[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:

       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; * * *

  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.

                          ____________________