[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 141 (Tuesday, September 12, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S13333-S13345]
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.


                           Amendment No. 2488

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will now be 4 minutes of debate equally 
divided on the Breaux amendment No. 2488.
  Who yields time?
  Mr. SANTORUM addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I think we had a good debate on the 
maintenance of effort provision. I think it boils down to simply this. 
If you want a welfare reform bill to come out of the Senate that is 
going to be an impetus for change, it is going to say to the States to 
go out there and be innovative and be able to reduce the welfare 
caseload, reduce the amount of State expenditures, and have the 
flexibility you need to do those without artificially holding States to 
the high level of maintenance of effort. I think the Dole 75 percent 
provision that is in there right now does that. It prohibits a race to 
the bottom. It gives States flexibility. It says be innovative. It 
saves money. And I think that is really what we want to accomplish. It 
is a prevention of the worst-case scenario which is no welfare spending 
from the States, and at the same time provides that amount of 
flexibility that is needed to go forward and do some dramatic changes 
in the welfare system. I think we have struck a very responsible 
compromise.
  I think this amendment goes too far. This basically says we are going 
to continue to spend money. The Senator from Louisiana often says we 
are going to save money at the Federal level. Why should not the 
Federal Government save money? We may be saving money on the Federal 
level but we are spending a lot more taxpayers' money at the State 
level. The taxpayer overall under this amendment will lose even though 
the Federal Government is going to save a little money. It will spend a 
lot more in State resources. Again, it is an unfriendly taxpayer 
amendment and at the same time stifles innovation.
  I urge the rejection of the amendment.
  Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I will conclude my remarks by pointing out 
that for 6 years we have had a partnership between the Federal 
Government and the States. The House, when they took up welfare reform, 
said for the first time the States will have no obligation to do 
anything. They can spend zero dollars if they want. But the Federal 
Government has to continue to foot 100 percent of the bill. That is 
wrong.
  My amendment says we are going to require the States to spend 90 
percent of what they were spending and the Federal Government will 
spend 100 percent of what it was spending. But if the States are able 
to reduce what they spend below 90 percent, we will also reduce the 
Federal contribution. If they save a dollar, we will save a dollar. 
That is a true partnership. They can be as inventive as they want. We 
hope they are. We hope they save money. But when they save money and 
spend more than 10 percent less than they were spending last year, the 
Federal Government will also reduce our contribution.
  The Congressional Budget Office looked at our amendment and the 
Congressional Budget Office said that it would save $545 billion over 
the next 7 years. Without my amendment being adopted, we will not see 
those savings implemented into law. Mr. President, $545 billion over 7 
years is a significant amount of money. It maintains the partnership 
between the Federal Government and the States. Why should we in 
Washington send the money to the States if they are not going to 
participate? If we let the States get off the hook and we continue to 
send the money, that is not a true partnership and that will be 
contrary to the reforms that we are trying to reach. Anybody who has 
ever been to a conference around here knows the House has a zero 
requirement. If we go in with a 75 percent requirement, in all 
likelihood we are going to split the difference.
  So if all of our Republican colleagues think 75 percent is a 
reasonable amount to come out of a conference, I would suggest it is 
absolutely essential that they vote for the Breaux amendment as it 
currently is drafted.
  I yield the time.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I move to table the Breaux amendment, 
and I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion of 
the Senator from Pennsylvania to lay on the table the amendment of the 
Senator from Louisiana. On this question, the yeas and nays have been 
ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. I announce that the Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Cochran] 
is necessarily absent.
  The VICE PRESIDENT. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber who 
desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 50, nays 49, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 411 Leg.]

                                YEAS--50

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

                                NAYS--49

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

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Cochran
       
  So the motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
                           Amendment No. 2562
  The VICE PRESIDENT. Under the previous order, the Senate will now 
consider amendment No. 2562, offered by the Senator from Missouri [Mr. 

[[Page S 13334]]
Ashcroft]. There will be 1 hour for debate equally divided.
  The Senator from Missouri is recognized.
  (Mr. COATS assumed the chair.)
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield myself 10 minutes, 
and I ask to be notified when the 10 minutes has expired.
  Mr. President, we are debating this week a very important topic, and 
it is not the future of a series of governmental programs, not the role 
of the Federal Government in providing for a social safety net. We are 
not debating how much money we will save. What we are debating this 
week is nothing less than the lives of millions of American citizens.
  The welfare program, as it is currently constituted, has entrapped 
millions of Americans and has robbed literally generations of their 
future. What we are debating is whether we will continue to subsidize 
the current system, which may feed the body, but it numbs the spirit. 
It is a system which traps people in a web of dependency, places them 
in a cycle of hopelessness and despair. It is a system which promises a 
way out, but punishes those who try to find the way out.
  Today's welfare system is heartless and cruel; it is unfeeling, it is 
uncaring. Whatever we do, we must remember those facts, and we must 
remember the faces that are the portraits of suffering that have been 
drawn on the canvas of American history by our welfare system as it is 
now constituted.
  Welfare's failure is evident in many programs. Nowhere is it more 
evident, though, than in the Food Stamp Program. Food stamps, part of 
the Great Society's war on poverty. Today, food stamps is the country's 
largest provider of food aid. It is also, arguably, the Nation's most 
extensive welfare program. Last year, the program tried to help more 
than one out of every 10 Americans at a cost of nearly $25 billion.
  As the chart behind me illustrates, spending on food stamps has 
increased exponentially since becoming a national program in the early 
seventies, a quite dramatic and rapid increase. It has not been a 
function of population growth alone. This expansion is the result of 
fraud and abuse, compounded by oversight, as well as a variety of other 
factors.
  This stack of papers in front of me on the desk to my left is a stack 
of the 900 pages of food stamp regulations that States are forced to 
comply with in trying to help individuals find their way to 
independence and out of the despair of the welfare trap.
  It is important to note that we have tried to reform welfare on 
previous occasions and tried to reform food stamps, as well, in the 
process.
  The last real attempt at reform was in 1988, and you do not have to 
have particularly strong analytic skills to see what has happened since 
1988 in the food stamp program: The program has skyrocketed.
  A 1995 General Accounting Office report, a 1995 GAO report, found 
through fraud and illegal trafficking in food stamps, the taxpayers 
lost as much as $2 billion a year. Mr. President, $2 billion a year is 
a lot of money. That would average out to $40 million per State. That 
is close to $800,000 a week, per State, all across this country.
  Furthermore, despite GAO's conclusions that the resources allocated 
for monitoring retailers was grossly inadequate, in other words we have 
not had the kind of enforcement that GAO says might be appropriate, the 
Food and Consumer Service officials still uncovered 902 retailers 
involved in food stamp fraud last year alone. That is where food 
stamps, which are designed to help people with nutritional needs, are 
used to acquire any number of other things that are not part of the 
design for food stamps.
  In February 1994, the Reader's Digest chronicled fraud and abuse in 
an article entitled the ``Food Stamp Racquet.'' One example was Kenneth 
Coats, no relation to the occupant of the chair I am sure, but owner of 
Coats Market in East St. Louis. It seems Mr. Coats paid as little as 65 
cents on the dollar for food stamps and then cashed them in at full 
value.
  During a period of 18 months he redeemed $1.3 million, enabling him 
to pay for his children's private schooling, with enough left over for 
$150,000 in stocks, five rental houses and a Mercedes.
  If that were not bad enough, Reader's Digest reported that this was 
not Mr. Coats' first attempt at defrauding the American taxpayers. Ten 
years earlier his market was disqualified from participating in the 
Food Stamp Program because of fraud, though he was only disqualified 
for 6 months. Obviously, he was back in business. And at 65 cents, 
paying welfare recipients and cashing them in with the Government at 
obviously the face value, he made quite a bit of money.
  Now, there are stories of food stamp fraud and abuse to be found in 
every State in the Nation. There is a lot to like about the Food Stamp 
Program but there are many ways in which this so-called ideal 
transitional benefit has been a problem. They are a stopgap measure. 
They serve the people. They serve children. They serve the elderly.
  But there is a lot to dislike about the program which we have already 
discussed. It is because we want to change this system to help people 
and to empower States that I am today introducing this amendment.
  Mr. President, we can do better. My amendment would fundamentally 
change food stamps. Instead of having a system run and administered by 
bureaucrats in Washington, my amendment would return responsibility for 
the Food Stamp Program to the States. It would do it with an important 
qualifier: It would do it still allowing funding for growth at the CBO 
projected levels for the next 5 years.
  Unlike the present system, however, this block grant would give the 
States an incentive to improve the program's performance and 
efficiency. It would accomplish this by allowing any and all savings 
achieved by the States to be applied to help more people who are really 
in need.
  This approach, if adopted, would have enormous advantages. One, it 
would allow States to spend available resources on the people who need 
food, rather than on feeding the bureaucracy. It would make it possible 
to reduce some of the costs. The highest administrative costs in 
welfare, 12 percent, are in the Food Stamp Program.
  Second, it would allow the States to coordinate their efforts in 
assisting the needy. So much of the problem we have now is when we 
shift welfare burdens from one quadrant of the welfare equation to 
another.
  The leadership's bill would maintain many of the complicated 
regulations which have frustrated State efforts to help individuals in 
need. I think we need to give States the flexibility to administrator 
need in accordance with the needs of the needy and the State rather 
than in accordance with the 900 pages of Federal regulations.
  Third, a clean block grant to the States will work to end the fraud 
and abuse which have cost the taxpayers billions. I think this is so 
because when the State has a block grant and it reduces fraud and 
abuse, it gets to keep the money which has been involved in the fraud 
or abuse.
  There will be a real incentive for the States to drive down the costs 
associated with fraud and abuse. It is true that the leadership bill in 
this measure has some incentives but they are not incentives which 
would thoroughly match the incentives of a block grant, the structural 
incentives of providing for savings and allowing the States to recoup 
the savings in their entirety.
  Finally, States can provide individualized assistance. They know 
their welfare recipients' needs. They can coordinate thoroughly on 
their own terms their welfare programs.
  We have real welfare reform. It is time for us to understand that 
reforming this, the largest of the welfare programs which touches more 
people than any others, should be a part of that reform.
  We have heard a lot about devolution, that term that means we need to 
reduce the size and scope of the power of Washington. Well, we need to 
change the way in which Washington has affected the welfare system by 
stopping the arrogant assumption that Washington knows best, 
particularly in such a significant program. Every American has had an 
experience at some time or another with the abuses that are involved in 
food stamps. Federalism has one of its hallmarks of trusting Government 
close to the people. It is time 

[[Page S 13335]]
for us to do that with the Food Stamp Program.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri has spoken for 10 
minutes. I believe he wanted to be notified.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. I thank the Chair. I yield myself such additional time 
I may need to conclude my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. A vote for this amendment is a clear and principled 
stand for the limits of the Federal power and the need for State 
control.
  A vote against this amendment is also clear. It is a clear statement 
against the rights of people to control their own destinies, their own 
lives, in a way that is free from the intermeddling of nearly 1,000 
pages of regulation, micromanaging what happens in States, interfering 
with their ability to meet the needs of their citizens.
  We are in the midst of a long and substantial debate. It is a 
necessary debate on welfare. Passions are high. Rhetoric is high. 
Progress is slow. It is time for us to make real progress on a major 
welfare program.
  Every so-called welfare reform for the past two generations has had a 
couple of things in common. They have resulted in more people being 
trapped in the web of dependency; and second, they have resulted in 
more bureaucracy. We need not rearrange the deck chairs on the welfare 
bureaucracy again. We need to make substantial changes. We cannot 
afford half measures. The poor cannot afford half measures.
  We are about to fundamentally change AFDC. We are about to 
fundamentally change a number of other smaller welfare programs. It 
seems we are just happy to tinker around the margins with food stamps.
  I believe food stamps are welfare. They are the largest--they serve 
more clients than any other welfare program. They provide an incentive 
to illegitimacy, just as AFDC does, by providing more payments with 
more children that are brought into this world while on welfare. They 
are a part and parcel of the welfare system which seeks to help but 
actually hurts.
  I do not know how it is that block grants can make sense for 
everything else from AFDC to job training but not for food stamps.
  Yet, given all this, the leadership bill makes involvement in the 
food stamp block grant optional while simultaneously creating a 
disincentive for individual States to choose to operate under the block 
grant.
  By removing Federal entanglement, it is my hope we can begin to 
eliminate the fraud, cut down on waste, the high administrative costs, 
and make it possible for States to take action which helps move people 
from welfare to work.
  If we succeed where others have failed, we must be bold and 
consistent. I do not think we need to wait 7 years to determine whether 
a food stamp block grant is desirable. Washington's one-size-fits-all 
system has not worked. Continuing a system that entraps people in 
dependency will do nothing more than to sow the seeds of future 
disaster.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, will the Senator from Indiana yield?
  Mr. LUGAR. I am happy to yield to the distinguished Senator as much 
time as he requires.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished manager and 
chairman.
  I have listened to the speech of my distinguished colleague from 
Missouri, and if this indeed was simply a question of whether the 
States could make the decisions or not, it would be one thing, but it 
is not. In fact, it is quite the opposite.
 Under the bill of the distinguished Republican leader, the States have 
the right to make a decision--a decision to choose to take a block 
grant instead of food stamps, or to participate in the Food Stamp 
Program. The amendment, No. 2562, by the distinguished Senator from 
Missouri, removes that right.

  I think, also, it removes an option available to many of the elderly 
and disabled. If somebody has received 24 months of assistance in their 
lifetime, then food stamps can no longer be made available unless they 
are working. We see where, if somebody has had assistance years before, 
worked many, many, many years before becoming disabled, they are told 
``You got your bite of the apple a long time ago.'' They lose their 
food assistance under this amendment. States no longer have the option, 
under this amendment, of choosing a block grant instead of food stamps, 
and participating in the Food Stamp Program.
  The bill does impose on States, whether they want it or not, an 
unfair formula for providing funds. If you look at the formula, it 
penalizes growth States but also penalizes States that face recessions. 
During the last recession, when millions of people lost their jobs, 
they turned to food stamps to help feed their children. Under this 
amendment, when there is a recession, then benefits would be cut. Just 
when a temporarily out of luck family would need assistance, the 
amendment says, ``Too bad, have a hungry day.'' For example, if you are 
an industrial State and large manufacturing plants suddenly close, that 
is when this could cut in. It seems, when fewer people need food 
stamps, the benefits increase again.
  Let me give an example. In California a couple of years ago, there 
was a massive earthquake. Mr. President, 40 percent of all the food 
stamps issued in California were issued in L.A. County for that month. 
Basically, what we would say under this is we are going to allow the 
people who lost everything they had in L.A. County because of the 
earthquake to eat. But all the rest of the State is going to go hungry.
  One of the things the Food Stamp Program is supposed to do is to help 
even out those kinds of peaks and valleys because the earthquake that 
occurs in California may be the hurricane that occurs in Florida or the 
recession that occurs in Illinois or the flood that occurs along the 
Mississippi or Missouri River.
  So I think we should not eliminate the choice of whether States 
should decide to take the block grant. Congress should not impose that 
on them. There are a lot of decisions that Governors and legislators 
have to make, so I urge my colleagues to vote against the amendment. It 
removes the State"s right to decide, hurts the elderly and disabled, 
and hurts some States at the expense of the others.
  I like the original Agriculture Committee bill written by Senator 
Lugar. It gives the States plenty of flexibility. It does not abandon 
the Federal-State partnership.
  We have worked for years, constantly, to improve aspects of the food 
stamp program. The bill I talked about before that I introduced, on 
electronics benefits transfer, will do that. We have tightened and 
limited eligibility. But in the only major power on Earth that can not 
only raise enough food to feed 250 million people but have food left 
over for export and for storage, I question whether we should tamper 
with the most basic program for feeding hungry people--the elderly, 
disabled, those temporarily out of a job.
  There are those who rip off the system and we can nail them. We have 
laws to do that. But let us not say you are going to be removed. And 
let us not say this is something that encourages more babies. What are 
you going to say, that if we do not feed a hungry baby, if we cut off 
the food, that baby will suddenly go away? Are we saying do not have 
the baby, abort the child, or do something else? The fact of the matter 
is, a hungry child is a hungry child. That child does not make that 
decision to be hungry. That child does not make that decision to be 
born. Let us not think that child will go away if we simply cut the 
food stamps or any other benefits for them.
  Mr. President, I thank the distinguished senior Senator from Indiana 
for his courtesy and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. DeWine). The Senator from Indiana is 
recognized.


                         Privilege of the Floor

  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that an employee of 
the Congressional Research Service, Joe Richardson, be granted 
privilege of the floor during consideration of welfare reform 
legislation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from 
Vermont for his thoughtful debating comments. He has offered leadership 
in the 

[[Page S 13336]]
nutrition area throughout the entirety of the 19 years that I have 
served in this body.
  Throughout that period of time, I have been deeply concerned about 
the Food Stamp Program for several reasons, and the distinguished 
Senator from Missouri has expanded on many of them. The Food Stamp 
Program, because it is a national program and an extraordinarily 
complex one dealing with myriad retail situations, has led to great 
fraud and abuse. That has been a concern of the Committee on 
Agriculture really throughout the entirety of the program. It has to be 
our concern today.
  But I have also been deeply concerned about the Food Stamp Program 
because it is the basic safety net for nutrition for Americans. It is 
the stopper, in terms of people starving, in this country. We have 
known that. We have regretted its abuse on occasion, but we have 
cherished the thought that every American, in a country of abundance, 
would have a chance to eat. That is fundamental and that we must 
preserve.
  The distinguished Senator from Missouri, the great Governor of his 
State, has been a fighter for the reinvigoration of federalism, and I 
share that idealism. As mayor of the city of Indianapolis, I was 
involved in the first wave of the new federalism with President Nixon. 
Program after program came to our city. We tried to demonstrate, I 
think with some success, that mayors and local officials, in addition 
to Governors and county officials, can handle most of the aspects of 
the internal workings of government in this United States best at the 
local level. Clearly, in the welfare reform debate we are now having, 
we are about to test out the proposition that we should give back to 
States and local governments authority to handle a great deal of 
difficult matters.
  But in the case of the food stamp and nutrition programs, the House 
of Representatives and the Senate to date have said that there must be 
a safety net, basically, for eating, for nutrition--a safety net 
against starvation in this country. This is not an experimental 
situation in which, as the Senator from Missouri advocates, like it or 
not we send it back to the States and say to the Governors: ``You are 
going to have to run it. You may not have asked for it. You may not 
wish to deal with it at all. But, by golly, you are going to have it 
and with exactly the same amount of money being spent now with a little 
bit of inflation rise per year. It does not matter whether the country 
is in recession or prosperity; it does not matter whether you have more 
people coming in. That is your tough luck. We are going to send it to 
you because we are tired of it and we do not want to spend any more 
money on it and we do not want to take the responsibility for it.''
  Mr. President, I believe that is an understandable attitude but, I 
hope, not the attitude the Senate winds up with today. Because, for 
many thousands of Americans, that is likely to be a disastrous decision 
and Senators really have to consider and weigh on their consciences 
today the proposition, which is a very fundamental one, before us.
  As the Senator from Vermont pointed out, we are not doing this 
amendment as a favor to Governors. As a matter of fact, most have not 
requested this responsibility. Most of the Governors coming into our 
committee have not wanted the responsibility. To give some impression 
that Governors all over the country are eager to grasp all of this is 
totally erroneous.
  There are some very able Governors who want to run it, and my 
judgment is that they will run it very well. But we have had a good 
number of Governors who have said we are inundated by people. We are 
inundated by the economic cycle. Yet, here we debate on this floor 
today the thought that, like it or not, the States will simply have the 
Food Stamp Program, or, as a matter of fact, they may not have much of 
a program at all.
  The Governors may decide, in fact, to use the money for something 
else. If you happen to be a citizen of one of those States, you are out 
of luck. We have said thus far, Mr. President, that if you are an 
American, if you are here in this country and you are unemployed, you 
are disabled and you have problems, there is at least a safety net. And 
we have been proud that has been the case.
  Let me just say that the Committee on Agriculture, long before we got 
into the welfare debate, was involved in reform of food stamp 
discussions this year. We are also involved in a very serious budget 
problem. We are going to have a reconciliation bill shortly. By 
September 22, we must report from our committee $48.4 billion of 
savings over a 7-year period of time.
  Mr. President, we have identified $30 billion of savings in the 
nutrition programs and most of that in the Food Stamp Program. The 
Committee on Agriculture has been diligent because we have tried to 
both reform the program and make certain it was less expensive even 
while retaining the basic safety net of the program. The House of 
Representatives has done a similar job.
  Mr. President, I will point out that the Republican leadership 
welfare proposal we are now debating, as does the House bill, does not 
block grant the Food Stamp Program but makes dramatic changes in its 
structure. It greatly expands the States' administrative flexibility 
and ability to implement welfare reform initiatives. By allowing States 
to operate a State-designed simplified food stamp program for cash 
welfare recipients and have more control over a host of regular program 
rules, States are given the option of taking the food stamp assistance 
as a block grant.
  So, Mr. President, if I am in error--and there are a host of 
Governors out there who have been eager to get this program, they are 
going to have that option. They may be lined up at the door, but I have 
not seen the line. All I am saying is they have that option. If they do 
so, they must spend 80 percent of the money that the Federal Government 
is spending on food. The rest can be spent on employment and training 
programs and, up to 6 percent, on administration.
  The citizens in their State will have to hope that those Governors 
and legislators, if they become involved in that decision--that is a 
very interesting question, Mr. President: What if there was a case in 
which State legislators allow the Governor alone to make such a 
decision? Should a decision as grave as this one be vested in a 
Governor to take an entire State off the Food Stamp Program 
irrevocably, a one-time decision from which there is no return without 
the legislature, without any check and balance within that State? 
Should the Governor, in fact, be prepared to terminate the program if 
that is his wish or her wish, as the case may be? Where is the 
democracy in that situation even while we are eager to shed this burden 
and move down the trail of devolution?
  Let me say it is important that Senators know the reforms that were 
enacted by the Agriculture Committee and have been adopted by the 
leadership proposal. I cite not all of them but ones that I think are 
very important that Senators know are a part of this bill but would not 
be a part necessarily of any regime in any State that decided simply to 
block grant food stamps.
  In this bill, we disqualify any adult who voluntarily quits a job or 
reduces work effort. We deny food stamps to able-bodied adults 18 to 50 
without children who received food stamps for 6 months out of the 
previous 12 months without working or participating in a work program 
at least half time. Those are pretty stringent qualifications.
  We ensure that food stamp benefits do not increase when a recipient's 
welfare benefits are reduced for failing to comply with other non-work-
related welfare rules, such as the failure to get children immunized. 
States may also reduce food stamp allotments for up to 25 percent for 
failure to comply with other welfare programs rules. States may do 
that.
  We allow in this bill States to disqualify an individual from food 
stamps for the period that they are disqualified from other public 
assistance programs for failure to perform an action required in the 
other program. For example, failure to comply with AFDC work 
requirements must trigger a food stamp disqualification. We establish 
mandatory minimum disqualification periods for violation of work rules, 
and States may adopt even longer disqualification periods and may 
permanently 

[[Page S 13337]]
disqualify a recipient for a third violation of a work rule--
permanently disqualify.
  We give States control over the Food Stamp Program for households 
composed entirely of AFDC members as long as Federal costs do not 
increase. States choose their AFDC rules, food stamp rules, or a 
combination to develop one standardized set of rules. States may do all 
of this under this bill.
  Mr. President, if this is the case, a Senator might ask, why the 
objection to simply letting States do it all? Why not make it 
permissive? Why spell it out in a Federal bill? We do so to preserve a 
national safety net.
  The leadership bill before us now that we are debating is not a bill 
that is very permissive. This is a bill that saves $30 billion over 7 
years. In almost every conceivable way, in the 106 pages which the 
Agriculture Committee put together, it tries to make certain that food 
stamp programs stay on the straight and narrow.
  Perhaps State legislatures will want to replicate that. Perhaps 
legislatures want to borrow this intact and pass it as a State law. But 
if they do not, Mr. President, the Governor of that State is going to 
have a heck of a time administering food stamps. The provisions in the 
leadership bill come from a body of knowledge and experience over the 
years of how fraud and abuse occur, and it occurs in many, many ways, 
not easily discovered in a transition period of a few weeks during 
which time the States with or without enthusiasm take over the Food 
Stamp Program.
  Mr. President, the overwhelming case for a rejection of this 
amendment finally comes back to the fact that none of us can foretell 
the future in a dynamic economy such as ours. We are a free country. 
Thank goodness. People can move from State to State, and they do so by 
the tens of millions every year.
  Yet, Mr. President, we are in the process of about to lock in flat 
amounts to States for the duration of this experiment, an amount of 
money that will not be changed if that State has a huge number of new 
people coming into it for whatever reason.
  Perhaps States may say, ``Well, we will control that. We will simply 
abandon the Food Stamp Program. There is nothing attractive about our 
State. Why not let other States that have a food stamp program take 
care of persons who are disabled or suddenly unemployed, or infants and 
children or what have you? Why not let those States take care of them?"
  Mr. President, people can pick and choose where to live by their 
migratory patterns in this country. Perhaps the idea of a safety net 
wherever it is, is not attractive to Senators or citizens. But I have 
not heard the case made on those grounds very frequently. And I would 
say furthermore that even if there were no changes in population in the 
country, clearly there are changes every year in the economic cycle.
  In my home State of Indiana in 1982--I was reminded of this as we 
were discussing another food stamp amendment yesterday--in Kokomo, IN, 
in Anderson, in Muncie, Indiana where there were large concentrations 
of auto workers at a time of great recession, the unemployment reached, 
in each of those cities, 20 percent. I would just say that kind of 
unemployment is massive, and it is horrible to witness.
 The Food Stamp Program was very important to those cities, very 
important to our State. Whoever was Governor of Indiana could not have 
anticipated in 1979 and 1980 or even 1981 that there would be 20-
percent unemployment in those localities. There was no way anyone could 
have been wise enough to have prophesied that. But the Governor of 
Indiana was mighty pleased that in fact there was a safety net for 
nutrition in our country and in the State of Indiana at that point and 
that he was not responsible at that moment for facing a whole apparatus 
for administering the Food Stamp Program.

  Our Governor did not assert that he was wiser than everybody in the 
country; that he could do it better. He knew the problems better in 
Kokomo. Of course, he did. But that would not have made a whit of 
difference in terms of the nutrition needs of people who were suddenly 
and massively unemployed in ways that were not going to be remedied 
very rapidly.
  Mr. President, it is simply reckless in a country of great dynamic 
changes of population and in the economic cycle to throw away the 
safety net; and that is the issue here.
  The Senator from Missouri, in intellectual fairness, has presented 
very squarely that his amendment is the end of the Federal safety net, 
the end of the Federal Food Stamp Program, and there are many who will 
rejoice in that and say good riddance; we should never have started 
this humanitarian effort to begin with.
  I am not one of them, Mr. President. I am hopeful a majority of 
Senators do not join in that point of view either. Of course, we must 
reform, and I have listed 6 of possibly 50 very sizable, tough reforms. 
Of course, we have to downsize and, of course, we have to economize. 
And we are doing it with a vengeance; $30 billion in 7 years for food 
stamp recipients, but, of course, we must have a safety net in a vast 
and complex country such as ours.
  Mr. President, I yield and reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. ASHCROFT addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. May I inquire as to the remaining time on both sides?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri has 16 minutes and 
55 seconds, the Senator from Indiana has 7 minutes and 18 seconds.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I yield so much time as I might consume.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. The question we debate today is not whether or not 
there will be assistance to individuals who are in need. The question 
we debate today is whether or not that assistance will be delivered by 
State officials who are proximate to the problem or whether we are 
going to persist with a one-size-fits-all system in Washington, DC, 
which is characterized by the highest administrative costs of any 
welfare program, rampant fraud and abuse, and 900 pages of excessive 
Federal regulations. I have not proposed ending the ability of States 
to meet the needs of their people. I am proposing enhancing the ability 
of States to meet those needs.
  The distinguished Senator from Vermont talked about the needs in the 
event of earthquakes, floods, or other natural disasters. And the 
distinguished Senator from Indiana, for whom I have great respect, 
talked about needs in times of recession. I believe those are needs, 
those are legitimate needs, those are times when people legitimately 
need assistance, and I believe that assistance can best be rendered if 
we ask those at the State level to effect those programs they can 
effect to provide delivery of the services.
  I might point out that the proposed amendment does not diminish the 
funding available for food stamps. We took the CBO numbers, the 
projections under the Dole bill and said those would be the amount of 
the block grant.
  This is not a debate over the amount of resources that will be 
available. This is a debate over whether that resource will continue to 
be delivered through a one-size-fits-all bureaucracy that has failed in 
Washington, DC, or whether we are going to empower States that have 
substantial ideas on what they can do to deliver this program.
  Let me quote to you what Gerald Miller says, director of social 
services for Governor Engler in Michigan.
  ``Under a block grant,'' he said, ``States could deliver services 
more cheaply and efficiently without cutting benefits.'' Miller 
contends that if the food stamp program remains unchanged, it will have 
to be cut to meet deficit reduction targets. If the food stamp program 
were to be made into a block grant,'' he said, ``I don't know one 
Republican Governor who would cut benefits to one client.
  The distinguished Senator from Indiana indicated that Republican 
Governors or Governors in general might not be in favor of these kinds 
of amendments. I am pleased to just say that I know of one Governor, 
Gov. Tommy Thompson, who is a leading Republican Governor and one of 
the leading proponents of welfare reform in the country. I have his 
letter dated September 11, 1995, which I will submit for the Record. 

[[Page S 13338]]

  I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                           State of Wisconsin,

                                               September 11, 1995.
     Hon. John Ashcroft,
     U.S. Senate, Senate Hart Building, Washington DC.
     Hon. Richard C. Shelby,
     U.S. Senate, Senate Hart Building, Washington DC.
       Dear Senators Ashcroft and Shelby: As I know you both 
     agree, the welfare reform bill currently being considered, S. 
     1120, is a dramatic improvement over current law. Each of you 
     has submitted amendments to this bill which allow for still 
     greater flexibility in the use of food stamps in the form of 
     block grants. The purpose of this letter is to support your 
     efforts in this regard.
       Senator Ashcroft's amendment allows the maximum level of 
     state flexibility while preserving the anticipated level of 
     federal financial support envisioned in the leadership bill. 
     Senator Shelby's amendment would also allow for generous 
     state flexibility while at the same time reducing federal 
     expenditures on food stamps through anticipated improvements 
     in state efficiency in managing the program.
       I heartily endorse both of your efforts to increase the 
     level of flexibility allowed in the management of the food 
     stamp program. In addition, the transferability of funds from 
     the food stamp block grant to the AFDC block grant, which is 
     common to both your bills, is of critical importance to 
     states like Wisconsin. We anticipate spending more on work 
     programs and supports to work, such as child care, and less 
     on unrestricted benefits. Therefore, we need this funding 
     flexibility.
       We fully support both of your efforts to improve the 
     leadership bill to allow for more effective administration of 
     the food stamp block grant.
           Sincerely,
                                                Tommy G. Thompson,
                                                         Governor.

  Mr. ASHCROFT. It is addressed to the Honorable Richard C. Shelby of 
this body and to me. It endorses the effort to increase the flexibility 
for States in the Food Stamp Program and the block grant program.
  Now, reference has been made to the safety net for nutrition; that we 
need to help citizens who are in real need; we need to deliver and meet 
that need effectively.
  Reference has been made to the potential--and I do not understand 
this--of an irrevocable, one-time decision by Governors to abandon food 
help to their citizens. I do not know of any Governor that has that 
kind of authority, and I do not know of any government anywhere in the 
United States that can make irrevocable decisions to abandon things.
  The political process operates. People with needs know their way to 
the State capital. It is easier to get there than it is to the National 
Capital. Welfare recipients have the right to vote. This body and the 
U.S. Congress in the last session provided a special means of 
registering welfare recipients so that they would be given a right to 
vote, their voice would be heard, making their voice heard in a place 
close to them, the State capital, instead of demanding that they come 
to Washington to have their voice heard, and demanding that they find 
their way through 900 pages of Federal regulations appears to me to be 
an important thing.
  Let me just additionally say it was indicated no one has the ability 
to know what the future holds if we were to have a block grant to the 
States. I can tell you what the future holds if we do not block grant 
this to the States. The future holds the same kind of problems that we 
have had in the past with entitlement spending that continues to build 
the program. When the Federal program is an entitlement program, it is 
in the interest of the State to build the program. States administering 
the program without a financial stake in the program keep shifting 
people into the program; it brings money to the State automatically. It 
is part of the pernicious impact of this Federal system of welfare 
which has resulted in a growing portion of our population being 
dependent on Government rather than a shrinking portion of our 
population being dependent on Government.
  It is a simple question. Do we want more welfare and less 
independence or do we want more independence and less welfare? The 
structure of the way we deliver benefits should not be designed to 
increase welfare as it is now. It should be designed to increase 
independence.
  I believe the opportunity made available to the States of this 
country through a block grant so that States can formulate their own 
rules and they know they are operating within a limited amount of 
resources is exactly what we need. An entitlement system simply is 
absent the kind of incentive for reduction in the problem.
  We need to reform welfare, not to grow it. People in my State, when 
they spell reform, spell it r-e-d-u-c-e, reduce. It is time for us to 
reduce welfare.
  So with all due respect for my distinguished colleagues from Vermont 
and from Indiana, who have indicated that it is important to have an 
entitlement program that is open ended, I think it has the wrong 
structural incentives.
  One last point that I would make. My respected and distinguished 
colleague from Vermont, Senator Leahy, mentioned we could not consider 
this program to be an incentive for illegitimacy. I do not think it was 
designed to be an incentive for illegitimacy. But the fact of the 
matter is that the more children you have in the family, the bigger the 
benefits are. And in the context of a benefit that can be changed into 
cash with unfortunate and inappropriate ease, I think it is undeniable 
that we have simply exacerbated the problem.
  Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. LUGAR addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, let me just indicate again that the welfare 
reform bill in front of the Senate is not one that is permissive. It 
talks about reform and reduction, as the distinguished Senator from 
Missouri has pointed out. All of the requirements that I mentioned in 
the reform of food stamps are clearly not permissive. They do not 
permit a program that is open-ended. Quite to the contrary, they demand 
a program that reduces expenses by $30 billion in 7 years of time, a 
program that is thoroughly conversant with fraud and abuse, as has been 
observed and will be discovered by States that attempt to run these 
complex programs. But, Mr. President, I have no quarrel with a Governor 
or a State that wishes to take over the Food Stamp Program. As a matter 
of fact, the bill in front of us permits that explicitly.
  What I do think is inadvisable is for the Congress--or the Senate 
more particularly today--to simply say, whether you want the program or 
not, it is yours and you are going to have to deal with it, all of the 
regulations, all of the stipulations. And even if you are well 
motivated to serve those who are hungry, you are going to have to 
figure out from scratch how to do that and on a limited amount of money 
that will not increase whether the economic times change or the 
population changes. That I think, Mr. President, is ill-advised, and so 
do many others.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record, Mr. President, 
letters from the Food Marketing Institute, from the National-American 
Wholesale Grocers' Association, the National Cattlemen's Association, 
and the National Peanut Council, Inc., that back the current proposals 
in the welfare bill that is before us and would oppose block-granting 
food stamp programs.
  There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                     Food Marketing Institute,

                                    Washington, DC, July 11, 1995.
     Hon. Richard G. Lugar,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Lugar: The retail food industry full supports 
     the efforts of this Congress to produce meaningful welfare 
     reform that is simpler, more efficient and less costly than 
     the current system. The food stamp program is one aspect of 
     welfare reform that is of particular concern to our industry. 
     We have been participating in this program for over twenty-
     five years and have long supported food stamps as an 
     effective and efficient way of reducing hunger.
       FMI supports the food stamp reforms approved by the Senate 
     Agriculture Committee. The supermarket industry believes the 
     Agriculture Committee bill allows state and local flexibility 
     to create innovative programs while maintaining a system that 
     guarantees allocated funding will be used for food 
     assistance. Research has demonstrated that removing the link 
     between program benefits and the actual purchase of food 
     results in the deterioration of nutritional diets, especially 
     for our children. Food assistance programs are different from 
     other welfare programs--they are the basic safety 

[[Page S 13339]]
     net for those who cannot afford adequate diets. We are concerned that 
     converting the federal nutrition program into a cash program 
     would inadvertently result in eliminating the current food 
     stamp program and the long-term effects would be disastrous.
       As the most effective way to curb fraud and abuse, FMI 
     supports the conversion of paper food stamps to a nationally 
     uniform EBT system. Without a uniform national delivery 
     system, there is potential for different sets of standards 
     and operational procedures all of which would make it 
     impossible to set up an effective central monitoring system 
     to detect fraud and abuse. Continued access for recipients in 
     rural communities and urban centers is critically important 
     as we move to implement a nationwide EBT system. We support 
     modifications to the Agriculture Committee bill to assure 
     that all EBT systems are compatible and available to the 
     smallest, local community stores. This will allow recipients 
     to retain the freedom to shop at stores of their choice 
     without overly restricting state flexibility. A uniform 
     delivery system is the best way to reduce cost and make this 
     important domestic feeding program even better and more 
     efficient. Current law also prohibits the government from 
     shifting EBT program cost to retailers who are licensed to 
     accept food stamps which would in effect eliminate many from 
     participating in the program. We would oppose any efforts to 
     eliminate that protection.
       FMI pledges to work with you to achieve meaningful welfare 
     reform. However, we must not lose sight of the fact that 
     cashing out the food stamp program would be a disaster for 
     needy families and their communities all across America. This 
     is why we support the approach taken by the Senate 
     Agriculture Committee.
       The Food Marketing Institute (FMI) is a nonprofit 
     association conducting programs in research, education, 
     industry relations and public affairs on behalf of its 1,500 
     members including their subsidiaries--food retailers and 
     wholesalers and their customers in the United States and 
     around the world. FMI's domestic member companies operate 
     approximately 21,000 retail food stores with a combined 
     annual sales volume of $220 billion--more than half of all 
     grocery store sales in the United States. FMI's retail 
     membership is composed of large multi-store chains, small 
     regional firms and independent supermarkets. Its 
     international membership includes 200 members from 60 
     countries.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Tim Hammonds,
     President and CEO.
                                                                    ____

                            The Food Distributors Association,

                                               September 12, 1995.
     Hon. Richard Lugar,
     Chairman, Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and 
         Forestry, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Lugar: The National-American Wholesale 
     Grocers' Association and the International Foodservice 
     Distributors Association (NAWGA/IFDA) supports the reform of 
     our welfare system, including the significant reforms your 
     Committee has recommended for the Food Stamp Program. 
     However, we do not believe ``cashing-out'' the Food Stamp 
     Program falls under the rubric of reform. NAWGA/IFDA is an 
     international trade association comprised of food 
     distribution companies which primarily supply and service 
     independent grocers and foodservice operations throughout the 
     U.S. and Canada.
       We understand that several amendments may be offered in the 
     coming days which would effectively cash-out the Food Stamp 
     Program. NAWGA/IFDA respectfully urges the rejection of these 
     amendments.
       There is no conclusive evidence that cashing-out the Food 
     Stamp Program would improve the delivery of welfare benefits. 
     In fact, cash-out demonstration projects conducted by the 
     Department of Agriculture have shown a five to eighteen 
     percent decline in food expenditures. Although attractive 
     because of its administrative simplicity, we do not believe 
     that such a system could effectively serve food stamp 
     recipients.
           Sincerely,

                                                  Kevin Burke,

                                                   Vice President,
     Government Affairs.
                                                                    ____



                             National Cattlemen's Association,

                                Washington, DC, February 14, 1995.
     Hon. Bill Emerson,
     House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing to convey the National 
     Cattlemen's Association's recent grassroots policy decisions 
     on Welfare Reform and specifically block granting federal 
     food-assistance funds (H.R. 4). The National Cattlemen's 
     Association, which is the national spokesperson for all 
     segments of the U.S. beef cattle industry representing 
     230,000 cattle producers throughout the country, supports 
     welfare reform by providing increased control to local 
     government. Cattle producers have long supported the 
     Commodity Distribution Program and other food assistance 
     programs, as a means of providing nutritious foods to those 
     in need in a cost effective manner. We believe it is time 
     however, to review these programs and make appropriate 
     changes to increase their efficiency and effectiveness.
       In addition to overall themes of increasing state 
     flexibility balancing the budget, the National Cattlemen's 
     Association supports the following provisions in any welfare 
     reform legislation:
       Money designated for food stamp recipients must be spent on 
     food only.
       A commodity purchase group should continue within USDA to 
     assist states in increasing their volume purchasing power, 
     thus saving states money.
       A means must be established to purchase non-price supported 
     commodities when an over-supply situation occurs.
       Third party verification to assure contractual performance.
       Adequate nutritional standards for school lunch programs.
       The National Cattlemen's Association supports efforts to 
     control federal spending and decrease the size of the federal 
     government. We would very much like to work with you to make 
     these goals a reality. For further information, please 
     contact Beth Johnson or Chandler Keys in our Washington 
     office (202) 347-0228.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Sheri Spader,
     Chairman, Food Policy Committee.
                                                                    ____

                                National Peanut Council, Inc.,

                                 Alexandria, VA, December 9, 1994.
     Hon. Richard G. Lugar,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Lugar: We write to urge you in the strongest 
     possible terms to oppose proposals, such as those included in 
     the Pension Responsibility Act (PRA), to replace current 
     federal food assistance programs with block grant funding. We 
     oppose both the concept of block grant funding and the 
     sharply reduced funding levels that have been proposed.
       We oppose these proposals for the following reasons:
       (1) The block grant approach fails to assure that federal 
     dollars will go for their intended purposes. Under the PRA, 
     large portions of federal funding for food assistance could 
     be provided in cash. Specifically, the PRA would allow 
     benefits previously provided as food stamp and WIC coupons to 
     instead be provided as cash. Thus, states would be free to 
     provide assistance that could be devoted to other non-food 
     needs. This approach could not only have a serious 
     deleterious effect on low-income children and families but 
     also could effect adversely the entire food and agriculture 
     economy. In addition, the block grant converts nutrition 
     programs from entitlements into discretionary programs 
     subject to annual appropriations. Thus, there is no guarantee 
     that any federal dollars will be available for food 
     assistance.
       (2) The block grant approach is inherently insensitive to 
     the poor when their needs are greatest. There is no mechanism 
     in block grants to assure assistance will expand during a 
     recession or when need arises (such as a natural disaster). 
     At the very time that needs go up in one state and 
     potentially down in another, the funding will be inflexible 
     and thus inefficiently applied to those states.
       (3) The PRA would likely end the school lunch program as we 
     know it. By proscribing assistance paid for meals served to 
     ``middle income'' children, the likely result of the PRA is 
     that millions of school children and thousands of schools 
     will abandon the current system that guarantees free and 
     reduced price meals to low-income children. Far smaller 
     cutbacks in this subsidy in 1981 resulted in a loss of about 
     2,000 schools and two million children (750,000 low-income) 
     from the program.
       (4) The block grant approach removes from food assistance 
     any tie to nutritional standards. Once states are free to 
     design any program they want, there will be no assurance that 
     the federal dollars are being spent consistent with 
     fundamental standards on diet and health.
       The block grant approach, especially with reduced funding 
     levels, will result in more children in this country going 
     hungry. Most of the programs affected are child nutrition 
     programs, and half of all the participants of the largest 
     nutrition program affected (food stamps) are children.
       The resulting tremendous increase in need cannot be met by 
     private charities. These institutions have repeatedly 
     documented that they cannot meet the demand currently placed 
     upon them. Furthermore, we strenuously object to any policy 
     that could have the effect of an exponential increase in the 
     number of Americans who must feed their families through soup 
     kitchen and bread lines. This is no way for the greatest 
     nation in the world to care for its needy residents.
       Finally, we suggest that a return to block grants ignores 
     the history of why federal food assistance programs were 
     established. The federal government stepped in because states 
     were either unable or unwilling to meet the needs of our 
     people.
       The federal nutrition programs are an enormous success 
     story, built with bipartisan support from Congress over many 
     years. Study after study has documented the effectiveness of 
     the very programs that proposals like the PRA would turn back 
     to the states. These programs have been proven to enhance the 
     health and education of our children, some saving money in 
     the long run. They also can serve as effective organizing 
     tools for crime prevention.
       Initial estimates indicate the PRA could reduce food 
     assistance funding by about ten percent ($4 to $5 billion a 
     year) from the projected $40 billion FY 1996 food assistance 
     funding level. Even this inadequate level would not be 
     guaranteed since each year's funding would be subject to 
     appropriations. There may be a need for the federal 
     government to save money, but not feeding hungry 

[[Page S 13340]]
     children and their families is a poor place to start.
           Sincerely,

                                            Dr. A. Wayne Lord,

                                 National Peanut Council Chairman,
                                              Southco Commodities.
                           Amendment No. 2562

  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in opposition to 
the Ashcroft amendment on food stamps.
  For the second straight day we are being asked to launch an attack on 
the Food Stamp Program. Once again I want to restate that Democrats 
support real reform of food stamps, not an effort to take food away 
from people. This amendment block-grants food stamps and in the process 
denies a safety net for kids. Once we turn this program into a block 
grant we end our commitment to feed all those children who fall victim 
to the next recession.
  I am serious about reforming this program. I am pleased that Maryland 
has lead the country in introducing ways to cut down on fraud by going 
to an electronic system. Democrats have included reform of food stamps 
in our welfare reform bill. We included increased civil and criminal 
forfeiture for grocers who violate the Food Stamp Act. We tell stores 
that they must reapply for the Food Stamp Program so that we make sure 
that fraud is not happening. Retailers who have already been 
disqualified from the WIC Program are disqualified from food stamps. We 
encourage States to enact their own reforms including the use of an 
electronic card and a picture ID. Democrats don't stop there. We are 
willing to require able-bodied people to work.
  Mr. President, the fight here is over food, not fraud. This amendment 
would take the current system and throw it out. After we eliminate the 
current system we then turn it over to State governments. There are no 
guarantees in this amendment that States will not create their own 
bureaucratic wasteland. No guarantees that money going for food won't 
be diverted to nonnutrition needs. If we block-grant food stamps, what 
guarantees U.S. taxpayers that the dollars going for food stamps won't 
be converted to fund other programs in the next recession? What 
guarantees do we have that these nutrition funds won't become a bailout 
fund for some politically vulnerable Governor?
  Mr. President, I repeat, I am for welfare reform--all Democrats are. 
That is why we worked hard at a real reform bill. That bill includes 
reforms to the Food Stamp Program. This amendment replaces reform with 
regression. Regression back to a time when we did not commit our Nation 
to a goal of feeding hungry people. It is time we focused our attention 
back on reform. We can do that by voting down this amendment.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time, and I 
ask once again for clarification of how much time remains to the two 
sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana has 5 minutes; the 
Senator from Missouri has 8 minutes 15 seconds.
  Mr. LUGAR. I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  If no one yields time, the time will be deducted equally from both 
sides.
  Mr. LUGAR addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. LUGAR. I yield myself as much time as I may require for a 
concluding statement. I see no other Senators wishing to speak on this 
subject on our side.
  Mr. President, let me just state the case for retaining the welfare 
bill in front of us, the leadership bill, which permits block granting 
to States but does not demand it.
  First of all, the mandatory block grant would subject poor children, 
families, and elderly people to serious risks during economic 
downturns.
  Second, the formula for distributing funds would be inequitable and 
would penalize large numbers of States, especially those with expanding 
population.
  Third, the Agriculture Committee, which I chair, would have to make 
deeper cuts in farm programs or the school lunch or other child 
nutrition programs because the amounts in the Ashcroft amendment are 
not as great a cut as the ones that we have already made. There is a 
discrepancy of over $3 billion as we calculate it.
  Fourth, the amendment would likely lead to sharp reductions in food 
purchases and nutritional well-being and would injure the food and 
agricultural sectors of our economy.
  Fifth, the bill denies food stamps to indigent, elderly, and disabled 
people who do not meet the work requirements.
  Sixth, the amendment allows States to withdraw all State funds used 
to administer the Food Stamp Program and substitute Federal funds for 
them.
  Seventh, the amendment would widen disparity among States and 
intensify a race to the bottom.
  Eighth, Mr. President, it would weaken the safety net for children 
throughout the country.
  And, finally, the amendment could increase fraud even though the 
desire, obviously, of the proponents is to limit fraud. There is no 
guarantee that States, starting from scratch in a complex program, 
would enjoy a situation of a greater fight against fraud than we 
experience in the Federal Government. Really, I think the evidence is 
to the contrary.
  Mr. President, for all of these reasons, plus the obvious one, and 
that is a safety net of nutrition for Americans is vital and it should 
not be cast away in this amendment, I call for the defeat of the 
Ashcroft amendment and the retention of the safety net that we have 
currently.
  I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. ASHCROFT. May I inquire of the Chair the time remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri has 7 minutes 
remaining. The Senator from Indiana has 1 minute 45 seconds.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I am pleased to ask the Members of this body to vote 
in favor of endowing the States with the opportunity to substantially 
reform the welfare system, the single largest component of the welfare 
system, which touches almost 1 in every 10 Americans, and to do so by 
providing the resources to the States so that their legislatures and 
their Governors can make the resources available to truly needy 
individuals in a way that is far more efficient, is far less likely to 
consume additional resources. This is an idea which is welcomed by the 
States. Let me read from Governor Thompson's letter sent to my office.

       Senator Ashcroft's amendment allows the maximum level of 
     state flexibility while preserving the anticipated level of 
     federal financial support envisioned in the leadership bill. 
     In addition, the transferability of funds from the food stamp 
     block grant to the AFDC block grant, which is common, is of 
     critical importance to States like Wisconsin.

  Wisconsin, as you know, has been a leading State in welfare reform. 
One of the reasons it is important that we have the kind of 
transferability and that we put AFDC and food stamps both into block 
grants is that, if you leave one Federal program as an entitlement 
without any limit as to the spending involved and you put another 
Federal program into a block grant, States can shift people from one 
area to another, pushing people into one area and elevating the Federal 
responsibility in order to curtail the responsibility of the State.
  This would distort the allocation of resources. It simply would not 
be appropriate. We need to have the discipline and the management tools 
necessary for these programs to be administered appropriately and 
honestly. You could understand that if the AFDC Program, which is a 
shared program between the State and the Federal Government were to be 
block granted, and you maintained an entitlement in food stamps, that 
it would lead States to shift people from the limited area of State 
assistance to the unlimited area of the entitlement.
  The distinguished Senator from Indiana has indicated that they hope 
to have savings of a substantial amount as a result of reforms that 
have been added to the program. Of course, we have seen these reforms 
year after year and time after time. We had major food stamp 
legislation in 1981 and then in 1988 and several times it has been 
adjusted in this decade. We have also seen what the chart shows: That 
food stamp consumption goes up and up.
  It is anticipated that food stamps will rise. Under the Dole bill, 
food stamp consumption is supposed to go up. SSI is supposed to go up. 
It is anticipated that AFDC will remain low. 

[[Page S 13341]]
Surprise, surprise. The Dole bill, the leadership bill, provides that 
AFDC would be a block grant where the incentives would exist to keep 
the program down. And the anticipated rises here, frankly, by CBO are 
not rises that project any cost shifting, sending people from this 
category into these categories. That is not the reason for the rise, 
that is just another projection.
  But if we make this a block grant program and it is limited and we 
say that these continue to be unlimited in entitlement programs, the 
natural tendency will be for States to start shifting clients from this 
client base over into these categories. As I suggested, these 
categories are likely to be increasing even further.
  I believe that the people of this country have called upon us to 
reform welfare. To ignore the largest single welfare program in terms 
of people that it touches in this country and to say that it is off the 
table, and to call it some kind of a safety net, and to say we cannot 
trust local officials or State officials to be compassionate in the 
administration of these funds, and to say that we prefer the Federal 
bureaucracy, and that somehow there is greater compassion in this body 
and the Congress than there would be at State capitals, I think is to 
miss the point. The point should be that we should be focused on 
reforming the welfare system. We will not get great reform if we say to 
States, ``Well, you can opt into a block grant but, on the other hand, 
if you do not opt into a block grant, we will let you continue in an 
entitlement program.'' ``In an entitlement program'' means you can 
continue to get money for all the people you can possibly find to 
qualify.
  The incentives for cost reduction in that environment, the incentives 
for caseload are substantially lower than they would be in the setting 
of a block grant.
  Not only would the incentives be substantially lower, but compliance 
costs, for complying with these 900 pages of regulations, still exist. 
You still find yourself in a system with about 24 percent friction in 
the system--the fraud, the abuse, the high administrative costs. It has 
been estimated that perhaps the leadership bill would take 90 pages out 
of the 900 pages of regulations. Some suggestion has been made, well, 
the States would not know how to come up to speed on this. After all, 
they could not do this in a couple weeks, they could not make this 
transition.
  The truth of the matter is that States have had to administer this 
program covered over with the redtape of the Federal bureaucracy for 
years for the last quarter century. They know this program better than 
the Federal officials do. There are not that many food stamp employees 
in the country that are not State and local governmental employees, but 
they know what they are working under and they know how it is burdening 
the system and they know the additional costs. It is that additional 
cost that has caused them to say, if we could have this program as a 
block grant, we could serve people far more carefully and far better.
  So I believe that our responsibility is a responsibility to really 
reform welfare. Our responsibility is a responsibility to avoid cost 
shifting. Our responsibility is a responsibility to recognize that we 
have been working with a failed system.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair advises the Senator his time has 
expired.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. I urge the Members of this body to include, in real 
reform for welfare, reform of the biggest of the welfare programs, the 
Food Stamp Program.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator yield back all time?
  Mr. LUGAR. Yes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Gramm of Texas be 
added as a cosponsor of this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment. 
The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Ashcroft). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 36, nays 64, as follows:
                      [Rollcall Vote No. 412 Leg.]

                                YEAS--36

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Brown
     Coats
     Coverdell
     Craig
     DeWine
     Dole
     Faircloth
     Frist
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Helms
     Inhofe
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Lott
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Packwood
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond

                                NAYS--64

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Conrad
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lugar
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pressler
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Snowe
     Specter
     Warner
     Wellstone
  So the amendment (No. 2562) was rejected.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. FORD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2527

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now 
resume consideration of the Shelby amendment, No. 2527.
  Who yields time on the amendment?
  If neither side yields time, time will be subtracted equally from 
both sides.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, we must have order. This is a matter of 
consequence.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order.
  Who yields time? The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, under a unanimous-consent agreement, I was 
slated to offer an amendment dealing with food stamps. I will not offer 
that amendment at this time. I ask unanimous consent I be allowed to 
withdraw the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
amendment is withdrawn.
  The amendment (No. 2527) was withdrawn.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now 
resume consideration of three Moseley-Braun amendments, Nos. 2471, 
2472, and 2473, on which there shall be a total of 2 hours of debate.
  Who yields time?
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, may I inquire of my friend from 
Illinois, has one of the amendments been accepted?
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. No. There are three amendments. I would like a 
moment to consult with the Senator from New York. Therefore, I suggest 
the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded. 

[[Page S 13342]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2471

  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk 
which I now would like to have a vote on and discussion.
  Essentially, this is the bottom-line child-protection amendment. It 
establishes a requirement that there be a voucher program for children, 
minor children, whose families would otherwise be eligible for 
assistance except for the time limit or other penalties, and where the 
parent has not complied with whatever the State rules are, the payment 
for that child's assistance could be made if necessary to a third 
party.
  Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to take a good look at this 
amendment and to support it because, quite frankly, this amendment is 
one that can be supported by those who favor block grants and by those 
who oppose block grants. It also warrants support by those who favor 
State flexibility and by those who oppose State flexibility. This 
amendment speaks to maintaining a safety net for poor children.
  This amendment essentially provides a floor below which no child in 
this United States will fall. Essentially, what it says is that 
children will not be penalized for the behavior of their parents. We 
have already had a lot of discussion in this forum about welfare 
reform, and the extent to which it affects the children. Quite frankly, 
the numbers make it very clear that out of the 14 million people in the 
United States who are currently receiving AFDC, 9 million of those 
people are children.
  So essentially, if we penalize the majority, the children, for the 
behavior of their parents, I think we will have committed a great harm. 
It seems to me that our efforts to reform the welfare system should at 
a minimum do no harm to the children.
  Mr. President, the United States, our country, has a child poverty 
rate of some 22 percent. That is one in five children who is poor. Our 
child poverty rate exceeds those of all the other industrialized 
nations. As we address the whole issue of poverty in the United States, 
and particularly child poverty, it seems to me that we ought to provide 
a minimum below which no child will fall, a minimum safety net that 
still allows the States to construct their own rules and requirements. 
A State can set up whatever kind of plan it wants to, at least within 
the parameters of the underlying legislation. A State will have the 
flexibility through the block grants to do as they will in terms of 
time limits, in terms of other requirements. But at a minimum, I think 
we should have consensus in this body that children caught in that 
situation will not be penalized for the failure of their parent to 
comply with the rule, whatever that State rule is, pertaining to 
welfare.
  Mr. President, this amendment would ensure at a very minimum that 
every State will provide essential support through a voucher for poor 
children whose parents and families no longer qualify for assistance. 
The amendment would allow the use of block grant funds for this 
purpose. So in that regard, it will allow for the maintenance of the 
flexibility that is in the underlying legislation again for the 
protection of children.
  Mr. President, I ask for my colleagues' support of this legislation. 
I am prepared of course to entertain any questions regarding this.
  Specifically, Mr. President, I would like to point to the notion 
that, with regard to the underlying legislation, there is a 5-year time 
limitation in terms of public assistance. It is unlikely, quite 
frankly, but there is the possibility--hopefully, it will not happen 
all that often, but there is at least a prospect--that we will have 6-
year-old children walking around with no subsistence, with no support, 
with no help at all.
  If, indeed, their parents fail to comply with the time limit in this 
bill or any other limitation that may be proposed by this legislation 
or the State in developing their plan, again I think we have to be 
mindful and cognizant of the fact that as Americans we have an 
obligation to all the children and that we would want to ensure that, 
at a minimum, there be an opportunity for those children who are left 
out to be fed, to be housed, and to receive adequate care.
  The child-voucher approach will allow payment to a third party for 
essential services provided to minor children.
  Mr. President, that, in substance, is the child-voucher amendment. I 
have on previous occasions discussed this issue in depth, regarding the 
operation of the welfare program with regard to children and the 
operation of the underlying legislation.
  There is little question but that there ought to be some minimal 
standard. I believe the child-voucher amendment allows that, and so 
again I would entertain any questions about this legislation and ask 
for its favorable consideration.
  I would also point out, Mr. President, this amendment has been 
analyzed and the CBO analysis is, ``The amendment would not alter block 
grant levels and therefore would have no direct impact on Federal 
spending.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I observe the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, could I inquire about how the time is being 
divided at this moment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois has 48 minutes and 
10 seconds remaining, and the opposition has 58 minutes and 52 seconds 
remaining.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, for the sake of time being treated fairly, 
if we do go back into a quorum, I ask unanimous consent that the time 
be equally divided on both sides.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. I think I am going to object to that.
  I would say to my colleague, I am prepared to talk about this 
further.
  Mr. LOTT. Fine.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. My own view was that I thought the opposition, if 
there is opposition--I hope there will not be opposition; it seems to 
me on this amendment we should reach consensus about it. But in the 
event there is opposition, I hope that the opposition would express 
itself in this period and would actually engage in dialogue about the 
importance of having again this child-voucher approach or some bottom-
line protection for children. It seems to me to be an important enough 
subject to talk about it as opposed to just going into a quorum call.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, if the distinguished Senator from Illinois 
will yield, that would be fine, if the Senator is prepared to speak 
further. And I am sure we will have some comment in opposition or some 
further discussion. But I just did not want us to be in quorum call 
with the time being counted just against this side. If the Senator 
would like to speak, that will resolve the problem, and then I am sure 
we will begin to ask questions and have dialogue.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. All right, I will continue then.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, a lot of what I have to say about this particular 
amendment is in reiteration of what I said the other day. And, again, I 
would call my colleagues' attention to the significance of having a 
bottom-line protection for children. If anything, this amendment says 
that we will do no harm by the children; that in order to get the 
conduct of the 4.6 million adults who are receiving public assistance, 
we will not hurt the 9 million children who may be caught up and not 
understand all the rules.
  The children are not responsible for their parents not going to work. 
The children are not responsible for their parents not complying with 
the family cap. The children are not responsible for their parents not 
abiding by the rules. The children have no way of fighting back or even 
challenging a State's decision to construct a program in one way or the 
other.
  In light of the fact that what we are doing with this reform effort 
is setting up 50 different assistance systems--that is essentially what 
is going on--by devolving from the national program 

[[Page S 13343]]
under the Social Security Act for public assistance, we are allowing 
the States to craft their own programs, and so a child living in one 
State or another may well wind up really the victim, if you will, of an 
accident of geography.
  It seems to me that at a minimum we ought to be able to say, as part 
of our national commitment as Americans, we are not going to allow a 
child to go homeless; we are not going to allow a child to go hungry; 
we are not going to allow a child in any State to be subject to the 
vicissitudes of misfortune, or, alternatively, to an accident of 
geography, and that we will provide a minimal safety net under which 
children can be cared for.
  This issue is actually one of the more troubling aspects of this 
whole debate--the question of what about the children, what do we do 
about the children in the final analysis.
  Earlier in the debate about welfare reform, the question was raised 
by some: Well, what happens if the parents do not comply with the 
rules? Then what do you do with the children? The suggestion was even 
made by some that you put them in orphanages.
  We do not yet have the orphanages. We do not yet have any 
alternatives for these babies who may well be left homeless and hungry, 
with no subsistence at all if their parents get cut off of welfare.
  I raised the issue with my colleagues the other day about the notion 
that while it is being touted as a new approach to public assistance, 
really this is an old approach; what we are doing here has happened 
before in this country.
  I put into the Record this article from the Chicago History magazine 
called ``Friendless Foundlings and Homeless Half Orphans,'' and it 
talked about the situation in our country before we had a national 
safety net for children, what happened there.
  What we found was that, depending on the State of residence, 
depending on where the child lived, the different States responded to 
the issue of dependent children in different ways. And, in many 
instances, the children were left to their own devices--sleeping in the 
streets, in some instances, a parent--and that is where the term 
``homeless half orphan,'' which I never heard before I read this 
article, came from. The women in some instances could not support them 
and would take to the doors of a church or orphanage and just leave 
them there for the winter so as to provide their babies with some way 
to live when times were really hard.
  I do not think we want to go back to that in this country. As a 
matter of fact, I am certain of it. And I do not sense frankly that 
even the architects of this bill want to go move this country backward. 
The architects of this legislation, however, have often said, well, we 
are just going to take our chances because the States are going to do 
no harm to the children. States will not leave the children homeless 
and hungry, and the States will not make decisions, the Governors will 
not make decisions that will hurt the children any more than we in the 
Senate would want to hurt the children.
  And I am prepared reluctantly to take the gamble that we all will 
take with the passage of this legislation, that that is the case. But I 
have to raise the question whether or not, as a national community, we 
are willing to take that gamble on the backs of the children, whether 
or not we are willing to take that gamble without regard at all to any 
protection for them, any bottom line for them.
  Would it not be in our own interests as a national community, all of 
us, because we are all residents of various States, residents of the 
State that sent us here in the first instance, we are residents of 
local governments as well, but would not it make sense for us to have 
some bottom level below which no child--no child--will be jeopardized? 
That is the only question. Are we prepared to take a loser-risk-all 
kind of gamble, or are we willing to say with regard to the basics of 
subsistence issues for children--food, clothing, care, shelter--with 
regard to health, with regard to those very basic things, we are going 
to provide some level of support?
  That is what this child voucher amendment does. It says to the 
States, you are free to do what you want to do in terms of constructing 
the parameters and the operation and the system for your program. You 
are absolutely free to do that. But at a minimum, you have got to 
provide that if a child winds up with nothing because that child's 
parent does not comply with the rules or does not fit into the program, 
that that child in the final analysis will be entitled to a voucher, 
the voucher is not for any adults, it is for that child, that 6-year-
old, that 7-year-old, that 4-year-old even, that that child will be 
entitled to a voucher. Vouchers would go to a third party and it might 
well be an orphanage or might be somebody in the community or it might 
be some other system that the State establishes. We are not telling the 
States how to do this.
  We are just telling them that there has to be this bottom-line 
protection and that they have an obligation to try to work out some 
system so that children will not fall below the level of care and 
subsistence that as a national community we believe is appropriate. We 
do not want to get to the point--and I do have the picture; I do not 
know if it is still here--that was demonstrated graphically in the 
article that talked about what we had in this country before we had a 
national safety net, a national commitment to safety for the children. 
We do not want to wind up with children sleeping in the streets and 
fending for themselves. This is actually a picture. This picture is not 
made up. And this is in the United States of America, let me point out. 
This is not some foreign country, although we do, frankly, have 
pictures of foreign countries that do not have a child safety net and 
the situation of their children is dire in 1995. But this particular 
picture here which I would call the Chair's attention to, this is a 
fascinating article.
  And if the Chair gets an opportunity, because I know, Mr. President, 
that you have a great interest in this subject, this article was 
written regarding turn-of-the-century America and the situation 
regarding child welfare in this country. This picture here was taken in 
Illinois, I say, in my own State, circa 1889. This is 1889.
       Until the reform efforts of the late 19th century, the 
     public largely ignored the plight of destitute children. 
     Barefoot children wandering about the streets, boys selling 
     newspapers, and ``street arabs'' sleeping on top of each 
     other for warmth, were among the realities that forced 
     charities to undertake measures to protect orphaned and 
     abandoned children.

  Again, I cannot imagine anybody in this Chamber wanting to go back to 
this type of child poverty. I do not think anybody wants to get to this 
again. But the only way we can keep this from happening this happening 
in this country is to provide for a basic safety net. And that is 
exactly what the child voucher amendment does.
  Mr. President, one of the other issues in terms of the analysis of S. 
1120, the underlying legislation, that I thought ought to command and 
compel our attention are the issues of the number of children that 
might be kicked off, if you will, because their families did not comply 
with the rules, either the time limit or the family cap or whatever.
  The estimates are that if the bill--I will quote--if the bill were 
fully implemented, the States would not be able to use Federal funds to 
support some 3.9 million children because those children are in 
families that have received AFDC for longer than 5 years. This analysis 
takes into account that 15 percent of the entire caseload will be 
exempt from the 5-year limit. If the States were to impose a 24-month 
time limit instead of a 60-month time limit, 9 million children would 
be denied assistance.
  Now, Mr. President, those are not my numbers. Those are the numbers 
from HHS. And I think those are numbers that all of the authors of S. 
1120, the authors of this plan, recognize to be true. This is not made 
up. And so the question becomes for all of us--do we really want to 
take the chance that some 3.9 million children will be left to be 
street urchins and left to their own devices because of the time limit 
operation in the bill? Or more to the point, if we change the time 
limit and impose some other requirements--or worse yet, the States 
could impose a time after 24 months--if that were to happen, as many as 
9 million children would be denied assistance altogether? I, for one, 
do not believe that is a chance that any of the Members of this body 
want to take. 

[[Page S 13344]]

  Certainly we have some philosophical disagreements about this 
legislation. There are disagreements about the many constituent parts 
of it. But on this, Mr. President, I believe there can be no 
disagreement that the children are deserving of our absolute 
commitment, and the children are deserving of some protection, and, in 
passing this legislation, we will provide a minimal level of 
protection. And I have proposed that the way we do that is to state for 
the record that the States should be required to establish a child 
voucher program so that those children would be eligible for assistance 
such as food, care, and shelter.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. SANTORUM addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume. I would like to say that this amendment, which is similar in 
nature to what Senator Daschle had offered in his substitute, really 
does violate the whole principle of ending welfare as we know it. What 
this amendment does is continue the entitlement to welfare benefits 
albeit in a different form. It is not cash, it is vouchers, still an 
entitlement, Federal dollars to families on welfare in perpetuity. 
There is no time limit. So this will, in effect, end the time limit.
  Now, if we are serious--I would say that the President when he 
offered his bill a year ago in June, although he had some loopholes, he 
did have a time limit. And he did, after 5 years, under some 
circumstances, not many, unfortunately, but some circumstances actually 
end welfare in the sense that the cash assistance, voucher--no further 
entitlement under AFDC would be continued. And to suggest that if we 
provide in an entitlement just for children and not for the mother that 
somehow the children are going to get this money and the mother or 
father, whoever the custodial parent, is not going to get this--I do 
not know many 3-years-olds who fend for themselves. The money is going 
to go to the parents and it is going to be a support.
  Now, I would say, under the Dole modified bill, we do continue to 
support that family with Medicaid, with food stamps, with housing if 
the family qualified for housing. About 25 percent of families on AFDC 
qualify for Federal housing assistance, whether it is section 8 or 
public housing. So all of those benefits continue. And all we are doing 
is saying, after 5 years, after we have given you intensive training 
under this bill--we believe there will be intensive worker training or 
retraining if necessary, 3 years of work opportunity--at some point the 
Federal contract with the family who is in need ends. And what we are 
going to say is we will continue to provide food and medical care and 
other things if you chose not to go to work.
  But at some point we are going to say we are not going to continue to 
provide assistance in the form of cash, or in the case of the Senator 
from Illinois's amendment, a voucher, which is the equivalent of cash 
to provide for other services that cash would be used for.
  So to me this is just a backdoor attempt to continue the welfare 
entitlement in perpetuity. And if you understand the whole motivation, 
the reason the President in such dramatic fashion in 1992 stood 
squarely behind the idea of ending welfare as we know it, that whole 
concept of ending welfare as we know it was based on a time limit,
 a 5-year time limit on welfare. You cannot end welfare if you continue 
welfare, and this continues welfare. If we adopt this amendment, anyone 
who stands here and says, ``We are ending welfare as we know it'' is 
not telling the truth, because you continue the entitlement. It is very 
important that this amendment, although I understand and respect the 
Senator from Illinois and her desire to protect children, I suggest 
that you can go to cities across this country and find pictures of 
children in, unfortunately, the same situation today. Usually, they may 
not even be out on the street, because in many of these neighborhoods, 
they certainly would not be safe out on the street because of the 
violence and the degradation that we have seen in the communities that 
they live in.

  We go back to the whole point that we are here today, and the whole 
point we are here today is the current system is failing the very 
children it is attempting to help. To suggest we are going to help 
children by continuing dependency, by continuing the welfare system, in 
a sense, with this entitlement stretching on in perpetuity, I think, 
just belies the fact that the system is failing.
  I appreciate her concern for children, and I think everyone here who 
stands behind the Dole bill has that same concern for children. We 
honestly believe, and I think rightfully believe, that ending the 
entitlement to welfare, requiring work, moving people off a system 
which says, ``We are going to maintain you in poverty,'' to a system 
that says, ``We are going to move you out of poverty,'' that is a 
dynamic, time-certain system, is the way to really change the dynamics 
for the poor in America today and for the children in America today.
  It is a philosophical difference. Many times I go back home and I 
have town meetings. People at my town meetings say, ``Why don't you 
folks just work it out? You are always playing politics down here. Why 
don't you folks come together?"
  I say to the Senator from Illinois, we did come together on one of 
her amendments. She was to offer three. One of the amendments we 
accepted. We accepted her amendment on a demonstration project, called 
JOLI, $25 million. We understand that that system is experiencing some 
success, so we agreed to accept one of her three amendments.
  The other two we have very different policy differences. This is not 
politics. They are fundamental differences of opinion as to whether 
welfare is working with a system of endless entitlement, or whether we 
need, as the President has stated, to put some certainty of time, some 
commitment to the individual that welfare will be there to help for a 
discrete period of time to intensively try to turn someone's life 
around with the expectation and requirement that at some point you will 
move off and the social contract between the Government, whether it is 
the State or whether the State, hopefully under the Ashcroft provision 
of the Dole amendment, moves it to the private sector and has a private 
entity more involved in provision of welfare, whatever the case may be, 
we believe that that dynamic process is so possible under this 
amendment, that is so different than what we have seen in the past, 
that I am hopeful that we can defeat this amendment, keep that time-
limit provision in place and move forward with this bill.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Mr. President, first, I want to thank the Senator 
from Pennsylvania. He is correct, the job training demonstration 
amendment has been accepted, and I am delighted to have been able to 
work with him in a bipartisan fashion.
  Second, I say to him that this is not a back door around the time 
limit. If anything--and I want to make this point because I think it is 
very important to our colleagues' analysis of the child voucher 
amendment--if anything, this amendment is no more and no less than an 
insurance policy for the children.
  We know there is going to be a time limit. That is written in the 
legislation. We know there are going to be work requirements. There may 
well be a family cap. We know all these things are happening, but there 
are so many uncertainties in this legislation, not the least of which 
is whether or not the parents will be able to find jobs after 5 years.
  The Congressional Budget Office estimated that only 10 to 15 States 
could potentially meet the fiscal year 2000 work participation 
requirements in this legislation. They go on to say that because the 
bill provides States with significant flexibility to set policies that 
may affect caseloads, the estimate contains a high degree of 
uncertainty.
  To the extent that there is uncertainty here, are we really prepared 
to say we are going to make 6-, 7-, and 8-year-olds pay for any failure 
of our analysis? Are we going to make them pay for the sins of their 
parents? Are we going to make them pay for our failure to adequately 
put together a system that addresses the issues that go to poverty?
  The Senator from Pennsylvania, when he starts talking about this 

[[Page S 13345]]
  issue, starts talking about crime and violence in the communities. 
There are a lot of issues involved in this whole question of welfare. 
But I say to my colleagues once again, welfare does not stand alone in 
a vacuum. It is only a response to a larger issue, which is poverty, 
child poverty.
  Our Nation has tried different approaches to the issue of dealing 
with child poverty and destitute children, and now we are about to try 
another one. We are about to try the ``ending of welfare as we know 
it.'' Well, Mr. President, it is just like anything else. We all know, 
for example, that we are going to die, but most of us have the sense to 
go ahead and get an insurance policy anyway.
  The fact of the matter is that this is going to change. Will we have 
an insurance policy for children? I submit that we should. I hope that 
my colleagues will agree with me, and I urge your support for the child 
voucher amendment.
  I ask for the yeas and nays.
  Mr. President, before I do, Senator Lieberman has requested to be 
added as a cosponsor on the child voucher amendment. I ask unanimous 
consent that he be added as a cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Also, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that 
Senators Murray and Mikulski be added as cosponsors to the child 
voucher amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. And I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays have been ordered on the 
child voucher amendment.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Mr. President, I understand we will stack the 
votes on these amendments; therefore, I want to move on to the second 
amendment in this series and get that resolved as well.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak out of 
order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The majority leader.
  

                          ____________________