Indian policies of tribal self-determination 
and self-governance. I also know that elected tribal officials have a 
great love of country and an incredible desire to contribute to the 
Nation's goal of elevating members of their communities out of the 
depths of poverty. Given the tools to do so, I believe that Indian 
tribes will make great contribution to the Nation's war on poverty.
  Mr. President, before I conclude my remarks, I would like to 
acknowledge a group of Senators that I believe have demonstrated a 
great level of understanding and commitment to the importance of 
addressing the needs of Indian tribes in the Nation's welfare reform 
movement. Senators Hatch, Inouye, Domenici, Simon, Murkowski, Pressler, 
Campbell, and Kassebaum have contributed to ensuring that Indian tribes 
are not overlooked and abandoned in the current welfare reform efforts.
  Two members of the Indian Affairs Committee deserve particular 
recognition: my good friend from Kansas, Senator Nancy Landon Kassebaum 
and my good friend from Utah, Senator Orrin Hatch. Senator Kassebaum, 
as chairwoman of the Labor and Human Resources Committee, worked 
closely with the Indian Affairs Committee and Senator Simon to ensure 
that provisions for direct Federal funding would be available to Indian 
tribes in her committee's employment consolidation bill and that tribes 
would continue to receive funding through the Child Care and 
Development Block Grant Program. Senator Kassebaum's leadership has 
greatly contributed to the fairness with which Indian tribes are 
treated under H.R. 4 and the progress that has been made by the 
Congress in its treatment of Indian tribes.
  I want to give particular thanks to my good friend from Utah, Senator 
Orrin Hatch. Senator Hatch has 

[[Page S 12937]]
worked tirelessly with me over the last several months to shape and 
enhance tribal welfare provisions that could be acceptable in any 
welfare reform plan. Senator Hatch is a member of the Senate Finance 
Committee and he is a new member of the Senate Committee on Indian 
Affairs. He has demonstrated a great level of understanding and 
commitment to the betterment of the lives of Indian people, and I 
commend Senator Hatch for his steadfast leadership in ensuring that 
Indian tribal governments are fairly treated in the welfare reform 
debate.
  Mr. President, I understand that other major welfare reform proposals 
make an effort to similarly address the needs of Indian tribes. While I 
have placed my full support behind the provisions of H.R. 4 related to 
Indian tribal governments, I want to make sure to recognize the 
attention that has been paid and the work that has been done on behalf 
of Indian tribal governments by my colleague so the other side of the 
aisle. For example, I know that S. 1117 would have provided a 3-percent 
allocation of funds to Indian tribes under the JOBS Program and would 
have authorized new funding for teen pregnancy prevention and for teen 
parent group homes, and like the Dole substitute bill, provides 
continued funding for child care and development block grants to 
tribes.
  The spirit in which the Senate has acted has adhered to a principle 
that I believe should guide the Congress in matters of Indian affairs: 
Indian issues are neither Republican, nor Democratic. They are not even 
bipartisan issues--they are nonpartisan issues. They are day-to-day 
human issues which call for a level of understanding on both sides of 
the aisle. While this body is not in total agreement with just how to 
reform welfare, the one thing we all agree upon is that whatever new 
form this Nation's welfare system takes, providing equal access to the 
Nation's Indian population is not only the right thing to do, it 
honorably discharges some of our continuing responsibilities under the 
U.S. Constitution.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, 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. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  

                          ____________________