[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 140 (Monday, September 11, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S13143-S13150]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                      FAMILY SELF-SUFFICIENCY ACT

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will now resume consideration of 
H.R. 4, which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 4) to restore the American family, reduce 
     illegitimacy, control welfare spending, and reduce welfare 
     dependence.

  The Senate resumed consideration of the bill.

       Pending:
       Dole Modified Amendment No. 2280, of a perfecting nature.
       Subsequently, the amendment was further modified.
       Feinstein Modified Amendment No. 2469 (to Amendment No. 
     2280), to provide additional funding to States to accommodate 
     any growth in the number of people in poverty. 

[[Page S 13144]]

       Feinstein Amendment No. 2470 (to Amendment No. 2280), to 
     impose a child support obligation on paternal grandparents in 
     cases in which both parents are minors.
       Moseley-Braun Amendment No. 2471 (to Amendment No. 2280), 
     to require States to establish a voucher program for 
     providing assistance to minor children in families that are 
     eligible for but do not receive assistance.
       Moseley-Braun Amendment No. 2472 (to Amendment No. 2280), 
     to prohibit a State from imposing a time limit for assistance 
     if the State has failed to provide work activity-related 
     services to an adult individual in a family receiving 
     assistance under the State program.
       Moseley-Braun Amendment No. 2473 (to Amendment No. 2280), 
     to modify the job opportunities to certain low-income 
     individuals program.
       Moseley-Braun Amendment No. 2474 (to Amendment No. 2280), 
     to prohibit a State from reserving grant funds for use in 
     subsequent fiscal years if the State has reduced the amount 
     of assistance provided to families under the State program in 
     the preceding fiscal year.
       Feinstein Amendment No. 2478 (to Amendment No. 2280), to 
     provide equal treatment for naturalized and native-born 
     citizens.
       Feinstein Amendment No. 2479 (to Amendment No. 2280), to 
     provide for State and county demonstration programs.
       Feingold Amendment No. 2480 (to Amendment No. 2280), to 
     study the impact of amendments to the child and adult care 
     food program on program participation and family day care 
     licensing.
       Feingold Amendment No. 2481 (to Amendment No. 2280), to 
     provide for a demonstration project for the elimination of 
     take-one-take-all requirement.
       Bingaman Amendment No. 2483 (to Amendment No. 2280), to 
     require the development of a strategic plan for a State 
     family assistance program.
       Bingaman Amendment No. 2484 (to Amendment No. 2280), to 
     provide funding for State programs for the treatment of drug 
     addiction and alcoholism and for the National Institute on 
     Drug Abuse Research.
       Bingaman Amendment No. 2485 (to Amendment No. 2280), to 
     provide Indian vocational education grants.
       Simon Amendment No. 2468 (to Amendment No. 2280), to 
     provide grants for the establishment of community works 
     progress programs.
       Levin Amendment No. 2486 (to Amendment No. 2280). to 
     require recipients of assistance under a State program funded 
     under part A of title IV of the Social Security Act to 
     participate in State mandated community service activities if 
     they are not engaged in work after 6 months receiving 
     benefits.
       Breaux Amendment No. 2487 (to Amendment No. 2280), to 
     maintain the welfare partnership between the States and the 
     Federal Government.
       Breaux Amendment No. 2488 (to Amendment No. 2280), to 
     maintain the welfare partnership between the States and the 
     Federal Government.
       Breaux Amendment No. 2489 (to Amendment No. 2280), to 
     improve services provided as workforce employment activities.
       Breaux Amendment No. 2490 (to Amendment No. 2280), to 
     strike provisions relating to workforce development and 
     workforce preparation.
       Rockefeller Modified Amendment No. 2491 (to Amendment No. 
     2280), to provide States with the option to exempt families 
     residing in areas of high unemployment from the time limit.
       Rockefeller Modified Amendment No. 2492 (to Amendment No. 
     2280), to provide for a State option to exempt certain 
     individuals from the participation rate calculation and the 
     time limit.
       Snowe/Bradley Amendment No. 2493 (to Amendment No. 2280), 
     to clarify provisions relating to the distribution to 
     families of collected child support payments.
       Snowe Amendment No. 2494 (to Amendment No. 2280), to 
     clarify that the penalty provisions do not apply to certain 
     single custodial parents in need of child care and to exempt 
     certain single custodial parents in need of child care from 
     the work requirements.
       Pryor Amendment No. 2495 (to Amendment No. 2280), to modify 
     the penalty provisions.
       Bradley Amendment No. 2496 (to Amendment No. 2280), to 
     modify the provisions regarding the State plan requirements.
       Bradley Amendment No. 2497 (to Amendment No. 2280), to 
     prohibit a State from shifting the costs of aid or assistance 
     provided under the aid to families with dependent children or 
     the JOBS programs to local governments.
       Bradley Amendment No. 2498 (to Amendment No. 2280), to 
     provide that existing civil rights laws shall not be 
     preempted by this Act.
       Bond Amendment No. 2499 (to Amendment No. 2280), to 
     establish that States shall not be prohibited by the Federal 
     Government from sanctioning welfare recipients who test 
     positive for use of controlled substances.
       Glenn Amendment No. 2500 (to Amendment No. 2280), to ensure 
     that training for displace homemakers is included among 
     workforce employment activities and workforce education 
     activities for which funds may be used under this Act.
       Grassley (for Pressler) Amendment No. 2501 (to Amendment 
     No. 2280), to provide a State option to use an income tax 
     intercept to collect overpayments in assistance under the 
     State program funded under part A of title IV of the Social 
     Security Act.
       Grassley (for Cohen) Modified Amendment No. 2502 (to 
     Amendment No. 2280), to ensure that programs are implemented 
     consistent with the First Amendment.
       Wellstone Amendment No. 2503 (to Amendment No. 2280), to 
     prevent an increase in the number of hungry children in 
     states that elect to participate in a food assistance block 
     grant program.
       Wellstone Amendment No. 2504 (to Amendment No. 2280), to 
     prevent an increase in the number of hungry and homeless 
     children in states that receive block grants for temporary 
     assistance for needy families.
       Wellstone Amendment No. 2505 (to Amendment No. 2280), to 
     express the sense of the Senate regarding continuing medicaid 
     coverage for individuals who lose eligibility for welfare 
     benefits because of more earnings or hours of employment.
       Wellstone Amendment No. 2506 (to Amendment No. 2280), to 
     provide for an extension of transitional medicaid benefits.
       Wellstone Amendment No. 2507 (to Amendment No. 2280), to 
     exclude energy assistance payments for one-time costs of 
     weatherization or repair or replacement of unsafe or 
     inoperative heating devices from income under the food stamp 
     program.
       Simon Amendment No. 2509 (to Amendment No. 2280), to 
     eliminate retroactive deeming requirements for those legal 
     immigrants already in the United States.
       Simon Amendment No. 2510 (to Amendment No. 2280), to 
     maintain a national Job Corps program, carried out in 
     partnership with States and communities.
       Abraham/Lieberman Amendment No. 2511 (to Amendment No. 
     2280), to express the sense of the Senate that the Congress 
     should adopt enterprise zone legislation in the 104th 
     Congress.
       Abraham Amendment No. 2512 (to Amendment No. 2280), to 
     increase the block grant amount to States that reduce out-of-
     wedlock births.
       Feinstein Amendment No. 2513 (to Amendment No. 2280), to 
     limit deeming of income to cash and cash-like programs, and 
     to retain SSI eligibility and exempt deeming of income 
     requirements for victims of domestic violence.
       Moynihan (for Lieberman) Amendment No. 2514 (to Amendment 
     No. 2280), to establish a job placement performance bonus 
     that provides an incentive for States to successfully place 
     individuals in unsubsidized jobs.
       Moynihan (for Lieberman) Amendment No. 2515 (to Amendment 
     No. 2280), to establish a national clearinghouse on teenage 
     pregnancy, set national goals for the reduction of out-of-
     wedlock and teenage pregnancies, and require States to 
     establish a set-aside for teenage pregnancy prevention 
     activities.
       Hatch Amendment No. 2516 (to Amendment No. 2280), to 
     establish a block grant program for the provision of child 
     care services.
       Hatch (for DeWine) Amendment No. 2517 (to Amendment No. 
     2280), to provide for quarterly reporting by banks with 
     respect to common trust funds.
       Hatch (for DeWine) Amendment No. 2518 (to Amendment No. 
     2280), to modify the method for calculating participation 
     rates to more accurately reflect the total case load of 
     families receiving assistance in the State.
       Hatch (for DeWine) Amendment No. 2519 (to Amendment No. 
     2280), to provide for a rainy day contingency fund.
       Hatch (for Burns) Amendment No. 2520 (to Amendment No. 
     2280), to establish procedures for the reduction of certain 
     personnel in the Department of Health and Human Services.
       Hatch (for Simpson) Amendment No. 2521 (to Amendment No. 
     2280), to ensure State eligibility and benefit restrictions 
     for immigrants are no more restrictive than those of the 
     Federal government.
       Hatch (for Kassebaum) Amendment No. 2522 (to Amendment No. 
     2280), to modify provisions relating to funds for other child 
     care programs.
       Helms Amendment No. 2523 (to Amendment No. 2280), to 
     require single, able-bodied individuals receiving food stamps 
     to work at least 40 hours every 4 weeks.
       Exon Amendment No. 2525 (to Amendment No. 2280), to 
     prohibit the payment of certain Federal benefits to any 
     person not lawfully present within the United States.
       Shelby Amendment No. 2526 (to Amendment No. 2280), to amend 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide a refundable 
     credit for adoption expenses and to exclude from gross income 
     employee and military adoption assistance benefits and 
     withdrawals from IRAs for certain adoption expenses.
       Shelby Amendment No. 2527 (to Amendment No. 2280), to 
     improve provisions relating to the optional State food 
     assistance block grant.
       Moynihan (for Conrad/Lieberman) Amendment No. 2528 (to 
     Amendment No. 2280), to provide that a State that provides 
     assistance to unmarried teenage parents under the State 
     program require such parents as a condition of receiving such 
     assistance to live in an adult-supervised setting and attend 
     high school or other equivalent training program.
       Moynihan (for Conrad/Bradley) Amendment No. 2529 (to 
     Amendment No. 2280), to provide States with the maximum 
     flexibility by allowing States to elect to participate in the 
     TAP and WAGE programs.
       Moynihan (for Conrad) Amendment No. 2530 (to Amendment No. 
     2280), to provide that a State that provides assistance to 
     unmarried teenage parents under the State program require 
     such parents as a condition of receiving such assistance to 
     live in an adult-supervised setting and attend high school or 
     other equivalent training program. 

[[Page S 13145]]

       Moynihan (for Conrad) Amendment No. 2531 (to Amendment No. 
     2280), to prevent States from receiving credit toward work 
     participation rates for individual who leave the roles due to 
     a time limit.
       Moynihan (for Conrad) Amendment No. 2532 (to Amendment No. 
     2280), in the nature of a substitute.
       Moynihan (for Levin) Amendment No. 2533 (to Amendment No. 
     2280), to improve the provisions relating to incentive 
     grants.
       Moynihan (for Pell) Amendment No. 2475 (to Amendment No. 
     2280), to clarify that each State must carry out activities 
     through at least 1 Job Corps center.
       Moynihan (for Dodd) Amendment No. 2534 (to Amendment No. 
     2280), to award national rapid response grants to address 
     major economic dislocations.
       Moynihan (for Dorgan) Amendment No. 2535 (to Amendment No. 
     2280), to express the sense of the Senate on legislative 
     accountability for the unfunded mandates imposed by welfare 
     reform legislative.
       Moynihan (for Lieberman) Amendment No. 2536 (to Amendment 
     No. 2280), to establish bonus payments for States that 
     achieve reductions in out-of-wedlock pregnancies, establish a 
     national clearinghouse on teenage pregnancy, set national 
     goals for the reduction of out-of-wedlock and teenage 
     pregnancies, and require States to establish a set-aside for 
     teenage pregnancy prevention activities.
       Moynihan (for Lieberman) Amendment No. 2537 (to Amendment 
     No. 2280), to establish a national clearinghouse on teenage 
     pregnancy, set national goals for the reduction of out-of-
     wedlock and teenage pregnancies, and require States to 
     establish a set-aside for teenage pregnancy prevention 
     activities.
       Moynihan Amendment No. 2538 (to Amendment No. 2280), to 
     strike the provisions repealing trade adjustment assistance.
       Hatch (for Coats/Ashcroft) Amendment No. 2539 (to Amendment 
     No. 2280), to provide a tax credit for charitable 
     contributions to organizations providing poverty assistance.
       Hatch (for McCain) Amendment No. 2540 (to Amendment No. 
     2280), to remove barriers to interracial and interethnic 
     adoptions.
       Hatch (for McCain) Amendment No. 2541 (to Amendment No. 
     2280), to provide that States are not required to comply with 
     excessive data collection and reporting requirements unless 
     the Federal Government provides sufficient funding to allow 
     States to meet such excessive requirements.
       Hatch (for McCain) Amendment No. 2542 (to Amendment No. 
     2280), to remove the maximum length of participation in the 
     work supplementation or support program.
       Hatch (for McCain) Amendment No. 2543 (to Amendment No. 
     2280), to make job readiness workshops a work activity.
       Hatch (for McCain) Amendment No. 2544 (to Amendment No. 
     2280), to permit States to enter into a corrective action 
     plan prior to the deduction of penalties from the block 
     grant.
       Harkin Amendment No. 2545 (to Amendment No. 2280), to 
     require each family receiving assistance under the State 
     program funded under part A of title IV of the Social 
     Security Act to enter into a personal responsibility contract 
     or a limited benefit plan.
       Chafee Amendment No. 2546 (to Amendment No. 2280), to 
     maintain the welfare partnership between the States and the 
     Federal Government.
       Chafee (for Cohen) Amendment No. 2547 (to Amendment No. 
     2280), to deny supplemental security income cash benefits by 
     reason of disability to drug addicts and alcoholics, and to 
     require beneficiaries with accompanying addiction to comply 
     with appropriate treatment requirements as determined by the 
     Commissioner.
       Moynihan (for Kerrey) Amendment No. 2549 (to Amendment No. 
     2280), to allow a State to revoke an election to participate 
     in the optional State food assistance block grant.
       Moynihan (for Kohl) Amendment No. 2550 (to Amendment No. 
     2280), to exempt the elderly, disabled, and children from an 
     optional State food assistance block grant.
       Moynihan (for Kohl) Amendment No. 2551 (to Amendment No. 
     2280), to expand the food stamp employment and training 
     program.
       Moynihan (for Bryan) Amendment No. 2552 (to Amendment No. 
     2280), to provide that a recipient of welfare benefits under 
     a means-tested program for which Federal funds are 
     appropriated is not unjustly enriched as a result of 
     defrauding another means-tested welfare or public assistance 
     program.
       Moynihan (for Bryan) Amendment No. 2553 (to Amendment No. 
     2280), to require a recipient of assistance based on need, 
     funded in whole or in part by Federal funds, and the 
     noncustodial parent to cooperate with paternity establishment 
     and child support enforcement in order to maintain 
     eligibility for such assistance.
       Moynihan (for Bryan) Amendment No. 2554 (to Amendment No. 
     2280), to provide that State welfare and public assistance 
     agencies can notify the Internal Revenue Service to intercept 
     Federal income tax refunds to recapture over-payments of 
     welfare or public assistance benefits.
       Moynihan (for Bryan) Amendment No. 2555 (to Amendment No. 
     2280), to provide State welfare or public assistance agencies 
     an option to determine eligibility of a household containing 
     an ineligible individual under the Food Stamp program.
       Hatfield Amendment No. 2467 (to Amendment No. 2280), to 
     increase the participation of teacher, parents, and students 
     in developing and improving workforce education activities.
       Hatch (for Nickles) Amendment No. 2556 (to Amendment No. 
     2280), to require the transmission of quarterly wage reports 
     in order to relay information to the State Director of New 
     Hires to assist in locating absent parents.
       Hatch (for Jeffords) Amendment No. 2557 (to Amendment No. 
     2280), to amend the definition of work activities to include 
     vocational education training that does not exceed 24 months.
       Hatch (for Jeffords) Amendment No. 2558 (to Amendment No 
     2280), to provide for the State distribution of funds for 
     secondary school vocational education, postsecondary and 
     adult vocational education, and adult education.
       Hatch (for Kyl) Amendment No. 2559 (to Amendment No. 2280), 
     to require the establishment of local workforce development 
     boards.
       Dodd Amendment No. 2560 (to Amendment No. 2280), to provide 
     for the establishment of a supplemental child care grant 
     program.
       Ashcroft Amendment No. 2561 (to Amendment No. 2280), to 
     replace the supplemental security income program for the 
     disabled and blind with a block grant to the States.
       Ashcroft Amendment No. 2562 (to Amendment No. 2280), to 
     convert the food stamp program into a block grant program.
       Graham (for Kennedy) Amendment No. 2563 (to Amendment No. 
     2280), to terminate sponsor responsibilities upon the date of 
     naturalization of the immigrant.
       Graham (for Kennedy) Amendment No. 2564 (to Amendment No. 
     2280), to grant the Attorney General flexibility in certain 
     public assistance determinations for immigrants.
       Graham Amendment No. 2565 (to Amendment No. 2280), to 
     provide a formula for allocating funds that more accurately 
     reflects the needs of States with children below the poverty 
     line.
       Graham Amendment No. 2566 (to Amendment No. 2280), to 
     require each responsible Federal agency to determine whether 
     there are sufficient appropriations to carry out the Federal 
     intergovernmental mandates required by this Act, and to 
     provide that the mandates will not be effective under certain 
     conditions.
       Graham Amendment No. 2567 (to Amendment No. 2280), 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.
       Graham Amendment No. 2568 (to Amendment No. 2280), 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.
       Graham Amendment No. 2569 (to Amendment No. 2280), to 
     provide for the prospective application of the provisions of 
     title V.
       Dodd (for Leahy) Amendment No. 2570 (to Amendment No. 
     2280), to reduce fraud and trafficking in the Food Stamp 
     program by providing incentives to States to implement 
     Electronic Benefit Transfer systems.
       Jeffords Amendment No. 2571 (to Amendment No. 2280), to 
     modify the maintenance of effort provision.
       Santorum (for Domenici) Amendment No. 2572 (to Amendment 
     No. 2280), to improve the child support enforcement system by 
     giving States better incentives to improve collections.
       Santorum (for Domenici) Amendment No. 2573 (to Amendment 
     No. 2280), to maintain the welfare partnership between the 
     States and the Federal Government.
       Santorum (for Domenici) Amendment No. 2574 (to Amendment 
     No. 2280), to express the sense of the Senate regarding the 
     inability of the noncustodial parent to pay child support.
       Santorum (for Domenici) Amendment No. 2575 (to Amendment 
     No. 2280), to allow States maximum flexibility in designing 
     their Temporary Assistance programs.
       Santorum (for Domenici) Amendment No. 2576 (to Amendment 
     No. 2280), to create a national child custody database, and 
     to clarify exclusive continuing jurisdiction provisions of 
     the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act.
       Santorum (for D'Amato) Amendment No. 2577 (to Amendment No. 
     2280), to change the date for the determination of fiscal 
     year 1994 expenditures.
       Santorum (for D'Amato) Amendment No. 2578 (to Amendment No. 
     2280), relating to claims arising before effective dates.
       Santorum (for D'Amato) Amendment No. 2579 (to Amendment No. 
     2280), terminating efforts to recover funds for prior fiscal 
     years.
       Santorum (for Grams) Amendment No. 2580 (to Amendment No. 
     2280), to limit vocational education activities counted as 
     work.
       Jeffords Amendment No. 2581 (to Amendment No. 2280), to 
     strike the increase to the grant to reward States that reduce 
     out-of-wedlock births.
       Dodd (for Wellstone) Amendment No. 2582 (to Amendment No. 
     2280), to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to 
     increase the minimum wage rate under such Act.
       Dodd (for Wellstone) Amendment No. 2583 (to Amendment No. 
     2280), to exempt women and children who have been battered or 
     subject to extreme cruelty from certain requirements of the 
     bill.
       Dodd (for Wellstone) Amendment No. 2584 (to Amendment No. 
     2280), to exempt women and children who have been battered or 
     subjected to extreme cruelty from certain requirements of the 
     bill. 

[[Page S 13146]]

       Stevens Amendment No. 2585 (to Amendment No. 2280), of a 
     technical nature.
       Santorum (for Cohen) Amendment No. 2586 (to Amendment No. 
     2280), to modify the religious provider provision.
       Santorum (for Specter) Amendment No. 2587 (to Amendment No. 
     2280), to maintain a national Job Corps program, carried out 
     in partnership with States and communities.
       Santorum (for Chafee) Amendment No. 2588 (to Amendment No. 
     2280), to require States to provide voucher assistance for 
     children born to families receiving assistance.
       Santorum (for McCain) Amendment No. 2589 (to Amendment No. 
     2280), to provide for child support enforcement agreements 
     between the States and Indian tribes or tribal organizations.
       Moynihan Amendment No. 2590 (to Amendment No. 2280), to 
     provide that case record data submitted by the States be 
     desegregated, and to provide funding for certain research, 
     demonstration, and evaluation projects.
       Moynihan (for Boxer) Amendment No. 2591 (to Amendment No. 
     2280), to provide for a child care maintenance of effort.
       Moynihan (for Boxer) Amendment No. 2592 (to Amendment No. 
     2280), to provide that State authority to restrict benefits 
     to noncitizens does not apply to foster care or adoption 
     assistance programs.
       Moynihan (for Boxer) Amendment No. 2593 (to Amendment No. 
     2280), expressing the sense of the Senate on restrictions on 
     providing medical information by recipients of Federal aid.
       Santorum (for Faircloth) Amendment No. 2594 (to Amendment 
     No. 2280), to prohibit direct cash benefits for out of 
     wedlock births to minors except under certain conditions.
       Santorum (for Faircloth) Amendment No. 2595 (to Amendment 
     No. 2280), to require the Secretary of Housing and Urban 
     Development to submit a report regarding disqualification of 
     illegal aliens from housing assistance programs.
       Santorum (for Faircloth) Amendment No. 2596 (to Amendment 
     No. 2280), to express the sense of the Congress regarding a 
     work requirement for public housing residents.
       Santorum (for Faircloth) Amendment No. 2597 (to Amendment 
     No. 2280), to require ongoing State evaluations of activities 
     carried out through statewide workforce development systems.
       Santorum (for Faircloth) Amendment No. 2598 (to Amendment 
     No. 2280), to provide for transferability of funds.
       Santorum (for Faircloth) Amendment No. 2599 (to Amendment 
     No. 2280), to provide for transferability of funds allotted 
     for workforce preparation activities for at-risk youth.
       Santorum (for Faircloth) Amendment No. 2600 (to Amendment 
     No. 2280), to allow a State agency to make cash payments to 
     certain individuals in lieu of food stamp allotments.
       Santorum (for Faircloth) Amendment No. 2601 (to Amendment 
     No. 2280), to integrate the temporary assistance to needy 
     families with food stamp work rules.
       Santorum (for Faircloth) Amendment No. 2602 (to Amendment 
     No. 2280), to limit vocational education activities counted 
     as work.
       Santorum (for Faircloth) Amendment No. 2603 (to Amendment 
     No. 2280), to deny assistance for out-of-wedlock births to 
     minors.
       Santorum (for Faircloth) Amendment No. 2604 (to Amendment 
     No. 2280), to provide for no additional cash assistance for 
     children born to families receiving assistance.
       Santorum (for Faircloth) Amendment No. 2605 (to Amendment 
     No. 2280), to deny assistance for out-of-wedlock births to 
     minors.
       Santorum (for Faircloth) Amendment No. 2606 (to Amendment 
     No. 2280), to provide for provisions relating to paternity 
     establishment and fraud.
       Santorum (for Faircloth) Amendment No. 2607 (to Amendment 
     No. 2280), to require State goals and a State plan for 
     reducing illegitimacy.
       Santorum (for Faircloth) Amendment No. 2608 (to Amendment 
     No. 2280), to provide for an abstinence education program.
       Santorum (for Faircloth) Amendment No. 2609 (to Amendment 
     No. 2280), to prohibit teenage parents from living in the 
     home of an adult relative or guardian who has a history of 
     receiving assistance.
       Moynihan Amendment No. 2610 (to Amendment No. 2280), to 
     amend title 13, United States Code, to require that any data 
     relating to the incidence of poverty produced or published by 
     the Secretary of Commerce for subnational areas is corrected 
     for differences in the cost of living in those areas.
       Moynihan Amendment No. 2611 (to Amendment No. 2280), to 
     correct imbalances in certain States in the Federal tax to 
     Federal benefit ratio by reallocating the distribution of 
     Federal spending.
       Abraham/Lieberman Amendment No. 2476 (to Amendment No. 
     2280), to express the sense of the Senate that the Congress 
     should adopt enterprise zone legislation in the 104th 
     Congress.
       Santorum (for Gramm) Amendment No. 2612 (to Amendment No. 
     2280), to limit the State option for work participation 
     requirement exemptions to the first 12 months to which the 
     requirement applies.
       Santorum (for Gramm) Amendment No. 2613 (to Amendment No. 
     2280), to require that certain individuals who are not 
     required to work are included in the participation rate 
     calculation.
       Santorum (for Gramm) Amendment No. 2614 (to Amendment No. 
     2280), to provide for increased penalties for failure to meet 
     work requirements.
       Santorum (for Gramm) Amendment No. 2615 (to Amendment No. 
     2280), to reduce the Federal welfare bureaucracy.
       Santorum (for Gramm) Amendment No. 2616 (to Amendment No. 
     2280), to require paternity establishment as a condition of 
     benefit receipt.
       Santorum (for Gramm) Amendment No. 2617 (to Amendment No. 
     2280), to prohibit the use of Federal funds for legal 
     challenges to welfare reform.
       Moynihan Amendment No. 2618 (to Amendment No. 2280), to 
     eliminate the requirement that HHS reduce full-time 
     equivalent positions by specific percentages and retain 
     requirements to evaluate the number of FTE positions required 
     to carry out the activities under the bill and to take action 
     to reduce the appropriate number of positions.
       Moynihan (for Kennedy) Amendment No. 2619 (to Amendment No. 
     2280), to terminate sponsor responsibilities upon the date of 
     naturalization of the immigrant.
       Moynihan (for Kennedy) Amendment No. 2620 (to Amendment No. 
     2280), to grant the Attorney General flexibility in certain 
     public assistance determinations for immigrants.
       Moynihan (for Kennedy) Amendment No. 2621 (to Amendment No. 
     2280), to ensure that programs are implemented consistent 
     with the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
       Moynihan (for Kennedy) Amendment No. 2622 (to Amendment No. 
     2280), to repeal food stamp provisions relating to children 
     living at home and to reduce tax benefits for foreign 
     corporations.
       Moynihan (for Kennedy) Amendment No. 2623 (to Amendment No. 
     2280), to permit States to apply for waivers with respect to 
     the 15 percent cap on hardship exemptions from the 5-year 
     time limitation.
       Moynihan (for Kennedy) Amendment No. 2624 (to Amendment No. 
     2280), to permit States to provide non-cash assistance to 
     children ineligible for aid because of the 5-year time 
     limitation.
       Moynihan (for Kennedy) Amendment No. 2625 (to Amendment No. 
     2280), to require States to have in effect laws regarding 
     duration of child support.
       Moynihan (for Kennedy) Amendment No. 2626 (to Amendment No. 
     2280), to eliminate a repeal relating to the Trade Act of 
     1974.
       Moynihan (for Kennedy) Amendment No. 2627 (to Amendment No. 
     2280), to improve provisions relating to the Trade Act of 
     1974.
       Moynihan (for Kennedy) Amendment No. 2628 (to Amendment No. 
     2280), to improve provisions relating to the Wagner-Peyser 
     Act.
       Moynihan (for Kennedy) Amendment No. 2629 (to Amendment No. 
     2280), to improve provisions relating to the unemployment 
     trust fund.
       Moynihan (for Kennedy) Amendment No. 2630 (to Amendment No. 
     2280), to clarify that the responsibilities of the National 
     Board are advisory.
       Moynihan (for Kennedy) Amendment No. 2631 (to Amendment No. 
     2280), to improve provisions relating to workforce 
     development activities and funds made available through the 
     unemployment trust fund.
       Moynihan (for Kennedy) Amendment No. 2632 (to Amendment No. 
     2280), to exclude employment and training programs under the 
     Food Stamp Act of 1977 from the list of activities that may 
     be provided as workforce employment activities.
       Moynihan (for Kennedy) Amendment No. 2633 (to Amendment No. 
     2280), to provide for the State distribution of funds for 
     secondary school vocational education, postsecondary and 
     adult vocational education, and adult education.
       Moynihan (for Kennedy) Amendment No. 2634 (to Amendment No. 
     2280), to establish a job placement performance bonus that 
     provides an incentive for States to successfully place 
     individuals in unsubsidized jobs.
       Moynihan (for Kennedy) Amendment No. 2635 (to Amendment No. 
     2280), to require that 25 percent of the funds for workforce 
     employment activities be expended to carry out such 
     activities for dislocated workers.
       Moynihan (for Kennedy) Amendment No. 2636 (to Amendment No. 
     2280), to establish a definition of a local workforce 
     development board.
       Moynihan (for Kennedy) Amendment No. 2637 (to Amendment No. 
     2280), to provide a conforming amendment with respect to 
     local workforce development boards.
       Moynihan (for Kennedy) Amendment No. 2638 (to Amendment No. 
     2280), to require the establishment of local workforce 
     development boards.
       Moynihan (for Kennedy) Amendment No. 2639 (to Amendment No. 
     2280), to clarify the role of the summer jobs program.
       Moynihan (for Kennedy) Amendment No. 2640 (to Amendment No. 
     2280), to expand the provisions relating to the limitation of 
     the use of funds under title VII.
       Moynihan (for Kennedy) Amendment No. 2641 (to Amendment No. 
     2280), to improve the State apportionment of funds by 
     activity.
       Moynihan (for Kennedy) Amendment No. 2642 (to Amendment No. 
     2280), to clarify the role of the summer jobs program.
       Moynihan (for Kennedy) Amendment No. 2643 (to Amendment No. 
     2280), to increase the authorization of appropriations for 
     workforce development activities.
       Moynihan (for Kennedy) Amendment No. 2644 (to Amendment No. 
     2280), to limit the percentage of the flex account funds that 
     may be used for economic development activities. 

[[Page S 13147]]

        Moynihan (for Kennedy) Amendment No. 2645 (to Amendment 
     No. 2280), to make a conforming amendment regarding limiting 
     the percentage of the flex account funds that may be used for 
     economic development activities.
       Moynihan (for Kennedy) Amendment No. 2646 (to Amendment No. 
     2280), to provide for national activities.
       Moynihan (for Kennedy) Amendment No. 2647 (to Amendment No. 
     2280), to ensure that students have broad exposure to a wide 
     range of knowledge on occupations and choices for skill 
     training.
       Moynihan (for Kennedy) Amendment No. 2648 (to Amendment No. 
     2280), to clarify the advisory nature of the responsibilities 
     of the National Board.
       Moynihan (for Kennedy) Amendment No. 2649 (to Amendment No. 
     2280), to provide both women and men with access to training 
     in occupations or fields of work in which women or men 
     comprise less than 25 percent of the individuals employed in 
     such occupations or fields of work, with respect to workforce 
     development activities.
       Moynihan (for Kennedy) Amendment No. 2650 (to Amendment No. 
     2280), to provide both women and men with access to training 
     in occupations or fields of work in which women or men 
     comprise less than 25 percent of the individuals employed in 
     such occupations or fields of work, with respect to workforce 
     preparation activities for at-risk youth.
       Moynihan (for Kennedy) Amendment No. 2651 (to Amendment No. 
     2280), to ensure that States reference existing academic and 
     occupational standards in their State plans.
       Moynihan (for Kennedy) Amendment No. 2652 (to Amendment No. 
     2280), to ensure that State plans describe activities that 
     will enable States to meet their benchmarks.
       Moynihan (for Kennedy) Amendment No. 2653 (to Amendment No. 
     2280), to clarify that the term ``labor market information" 
     refers to labor market and occupational information.
       Moynihan (for Kennedy) Amendment No. 2654 (to Amendment No. 
     2280), to explicitly include occupational information in 
     labor market information system provided under workforce 
     employment activities.
       Moynihan (for Kennedy) Amendment No. 2655 (to Amendment No. 
     2280), to provide a conforming amendment relating to labor 
     market and occupational information.
       Moynihan (for Kennedy) Amendment No. 2656 (to Amendment No. 
     2280), to maintain the administration of the school-to-work 
     programs in the School-to-Work office.
       Moynihan (for Kennedy) Amendment No. 2657 (to Amendment No. 
     2280), to make the list of workforce education activities for 
     which funds may be used more consistent with the provisions 
     of the amendments made by the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and 
     Applied Technology Education Act Amendments of 1990, and the 
     provisions of the School-to-Work Opportunities Act of 1994.
       Moynihan (for Kennedy) Amendment No. 2658 (to Amendment No. 
     2280), to clarify the role of the State educational agency 
     with respect to workforce education activities and at-risk 
     youth.
       Moynihan (for Kennedy) Amendment No. 2659 (to Amendment No. 
     2280), to include the participation and resources of the 
     education community with that of business, industry, and 
     labor in the development of statewide workforce development 
     systems, local partnerships, and local workforce development 
     boards.
       Moynihan (for Kennedy) Amendment No. 2660 (to Amendment No. 
     2280), to include volunteers among those for whom the 
     National Center for Research in Education and Workforce 
     Development conducts research and development, and provide 
     technical assistance.
       Moynihan (for Kerry) Amendment No. 2661 (to Amendment No. 
     2280), to provide supplemental security income benefits to 
     persons who are disabled by reason of drug or alcohol abuse.
       Moynihan (for Kerry) Amendment No. 2662 (to Amendment No. 
     2280), to provide demonstration projects for using 
     neighborhood schools as centers for beneficial activities for 
     children and their parents in order to break the welfare 
     cycle.
       Moynihan (for Kerry) Amendment No. 2663 (to Amendment No. 
     2280), to provide demonstration projects for using 
     neighborhood schools as centers for beneficial activities for 
     children and their parents in order to break the welfare 
     cycle.
       Moynihan (for Kerry) Amendment No. 2664 (to Amendment No. 
     2280), to require applicants for assistance who are parents 
     to enter into a Parental Responsibility Contract and perform 
     satisfactorily under its terms as a condition of receipt of 
     that assistance.
       Moynihan (for Harkin) Amendment No. 2665 (to Amendment No. 
     2280), to reduce the income tax rate for individuals to equal 
     the estimated cost of certain repealed programs.
       Moynihan (for Kerry) Amendment No. 2666 (to Amendment No. 
     2280), to make the workforce development system more 
     responsive to changing local labor markets.
       Moynihan (for Breaux) Amendment No. 2667 (to Amendment No. 
     2280), to improve the services provided as workforce 
     employment activities.
       Moynihan (for Mikulski) Amendment No. 2668 (to Amendment 
     No. 2280), to eliminate a repeal of title V of the Older 
     American Act of 1965.
       Moynihan (for Mikulski) Amendment No. 2669 (to Amendment 
     No. 2280), to encourage 2-parent families.
       Moynihan (for Kerrey) Amendment No. 2670 (to Amendment No. 
     2280), to allow a State to revoke an election to participate 
     in optional State food assistance block grant.
       Moynihan (for Daschle) Amendment No. 2671 (to Amendment No. 
     2280), to provide a 3 percent set aside for the funding of 
     family assistance grants for Indians.
       Moynihan (for Daschle) Amendment No. 2672 (to Amendment No. 
     2280), to provide for a contingency grant fund.
       Santorum Amendment No. 2673 (to Amendment No. 2280), 
     regarding implementation of electronic benefit transfer 
     system.
       Santorum (for McConnell) Amendment No. 2674 (to Amendment 
     No. 2280), to timely rapid implementation of provisions 
     relating to the child and adult care food program.
       Santorum (for McConnell) Amendment No. 2675, to clarify the 
     school data provision of the child and adult care food 
     program.
       Santorum (for Packwood) Amendment No. 2676, to strike the 
     increase to the grant to reward States that reduce out-of-
     wedlock births.
       Moynihan (for Kennedy) Amendment No. 2677 (to Amendment No. 
     2280), to provide for an extension of transitional medicaid 
     benefits.
       Santorum (for D'Amato) Amendment No. 2678 (to Amendment No. 
     2280), relating to the eligibility of States to receive 
     funds.
       Moynihan (for Kerry) Amendment No. 2679 (to Amendment No. 
     2280), to provide supplemental security income benefits to 
     persons who are disabled by reason of drug or alcohol abuse.
       Moynihan (for Harkin) Amendment No. 2680 (to Amendment No. 
     2280), to assure continued taxpayer savings through 
     competitive bidding in WIC.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
Kansas, Mrs. Kassebaum, is recognized to offer an amendment.


                Amendment No. 2522 to Amendment No. 2280

  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I am happy to be able to start off by 
offering one of the 200 amendments that will be considered today. As we 
know, all these amendments were laid down before the close of business 
on Friday.
  The amendment that I am offering and that I would like to discuss 
briefly this morning would restore provisions contained in the Child 
Care and Development Block Grant Amendments Act of 1995. This is the 
reauthorization of legislation that has been in law for 5 years. It was 
approved by the Committee on Labor and Human Resources by a unanimous 
vote on May 25.
  While I am committed to ending the concept of welfare as an 
entitlement, I have some concerns about the legislation before us, the 
Work Opportunity Act, regarding changes that have been made to child 
care.
  It seems to me that one of the most important considerations we have 
to undertake when we are considering welfare reform is how we handle 
child care. I think that all of us here in the Senate on both sides of 
the aisle regard our ability to structure welfare reform in an 
effective manner a top priority for the 104th Congress. We can talk 
about ending support for mothers who should be working, for families 
who should be working, but it is the children who become a crucial 
element. It is with the children that we have to be careful and must 
begin breaking the cycle of dependence that has occurred through years 
of being on welfare. It is the protection of the children that is the 
most important responsibility that we have.
  Title VI of the welfare reform bill includes the reauthorization of 
the Child Care and Development Block Grant. It is called the CCDBG and 
it was enacted in 1990 with bipartisan support because Congress 
recognized there was a lack of adequate child care for many low-income 
working families. These just are not families on welfare. These are 
families that are in the work force, frequently with low-paying jobs, 
but who do not have the access to affordable, quality child care.
  It was in that light that we felt it was very important to address 
this, with a sliding fee scale determined by the states, so that low-
income families could be participants with some subsidies as they 
worked their way into better paying jobs.
  I think this continues to be a nationwide problem. One of the primary 
goals of the CCDBG as it came out of committee is to ensure that there 
is a seamless system of child care where it counts the most at the 
point where the parent, child, and provider meet.
  The provision that was in S. 850 that would have consolidated child 
care funds into one unified system is not included in the leadership 
welfare reform bill. The amendment I offer today restores that 
provision so that we will 

[[Page S 13148]]
have one unified system of child care, one State plan, and one set of 
eligibility requirements.
  I believe this only makes sense, Mr. President, as we are trying to 
consolidate and trying to work together to form a better system. Why 
continue to have two different child care systems--one under the child 
care and development block grant, and one under the welfare child care 
system?
 I think it makes sense to bring the two systems together in a unified 
approach.

  My amendment does make one change to the original consolidation 
provision that was included in S. 850, the legislation that we approved 
out of committee, and that relates to the 15-percent set-aside for 
quality improvement activities. The set-aside will apply to the 
discretionary funds appropriated for the CCDBG, but will not apply to 
other child care services provided through the unified system.
  We have tried to take into account some of the concerns of Governors 
who obviously would like to have a system that does not have too many 
requirements from Congress, and we have tried to do that. On the other 
hand, we believe that through the CCDGB there are some important 
requirements that have proven to be of benefit and to have created a 
successful child care approach in the States.
  My amendment also strikes the provision in the welfare bill that 
would allow up to 30 percent of the funds to be transferred between the 
CCDBG and the cash assistance block grant. I oppose the transferability 
provision for two major reasons.
  First, I am concerned that there is too little child care money 
available now. Funds transferred out of the CCDBG would not necessarily 
be used for child care, which would create an even bigger problem; the 
Governors could use it for other assistance such as cash benefits, 
which they might choose and which they may feel is important. But I 
feel strongly that these funds need to be targeted toward child care. 
If we fail in this, we are going to fail to reform welfare in ways that 
will be beneficial for years to come.
  Second, the primary purpose of the CCDBG is to assist the working 
poor who contribute something toward child care through the sliding fee 
scale. Having this type of assistance available will become even more 
important as individuals make the transition from welfare to work. I 
think we all know that finding the right child care can be one of the 
most costly and stressful aspects for parents as they enter the work 
force. Not everyone is fortunate enough to have a grandparent or an 
extended family member who can help with child care. In fact, many 
today do not have relatives that can or will care for their children. 
And that becomes one of the most stressful problems that a mother faces 
when she goes to work in the morning, if she cannot be certain of some 
quality child care, or cannot count on child care that she feels 
comfortable with for her children.
  Having this type of assistance available to those who are trying to 
work their way off welfare will become even more important as we stress 
the transition from welfare to work. Diverting CCDBG funds for other 
purposes diminishes a program which is badly needed by the working 
poor, and I believe it is unfair to penalize those who are struggling 
to provide for themselves and their families.
  I hope that all of my colleagues can support the amendment I offer 
today, Mr. President, to consolidate child care into one unified system 
and to preserve the limited funds allocated to child care.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, on a Monday morning, to focus on a very 
important amendment that the Senator from Kansas has offered, when we 
are going to have a very long week on this bill, is a sharp contrast 
from sometimes the easy subjects we are discussing on Friday afternoon 
when we adjourn for a weekend. To start out with the very basic issue 
of child care that Senator Kassebaum has brought up is really starting 
out with a heavy burden. The Senator from Kansas is always well 
prepared, and so we cannot find any fault with the preparation for her 
amendment, but we do take exception to the rationale behind the 
amendment and consequently cannot support it.
  Behind the amendment I believe is an assumption that somehow if you 
are on welfare, or are low income, and it comes to the subject of 
getting up in the morning and going to work--and obviously if you are 
on welfare, there is a family involved, so there is a child that must 
be taken some place when you are on welfare--it assumes somehow that 
low-income people are different than other people; that when it comes 
to child care, they cannot do it; they cannot seek good child care, go 
through the business arrangements required, and on their own, without 
the help of the Federal Government or without the help of the State 
government, be able to provide for the care of a child while the mother 
and/or father are at work. It assumes that low-income people are not 
capable of this or assumes that they do not want to do it.
  One of the things our reform proposal intends to do is to assume that 
whether people are low income or not, they are, first of all, concerned 
about their family; and, second, that they have the capacity to do what 
must be done for their family; that you just cannot assume because 
people are low income, somehow they do not have that ability.
  Part of the basis for welfare reform is to enhance individual 
responsibility, detract from the dependency of the State that has been 
paramount to the system we have had historically and to start out with 
the assumption that low income people have the basic innate 
capabilities that other people have if given the opportunity.
  Just recently, as I have said so many times on the floor of this 
body, our State of Iowa passed a welfare reform proposal that is going 
to enhance this individual responsibility. In fact, under our system, 
welfare recipients sign a contract with the State establishing certain 
points in the near future when they will take certain actions regarding 
the family, regarding seeking a job, regarding education, if that is 
necessary before a job, and eventually to getting a job so they work 
their way off welfare. Individual responsibility is the essence of that 
contract which the recipient signs with the State of Iowa.
  There is a welfare recipient in my State who recently told a State 
legislator that the problem with the Iowa welfare reform was that we 
had gone from a system of no choices, where the State told her what to 
do, when to do it, and where to do it, to a system of choices in which 
she had to plan for her future, decide what opportunities to take and, 
in her words, ``to be responsible.''
  For her being faced with choices was the hardest part of the reform, 
but I hope she recognizes, and us as well, that the hardest part of the 
reform is basic to whether or not things are going to be different 
under a new system. The issue comes down to whether we are going to 
assume the capabilities that all Americans have of making decisions and 
wanting to make decisions and set up an environment for those decisions 
to be made.
  I think the amendment that has just been presented by the Senator 
from Kansas assumes that the welfare recipient might not be totally 
capable, or ought not to have the responsibility even, of making that 
decision.
  The story I mentioned about the Iowa welfare recipient is true. I 
think it epitomizes what is wrong with the current system. And when we 
give States an opportunity to do better than what the Federal 
Government wants to do, we can move in the direction of changing our 
paternalistic system. It is promoting and even rewarding dependency.
  There are many low-income American families who are struggling to 
make ends meet and be responsible without any public assistance. They 
take pride in their successes. And they have dignity for their efforts 
to be self-sufficient through employment. They get up every morning and 
they take their children to child care. They go to a job where they 
work all day. They pick up their children in the afternoon and go home.
  That is what most American families do. That is what even most 
American families who are low income or ``working poor'' do without any 
concern by any bureaucracy. They just do it. When you lump in some of 
the other benefits that go with AFDC that may not have an immediate 
cash value, there are some people on welfare who are not too 

[[Page S 13149]]
far below what low-income working people make over the course of a 
year.
  And yet somehow with this amendment the assumption is that if you are 
on welfare and make X number of dollars, the State has all this 
responsibility to see that you have food on the table, child care, job 
training before you go to a job, and assistance in finding a job.
  In contrast, if you have never been part of the welfare system and 
you have a job that does not pay very well, you get up in the morning, 
find your own job, take your kids to child care, pick them up at night. 
Additionally, you had to worry about your own training if there was 
training for that job, without any concern of a bureaucrat looking out 
for you.
  Why the difference? One system breeds dependence. The other 
independence. We want to change that. We want people who are on welfare 
to assume responsibility and to move forward with life.
  They should not somehow be segregated as different from other people 
without the capability of exercising a normal life.
  Well, those families who work are faced with decisions on how to deal 
with their daily challenges, how to budget for their family's needs, 
what to do if their child care falls through for the day and how to 
plan for their future. In contrast, today's welfare system does not 
allow, expect, or encourage welfare recipients to make these normal, 
everyday decisions.
  I think this legislation is about changing all that, ending business 
as usual for families, requiring recipients to take responsibility and 
learn to make decisions that most American families are faced with 
every day.
  And, of course, one of those decisions is child care.
  It is conceivable that a State may want to take a new approach of 
combining cash assistance and child care funding into a single grant to 
a family. The family then would make the decision on who to provide 
care for their children and the fair rate that they need to pay in a 
negotiated agreement with the providers.
  That is what most American families do. The amendment before us by 
the Senator from Kansas would apply all of the child care development 
block grant standards to all child care funding, no matter what the 
source of the Federal dollars might be.
  For instance, the amendment assumes payment to the provider would be 
guaranteed directly from the State. This would take away the premise of 
family responsibility and independence. This is what we need to change. 
We need a system where a State would be allowed to challenge public 
assistance recipients to be responsible and to make the child care 
decisions themselves as well as making the payments themselves.
  We should not assume the worst about public assistance recipients, 
that they are incapable of making these decisions in the best interest 
of their children and family. If we really want an environment of State 
flexibility, we should be minimizing standards, not maximizing them. As 
we all know, the best welfare reform proposals have come from the State 
level, not from the Federal Government. So, if we maximize State 
flexibility to be creative with reforms, including child care, we do 
that by leaving these decisions to the States. So if we want to give 
States block grants and the flexibility that goes with it, rather than 
continue the rigid existing programs and regulations, then it seems to 
me that we have to limit prescriptive operating guidelines in our 
legislation.
  As well intended as the Senator's amendment is, it is tied to the old 
way of doing business. It is tied to the philosophy that, first of all, 
when it comes to the families of AFDC recipients, everyone needs a 
bureaucrat looking out for them. It assumes that government knows 
better. It assumes that when government knows better, that of all 
governments, the Federal Government knows better. It assumes that 
parents, if low income and on a government program, know less about 
meeting the needs of their families than low-income families who are 
not on public assistance.
  It assumes because you are low income that you have capabilities less 
than people who are middle income or higher income, and that is not 
true.
  It segregates too many Americans into certain categories. We ought to 
be eliminating the categorization of Americans, the balkanization of 
our society. We ought to be working in this body to bring our country 
together, not to separate it.
  We should be working in this body for eliminating any differences we 
can, particularly those differences that come because of Government 
involvement.
  So, I hope that the amendment of the Senator from Kansas can be 
defeated. I yield the floor
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I wish to respond for a moment to the 
Senator from Iowa. I know that Senator Grassley cares as much as I do 
about making sure that we can enact a welfare reform initiative and the 
importance of doing that. But I think I need to reiterate that the 
amendment I am offering deals with child care for low-income working 
families.
  The child care and development Block Grant, which has been in law for 
5 years, and is being reauthorized, has been included in this overall 
welfare reform package. It was designed to provide, as I said earlier, 
a sliding fee scale of support for low-income working families. It is 
not addressing the child care provisions for AFDC recipients. It does 
bring them together into a single system rather than a two-track 
system, but it is not Government bureaucracy so much as I would argue 
the need to continue that support for families that are moving off 
welfare.
  Child care is very expensive. As I say, if you are not lucky enough 
to have some member of the family or a good neighbor or friend who is 
assisting with child care--sometimes those provisions and tradeoffs can 
be made; having a daughter and daughters-in-law who work, I know that 
sometimes it is possible, but many times it is not--child care can 
range as low as $60 to $80 per week to as high as $150 to $200 a week. 
That is a lot of money for families who are trying to enter the work 
force at very low-income levels, and that is why I feel strongly about 
not permitting transferability of funds out of the CCDBG account so 
that we can help those families in transition.
  It seems to me that this is a very important part of this provision. 
I think we should be concerned about low-income families who do not 
have any support for child care versus the welfare family who would 
have total support for child care. For those just right over the line, 
it is difficult and it does not make a lot of sense. That is why I feel 
strongly about a sliding fee scale where recipients make a contribution 
to their child care and are given some Federal assistance based on 
their income as they are trying to break away from welfare assistance.
  I think every State, including Iowa, has some concerns about how to 
help a population that has been very dependent on benefits over the 
years and how to make this transition without harming children. This is 
what I am trying to address by keeping intact the provisions of the 
child care and development block grant.
  I yield the floor, Mr. President.
  Mr. President, I call up my amendment, which is No. 2522.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Kansas [Mrs. Kassebaum] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2522.

  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. 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 the Friday, September 8, 
1995, edition of the Record.)
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, as has been indicated, this will be 
one of the amendments that will be voted on after 5 o'clock this 
afternoon.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I announce to Members of this body who 
have amendments that are pending--and I think under the rules all 
amendments must have been filed by last week--that several of those 
amendments have been reviewed and agreed to. If those amendments can be 
offered 

[[Page S 13150]]
today, we would like to have the Members come and bring those 
amendments up, and those amendments will be accepted.
  I and other managers of this legislation, throughout the course of 
the day, will be happy to handle those amendments if the Members are 
not able to do so or do not want to do so this morning, so that we can 
use this time before the votes at 5 o'clock this afternoon to expedite 
as many amendments as we can from our list of over 200.
  Mr. President, I am going to take this opportunity to speak as in 
morning business. When somebody comes and wants the floor for work on 
welfare reform, I will yield it.
  I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
Senator from Iowa is recognized.


                          ____________________