Congressional Record, Volume 141 Issue 142 (Wednesday, September 13, 1995)

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 142 (Wednesday, September 13, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S13481-S13524]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

FAMILY SELF-SUFFICIENCY ACT

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report the pending bill.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

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

The Senate resumed consideration of the bill.

Pending:
Dole modified amendment No. 2280, of a perfecting nature.
Moseley-Braun amendment No. 2471 (to amendment No. 2280),
to require States to establish a voucher program for
providing assistance to minor children in families that are
eligible for but do not receive assistance.
Moseley-Braun amendment No. 2472 (to amendment No. 2280),
to prohibit a State from imposing a time limit for assistance
if the State has failed to provide work activity-related
services to an adult individual in a family receiving
assistance under the State program.
Graham/Bumpers amendment No. 2565 (to amendment No. 2280),
to provide a formula for allocating funds that more
accurately reflects the needs of States with children below
the poverty line.
Domenici modified amendment No. 2575 (to amendment No.
2280), to strike the mandatory family cap.
Daschle amendment No. 2672 (to amendment No. 2280), to
provide for the establishment of a Contingency Fund for State
Welfare Programs.
Daschle amendment No. 2671 (to amendment No. 2280), to
provide a 3-percent set aside for the funding of family
assistance grants for Indians.
DeWine amendment No. 2518 (to amendment No. 2280), to
modify the method for calculating participation rates to more
accurately reflect the total case load of families receiving
assistance in the State.
Faircloth amendment No. 2608 (to amendment No. 2280), to
provide for an abstinence education program.
Boxer amendment No. 2592 (to amendment No. 2280), to
provide that State authority to restrict benefits to
noncitizens does not apply to foster care or adoption
assistance programs.

Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Illinois is recognized.

Amendment No. 2471

Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Mr. President under the previous order, there is
to be a final 10 minutes of debate on two pending amendments which I
offered. The vote is to occur at 9:10 this morning. Therefore, in light
of the fact that we have about 7 minutes left, I will be very brief and
succinct in describing the two amendments.
At the outset, I would like to submit for the Record an article in
the Washington Post yesterday by Judith Gueron, which talks about the
way out of the welfare bind. There is one line in particular that I
call to the attention of my colleagues, and the Senator from
Pennsylvania, who is on the floor and working this legislation. She
talks about time limits and she concludes that they should be tested.
Then she goes on to say:

But given the public expectations, we cannot afford to base
national policies on hope rather than knowledge. The risk of
unintended consequences is too great.

Now, the point of these amendments is to at least provide us with
some security against unintended consequences. I believe the two
amendments pending will go to the heart of the debate about welfare
reform. Are we, as a national community, going to maintain a national
commitment to poor children, or are we going to gamble with the future
of millions of children?
I remind my colleagues, in the discussion that we have had that there
are

[[Page S 13482]]
some 14 million AFDC welfare recipients; 5 million of those people are
adults, but 9.6 million--almost 10 million of them--are children. Work
is important and certainly we all support work for adults. But it is
the children who have been forgotten, I think, in this debate and who
are the unintended targets of this debate and who will suffer if there
are any unintended consequences of our policymaking.
Some 60 percent of the children of the AFDC recipients are children
under the age of 6. So the first amendment suggests, or asserts,
really, that these 9 million children, 60 percent of whom are under the
age of 6, are too precious to take a gamble that the States will
construct programs that will, in fact, work, and that we, therefore,
make a national commitment by allowing for the child vouchers. We can
make a commitment that we will not allow children to go hungry or to
become homeless; nor will we allow a child to become subject to the
vicissitudes of misfortune or accidents of geography. As a nation with
a $7 trillion economy and $1.5 trillion Federal budget, I believe that
we can provide a minimum safety net for poor children.
This amendment provides for that safety net by requiring the States
to provide vouchers for poor children who live in families that may be
ineligible or kicked off, or somehow or another not eligible for
assistance because of rental circumstances.
This amendment seeks to hold the child harmless, to protect the child
even from the behavior of their parents. If anything, Mr. President, it
seems to me that we ought to provide some basic level of protection for
these children for whom all of our decisionmaking will have grave and
dramatic impact.
The second amendment goes to the parents. Essentially, it says that
of those 5 million parents who are being called on to work in this
welfare reform, as to those individuals--parenthetically, all of us
agree that anybody who can work should work--but the State, in the
legislation, is required to set forth a work plan for those individuals
that they deem needed. But if the State does not live up to its part of
the bargain, that State does not provide jobs assistance, job training,
does not follow its own plan--not a plan we are imposing from
Washington, but if the State does not do what it needs to do with
regard to job training and placement of the adult, then this amendment
says that the State should not eliminate assistance for those
individuals who they have themselves failed.
Again, I want to bring to the attention the second part of the
article called ``A Way Out of the Welfare Bind.'' She says:

States, in any case, are concluding that time limits do not
alleviate the need for effective welfare-to-work programs. In
a current study of states that are testing time-limit
programs, we have found that state and local administrators
are seeking to expand and strengthen activities meant to help
recipients prepare for and find jobs before reaching the time
limit. Otherwise, too many will ``hit the cliff'' and either
require public jobs, which will cost more than welfare, or
face dramatic loss of income with unknown effects on families
and children and, ultimately, public budgets.

That goes to the heart of the debate here, that in the event there
are unintended consequences of our decisionmaking, we should assure
that the unintended consequences do not impact the children--again, 60
percent of whom are under the age of 6, or alternatively, that people
are not penalized for circumstances beyond their control.
I ask unanimous consent that the Washington Post article be printed
in the Record.
There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
A Way Out of the Welfare Bind

(By Judith M. Gueron)

Much of this year's debate over welfare reform in
Washington has focused on two broad issues: which level of
government--state or federal--should be responsible for
designing welfare programs, and how much money the federal
government should be spending.
The debate has strayed from the more critical issue of how
to create a welfare system that does what the public wants it
to do. Numerous public opinion polls have identified three
clear objectives for welfare reform: putting recipients to
work, protecting their children from severe poverty and
controlling costs.
Unfortunately, these goals are often in conflict--progress
toward one or two often pulls us further from the others. And
when the dust settles in Washington, real-life welfare
administrators and staff in states, counties and cities will
still face the fundamental question of how to balance this
triad of conflicting public expectations.
Because welfare is such an emotional issue, it is a magnet
for easy answers and inflated promises. But the reality is
not so simple. Some say we should end welfare. That might
indeed force many recipients to find jobs, but it could also
cause increased suffering for children, who account for two-
thirds of welfare recipients. Some parents on welfare face
real obstacles to employment or can find only unstable or
part-time jobs.
Others say we should put welfare recipients to work in
community service jobs--workfare. This is a popular approach
that seems to offer a way to reduce dependency and protect
children. But, when done on a large scale, especially with
single parents, this would likely cost substantially more
than sending out welfare checks every month. To date, we
haven't been willing to make the investment.
During the past two decades, reform efforts, shaped by the
triad of public goals, have gradually defined a bargain
between government and welfare recipients: The government
provides income support and a range of services to help
recipients prepare for and find jobs. Recipients must
participate in these activities or have their checks reduced.
We now know conclusively that, when it is done right, the
welfare-to-work approach offers a way out of the bind.
Careful evaluations have shown that tough, adequately funded
welfare-to-work programs can be four-fold winners: They can
get parents off welfare and into jobs, support children (and,
in some cases, make them better off), save money for
taxpayers and make welfare more consistent with public
values.
A recent study looked at three such programs in Atlanta,
Grand Rapids, Mich., and Riverside, Calif. It found that the
programs reduced the number of people on welfare by 16
percent, decreased welfare spending by 22 percent and
increased participants' earnings by 26 percent. Other data on
the Riverside program showed that, over time, it saved almost
$3 for every $1 it cost to run the program. This means that
ultimately it would have cost the government more--far more--
had it not run the program.
In order to achieve results of this magnitude, it is
necessary to dramatically change the tone and message of
welfare. When you walk in the door of a high-performance,
employment-focused program, it is clear that you are there
for one purpose--to get a job. Staff continually announce
job openings and convey an upbeat message about the value
of work and people's potential to succeed. You--and
everybody else subject to the mandate--are required to
search for a job, and if you don't find one, to
participate in short-term education, training or community
work experience.
You cannot just mark time; if you do not make progress in
the education program, for example, the staff will insist
that you look for a job. Attendance is tightly monitored, and
recipients who miss activities without a good reason face
swift penalties.
If welfare looked like this everywhere, we probably
wouldn't be debating this issue again today.
Are these programs a panacea? No. We could do better.
Although the Atlanta, Grand Rapids, and Riverside programs
are not the only strong ones, most welfare offices around the
country do not look like the one I just described.
In the past, the ``bargain''--the mutual obligation of
welfare recipients and government--has received broad
support, but reformers have succumbed to the temptation to
promise more than they have been willing to pay for. Broader
change will require a substantial up-front investment of
funds and serious, sustained efforts to change local welfare
offices. This may seem mundane, but changing a law is only
the first step toward changing reality.
It's possible that more radical approaches--such as time
limits--will do an even better job. They should be tested.
But given the public expectations, we cannot afford to base
national policies on hope rather than knowledge. The risk of
unintended consequences is too great.
States, in any case, are concluding that time limits do not
alleviate the need for effective welfare-to-work programs. In
a current study of states that are testing time-limit
programs, we have found that state and local administrators
are seeking to expand and strengthen activities meant to help
recipients prepare for and find jobs before reaching the time
limit. Otherwise, too many will ``hit the cliff'' and either
require public jobs, which will cost more than welfare, or
face a dramatic loss of income with unknown effects on
families and children and, ultimately, public budgets.
Welfare-to-work programs are uniquely suited to meeting the
public's demand for policies that promote work, protect
children and control costs. But despite the demonstrated
effectiveness of this approach, the proposals currently under
debate in Washington may make it more difficult for states to
build an employment-focused welfare system. Everyone claims
to favor ``work,'' but this is only talk unless there's an
adequate initial investment and clear incentives for states
to transform welfare while continuing to support children.

[[Page S 13483]]

Many of the current proposals promise easy answers where
none exist. In the past, welfare reform has generated much
heat but little light. We are now starting to see some light.
We should move toward it.

Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. I see my time has expired. I yield the floor.
Mr. SANTORUM addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Hutchison). The Senator from
Pennsylvania.
Mr. SANTORUM. Madam President, I think the Senator from Illinois hit
the nail right on the head in talking about the issue of unintended
consequences. How can we risk to do this, to put a time limit on people
on welfare? I wish we would have had that same discussion back when we
instituted all these welfare programs in the sixties, because when we
did that we had absolutely no idea what was going to happen. We had no
idea of the unintended consequences. We had no idea that the harm that
has been caused by all of these programs, the dependency that exists in
this country because of these programs, had we thought about these
unintended consequences, we may have not have done that, but we did it
anyway, without any proof that what we were passing was going to be
beneficial to the American citizens. We had no proof at all. In fact,
in the thirties when these were initially realized they were
replacements for private charity systems that were networks of
charities that are all over the country.
We said, no, the Government will take more responsibility. Franklin
Roosevelt warned us about the subtle narcotic being delivered to the
masses on welfare. We ignored a lot of the naysayers out there at the
time, saying big Government programs and unlimited welfare were going
to be a real problem for this country, were going to be a
disintegration of community, family, and the support that we have seen
in communities. We ignored all that and just plowed ahead.
Now we are saying, ``Oh my goodness, we cannot change that because we
do not know what will happen.'' Well, we changed it in the 1930's and
the 1960's without knowing what would happen. We found out what has
happened, and it is a big problem.
To suggest now we cannot find some moderation, we are not talking
about pulling the Government out of welfare, we are talking about
putting a limit on the amount of assistance that we are going to give
people, and changing the system from one of a maintenance and
dependency system to one that is a dynamic transitional system.
I think that is a good middle ground that we have established with
this piece of legislation.
What the amendment of the Senator from Illinois will do is perpetuate
a system of dependency, of maintenance of poverty. I think it hopefully
will be rejected by the Senate.
I yield back the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment
numbered 2471. The yeas and nays have been ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thompson). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 42, nays 58, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 413 Leg.]

YEAS--42

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

NAYS--58

Abraham
Ashcroft
Baucus
Bennett
Bond
Brown
Burns
Campbell
Chafee
Coats
Cochran
Cohen
Coverdell
Craig
D'Amato
DeWine
Dole
Domenici
Faircloth
Frist
Gorton
Graham
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Harkin
Hatch
Hatfield
Helms
Hutchison
Inhofe
Jeffords
Kassebaum
Kempthorne
Kohl
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nickles
Nunn
Packwood
Pressler
Roth
Santorum
Shelby
Simpson
Smith
Snowe
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Warner
So the amendment (No. 2471) was rejected.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, 42 votes. A good vote. I move to
reconsider.
Mr. NICKLES. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 2472

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 4
minutes debate equally divided on the second Moseley-Braun amendment
numbered 2472, to be followed by a vote on or in relation to the
amendment.
Who yields time?
Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I believe the time has been agreed to, 4
minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Mr. President, the second amendment has been
explained at length.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, may we have order in the Senate?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I would like to be able to vote
intelligently on this amendment. I hope the Senate will give its
attention to Members who are attempting to explain briefly these
amendments. I hope the Chair will insist on order in the Senate, and I
for one will applaud the Chair for the effort.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. The Chair can name names if that becomes necessary.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will Senators take their conversations off the
floor.
The Senator from Illinois.
Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. I thank the Chair very much. I will be brief.
Essentially, the second amendment also deals with unintended
consequences. But unlike the amendment that applied, or was directed at
almost 10 million children who are presently on welfare, this one
applies, or is directed, to the approximately 5 million adults who are
recipients under the various programs in the States.
Essentially, what it says is that the State will do what it says it
is going to do. It is intended to address the issue of unintended
consequences where a State has not provided job assistance, where the
economy in the State has pockets of high unemployment, where a
recession occurs or plants leave and individuals cannot work because
there are no jobs. Then the State will not in that situation throw an
individual off of welfare who wants to work, who needs to work, who
wants to support their family and has no other way of providing for
their children.
I had introduced earlier an article out of the Washington Post
regarding welfare-to-work programs. Certainly, we all agree that
anybody who can work should work. There is no debate, I think, about
that. But in the event there are no jobs, in the event there is high
unemployment, in the event there is some economic downturn over which
an individual has no control, the question is, are we prepared to
accept the consequences, the unintended consequences of an able-bodied
person who wants to work, who is unable to work, being unable to
provide anything for their children.
Many States are such as my own. In Illinois, 64 percent of the
caseload resides in one county. In that instance, it seems to me that a
State should be called on to do what the State says it is going to do.
This is not imposing anything on the States other than the States have
imposed on themselves. This, it seems to me, is a reasonable moderation
of our approach in turning this issue over to the States, letting the
States create their plan. It simply says the State will do what the
State says it will do in regard to job assistance.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's 2 minutes have expired.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
In my opinion, this amendment really is a back-door effort to have a
continued entitlement. This creates a new entitlement which requires
the States to provide services. It tries to get around the idea of
having a time limit, a limitation on welfare.
I remember President Clinton's statement that we want to end welfare

[[Page S 13484]]
as we know it. This amendment basically is an effort to exempt the 5-
year time limit to keep an open-ended entitlement. This opens up States
also to lawsuits from recipients who do not get the type of training
they want rather than what the State thinks they need.
I might mention we had a similar type provision that was earlier
defeated.
Mr. President, I hope that my colleagues would vote ``no'' on this
amendment. I yield back the remainder of our time.
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. Campbell). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber who desire to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 40, nays 60, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 414 Leg.]

YEAS--40

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

NAYS--60

Abraham
Ashcroft
Baucus
Bennett
Biden
Bond
Brown
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Chafee
Coats
Cochran
Cohen
Coverdell
Craig
D'Amato
DeWine
Dole
Domenici
Faircloth
Frist
Gorton
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hatch
Hatfield
Helms
Hutchison
Inhofe
Jeffords
Kassebaum
Kempthorne
Kohl
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nickles
Nunn
Packwood
Pressler
Reid
Roth
Santorum
Shelby
Simpson
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Warner
So the amendment (No. 2472) was rejected.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which
the amendment was rejected.
Mr. SANTORUM. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 2565

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 20
minutes for debate equally divided on the Graham amendment No. 2565, to
be followed by a vote on or in relation to the amendment.
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from
Nebraska, Senator Kerrey.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska [Mr. Kerrey] is
recognized for 2 minutes.
Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, under the Dole bill, we are fundamentally
changing the covenants of welfare. It seems to me and other supporters
of this amendment that we should be fundamentally changing the way we
design our formulas. Instead, under the Dole bill, we continue to use a
formula that is based upon an older system.
Instead, what the Graham-Bumpers amendment does is provides a formula
that is based on fairness and guided by three principles: First, that
the block grant should be based on need; second, the funding level
should respond to changes in the poverty level; and third, the States
should not be permanently disadvantaged based upon their policy choices
and circumstances made in 1994.
Mr. President, the Graham-Bumpers children's fair share proposal
meets the test that I have just described by allocating funding based
upon the number of poor children in each State, a formula just for
changes in the population of children in poverty, so it does not lock
States into an outdated funding level.
I point out to my colleagues something I suspect they already know,
and that is, child poverty has enormous economic costs. It has huge
human costs as well. Low-income children are twice as likely to suffer
from stunted growth, twice as likely as other children to die from
birth defects, and three times more likely to die from all causes
combined.
It has been estimated that there are $36 to $177 billion in lower
productivity coming from the American economy as a consequence of child
poverty. It has enormous future costs as well. There is a University of
Michigan study that those children under age 5 who experience at least
1 year of poverty have significantly lower IQ scores. If we are going
to change our welfare system to a block grant, we need to change our
funding formula to address child poverty. I cannot imagine--except for
States that lose money, and some will under this formula. Unless your
States lose money, I do not know how you can do anything other than to
support this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator yield back his time?
Mr. KERREY. I yield back my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from Texas [Mrs.
Hutchison] is recognized.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I yield 4 minutes from our 10 minutes
to the Senator from Pennsylvania.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. Santorum]
is recognized for 4 minutes.
Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Texas. I find
it interesting that the Senator from Nebraska is standing up here
arguing for this amendment. It is very magnanimous of him. I know
originally his State gains. I am not too sure he is aware that after 5
years, the State of Nebraska goes from $100 million down to $23
million, which is actually less money than they are getting now under
the current formula. They will get less money.
The Senator from Nevada spoke on this amendment yesterday. They will
get less money under this formula. There is no hold harmless here.
You should look at the formula not just in the first year, but over 5
years. Your numbers come down. Nevada is one. Actually, your
maintenance of effort in Nebraska and Nevada, under the 80 percent
maintenance-of-effort provision, will be required to pay more than what
the Federal share will be, because you will be required to maintain 80
percent, but your number is going to come down below that.
Look at the numbers over the 5 years and you will see States like
California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, Nebraska,
Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, and Washington all will
have higher maintenance-of-effort requirements than Federal
contributions under the Graham amendment.
Throw away parochialism. This is bad public policy. We are going to
say on the floor of the Senate that we are going to make you pay more
than what the Federal share will be to your States. That is wrong.
Hawaii is one of the big losers. I see the Senator from Hawaii here.
They are going to have to pay more out of their own State coffers than
will come from the Federal Government over a period of time. Some of
these States get a little bump at the beginning, but what you do not
see is they do not hold the small States harmless, and, over time,
their number comes down and comes down dramatically.
In fact, if you look at the States that lose over time--I will go
through them quickly--other than the States I just mentioned, because
all the States I mentioned lose over time. In addition to those States,
you have Alaska, Delaware, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, New
Hampshire, North Dakota, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Vermont. I mentioned
Washington State before. You may think you are getting a boost under
this, because if you look at it in the first year, you do, but with a
lot of those States, over time their allocation, according to the
formula, goes down.
So do not look at the first year and be suckered into a vote in favor
of this amendment because you get a little bump at the start. Over
time, the big winners--and I give a lot of credit to the Senator from
Texas for standing up--Florida and Texas are the two big States that
are going to be the big, big winners under this and the rest of the
other States, particularly the small States in the West, the Midwest,
and Northeast, are going to get hammered over the next 5 years.
Again, throw parochialism aside. To suggest that we are going to make
12 States maintain a higher effort of State dollars than we will give
them

[[Page S 13485]]
Federal dollars is wrong. It is absolutely wrong, I do not care where
you come from. That is what this amendment does. It is misguided, it is
unfair, not just to the States involved, but I think unfair to children
in general.
I yield back the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from Florida.
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from
Arkansas.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Bumpers] is
recognized for 2 minutes.
Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, let me start by asking the Senator from
Pennsylvania, before he leaves the floor, if he thinks this country is
fair to the children, when the District of Columbia, under this bill,
is going to get $4,222 per child, and the State of Arkansas is going to
get $390.
Do you know why a child in the District of Columbia is worth $4,200,
11 times more than the child in Arkansas? Because for years, the
Federal Government says whatever you put in, we will match it. So they
have matched it over the years. And now we are institutionalizing a
gross inequity.
What we are saying in this bill is, if you happen to come from a poor
State, no matter how hard you try, no matter how much money you did
your very best to put in AFDC, you could not match Pennsylvania, New
York, Massachusetts. Those States made a monumental effort, and we
should congratulate them for it. But to say now 1994 is the be-all and
end-all, whatever you contributed in 1994 is what you are going to get
forever?
In short, if you are poor, you stay poor. If you are affluent, you
stay affluent. There are Governors in this country--the Republicans got
a lot of Governorships last year, and I guarantee you that a lot of
them have already cut their contribution. No matter, it is 1994 that
counts.
I cannot believe we are doing this. I could not vote for this bill in
100 years with this formula in it. How will I go home and tell the
people of my State that a child in New York is worth $2,200 and their
poor children are worth $400, or a child in the District of Columbia is
worth $4,200 and our children worth $400?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
Who yields time?
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from
California.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Texas. I rise
to oppose this Graham-Bumpers formula. I must say--and I say it
respectfully--this formula is sudden death for California. It will cost
California about $1 billion. It is enormous in its impact.
There is no fiscal year in which California comes close to what is
offered in the Dole bill, and I think the Dole bill formula is bad for
California. So that is why I say this is sudden death.
Frankly, I respect the Senator from Arkansas very much, but how a
formula can be justified, which essentially says we will reward States
who do very little for their poor people and we will seriously
disadvantage States that are willing to do more for their poor people,
I have a hard time understanding that logic.
This is a Government that has practiced devolution. This is a
Government that has said more and more that it is the responsibility of
the State. Yet, in this bill, they seek to punish those who have a high
maintenance of effort.
For California, over the 5-year period, this bill will cost $1
billion. The impact is enormous. There is no amendment that has been
proposed that has a greater negative impact on the State of California
than does this.
I thank the Senator and yield the floor.
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, how much time remains?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida has 6 minutes.
Mr. GRAHAM. We will reserve our 6 minutes to close.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the senior
Senator from New York.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. I thank my friend from Texas.
Mr. President, last evening, we debated this matter in greater
length. I took the liberty to go over the historical provision of the
entitlement by States to a matching share of their expenditures on
children. From the first, it has been a formula designed to move more
Federal funds to the South and West, out of the North and East. The
ratio is determined by the square of the difference between the State's
per capita income and national per capita income. States have received
as much as an 83 percent Federal match. New York and California get the
lowest Federal match rate: 50 percent.
We have since recalculated our poverty data to account for cost of
living. Mr. President, may I make this point? Adjusted for the CPI, New
York State has the sixth highest incidence of poverty in the country.
Florida has the 20th highest. Arkansas has the 19th highest. New York
is a poorer State than Arkansas. A new idea, I grant; new data, I
assert. But truth as well.
This amendment would cost California $5.4 billion and New York $4.6
billion. Not because we have had an advantage in the Federal formula.
To the contrary. It is because we have had a civic policy that has
sought caring for children to be a higher priority than perhaps some
others have done, or we felt we had the capacity, even in the face of
the data that suggests we have not.
This is an elemental injustice. I am openly conflicted. If this
amendment passes, the bill dies. But in the first instance, I will
remain loyal to the principle of the last 60 years.
My time has expired. I thank the Senator from Texas.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the junior
Senator from New York.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The junior Senator from New York [Mr. D'Amato]
is recognized.
Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Texas and the
distinguished senior Senator from New York, who are opposing this
amendment.
This amendment is not about welfare reform. It is about pitting
region against region, about enriching certain States at the expense of
others, about taking money from States which have made an effort to
deal with the plight of poor children and poor adults and just
identifying 15 States and saying we are going to give you more money so
we can buy your votes. That is wrong.
Let me tell you what it does to our State of New York. It costs us,
as Senator Moynihan has indicated, $4.5 billion over 5 years. It will
cost us nearly $1 billion in the first year alone.
Let us talk about maintenance of effort. Senator Santorum has spoken
to it. We have to maintain an effort at 80 percent. Under this
amendment, the State of New York will spend $600 million a year more
than it gets from the Federal side. Let us talk about rich and poor,
about poverty, and what people are worth and are not worth, as it
relates to the Northeast and Midwest. We sent $690 billion more in
taxes to Washington than we received in the past 14 years. I thank my
distinguished colleague, the senior Senator from New York, because
under his stewardship, the coalition put these numbers together.
Let us talk about the State of New York. In the last 14 years, during
the same period of time, we sent $142.3 billion more to Washington in
taxes than we have received in what we call ``allocable spending.'' Let
us look at the State of Florida. They have gotten back from Washington
$38.5 billion more during that same period of time than they sent down
to Washington in taxes. Now we see nothing other than a raid on New
York, and its poor children in particular. Maybe what we should do is
discuss an amendment to reallocate some of the Federal funds that flow
to States such as Florida to give relief to those disadvantaged States
in the Northeast and Midwest--New York, Pennsylvania and others--that
already get less than their fair share of Federal allocable spending.
Instead we have before us an amendment that would transfer more money
to Florida at the expense of poor children in New York.
So I urge defeat of this amendment. It is a bad amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida has 6 minutes
remaining.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Has our time expired?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, to close on this amendment, we have

[[Page S 13486]]
heard a lot about the phrase that ``we want to change welfare as we
have known it'' and that it is a failed system. There are many
citations as so what those failures are. If one of the objectives of
the welfare system was, as the senior Senator from New York has stated,
to move resources from the Northeast to the South and West, we will add
that as an additional failure of the welfare system.
How can you say that a system has accomplished that objective of
assisting the poorest States in America when Texas receives one-fifth
the amount of funds for its poor children as does New York and when
Arkansas receives one-eleventh of the funds per poor child as does the
District of Columbia?
Another example of the failed system.

Assume that we were to start this process with a blank piece of
paper. Assume we had never distributed Federal money for the purposes
of assisting poor children and assisting the guardians--particularly
the single, female heads of households--of those poor children to get
off welfare and on to work and thus independence. How would we go about
allocating the money?
First, I think we want to allocate it in a manner that would, in
fact, make the system work, that would provide a sufficient amount of
resources into each of the communities of America to allow the kinds of
training programs and child care to be functional, to accomplish the
objective of moving from dependence to independence through work.
Second, we want to have elemental fairness in how those funds are
distributed. That is the essence of the amendment that is before us
today, Mr. President.
This amendment follows the simple principle, take the total number of
poor children in America--they are America's poor children. They are
not Florida's poor children or California's poor children, they are
America's poor children. The funds will come from all Americans through
the Federal Treasury. Take the number of poor children in the country,
divide that into the funds we have available, approximately $17 billion
a year, and distribute the money wherever the poor children are. That
seems to me to be an imminently reasonable approach and a fair approach
in terms of achieving the objective.
The amendment that has been offered by Senator Dole would distribute
99 percent of the Federal dollars to the status quo. However, the money
which was distributed in 1994 will be distributed in the year 2000,
without regard to any changes. There can be a depression in Colorado,
you can have enormous growth in Arizona, you can have a depopulated
Michigan, and yet you will get the same money in the year 2000 that you
got in the year 1994. That does not sound like a fair, reasonable plan,
or a plan which will accomplish the objective of this legislation.
Much has been made by the Senator from Pennsylvania about maintenance
of effort. Frankly, maintenance of effort has been a moving target
throughout this debate. We had no maintenance of effort when we started
this debate. We defeated an amendment yesterday to require a
continuation of maintenance of effort. Whatever final position we take
on this formula, obviously, we will have to readdress the issue of
maintenance of effort.
Mr. President, I believe there are a number of considerations that
Members of this Senate ought to take into account as they decide
whether to vote on this amendment. First, the Dole amendment does not
respond to economic or demographic changes. Second, the Dole amendment
rewards inefficiency. New York State spends over $100 per welfare case
for administration. West Virginia spends $13. Yet, those inefficiencies
are going to be rewarded in that New York State will get a higher
proportion of the money, in part because it has been more inefficient
in utilizing the funds available.
The mandates that we are imposing, heavy mandates in training and in
child care, will be much more difficult to meet in a State like Texas,
where 84 percent of the money Texas gets from the Federal Government
will have to be spent to meet the mandates of training and child care.
In Mississippi, 88 percent of the money will have to be used, whereas
in more affluent States, less than 40 percent of their Federal funds
will be required in order to meet these mandates.
Much has been said about the fact, Mr. President, that we are going
to be moving toward parity under the Dole amendment, that eventually we
will get to the goal that all children will be fairly and equally
treated. How long will that trail take? Let me give some examples.
How long will it take from today, using the Dole formula, for the
State of Alabama's poor children to have the same worth in terms of the
distribution of Federal funds as do the poor children of the rest of
America? Mr. President, 74 years is how long it will take Alabama;
Delaware, 39 years; Louisiana, 79 years; Idaho, 42 years; Mississippi,
100 years before the poor children of Mississippi reach the average of
the Nation; Florida, 29; Nevada, 29; Illinois, 13; South Carolina, 78
years before South Carolina's poor children reach the average of the
Nation in terms of the distribution of the Nation's resources for poor
children; South Dakota, 27 years; Texas, 75 years.
How, in 1995, do we support a formula which has that degree of
inequity and unfairness, and the fundamental undermining of the ability
of this legislation to achieve its intended result, to change welfare
as we have known it by giving people a chance, a chance to move from
dependency to independence through work.
I urge the adoption of this amendment.
Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No.
2565, offered by the Senator from Florida [Mr. Graham].
The yeas and nays have been ordered, and the clerk will call the
roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 34, nays 66, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 415 Leg.]

YEAS--34

Akaka
Baucus
Biden
Bingaman
Breaux
Bryan
Bumpers
Byrd
Coats
Conrad
Daschle
Dorgan
Exon
Ford
Graham
Gregg
Heflin
Hollings
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnston
Kerrey
Leahy
Lugar
Mack
McConnell
Moseley-Braun
Nunn
Pell
Pryor
Reid
Robb
Rockefeller
Simon

NAYS--66

Abraham
Ashcroft
Bennett
Bond
Boxer
Bradley
Brown
Burns
Campbell
Chafee
Cochran
Cohen
Coverdell
Craig
D'Amato
DeWine
Dodd
Dole
Domenici
Faircloth
Feingold
Feinstein
Frist
Glenn
Gorton
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Harkin
Hatch
Hatfield
Helms
Hutchison
Inhofe
Kassebaum
Kempthorne
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Kyl
Lautenberg
Levin
Lieberman
Lott
McCain
Mikulski
Moynihan
Murkowski
Murray
Nickles
Packwood
Pressler
Roth
Santorum
Sarbanes
Shelby
Simpson
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Warner
Wellstone
So the amendment (No. 2565) was rejected.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which
the amendment was rejected.
Mr. NICKLES. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 2575

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order there will now be 20
minutes of debate equally divided on the Domenici amendment, No. 2575,
to be followed by a vote on or in relation to the amendment.
The time will be divided four ways--5 minutes each to Senators
Domenici, Gramm, Daschle, and Dole.

Postponement of Vote on Amendments Nos. 2672 and 2608

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I have a consent agreement that has been
cleared by the Democratic leader, Senator Daschle.
I ask unanimous consent that the debate time and the rollcall vote
scheduled with respect to the Daschle amendment, No. 2672, and the
Faircloth amendment, No. 2608, be postponed to

[[Page S 13487]]

reoccur at a time to be determined by the majority leader after
consultation with the Democratic leader.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 2575

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. BRADLEY addressed the Chair.
Mr. DOMENICI. Regular order, Mr. President. What is the regular
order?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The regular order is the consideration of the
Domenici amendment with 5 minutes to each to be allocated to Senators
Domenici, Daschle, Gramm, and Dole.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, it was my understanding that there was
to be 20 minutes equally divided.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct. It totals 20 minutes
divided four ways.
Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico, [Mr. Domenici],
is recognized.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, Senator Moynihan, on the minority side,
and I have decided that I will control 10 minutes with him using part
of that. That means there are 10 minutes under the control of Senator
Dole, 5 minutes, and Senator Gramm, 5 minutes.
Mr. President, I am going to speak for 2 minutes, and if you will
tell me when I have used the 2 minutes I would appreciate it.
First, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Specter be added as a
cosponsor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, Governor Engler testified before the
Budget Committee that conservative strings to block grants were no
better than liberal strings to block grants. A man saying that was not
just an ordinary Governor but a Governor who is advocating no strings
on the block grants in welfare. He said leave this issue that is before
us--the family cap--up to the States. Give them the option to decide
amongst a myriad of approaches to the very difficult problem of welfare
teenagers and welfare mothers having children. He said let us
experiment in the great democratic tradition in the sovereign States,
and we are apt to do a better job.
What I propose is very simple. It mandates nothing. So nobody should
think I am mandating that there be no family cap. I am merely saying
each State in its plan decides this issue for itself. If they want a
cap, they can have a cap. If they want to decide to try something
different, they try something different.
It seems to me that is in the best tradition of what Republicans and
conservative Democrats have been saying when they say send these
programs to the States so they can manage them properly and let those
who are closest to the grassroots--the State legislatures and
Governors--decide how to do it.
There is nothing complicated about it. Again, I do not mandate
anything. What my amendment says is the States can do it however they
want with reference to the family cap or using cash payments for
children who are part of a welfare situation where there is already one
child, another one is born, and the States can decide how to handle
that. We do not have all the wisdom here in Washington. That is the
issue.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. DOMENICI. I yield 2 minutes to Senator Bradley.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey is recognized.
Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Domenici
amendment.
New Jersey is the only State that has actually implemented a family
cap. It took effect almost 2 years ago as part of a comprehensive
reform of welfare which combines such disincentives as the family cap
along with strong positive incentives for welfare recipients to work,
and to marry. Almost from the day the family cap took effect we have
been bombarded with people declaring absolutely that it works, and
absolutely that it does not work. We have heard that there is a 1-
percent reduction in birth rates to parents on welfare. We have also
then, based on an evaluation by Rutgers, heard that there was no
difference in births. We heard there was an increase in abortions. Then
we heard that there was but it was not statistically significant. Never
have such dramatic conclusions be drawn from such shaky and preliminary
numbers.
Let me simply reiterate that from New Jersey's perspective--what
everyone involved in the program has said--it is an experiment. I
repeat, it is an experiment. We only have a year of data. We know only
that a total of 1,500 fewer children were born to welfare recipients
than over the previous 12 months. But births overall are down, and a
difference of 1,500 births does not mean at all much compared to
125,000 total births in the State in the same period. At the same time,
we penalize 6,000 families on welfare in which children were born.
Is the tradeoff of 6,000 children denied benefits worth the 1,500
hypothetical children whose mothers thought twice before becoming
pregnant, or, on the other hand, who had abortions? I do not know. Will
these numbers change? Will the message sink in? I do not know.
The basic point is that it is an experiment. We have inconclusive
data.
We should not mandate something when we do not know what we are
doing. States should be able to experiment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Who yields time?
Mr. DOLE addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized to speak for
5 minutes.
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I have the greatest respect for the Senator
from New Mexico, but I rise in opposition to his amendment.
So let me tell you that we have been trying to craft a bill here and
maintain a balance to get enough people on board to pass a very strong
welfare reform bill. And I believe we are on the verge of accomplishing
that. In fact, I hope we can do it by tomorrow. In fact, we need to do
it by tomorrow.
I understand precisely what the Domenici amendment does. It simply
strikes a provision in our bill that prohibits additional cash to
children born to families receiving assistance.
I know the Catholic bishops feel very strongly about this, and the
Catholic charities, because they deal with a lot of these families.
They understand some of the problems.
As I have suggested, I think our bill has structured the right
balance on the important issue of out-of-wedlock births.
I am committed to supporting a provision in our bill which allows
States to provide vouchers in lieu of cash assistance. We think that
goes a step in the direction that we think the bishops and others who
support the Domenici amendment want to go.
Under this provision, I believe the children in need will be provided
support. They are going to have vouchers, not going to have cash but
vouchers, and the important thing is that these vouchers may be used
for goods and services to provide for the care of the children
involved. In addition, we all know that other forms of Federal and
State aid remain available.
This has been one of the most difficult issues. The family cap and
whether you have cash payments for teenage moms are probably the two
most difficult issues we have faced, two of the most difficult issues
we have faced in putting a welfare reform package together.
I understand the concerns that Senator Domenici expressed. I have
talked with the Catholic bishops. They have been in my office. I have
talked with Catholic Charities. They have been in my office. But I have
talked to others who feel just as strongly on the other side. I also
have talked with the Governors, and they do not want any strings. They
do not want conservative or liberal strings. But they know in some
cases they are going to have strings. I do not know of any objection by
the Governors with reference to the family cap. I think they would
accept that. They may not like it, but they would accept it. So I would
hope that we also give flexibility in the family cap provision. If we
do not deal with out-of-wedlock births, then we are really not dealing
with welfare reform.
We have had a number of Governors--12 States--who have currently
received waivers from the Federal Government to experiment with some
version of the family cap. However, our proposal also maintains
considerable flexibility for

[[Page S 13488]]
these States and addresses the crisis of out-of-wedlock births.
The crisis in our country must be faced. Thirty percent of America's
children today are born out of wedlock. And many believe we, at the
Federal level, must send a clear signal. We believe the underlying
proposal which is identical to the one agreed to by the House does just
that. We are going to be in conference in any event.
Let me emphasize again that we have tried to keep everybody together
in this proposal. I am not certain what happens if this Domenici
amendment is adopted. We will still have an opportunity in conference.
But we have crafted a very careful bill here to respond to the needs of
many. Unlike the situation of single teenage mothers in poverty, this
provision mostly affects families.
It seems to many of us the time has come when these families must
face more directly whether they are ready to care for the children they
bring into the world. That is the reason for the family cap.
So somebody has to make some decision out there--the families
themselves, the parents, the mother. We believe the family cap will
certainly encourage someone to make that decision and that if you
continue cash payments, there is no restraint at all.
I yield back the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. GRAMM addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas [Mr. Gramm], is
recognized.
Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I yield myself 3 minutes.
Mr. President, it is hard for me to take this argument about States
rights seriously when Senator Domenici has another amendment, amendment
2573, that mandates how much States pay on welfare. So let us make it
clear. This is not an issue about flexibility. This is not an issue
about strings. This is an issue about reform.
The Domenici amendment preserves the status quo. And what is the
status quo? The status quo is that one out of every three babies born
in America today is born out of wedlock. The status quo is if we
continue to give people more and more money to have more and more
children on welfare, by the end of this century illegitimacy will be
the norm and not the exception in America. No great civilization has
ever risen that was not built on strong families. No great civilization
has ever survived the destruction of its families, and I fear the
United States of America will not be the first.
Under existing law, States can do exactly what Senator Domenici's
amendment allows them to do. What his amendment will do is perpetuate a
system which subsidizes illegitimacy, which gives cash bonuses to
people who have more and more people on welfare.
The compromise we have hammered out helps children. It provides
vouchers. It provides them the ability to take care of them. But it
does not provide cash incentives for people to have children that they
cannot support.
What a great paradox it is that while families across America are
pulling the wagon, both husband and wife working every day to save
enough money to have a baby, they are paying taxes to support programs
like this one which is subsidizing people to have babies that they
cannot support.
I think if we are going to deal with welfare reform, if we are going
to have a bill worthy of the name, we have to defeat this amendment.
I do not know what is going to happen on this amendment. Obviously, I
am concerned about it. It breaks the deal that we have negotiated. It
basically eliminates the glue that held a compromise together.
I am very concerned about the fate of welfare reform if this
amendment is adopted. In the end, whether we have to do it in
conference or whether it is not done, I am not going to support a bill
that does not deal with illegitimacy. There is no way you can solve the
welfare problem and not deal with illegitimacy. It is the basic cause
of the problem, and I think we are running away from it with this
amendment. I hope my colleagues will oppose it.
This is a crisis in America. It is a crisis that has got to be dealt
with. I think to assume that the problem is simply going to go away is
a bad mistake. Then he opposes even a modest limitation on the use of
Federal funds turned over to the States.
My position is different. Do not tell the States how to spend their
own money but set a few basic moral principles for the use of Federal
funds. I believe that Federal funds should not subsidize illegitimacy.
This amendment is a complete reversal of the agreement we reached on
this bill. It is time we take our commitment seriously and defeat this
amendment.
I yield back the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, how much time do I have?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico has 1 minute.
Mr. DOMENICI. If we pool the 10, how much do we have left?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous agreement, Senator Moynihan
has 5 minutes given to him by Senator Daschle, and Senator Nickles has
one-half yielded by Senator Dole.
Mr. DOMENICI. I yield--how much time does the Senator want to use?
Mr. MOYNIHAN. Two minutes.
Mr. DOMENICI. Two minutes to Senator Moynihan.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Senator Moynihan is recognized for 2 minutes.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, in the current issue of the Economist,
the cover story is ``The Disappearing Family,'' and it speaks of the
problem of out-of-wedlock births. It says of this Senator that I have
taken this problem seriously for 30 years. It quotes an earlier
statement that ``a community without fathers asks for and gets chaos.''
I am not new to this subject, and I am very much opposed to a family
cap of any kind. This is not the way to deal with this baffling and
profoundly serious subject. When my friend from Texas cites the
projections of where we will be at the end of the century, those, sir,
are my projections. It has been a field I have worked in as he has
worked in his field. But the dictum of the Catholic Charities is that
the first principle in welfare reform must be ``do no harm.''
These children have not asked to be conceived, and they have not
asked to come into the world. We have an elemental responsibility to
them. And so I hope, regarding the most fundamentally moral issue we
will face on this floor, that we will not have the State deny benefits
to children because of the mistakes, or what else you will say, of
their parents.
Mr. President, I yield back my time.
Mr. DOMENICI. I yield Senator Breaux 2 minutes.
Mr. BREAUX. I thank my colleague.
Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the Domenici amendment.
There is no disagreement in this body by either Republicans or
Democrats on the question of illegitimacy. We oppose it very strongly
and are looking for ways to help curtail it in this country. My State
has the second highest illegitimacy rate in the country; 40 percent of
all children born are illegitimate.
The question is, how do you solve it? Do you solve it by punishing
the children or do you solve it by requiring work requirements for the
parents, by requiring them to live under adult supervision, by
requiring them to take work training, by requiring them to live in a
family setting? I suggest that the way to do it is by those types of
requirements. Do not penalize the child.
The current bill says absolutely a new child that is born will get no
help. That is a mandate. It is says, well, the States have the option
if they want to give a voucher they can. They do not have to. The
Domenici bill changes that and the Domenici bill says that, if a child
is born, we are going to look at that child as an innocent victim. And
that is the proper approach. States that have had mandatory caps have
not seen illegitimacy birth rates go down. But they have seen abortion
rates go up. I do not think that is what this Senate wants to stand
for. I urge the strong support of the Domenici amendment.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. Could I say that the Senator from New York is a
cosponsor, and on both sides there is support.
Mr. BREAUX. The Domenici-Moynihan amendment. And I have strong
support for it.

[[Page S 13489]]

Mr. NICKLES addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, everyone I heard speak on this issue said
illegitimacy is a very serious problem. There is no question that it
is. Illegitimacy has been exploding in this country, and, as a result,
we have increased crime, we have increased welfare.
We need to break that cycle. The present system is we subsidize
illegitimacy, the more children born out of wedlock the more Federal
money they received. That is the present system. A lot of us think that
is wrong. This bill says that there will be no additional under the
Dole bill--not the Domenici amendment, the Dole bill says we are not
going to give additional Federal cash payments for welfare families if
they have additional children.
It does not say the States. If the States are really adamant and say
they want to help and do it in the form of cash, they can use their own
money. The bill allows them to give noncash benefits, so they can take
some of the block grant money and use noncash benefits in the form of
vouchers and give. But we do not want to have cash incentives for
additional children born out of wedlock. So I think Senator Dole has a
good provision, and it is with regret that I oppose my friend and
colleague, Senator Domenici's amendment.
One final comment. I heard New Jersey mentioned. The Heritage
Foundation did a report. I will capsulize.
New Jersey is the only State in the Nation that instituted a family
cap policy, denying an increase in cash welfare benefits to mothers who
have additional children while already receiving welfare. The evidence
currently available from New Jersey indicates that a family cap has
resulted in a decline in births to women on AFDC, but not an increase
in the abortion rate.
Mr. President, I reserve the balance of our time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time of the Senator from Oklahoma has
expired.
The only Senator that still controls time is the Senator from New
York, who has 2 minutes remaining.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I had previously arranged to make sure
that Senator Chafee spoke.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. Yes. I ask the Chair, how much time is remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York has 2 minutes
remaining.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. I will be happy to yield.
Mr. DOMENICI. Because of some of the things that were said, I need to
have at least a minute.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. I ask that 1 minute be yielded to the Senator from New
Mexico and the other minute to the Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. CHAFEE addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island is recognized
for 1 minute.
Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I support the Domenici amendment. There
has been a lot of talk about inconsistency and about flexibility. I
think that applies on both sides. None of us have been totally
consistent. But with regard to this, the whole thrust of this bill is
meant to be for flexibility. And with a mandatory family cap, as is
suggested by the opponents of this bill, certainly that is not in
keeping with flexibility.
Now, the suggestion is that, ``Do not worry. There are no cash
payments provided in this bill, but vouchers are provided.'' That is
not quite accurate. The underlying bill does not provide for vouchers.
It says vouchers may be provided.
I would also point out that this is a nightmare of administration
when you are dealing with vouchers for children. So it seems to me, as
has been pointed out here, under the underlying bill, the people that
suffer under this proposal to get at illegitimacy as the target, the
people that suffer are the children. I just do not think that is the
way to proceed. As has been pointed out by the Senator from New Jersey,
there is no definiteness about the family cap having reduced
illegitimacy.
I want to thank the Senator for the time.
Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico is recognized for
1 minute.
Mr. DOMENICI. I want to say to all my friends, especially some of the
Republicans who talked about breaking an agreement, I do not break
agreements. I was not part of any agreement. I was not in attendance. I
had one meeting where we went over the whole bill. But I was not there.
If I were there, I would have said I did not agree. And so I am
bringing my disagreement here to the floor to let you decide.
Frankly, I am absolutely convinced the New Jersey experience is
meaningless with reference to whether or not there will be less welfare
mothers having children if there is a family cap. The study I see says
that there is no evidence that it has succeeded. If there is evidence
of that, there is equally as good evidence that abortions have
increased. I do not believe either one.
But my argument is, why make a mistake? Why not let the Governors and
the States decide as they put a big plan together. Let them do
innovative things to make this system work better. Do we really know
that if we say no cash for second children of a welfare mother, that
the others are going to stop having children? I mean, I do not believe
that. And if you believe that--I do not want to make it so mundane--but
you believe in the tooth fairy. It just is not going to happen.
I think we ought to adopt this and go to conference. We have a good
bill. And I, frankly, am trying my best to be helpful in this bill. And
to say I am inconsistent--most Senators are for maintenance of effort--
that is the inconsistency; I am for maintenance of effort.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
The question occurs on amendment No. 2575.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. I ask for the yeas and nays.
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 clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kempthorne). Are there any other Senators
in the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 66, nays 34, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 416 Leg.]

YEAS--66

Abraham
Akaka
Baucus
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Bradley
Breaux
Bryan
Bumpers
Byrd
Chafee
Cohen
Conrad
D'Amato
Daschle
DeWine
Dodd
Domenici
Dorgan
Exon
Feingold
Feinstein
Ford
Glenn
Gorton
Graham
Harkin
Hatch
Hatfield
Heflin
Hollings
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnston
Kassebaum
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lugar
Mikulski
Moseley-Braun
Moynihan
Murray
Nunn
Packwood
Pell
Pryor
Reid
Robb
Rockefeller
Roth
Sarbanes
Simon
Simpson
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Wellstone

NAYS--34

Ashcroft
Brown
Burns
Campbell
Coats
Cochran
Coverdell
Craig
Dole
Faircloth
Frist
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Helms
Hutchison
Inhofe
Kempthorne
Kyl
Lott
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nickles
Pressler
Santorum
Shelby
Smith
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Warner
So the amendment (No. 2575), as modified, was agreed to.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and to lay
that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 2671

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will be 10
minutes debate, equally divided, on the Daschle amendment No. 2671, to
be followed by a vote on or in relation to that amendment.
Who yields time?
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I will take 3 minutes of my time and then
yield 1 minute to the Senator from Hawaii, Mr. Inouye, and 1 minute to
the Senator from New Mexico, Senator Bingaman.
Mr. President, I offer this amendment in the hope that we can find
some resolution to what we all understand to be a very serious problem
on reservations. My amendment would simply

[[Page S 13490]]
change the funding mechanism in the bill to ensure that adequate
funding is provided to tribes across the country. It would establish a
3 percent national set-aside, and tribal grants would be allotted from
the set-aside based on a formula to be determined by the Secretary.
Tribes, in both the pending legislation as well as in this amendment,
would receive direct funding from the Federal Government to administer
their own programs.
The difference between the pending bill and our amendment is that,
under the pending legislation, tribes would receive money based on the
amount the State spent on them in fiscal year 1994. The State grant
would be reduced by the amount of the tribal grant. Under our
amendment, tribes would be allocated funds directly from the national
set-aside. The funding for the tribes would be taken out of that 3
percent set-aside, even before the money is allocated to the States.
So it is simply a different mechanism for ensuring that funds are
allocated in an appropriate way. Why 3 percent? Mr. President, the
poverty rate for Indian children on reservations is 60.3 percent--three
times the national average. I know that the percentage of the AFDC
population that is represented by native Americans is less than 3
percent, but the problems tribes face are far greater than that
statistic would dictate.
Clearly, when you have a poverty rate of 60 percent, we have to do
more than what at first glance might appear to be necessary. Per capita
income in the United States is $14,000. Per capita income on the
reservations is $4,000. Unemployment rates range, in South Dakota, from
29 percent all the way up to 89 percent. Nationwide, unemployment on
reservations is four to seven times the national average.
So we face some extraordinary circumstances on the reservations, Mr.
President, and there is very little infrastructure in existence to
address these problems today. We need reform. We need to recognize that
reform has to mean more than just resources. We need the mechanism and
infrastructure to create new opportunities to provide the services that
are so needed on reservations today. For all these reasons, tribes
deserve the 3 percent. I hope that the amendment will be supported.
I yield a minute to the distinguished Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I appreciate the chance to speak on
behalf of the Daschle amendment. I do think it is very important that
we try, as we are going through this legislation, to assist Indian
tribes in pueblos around the country in helping their own people.
We talk a lot about empowerment. Here is a chance for us to do just
that. At the same time that we are talking about empowering people, we
are in fact cutting funds for Indian education, cutting funds for
tribal justice programs, for housing operations, for tribal law
enforcement, tribal social services, and a number of other vital
programs.
We should not shortchange the Indian children of this country and
their families in this bill. The Daschle amendment helps to ensure that
we do not do that. I very much urge my colleagues to support the
Daschle amendment.
I yield the floor.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader has 1 minute 18 seconds.
Mr. DASCHLE. I yield that to the distinguished Senator from Hawaii.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, as we prepare to vote on this measure, we
should remind ourselves that, first, Indians are sovereign. Second,
there is a unique relationship existing between Indian nations and the
Federal Government of the United States, a trust relationship. There is
no special relationship existing between States and Indian country. The
Constitution sets forth this relationship. The Supreme Court has upheld
it on numerous occasions.
I support the Daschle amendment. I hope we will continue to maintain
the unique relationship that exists between Indians and the Federal
Government.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I yield the Senator from Arizona 3
minutes.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, as the Senator from South Dakota points
out, there are more poor Indians in America than reflected in the
national average. The Senator's amendment calls for a 3-percent set-
aside, even in States where there is no Indian population. I began this
process several months ago, working with the with Senator Dole and with
the Finance Committee, in attempting to achieve some way of providing
native Americans with direct block grants to pay for their welfare
programs.
As part of the bill, no off-the-top lump sum is dedicated for tribes.
Indeed, the Dole bill targets Federal funding on a tribe-by-tribe
basis, scaled to the actual need, supported by the fiscal year 1994
data, not some overall national estimate of need of 3 percent or 2
percent.
Mr. President, I have worked very hard with the Finance Committee in
crafting a compromise that will provide direct welfare block grants to
the Indian tribes, separate from the States. In response to that, Mr.
President, I have received from Indian tribes all over the country,
including from the National Indian Child Welfare Association, complete
satisfaction with the compromise that was worked out with Senator Dole.
If Senator Daschle can, in the name of politics, get Senators from
West Virginia, Ohio, Illinois, and other States that have no Indian
population to support this, fine. But I would like to point out to the
Senator from South Dakota that he voted against an amendment by Senator
Domenici that was going so restore 200-some million dollars in
draconian cuts that are going to triple and destroy the social programs
in his State and in my State. I hope that he will devote some of his
efforts to restoring those draconian measures which have brought 300
tribal leaders to the Nation's Capital in the most vociferous process I
have ever seen in my 13 years in Congress.
Mr. President, I support the Dole part of the bill which provides
direct welfare block grants to Indian tribes, which the Indian tribes
themselves support.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I wish to compliment Senator McCain as
chairman of the Indian Affairs Committee. I think he has provided a
very valuable service because he does put some good language in this
bill.
The bill that we have before us--not the amendment, the bill we have
before us--allows direct funding to Indian tribes based on actual AFDC
population.
Now, Indian AFDC population I heard is 1.3 percent, and I heard
somebody say it is 1.7 percent of the population. Why would it be right
to say they should receive 3 percent of the funding set aside? I think
that is arbitrary. I also think it is maybe double what they are now
receiving.
Indian tribes should be able to receive the block grant and be able
to manage that, but it should be based on the population receiving AFDC
payments. It should not be some arbitrary figure that is pulled out of
the sky.
I compliment Senator McCain for the language he has inserted in the
bill. I urge my colleagues to vote no on the Daschle amendment because
I think it sets up an arbitrary level that happens to be about double
what the current Indian population of AFDC is, and that is not called
for.
I do not think it is a good way to manage our welfare program. I
think Senator Dole has good language in the bill. Hopefully, it will be
sustained.
I urge my colleagues to vote no on the Daschle amendment.
I yield to the Senator from Rhode Island the remainder of our time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 1 minute 20 seconds.
Mr. CHAFEE. My query is this, to the distinguished sponsor of the
amendment. It seems to me that, as I understand it, Indians make up 1.5
percent of the AFDC caseload. There are different figures given here,
but I heard no figure more than 2 percent.
Therefore, it is hard to understand why 3 percent should be set aside
for this group that makes up 1.5 or 2 percent--whatever it is--of the
caseload.
I would appreciate if the distinguished Senator could give us some
help on that.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I will use whatever time I may consume
out of leader time to respond.
Mr. President, the point I made in the short remarks that I have just

[[Page S 13491]]
completed is that the circumstances affecting Indian tribes are vastly
different than those affecting any other cross-section of the
population.
We have unemployment rates in South Dakota close to 90 percent.
Indian tribes nationwide have unemployment rates of up to seven times
what they are for the rest of the population. Not only are we dealing
with an extremely high level of unemployment, there is also little
infrastructure to deliver social services on many reservations.
Clearly, we have circumstances on many reservations that is far
different from other areas.
That is really what we are trying to do, to recognize the
extraordinary difficulties that we face in a very concentrated area:
Reservations where there are really no resources; reservations where
there is no employment. We cannot locate businesses on reservations
today.
We are simply saying that if we are going to do this right, if we are
going to allow tribes to do this right, we should allocate a 3 percent
set-aside for tribes to allow them to begin solving these problems.
Other requirements of the welfare bill before the Senate are required
on the reservation. They have to work. Workfare is going to be an
essential part of the requirement for the tribes, as it is for
everybody else.
Clearly, given the problems, given the requirements, and given the
circumstances, I think this is the nominal amount of effort that we
ought to put forth to do this job right.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, how much time remains?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 35 seconds.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I do not doubt--as a matter of fact, I
think I know probably almost as well as anybody on this floor--that we
have very significant problems in the Indian community. Welfare is part
of it. It may be part of the problem.
I am not sure that doubling the money going into AFDC for Indian
tribes will solve that problem. It would provide greater cash
assistance, no doubt. But I do not think that is necessarily right.
If they have 1.5 percent of the population, we will say they get 3
percent of the money--that is not going to make their problems go away.
If I really thought that would make their problems go away, I might
support the amendment.
We have lots and lots of problems on reservations and in the Indian
community, but I do not think just by increasing cash payments, that
that is a solution. I think the solution is in the Dole bill.
I urge our colleagues to vote no on the Daschle amendment.
Mr. DASCHLE. 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 now occurs on agreeing to the
Daschle amendment No. 2671.
The yeas and nays have been ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 38, nays 62, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 417 Leg.]

YEAS--38

Akaka
Baucus
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Bradley
Breaux
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Conrad
Daschle
Dodd
Domenici
Dorgan
Exon
Feingold
Feinstein
Ford
Graham
Harkin
Inouye
Johnston
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Leahy
Mikulski
Moseley-Braun
Moynihan
Murray
Pell
Pressler
Pryor
Sarbanes
Simon
Wellstone

NAYS--62

Abraham
Ashcroft
Bennett
Bond
Brown
Bryan
Bumpers
Chafee
Coats
Cochran
Cohen
Coverdell
Craig
D'Amato
DeWine
Dole
Faircloth
Frist
Glenn
Gorton
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hatch
Hatfield
Heflin
Helms
Hollings
Hutchison
Inhofe
Jeffords
Kassebaum
Kempthorne
Kyl
Lautenberg
Levin
Lieberman
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nickles
Nunn
Packwood
Reid
Robb
Rockefeller
Roth
Santorum
Shelby
Simpson
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Warner
So the amendment (No. 2671) was rejected.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which
the amendment was rejected.
Mr. NICKLES. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 2518

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 10
minutes of debate equally divided on the DeWine amendment, No. 2518, to
be followed by a vote on or in relation to the amendment.
Mr. DeWINE addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio is recognized.
Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. President, the amendment which Senator Kohl and I have proposed
really is a very simple one. It encourages States to work to keep
people off of welfare before they ever go on welfare.
I think this is not only the right thing to do from a humanitarian
point of view but it is also the most cost effective thing to do. In
fact, we have seen several States make great progress with their
programs to do this--Utah, Wisconsin, and there are many other States
that are now just starting this type of a program.
I believe that without this amendment the underlying bill would have
the unintended consequence and resolve of discouraging States from this
type of early intervention. And I think everyone agrees we should be
encouraging States to do so.
Our amendment would give States credit towards their work requirement
for reducing their caseload by helping people before they ever go on
welfare.
As I said, Mr. President, I think it is a very simple amendment. But
I think it is an amendment that will in fact make a difference and will
in fact encourage the States to do what everyone agrees needs to be
done; that is, keep people from getting on welfare.
I might add, Mr. President, that it does not give the States credit
towards their work requirement if, in fact, the reduction in caseload
is achieved merely by changing the requirements for being on welfare.
These have to be actually meaningful reductions that are achieved in
other ways. Of course, one of the ways to achieve those is, in fact, by
having that very, very early intervention.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I wish to compliment the Senator from
Ohio, Senator DeWine, who explained this amendment last night. We
reviewed the amendment. We have no objection to it.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, as one who dearly loves Federal
regulations imposed on States in minute, indecipherable detail, I
accept this amendment with great gusto.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Do all Senators yield the time?
Mr. DeWINE. I yield the time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 2518) was agreed to.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which
the amendment was agreed to.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 2668

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 10
minutes of debate on the Mikulski amendment, No. 2668, to be followed
by a vote on or in relation to the amendment.
Who yields time?
Ms. MIKULSKI addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I yield myself 3 minutes on this
amendment, and then I will yield to the Senator from Iowa.
I also ask unanimous consent that Senator Wellstone be a cosponsor of
the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I correct myself. I yield myself 3
minutes, and then I will yield to the Senator from Iowa [Mr. Grassley],
2 minutes.

[[Page S 13492]]

Mr. President, today I rise to save the Senior Community Service
Employment Program of title V of the Older Americans Act.
I do this to preserve over 100,000 senior citizen jobs. Title V
provides part-time, minimum wage employment, and community service to
low-income workers as well as training for placement in unsubsidized
employment.
Its participants provide millions of dollars of community service at
on-the-job sites making a critical difference in care centers,
hospitals, senior centers, libraries, and so on.
The Dole substitute now before us repeals the Senior Community
Service Employment Program. My amendment strikes this repeal. It saves
the Senior Community Service Employment Program of title V of the Older
Americans Act.
If title V is not removed from the welfare reform bill, it will be
repealed, along with 100 Federal job training programs, and rolled into
a block grant. This will have a devastating consequence on these older
workers. It serves directly in the communities across the Nation that
benefits from these.
My amendment is supported by senior organizations across this
country, including AARP, the National Council of Senior Citizens, and
others.
Mr. President, there are so many good reasons to support the Senior
Community Service Employment Program. Title V is our country's only
work force development program designed to maximize the productive
contributions of a rapidly growing older population. It does this
through training, retraining, and community service.
We should leave title V in the Older Americans Act. It does not
belong in welfare reform, and it does not belong in the reform of the
job training bills.
Title V is primarily operated by private nonprofit national aging
organizations. This is not big bureaucracy.
It is a critical part of that Older Americans Act and has
consistently exceeded all goals established by Congress and the
Department of Labor, surpassing a 20 percent placement goal for the
past 6 years and achieving a record of 135 percent in the last year.
Title V, this Senior Community Service Employment Program, provides a
positive return on taxpayer investment, returning $1.47 for every $1
invested. It is means tested, and it also serves the oldest and the
poorest in our society; 40 percent are minorities, 70 percent are
women, 30 percent are over the age of 70, 81 percent are age 60 and
older, and 9 percent have disabilities.
Surely they deserve to have their own protection.
Title V ensures national responsiveness to local needs by directly
involving participants in meeting critical human needs in their
communities, from child and elder care to public safety and
environmental preservation.
Title V has demonstrated high standards of performance and fiscal
accountability unique to Government programs.
Less than 15 percent of funding is spent on administrative costs.
Title V historically has enjoyed strong public support because it is
based on the principles of personal responsibility, lifelong learning,
and service to community.
I urge your support for my amendment.
Is the Chair tapping?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Ms. MIKULSKI. I did not hear the tap, but having heard the tap I now
yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Iowa, a supporter of my amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Ashcroft). The Senator from Iowa is
recognized for 2 minutes.
Mr. GRASSLEY. I support Senator Mikulski's amendment because there
are a unique group of older Americans who will not be properly served
by Senator Kassebaum's new program, as well-intentioned as it is.
Title V provides community service employment. In my State of Iowa,
the program provided a total of 402,480 hours of service just in this
year.
These workers serve in public schools, child care centers, city
museums and parks, as child care workers, library aides, kitchen
workers; they work for Head Start, YMCA, YWCA, the Alzheimer's
Association, the Salvation Army, the Easter Seal Society, and the
American Red Cross.
They work in activities that support as well the other Older
Americans Act programs like senior centers, congregate meal sites, and
home-delivered meals.
I think this is a good use of taxpayers' money because it leverages
private funds and other public funds. Senator Kassebaum's bill will not
lead to programs providing such employment.
The Senator's legislation will help individuals find gainful private
sector employment, and there is nothing wrong with that. That is a
proper focus. But it is not a focus which is going to assist the kind
of individuals currently enrolled in title V programs--people 55 years
and older, less than 115 percent of poverty. We are talking about low-
income older Americans. Thirty percent of these workers are over 70
years of age. Eighty-one percent are over 60 years of age. They will
not benefit from the training programs and education programs that
would be established under Senator Kassebaum's bill. Title V provides
subsidized employment in community service jobs for workers who are
highly unlikely to be the focus of programs under Senator Kassebaum's
bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to speak today as a supporter
of the amendment of my friend from Maryland. Her proposal would remove
the Senior Community Service Employment Program, or title V, from this
bill. This amendment is important for several reasons: First, the Title
V Program is not job training and should not be considered as part of
this block grant; second, it fills an important role within the Older
Americans Act; and third, it effectively serves a population that is
difficult to reach with traditional job training programs.
The State of Michigan has had a long and successful relationship with
this program. Thousands of people participate in it each year. These
individuals work in hundreds of different occupations. The unifying
factor in all this work is that older workers are contributing to their
communities. In most cases, they are coming out of retirement to
reenter the labor force.
I have received hundreds of constituent letters asking me to support
this provision. In explaining their involvement with the Title V
Program, almost all the participants mention ``giving something back to
the community.'' It is imperative that Congress capitalize on this
feeling. Now more than ever we need to hold onto and support our sense
of communities and this can be done by following the examples set by
our elders. In many communities, title V programs provide the link
between senior citizens and the younger generations. The SCSEP gives
older workers an opportunity to become engaged with their neighbors in
a direct and meaningful way.
Many of my colleagues know of the emphasis I place on community
service. Usually, however, when we talk about this issue, our concern
is about mobilizing young people to become involved. By contrast, the
Title V Program is in operation. Its participants are active in
communities now. If we repeal the Title V Program, many of these
positions will be eliminated. One study estimates that 30,000 to 45,000
positions will be eliminated by 1998. This will deprive neighborhoods
and towns of one of their most valuable resources.
Removing title V from this bill will provide us with the opportunity
to discuss the reauthorization of the Older Americans Act in its
entirety. I am aware that the Aging Subcommittee of the Labor and Human
Resources Committee has already begun hearings on this issue. I look
forward to seeing the recommendations that they produce on the act as a
whole. I thank the Senator from Maryland for her leadership on this
issue and I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague from
Maryland, Senator Mikulski, in offering this amendment to save title V
of the Older Americans Act. As you are aware, title V authorizes the
Senior Community Service Employment Program [SCSEP] which provides
senior citizens valuable opportunities to serve their communities by
contributing their valuable insight and experience.
As a strong supporter and past cosponsor of the Older Americans Act,
it is my view that the future of the

[[Page S 13493]]
SCSEP should be determined during the reauthorization of the Older
Americans Act, and should not be considered as part of the welfare
reform debate. This successful employment program which serves our
Nation's senior citizen is not part of the welfare system and does not
belong in this bill.
The SCSEP is one the most important programs authorized under the
Older Americans Act which have been successful in the organization and
delivery of support services for senior citizens. For almost 30 years
this program has offered low-income persons aged 55 or older part-time
paid community service assignments with the goal of eventually
obtaining unsubsidized jobs.
The only work force development program specifically designed to
maximize the potential of senior citizens, the SCSEP has consistently
exceeded placement goals established by Congress and the Department of
Labor. This clearly illustrates what I have always believed--older
Americans want to contribute. They want to work, to volunteer, to
participate in their community. It is critical that we recognize this
interest and tap the valuable wisdom, insight, and experience that
senior citizens bring to all aspects of life.
There are several successful SCSEP programs here in Maryland, one of
which serves my home community of Wicomico County. The Senior AIDES
Program--in cooperation with State employment offices, community
colleges, and other federally funded employment and training programs--
helps seniors get the skills necessary to become part of the work
force.
Let me share with you one of the program's many success stories.
Sarah Maxfield of Salisbury finished high school, got married, and
raised a family. She had the occasional odd job or part-time work, but
never really worked full-time until she had to go back to work to
support herself. At age 57, she entered the Senior AIDES Program in
Wicomico County. While receiving training in office skills, she also
worked with the volunteer office delivering meals to elderly shut-ins.
In September 1994, after having received training, she was placed in
a subsidized job at Shore Up, Inc., a local community action agency.
Shore Up was so impressed with her that I am pleased to report that she
was subsequently hired full time.
Mr. President, by including the SCSEP in the job training block grant
portion of this welfare bill, the program will be forced to compete
with other, unrelated programs for a limited amount of funding. The end
result will be fewer seniors working and fewer communities benefiting
from the contributions of these older Americans.
One of the central recommendations of the recent 1995 White House
Conference on Aging with respect to seniors in the work force was to
make available educational programs to provide skilled trained, job
counseling, and job placement for older men and women. This enhances
senior citizens' ability to stay in or rejoin the work force or to
prepare them for second careers.
In my view, Mr. President, it is clear that the proper legislative
vehicle for consideration of this important program is not a welfare
reform bill. The SCSEP deserves to be debated fully as part of the
reauthorization of the Older Americans Act and I urge my colleagues to
support this amendment.
Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the amendment
proposed by my colleague from Maryland concerning the Senior Community
Service Employment Program, also known as the title V program. This
amendment would remove title V from the job training block grant
contained in the welfare reform bill we are considering.
Mr. President, this program is unique among employment programs. It
serves people whose needs are not met by the more traditional job
programs. The program also has a unique character which I believe would
be destroyed by the block grant approach.
Title V serves seniors who are often difficult to reach. The
individuals who participate in this program have very low incomes, and
often they have little or no formal job experience. Most participants
are over 65, many are widows, and any job experience they have may have
occurred decades ago. These individuals need this program because it is
the safety net separating them from extreme poverty and welfare
dependency.
Title V also differs from other job training programs because of its
unique nature as a community service program. The jobs occupied by
title V participants are in organizations which serve other seniors,
children, and the community at large. Organizations which sponsor title
V enrollees are those which are most likely to feel the pain of budget
cuts and economic downturns, and they simply could not get the job done
without the help of the title V program.
Mr. President, if the job training block grant includes title V, the
losses will be felt throughout our social fabric. Who will lose? Well,
first of all, the individuals who participate in title V will lose. By
the time the block grant is fully implemented in 1998, between 30,000
and 45,000 older people will be given pink slips. Do we really want to
tell 45,000 poor people, most of whom are aged 65 and older, that they
can no longer work to supplement their meager income? Do we want to
tell these proud people that we would rather have them on welfare?
Communities will also lose under this block grant. There will be
money lost from local economies as we squeeze more people into poverty.
Local communities across America will also lose vital human services
which are made possible through title V--services like tutoring of
disadvantaged children and meals for the poor. In this social climate,
these are services we cannot do without.
Another big loser will be government. We will lose tax revenue from
people who are no longer employed. We will also lose because the title
V participants who are forced out of jobs will be forced to go onto the
welfare rolls, causing us to spend more money on the very programs in
which we are trying to find savings. Mr. President, this just does not
make sense to me.
I want my colleagues to understand that I am not standing before you
saying that this program should not be changed in any way. I
acknowledge that the time has come to subject title V to a thorough
examination. As you know, concerns have been raised about this program,
and these are concerns which deserve to be addressed. There also comes
a time in every program when it is appropriate to take a few steps
back, take stock of where we are, and make whatever changes are
necessary to ensure that the program is fulfilling its central mission.
But Mr. President, the last thing we need to be doing is combining this
program with other employment programs with which it has very little in
common.
Let us act decisively today to save this program--for the sake of our
local communities and the many organizations which benefit from the
program, and most of all, for the sake of the tens of thousands of
older people who participate in title V. Over the years, this
worthwhile program has freed countless senior citizens from a prison
whose bars are poverty, dependency, isolation, poor self-confidence,
and lack of experience. Let us not slam the doors shut on them.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, today, I rise to save the Senior
Community Service Employment Program--title V of the Older Americans
Act--and preserve over 100,000 senior citizens' jobs.
Title V provides part-time, minimum wage employment in community
services to low-income older workers, as well as training for placement
in unsubsidized employment.
Its participants provide millions of hours of community service work
at their on-the-job sites, making a critical difference at day care
centers, hospitals, senior centers, libraries, and so on.
The Dole substitute now before us repeals the Senior Community
Service Employment Program.
My amendment strikes this repeal and saves the Senior Community
Service Employment Program, title V of the Older Americans Act.
If title V is not removed from the welfare reform bill, it will be
repealed along with over 100 Federal job training programs and rolled
into a block grant.
This will have devastating consequences on over 100,000 low-income
older workers it serves directly, and

[[Page S 13494]]
the many communities across the Nation that benefit from these workers'
job activities.
My amendment is supported by senior organizations across this country
including the American Association of Retired Persons, Green Thumb, the
National Council of Senior Citizens, National Council of Black Aged,
National Council on Aging, and the Urban League.
The purpose of title V is to assure resources reach low-income older
workers.
The special needs of low-income seniors are often ignored or
neglected by other employment and training programs: Seniors with
limited education; seniors with outmoded work skills; seniors with
limited English-speaking ability; and seniors with a long-term
detachment from the workforce, such as widows.
The purpose of having a separate title V of the Older Americans Act
is to assure that funds are actually used to serve low-income persons
55 and older.
Title V merges two important concepts: Community service employment
for seniors who would otherwise have a difficult time locating
employment in the private sector, and the delivery of services in their
communities.
Eliminating title V places seniors at-risk on winding up on welfare.
Title V enables low-income seniors to be economically self-
sufficient, rather than depend upon welfare.
How ironic as we debate the welfare reform bill, that the result of
repealing title V could swell the welfare rolls for seniors. Many title
V participants are now self-sufficient. If this program is repealed and
seniors lose their community service employment positions, these
seniors may be forced to accept SSI, Medicaid, food stamps, and housing
assistance.
Title V seniors would rather have a hand-up not a hand-out.
There are 10 good reasons to support the Senior Community Service
Employment Program.
First, title V is our country's only work force development program
designed to maximize the productive contributions of a radidly growing
older population through training, retraining, and community service.
Second, title V is primarily operated by private, nonprofit national
aging organizations that are customer-focused, mission driven, and
experienced in serving older, low-income people.
Third, title V is a critical part of the Older Americans Act,
balancing the dual goals of community service and employment and
training for low-income seniors.
Fourth, title V has consistently exceeded all goals established by
Congress and the Department of Labor, surpassing the 20 percent
placement goal for the past 6 years and achieving a record 135 percent
of goal in 1993-94.
Fifth, title V provides a positive return on taxpayer investment,
returning $1.47 for every $1 invested.
Sixth, title V is a means-tested program, serving Americans age 55+
with income at or below 125 percent of the poverty level, or $9,200 for
a family of one.
Seventh, title V serves the oldest and poorest in our society, and
those most in need--39 percent are minorities; 72 percent are women; 32
percent are age 70 and older; 81 percent are age 60 and older; 9
percent have disabilities.
Eighth, title V ensures national responsiveness to local needs by
directly involving participants in meeting critical human needs in
their communities, from child and elder care to public safety and
environmental preservation.
Ninth, title V has demonstrated high standards of performance and
fiscal accountability unique to Government programs. Less than 15
percent of funding is spent on administrative costs.
Tenth, title V historically has enjoyed strong public support because
it is based on the principles of personal responsibility, lifelong
learning, and service to community.
I urge your support for my amendment.
Mrs. KASSEBAUM addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time in opposition?
The Senator from Kansas.
Mrs. KASSEBAUM. How much time do I have, 5 minutes?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Five minutes.
Mrs. KASSEBAUM. I yield myself 3 minutes and would yield the rest of
the time to the Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Gregg].
I know how much the Senator from Maryland cares about older workers,
as does the Senator from Iowa [Mr. Grassley]. But I must oppose the
Senator's amendment to remove the Senior Community Service Employment
Program from the job training consolidation bill, which has been
incorporated into the legislation before us, for the following reasons.
First, older workers are already protected in the bill. Each State
must meet benchmarks that show how well they are providing jobs for
needy older workers. Their funds may be cut if they do not do an
adequate job.
Second, successful grassroots programs like Green Thumb--and it has
been a very successful program in Kansas--will be able to continue.
This does not mean that that program is going to end. It simply means
that it will be part of the training initiatives in the State, and its
voice will be heard at that level. Older workers will have a very
strong voice with Governors, and States will hear that voice when they
develop their statewide training system. I have no doubt but that such
strong programs will prevail.
Third, older workers will be better served under the current bill
because we will eliminate the middleman. Right now, most of the older
worker funds go to 10 national contractors. The Senator from Maryland
mentioned that fact. Let me just say, Mr. President, something I think
it is important for my colleagues to recognize. The GAO will soon
release a report showing that there is a great deal of waste in these
national contracts, overhead that will be eliminated if the funds go
directly to the States.
For example, the GAO found that one contractor spent about 24 percent
of its contract on administrative expenses, well above the amount that
is currently permitted. Over $2 million was spent on personnel and $1
million was spent on fringe benefits. None of these funds went to older
workers. It is an important group to reach, and I think the Senator
from Iowa made that point. But I strongly feel there is a better way in
which to deal with this. This training program is just one of 90
programs we have consolidated into a single system that will hold
States accountable.
Finally, and I think this is an exceptionally important point to take
into account, if we make an exception for this program, other programs
will want out as well, and we will only perpetuate a system of
duplication and overlap.
I must oppose the motion to strike. I would like to yield the
remainder of the time to Senator Gregg, who cares a great deal also
about the Older Americans Act. He is the ranking member of the Labor
and Human Resources Subcommittee dealing with this issue.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mr. GREGG. I thank the Senator from Kansas. I wish to associate
myself with her remarks. The point she is making is that it is not a
question of whether or not the money will be spent on senior citizens'
jobs programs. Under the proposal of the Senator from Kansas, the same
amount will be spent on senior citizens' jobs programs as will be spent
as it is presently structured. It is a question of whether or not those
dollars actually get to senior citizens or whether they stay here in
Washington and are administered by a group of unrepresentative, in my
opinion, or at least by people who have not competed for the grants and
that receive the grants.
There are nine organizations that receive funds under this proposal.
They receive them without competition. They simply are earmarked funds.
These organizations, GAO tells us, are spending more than the law
allows them to spend on administrative costs. Of the $320 million that
is supposed to go to help senior citizens with jobs, $64 million of
that $320 million is presently going to administration.
The proposal Senator Kassebaum has brought forward and which is
included in this bill would allow that full $320 million to go back to
the States. We would no longer see that money skimmed off here in
Washington for the purposes of lunches and funding large buildings that
are leased or driving around the city or coming up here

[[Page S 13495]]
and lobbying us. Rather, it would go back to the States and the States
would have the ability through their councils on aging to administer
these programs and as a result the dollars would actually flow to the
seniors who need the jobs, which is the basic bottom-line goal here.
So if you want to vote against what basically amounts to a designated
program where nine organizations benefit and put the money instead into
the seniors' hands where the seniors can benefit, you will stay with
the Kassebaum approach in this bill.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on this
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and yeas were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment
of the Senator from Maryland. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The
clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
who desire to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 55, nays 45, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 418 Leg.]

YEAS--55

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

NAYS--45

Abraham
Ashcroft
Bennett
Bond
Brown
Burns
Chafee
Coats
Cochran
Coverdell
D'Amato
DeWine
Dole
Domenici
Faircloth
Frist
Gorton
Gramm
Grams
Gregg
Hatch
Helms
Hutchison
Inhofe
Jeffords
Kassebaum
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nickles
Packwood
Roth
Santorum
Shelby
Simpson
Smith
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Warner
So the amendment (No. 2668) was agreed to.
Ms. MIKULSKI. 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. 2592

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 10
minutes, equally divided, on the Boxer amendment No. 2592, to be
followed by a vote on or in relation to the amendment.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, may I ask that the Senator from
Massachusetts be recognized for a unanimous-consent request?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes. The Senator from Massachusetts is
recognized.

Privilege of the Floor

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
privilege of the floor be granted to Omer Waddles, a legislative fellow
in my office, during the consideration of H.R. 4.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence----
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator withhold that request?
Mr. MOYNIHAN. Yes.
Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, is this the last amendment that time has
been reserved for?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. CHAFEE. I notice there was a Faircloth amendment intervening. Is
that withdrawn?
Mr. SANTORUM. It was temporarily set aside.
Mr. CHAFEE. So following the Boxer amendment, we will then go to
other amendments that are called up. Is there any time agreement
following the Boxer amendment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The floor is open and other Senators may call
up their amendments.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. SANTORUM. 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. CHAFEE. 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. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Boxer
amendment be temporarily laid aside so that I might proceed with a
modification to the underlying Dole amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 2280, As Further Modified

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I send a modification of Senator Dole's
amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has that right.
Without objection, the amendment is so modified.
The modification is as follows:

On page 23, beginning on line 7, strike all through page
24, line 18, and insert the following:
``(5) Welfare partnership.--
``(A) In general.--The amount of the grant otherwise
determined under paragraph (1) for fiscal year 1997, 1998,
1999, or 2000 shall be reduced by the amount by which State
expenditures under the State program funded under this part
for the preceding fiscal year is less than 80 percent of
historic State expenditures.
``(B) Historic state expenditures.--For purposes of this
paragraph--
``(i) In general.--The term `historic State expenditures'
means expenditures by a State under parts A and F of title IV
for fiscal year 1994, as in effect during such fiscal year.
``(ii) Hold harmless.--In no event shall the historic State
expenditures applicable to any fiscal year exceed the amount
which bears the same ratio to the amount determined under
clause (i) as--
``(I) the grant amount otherwise determined under paragraph
(1) for the preceding fiscal year (without regard to section
407), bears to
``(II) the total amount of Federal payments to the State
under section 403 for fiscal year 1994 (as in effect during
such fiscal year).
``(C) Determination of state expenditures for preceding
fiscal year.--
``(i) In general.--For purposes of this paragraph, the
expenditures of a State under the State program funded under
this part for a preceding fiscal year shall be equal to the
sum of the State's expenditures under the program in the
preceding fiscal year for--
``(I) cash assistance;
``(II) child care assistance;
``(III) education, job training, and work;
``(IV) administrative costs; and
``(V) any other use of funds allowable under section
403(b)(1).
``(ii) Transfers from other state and local programs.--In
determining State expenditures under clause (i), such
expenditures shall not include funding supplanted by
transfers from other State and local programs.
``(D) Exclusion of federal amounts.--For purposes of this
paragraph, State expenditures shall not include any
expenditures from amounts made available by the Federal
Government.''.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. What does the modification do?
Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, it provides that there shall be a
maintenance of effort at the 80 percent level, with the tight
definitions that we have previously been discussing.
Furthermore, it provides that should there be the effort below 80
percent, then the reduction will be a dollar-for-dollar reduction
between the State funds and Federal funds.
Mr. President, this is an amendment that we have discussed, I believe
broadly, that has been cleared by both sides.
Senator Dole is a supporter of this amendment on this side. Mr.
President, I am glad that the amendment is acceptable. I want to thank
everybody for this. I especially thank the senior Senator from New
Mexico, Senator Domenici, for his outstanding work. He was key in the
whole effort. Indeed, it was he who suggested to the majority leader
that we have the 80 percent maintenance of effort.
This gets us through a difficult spot. We have been tied up on the
90-percent, 75-percent maintenance of effort. This is a compromise that
has been worked out.
I know the distinguished Senator from Louisiana has been very, very
active in this area, and I am happy to hear any comments he might have.
Mr. BREAUX. I will be brief, Mr. President.

[[Page S 13496]]

We attempted, as our colleagues know, to offer an amendment that
would require that States to maintain an effort of 90 percent of what
they were doing in 1994 in order to assure that the States and the
Federal Government had a true partnership in this effort.
That amendment lost by only one vote. I think this effort of the
Senator from Rhode Island, Senator Chafee, is a good effort. It is a
big improvement over the current bill that is before the Senate. It is
not 90 percent, but it does at least maintain an 80-percent effort on
behalf of the States. That is better than the current underlying bill.
The concern I have--and I ask the Senator to comment on this--is that
the other body has no maintenance of effort at all in their bill and
ultimately we will have to go to conference with the other body. I am
concerned about the ability that the Senate will have to come out with
a figure that is reasonable.
I wonder if the Senator from Rhode Island could comment on whether
there would be united support for the Senator's effort on behalf of his
Republican colleagues, and could he shed light on what he thinks may or
may not happen as a result of a conference?
I conclude by saying I do congratulate him in this effort and I think
it is a step in the right direction. Could he comment on what is likely
to occur?
Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, first, I want to start off by commending
the Senator from Louisiana because but for his amendment yesterday on
the 90 percent, I do not think we would have reached the compromise
that we have on the 80-percent maintenance-of-effort level.
The Senator is exactly right in pointing out that the House is at
zero. All I can say is, obviously I cannot guarantee what will come out
of the conference. Nobody can. All I can assure him is that speaking
for this Senator, who I presume will be a conferee, plus the other
Republican Senators who I presume will be conferees, including the
majority leader, all have indicated that they are strongly in support
of this effort and this percentage.
Now, I do not think we expect that this percentage is what will
emerge from the conference. But it is going to be a lot better than
zero, I can assure everybody of that.
Mr. BREAUX. I thank the Senator.
Mr. CHAFEE. Obviously, I hope that it would be the 75-percent level,
but I see the distinguished ranking member of the committee, and we
have all been through conference many times and all we can say is we
will do our best.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I simply would like to be recorded as
saying the best of the Senator from Rhode Island is very good, indeed,
semper fi, in my view.
I will be on that conference. I do not know to what consequence, but
I will be there applauding.
Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, the mere presence of the Senator from New
York at the conference is a big plus to our side.
Again, I want to thank him for his support of this amendment and
thank the distinguished Senator from Louisiana for everything he has
done, including previous to today as I mentioned before.
Mr. President, the amendment has been adopted. I want to thank all.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment was a modification of the
amendment which was modified by unanimous consent.
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I asked for a copy of the amendment, and
it was not available, so would the Senator from Rhode Island yield for
two questions relative to the amendment?
Mr. CHAFEE. I yield.
Mr. GRAHAM. I am familiar with the amendment we voted on yesterday
offered by the Senator from Louisiana as it relates to what categories
a State can allocate funds which will count towards the 80-percent
maintenance-of-effort requirement.
Could the Senator indicate if there are any variations from the
amendment of the Senator from Louisiana? And, if so, what are those
variations?
Mr. CHAFEE. It is my understanding this gets a little bit arcane, and
I am not trying to avoid the Senator's question in any fashion. We can
safely say, basically the same as the amendment of the Senator from
Louisiana. That is, the Senator is talking about--it is the title I
block grants which fits into the definitions.
Mr. GRAHAM. There had been concern about the definition under the
original 75-percent maintenance of effort that it would have allowed,
for instance, a State's contribution to Medicaid and Head Start
programs to count toward maintenance of effort.
Mr. CHAFEE. I want to assure the Senator, because I was disturbed by
that provision likewise, that there cannot be that kind--a contribution
to Medicaid does not count. It has to be basically the AFDC existing
categories. It cannot be something for food stamps or Medicaid or an
automobile or something like that.
Mr. GRAHAM. The second question: We had earlier debate about what
happens if a State's allocation of Federal funds declines, what occurs
to that State's continuing maintenance of effort?
For instance, there is a very high probability that many States are
going to end up being sanctioned under this bill because they will have
such a limited amount of Federal funds that they would be unable to
meet the work requirements and therefore would become subject to the 5-
percent sanction, reduction.
If that were to occur, what, if any, effect under your amendment will
that reduction in Federal funds, for whatever reason, have on their
maintenance-of-effort obligation?
Mr. CHAFEE. If the Senator can hold for a moment.
I know if the State goes down in its contribution, as I previously
mentioned, then the Federal goes down dollar for dollar if the State
should go below the 80 percent.
If your question is, what happens if the Federal goes down, under a
sanction, for example--if I might get the answer to that.
If they are sanctioned, the answer is, I am informed, if they are
sanctioned, the State still has to do its 80 percent. In other words,
you cannot be so-called punished and be relieved of a burden at the
same time, which is my understanding of the existing law today.
Mr. GRAHAM. Are there any instances in which, if the Federal funds
are reduced below what they were in the base year 1994, that there
would be adjustment to the maintenance of effort?
Mr. CHAFEE. I am not sure I understand.
Mr. GRAHAM. If for any reason--sanction or for other reason--
sufficient that we do not appropriate the full $17 billion in the year
2000 and States get less than is currently projected, if for that or
any other reason--sanction, political, economic, or otherwise--Federal
funds should fall below the 1994 level, does your amendment provide for
any adjustment to the maintenance-of-effort provision?
Mr. CHAFEE. We do not address that, nor did the Breaux amendment
address it.
The question really is, should the Federal Government not make its
appropriation, for the 1994 level, in the year 1998, or, as you said,
2000--we do not address that here. But I cannot believe that, with 100
Senators, all representing States here, that they are going to permit
their State in some way to be punished, or lack funds, or have to
continue their effort at 80 percent when the Federal Government does
not do its matching share. But we do not specifically address that
problem. We address the sanction problem.
Mr. GRAHAM. I wish I could be as sanguine as the Senator from Rhode
Island. Having seen how many Senators voted to punish the poor children
on an earlier vote, I cannot be so sanguine.
Mr. BREAUX. Will the Senator yield on that point?
When we altered the 90-percent maintenance of effort, it was based on
90 percent of what the State received. So if the State received less
from the Federal Government because of cutbacks or whatever reason,
they would have a 90-percent requirement, to spend 90 percent of the
funds that they had received. Take that into consideration.
Mr. GRAHAM. Am I correct--this is a question of the Senator from
Rhode Island--this 80 percent is based on what was received in 1994?
The Senator from Louisiana explained that in his amendment the 90
percent was 90 percent of the Federal funds in the year of receipt. So
if in 1998 a State received $100 million, it would have a required
maintenance of effort of $90 million.

[[Page S 13497]]

I understand under the amendment of the Senator from Rhode Island--or
am I correct that the 80 percent is 80 percent of what the State's
required effort was in 1994? Is that correct?
Mr. CHAFEE. Our bill--I cannot speak for the Breaux amendment because
I am not familiar with that particular portion. Under our bill, the 80
percent is related to 80 percent of what the State paid in 1994.
Mr. GRAHAM. And that would be constant over the 5-year period,
without regard to changes in the levels of Federal support?
Mr. CHAFEE. That is right.
Mr. GRAHAM. Thank you, Mr. President.
Mr. CHAFEE. I ask the Chair now the parliamentary situation.
I urge the adoption of the modification. Has that taken place?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The modification has been made in the
amendment, made by unanimous consent.
The pending question will be the Boxer amendment. There has been time
reserved of 10 minutes, equally divided.
Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I thank everybody for their help in this,
and particularly I want to thank the majority leader, the distinguished
ranking member of the Finance Committee, and others who have been very,
very helpful on this. And of course the Senator from Louisiana. The
Senator from Florida had some excellent questions.
Mr. SANTORUM addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.

unanimous consent agreement--amendment no. 2592

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that debate time
and the rollcall vote scheduled with respect to the Boxer amendment No.
2592 be postponed to occur at a time later today, before the cloture
vote, to be determined by the majority leader after consultation with
the Democratic leader.
Mrs. BOXER. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President. I shall not
object. I support it. I just want to use this time to thank Senator
Simpson, the majority leader's staff, Senator Santorum, and Senator
Nickles. We are working out some technical changes that will assure
that this amendment does what we all want it to do. I just wanted to
put that on the record. I look forward to the vote later in the day.
It has been set aside. I am not objecting.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, we do not have any unanimous consent to
work from at this point. We will take up, at this point, the Coats
amendment.
Mr. COATS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.

Amendment No. 2539

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2539 and ask for
its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, that will be the pending
question.
Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I think it is easy for us to be overly
consumed by some of the details of this welfare debate, arguing numbers
and formulas--portions of the legislation that are all important but
can tend to mire us down and take our attention away from some of the
broader implications of the debate we have been engaged in for the past
several days. A great deal is at stake here, and I think we need to
remind ourselves that this is the case.
If we as a Nation accept the existence of a permanent underclass, we
will become a very different Nation indeed. Social and economic
mobility has always been part of our national creed. It has been an
outgrowth of our belief in equality. If we abandon that goal for
millions of our citizens, through either indifference or through
despair, giving up, we will do a number of, I think, socially very
disadvantageous things. We will divide class from class. We will foster
a future of suspicion and of resentment. And, while this may be a
temptation to accept, I believe it is something we as a nation cannot
accept.
On the left, it seems there are those who are so accustomed to the
status quo that the best they can offer is some kind of maintenance of
a permanent underclass as wards of the State, providing cash benefits
to, hopefully, anesthetize some of their suffering, food stamps to
relieve their hunger. But all hope for social and economic advancement
seems to be set aside or abandoned.
On the right, it seems that there are some who simply want to wash
their hands of all of this, who view the underclass as beyond our help
and beyond any degree of sympathy or empathy. The only realistic
response, they suspect, is probably more police and more prisons to
deal with the tragic consequences of this breakdown in civil society.
The effect, I believe, of both of these approaches is to accept that
poverty is permanent; that the underclass is going to be a fixture of
urban life to be fed, feared, and forgotten. In doing so, we will
condemn, in our minds, a whole class of Americans to be either wards or
inmates. And I believe the American ideal will be diminished in that
process.
I understand those temptations. The problems we face seem so
intractable. Those who listened to Senator Moynihan's initial
discussion on the welfare bill last week had to understand both the
brilliance and the sobering nature of that debate. We face a crisis, he
said, and he outlined in graphic detail a crisis of illegitimacy that
threatens not just the well-being of the children but the existence of
our social order.
To quote Charles Murray, he said, ``Once in a while the sky is really
falling.'' And I believe, in this instance, as Senator Moynihan has
pointed out to us, that the sky is falling and that our Nation faces a
crisis of a proportion that we have seldom faced before.
I also understand that any reform that we undertake, particularly any
radical reform that we undertake of the system, is undertaken with a
degree of uncertainty. Senator Moynihan has reminded us of the law of
unintended consequences.
Nathan Glazer has talked about ``the limits of social policy,''
arguing that whatever great actions we undertake today involve such an
increase in complexity that we act generally with less knowledge than
we would like to have even if with more than we once had.
But I think we also need to understand that there is another law at
work. That would be the ``law of unacceptable suffering.'' Because as
the cost of our welfare system mounts the human cost mounts, the risk
of change is diminished, and I believe there is a point beyond which
inaction becomes complicity. I think we have reached that point. I
think this is a principle that ought to organize and direct our debate,
to try to find a source of hope so that we will not have an endless
class of underrepresented, underprivileged citizens with which we have
nothing to offer--hope that our divisions, class divisions, that appear
to be so intractable in our society are not permanent and hope that
suffering will not be endless.
Mr. President, I think one source of that hope is found in devolution
of power to the State. I know there is disagreement on that. But I
think there is a compelling logic to the proposal. States are closer to
the problems. Generally, State solutions are more acceptable to their
public, and they are more flexible. We do not have a one-size-fits-all
Federal mandate. Federal officials do not have a monopoly on
compassion. I think that belies the lack of accomplishment over the
last few decades.
So I support the devolution as an element of the Republican reform.
But I believe also there are limits to the approach of devolution. The
fact is most States have already engaged in some flexibility
experiments and some devolution, some welfare experiments through
devolution. Some reforms have been in place for years, and while the
results show some good results there are several cases that have been
good. Often progress is marginal, and sometimes incremental.
I do not offer this as a criticism. I offer it as a caution.
Devolution I believe is necessary. But I do not believe it is all
sufficient because, as we all know, State officials are fully capable
of repeating the same mistakes as Federal officials, and State welfare
bureaucracies can be just as strong and just as wrong as Federal
programs.

[[Page S 13498]]

So I think the limitations of devolution come down to this: The
problem with welfare for the last 30 years is not the level of
government at which money has been spent. Our difficulty is more than
procedural. It is substantive. We need to make fundamental choices on
the direction that our system is going, not just about its funding
mechanisms.
Mr. President, I think a second source of hope is found in the
strengthened work requirements of the legislation that we have been
discussing. Requiring work for welfare makes entry-level jobs more
attractive and discourages many from entering the welfare system in the
first place. I think it is also an expression of our values as a
nation. Work, as we know, is the evidence of an internal discipline. It
orders and directs or lives. I believe no child should be without the
moral example of a parent who is employed, if at all possible.
So I support this element of welfare reform. But, as we all know,
work requirements are expensive. They are often difficult to enforce.
They represent the problem of what to do with the mothers of young
children. Again, while not arguing that they are useless but that their
effect is limited, they should be supported but they should not be
oversold.
I think a third source of hope is the removal of incentives to fail.
We have been discussing that in detail today with these amendments. I
think it is a mistake for Government to pay cash for a 14-year-old girl
on the condition that they have children out of wedlock and never marry
the father. We cannot justify, Mr. President, public policy that
penalize marriage and provide illegitimacy its economic lifeline. I
think Government violates its most fundamental responsibilities when it
tempts people into self-destructive behavior.
So I support the elements in the Republican plan. But the destructive
incentives in our welfare system are only part of the problem. The
decline of marriage, the rise of illegitimacy are rooted clearly in
broader cultural trends that affect everyone, rich and poor. Without a
welfare system, these trends would still exist and still threaten our
society.
Let me repeat that statement. Without a welfare system, the trends of
illegitimacy, the decline of marriage, would still exist and still
threaten at the rate of their growth, and would still threaten our
society.
James Q. Wilson recently authored and article called ``Culture,
Incentives in the Underclass.'' He accepts the figure that less than 15
percent of rising illegitimacy between 1960 and 1974 was due to
increased Government benefits. ``Some significant part of what is
popularly called the `underclass problem' '' he argues, ``exists not
simply because members of this group face perverse incentives but
because they have been habituated in ways that weaken their self-
control and their concern for others.''
In other words, I think what Wilson was trying to say is that the
basic problem lies in the realm of values and character, and those
values are shaped, particularly in early childhood, by certain cultural
standards. ``I do not wish,'' Wilson adds, ``to deny the importance of
incentives such as jobs, penalties, or opportunities, but I do wish to
call attention to the fact that people facing the same incentives often
behave in characteristically different ways because they have been
habituated to do so.''
People are not purely economic beings analyzing costs and benefits.
We are moral beings. We make choices that reflect our values.
Incentives are not irrelevant but it is ultimately our beliefs and
habits I think that determine our future.
So I support these measures: Devolution, work requirements, changing
incentives. Each one should be part of the package that the Senate
passes. But even if they were all adopted in the form that I would like
I believe that our problems and our divisions would still persist.
It is important to work at the margins because those margins are
broad. A 15 percent reduction in illegitimacy would be a dramatic and
positive social change. A similar increase in work participation could
be labeled a major victory. But I would suggest, Mr. President, that
our greatest single problem lies beyond the changes that we are
debating in this welfare discussion. That problem I would suggest is a
breakdown in the institutions that direct and have humanized our lives
throughout history, institutions of family, institutions of
neighborhood, community associations, charities, and religious-based
groups.
Sociologists call this the ``civil society.'' They talk about
``mediating structures.'' They say that these institutions build
``social capital'' and ``positive externalities.'' But this point I
think can be reduced to some simple facts.
A child will never find an adequate substitute for a father who loves
him or her. The mantle of government, the assistance of government,
will never replace the warm hand of a neighbor. The directions of a
government bureaucrat will never replace the counsel of a friend. Any
society is a cold, lonely, and confusing place without the warmth of
family, community, and faith.
So it is interesting that this is precisely the reason that Nathan
Glazer warns of the ``unintended consequences'' in social policy.
``Aside from these problems of expectations, cost, competency and
limitations of knowledge,'' he argues, ``there is the simple reality
that every piece of social policy substitutes for some traditional
arrangement, a new arrangement in which public authorities take over,
at least in part, the role of the family, of the ethnic and
neighborhood group, of voluntary associations [of the church]. In doing
so, social policy weakens the position of these traditional agents and
further encourages needy people to depend on the government for help
rather than on the traditional structures,'' according to Glazer, and I
agree with him.
I believe this concern is real, and I think it ought to reorient our
thinking and our efforts. Our central goal in this debate ought to be
to try to find a way to respect and reinvigorate these traditional
structures--families, schools and neighborhoods, voluntary
associations--that provide training in citizenship and pass on morality
and civility to future generations.

Listen again to James Wilson. I quote.

Today we expect ``government programs'' to accomplish what
families, villages and churches once accomplished. This
expectation leads to disappointment, if not frustration.
Government programs, whether aimed at farmers, professors or
welfare mothers, tend to produce dependence, not self-
reliance. If this is true, then our policy ought to be to
identify, evaluate and encourage those local private efforts
that seem to do the best job at reducing drug abuse, inducing
people to marry, persuading parents, especially fathers, to
take responsibility for their children and exercising
informal social control over neighborhood streets.

Mr. President, I believe we should adopt this approach because the
alternative, centralized bureaucratic control, has failed. And because,
second, the proposal of strict devolution has, as I indicated earlier,
limitations. But I think there is a third reason we ought to adopt this
approach, and I think that is the most central reason, that is because
this is the only hopeful approach that we face.
These institutions--family, neighborhood, schools, church, charitable
organizations, voluntary associations--do not just feed and house the
body but reach in and touch the soul. They have the power to transform
individuals and the power to renew our society. There is no other
alternative that offers and holds out such promise.
So I believe we ought to ask one question of every social policy
passed to every level of government, and that question is: Does it work
through these mediating, traditional, historical institutions, does it
work through families, neighborhoods, or religious or community
organizations, or does it simply replace them?
Our primary objective should not be to substitute bureaucrats from
Washington with bureaucrats from Columbus or Sacramento or Bismarck. It
should be to encourage and support private and religious, neighborhood-
based, nonreligious efforts without corrupting them with intrusive
governmental rules. Our goal should not only be to redistribute power
within government but to spread power beyond government.
This I believe, Mr. President, is the next step in the welfare
debate, the

[[Page S 13499]]
next stage of reform, the next frontier of compassion in America.
Accepting this priority would focus our attention on possibly three
areas: Emphasizing the role of family and particularly the role of
fathers and mentors where fathers are not present in the lives of
children; rebuilding community institutions; and promoting private
charities and religious institutions in the work of compassion.
The next stage of welfare reform has to start with the family. The
abandonment of children mainly by fathers is not a lifestyle choice. It
is a form of adult behavior with disastrous consequences for children,
for communities, for society as a whole. When young boys are deprived
of a model of responsible male behavior, they become prone to violence
and sexual aggression. Sociologists will prove to you over and over
again these are irrefutable facts. When young girls are placed in the
same situation, they are far more likely to have children out of
wedlock. There is a growing consensus that families are not expendable
and fathers are not optional.
The next step in welfare reform will reestablish a preference for
marriage at the center of social policy in America. Wilson again
observes that:

Of all the institutions through which people may pass--
schools, employers, the military--marriage has the largest
effect. For every race and at every age, married men live
longer than unmarried men and have lower rates of homicide,
suicide, accidents and mental illness. Crime rates are lower
for married men and incomes are higher. Infant mortality
rates are higher for unmarried than for married women,
whether black or white, and these differences cannot be
explained by differences in income or availability of medical
care. So substantial is this difference that an unmarried
woman with a college education is more likely to have her
infant die than is a married woman with less than a high
school diploma.

An astounding statement.
Now, for those of us who have been married for a long time--and I
just celebrated my 30th wedding anniversary--there are probably moments
and days when that does not quite ring true.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. COATS. I will be happy to yield.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. I heard him say he just celebrated his 30th wedding
anniversary. Can I not assume that Mrs. Coats is also celebrating?
Mr. COATS. Mrs. Coats would be delighted and will be delighted when I
explain what the Senator from New York has said about her. She was a
child bride, and I was privileged to marry her. And she has retained
the vibrancy of her youth. I claim no credit for that. She has done
that in spite of her husband.
As Wilson has said, there are some great advantages to the
institution of marriage; and I think that has been proven out over
time, actually from the beginning of time.
As I said, while there may be moments that each of us can point to
where we might question that fact, it is undeniable in terms of the
statistics that are now in relative to life expectancy, rates of
homicide, suicide, accidents, and mental illness. And as a nation, it
ought to be our policy to promote that and not have policies in place,
although maybe well intended, that often serve as a disincentive.
I also think that the next stage of welfare reform should find new
ways of rebuilding economic and educational infrastructure, spreading
ownership, housing, assets, educational opportunities. Successful
businesses, active churches, effective schools, and strong
neighborhoods have always been the backbone of community. To the extent
that we can once again, through policy, where appropriate--in many
places it is not appropriate and not effective--to the extent that we
can emphasize and nurture this rebuilding, this renewal, we should do
so.
We should also, I believe, focus our attention and resources on
private charities and religious institutions, and that is the reason
Senator Ashcroft and I rise today to offer this amendment. We offer it
primarily for discussion purposes, but we believe that a debate should,
if it has not already, begin relative to the role of these institutions
in dealing with some of our social problems.
We suggest that a charity tax credit, which we introduced last
Friday, can answer some very important questions, the most important of
which is how can we get resources into the hands of these private and
religious institutions where individuals are actually being
transformed, renewed, and provided both external as well as internal
help, and how can we do this without either undermining their work with
our Federal and State and governmental restrictions or offending the
first amendment.
We think this amendment accomplishes that purpose. We respond by
offering a $500-per-person tax credit for charitable contributions to
poverty alleviating, poverty preventing, poverty relief organizations.
We also require that individuals volunteer their time as well as donate
their money to qualify for the credit,
because we think it is necessary to do more than simply write a check.

We think there are a couple very important things that can be
accomplished by personal involvement: First, the obvious connection
that comes with bringing together those that are seeking to provide
assistance with those that need the assistance and the benefits that
flow both ways from that effort. But, second, it is an accountability
factor, a factor that allows individuals to see how their money is
being used and to ensure that the agency, the church, the association,
the group that is utilizing the dollars that are contributed, that they
are utilized in the most effective and most efficient way.
We would like to take a small portion of welfare spending in
America--estimates are that roughly about 8 percent of what total
welfare spending is in terms of what the reduction in revenue to the
Federal Treasury would be through the charity tax credit--and give it
through the Tax Code to private institutions that provide individuals
with hope, with dignity, help and independence.
We do not eliminate the public safety net, but we want to focus
attention on resources where we think they will make a substantial
difference.
Second, we would like to utilize this in a way of promoting an ethic
of giving in America. Because when individuals make these contributions
to effective charities, it is a form of involvement beyond writing a
check to the Federal Government. It encourages a new definition of
citizenship and responsibility, one in which men and women examine and
support the programs in their own communities.
Marvin Olasky has written about all this. He comments:

Within a few miles of Capitol Hill there are several places
that we could visit today which solve social problems more
effectively and efficiently than any measure we will pass in
this welfare debate.

I took him up on that challenge, and one of the organizations I
visited was a shelter operated by the Gospel Mission, just within the
shadow of the Capitol, about 5 blocks from here, that takes homeless,
hopelessly drug-addicted men off the streets and literally has
transformed them into responsible, productive citizens. Their
rehabilitation rate is 66 percent over a 1-year period of time.
The same program, or something similar to that program, is run by the
Federal Government, called the John Young Center. I drive by it every
evening on my way home from work. That center has been in and out of
the newspapers. Drugs are regularly dealt. And it has been a place of
despair, not a place of hope. They claim a rehabilitation rate of 10
percent. They spend 20 times the amount of the Gospel Mission.
Now, we ought to be visiting these institutions and asking ourselves
the question, what are they doing at the Gospel Mission that they are
not doing at the Federal center? Or, conversely, what are they doing at
the Federal center that is not being done--that we ought to avoid doing
elsewhere?
This is just one example, one example of examples that exist in
almost every community in America, where because of frustration with a
government-run program, with a government attempt, citizens have
undertaken, either through religious charities, faith-based or not,
religious-based, Big Sisters, Salvation Army, the medical volunteers,
the local Matthew 25 clinic that exists in Fort Wayne, IN, where
medical doctors volunteer their time to the poor--they exist
everywhere, but not to the degree to which it is making a substantial
difference in the macrosense in our Nation.

[[Page S 13500]]

So Senator Ashcroft and I are trying to highlight these
organizations, show how they provide a measure of hope, how they can
renew lives, renew communities and, hopefully, nurture them through
acquainting our citizens with their work and giving them the means with
which to contribute to them.
Robert Woodson said, for virtually every social program we face
today, somewhere a community group has found the solution that works.
I believe, Mr. President, this is the greatest source of hope in this
welfare debate. And the primary reason why I am not pessimistic is--
because it is easy to be pessimistic--that many of these groups, as
Woodson points out, are faith-based, not a particular faith, not a
particular denomination. In some, the faith is contrary to my own
faith, but they gain their authority and their success by serving their
neighbors as a form of service to their God. And their ministry
includes an element of spiritual challenge and moral transformation.
Government should not view this as a problem to be overcome, but as a
resource that we ought to welcome with open arms because, in serving
the poor, we ought to look at religious efforts as allies and not
rejected as rivals to our program. That power of religious values and
social change can no longer be ignored. It is one of the common
denominators of a successful compass.
Let me wrap up here by quoting from Robert Woodson again. Bill
Raspberry wrote a fascinating article on this some time ago in the
Washington Post.
Woodson said:

People, including me, would check out the successful social
programs--I'm talking about the neighborhood-based healers
who manage to turn people around--and we would report on such
things as size, funding, leadership, technique.

He said:

Only recently has it crystallized for me that the one thing
virtually all these programs had in common was a leader with
a strong element of spirituality. . . .

He said:

We don't yet have the scales to weight the ability some
people have to supply meaning [in other people's lives]--to
provide the spiritual element I'm talking about.

He said:

I don't know how the details might work themselves out, but
I know it makes as much sense to empower those who have the
spiritual wherewithal to turn lives around as to empower
those whose only qualification is credentials.

Mr. President, the failure of our current approach has resulted among
Americans in ``compassion fatigue.'' That is understandable, but that
is not healthy for our society. Compassion for the poor is a valuable
part of the American tradition, and it is also a central part of our
moral tradition. At the very deepest level, we show compassion for
others because we are all equally dependent upon the compassion of our
Maker.
But a renewal of compassion will ultimately be frustrated if we act
on a definition of that virtue which has failed. The problem we face is
not only that welfare is too expensive, which it is; the problem is
that it is too stingy with the things that matter the most--
responsibility, moral values, human dignity and the warmth of
community.
This Nation, I suggest, Mr. President, requires a new definition of
compassion, a definition which mobilizes the resources of civil society
to reach our deepest needs. This is going to be a challenge to our
creativity. Our response, I suggest, will determine much more about the
American experiment and the limits that we place on its promise.
So the amendment that Senator Ashcroft and I are offering is simply a
step, a suggestion, a step toward providing a way to expand that
compassion in America, to enlist our citizens in the act of
citizenship, and to go beyond government to return to those
institutions which historically, traditionally, and effectively have
mediated some of our deepest social concerns--the family, the
neighborhood, the schools, charitable organizations, religious and
nonreligous voluntary associations.
I hope that we can move beyond the details of the welfare debate.
Much of this will be discussions for future days. But I hope that this
amendment we are offering at least offers a start and this debate in
which we are engaging will take us to the place where we can step back
and take a broader view of the problems we face and a more creative
view of the solutions to address those problems.
Mr. President, with that I yield the floor.
Mr. MOYNIHAN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I am going to have to be away from the
floor for awhile now, but I want to say that the remarks of the Senator
from Indiana are the most compelling and thoughtful and, in a certain
sense, I hope, perfecting of any I have heard in 19 years on this floor
debating this subject. I can scarce summon the language to express my
admiration.
I acknowledge the persuasion that comes from citing dear friends of
40 years and more, such as Nathan Glazer and James Q. Wilson, with whom
I have been associated. But the growing perception of the nature of our
problem--I could have wished this debate had never taken place in the
Senate.
The proposal to disengage the Federal Government from the care of
dependent children is not something I can welcome. The address of the
Senator from Indiana almost makes it worthwhile.
The other evening, Monday evening, at the American Enterprise
Institute, Robert Fogel of the University of Chicago presented a superb
historical perspective on the cycles of moral and religious awakening
that have taken place in the United States since the 1740's, such as
during the American Revolution, when we came to judge that the British
Government was not sufficient ethically and morally as an institution.
Abolition, slavery, temperance--we have had this experience before, and
it may be we are beginning it again, because what the Senator says is
so very clear that in the end, these are issues of community, issues of
relationships, issues of moral understandings and persuasion.
I have said that however much we may be taking a retrograde measure
with respect to a Government program, for the first time ever, we are
beginning to talk about the problems of family structure. President
Bush began this in an address at Notre Dame in 1992. President Clinton
brought it up in a State of the Union Message when he rather casually
cited projections which had been made in our office about where we may
be heading. This week's issue of the the Economist discusses it as a
worldwide phenomenon but uses the United States as the most advanced
and desperate case.
I just will make one final caveat if you like, caution if you will.
We are finally asking the right questions. I do not think we have
answers. None will assert this more with greater conviction than such
as Nathan Glazer or James Q. Wilson. Wilson gave the Walter Wriston
lecture at the Manhattan Institute in New York City last November
entitled ``From Welfare Reform to Character Development.'' His new book
is on character.
He has this passage. He says:

Moreover, it is fathers whose behavior we most want to
change, and nobody has explained how cutting off welfare to
mothers will make biological fathers act like real fathers.
We are told that ending AFDC will reduce illegitimacy, but we
don't know that. It is, at best, an informed guess. Some
people produced illegitimate children in large numbers long
before welfare existed and others in similar circumstances
now produce none, even though welfare has become quite
generous.

We have to accept that. We will not get the right answers until we
ask the right questions, but we are not there yet.
Without going into detail, we do have some early returns on a program
of counseling and education with respect to teenage births, and we find
no effect; a very intensive effort now 4 years in place with nothing to
show. But that is all right, the effort has begun. Eight years ago, it
would not have come.
So I just want to express my admiration and my thanks to the
eloquent, persuasive Senator from Indiana.
Mr. President, I see the Senator from Missouri has risen. I yield the
floor.
Mr. ASHCROFT addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I want to join the senior Senator from
New York in commending the Senator from Indiana for an outstanding,
insightful, and dispassionate analysis of

[[Page S 13501]]
a very, very difficult problem. Too often in this Chamber, we view this
problem as a financial problem or a governmental problem or a
bureaucratic problem. But I think the Senator from Indiana has clearly
alerted us to the fact that this is a problem for individuals, and it
is a problem for families, and it is a problem for our culture.
I believe the measure which he and I are proposing is a measure which
takes into account our understanding that we do not believe that
government is the complete answer to the challenges we face. As a
matter of fact, the Senator from Indiana has noted with clarity that
there are many, many efforts by government which have been attended by
only modest success, if it can be described as success at all.
When those enterprises are compared with the efforts that have been
made by a number of private groups, including faith-based
organizations, it is clear that the success rate, sort of the change
rate, the therapy rate, the healing rate in those organizations is
dramatically higher.
I was pleased to have the opportunity to cooperate with him to try to
think of ways we could address our problems that go, as he puts it,
ingeniously beyond government.
So often, it is in the role and nature of government to establish the
minimums: If you do not follow these rules or these regulations, you
end up in jail. You have to pay this much or you have to do this much
in order to remain free. Government does not really call us to our
highest and best, frequently. That job is the job of other
institutions.
In order for us to solve this very substantial challenge, the
critical challenge and a crisis in terms of our human resources, we are
going to have to do more than minimums, the kind of thing government
frequently deals with. We are going to have to get into the arena of
maximums, and we have to find ways of calling on people to be at their
highest and their best, rather than just participating in the
fundamental threshold of what it takes to be a member of the club we
call our society.
So beyond government, to expect to do more than government would do,
to try to elicit responses from individuals who literally accept
responsibility for helping in this circumstance, we have come up with
this idea to provide incentives for individuals to invest their
resources and themselves in private charitable enterprises which have a
track record of doing what we have failed to do so miserably in our
welfare program.
None of us have to recount the failure of the welfare program. We
know that there are more people in poverty now than there were when we
started the war on poverty. We know that the number of children in
poverty is a higher percentage than it was when we started this assault
on poverty by government. We can only conclude that the prisoners of
the war, the POW's of the war on poverty, have been the children of
America, the future of this great country.
What can we do to try to break this cycle of dependency, to slow the
problem instead of grow the problem, because it occurs to me that as we
have sought to remedy this situation, to bring therapy to this wound
through government, we have exacerbated the problem; the hemorrhage has
increased rather than been stemmed.
Perhaps it is instructive for us to look into our past to find out
what might be helpful to us in the future.
Our current crisis in the cities is not singular, not unique, not
something that never happened before. We have had crises in our cities
before. Scholars have studied them, and they can point to ways in which
we might remediate them. And Professor Marvin Olasky, from Texas, has
written eloquently, and Gertrude Himmelfarb has written, as well, about
the same crisis that, 100 years ago, gripped American cities. One of
the interesting things about those crises is that they were attended by
a social outpouring, a civic commitment to deal with the problem.
The distinguished junior Senator from Illinois, yesterday, had a
picture on the floor of the Senate. It showed youths huddled against a
building, semi-clothed, barefooted, sleeping one upon the other, in
Chicago 100 years ago. It was a tragedy then, and what is happening to
our young people is a tragedy now. She had several suggestions that we
could remedy the tragedy with governmental guarantees today. It is
interesting to me that the tragedy was not remedied 100 years ago with
governmental guarantees--and I am not against Government and against
having the right kind of safety net and the right kind of transitional
welfare; but when welfare moves from being transitional to vocational,
and the Government becomes the keeper of the poor, and as the keeper of
the poor, the Government keeps people poor, we have missed part of the
equation.
One hundred years ago, a substantial component of the equation was
simply that citizens cared, and they volunteered and worked with one
another compassionately to meet the needs. We need to signal, state,
and we need to, as the Government, develop an understanding in this
culture, in our communities, in our cities across this country that we
cannot get this job done and expect and want people to participate as
volunteers.
There are interesting data that in the crisis of 100 years ago in New
York, there were two volunteers for every needy person. We have
substituted Government for volunteers, and now we have 200 needy people
for every social worker. That is just not a problem with the numerics,
because 200-to-1 is an incredible load. It is also a problem with the
character, not just the quantity. I am not impugning the character of
social workers. They are wonderful people that are devoting their
lives. But it is different to be administered to by a paid social
worker than by an individual who says, ``I love you and this community
enough to accept responsibility, and I want to be part of improving
your lot. I want to help you move from where you are to a place that is
closer to where I am. I want to help you elevate yourself from
dependency to industry, from despair to hope.''
We need to do what can be done to send a strong signal that we want
the desperate and needy of America to be a part of the devoted
aspiration and contribution of our communities and cities and citizens.
This modest proposal says to people that if you will give to charitable
organizations that meet the needs of the needy, you will get your
normal tax break. But if, in addition to giving your money, you will
also get involved--and the Senator from Indiana said it very clearly,
that we want the extra impact of citizen involvement, but we want the
extra accountability of citizen involvement, citizens who do not just
write a check as a means of shedding the consciousness and excusing
themselves from the challenge, but we want citizens who want the check
as a way of propelling themselves into the challenge, to meet the
challenge.
So if you will contribute to these charitable organizations and you
will match your contribution with an hour a week, on the average,
through the year--50 hours--we will say as a Government that we honor
this, that we respect it, and we want to encourage this, we want to
teach this as a value and virtue in American life, and we care for each
other to the extent--to use the phrase of the Senator from Indiana--
that we go beyond Government and that we get into the involvement, one
with another, and we have an interface between those in need and those
who can meet the need. That would carry us forward.
It is with that in mind that we have raised this proposal for debate
in the U.S. Senate. I believe that I could stand here and go through a
litany of these kinds of nongovernmental organizations, and I have
pages of them and their examples and success rates and their success
stories. The Senator from Indiana has appropriately indicated that they
operated about one-twentieth of the cost that normally attends the
governmental function.
I could talk about the experience of certain Governors, like Governor
Engler, who has a program that is successful. He says the reason is
that because he has been able to get the Lutheran Services to be a
party to it, because they care at a different level. There is a
different character about the helping hand of a volunteer than there is
about the heavy hand of Government. He says that the reason the program
works is that this caring, loving, helping hand is available 24 hours a

[[Page S 13502]]
day, 7 days a week. He says that in order to get certain of the
Government programs to work, he has to ask people to have their
problems between 9 in the morning and 5 in the afternoon, Monday
through Friday. The truth of the matter is that needs arise in ways
that require caring and help and healing, rather than bureaucracy.
So it is with this in mind that we have suggested to this U.S. Senate
for its consideration, as it ponders what we do to meet the challenges
of lives that are in despair, that we would consider making a statement
that we want to revalue the work of volunteers. We want to say to
individuals: Do not just write a check, but make a contribution with
your life. And that could help us on the track to the solution that
helped when, 100 years ago, volunteers overwhelmed the problems and
began to move us on a track toward recovery.
While we are continuing in a mode of intensifying the problem, we
need to be switching to a mode of mitigating the challenge. I think we
can do that by encouraging the citizens to be the caring hand of the
community and doing it in a way that expresses the care that healthy
communities must have in order to be surviving communities.
I commend the Senator from Indiana for his outstanding statement of
the opportunity for us to move beyond Government. I think we should
take the small steps that are available to us and ultimately take
larger steps to make sure that we move beyond Government so that we get
into the category of success and remediation and we avoid what we have
experienced to date, which is despair and aggravation of the problem.
I am grateful to the Senator and I thank him.
Mr. COATS. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. ASHCROFT. Yes.
Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I ask whether or not the Senator from
Connecticut is here to offer an amendment. Senator Ashcroft and I
intend to withdraw our amendment. But if there are others who want to
speak on it, we obviously would encourage that. I have gotten some
indication that the Senator from Pennsylvania wishes to speak on it. At
the appropriate time, we will withdraw that.
Before I yield, let me commend my colleague for his articulate,
passionate statement on behalf of a concept that I believe is critical
to the future of this country, something that we must embody, embrace,
and something that we must advance if we are to address this crisis
that exists in our society.
He brings his experience as a Governor. He has had the opportunity
that many of us have not had in dealing with this on a day-to-day basis
from an executive position and as someone who was charged with the
responsibility of carrying out policy instead of just making policy. He
brings the experience of someone with a deep heritage of service to
others, and his commitment to this concept is commendable.
I want to thank him not just for his support but for his initiation
and his leadership on this effort. We have been going along parallel
tracks and discovered that we were attempting to advance the same
ideas, so we merged our efforts.
His thoughts about involving individuals as volunteers, as well as
just the writing of a check for the tax credit, was instrumental to
this package. His work and efforts and writings and speaking about it
have been very, very important to this.
I thank him and I want to tell him what a privilege it is to go
forward together and hopefully have others join us as we attempt to
address this next stage in the welfare debate.
I thank the Senator from Missouri.
Mr. ASHCROFT. I thank the Senator from Indiana. I yield the floor.
Mr. SANTORUM. I thank the Senator from Connecticut for his patience.
I know the Senator has an amendment to follow this. My understanding is
this is an amendment we can accept on this side of the aisle. I will
not make him wait unduly.
I wanted to speak on this issue because, like the Senator from
Missouri and the Senator from Indiana, I, too, had a piece of
legislation I introduced that provided a tax credit for charities that
do work for the poor. It is a tax credit for people who give to
charities, who do work for the poor.
I, too, like the Senator from Indiana, see this as the next logical
step in the devolution of welfare. We had an experiment in the 1960's
that tried welfare as a grand social scheme that, in fact, should be a
national problem solved on a national level by national bureaucrats and
national policy. I think what we have seen is that has been a dangerous
and, in fact, a very destructive way of approaching this problem.
What is being offered here on the floor is, in my opinion, sort of a
steppingstone to what the final solution should be to solving the
welfare problem. What we are doing here is a block grant back to the
States, saying we need States to have more flexibility. We need to get
it back down to the local level.
What Senator Coats, Senator Ashcroft, and I have put forward is
really this next logical step, which is why do we have the Government
directly involved in setting policy on poverty at all? Why do we not
enable, empower the people who are most concerned about the people who
are poor, and that is people in their community, family members,
neighbors, and people living down the street?
Those we have found over time are the most effective poverty-fighting
tools that we have in our society--people who actually care about their
neighbors and their friends and their family members.
What we need to do is take all this money that gets channeled through
Washington and instead of having it channeled through here, take that
money and directly send it to the nonprofit churches, in many cases, or
community organizations that are directly involved on the front line of
solving the issue of poverty in the communities.
I know the Senator from Indiana represents large cities like
Indianapolis that have communities in them in those cities where there
are no jobs, there is no nothing, there is no institution left. The
only thing left is a church that holds the whole community together.
Why would it not be proper for those people who are paying taxes in
that community to be able to take a tax credit to help that church
which has dedicated their mission to helping people in poverty, instead
of sending their tax dollars here so we can pay a bunch of people to
tell them how to run their lives?
Get people who actually care about that next-door neighbor, who know
the young girl who got pregnant and has to raise that child in a
destructive home environment who lives next door. Get people who know
their names, who care about them not because they are a number in the
computer but because they are the next-door neighbor they have known
for years.
That is what this is all about. This is not a devolution in the sense
we are throwing away a responsibility and giving it to somebody else.
What we are suggesting is there are logical people to handle these
problems and it is not us. It is people who truly care.
What the Coats amendment, the Ashcroft, and my amendment would have
done is just to take a small portion of the money that we spend on
welfare and have that money be used to directly support communities.
The question here is not whether or not we should address the issue
of poverty. It is who is best able to deal with the issue of poverty.
Go home and ask folks as I have, and talk to people who are in the
welfare system or who are poor, who are working poor, and ask them
where they have gotten the most help. Is it from the person who sits
behind the computer who has a caseload of hundreds, who processes paper
and checks, or is it the minister or the person at the local soup
kitchen, or whatever the case, or neighborhood food banks? Are those
the people who actually care, who actually work to make it work for the
people who are poor? That is really the fundamental issue here.
I was not on the floor at the time the Senator from Indiana gave his
remarks, but I am looking forward to reading them in the Record because
of the very high praise from the Senator from New York on his comments.
I can only imagine the passion that I know the Senator from Indiana
has on this issue, the care and concern he has for making sure that we
develop a system here in Washington that truly is caring, not
caretaking; that is truly people oriented, humane in the very

[[Page S 13503]]
sense of human involvement with other human beings whose problems are
not just something that we pay to maintain, but work to solve.
That is the fundamental, I think, logical next step and I am
confident, when we address this welfare issue again, that we will see
an increased support for this kind of amendment and for this approach
to deal with the problem.
I am hopeful, whether we do it in the tax bill this time or whether
its day is a little into the future, we are laying the groundwork now
for something that I think will be--I believe this amendment is the
most significant amendment that has been offered on the floor. I know
it will be withdrawn because it is a tax matter and subject to points
of order and all the problems, but I think this amendment is the most
significant amendment about getting people involved in the communities
to help their neighbors.
One of the great things about America is our relationships with our
neighbors and our sense of community. The Federal Government has
systematically, through welfare programs, said it is not our
responsibility to care for our neighbor anymore; you pay taxes, you
have Federal benefits, they will take care of them.
Well, folks, that may be nice and compassionate on the surface, but
what it does is separate you from the people you live next to, and you
no longer feel you are responsible for your neighbor. You feel that it
is not a community anymore, that we are a set of separate kingdoms who
pay our tributes to the lords and the lords will take care of
everybody. That does not work. That is not America.
What we need to get back to is the whole concept that we are in this
together, that we should be a community, that we do have a
responsibility for our neighbors, and that we want you to be actively
involved in participating, in making sure that your neighbors, as well
as the other people in your communities are not in poverty and are
living in dignity.
That is what this amendment does. I congratulate the Senator from
Indiana for his stewardship on this issue. I only wish I could be here
to vote for it, but I understand the need to withdraw the amendment.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair. I do want to introduce an amendment
following Senator Coats, but I have listened to the debate and I do
want to say a few words of support because I think my colleagues are
onto something here.
The human want, the human despair, the human suffering that is the
welfare crisis that we are attempting to address in this debate was not
caused by government.
There are many ways, I think we feel, in which government has
facilitated or enabled the problem to become worse. The problem begins
with people who have problems.
And it will not end until those people are helped by their neighbors,
by their communities, by a wide array of institutions.

What I am saying is, and I think this amendment gets to this, is that
government has not, itself, created the problem, although it may have
exacerbated it. In the same sense, government alone will not solve the
problem. We are going to need community groups, charitable groups,
people finding strength within themselves. This amendment recognizes
that and tries to create, in the way that we do this in America, tries
to create a motivation through the tax system for people to get
personally involved, once again, in greater numbers--many are now,
obviously, but to be involved in greater numbers--helping their
neighbors, their poor neighbors, work themselves out of poverty. So I
think there is something here.
There is something here, also, in the fact that this well-intentioned
program that started in the 1930's, Aid to Families With Dependent
Children--in that sense, the contemplation of Congress was to help the
children of widows--has become so large that in some measure it has
sent a message to a lot of very well-intentioned, good-natured
Americans that the poverty of their neighbors is not their concern.
In some ways we have become so good at governmentalizing our
community responsibility that we have sent a message that individuals
have less need to be responsible for those among us who are poor. This
amendment cuts, also, at that conclusion and says to all of us we all
have a part to play as we used to before government became so big and
communities became so big.
I believe that these problems of babies born to mothers who are
teenagers, unmarried--a cycle, generation after generation of welfare
dependency--are so deep that it will take both government and private
philanthropic, charitable, and religious institutions to make it
ultimately better. But the very important point that this amendment
makes is that Government cannot do it alone. And I congratulate my
friends for introducing the amendment and making that point.
Finally, I say this. I also think they have made an important
statement here in making it clear that religious organizations, faith-
based organizations, should be eligible for this credit for
participation in poverty assistance programs because those
organizations, as I have seen in cities and poor areas throughout
Connecticut, often have the greatest motivation, the greatest success
rate in dealing with problems of poverty. When we bring it down to the
individuals who are the beneficiaries of this program, I have yet to
find a government program that could do a better job than a religious
organization at instilling in the individual that necessary sense of
self-worth which is the precondition to any genuine and hopeful effort
to make that person's life better--based, of course, on the insight
that my friend and colleague from Indiana referred to generally, which
is that if you begin to see yourself as a child of God, and in that
sense appreciate your value, then you are going to be better able to go
ahead and remake your life in a way that testifies to that insight.
I know this amendment is going to be withdrawn. I do think the
Senator from Indiana, the Senator from Missouri, and the Senator from
Pennsylvania made a very important point here. I hope we can come back
to it. I hope we will have the opportunity to come back to it, to try
to truly not only make government more efficient in dealing with
poverty, but to tap the truly powerful good nature of the American
people that is out there and, I think, ready to be tapped to help those
of their neighbors who are poorer in money and in hope and in
opportunity than they are.
I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I congratulate the Senator from
Connecticut for his excellent comments and apologize to him for jumping
ahead of him. I did not realize he was rising to speak on the Coats
amendment. Had I known that, I would have let him go forward. I thought
he was just standing for his amendment. So I apologize for that, and I
appreciate very much his comments and his support of this concept. The
Senator hit the nail on the head very, very well, and I appreciate his
support.
I congratulate, again, the Senator from Indiana for offering this
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I offer my sincere thanks to both the
Senator from Pennsylvania and the Senator from Connecticut for their
warm words of support for a concept that I think we all endorse and
believe in. I, like the Senator from Connecticut, hope that we have
initiated what will be, in the end, a historic debate about how we can
effectively reach out and help those Americans who, in many instances
through no fault of their own, find themselves in desperate
circumstances, but do it in a way that is effective. There is
compassion beyond government, and I think we are beginning to discuss
and tap into what that is.
Because the amendment the Senator from Missouri and I have offered is
subject to points of order, because it is a tax matter not directly
relevant to this bill, because there needs to be more discussion and
more foundation laid, in a moment I am going to ask unanimous consent
to withdraw the amendment.
I think this has been a substantive discussion of an extremely
important item that I hope will be brought back up for further debate
and will become a integral part of the next tax debate on how we
allocate resources of citizens of

[[Page S 13504]]
this Nation, how we allocate those in a way that makes a difference in
people's lives and gives us the sense that our work is not in vain and
that the check we write is truly making a difference, not only in our
neighbors' lives but in society.
We look forward to that extended debate, and we look forward to the
day when we can leave the amendment on the floor and bring it to a vote
before the Senate. This is not the appropriate time to do that.
Therefore, I ask unanimous consent the amendment that is currently
pending be withdrawn.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Grams). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
The amendment (No. 2539) was withdrawn.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.

Amendment No. 2514, As Modified

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I ask the amendment I filed at the
desk, amendment No. 2514, be called up.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is now
pending.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent a modification
of the amendment that I send to the desk at this time be accepted.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the modification?
Without objection, the amendment is so modified.
The amendment (No. 2514), as modified is as follows:

On page 17, line 8, insert ``, for each of fiscal years
1998 and 1999, the amount of the State's job placement
performance bonus determined under subsection (f)(1) for the
fiscal year,'' after ``State family assistance grant for the
fiscal year''.
On page 17, line 22, insert ``, the applicable percent
specified under subsection (f)(2)(B)(ii) for such fiscal
year,'' after ``subparagraph (B)''.
On page 29, between lines 15 and 16, insert:
``(f) Job Placement Performance Bonus.--
``(1) In general.--The job placement performance bonus
determined with respect to a State and a fiscal year is an
amount equal to the amount of the State's allocation of the
job placement performance fund determined in accordance with
the formula developed under paragraph (2).
``(2) Allocation formula; bonus fund.--
``(A) Allocation formula.--
``(i) In general.--Not later than September 30, 1996, the
Secretary of Health and Human Services shall develop and
publish in the Federal Register a formula for allocating
amounts in the job placement performance bonus fund to States
based on the number of families that received assistance
under a State program funded under this part in the preceding
fiscal year that became ineligible for assistance under the
State program as a result of unsubsidized employment during
such year.
``(ii) Factors to consider.--In developing the allocation
formula under clause (i), the Secretary shall--
``(I) provide a greater financial bonus for individuals in
families described in clause (i) who remain employed for
greater periods of time or are at greater risk of long-term
welfare dependency; and
``(II) take into account the unemployment conditions of
each State or geographic area.
``(B) Job placement performance bonus fund.--
``(i) In general.--The amount in the job placement
performance bonus fund for a fiscal year shall be an amount
equal to the applicable percentage of the amount appropriated
under section 403(a)(2)(A) for such fiscal year.
``(ii) Applicable percentage.--For purposes of clause
(i)(I), the applicable percentage shall be determined in
accordance with the following table:

The applicable
``For fiscal year: percentage is:
1998..............................................................3
1999..............................................................4

On page 29, line 16, strike ``(f)'' and insert ``(g)''.
On page 66, line 13, insert ``and a preliminary assessment
of the job placement performance bonus established under
section 403(f)'' before the end period.
On page 77, in the matter inserted between lines 21 and 22
(as inserted on page 19 of the modification of September 8,
1995), strike ``(C) An increase in the percentage of families
receiving assistance under this part that earn an income.''
and insert ``(C) An increase in the number of families that
received assistance under a State program funded under this
part in the preceding fiscal year that became ineligible for
assistance under the State program as a result of
unsubsidized employment during such year.''.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. As indicated, I submitted the amendment on behalf of
my colleague from Connecticut, Senator Dodd, and the Senator from
Georgia, Mr. Nunn.

Privilege of the Floor

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Cindy
Baldwin, who is a presidential management intern fellow in my office
this year, be granted the privilege of the floor for the remainder of
the debate on welfare reform.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, there is a happy story to be told in
this amendment. I appreciate the fact we have come to a bipartisan
agreement here on going forward with this amendment. This amendment, I
think, goes to the heart of both bills, which is work, which is taking
the welfare program and changing it from a kind of income maintenance
program to a work opportunity, work creation, work realization program,
hopefully, and definitely in the context of the private sector.
Mr. President, there are a lot of different ways, as I have spoken
before on this floor, in this debate that the current welfare system is
not working and does not reflect the best values of our country.
Obviously, the extent to which it has helped to enable the breakdown of
families, the birth of babies to teenaged young women without fathers
in the house, and despair and hopelessness for the kids is profoundly
troubling and has catastrophic implications for our society. But I
believe that at the heart of the American people's hopes in this
welfare reform debate is the question of work. In fact, a recent Wall
Street Journal-NBC poll found that 62 percent of the respondents
believe that work is the most important goal of welfare reform compared
to 19 percent who considered reducing out-of-wedlock births as most
critical. I do not mean to diminish the importance of the second goal
because I think in terms of the long-term impact on the welfare rolls
it is critical.
But just to suggest that the most profound way in which this system
has digressed from the commonly held values and beliefs of the American
people is the extent to which welfare does not encourage work, the
extent to which it has discouraged work, the extent to which it
frustrates and infuriates so many of the American people who feel that
they are out there working hard every day paying taxes, and they fear
and believe that too many of their tax dollars are going to support a
system, this welfare system, that does not adequately encourage, force
the people on it to get up, to go out and go to work.
Maybe that is why, as we look at the two basic underlying proposals
that have been made here on each side of the aisle, that the word
``work'' appears in the titles that their sponsors have given them.
Senator Dole's proposal is, as I understand it, entitled ``The Work
Opportunity Act.'' Senator Daschle's proposal, which was heard as a
substitute earlier and defeated, is called the Work First Act, and that
is for the reasons that I have stated. The goal here is to cut the
welfare rolls, to get people to work, and to create opportunity.
As these two proposals have come along, I think we have seen some
ways in which they are quite similar and ways in which they digress
that have caused some concern among some of us. It is interesting and
important to note similarities because sometimes in this kind of
debate, they get missed. Both proposals, Senator Dole's and Senator
Daschle's, set essentially the same goal when it comes to work--maybe
some slight difference in wording--but that 50 percent of the people on
welfare, the families, the potential income earners, be in jobs by the
year 2000. It is a goal that is common to both bills. But the way we
get there is different, and that is what has concerned some of us as we
have watched the debate go forward.
In Senator Dole's bill there is a 5-percent penalty at the end if you
do not achieve the 50-percent placement of people in jobs. In Senator
Daschle's bill, a different approach is taken. You might call it the
carrot as opposed to the stick. And the carrot here is to say that we
have to focus in and hold the States to a standard, and an important
standard, which is the placement of welfare recipients in unsubsidized
jobs, which is to say private sector jobs. We have some ideas looking
at the experience about how to do that and where to do it, and our
experience suggests building onto some of the cases and grants and
programs that have been

[[Page S 13505]]
carried out under the Family Support Act of 1988, that the best thing
to do is to not spend too much time at this business of training,
although training is often necessary, but to focus on getting welfare
recipients out there into a job, and then working with them and
training them to make sure that they carry out that job well and that
they do so in the context of the work that they are actually
performing.
Senator Daschle's proposal, as I said, used the carrot, and it said
that what we are going to measure every year is what percentage of
people on welfare in a given State have been placed into private sector
jobs. It is not enough to gauge how many are in training programs,
because we have done this before. And people can spend a lot of time in
training programs with nowhere to go, all dressed up and no job to
take, or no job that they are willing to take.
This proposal, creating the personal empowerment contract, is
somewhat like Senator Dole's bill, which basically says when people
sign up for welfare they have to sign a contract, and it has mutual
responsibility--no more blank check. You get a welfare check. It is not
even called a welfare check anymore; it is a temporary employment
assistance check, and one of the things you have to continue to do to
get that check is to go out and work, accept any job that is offered,
understanding that that is better than being on welfare, and that it is
putting you on the first step of a ladder in the private sector job
market that can take you up and up to self-sufficiency.
So in Senator Daschle's proposal, a bonus was given to the States, an
incentive beginning in 1998, creating a pool of 3 percent of the
overall block grant authorized under Senator Dole's underlying
legislation; $16.8 billion a year in that block grant; 3 percent of
that money in 1998, 4 percent in 1999, 5 percent in 2000, put into an
incentive pool to be distributed to the States based on their success
in getting people off the welfare, not into training programs, not into
public works programs or those subsidized jobs, although those can be
good sometimes, too, but into private sector jobs.
We think that would be not only an important incentive to change the
orientation in terms of the beneficiaries of welfare, the welfare
recipients, but we think it would be a very healthy way to shake up the
welfare bureaucracy back home in the States, to create incentives that
are different from today's.
Too often in today's welfare system the incentives encourage States
and administrators and caseworkers alike to make income maintenance--
not job placement--their primary mission--income maintenance, write out
the check, process the application, get the check to the recipient.
That becomes the focus of the system, not stopping the writing of the
checks, getting the recipient off of welfare and getting them out into
an income earning job.
The State administrators and caseworkers too often now are sent the
message that it really does not matter whether or not they go the extra
mile and spend the extra money to remove a recipient from welfare and
into a private sector job. That is what this job placement bonus is all
about. It sends a message to the States that, if they, their
administrators, their case workers, go the extra mile to put somebody
from welfare into a private sector job, that it will pay, that the
State will receive more money, a job placement bonus, a simple yet
critical tool to change the incentives in the welfare office back home
from income maintenance to job placement. A bonus can, and I believe
will, turn the welfare office into an employment office, which is what
it ought to be.
Mr. President, so we had these two different visions, and I was
prepared to offer a separate amendment to incorporate the job bonus
provisions of Senator Daschle's proposal into the underlying bill. We
have had the opportunity to reason together. We have had some very good
conversations with Senator Roth, whose modifications to Senator Dole's
underlying bill I will describe in a minute, and I think we have come
up with a superb compromise which I hope people on both sides of the
aisle can support.
Senator Roth amended the underlying proposal consistent with the work
that I have been privileged to be involved in with him, in his time as
chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee and ranking minority
member before, to try to not only create programs but to create
standards by which we can judge those programs as any business would do
and to reward those who perform better under the programs we have
created.
So in Senator Roth's amendment, and provisions included in the
underlying Dole bill, a 5-percent bonus pool is created in the year
2000 which would reward the States, for instance, in proportion to the
reductions that they had achieved in the length of time families were
receiving welfare payments, or the increases in the number of welfare
families receiving child support. In other words, how many deadbeat
dads had been shaken and awakened and finally were carrying out their
responsibilities.
So here is the agreement I believe we have, and I am very grateful
for it. It is carried out in the modification to my amendment, Mr.
President, which I have sent to the desk.
Under this modification, in 1998, pursuant to the Work First
proposal, there would be created a pool equal to 3 percent of the
national block grant of $16.8 billion which would be contributed to the
States based on their success in getting people off welfare and into a
private, a real private sector job.
In 1998, that would begin with 3 percent. In 1999, the pool would go
to 4 percent. And in the year 2000, Senator Roth's provisions remain to
create a 5-percent pool that would be distributed to the States based
on five factors, four of which were in Senator Roth's initial proposal,
and the fifth would be the one that I have referred to which would be a
measure of the extent to which the States have placed welfare
recipients in private sector jobs.
I think this is a superb agreement. It makes both approaches better.
I think it strengthens the underlying proposal by Senator Dole. And
more than the question of which side of the aisle it may have come
from, or which proposal it strengthens, it puts teeth into the aim that
I think all of us have, which is to get people off welfare and back to
work, to save the taxpayers' money that we are now spending on a
program that has created such dependency and despair, and to raise up
the hopes and sense of opportunity for those who have been condemned to
that life of despair on welfare.
So I thank Senator Roth and his staff particularly, Senator Dole and
the leadership on the Republican side, and all those who have worked
with us on this side. This proposal, I take some pride in noting, for a
job-placement bonus emerges from work that has been done by the
Democratic Leadership Council Progressive Policy Institute aimed at
creating the right incentives in this system to get people off welfare
and to work. I am privileged to be the chair of that group, now having
succeeded my friend and colleague, the Senator from Louisiana, who I
also see in the Chamber and who I am privileged to say has been a
cosponsor of this amendment with me and Senator Conrad, Senator Nunn,
and Senator Dodd.
Mr. President, I thank the Chair and my colleagues for their interest
in this amendment and for what I hope will be unanimous support. I
yield the floor.
Mr. BREAUX. Will the Senator yield?
I commend the Senator for structuring and offering remarks on this
amendment.
I think it is important that when we do real welfare reform we do it
not just to penalize States that fail to meet certain targets and goals
but actually have an incentive to do something positive instead of
something negative. Instead of from Washington punishing States, if you
will, that do not meet the goals, we try to get them to accomplish and
meet those targets by incentives and bonuses and extra awards if, in
fact, they are able to meet the targets that we set.
Frankly, I think that is a far more efficient and far more
appropriate method of trying to get States to meet the goals than to
try to penalize them. I think this is in keeping with the partnership
concept. This is not Big Brother demanding the States do something all
of the time but to really say we hope they can meet these goals and, if
they do, they are going to be rewarded and not just operate with a
heavy hand

[[Page S 13506]]
by penalizing States that for various reasons cannot meet the goals we
set.
So I commend the Senator for recognizing this very important fact in
offering what I think is a major contribution to improving the welfare
reform bill.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank my friend and colleague from Louisiana. I
thank him for all his work on this amendment. He gets right to the
point, which I do want to just stress again, which is that our concern
was the underlying bill by providing a 5-percent penalty at the end, at
2000, if States did not achieve the 50-percent reduction in welfare
recipients to work, would be creating a situation where there might be
an incentive not to comply.
In other words, complying will cost some money, getting 50 percent of
the welfare recipients to work will cost some money and if there is no
incentive, no provision, no way that the States by good behavior can
get that money, they were going to be left with a series of choices
which were not going to be very good. They would either have to raise
State and local taxes, deny assistance to needy families to get money,
or create a situation where kids would be left at home because there
was not adequate funds for child care for people to try to get off
welfare and go to work.
So we were worried that the alternative would be that they would
start out making, unfortunately, the rational conclusion that maybe it
was better not to try to reach the goal of 50-percent welfare to work,
give up the 5 percent as part of the penalty because that would
actually cost them less than what they needed to meet the goal.
We think that putting these proposals together in this amendment now
creates a positive incentive along the way--1998, 1999, 2000--among
States to have them compete, if you will, to have a greater part of
that pool we are creating to see which State can place more people into
private sector jobs and therefore receive more money. Again, I thank my
friend from Louisiana, and I yield the floor.
Mr. President, if there is no further debate, it had been my
understanding that this was acceptable on both sides. As I said before,
I really want to stress, with some sense of gratitude, the support that
Senator Roth has given in putting this together, I gather, agreed to by
leadership on the Republican side, and I sure hope this is part of a
sense of compromise but also honing our purposes and coming together in
ways that will allow us to achieve a strong bipartisan majority in
favor of true welfare reform.
I urge adoption of the amendment.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise as a cosponsor of the
Lieberman-Breaux-Conrad amendment. I am also pleased that we have been
able to reach a compromise with Senator Roth on this issue.
Mr. President, the funding for work in the Republican bill is
woefully insufficient. When the Finance Committee considered welfare
reform, the Congressional Budget Office told me that funding in the
Republican bill was so insufficient, that only 6 States would have a
work program. CBO said States were more likely to take the 5 percent
penalty in the bill than put welfare recipients to work.
Now, after the Dole bill has undergone several modifications, CBO
says that only 10 to 15 States will have resources sufficient to meet
the work requirements under the bill. Seventy to eighty percent of the
States will simply not operate the kind of work program advocated by
the bill.
The risk that most States will not even have a work program makes the
Lieberman-Breaux-Conrad amendment extremely important.
Our amendment establishes a bonus fund under the block grant for
States that move people into unsubsidized, private sector jobs. Our
compromise with Senator Roth dramatically improves the incentives for
States to operate meaningful work programs, even in the face of
woefully insufficient resources.
It is important to remember that many welfare recipients are
difficult to employ and require more significant assistance in order to
become employable. Sixty three percent of long-term welfare
recipients--those on the rolls more than 5 years--lack a high school
diploma. Fifty percent of long-term welfare recipients had no work
experience in the year before the entered the welfare system.
Mr. President, I do not want to leave anyone with the impression that
our amendment is a panacea. It is not. Nor does our amendment fix the
significant problems in the Republican bill. Even with our amendment,
States will not have the resources to move long-term welfare dependents
into the private sector work force. However, the amendment I offering
with Senators Lieberman, Breaux, Nunn, and Dodd does provide a critical
incentive for States to get people into real jobs and off the welfare
rolls. It is a small, but important step toward improving the bill
before us.
I urge my colleagues to support the amendment, and again thank
Senator Roth for his willingness to work with us in reaching a
bipartisan compromise.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I am pleased Senator Lieberman proposed his
performance standards amendment and that we have been able to
collaborate on this important initiative. I also want to thank Senator
Hatfield for his interest in this issue and for his support.
Mr. President, the last time Congress passed major welfare
legislation was in 1988 to create the job opportunities and basic
skills training [JOBS] program. The intent of this legislation was to
move families from welfare to work. Since then, Federal and State
governments have spent almost $8 billion on this program alone. This
does not include JTPA or a variety of other employment and training
programs.
GAO has issued a number of reports on the JOBS Program. One need not
read past the title of a recent statement by GAO before the Committee
on Labor and Human Resources which states, ``AFDC Training Program
Spends Billions, But Not Well Focused on Employment.'' GAO testified,
``Today, more than 5 years after JOBS was implemented, we do not know
what progress has been made in helping poor families become employed
and avoid long-term welfare dependence.''
After spending $8 billion on this program, what has the program
achieved for the taxpayers or the welfare recipients? GAO does not
know. The Department of Health and Human Services does not know. The
existing AFDC quality control system cannot tell us. We simply do not
know.
Over the years, Congress has created a confused and confusing system
which rewards idleness and punishes work. The goal of employment has
been lost in an excessive bureaucracy. Education and training have been
separated from employment when a job is the real education and training
program people need. That is a system which makes sense only in a Lewis
Carroll story.
Mr. President, by now, it is generally well known that the Republican
welfare reform bill eliminates the JOBS Program and gives the power to
the States to design their own work solutions. However, we have also
taken an additional step to ensure that we will know whether the States
are effective in moving toward the goal of reducing dependency by
incorporating performance standards into the legislation. Senator
Lieberman's ideas and support strengthen this proposal.
These performance standards are consistent with the quality
assurance system already being discussed among the States. The
National Association of Human Services Quality Control Directors has
stated that, ``with the numerous welfare reform waivers being
implemented across the Nation, one essential component is the provision
of performance outcome measurements.''

The idea of establishing performance standards is not new. In the
Family Support Act of 1988, Congress required the Secretary of Health
and Human Services to develop and transmit to Congress a proposal for
measuring State progress. Those recommendations are nearly 4 years
overdue. Much of the testimony during the welfare hearings held since
March supported the idea of outcome-based performance standards. I do
not believe we need to wait any longer to implement that which we
called for 7 years ago. Earlier this year, the quality control
directors helped develop eight specific outcome-based measurements.
These measurements were developed by State officials from Delaware,
Illinois, California, Oregon, Kentucky, Georgia, Massachusetts,
Minnesota, Virginia, and West

[[Page S 13507]]
Virginia. The measurements included in the Republican bill are
consistent with those recommended standards.
Let me also point out there are inherent benefits to be realized in
whatever progress the States make toward these performance
measurements.
Block grants should not mean simply giving money to the States and
turning our backs on what they do with it. The purpose of public
assistance is to help families temporarily in need to return to
financial independence. Establishing performance standards will help us
hold the States accountable for this $16 billion program.
Properly understood, welfare reform is about reforming how Government
works. Under the present system, no one is accountable for results. In
1993, Congress took an important step toward outcome-based performance
through the Government Performance and Results Act. For the welfare
system and for other governmental programs as well, block grants to the
States are another important step in reform.
This next step in welfare reform may well become a giant leap in
reinventing Government. In the future, Government funds will no longer
be simply distributed to provide a good or service. By instituting a
quality assurance system based on performance standards, the American
people will know whether their hard-earned dollars worked as intended.
Over the past 30 years, we have spent $5.4 trillion on our longest war,
the war on poverty. Now is the time, before another 30 years go by, to
establish a system which will tell us whether the goals we have set are
being achieved. Performance standards will enable us to do exactly that
and we will not need the miles of regulations and thousands of
bureaucrats which now drive the system.
Again, I want to recognize and thank Senator Lieberman and Senator
Hatfield for their efforts on this legislation. I want to also express
my deep appreciation to Senator Dole for including my amendment in the
Republican substitute. We have taken a bold and important step in
changing the way Government works.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, the only way to permanently reduce the
welfare rolls is to put welfare recipients to work in unsubsidized,
private sector jobs with the skills to remain self-sufficient. It is
impossible for a welfare recipient to become economically self-
sufficient if that individual is not earning a paycheck.
Throughout this debate I have urged my colleagues to use common sense
in finding a solution to the perplexing problem of welfare dependency.
The Lieberman Work Bonus amendment makes good sense.
The amendment sets aside a small portion of the block grant to
provide bonuses to States that have been successful in placing
recipients in unsubsidized, private sector jobs. But getting a job is
not enough; welfare recipients must keep those jobs. So this amendment
provides an additional bonus for job retention.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment which will enable more
welfare recipients get the jobs they need to get off of welfare and
become self-sufficient.
Mr. President, an analysis by the Congressional Budget Office
estimates that 30 to 35 States will not meet the work rates established
in the Dole amendment. Given that reality, States may be tempted to cut
corners and find a quick fix rather than seek long-term solutions. What
may work in the short term will not achieve the lasting change we seek.
Last December, Iowa's Governor, Terry Branstad, told me at a hearing
that we need to make ``up front investments'' to achieve ``long-term
results.'' Iowa has been making these investments and is achieving
success. We have much more to do, but it is clear that the trends are
moving in the right direction. The welfare rolls are declining, more
welfare recipients are working, and costs for AFDC are down.
I believe that part of the reason Iowa is achieving such good results
is that welfare recipients have incentives to take jobs. They are able
to keep more of what they earn and are encouraged to save part of the
paychecks to deal with future emergencies.
Other States have also secured waivers to increase work incentives
and are having similar results. I believe we should encourage Iowa and
these other States to stay the course that is showing such promising
results.
The title of the Dole bill is the ``Work Opportunity Act.'' We need
to make it clear that the opportunity to work is not in some dead-end,
make-work Government job, but in a job that provides a paycheck.
The set-aside is a modest amount, but provides a powerful incentive
for States to duplicate successful job placement programs like that in
Riverside, CA. Or, of course, follow Iowa's lead on welfare reform.
I know I sound like a broken record but once again I am going to talk
briefly about the Iowa Family Investment Program. One of the greatest
successes of this new program is that more welfare recipients are
working.
The welfare reform program took effect on October 1, 1993. At the
time 18 percent of welfare recipients were working and earning income.
The number of people has been increasing and is now 32.6 percent.
This is just the number of people who are working and earning income.
It does not include the welfare recipients who are attending education
and training programs or who are performing community service or are
engaged in other worthwhile activities--32.6 percent of Iowa welfare
recipients are working and earning the paycheck that is critical to
moving them off the welfare rolls and keeping them off.
This amendment rewards States for doing that very thing. As I said
earlier, it just makes sense. Without such an incentive, I am concerned
that States may take the short course.
This amendment does not penalize any State, but merely provides an
incentive for putting people to work in real jobs that earn real
paychecks.
In closing, I ask unanimous consent that a recent editorial from the
Des Moines Register be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

[From the Des Moines Register, Sept. 2, 1995]

Working While on Welfare

Iowa's innovative welfare-reform program continues to look
good.
Just under two years ago, Iowa's Aid to Families with
Dependent Children program was converted to a new Family
Investment Program with the intent of moving more people off
welfare and into jobs. That for years has been the intent of
the AFDC welfare plan, which has had some success. But the
Iowa plan changed the ground rules, allowing welfare families
to keep more of their assets and their earnings to increase
incentives to get a job.
In July 1993, 18 percent of Iowa AFDC family heads held
jobs. The reform plan began three months later. By July 1994,
31 percent had jobs. By July of this year, the proportion had
risen to 32.6 percent--nearly twice the level of two years
earlier.
That 32.6 percent gives Iowa the highest ratio of working
welfare recipients in the nation.
The reform plan contains a carrot-and-stick approach. Under
both the old and new plans, workers' welfare benefits
decreased as earned income increased, but under the new plan
it decreases at a slower rate, meaning total income is
higher. Also, under the new plan, recipients can have higher
assets and still receive help--which encourages saving.
The stick: Recipients can lose benefits if they don't sign
a contract to get a job or job training, or if they sign but
don't live up to the contract's provisions. That has happened
to more than 1,000 former recipients. They still get food
stamps and medical care, and public health officials check on
the children. But no more cash grants.
Iowa is setting an example the nation would be wise to
follow.
Mr. GRASSLEY addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. GRASSLEY. We do accept the amendment on this side of the aisle.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment? If
not, the question then is on agreeing to the amendment.
So the amendment (No. 2514), as modified, was agreed to.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. BREAUX. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 2603

Mr. FAIRCLOTH addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
Mr. FAIRCLOTH. I call up my amendment 2603.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment 2603 is now pending.

[[Page S 13508]]

The Senator from North Carolina may proceed.
Mr. FAIRCLOTH. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment
be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The text of the amendment is printed in the Friday, September 8,
1995, edition of the Record.)
Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator
Helms be added as a cosponsor on this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Mr. President, before coming to the Senate I spent 45
years in the private sector meeting a payroll as a businessman and a
farmer. Every year I watched as the Congress went into session and
adjourned, leaving it more difficult for working taxpayers to make ends
meet because of the out-of-control Government spending programs that
have put our country on the path of fiscal disaster.
Of all the spending programs implemented by the Federal Government,
none has been a bigger failure than those programs collectively known
as welfare. President Johnson's war on poverty was launched with good
intentions, but it has been a miserable failure--a disaster. And in
many ways it has made the plight of the poor worse instead of better.
The current welfare system has become a national disaster.
A simple commonsense principle--that we have failed to heed--has
gotten our Nation and the poor into the present fix: You get more of
what you pay for. And for the past 30 years the Federal Government has
subsidized and thus promoted self-destructive behavior like
illegitimacy and family disintegration. Almost one in three American
children is born out-of-wedlock. In some communities the out-of-wedlock
birth rate is almost 80 percent.
What is needed is a dramatic change--a reversal of the trends and
programs of the last 30 years, and not another failed Federal
Government program, like the Family Support Act of 1988, which
perpetuates the problem of welfare dependency and increased them.
I know from first-hand experience that if you have a problem with
your business you have to do something about it immediately.
If you tinker around the edges and do not address the problem you
will be out of business. Unfortunately, far too few of my colleagues
have had the benefit of that sort of business experience. For many here
in the Senate, there is no problem that can not be fixed with another
Federal spending program and another appropriation of tax dollars.
Mr. President, these people may mean well and they may think that
they're being humane, but the way to solve a problem is to address the
root cause. And the root cause of the tragedy of welfare dependency is
illegitimacy, the rise in out-of-wedlock births. Only by seeking to
curb the rise in out-of-wedlock births can we possibly hope to reform
welfare.
The findings of the Dole bill state clearly:

The increase in the number of children receiving public
assistance is closely related to the increase in births to
unmarried women.

It goes on to say:

Children born out-of-wedlock are 3 times more likely to be
on welfare when they grow up.
Among single-parent families, nearly half of the mothers
who never married received AFDC while only one-fifth of
divorced mothers received AFDC.

This is all from the Dole bill.
Young women 17 and under who give birth outside marriage
are more likely to go on welfare and to spend more years on
welfare once enrolled.

That is why I have consistently urged the leadership to include
provisions like those in the House-passed bill which take away the
current cash incentives for teenage mothers to have children out-of-
wedlock.
And that is simply what it is--a cash incentive to encourage teenage
women to have children out of wedlock.
Currently, 40 percent of AFDC recipients are never-married women, and
never-married women are most likely to remain on welfare for 10 years
or more. Only by taking away the perverse cash incentive to have
children out-of-wedlock can we hope to slow the increase in out-of-
wedlock births, and ultimately end welfare dependency. We must take
away the cash incentive.
Middle-class American families who want to have children have to
plan, prepare, and save money because they understand the serious
responsibility involved in bringing children into the world. It is
unfair to ask these same people to send their hard-earned tax dollars
to support the reckless irresponsible behavior of a woman who has
children out of wedlock and continues to have them, expecting the
American taxpayers to pay for them, as we have done for the last 35
years.
I do not believe that the Federal Government should ever have been in
the business of saying to a 15- or 16-year-old girl, ``If and only if
you have a child out of wedlock we will send you a check in the mail
every month to arrive on the third day of the month.'' This is what we
say to them. ``If you have a child out of wedlock, we will send you a
check every month.''
The Federal Government should not be in the business of subsidizing
illegitimacy.
I believe that there should be a clear restriction on the use of
Federal funds to provide cash to unmarried teenage mothers. We should
provide in-kind aid or aid through supervised group homes. The mother
as well as the baby she is having need supervision. But we should not
use Federal tax dollars to send checks in the mail to unmarried teen
mothers. Any State government that believes in its heart that the best
way to assist teenage mothers in the State is to send that mother a
check in the mail should use State funds and not Federal funds.
The House-passed legislation contained a clear restriction on the use
of Federal funds to give cash welfare to unmarried teen mothers. States
are perfectly free to use their own money for that purpose. But not
Federal tax dollars.
I believe the House provision is correct. However, there has been a
lot of concern expressed that this policy is overly directive.
Therefore, in the amendment I have introduced, I have attempted to
strike an even greater balance between the need to combat illegitimacy
and the need for State flexibility.
My amendment takes the restriction on the use of Federal funds to
give cash to unmarried teen mothers and adds what has become known as
an ``opt-out.''
Under this amendment, Federal funds cannot be used to give to minor
mothers. But the State legislature wants to come into session and
overturn Federal policy, it is free to do so.
Under this amendment, if the State legislature wants to come into
session and overturn the Federal policy, they are free to do so.
States cannot continue the failed policies of the past by doing
nothing. They cannot just ignore the issue of teen illegitimacy and
hope it will float away. Any State which wishes to use Federal tax
dollars to give cash welfare to unwed mothers must go into session and
enact a law to do so. Therefore they will be responsible to the voters
in that State that sent them to the State legislature.
Thus, the amendment does not mandate a specific solution. But it will
generate careful State consideration of the issue. This amendment does
not prohibit State governments from using Federal funds for cash aid to
unmarried teenagers. But it forces them to consider very carefully what
they are doing before they continue to do so. It forces States to think
cautiously and deliberately before they choose to continue a policy
which has caused so much damage in the past.
If enacted, my amendment will generate the needed debate at the State
level on teenage pregnancy.
Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. FAIRCLOTH. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
Mr. GRASSLEY addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, the simple answer to the issue that is
before us, very well stated by the Senator from North Carolina, is that
the morals around us will change when the

[[Page S 13509]]
morals within us change. That is going to be a slow process. That does
not make any less important the issue that is before us.
The Senator from North Carolina has very well stated a proposition,
and he probably feels he has a very good solution, a legislative
solution, to the ills that he has adequately stated.
So I do not disagree with the pronouncements and description of the
problem. I do disagree with the legislative solution. So I have to take
exception to the approach by the Senator from North Carolina, because
it is a very difficult issue.
I have given it a great deal of thought, and I believe it is
important that it is being discussed. A lot of people would just as
soon not discuss it. Even a lot of people within this body would just
as soon not discuss it.
Last year, we heard it very eloquently stated by Bill Bennett, our
former Secretary of Education, in his raising the concern that the cost
to the society of moral decline since the 1960's has been very
devastating. He published, as you recall, what he referred to as the
``index of leading cultural indicators,'' a compilation which attempted
to demonstrate a data base analysis of cultural issues. It was a
statistical portrait from 1960 to the present of the moral social
behavior conditions of our modern American society.
It was in the Wall Street Journal that he wrote about quantifying
America's decline. He cited some of the statistics from the index.
While social spending in the United States since 1960 increased
dramatically, the social indicators during the same period showed
overwhelming declines. For example, Dr. Bennett says that in the last
30 years, while there has been more than a fivefold increase in social
spending at all levels of government, there has been a 650-percent
increase in violent crime, a 419-percent increase in illegitimate
births, a quadrupling of divorce rates, a tripling of the percentage of
children living in single-parent homes, more than a 200-percent
increase in the teenage suicide rate, and a drop of almost 80 points in
the SAT scores.
He said that perhaps more than anything else, America's cultural
decline is evidence of a shift in the public's attitude and beliefs.
Our society now places less value than before on what we owe to others
as a matter of moral obligation, less value on sacrifice as a moral
good, less value on social conformity and respectability, and less
value on correctness and restraint in matters of physical pleasure and
sexuality.
He also stated the good news is that what has been self-inflicted can
be self-corrected. So I think Bill Bennett, in stating a crisis
situation in American society, has not stated that there is no hope. In
fact, very correctly he believes that it is within us as a society and
individuals within our society to correct this situation.
The Senator from North Carolina has described a situation within the
welfare system that contributes somewhat to this that needs to be dealt
with. The only question is, should it be dealt with at the State level
through the State legislatures, or should it be dealt with by those of
us in Congress?
I say that the States have proven in many areas of welfare reform
that they are better equipped to deal with those issues than we are.
So in the devaluation of traditional views, we have seen a reciprocal
increase in self-destructive behavior. This self-destructive behavior
in turn manifests itself in our communities, in our families, and it
leads to an increase in destructive forces for our entire Nation. And
it has costs with it.
We are talking about societal costs of illicit sexual relations. You
know them better than I do: The sexually transmitted diseases; teen
pregnancies that cut short bright futures; abortion; broken hearts;
broken homes, not to mention the financial costs to individuals,
families, communities and, again, our entire Nation.
William Raspberry addressed this concern in a Washington Post
article. He remarked that:

To a striking degree, the problems we worry most about--
teenage pregnancy, fatherless households, AIDS and other
sexually transmitted diseases, dropping out of school, infant
mortality, even aspects of poverty--are the consequences of
inappropriate sexual behavior.

He goes on to say:

The hip response is to redouble AIDS research, establish
birth control clinics in nurseries and schools, distribute
condoms and clean needles, in general to teach kids what to
do in the back seat of a car.

He also goes on to say:

It is all very well to try to save people from disastrous
consequences of their behavior, but,

he emphasizes,

doesn't it make sense to try to discourage some of the
behavior in the first place? A part of the message must be
directed not just at the awful consequences but at the deadly
behavior itself.

I sense what the Senator from North Carolina is saying is that at the
very least, we should not give financial incentive to this sort of
behavior through the welfare system which comes from the taxpayers of
America. The fact is, the sexual liberation movement of the sixties
demonstrated itself to be a socially and morally bankrupt one. The
once-accepted practices are perceived by the mainstream as an abject
failure.
We would not have this welfare reform issue before us if that was not
true. It is time that our social institutions and our Nation as a whole
return to the teachings of the moral obligations: Self-sacrifice,
social conformity, and abstinence. They are truly virtues to be upheld,
and society appreciates them.
Those who teach otherwise will have an increasingly hard sell to a
growingly skeptical mainstream, and that is true or we would not even
have this welfare issue before us.
Here is some of the specific research on the consequences of being
born out of wedlock or living in a single-parent home. These children
have specific health risks, substantially higher risks of being born at
very low or moderately low birth rates. There are specific educational
risks as well. They are more likely to experience low verbal cognitive
attainment. They are three times more likely to fail and repeat a year
in grade school than are children from intact, two-parent homes. They
are almost four times more likely to be expelled or suspended from
school. Children of teenage single parents have lower educational
aspirations and a greater likelihood of becoming teenage parents
themselves.
As I read this research, as we point to what is wrong--and you have
all heard it--it is very obvious why welfare reform is an issue. Not
only are there health risks and educational risks, but there are also
social risks. And welfare reform is seen as a way of reducing those
social risks. Being born out of wedlock significantly reduces the
chances of a child growing up to have an intact marriage. These same
children are three times more likely to be on welfare when they grow
up.
They are also more likely to be poor. While only 9 percent of the
married-couple families with children under 18 have income below the
poverty level, 46 percent of the female-headed households with children
under 18 have income below the national poverty level. That is the
feminization of poverty. In single-parent families, where they have had
a divorce, the woman is most apt to immediately be into poverty. The
husband is not as likely to be. And then these risks are out there for
the children as well. But there is as much risk for the young mother as
well. The younger the mother, the less likely she is to finish high
school. If she has children before finishing high school, she is more
likely to receive welfare assistance for a longer period of time.
In fact, the Centers for Disease Control has estimated that between
1985 and 1990, the public cost of births to teenage mothers under the
Aid to Families with Dependent Children Program, the Food Stamp
Program, and the Medicaid Program was $120 billion.
Apart from the obvious consequences on the children, who have greater
health problems and lower educational aspirations, and the cost to the
young mother, who is less likely to gain independence, we have to look
at the consequences for society as well. That is what I believe the
Senator from North Carolina is looking at.
We have seen a dramatic rise in crime. Apart from reforming welfare,
dealing with crime seems to be the highest thing on the priority list
of our constituents.
According to the Bureau of Census, of those youth held for criminal
offenses

[[Page S 13510]]
within the State juvenile justice system, only 29.8 percent lived
primarily in a home with both parents. In contrast to these
incarcerated youth, 73.9 percent of the 62.8 million children in the
Nation's resident population were living with both parents.
So, Mr. President, in the face of all this evidence, is it not
ridiculous to deny the need to return to sanity? The breakdown of the
family and its results for our society are indeed overwhelming. The
only issue becomes answering the question: Who should call for the
return to sanity? The Senator from North Carolina says it should be the
Congress of the United States and the Federal Government. I say it
should be the State's responsibility--not in isolation and not without
a track record of their success, because we have seen the Federal
Government fail at welfare reform, as we have seen the number of people
on welfare go up 3.1 million since the last welfare reform bill was
passed 7 years ago.
In the meantime, we have seen State after State--albeit having to
suffer some sort of waiver from the Federal Government to get what they
want--still succeed at moving people from welfare to work, and save the
taxpayers' money. I guess that gives me the confidence that I would
expect my State of Iowa and I would also expect the State of North
Carolina to solve the teenage pregnancy problem, the problem of
illegitimacy. And if one of the ways they want to do that is
discouraging it by denying additional cash benefits to mothers under
age 18, then they ought to have the right to do it. If they see some
other way of doing it, then that other approach ought to be tolerated
by those of us in Washington, DC, who ought to readily admit a track
record that proves we do not have an answer to every social problem by
an enactment of Congress and an appropriation of the Congress of the
United States.
So I agree that out-of-wedlock births, and all of its consequences,
are destroying our society. Where we disagree is that I believe we
should allow States to address the crisis. Personally, I believe the
States should try many creative approaches to try to address this
crisis in our Nation. I think States should look at the reform in the
no-fault divorce laws that passed in the fifties and sixties.
Unfortunately, I have to admit to my colleagues, as well as to my
constituents in Iowa, that I made a great big mistake back in the late
sixties when I supported no-fault divorce as a member of the State
legislature. I hope the State legislatures will look at changing those
laws to make the decision to marry a more serious one and the decision
to divorce a more circumspect one.
I also think the States should look at changes in their approach to
dealing with the problems of out-of-wedlock births. They need to
experiment with new ideas to see how to discourage people from having
children before they are ready to care for them, and they need to see
what works with teenagers, what works with those who are older. The
illegitimacy problem is not just one for teenage mothers. We hear a lot
about discouraging young people from getting pregnant. But States also
need to experiment with how to discourage young men from fathering
children before they are ready to provide for them.
Changing laws alone will not change behavior, but it is a first step.
In order to address these kinds of social problems, every institution
in society must take this problem as a very personal problem. That
means every church, every synagogue, every mosque, must work together
with their congregations to bring their message of morality and purity
to the people in their area. Every community group needs to urge
abstinence as the only sure way to avoid disease and pregnancy. This is
truly a crisis requiring immediate action at every level.
So I join my colleagues in raising the banner of awareness. However,
I cannot join my colleague from North Carolina in mandating a specific
requirement. I believe the States will address this issue and will
address it as successfully in this area as they have on a lot of other
welfare reform issues that are before us.
I yield the floor.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise to speak to the amendment of my
friend from North Carolina and speak in opposition to a well-intended
but, it seems to me, very badly conceived approach to a problem which
we all acknowledge.
Earlier today, I had the occasion to congratulate the Senators from
Indiana and Missouri for their hugely insightful and able remarks. I
refer particularly to those of the Senator from Indiana on the
precedent of what do we do about civil society and about the breakup in
those primal relationships that seem to be so essential to any society,
and have always been assumed to be, but which seem to be disappearing
in ours.
And not only in ours, Mr. President. I remark that in the current
issue of the Economist, the subject is ``The Disappearing Family.'' But
simply to read a passage, it says:

A father is not just a cash cow. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, a
Democratic Senator who has taken these problems seriously for
30 years, says that a community without fathers asks for and
gets chaos. As an American, he has been able to see that
chaos for some time, but it is now visible elsewhere. There
are neighborhoods in Britain where more than two-thirds of
homes with children lack fathers. Some of Paris' wilder
banlieues are not that different.

The Economist article contains a bar chart which is entitled ``Fewer
Golden Rings, Births to Unmarried Mothers as a Percentage of Total,''
which shows the extraordinary growth from 1960 in Iceland, Sweden,
Denmark, France, Britain, the United States, Canada, Australia,
Germany, Holland, Spain, and Switzerland. There was no growth at all in
Japan.
There is a descending order of the present ratios, from Iceland, at
about 55 percent. Iceland, Sweden, Denmark, France, Britain, the United
States--with Britain and France ahead of the United States--and Canada,
just after the United States. Australia, Germany, Holland--smaller
ratios in those areas.
We are not alone in this, nor have we ignored the subject. It was
perhaps not widely noticed, but a year ago in Public Law 103-322,
signed by the President on September 13, 1994, an anticrime measure,
the now majority leader Senator Dole and I sponsored a sense-of-the-
Senate regarding a study of out-of-wedlock births.
It said simply:

It is the sense of the Senate that--(1) the Secretary of
Health and Human Services, in consultation with the National
Center for Health Statistics, should prepare an analysis of
the causes of the increase in out-of-wedlock births, and
determine whether there is any historical precedent for such
increase, as well as any equivalent among foreign nations,
and (2) the Secretary of Health and Human Services should
report to Congress within 12 months after the date of the
enactment of this Act on the Secretary's analysis of the out-
of-wedlock problem and its causes, as well as possible
remedial measures that could be taken.

I can report, sir, that report is ready now and will be released
shortly. It is a first effort, and I hope it will not be the last.
At length, the U.S. Government--the U.S. Congress, this Senate, the
Presidency--is finally beginning to acknowledge this problem. I have
mentioned before President Bush's commencement address at Notre Dame in
1992, and President Clinton's 1994 State of the Union address, where
the subject is raised. But it cannot be too emphatically stated that we
know very little of the ideology, origins, the modes by which it takes
place.
I have here a draft of the new report by the Department of Health and
Human Services. You can see, Mr. President, and I hope the Secretary of
Health and Human Services might be listening, ``The sense of the Senate
asks for a study of out-of-wedlock births.''
The report does, indeed, say ``out of wedlock.'' But when it gets
into the text, it refers to ``nonmarital,'' thus defining down the
problem; from the term ``illegitimacy'' to ``out of wedlock'' to
``nonmarital,'' to--I do not know what the next euphemism will be.
But they do make the simple point that changes in behavior, some of
these changes in reproductive biology, have led to an extraordinary
number of out-of-wedlock births. In 1992, about 1,250,000--1\1/4\
million illegitimate births. About 1 in 10 unmarried women age 15 to 44
become pregnant each year--about 1 in 10.
I have just offered to the Senate a datum which should shock anyone.
One in ten unmarried women become pregnant each year. The vast majority
of

[[Page S 13511]]
these pregnancies are unintended and, in 1991, nearly half ended in
induced abortion--obviously a condition we should not ever desire nor
should we allow to continue if we can change it.
But again, I have to say that there does not now exist any
understanding of how we might do this. I welcome the onset of inquiry.
This is not beyond the reach of social science, anthropology, biology.
But it is only just beginning to be recognized in our country as in
other countries. The Economist reports the neighborhoods in Britain are
not unlike those in, say Washington, DC, and in Paris. It is a new
social condition, a new social issue.
But earlier I cited James Q. Wilson, in a splendid essay, a lecture
which he gave, the Walter Wriston Lecture, at the Manhattan Institute
in New York City, November 17, 1994, entitled, ``From Welfare Reform To
Character Development.'' I think that is what the Senator from North
Carolina is talking about, from welfare reform to character
development. And he should be. He is to be congratulated for doing it.
But Wilson says, about the subject--how do you break the cycle of
dependency?

Nobody knows how to do this on a large scale. The debate
that has begun about welfare reform is in large measure based
on untested assumptions, ideological posturing, and perverse
priorities. We are told by some that worker training and job
placement will reduce the welfare rolls, but we know that
worker training and job placement have so far had at best
very modest effects on welfare rolls.

I say that standing here with a button from the JOBS program in
Riverside, CA, that says, ``Life Works If You Work.'' But we know the
effects of these programs are modest.
Wilson goes on:

And few advocates of worker training tell us what happens
to children of mothers who are induced or compelled to work
other than to assure us that somebody will supply day care.
We are told by others that a mandatory work requirement,
whether or not it leads to more mothers working, will end the
cycle of dependency. We don't know that it will.

That is James Q. Wilson. ``We don't know that.'' I continue:

I repeat James Q. Wilson, ``We are told that ending AFDC will reduce
illegitimacy but we don't know that.''

* * * it is, at best, an informed guess. Some people
produced illegitimate children in large numbers long before
welfare existed and others in similar circumstances now
produce none even though welfare has become quite generous.

I plead to the Senate, first, do no harm.
Catholic Charities addressed this plea to us earlier this day, asking
that there not be a family cap.
The first principle in welfare reform must be do no harm, the ancient
adage of Hippocrates in his essay ``Epidemics.'' It is not the
Hippocratic oath, and we are dealing with an epidemic here. We must
heed that ancient Greek: First, do no harm.
I can say that there is one major research project in operation right
now--has been for more than 4 years--it involves very intensive
counseling and education offered to teens to prevent teen pregnancy.
I would prefer not to give the actual name of the operation because
you do not want to interfere with it by stating ahead of time what its
findings are, what is happening. But I can tell you that after 4 years
the control group, there is no difference in outcome between the
experimental group which was given the intensive counseling and
training and the control group which received no such special services.
This still baffles us. It is still beyond our reach. Not beyond our
grasp. I will use that image. It is beyond our reach, not beyond our
grasp. We are trying. We are beginning to learn. But at this point, to
deny benefits to children who have no means of controlling the way they
come into the world or the circumstances in which they find themselves,
would be an act of--irresponsible policy? I hesitate to use that word.
It would be an act of--cruelty? I hesitate to use that word as well.
Not intended; the unintended consequences of social policy are almost
invariably the larger and more important ones.
So I hope, with expression of great appreciation to the Senator who
has raised the subject, thanking him for raising it, I hope we will not
take this radical step into the unknown at just the moment when we are
beginning to engage the Nation's analytic and social capacities with
the issue.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, let me begin by responding to our dear and
learned colleague from New York, who undoubtedly has spent more time
and energy studying this problem than any other Member of the U.S.
Senate. I would like to begin with his application of the Hippocratic
oath to welfare reform.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. Hippocrates on ``Epidemics.''
Mr. GRAMM. Let me say this. I think we are preaching the oath too
late. We now have a system where 40 million Americans are receiving
some means-tested program broadly defined as welfare. We have a program
that does a great deal of harm and that, if left in place, in my
opinion will do far greater harm than it has done.
In the mid-1960's, when the current approach to this problem really
took hold with the Great Society, we were looking at something less
than 10 percent of all babies born in America being born out of
wedlock. Today, one out of every three babies born in America is born
out of wedlock. So I think, quite frankly, that while the advice
``first do no harm'' is good advice when you do not know what you are
doing, the point is we have in place a program that does a great deal
of harm. And probably no part of that program is more destructive than
the part of the program that provides cash bonuses to people who have
children on welfare or children who qualify for welfare.
Our dear colleague, Senator Domenici, in the closing remarks he made
in debate on an earlier amendment, said if you believe that denying
people more and more money to have more and more children on welfare is
going to reduce the birth rate of people on welfare, you believe in the
tooth fairy.
Mr. President, let me say that no human behavior in the history of
this planet is better documented than the principle that if you pay
people to do something they are going to do it, and they are going to
do more of it than if you did not pay them. If we know anything about
the behavior of the human being, it is that human behavior is clearly
affected by the environment in which the human operates, by the set of
rewards and penalties that exist. And clearly, the rewards in the
current welfare system are all bad from the point of view of producing
behavior that we do not want. Let me just give you a few of them.
Any 16-year-old girl in our bigger cities can escape from her mother,
can get cash and voucher benefits equal to $14,000 of earnings a year,
can get housing subsidies, food stamps, and AFDC by doing one thing--by
getting pregnant.
Does anybody believe that giving that child $14,000 worth of free
benefits in return for getting pregnant is not creating behavior that
would not exist in the absence of that money? Does anybody really
believe that, if we did not give people more and more money to have
more and more children on welfare, that people would be having the
number of children that they are having? I do not believe it.
I was having a discussion with my mother the other day on this
subject, which I think is always good advice to someone who is engaged
in public policy today. My mother's thesis on this subject was
basically that the problem with welfare is that people today, young
people, are not as proud as people were in her generation. I responded
by trying to explain to my mother that I am not positive that is the
case. I think the world faced by young people today is very different
than the world my 82-year-old mother faced when she was growing up. I
tried to explain to my mother that if we had the kind of welfare
benefits we have today when she had two little children and was working
in a cotton mill that she would have taken welfare. My mother said, ``I
would not have taken it. I would starve to death before I would take
it.''
I said, ``Well, mother. Everybody you would have known would have
been taking it. There would have been no

[[Page S 13512]]
stigma in taking it. People would have made fun of you for not taking
it.''
To which my mother responded, ``I would not take it, and if you ever
say I would take it, I will go on television and denounce it.''
My mother is tough. Maybe she would not have taken it. But the point
is that no logical person can doubt that the availability of these cash
incentives to have babies, to have babies out of wedlock, is not
impacting behavior. Am I claiming that it is the only incentive that is
there? Am I claiming that by eliminating these cash payments that we
would eliminate illegitimacy? No. But I do not think any rational
person can argue that we would not have less of it if we did stop
paying people for acting irresponsible.
We had an earlier amendment that was adopted which killed the
provision in this bill that I thought was very important. We had spent
months working out a compromise that said we are not going to give
people on welfare more and more money to have more and more children. I
thought it was an important provision. Senator Domenici earlier offered
an amendment which killed that provision, and basically preserved the
status quo, a status quo where now one-third of all the children born
in the country are born out of wedlock.
I do not have any doubt based on that vote that Senator Faircloth's
amendment is not going to be adopted. But I believe that this is a very
important amendment.
So my purpose in the remaining moments is twofold: First of all, I
want to say to our dear colleague from North Carolina that no Member of
the Senate has had a more profound impact on welfare reform than the
junior Senator from North Carolina, Lauch Faircloth. Had it not been
for his persistence and his leadership there would be no pay for
performance provision in this bill and we would not have a mandatory
work requirement where people who refuse to work and are able-bodied
lose their check. Had it not been for his persistent leadership, we
would still be, even under this bill, inviting people to come to
America with their hand out to go on welfare rather than their sleeves
being rolled up to go to work.
Thanks to his leadership and his commitment, we did have a provision
in the bill until today that denied additional cash payments to people
who have more and more children on welfare.
So I want to first thank him for his leadership. And I am convinced
that ultimately we are going to reform welfare, and I share with
Senator Faircloth the commitment that I do not want to just perform
welfare because it costs $384 billion a year when you add up all the
State and the Federal payments. I want to reform welfare because we are
hurting the very people we are trying to help.
The great paradox is that people who really oppose welfare reform, as
the President does--and, despite all of his rhetoric, one thing is
very, very clear; that is, Bill Clinton wants to preserve welfare as we
know it. But one of the things that it is clear to me is that we have
to redo this system because we are hurting the very people that we are
trying to help. Our programs have driven fathers out of the household.
They have made mothers dependent. They have denied people access to the
American dream. They have changed people's behavior. Our social safety
net has turned into a hammock. And it has changed the way people
behave. As they have turned more and more toward government to take
care of them, they have turned less and less to develop self-reliance.
They have turned less and less to their family and to their faith, and
I have no doubt that their life has been diminished.
Those who are for dramatic reform in welfare stand on the high ground
morally in this debate. Those who defend the status quo, in my opinion,
are defending a system that may serve some political interest. But it
does not serve the interest of the people in this country who are poor
because it is a system that keeps them poor, it is a system that
expands their numbers, it is a system that diminishes their lives, and
it is a system that diminishes our great country. And I want to change
it.
The final point I want to make is this is a modest amendment that the
Senator from North Carolina has proposed. What his amendment says is
simply this: No Federal funds for cash welfare aid to unmarried mothers
under the age of 18 with a State opt-out provision. What does that
mean?
What Senator Faircloth is saying is that, if his amendment is
adopted, if a child 16 years old is having a baby or has had a baby,
nothing in his amendment would prevent the State from giving her
assistance through her own mother, nothing in this amendment would
prohibit giving her assistance under adult supervision, and nothing in
this amendment would prevent giving her food or shelter or clothing.
But what the amendment would not do is to create a cash incentive for
people to have babies on welfare.
That is what the amendment does. In addition, if a State does not
want to abide by the Faircloth amendment, and it wants to provide cash,
the State legislature must pass a bill and the Governor of the State
must sign it taking themselves out of the program.
A lot of people oppose this because they know there are a lot of
States where politicians might want to get out of the program but
people do not want to vote to get out of the program.
So this preserves State option. It simply requires that affirmative
action by the State to be exempt.
I want to repeat in closing that I am alarmed about a country, our
country, where one out of every three babies in America is born out of
wedlock. No great civilization has ever risen that was not built on
strong families. No great civilization has ever survived the
destruction of its families, and if fear we are not going to be the
first. So I fully understand that this is an area where you could study
it endlessly. And I generally agree with the Hippocratic principle:
First, do not harm. But the point is we have already done harm. We have
put in place a program that unless we change it is ultimately going to
kill our Nation, and I wish to undo it. Given the harm that is being
done by the current welfare system, it is time to venture some change.
Finally, I totally and absolutely reject the thesis that there is no
demonstration that people do more of something if you give them money
to do it. All of recorded history makes it very clear that if you pay
somebody to do something, they are going to do more of it than if you
do not pay them.
I just remind my colleagues that the first welfare reform measure in
America was in Jamestown, and what happened is that Capt. John Smith
had seen the colony break down as they had adopted a system, basically
a socialistic system where people were given the fruits of society's
labor based on an allocation rather than based on their effort. As far
as I am aware, the first welfare reform principle in the history of
America was when Capt. John Smith said those who do not work shall not
eat.
I believe those kinds of reforms have an effect, and the incredible
point that seems to be missed by so many is that these kinds of reforms
are humane reforms. People cannot be happy when they are kept
dependent. There is something wrong in a free society when people are
not providing their own way. The only real happiness that comes, the
only real fulfillment that comes is from individual achievement. And if
we want to unleash the energy and the ability which is hidden in so
many millions of Americans who are trapped on this welfare system and
unleash that talent and ability to serve them and to serve the country,
we have got to reform this welfare system, and I feel very strongly
that this is a very important amendment.
A concluding point. I am very disappointed about the adoption of the
Domenici amendment. It undoes a delicate bill that we had put together.
I want to say to my colleagues, assuming that we do not mandate some
new benefit which would be totally unacceptable and induce me to vote
against this bill, I plan to vote for this bill on final passage. I
intend to vote to take it to conference with the House.
However, when we come back to the Senate with a bill, I am not going
to vote for a welfare reform bill that does not deal with illegitimacy.
We cannot deal with the welfare problem we face, we cannot change this
destructive system unless we deal with illegitimacy. And so I am
committed to the principle that when this bill comes back from
conference, we have provisions which end cash incentives to people to
have

[[Page S 13513]]
more and more children on welfare. I think that is essential.
I wish to congratulate our colleague from North Carolina for his
leadership on this amendment and on this bill. I am very proud to
support it. I do not have any doubt about the fact that we are probably
going to get about 25 votes, but I believe this is the right thing to
do. And I am also confident that this century will not end before the
Faircloth amendment will be the law of the land. I have no doubt about
the fact that while Congress is perfectly content to let a rotten
welfare system fester, the American people are not content. They are
going to continue to demand that we make these changes. They are going
to give us a Congress and a President who are committed to them, and
when they do we are going to make these changes and some of us will
remember Senator Faircloth's leadership. Hopefully he will be here
providing it when the day comes that this amendment will be successful,
and I am confident that it will.
I congratulate him on his leadership.
Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair.
Mr. President, I actually came to the floor to introduce an amendment
that I will get to later on that I think will be important to
colleagues on both sides of the aisle to make sure that in situations
where you have violence within a home we give States the room to give
single parents, usually women, an exemption from some of the
requirements if that is the only alternative to make sure that they are
safe. We do not want to force women back into very dangerous homes.
Mr. President, I was listening to my colleague from Texas, and I just
have to respond. Let me come back to some unpleasant facts which I
think are important because we ought to be making policy on as solid a
basis of information as possible.
First, actually, I kind of did my own survey in Minnesota, which, I
say to my colleagues, was really startling.
I try to go to a school about every 2\1/2\ weeks during the school
year, and I was in an inner-city high school, South High in
Minneapolis. And actually a young woman about age 16 asked me--I guess
she heard about action in the House--she said to me, ``Are you in favor
of denying welfare benefits to a young woman or girl under 18 years of
age if she has a child?''
I said, ``Well, I will answer that question but first let me ask you
and let me ask all of you who are here in this assembly''--there were
about 300 or 400 students. I did not editorialize. In fact, I tried to
actually stack it in the other direction. I said that many
Representatives in the House of Representatives have said, look, when a
youngster, a young woman knows that she can get on welfare and have
welfare assistance, this is what encourages out-of-wedlock births. And
people are very serious about dealing with this problem, as I think all
of us are in this Chamber.
Then I said, ``How many of you would agree?'' No one.
Mr. President, we are talking all about these young people. Has
anybody asked them about what the causes are?
The question is, why do children have children? But has anybody asked
any of these young people? I do not think this amendment is connected
to that reality at all.
Then I went to a suburban high school in White Bear Lake, and I asked
the students the same question, expecting a very different response.
Then I went to two other suburban communities. Then I went to about
three other schools in small towns. Cross my heart and hope to die on
the floor of the Senate, never more than about 5 percent of the student
bodies, the assemblies, agreed. In fact, I found these students were
kind of yelling at me, not out of anger but they were saying, ``Are you
people crazy? This is why you think young people are having children?
This is why you think there are births out of wedlock? These are our
friends. We know what goes on. Nobody is thinking about welfare. Nobody
knows what it is. Nobody is thinking, `Well, if I get pregnant, then I
do not have to worry because I get AFDC and I can move out of my
home'.''
I heard all sorts of other reasons given that you might agree or
disagree with. But I want to tell you, talk about a disconnect. The
very people that we say we are concerned about, the very people in
whose name we pass this legislation, allegedly for whose benefit we
pass this legislation, say, ``Are you crazy? This has nothing to do
with this problem,'' which is a serious problem. That is my first
point.
Please remember that. Now, maybe other Senators in here in the
Chamber have gone out and met with lots of young people and have asked
them. And if you have received a very different response, please tell
me. But I have made it my business to spend a lot of time with a lot of
young people, inner city, suburban, small town, rural, and that is not
what they say. It does not make any sense to them at all.
Maybe we ought to listen to them. Maybe we ought to ask them. Maybe
we ought to know more. That is my first point.
My second point--and I will do this briefly, I say to my colleague
from New York--I am sorry the Senator from Texas has left the Chamber.
I always feel uncomfortable, because you try to have debates--people
give a speech and then they are gone, and you feel like you are
attacking someone behind their back. I am not making an attack. I put
it more in the form of questions.
The problem with the analysis about this--about all of these mothers
who are having all of these children--and this is a terrible crisis in
our country--is again--and I have heard the Senator from New York say
this over and over again, the typical family is one woman, two
children. Seventy-five percent of the AFDC families have two children,
one parent. That is what it is. What are we doing perpetuating the same
stereotype? In the last 20 years it has not gone up. We do not have
larger families.
As to this economic rationality argument that it is the money that
causes young people to have children, there is no evidence of that at
all. As for this argument, I think--and I would have to defer to my
learned colleague from New York--but I think that if you look around
the country, State by State, I do not think there is any direct
correlation between level of benefits and number of children. Is there?
I mean in some States----
Mr. MOYNIHAN. If the Senator would yield for a question. I think he
would find in the main the correlation is inverse. The lower the
benefit, the higher the ratio.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Well, that is what I thought my colleague would say.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. Not absolute.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Right. Let us just say--let us just understand this,
there is somewhat of an inverse relationship around the country between
level of benefits and number of children per family. Those States which
have the lower level of benefits tend to have the families with the
larger number of children. Now, what does that do to the argument of my
colleague from Texas about how it is the dollars that cause all of
this? Well, he is not here. But you know, for the record, as we say.
Finally, Mr. President, as to this whole argument that--as I listened
to my colleague conclude--that really what this debate is about is a
difference between those who take the moral high ground and push
through these changes, versus those who, I guess the flip side of the
coin is those who do not take the moral high ground.
On that note, I just would like to suggest two final points. One, I
said it once before on the floor, as I listen to some of my colleagues
talk about welfare, I get the impression that they are trying to make
the argument that welfare causes poverty, that food stamps cause people
to not have enough money to purchase food. It is like they mix up the
independent and dependent variables. It is like arguing Social Security
causes people to get old.
People become eligible for welfare because they are poor. Or quite
often you have two parents, and then there is a divorce and then the
woman is on her own with children, and she looks for some support for
herself and her children. And 9 million or so of the 15 million are
children.
So, frankly, this argument that this is the high moral ground--I
think when all is said and done, ultimately what it amounts to is
taking food out of the mouths of children. That is no high moral ground
position.

[[Page S 13514]]

I am sorry my colleague from Texas is not here. Maybe he will come
back. This whole business of somehow the welfare programs cause the
poverty is ridiculous--we expanded food stamps and we did not expand
hunger. I said this before on the floor of the Senate, but let us be
clear about our history. Richard Nixon, a Republican, established
Federal standards for food stamps because in the mid and late 1960's
there were the Hunger USA, CBS and Field Foundation studies and
pictures of children with distended bellies and malnutrition and hunger
in America.
And so we expanded the Food Stamp Program. And now we do not have the
scurvy and now we do not have the rickets and now we do not have all
the hunger and malnutrition. But somehow, according to my colleague
from Texas, these programs have brought about all this damage to low-
income people, to poor people, mainly, I am sorry to say, women and
children.
It is really quite a preposterous argument.
Mr. President, there is a difference between reform and reverse
reform. And it is absolutely a great idea to enable a mother or a
father to be able to move from welfare to workfare, a good job, decent
wage, affordable child care. That is not what this has been about. So I
would not want to let my colleague get away with his argument about a
high moral ground. I see no high moral ground in punishing children. I
see no high moral ground in taking food out of the mouths of hungry
children. I see no high moral ground in essentially targeting those
people who are the most vulnerable, with the least amount of political
clout and making them the scapegoats.
And you know what, by way of conclusion? The sad thing is that I
sometimes think that part of this agenda is to essentially say to those
people in our country who feel all the squeeze, middle-income people,
working people, if we just bash the welfare mothers and do this and do
that and make these cuts and those cuts, then the middle class will do
well economically. There is no connection whatsoever.
My colleague from Texas--and I promise my other colleagues on the
floor, this is my last point--keeps putting apples and oranges
together. And I heard $170 billion or some figure like that being
quoted as money spent on welfare. I do not know exactly what he is
talking about. Is he talking about aid to families with dependent
children? That is what we are debating. I guess he added food stamps.
He probably had to add Medicaid to get there.
If he is talking about Medicaid, everybody understands that well over
60 percent of Medicaid is not welfare mothers, it is elderly people.
Some are our parents and grandparents who at the end of their lives,
because of catastrophic expenses, lost all their resources and now,
because they are poor, they are eligible for Medicaid and nursing
homes.
And God knows what else he lumped into this figure. So let us be
accurate about this as we make these decisions.
I yield the floor.
Mr. BREAUX addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I listened to the argument for the
amendment's adoption by the Senator from North Carolina.
I am sorry he is not here because I really did want to ask him
questions on the amendment.
And at the risk of being a policy nerd, which I think I would hate to
be called--I never want to have anyone use that term and apply it to
me--however, I do have some questions in reading the amendment that I
do not know how I am going to get an answer to unless the author is
here or somebody who could respond to the author's intent.
As I read the amendment that was published in the Record by the
Senator from North Carolina, it said, ``A State may not use any part of
the grant that they get to provide cash benefits for a child born out
of wedlock to an individual who has not attained 18 years of age.''
There is an exception to that prohibition, which is my question,
``except that prohibition shall not apply to vouchers which are
provided in lieu of cash benefits and which may be used only to pay for
particular goods and services specified by the State and suitable for
the care of the child that is involved.''
I happen to think vouchers may be a good idea. But I do not know
whether the author of the amendment is requiring vouchers or not
requiring vouchers.
The bigger point that I would want to make in this argument is that,
No. 1, the Senate has already spoken to this question. By a vote of, I
think, 66-34, we adopted the Domenici amendment which addressed this
question. And the Domenici amendment essentially said that a State may
deny additional cash benefits for an additional child for a mother who
has that additional child regardless of her age, whether she is 18
years old or 22 years old or what have you;
that it would be a State decision to affirmatively deny additional
assistance to that mother.

My whole concern about this attack on the question of illegitimacy is
that they are missing the target. They are, in fact, using a
sledgehammer approach, but they are using a sledgehammer to hit the
wrong person.
You do not solve the problem of illegitimacy by penalizing the child.
The child did not make a decision to be born. The child did not ask to
be a child that is born into this world. Therefore, when you penalize
the child, you are not penalizing the right person.
The reason why I think that the Work First proposal that we had put
together made so much sense is that we said that the teen mother, or
any mother who has a child, is going to have to be responsible for
having that child. They are going to have to live in a family
environment with their parent, if there is one, or they are going to
have to live in an adult-supervised home to get adult supervision in
carrying out their responsibilities. They are going to have to sign a
contract to go to work. They are going to have to start looking for a
job. They are going to have to start receiving training.
I suggest that is a far better way to address the question of
illegitimacy, which is a rampant problem in this country. My State has
the second-highest illegitimacy rate in the United States. Forty-some
percent of the children born in Louisiana are illegitimate. That is
something I think is a disaster already. It is not something waiting to
happen.
The question is, How do we solve that problem? Do we penalize the
child? Do we say to the mother, ``There are not going to be any more
funds to take care of the child''? Who does that hurt? It does not help
the mother, it does not educate the mother, it does not train the
mother, it does not teach the mother responsibility. It gives her less
money, and less money for what? The child that did not ask to be born.
There are potential mothers, women who are pregnant, when faced with
that decision take the easy way out and decide to have an abortion.
That is why all the Catholic Conferences, which feel so strongly about
this, have said very eloquently they oppose this type of sledgehammer
approach, because many pregnant ladies faced with that choice will
decide to have an abortion because they know there will not be enough
money to take care of the child when it is born.
That is a very cruel proposition to a young potential mother faced
with a pregnancy, many times in uncertain conditions, even if that
child is wanted in the first place.
Therefore, I am very strongly opposed to any efforts in trying to
attack the question of illegitimacy that goes after the child. Go after
the mother. Find the father, because for every child that is born,
there is a father somewhere, in many cases shirking their
responsibility and running away from their responsibility.
So put provisions in the bill to go after the deadbeat father who is
not recognizing his responsibility. Say to the mother having that child
that ``You are going to have to do something different. You are going
to have to live in an adult-supervised home,'' or ``You are going to
have to live in your parents' home,'' or ``You are going to have to
sign a contract to go to work; you are going to have to enter into an
agreement in order to get the training that you are going to be able to
be employable.''

[[Page S 13515]]

Do everything you possibly can to the mother and the father who are
responsible for the child, but heaven's sake, do not penalize the child
who did not ask to be born. That is why I am so very concerned that we
say there is going to be no more money for an additional child.
My goodness, we are hurting the child, not the mother, not the father
who we may not even know where he is. We should be exercising greater
authority to try and find the people responsible for the child and do
things to them, for them, with them that educate them to be better
parents.
I come from a State, as I said, that has the second-highest
illegitimacy rate in the United States of America. I am not proud of
that. I want to find a solution to that. I dare suggest this is not a
solution. It is a sledgehammer approach, and we are using the
sledgehammer to beat the child, and that is not right.
I am glad the Senator from North Carolina is here, because I kind of
like the idea of vouchers, and we talked about vouchers. I guarantee
you, there are some teenage mothers who, when they do get extra cash
assistance, may not use that cash assistance for the benefit of the
child. They may use that cash assistance in the most despicable way.
They may use it to buy things which are not necessary. They may use it
to feed an alcohol abuse problem or a drug problem, because we are
giving them cash for that extra child. I recognize that, and I am a
little concerned about that, but I want to make sure we protect the
child.
The Senator in part of his amendment says that as an exception for
vouchers to those mothers who have an additional child, that the
vouchers would not be prohibited.
The question is, I guess, there is no requirement that a voucher be
issued. In other words, if that mother has an additional child, maybe
the extra amount that they would normally be entitled to would be $50.
Would there be a requirement in the Senator's mind that the extra money
be then given to the mother in a voucher that could only be used to buy
things for that child? Or does his exception in the bill have nothing
to do with the requirement of a voucher?
Given the choice--I want the Senator to respond if he can--but given
the choice of saying to a mother that there is going to be no
additional cash assistance and there is going to be no voucher either,
I would prefer giving her the cash assistance in the hopes that because
of the training and the requirements to live in an adult-supervised
home or live with her parent or live with greater supervision, the
money will, in fact, be used for the child. But if there is a
requirement that they get a voucher to be used only for that child, I
think that has some potential possibilities here.
So if anybody can respond to my question, my specific question is,
does the Senator's amendment require that an additional child would
receive at least a voucher in order to pay for the cost of having that
additional child or not? Will the Senator comment on that?
Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Mr. President, in response to the Senator from
Louisiana, yes, the State has the option to give a voucher, and it says
very clearly here that in lieu of cash benefits, which may be used only
to pay for particular goods and services specified by the State,
suitable for the care of the child involved. So the State has the
option to supply these vouchers for things that would be used
especially for the needs of the child, not cutting those off.
Mr. BREAUX. I thank the Senator for that response. That is one of the
questions I was trying to have answered. The problem I have is, under
the Senator's amendment, a State--I certainly hope no State would ever
do it--but under this amendment, it certainly could be possible, the
State could say to that mother--more importantly, in my mind, to that
child--that we are not going to give any additional assistance for your
benefits, for your needs, nor are we going to give any vouchers for
your needs to survive.
I think that is something we, as officials who are responsible for
raising the money for welfare reform, asking taxpaying citizens
throughout this country to pay their taxes to try and solve this
problem, that we have a responsibility to see that those funds are used
properly and appropriately.
One thing that I think is proper, appropriate and necessary is that
we guarantee that the child is taken care of. I am concerned, in fact,
I think now very clearly that under the Senator's amendment, that that
is not guaranteed. The needs of the child will not be guaranteed either
by a cash payment, which is very clear would be prohibited, or by the
guarantee of a voucher for that child. I find that to be unacceptable.
I want to do--and I will say it again--everything we can to ensure
that the parent who had that child is made to be responsible, is made
to find a job, enter job training, sign a contract to go to work, live
in an adult-supervised home, live with a parent, find the father
somewhere, no matter where he may be or what he may be doing, and say,
``You have a responsibility, and that is to the child.''
It is unacceptable to me to say that we, as Federal officials, are
going to use tax dollars to try and reform this system and yet not
guarantee that the child will be taken care of. That is a major defect.
The Domenici amendment scares me in the sense that it clearly says
that a State may deny any additional cash assistance to the child if a
State so chooses to do so. I think that is less onerous than the
amendment of the Senator from North Carolina.
So I hope that this amendment will be rejected.
I think that is a proper course.
Amendment No. 2592, As Modified

Mrs. BOXER. I have a number of unanimous-consent requests that I
think would clear up the proceedings. First, I am going to ask
unanimous consent that we return to the consideration of the Boxer
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. BOXER. Second, I ask that the Senate proceed to my modified
amendment, which I cleared with the majority leader and Members on the
other side, which is already at the desk.
I ask that my amendment be so modified.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has that right.
The amendment is so modified.
The amendment (No. 2592), as modified, is as follows:
On page 302, line 4, strike ``and''.
On page 302, line 5, strike the end period and insert ``;
and''.
On page 302, between lines 5 and 6, insert:
(3) payments for foster care and adoption assistance under
part E of title IV of the Social Security Act for a child who
would, in the absence of this section, be eligible to have
such payments made on the child's behalf under such part, but
only if the foster or adoptive parent or parents of such
child are not noncitizens described in subsection (a).

Mrs. BOXER. I ask that I may speak for not to exceed 3 minutes on my
amendment and that, after that, that will conclude all debate and that
a vote on the Boxer amendment would occur immediately following a vote
on Senator Faircloth's amendment without any intervening action or
debate between the two.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, it has been a long time coming, this
amendment, because we have had to work together on both sides of the
aisle to make sure that everyone was comfortable with the amendment.
I want to explain that modified amendment.

My colleagues, in the Dole bill there is a restriction on benefits to
new legal immigrants for the first 5 years they are in this country. In
other words, they are completely legal, but the Dole bill says they can
get no Federal means-tested benefits.
However, there are exemptions from these restrictions in the Dole
bill on certain benefits, such as emergency medical care and
immunizations.
The one exemption that is not in the Dole bill is an exemption for
foster care and adoption assistance programs. What that really means,
in plain English, Mr. President, is that if a legal immigrant child, a
child who is here completely legally, is abused or neglected, and the
court says that child must be protected, unless we do this fix that I
have in this amendment, that child would not be eligible for the title
IV-E foster care or adoption assistance program.
What we did on both sides of the aisle is work with the language to
ensure

[[Page S 13516]]
that those children would be treated exactly like citizen children if
they are in a situation where they are abused or neglected in that 5-
year period.
It is important to note that Federal funding goes to the adopting
families and the foster families under rules that govern that program
and certification requirements that are set by the State.
But the fact is, if we do not pass the Boxer amendment, then kids who
are brutalized in families may well continue to be brutalized because
there is really not enough funds to help them get adopted or go into
foster homes, or the burden could fall entirely on the State or the
locality.
So I am very pleased that Senators from the other side worked with me
on this, that their staffs worked with me on it most diligently, and
that we have reached an agreement. I am sure that none of us would want
to abandon a child who was brutalized because we made an oversight.
Mr. President, I am finished with my remarks. I hope we will pass
this amendment with a strong bipartisan vote. I want to thank Senator
Moynihan of New York for helping me with this amendment and, again, the
Senators on the other side, Senator Nickles, and Senator Santorum, who
helped me work out the details of this amendment.
I yield the time back and look forward to a very positive vote on
this amendment immediately following the vote on the Faircloth
amendment.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gregg). Under the previous order, the vote
will be delayed.
Vote on Amendment No. 2603

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the Faircloth
amendment? If not, 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. Thomas). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 24, nays 76, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 419 Leg.]

YEAS--24

Abraham
Ashcroft
Brown
Byrd
Cochran
Craig
Faircloth
Frist
Gramm
Grams
Helms
Hutchison
Inhofe
Kempthorne
Kyl
Lott
McCain
McConnell
Nickles
Santorum
Shelby
Smith
Thompson
Thurmond

NAYS--76

Akaka
Baucus
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Bradley
Breaux
Bryan
Bumpers
Burns
Campbell
Chafee
Coats
Cohen
Conrad
Coverdell
D'Amato
Daschle
DeWine
Dodd
Dole
Domenici
Dorgan
Exon
Feingold
Feinstein
Ford
Glenn
Gorton
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Harkin
Hatch
Hatfield
Heflin
Hollings
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnston
Kassebaum
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lugar
Mack
Mikulski
Moseley-Braun
Moynihan
Murkowski
Murray
Nunn
Packwood
Pell
Pressler
Pryor
Reid
Robb
Rockefeller
Roth
Sarbanes
Simon
Simpson
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Warner
Wellstone
So the amendment (No. 2603) was rejected.
Vote On Amendment No. 2592, As Modified

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question occurs
on amendment No. 2592, as modified.
Mr. FORD. May we have order, Mr. President?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will come to order. The Senate will
come to order.
The question is on agreeing to the Boxer amendment, as modified. The
yeas and nays have been ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
The result was announced, yeas 100, nays 0, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 420 Leg.]

YEAS--100

Abraham
Akaka
Ashcroft
Baucus
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Bradley
Breaux
Brown
Bryan
Bumpers
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Chafee
Coats
Cochran
Cohen
Conrad
Coverdell
Craig
D'Amato
Daschle
DeWine
Dodd
Dole
Domenici
Dorgan
Exon
Faircloth
Feingold
Feinstein
Ford
Frist
Glenn
Gorton
Graham
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Harkin
Hatch
Hatfield
Heflin
Helms
Hollings
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnston
Kassebaum
Kempthorne
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Kyl
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Mikulski
Moseley-Braun
Moynihan
Murkowski
Murray
Nickles
Nunn
Packwood
Pell
Pressler
Pryor
Reid
Robb
Rockefeller
Roth
Santorum
Sarbanes
Shelby
Simon
Simpson
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Warner
Wellstone
So, the amendment (No. 2592), as modified, was agreed to.
Mr. GRASSLEY. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mrs. BOXER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. GRASSLEY addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thompson). The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. GRASSLEY. I take the floor to ask unanimous consent for our
majority leader.
I ask unanimous consent that the cloture vote scheduled to occur this
evening be postponed to occur at any time to be determined by the
majority leader after consultation with the Democratic leader.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, under our order of doing business here--
we just finished a Democratic amendment; the Boxer amendment--it would
now be our desire to go to the amendment by the Senator from Maine.
Mr. COHEN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.

Amendment No. 2586

Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed to
amendment No. 2586.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, reserving the right to object. A point
of order. The amendment of the Senator from Maine seeks to strike the
proposal in two separate places, and, as a result, I believe it is out
of order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment has yet to be called up. The
point of order would not lie until the amendment is called up.
The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Maine [Mr. Cohen] proposes an amendment
numbered 2586. In section 102(c) of the amendment, insert
``so long as the programs are implemented consistent with the
Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution''
after ``subsection (a)(2).''
In section 102(d)(2) of the amendment, strike subparagraph
(B), and redesignate subparagraph (C) as subparagraph (B).

Mr. COHEN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, as was just read by the clerk, there are
two portions to this amendment.
The first part of the amendment would provide that religious
organizations may participate in our welfare program, which we want
them to do, so long as they comply with the establishment clause of the
Constitution. We want to encourage churches and other religious
organizations to become actively involved in our welfare process. We
want them to do so, however, consistent with the first amendment.
That amendment requires the Government to navigate a very narrow
channel when it provides funding to religious organizations. On the one
hand, we have the free exercise clause, which prohibits a government
from being overtly hostile to religious institutions or organizations.
Then on the other hand we have the establishment clause, which limits
the extent to which the Government can actually sponsor religious
activities.
The intersection of these two separate constitutional commands, I
think, is implicated by section 102 of the welfare reform bill, which
allows the States to contract with religious organizations to provide
welfare services. This provision protects religious organizations from
religious-based discrimination. And I think the authors

[[Page S 13517]]
ought to be commended. We, as I said before, want to encourage
religious organizations to participate in welfare programs.
But, in my judgment, the bill in its current form does too little to
restrain religious organizations from using Federal funds to promote a
religious message. My amendment would, I believe, remedy this defect.
It would ensure that States have the flexibility to implement welfare
programs in a manner consistent with the religion clauses of the first
amendment so we neither prohibit nor promote. And that is the balance
that has to be struck.
The first part of this amendment simply says that we want to
encourage the States to contract with religious institutions or
organizations to provide welfare services, but we want to do so
consistent with the establishment clause. Now, I think there would be
very little debate, indeed any division, with respect to this
particular language.
The second part of the amendment--and Mr. President, I will ask for a
division of the amendment before the point of order is raised. I ask my
amendment be divided into two parts.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has a right to have the amendment
divided. It is divided.
Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, the second part of the amendment is
intended to make it easier for the States to comply with its
constitutional duties. The bill currently prohibits the States from
requiring religious organizations to establish separate corporate
entities to administer welfare programs. My amendment would strike the
Federal mandate.
Mr. President, under the bill as drafted, there is a prohibition
under part 102(d)(2). It says that neither the Federal Government nor a
State shall require a religious organization (A) to alter its internal
government--we certainly do not want that--or (B) to form a separate
nonprofit corporation to receive and administer the assistance funded
under a program described in this subsection solely on the basis that
it is a religious organization.
Essentially what is done by the bill language is to impose a Federal
mandate upon the States saying neither the Federal Government nor any
State can, in fact, require a religious organization to form a separate
nonprofit corporation in order to receive funds under this act.
Now, Mr. President, over the years the Supreme Court has had to pass
upon a variety of cases and they must be examined on an individual
basis. In some circumstances, the courts have ruled that the religious
organization administering Federal funds is so --the words they use
are--``permeated with a sectarian influence'' that their receipt of
Government funding violates the first amendment.
What I want to do is to encourage religious organizations to become
involved in our welfare system. But if we leave the language in the
bill, it is going to actually have the reverse effect. It is going to
discourage churches from getting contracts to help in our welfare
system because the State is going to be precluded from asking the
religious organizations to set up a separate, nonprofit corporation to
receive the money and administer the programs outside an atmosphere
that is permeated with religious overtones.
If the bill stands as currently written, it is going to have just the
opposite effect its authors desire. States are not going to want to
walk into a lawsuit by the ACLU or any other group that will challenge
the program as being violative of the first amendment. So the whole
purpose in our trying to encourage religious organizations to
participate in welfare programs is going to be defeated. The threat of
a lawsuit will discourage States from including religious organizations
in their welfare programs.
So the purpose that I have in mind is to strike part (B), which would
prohibit the Federal Government or the State from requiring a religious
organization to set up a separate nonprofit corporation.
It may not be necessary for a religious organization to set up a
separate entity in each and every occasion. The State might decide that
this particular religious organization is structured in such a way that
it is not permeated with sectarian overtones, as such. A State may
decide ``we do not have to require a nonprofit corporation here.'' But
the bill says, under no circumstances can the Federal Government or any
State require that one be set up.
So I suggest to my colleagues that we are, in fact, engaged in a
self-defeating process. We are going to encourage churches and other
religious organizations to become involved in the welfare system, but
we are going to use language which will, in fact, serve as a
disincentive for States to contract with them.
Mr. President, I hope, following the debate, that we will have an
opportunity to vote seriatim; first on part 1, on which I think there
should be no disagreement, and then on part 2 of the amendment, which
would strike the Federal mandate that prohibits any State from choosing
to require a religious organization in receipt of federal funds to form
a separate nonprofit corporation.
I think that it is in the best interest of those who want to
encourage religious institutions and organizations to become involved
to agree to the amendment. Obviously, there is some disagreement on
that issue.
I yield the floor at this time.
Mr. CHAFEE. I wonder if the Senator will yield for a question.
Mr. COHEN. I yield.
Mr. CHAFEE. Under the proposal of the distinguished Senator from
Maine, if in our State we were nervous about the constitutionality of
dealing with the church directly without this religious corporation,
then under the Senator's amendment, the State could ensure itself it
was on safe ground by requiring that there be such a corporation, and
then when the State dealt with it, they would know that they were
absolutely safe from lawsuits and all the problems that possibly could
arise.
Mr. COHEN. The Senator is correct. What my amendment would do would
be to allow the State to decide, in looking at a particular
organization--they look at the circumstances, they look at the
environment, they look at the entire structure--to say, ``We are
satisfied that there is no need to set up a separate nonprofit
corporation to administer these funds and, therefore, we are not making
that requirement for this particular organization.''
On the other hand, they may see an organization is so structured that
it is, in fact, permeated with sectarianism, as such, and the language
of the Supreme Court rulings require that a separate nonprofit
corporation be established before the organization can receive federal
funds.
If we do not strike this particular section, it seems to me what the
State is going to do is to protect itself, to not deal with that
particular organization and, therefore, we will not achieve the very
goal we are trying to do: to get more churches and religious
institutions involved in our welfare system.
I suggest to my colleague that if we leave that language as it is
currently written, it will be very self-defeating and the State will be
reluctant to engage in contracting out with religious organizations.
Mr. CHAFEE. Just one more question of the Senator. It seems to me
what the Senator is proposing is giving the States flexibility; the
State does not have to require it but could.
Mr. COHEN. It could.
Mr. CHAFEE. So, therefore, if the whole goal of this bill, often
reiterated, is greater flexibility to the States, that this is what the
Senator's amendment does. And if the State does not choose to require a
nonprofit corporation, then that is the State's business.
Mr. COHEN. The Senator is entirely correct. Let me quote briefly from
the case Bowen versus Kendrick, decided in 1988. We have Chief Justice
Rehnquist, and Justices Kennedy, Scalia, White and O'Connor in a 5 to 4
decision. The language is:

We have always been careful to ensure that direct
Government aid to religiously affiliated institutions does
not have the primary effect of advancing religion. One way in
which direct Government aid might have that effect is if aid
flows to institutions that are ``pervasively sectarian.''
We have invalidated an aid program on the grounds that
there was a ``substantial'' risk that the aid to these
religious institutions would, knowingly or unknowingly,
result in religious indoctrination.

The Court also noted that whether an organization has ``explicit
corporate ties to a particular religious faith and

[[Page S 13518]]
by-laws or policies that prohibit any deviation from religious
doctrine'' is a ``factor relevant to the determination of whether an
institution is `pervasively sectarian.' ''
So the Court is saying that it is going to look at the circumstances
individually and make a determination. If you bar a State from
requiring a separate corporate entity to be formed, what you are doing
is sending forth a very chilling message: ``If you undertake to
contract out with a church or religious organization under these
circumstances, you are going to invite a constitutional challenge.''
Therefore, I would imagine the Governor of a State would say, ``Let's
just not contract out with this particular religious organization.
We'll avoid the problem. We don't need any more lawsuits. We don't need
to be in the Supreme Court.''
I say to my friend, the best way we ensure to get the churches and
religious organizations into our welfare system is to strike the
language that would mandate that no State could ever require, under any
circumstances, the formation of a separate nonprofit corporation.
Mr. CHAFEE. I was interested in that Supreme Court case the Senator
quoted. Was that Judge Scalia who joined in that opinion?
Mr. COHEN. Judge Scalia did join in the opinion. It was written by
Chief Justice Rehnquist and joined by Justice Kennedy, Justice Scalia,
Justice White and Justice O'Connor.
Mr. CHAFEE. I do not think Justice Scalia is looked upon as a
dangerous liberal on that Court.
Mr. COHEN. If I could add one other factor. We have Rosenberger
versus University of Virginia, a case decided just last spring. Justice
O'Connor, who cast the fifth and deciding vote, wrote a separate
concurrence. Here is some straightforward language from her opinion:

There exists an axiom in the history and precedent of the
Establishment Clause, public funds may not be used to endorse
a religious message.

That is what the Court is looking for, whether public funds are being
used to endorse a religious message. If a State finds that a religious
organization is not structured in such a fashion, that it is not, in
fact, promoting religion either directly or indirectly, then there is
not a problem. But if a State is persuaded that an organization is so
permeated with a sectarian influence, then it is going to require that
a separate corporation handle the funds. It seems to me that we ought
to give the States that flexibility, and if you do not give them that
flexibility, it means they are not going to contract out with religious
organizations.
Mr. CHAFEE. I could well see the situation where in our State, for
example, the attorney general might advise the Governor, ``Don't get
into these kind of contracts.''
As it exists now, you have no option but to deal with the church
because the bill, as I understand it is written, forbids these
nonprofit corporations from being set up.
Mr. COHEN. It prohibits either the Federal Government or the State
from requiring a religious organization to form a separate nonprofit
corporation to receive and administer the funds.
Mr. CHAFEE. So you could get a situation where the attorney general
advises the Governor, ``Don't make that kind of a deal because we are
going to end up in court, so just forget it.''
Mr. COHEN. That is right.
Mr. CHAFEE. The Senator's point is a good one. If we are trying to
encourage the churches to come into this, use their facilities which
they have available for day care and other forms of assistance, I think
the Senator's amendment makes a lot of sense.
Mr. COHEN. I thank the Senator.
Mr. ASHCROFT. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. MOYNIHAN addressed the Chair.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. I am sorry. I wanted to speak. The Senator was on the
floor.
Mr. COHEN. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Snowe). The Senator from Missouri.
Mr. ASHCROFT. Madam President, I ask if the Senator from Maine will
yield for a question?
Mr. COHEN. Yes.
Mr. ASHCROFT. I heard the Senator from Rhode Island ask him if a
State were allowed to require the formation of a separate corporate
entity, that would guarantee the State immunity from suit based on
grounds of the infraction of the first amendment. Is that the Senator's
position?
Mr. COHEN. I think what the Senator from Rhode Island was saying is,
if the State, in looking at the situation, comes to the conclusion that
requiring a separate nonprofit corporation will insulate the State
against a lawsuit for violating the first amendment, that the State
would be willing to contract with the religious organization to provide
welfare services. My amendment gives the State flexibility to make that
judgment rather than issuing a mandate. I know that the Senator from
Missouri is concerned, and I appreciate his concern.
Mr. ASHCROFT. I want to know if the position of the Senator from
Maine is that by virtue of requiring the formation of one or another,
that you have a determination about whether or not something violates
the first amendment.
Mr. COHEN. No. The answer to that directly is no.
Mr. ASHCROFT. So the Senator from Maine does not allege that this
provision would provide any guarantee. I thought I misunderstood. I
thought I heard the Senator from Maine tell the Senator from Rhode
Island that such a guarantee would be in effect.
Mr. COHEN. If I said that, I misspoke, because there is no guarantee
under any of these cases. You can always end up in court. I think what
the Senator from Rhode Island was saying is that the likelihood of a
challenge on the basis of the Establishment Clause is less likely by
virtue of setting up such a corporation.
You minimize the challenge by creating a separate corporate entity
that is not going to be so heavily influenced or permeated with
sectarianism that the court is going to prohibit it from receiving
government funding. But each case is decided on an individual basis. As
we have discussed, it is not the language of the bill, but it is the
structure of the organization, that is scrutinized on an individual
basis to determine whether or not that organization is permeated with
religious overtones.
Mr. ASHCROFT. Who makes that decision?
Mr. COHEN. Ultimately, only the court.
Mr. ASHCROFT. So it is up to the court to decide----
Mr. COHEN. Yes.
Mr. ASHCROFT. Whether an organization is so permeated with sectarian
purpose as to be ineligible to participate in a governmental purpose.
Mr. COHEN. That is right.
Mr. ASHCROFT. It is the position of the Senator from Maine that that
was decided in Bowen versus Kendrick, and a long line of cases?
Mr. COHEN. Exactly right.
Mr. ASHCROFT. I thank the Senator.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. Madam President, I rise in fervent support of the
proposal by the Senator from Maine. It seems to me to anticipate
difficulties which can be readily resolved if they are in fact
anticipated. It is clear that the Senate understood what it was doing
and indeed provided additional language to resolve issues that might
arise.
I do not want, in any way, to complicate matters, but I would like to
state that it is a matter of record--or so I believe--that the
establishment clause has come into play in areas such as the ones we
are dealing with only quite recently--only in the 20th century. I
believe it was not until the 20th century that the Court held that
public aid to religious schools was unconstitutional. Indeed, I think
it may only be in the second half of the 20th century.
I note for the first--the longest--century of the Constitution, it
was assumed otherwise. President Grant, contemplating running for a
third term, addressed a meeting or a gathering--or an encampment of the
Army, I think they would have said, of the Tennessee, which was held
out in Iowa, and proposed a constitutional amendment that would
prohibit aid to Catholic schools. It would not have said Catholic per
se.
Mr. COHEN. I would have to check with Senator Thurmond to verify
that.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. Yes, Senator Thurmond would know. But it was assumed
that it was constitutional. He thought it would be an issue to make it
unconstitutional. It took another 80 years for the Court to find that
it was in there all along. I think you can read that clause. It says
simply: ``Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of
religion.''

[[Page S 13519]]

The Church of England is an established church. There were
established churches in most of the colonies. I may be mistaken and
probably am. I think several colonies had several established churches.
That means public moneys go to the maintenance of the clergy and of the
houses of worship. It was never, in any way, thought that you could not
have parochial schools receive public moneys. They did in New York,
until the 1920's when, under an informal arrangement whereby State-
owned lands in the western part of the State--and I suspect Maine has
the same arrangement--were sold for different purposes and used. It was
a decentralized situation, and I regret to say--meaning no discredit
and hoping not, in any way, to offend anybody--the Baptists were found
to be padding their payrolls. So reform had to take place. Albany took
over the disbursement of these funds. They were called public schools.
The issue arose as to what Bible would be used, and, of course, the
majority wanted a King James Bible and the Catholics wanted a Bible of
their own, and so the Catholic schools commenced their independent
existence to this day. But the term ``public school,'' or ``PS'' in the
way of usage in Manhattan, comes from that point.
I just hope these comments--I cannot expect them to carry great
weight across the lawn to our former neighbors in the Court, but it is
a fact that the establishment clause contemplated a form of Government-
supported religious institutions. That was normal in most of the world
then and had nothing to do with day care centers, or halfway houses, or
orphanages, or schools the way it may today.
So I think the Senator has a powerful point, a useful measure, and I
thank him for being patient with my not necessarily precisely accurate
recollection.
Mr. ASHCROFT. Madam President, I rise in support of the Dole
amendment and in opposition to the amendment proposed by the Senator
from Maine. The Senator from Maine suggests that States should make
determinations about whether there should be another hurdle over which
nongovernmental, private institutions, religious in character, have to
crawl in order to be participants in helping solve this major challenge
to our society and culture. In doing so, it would place a hurdle in
their path that is placed in the path of no other organization, in
terms of their eligibility to help solve this problem.
Strangely enough, this hurdle is placed in the path of some of the
institutions that have the very best record at helping solve the
problem. It is suggested that placement of this hurdle in the path is
necessary to protect States and localities from lawsuits. But the truth
of the matter is that nothing can protect anyone from a lawsuit
relating to the constitutionality or lack of constitutionality of a
statute or a public program, other than a constitutional amendment,
which is explicit in its authorization. But still you run the risk of
litigation.
It would be interesting, or perhaps maybe easier to understand this
if what we were asking for here was unprecedented or had not been
already enacted in other parts of the law. But I hold in my hand a
report to the Congress for fiscal year 1994 of the Refugee Resettlement
Program, which provides four grants directly to religious organizations
for dispensing cash benefits. I could read a list of many, many such
organizations that are involved in doing it.
As a matter of fact, many of those who are in this Senate today voted
in favor of this program in 1980 when the Refugee Resettlement Program
was enacted and asked that there be no special safeguard against the
ability of religious, nongovernmental, not-for-profit organizations to
assist with refugees. We would not want to end up with the anomalous
situation of requiring churches to go over special barriers when
providing services to welfare recipients in the United States, while
not requiring them to go over the same barriers when helping refugees
and others.
Similarly, the Adolescent Family Life Act, which was tested in the
case of Bowen versus Kendrick, provides funds to public and private
counseling agencies that counsel teenagers on matters of premarital
sexual relations and pregnancy.
The act expressly provided that religious not-for-profit
organizations were to be considered as eligible. In that case the Court
held that the act did not on its face violate the establishment clause.
As a matter of fact, the Dole bill as it is currently constituted
here and is before the Senate, has special protections in it--
protections against proselytization, protections for individuals so if
they are offended by having to go to a religious organization to
receive a benefit, that the benefit can be provided in another setting
rather than in the setting of the religious organization.
It also provides protections for the churches so that the churches
can know they do not lose their ability to hire of like faith, and be
associated with employees whose belief and character is consistent with
the values for which the institution stands.
What we have here is an amendment which seeks to carve out a special
category for welfare reform which does not exist in other parts of the
laws.
The report to the Congress of the refugee resettlement program
provides a list of dozens of organizations which receive help including
churches, help that they pass on to the refugees without this kind of
problem. There has not been a great problem in any respect, as a matter
of fact, with the alleged unconstitutionality.
So we have a situation where we have those institutions in our
culture and society with the very best track record of solving the
problems of the welfare puzzle. We will say to them, you have to go to
the added expense, you have to form a separate organization, you will
have to lose some of the protections you have as a church, your ability
to hire people that have values consistent with yours, that have a
belief structure that is consistent with yours, you will have to
forfeit all that in order to have this opportunity to participate in
solving this problem which you have probably been working pretty
aggressively to solve on your own. We would be well served as a Nation
if these institutions would help us in the solution of this problem.
I think that is the challenge which is before the Senate. The
question is whether or not we will continue to throw barriers in the
path of the organizations which can help us substantially in solving
this problem.
Now, we have tried the singular Washington one-size-fits-all remedy
for a long time in welfare. We have seen what happens. We have watched
the roles of those in poverty swell. We have watched the percentage of
children in poverty in our country grow.
So when it comes time to try and extend ourselves to find a real
solution to this problem and to borrow some of the solutions that the
refugee resettlement program has used and to borrow some of the
solutions to the problem that have been found in other recent
legislation like the Adolescent Family Life Act, all of a sudden we
hear the old bugaboos about needing to have special requirements for
the religious organizations. Requirements that will make them second-
class citizens, that will force them to go through the burden of
setting up separate organizations.
Those who proposed the amendment and support it indicate there will
be a tremendous fear on the part of agencies who might otherwise
contract with the separate organizations.
Nothing in this bill would stop a religious organization from setting
up a separate organization. Nothing would prohibit it. Nothing would
change its option.
The only real mandate that we have in the Dole bill is that churches
would be placed on a level playing field with other non-governmental
institutions, that we would stop tossing barriers and prejudicial
conditions in the paths of the religious institutions that wanted to
help.
I need to try and make it as clear as I possibly can that I cannot
endow the churches with rights to do things that they do not have a
right to do under the Constitution, and neither can this body. I would
not want to.
I believe that the States should not support the church, that the
church should be separate from the State. But I believe that when
organizations including religious organizations have the track record
of helping move people from welfare to work, from indolence to
industry, from a situation

[[Page S 13520]]
where they are kept in poverty to a situation where they have
independence, I think for us to place undue burdens in their pathway is
unfair, and not only is it unfair but it is inappropriate.
Why we should single out the community of faith in the United States
of America and say that for that community there are special
requirements that do not inure to other individuals in other parts of
our culture and say they are second-class citizens and they are
ineligible, is beyond me.
The courts have not said so. Previous enactments of the Senate have
not said so, whether you are talking about the refugee resettlement
program or whether you are talking about the Adolescent Family Life
Act.
In previous efforts to deal with problems like this, the Congress in
the Stewart P. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act sought to provide
emergency shelter grant programs that would allow those programs to go
to religious nonprofit organizations.
What we really ask for is that there be a level playing field here,
not for the benefit of the organizations but for the benefit of a
country that desperately needs help in breaking the cycle of
dependence, breaking the cycle of poverty, and helping people move out
of that welfare setting into a setting of work and industry.
I think it is inappropriate to place between those organizations and
the opportunity to participate barriers which will slow their ability
rather than grow their ability to be a part of the solution.
I think we need to emulate programs that can be found in virtually
every city in America, programs which now are totally distinct and
separate. Obviously, many of them fear involvement with governmental
entities. We need to invite them to the table, not to proselytize, but
to say we are interested in having their help.
The Dole bill guarantees that no one is to be proselytized. It
guarantees that no one can be forced to confess or otherwise subscribe
to a faith to get a benefit. It says that no money can be used for
purposes of propagating the faith. It says churches, however, do not
have to become sterile institutions that are nameless and faithless.
The Salvation Army would not have to take the word ``salvation'' out of
its title in order to participate in the program. It would not have to
hire people whose beliefs and whose value structure are a threat to the
character and the doctrine of the Salvation Army itself.
I believe that the bill as it stands is an invitation for help. It is
an invitation which does not threaten the religious liberties of
individuals. It does not prohibit churches or other nongovernmental
religious organizations that are nonprofit from setting up separate
organizations. But it simply would not allow the Government to impose
upon them a requirement which is imposed upon no other organization, no
other set of institutions in this country.
It does not label religious organizations who come to the table as
participants for reconciliation and resolution of the welfare problem
as second-class citizens, but it does say there are limits to what they
can do.
It requires that they keep an accounting of the funds they receive
from the Government. It requires that they follow and observe rules of
how the funding must be spent. But it protects them from an invasive
Government which might otherwise improperly seek to influence their
belief structure or the way in which they conduct worship or engage in
their activities.
The Dole bill on this matter is a balanced bill. To require or to
promote the requiring of an additional hurdle over which these
religious organizations would have to go when that is not required for
anyone else would be manifestly unfair, and in my judgment it would be
counterproductive.
I want to indicate that I do not have any objection to the first
amendment proposed by the Senator from Maine to add to the bill the
language that we will operate in a way that is consistent with the
establishment clause of the Constitution of the United States. That is
fine with me. When I took my oath, in every job that I have had for
quite some time, I have sworn to uphold the Constitution, and I think
that is part and parcel of what we do here. And I have no objection to
that. I would be happy to agree to that. Since this item has been
separated, we might avoid a vote on that.
But on the second item, I urge my colleagues not to place in the path
of well-meaning religious, nonprofit organizations the requirement that
there be the opportunity for States to have them go over major hurdles
and expenses and forfeit opportunities to protect the organization from
improper intrusion by Government by accepting this amendment. So I
oppose this amendment and urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
Mr. COATS. Madam President, I rise to support the statements made by
the Senator from Missouri with some reluctance, because I understand
the Senator from Maine is essentially attempting to accomplish the same
end as the Senator from Missouri, coming at it from different sides of
the equation.
He spoke earlier about the extraordinary importance and effectiveness
of the role of religious organizations and faith-based organizations in
dealing with questions of welfare, poverty alleviation, poverty
prevention and some of the social dislocations that exist in our
country. Clearly, an examination, or even a cursory analysis of the
effectiveness of those programs vis-a-vis Government programs, shows an
extraordinary gap between the two. The religious organizations'
programs have elements of care, elements of lower cost, elements of
effectiveness that Government programs simply have not been able to
match. So I think all of us recognize that and want to encourage their
role in dealing with some of these seemingly intractable social
problems.
I, like the Senator from Missouri, certainly have no problem with the
first half of the amendment of the Senator from Maine regarding the
establishment clause. I think that is proper.
But, as to the provision which removes the prohibition against States
requiring the establishment of separate, nonsectarian operations by
religious organizations, I think clearly--while the intent of the
Senator from Maine is not to have unwanted State discrimination against
those institutions, that very likely could be the result. The practical
effect of all of that is, I believe, going to discourage, if not
eliminate, most of the organizations from participating in these
programs.
It is the ability to bring some semblance of their sectarian nature
to addressing the problem that results in the effectiveness of dealing
with the problem. To remove that and subject them to what may be a
discriminatory--at least a test of absolute separation from the very
basis underlying their program, I think defeats the program.
For that reason I urge my colleagues to support the amendment of the
Senator from Missouri and oppose the amendment of the Senator from
Maine.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
Mr. COHEN. Madam President, let me offer a few more comments. I do
not know that any other Members are coming to the floor to debate this
issue or whether we should move to a vote relatively soon. I have not
had any requests for further debate on this side.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. Madam President, if I may, I do not see any Senators
seeking recognition, nor have I been told of any.
We have no requests for speakers on this side.
Mr. COHEN. Let me, then, just conclude if I could. Then perhaps my
colleague might have some other comments to offer.
We are seeking essentially the same goal. That is, namely, to involve
our religious organizations in helping out in the distribution of funds
in our welfare program. My concern has been that the first amendment
may very well be violated if, in fact, we have religious
organizations--using the words, once again, of the Supreme Court--that
are so permeated with sectarianism that the Court would find that
providing them with government funding violates the Establishment
Clause.
I by no means have suggested that churches or any other religious
organizations are second-class citizens. Quite to the contrary, they
are first-class citizens and they do first-class work. They are great
humanitarians and we need them desperately in the entire effort in our
welfare system.
Second, they are well-meaning people. We do not want to punish well-

[[Page S 13521]]
meaning people. I come back to the Supreme Court's language in
Rosenberger versus University of Virginia:

There exists an axiom in the history and precedent of the
Establishment Clause, public funds may not be used to endorse
a religious message.

So the question then becomes, would the atmosphere in that particular
religious organization be so permeated with sectarianism that it seeks
to promote and endorse a religious message which would then be subject
to attack by a lawsuit? Let me just suggest some of the arguments that
could be raised if this language remains in the bill.
First of all, under the bill, religious organizations are permitted
to discriminate when hiring persons to provide welfare services with
Federal funds. Right now we allow religious organizations to
discriminate on the basis of religious affiliation when they hire
people. We accept that. We may have a Catholic Church that wishes to
hire only those of the Catholic faith. We may have a Jewish synagogue
that wants only those of the Jewish faith; or Mormons, that want
employees of the Mormon faith.
Here, however, we go one step further and permit religious
organizations to discriminate when employing persons to provide welfare
services with Federal funds. Is that going to be a dispositive factor?
I do not know. It may be one factor a court would take into account. We
have no way of gauging that now.
Under the bill, however, we go one step further and say we prohibit
States from requiring religious organizations from establishing
separate nonprofit public entities, another factor that would be argued
in all likelihood.
We require that organizations providing welfare services be allowed
to have religious symbols on their walls and that they not be required
to remove religious icons, scriptures, or symbols.
Whether the totality of that atmosphere would amount to a permeation
of a sectarian message, I do not know. Only the court will decide.
What seems clear to me, however, is that a State might very well
decide not to contract out with such a religious organization in order
to avoid a lawsuit. No State can avoid a lawsuit--I think the Senator
from Missouri is quite correct-- we can do nothing short of a
constitutional amendment, and even then it will be subject to a lawsuit
for interpretation. But a State might very well be reluctant to draw in
religious organizations under these circumstances.
So I suggest to my colleagues, one way to avoid the very thing that
we are professing we want most--that is, to draw more people in, to
draw the organizations in--is to push them away by virtue of the
language contained in the Dole bill. So we have the same objective.
I simply point out, in the Bowen versus Kendrick, which both of us
have cited, the Court noted that even when the statute appears to be
neutral on its face:

We have always been careful to ensure that direct
government aid to religiously affiliated institutions does
not have a primary effect of advancing religion. One way in
which direct government aid might have that effect is if the
aid flows to institutions that are ``pervasively sectarian.''

I might point out that the court, in ruling in this case, upheld the
facial validity of the statute. The Justices then sent it back down to
the trial court to see if in application the funds were distributed in
an unconstitutional manner.
So we had the very situation which we are likely to see replicated
time and time again in the future. One way to avoid that situation is
to strike section 102(d)(2)(B).
So I want to commend my colleague from Missouri. I think that he and
I have the same objective. He believes that by leaving that language
in, it will certainly not discriminate against the institutions, and
that is correct. My view is it will, in fact, cause the State to
discriminate in an adverse way, and that is not to contract with those
various institutions which we want to be part of the system.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, as we prepare to vote, may I just hold
the Senate for just a moment to read a passage from the message to the
legislature by Gov. William H. Seward in New York State in 1840.
Governor Seward went on to a distinguished career here in Washington,
and we have Alaska, among other things, to thank him for.
He said:

The children of foreigners, found in great numbers in our
populous cities and towns, and in the vicinity of our public
works, are too often deprived of the advantages of our system
of public education, in consequence of prejudices arising
from difference of language or religion. It ought never to be
forgotten that the public welfare is as deeply concerned in
their education as in that of our own children. I do not
hesitate, therefore, to recommend the establishment of
schools in which they may be instructed by teachers speaking
the same language with themselves and professing the same
faith.

Governor Seward was from Auburn, NY, far away from those foreigners,
and, as a matter of fact, if you would like to know the fact, those
were Irish. And they did not speak English. They spoke Gaelic. But the
idea that they had a right to public school was very clear to people,
and very close to the Constitution.
Just for purposes of innocent merriment and the possible instruction
of the Honorable Justices of the Court, I would like to ask unanimous
consent that, and a few succeeding paragraphs, be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

This situation prompted the Whig Governor William H. Seward
to make this proposal to the legislature in his message for
1840:
``The children of foreigners, found in great numbers in our
populous cities and towns, and in the vicinity of our public
works, are too often deprived of the advantages of our system
of public education, in consequence of prejudices arising
from difference of language or religion. It ought never to be
forgotten that the public welfare is as deeply concerned in
their education as in that of our own children. I do not
hesitate, therefore, to recommend the establishment of
schools in which they may be instructed by teachers speaking
the same language with themselves and professing the same
faith.''
Instead of waiting for the rural, upstate legislature to
ponder and act upon this proposal of an upstate Whig
governor, the Catholics in the city immediately began
clamoring for a share of public education funds.\44\ The
Common Council declined on grounds that this would be
unconstitutional. In October, 1840, the Bishop himself
appeared before the Council, even offering to place the
parochial schools under the supervision of the Public School
Society in return for public aid. When he was turned down,
tempers began to rise.
In April, 1841, Seward's Secretary of State John C.
Spencer, ex officio superintendent of public schools,
submitted a report on the issue to the State Senate. This was
a state paper of the first quality, drafted by an authority
on the laws of New York State (who was also de Tocqueville's
American editor). Spencer began by assuming the essential
justice of the Catholic request for aid to their schools:
``It can scarcely be necessary to say that the founders of
these schools, and those who wish to establish others, have
absolute rights to the benefits of a common burthen; and that
any system which deprives them of their just share in the
application of a common and public fund, must be justified,
if at all, by a necessity which demands the sacrifice of
individual rights, for the accomplishment of a social benefit
of paramount importance. It is presumed no such necessity can
be urged in the present instance.''
To those who feared use of public funds for sectarian
purposes, Spencer replied that all instruction is in some
ways sectarian: ``No books can be found, no reading lessons
can be selected, which do not contain more or less of some
principles of religious faith, either directly avowed, or
indirectly assumed.'' The activities of the Public School
Society were no exception to this rule: ``Even the moderate
degree of religious instruction which the Public School
Society imparts, must therefore be sectarian; that is, it
must favor one set of opinions in opposition to another, or
others; and it is believed that this always will be the
result, in any course of education that the wit of man can
devise.'' As for avoiding sectarianism by abolishing
religious instruction altogether, ``On the contrary, it would
be in itself sectarian; because it would be consonant to the
views of a peculiar class, and opposed to the opinions of
other classes.''
Spencer proposed to take advantage of the diversity of
opinion by a form of local option. He suggested that the
direction of the New York City school system be turned over
to a board of elected school commissioners which would
establish and maintain general standards, while leaving
religious matters to the trustees of the individual schools,
the assumption being that those sectarians who so wished
would proceed to establish their own schools.
``A rivalry may, and probably will, be produced between
them, to increase the number of pupils. As an essential means
to such an object, there will be a constant effort to improve
the schools, in the mode and degree of instruction, and in
the qualification of the teachers. Thus, not only will the
number of

[[Page S 13522]]
children brought into the schools be incalculably augmented, but the
competition anticipated will produce its usual effect of
proving the very best material to satisfy the public demand.
These advantages will more than compensate for any possible
evils that may be apprehended from having schools adapted to
the feelings and views of the different denominations.''
The legislature put off immediate action on Spencer's
report. But Catholics grew impatient. When neither party
endorsed the proposal in the political campaign that fall,
Bishop Hughes made the calamitous mistake--four days before
the election--of entering a slate of his own candidates for
the legislature. Protestants were horrified. James G. Bennett
in the New York Herald declared the Bishop was trying ``to
organize the Irish Catholics of New York as a district party,
that could be given to the Whigs or Locofocos at the wave of
his crozier.'' The Carroll Hall candidates, as they were
known, polled just enough votes to put an end to further
discussion of using public funds to help Catholics become
more active citizens.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. I thank the Chair.
Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, if I might for a moment say a few words
to close to state my support for the Dole bill as it exists rather than
as it has been proposed to be amended, I thank the Senator from Maine
for endorsing the concept of widening and broadening the groups of
individuals in the culture who will help us solve the welfare problem.
But to elevate the States to the place of a judicial entity which seeks
to determine whether or not there has to be a separate structure in
place in order to avoid first amendment problems I think is a compound
misunderstanding.
First of all, it is a misunderstanding to think that the States could
make a difference. The truth of the matter is whether or not you
violate the first amendment cannot be determined by the State. The
State can cause additional expense, or can place barriers in the
roadway for religious institutions, but it cannot provide any kind of
guarantee that there will not be a lawsuit.
Second, it is well settled law. I am talking about the modern law,
and I thank the senior Senator from New York for his comments about the
relationship between our States and funding for social services, and
other types of services. But it is well settled modern law that the
test of whether or not there is an infringement of the establishment
clause is not a test of structure. The test is the test of activity,
and a test of administration.
If you had a totally sectarian organization which was using
government funds to meet public purposes, it is clear that religious
institutions, according to the case of Bowen versus Kendrick--that is
the 1988 case of the U.S. Supreme Court--religious institutions are not
disabled by the establishment clause from participating in publicly
sponsored social welfare programs. You could have a totally secular
organization, a private, even business, corporation endowed by funds
from the Federal Government, and, if its activities were to somehow
impose religion using those funds, it would be an affront to the
Constitution.
Recognizing that it was the activities that could potentially offend
the Constitution, and not the structure that could potentially offend
the Constitution, the Dole bill was carefully drawn so as to prohibit
offensive activities and to allow the religious organizations to
maintain their structure. We do not want religious organizations to
have to change their character. We do not want them to have to belie
what they are. We do not want them to have to participate in hiring
practices and other difficult situations which are inconsistent with
their belief structure. We want their help but we do not want them to
use public funds in achieving religious purposes.
So the Dole bill has clear language which goes to the heart of the
relevant facts of activity, not of structure, and it makes it clear
that, since structure is not really important, this barrier of expense
and intimidation which would stop some from participating and coming to
the table to participate in a full range of these activities should not
be mandated or allowed to be required by the States.
It is with that in mind that we seek to enlarge the community of care
in America, and we seek to enlarge it in a way which will bring in
individuals who can really make a difference.
I pointed out earlier that we had the refugee resettlement program
which has specific authority to deal with religious organizations--and,
as a matter of fact, has been operating that way--so that we have a
test. We already have organizations. As a matter of fact, I believe
most of the Members who are in this Chamber now who were in this
Chamber in 1980 voted for this program without these special
provisions.
It is interesting to me that in the closing days of the Bush
administration they made a proposal, as a part of their service to this
country, which recommended exactly what we have asked be done; that is,
that we enlarge the group of individuals who are capable of assisting
by inviting religious organizations, not to proselytize, not to promote
their religion but to participate when their activities are
characterized by the public purpose. And the Supreme Court of the U.S.
has explicitly indicated that it is not structure but it is, in fact,
purpose, and it is, in fact, activity which determines.
I just add that the Bowen case in that matter indicated that when the
activities were specific and public purpose in nature--and they were
defined clearly enough so that there could be an assessment of those
activities and an evaluation of them by the State--that was the real
test which decided whether or not there was an improper intermixing of
church and state that would be in violation of the first amendment.
Mr. COHEN. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. ASHCROFT. Indeed, I am happy to yield.
Mr. COHEN. The Senator has on at least two occasions indicated the
Dole legislation as currently written prohibits proselytizing. I have
been looking at the language. I could not find it. Perhaps the Senator
could direct it to my attention, the specific prohibition.
Mr. ASHCROFT. I refer to line 7, section 103--no funds used for
programs established or modified under this act shall be expended for
sectarian worship or instruction.
Mr. COHEN. The word proselytizing, I was looking for the word. I have
not found it.
Mr. ASHCROFT. If I spoke to use proselytization, the word to my
understanding does not actually appear--the provision just prohibits
using funds for purposes of sectarian worship or instruction. I do not
think that it would obviously allow proselytizing.
Mr. COHEN. I thank the Senator.
Mr. ASHCROFT. It is with this in mind that I urge the defeat of the
Cohen amendment.
Mr. COHEN. Madam President, I believe we can dispose of part one of
the amendment simply by voice vote, and then ask for the yeas and nays
on the second part.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. That is quite agreeable, Madam President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No.
2586, division I.
So division I of the amendment (No. 2586) was agreed to.
Mr. COHEN. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays on part 2 of
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 amendment No.
2586, division II. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will
call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. DeWine). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber who desire to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 59, nays 41, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 421 Leg.]

YEAS--59

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

[[Page S 13523]]

NAYS--41

Abraham
Ashcroft
Bennett
Bond
Burns
Coats
Cochran
Coverdell
Craig
D'Amato
DeWine
Dole
Faircloth
Frist
Gorton
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hatch
Hatfield
Helms
Hutchison
Inhofe
Kempthorne
Kyl
Lieberman
Lott
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nickles
Pressler
Roth
Santorum
Shelby
Smith
Thompson
Thurmond
Warner
So the amendment (No. 2586), division II, was agreed to.
Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the
amendment was agreed to.
Mr. ASHCROFT. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. SIMON addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I have an amendment that simply contains
some technical corrections to an earlier amendment that I had tossed
in. I would like to offer this amendment at this point. There is a
pending amendment, however, is that correct, or is that not correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Technically, all of the amendments are now
pending.
Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending
amendments be set aside so that I may offer this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.

Amendment No. 2681 to Amendment No. 2280

(Purpose: To provide grants for the establishment of community works
progress programs)

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

The Senator from Illinois [Mr. Simon], for himself and Mr.
Reid, proposes an amendment numbered 2681 to amendment No.
2280.

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under
``Amendments Submitted.'')
Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I see the distinguished majority leader
here. I wonder if we can get a little progress report or an expectation
report.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, it is my understanding that we are making
progress.
[Laughter.]
Mr. DOLE. I have been talking to the distinguished Democratic leader
throughout the day. We believe there are about four or five areas if we
can reach some agreement on we might wrap this bill up fairly quickly.
I think they are discussing it. Staff is in my office now. I have not
had a chance to get back to the Democratic leader.
Hopefully, what we might be able to do tonight, if Senators
Wellstone, Faircloth, Conrad, a Republican amendment and then Senator
Dorgan can offer their amendments tonight.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. And Senator Exon.
Mr. DOLE. We could stack those votes starting at 10 o'clock tomorrow
morning. Debate the amendments tonight, have the vote starting at 10
tomorrow morning, if we can work it out. If not, we will just have to
stay here tonight and vote.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. I would like to add Senator Exon.
Mr. DOLE. 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. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 2680

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to call up
amendment 2680 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report the amendment.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Iowa [Mr. Harkin] proposes an amendment
numbered 2680.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent reading of the
amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The text of the amendment is printed in the Friday, September 8,
1995 edition of the Record.)
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I understand the managers of the bill will
accept this amendment. I will just take a very few minutes to describe
it.
Mr. President, this amendment clearly expresses the sense of the
Senate that any legislation we enact--whatever the final outcome of the
welfare reform bill may be--should not eliminate or weaken the present
competitive bidding requirements in any program using Federal funds to
purchase infant formula.
This amendment does not impose any new requirements, but it says that
whatever the outcome on this legislation, whenever Federal dollars are
involved in purchasing infant formula, competitive bidding should be
required in the same manner that it is now.
The reason I am concerned is that the House of Representatives has
passed legislation that would create a new block grant encompassing the
current WIC Program. But that bill does not require the States to use
competitive bidding or equivalent cost containment, which is presently
required for purchasing infant formula in the WIC Program.
WIC competitive bidding benefits two classes of people. It allows
more people to be helped by WIC with the limited amount of money
available. WIC still does not reach all eligible people, so savings
allow more pregnant women, infants, and children to be served. And
competitive bidding saves taxpayers' money because less spending is
needed to achieve the objectives of WIC.
I must say at the outset, Mr. President, for the record, I personally
do not favor converting WIC into a block grant or drastically changing
it. WIC has been one of our most successful efforts to improve the
nutrition and health of children.
Numerous studies have demonstrated the benefits and cost
effectiveness of WIC. It saves money because it heads off a lot of
problems that could be very costly. That is my own personal view.
Whatever may happen with respect to the WIC program, I strongly
believe that we in Congress have a responsibility to prevent outright
waste and squandering of Federal dollars. That is likely to result if
we abandon the competitive bidding requirement.
The case for competitive bidding is too clear to ignore. Rebates
obtained through competitive bidding for infant formula have reduced
the cost of infant formula for WIC participants by approximately $4.1
billion through the end of fiscal year 1994, allowing millions of
additional pregnant women, infants, and children to achieve better
nutrition and health through the limited WIC funds available.
The Department of Agriculture has estimated that in fiscal year 1995,
rebates obtained through competitive bidding for infant formula will
total over $1 billion, which will enable WIC to serve approximately 1.6
million additional women, infants and children. For my State of Iowa,
the fiscal year 1995 rebate savings will be about $7.8 million,
allowing an estimated 12,734 more people to be served without one
additional dime of cost to the taxpayers.
Mr. President, I worked very hard to include the provision in the
1987 Commodity Distribution Reform Act that allowed States to keep a
portion of the savings they achieved through competitive bidding.
Without that provision, they could not have used those savings to
serve more people. The money would have come back to Washington, DC.
The chairman of the Agriculture Committee, Chairman Leahy and I, worked
closely together to get that legislation passed. In 1989, I introduced
the Child Nutrition and WIC Reauthorization Act, which included a
requirement to use competitive bidding or equally effective cost
containment measures for purchasing WIC infant formula, and again
worked closely with Chairman Leahy in gaining its enactment.
All of the studies and the experience we have had since that time
show that we have indeed saved a lot of money through competitive
bidding, and we

[[Page S 13524]]
have served a lot more people. It has been one of our most successful
programs, as I said.
Mr. President, earlier this year, on February 28, 1995, there was an
article in the Wall Street Journal. The headline says ``Four Drug Firms
Could Gain $1 Billion Under GOP Nutrition-Program Revision.'' What the
headline referred to was doing away with the competitive bidding
requirement in legislation before the House of Representatives.
I ask unanimous consent this article appear at the end of my
statement.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit No. 1)
Mr. HARKIN. Just to repeat, this amendment is a sense-of-the-Senate
resolution stating that whatever we do here we will continue to have
competitive bidding in the purchase of infant formula using Federal
funds.
I thank the managers of the bill. I thank Senator Dole for his
support and his willingness to accept this amendment.
Exhibit

[From the Wall Street Journal, February 28, 1995]

Four Drug Firms Could Gain $1 Billion Under GOP Nutrition-Program
Revision

(By Hilary Stout)

Washington.--Four pharmaceutical companies stand to gain as
much as a billion dollars under a Republican bill that
overhauls federal nutrition programs for children and
pregnant women.
The companies sell infant formula to the Women, Infants and
Children (WIC) program, a federal initiative that provides
formula as well as milk, beans, rice and other nutritious
foods to poor children and to pregnant and breast-feeding
women. Since 1989 the companies have been required by law to
enter into a competitive bidding process in order to sell
formula to WIC, resulting in rebates to the government that
are expected to reach $1.1 billion this year.
A bill that cleared the House Economic and Educational
Opportunities Committee on a party-line vote last week would
turn the WIC program over to states in the form of a ``block
grant,'' and with it repeal the cost-containment competitive-
bidding measure. An amendment to restore it was defeated by
the committee. The legislation now moves to the House floor
for consideration.
The four companies, the only domestic makers of infant
formula--Ross Laboratories, a unit of Abbott Laboratories;
Mead Johnson, a unit of Bristol-Myers Squibb Co.; Wyeth-
Ayerst, a unit of American Home Products Corp.; and Carnation
Co., a U.S. subsidiary of the Swiss conglomerate Nestle SA--
fought the competitive-bidding measure fiercely when it came
before Congress in the late 1980s. Until then, they were
collecting retail prices for the infant formula they sold to
WIC.
Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, the senior Democrat on the
Senate Agriculture Committee and the lawmaker who led the
effort to enact the cost-containment measures, threatened to
fillibuster the bill yesterday if it reaches the Senate. ``It
is really obscene,'' Sen. Leahy said. ``The most conservative
of people should, if being truthful, like the competitive
bidding. . . . It's just rank hypocrisy.''
If the bill reaches the Senate floor, Sen. Leahy continued,
``I've spent 20 years building bipartisan coalitions and
working on nutrition programs. If it's necessary to discuss
my whole 20 years' worth of experience in real time, I'll do
it.''
In 1993, the latest year for which figures are available,
the WIC program spent $1.46 billion in infant formula but
received $935 million in rebates. That cut the overall cost
of providing formula to $525 million, nearly a two-thirds
reduction. Moreover, the states, which administer the
program, were allowed to use the rebates to add more people
to the WIC program.
The action on WIC comes as a liberal-leaning research
group, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, released a
study questioning the continuing effectiveness of some of the
infant-formula rebates. The center's analysis found that in
the last year, despite the cost-containment requirements, the
cost of infant formula purchased through WIC has almost
doubled in many states.
Since last March, the study said, 17 state WIC programs
have signed rebate contracts with at least one of the major
formula manufacturers. Under those agreements, the average
net cost of a 13-ounce can of concentrated infant formula was
60 cents. compared with a 32-cent average price under rebate
contracts signed during the previous 15 months, the study
said.
The Federal Trade Commission has been investigating the
infant formula makers' rebate and pricing practices, and at
least one state, Florida, has filed suit against the
manufacturers.

Mr. DOLE. We are prepared to accept the amendment.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. We are prepared to accept the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 2680) was agreed to.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. DOLE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 2545

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I will get a unanimous-consent agreement now
that it has been cleared on each side.
In the meantime, what is the status of amendment 2545 offered by the
Senator from Iowa--the other amendment, numbered 2545?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays have been ordered.
Mr. DOLE. I would be prepared to accept that amendment No. 2545 if we
vitiate the yeas and nays and have no discussions.
Mr. HARKIN. If the leader will yield, that is very acceptable. I
appreciate that very much.
Mr. DOLE. I ask the yeas and nays be vitiated.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is
on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 2545) was agreed to.
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

____________________