[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 143 (Thursday, September 14, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S13581-S13617]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                      FAMILY SELF-SUFFICIENCY ACT

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I am going to propound a unanimous-consent 
request as soon as it has been cleared by the Democratic leader. I 
intend to finish this bill today one way or the other, even if there is 
not going to be a welfare bill. We have been at this for several hours 
in good faith. In the offer we made, which was rejected by the Senator 
from Connecticut, there is, over 5 years, $3 billion. I think his 
amendment was 5----
  Mr. DODD. That was not the offer.
  Mr. DOLE. We just changed it. He had $5.7 billion over 5 years. We 
said, OK, we will go more than halfway, to $3 billion over 5 years.
  Mr. DODD. That is the first time this Senator heard that offer.
  Mr. DOLE. My view is that is what the Senator wanted.
  Mr. DODD. I will be glad to look at that. We can put in a quorum 
call. I say that with all due respect to the Senator.
  Mr. DOLE. We changed it about an hour ago. As I understand it, it is 
more than halfway to where the Senator was with his amendment the other 
day. We checked it with some others, and they think this is a very 
generous, responsible offer. That would be $8 billion over 5 years set 
aside for child care
  Mr. DODD. If the Senator will yield. We know each other very well, 
and I just say that offer was not presented to me. I would not say that 
if it were not the case.
  Mr. DOLE. Then I will present it to you now.
  Mr. DODD. Let us put in a quorum call and see if we can get the 
details.
  Mr. DOLE. I do not think we have a problem here.
  Mr. DODD. We may not.
  Mr. DOLE. We have taken care of maintenance of effort and the job 
training. We are going to make it freestanding, under a time agreement. 
And contingency grant funds, which we did not have in our bill, was 
sponsored by the Senator from Ohio, Senator DeWine. He thought about 
$530 million was appropriate. We made it $1 billion. So if some State 
has a calamity, they do not have to pay it back. We kept the loan funds 
of $1.7 billion, and we have accepted some of the triggers suggested. 
The work bonus program, that has been done.
  On the vouchers, we have not reached an agreement, but we have 
increased the hardship exemption in the bill from 15 to 20 percent. We 
have added $75 per year for abstinence education, which has broad 
support. And program evaluation, of interest to the Senator from New 
York, and others, $20 million to evaluate the program. If that is not 
enough, we can raise it to $25 million.
  I talked to Dick Nathan, who suggested that amendment; he is a well-
respected academic. Food stamps, which we have discussed with the 
Democratic leader, has certain escape hatches. We do not think it 
punishes anybody.
  We think it is a good package, and we think we can complete this 
whole bill in a couple of hours.
  Mr. DODD. If the majority leader will yield--and I say this with 
great respect 

[[Page S 13582]]
and friendship, because that is the case--the offer presented to me was 
$3 billion over 7 years, along with a check on the financing schemes. I 
say, in fairness, that in my conversation with the Senator from Utah we 
talked about this, and I counteroffered with the proposal of $3 billion 
over 5 years. I was told it was rejected.
  Under the circumstances, let us find out about where we are. If that 
is the case, I am prepared to sit down and take a good hard look at it. 
I was told something different, and that can happen around here as 
these offers go back and forth. I urge that maybe those involved look 
at the child care piece. I am not as familiar with the other pieces the 
majority leader described.
  Mr. DOLE. I will say that the Democratic leader, Senator Daschle, 
gave me a list of six or seven items yesterday, and we have been able 
to accommodate part of each of those, with the exception of one where 
there was a time limit. Even there, we increased the percentage on 
exemption, hardship exemption, from 15 to 20 percent, which would cover 
that concern.
  If the Democratic leader wishes to speak, I am happy to go over this 
with the Senator from Connecticut. We believe it is a responsible, 
reasonable effort. I might point out that we only save $5 billion in 
AFDC over 5 years and only $9 billion over 7 years. Total savings in 
the Senate bill, which are going to be reduced because of some of the 
things we have agreed to do, over 5 years, is $44 billion; the House 
bill is $75 billion. Over 7 years, ours is $71 billion; the House is 
$122 billion. So there is a vast difference between this and the House 
bill, as far as savings are concerned. We would like to complete action 
on this bill and go to conference.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I wonder if we might suggest a quorum 
call for a brief period of time for us to be able to see if we can 
finalize some of the understandings as it relates to this agreement.
  I think there are some misunderstandings here that may be clarified 
that could accommodate this agreement, even now.
  I thought we had exhausted all possibilities, but maybe not. If that 
is the case, I think it is worth one more quorum call to see if we can 
resolve it.
  Mr. HATCH. If leaders would withhold for a second, I think that the 
settlement on child care is utterly reasonable, something that can 
bring us together.
  I commend both leaders for trying to bring this about. It is my 
understanding that the Hatch language on child care will also be part 
of that.
  Mr. DASCHLE. That is what we will find out.
  Mr. DOLE. The fencing will be but I am not sure about anything else.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DOLE. 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. DOLE. Mr. President, I have been in discussion with the 
distinguished Democratic leader and other colleagues on both sides. I 
think we have the framework of an agreement. We do not have it drafted. 
Nobody has signed off on it finally. But I think in the interest of 
time it has occurred to me and the Democratic leader, Senator Daschle, 
that maybe those who have outstanding amendments could come to the 
floor now and offer those amendments, hopefully in a very short period 
of time because we hope to go and will go to third reading hopefully by 
midnight tonight. But we are going to go to third reading on welfare 
reform between now and sometime, and we would rather do it by midnight 
if we could. I know there are a number of amendments we have looked at 
people can accept. We will try to be as accommodating as we can with 
our colleagues.
  But I think that is the view of the distinguished Democratic leader; 
is that correct?
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I concur entirely. I think we have gotten 
to the point now where it may just be a matter of a period of time 
before we can submit the agreement and have a vote. But this is 
valuable time we are losing, and I know a lot of Members have come to 
me throughout the day expressing an interest in offering their 
amendments. I do not want to preclude them from doing so. I think they 
ought to come to the floor.
  I have agreed that we can go at some point tonight to third reading. 
So we will finish this bill tonight at some point.
  So to accommodate Senators who still have amendments, to ensure that 
we maximize what time we have left, whatever time it is going to take 
before we go to third reading, I encourage all of our colleagues to 
come over if they have amendments.
  As the distinguished majority leader said, working with our ranking 
member, who has done a remarkable job--he deserves an award for sitting 
in the Chamber as long as he has--we are ready to go to work. We would 
like to finish with those amendments that are not part of this 
agreement, and there are many of them. So come to the floor as quickly 
as you can and see if we can resolve these outstanding issues.
  Mr. BREAUX. Will the majority leader yield?
  Mr. DOLE. Could I just say one word because the Democratic leader 
reminds me we are talking about amendments that would not impact on 
what we hope to have as an agreement here, child care--any amendment in 
the area we are looking at we hope would not be offered. We do not have 
an agreement yet. We hope there is. It may not be possible. So we hope 
Members would not offer amendments that would affect the agreement we 
hope to achieve.
  Mr. BREAUX. Will the majority leader yield?
  Mr. DOLE. Yes.
  Mr. BREAUX. I thank the Senator for yielding. And I ask maybe our 
leader, both leaders actually. A great deal of work has been done, a 
lot of back and forth, and I think a good compromise has potentially 
been reached here. I am concerned, as our leader is, that there are a 
lot of other amendments--I do not know whether we have 30, 40 
amendments that are still posted out there, and I am just concerned, is 
it the intent to finish the bill tonight, I ask both leaders?
  Mr. DOLE. We hope to go to third reading this evening. We hope it is 
this evening. It may be tomorrow morning.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I believe, if the majority leader will yield, in answer 
to the question, having had the chance to look at the amendments, most 
Senators would agree to relatively short time limits, and I do not 
think there is any reason why we cannot complete work on the remaining 
amendments tonight.
  So I would again encourage Senators because it is 10 minutes to 6. 
There is some good time left tonight for us to accommodate Senators who 
come to the floor. And we will see what the list looks like. I expect 
it is going to be a lot less than 40. A number of these amendments will 
fall if they get this agreement. And we will just work through whatever 
remaining amendments Senators wish to offer, but we cannot do that if 
they do not come to the floor.
  Mr. DOLE. It is still possible, I might add--I will certainly consult 
the Democratic leader. One way to eliminate some of the amendments 
would be with a cloture vote. Of course, you still have 91 amendments, 
but I think those would all be--there would not be any amendments to 
expand this program. They would be amendments to limit the program, so 
they might be good amendments. But we hope if we get some cooperation 
in the next hour or so that would not be necessary.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, might I ask the majority leader a 
question? I certainly, first of all, know there has been a lot of 
difficult negotiation. And I respect that process very much.
  But as I have listened to the majority leader, was he saying that 
built into this unanimous-consent agreement would be an understanding 
that there could be no amendments in the same areas in which you have 
reached agreement with amendments? And if that is the case, then would 
Senators have an opportunity to at least, as opposed to that being 
hammered out back in our offices, have an opportunity to look at what 
that means?
  Mr. DOLE. Right.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I know without looking at the areas, it is difficult 
to say whether you would agree or not.

[[Page S 13583]]

  Mr. DOLE. Child care is one thing we are working on. Maintenance of 
effort has already been taken care of.
  Job training. We have an agreement, if we have an overall agreement, 
to take the job training provisions out of this bill and have a 
freestanding bill. That agreement has already been reached between 
Senator Kassebaum and Senator Kennedy. We will take that up sometime 
after the appropriations bills are done.
  Contingency grant fund. That is in response to a request by Senator 
Daschle and the Governors and Senator DeWine, and certain things that 
must happen about matching and when it is triggered.
  Work bonus. That has been done. Some question about vouchers. We have 
not reached an agreement on that, but we have agreed to expand the 
current hardship exemption from 15 to 20 percent.
  Abstinence education; $75 million per year earmarked for abstinence 
education.
  Program evaluation was, I guess, a concern of the Senator from New 
York and others. We authorized $20 million. I think that is adequate. 
If not, it can be, I assume, adjusted.
  Then we have been working on a savings provision with reference to 
food stamps. That has not been agreed to yet.
  So those are the general areas. There are others that I do not--I 
know Senator Cohen and Senator Bingaman have an interest in SSI. The 
thing is, we need to find offsets for these. That is what we are trying 
to do this afternoon.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, if I could just say to the majority 
leader and the minority leader, if you would be willing to give 
Senators some advance notice as to when you come out with the 
agreement. I would just like to have those areas and just sort of 
understand what is in the agreement before agreeing that there would be 
no amendments in this area. I am sure that I would agree to that, but I 
would just like to know what it is we are talking about since I was not 
part of the actual negotiation.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I am sure we can accommodate the Senator.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, pending the arrival of Senators wishing 
to offer amendments, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bennett). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, might I ask the majority leader a 
question? I certainly, first of all, know there has been a lot of 
difficult negotiation. And I respect that process.
  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I thank the Chair for recognizing me.


                        Privileges of the Floor

  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Biden of Delaware, I 
ask unanimous consent that Peter Jaffe, a detailee on the staff of the 
Senate Judiciary Committee, be granted floor privileges for the 
remainder of the 104th Congress.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. PRYOR. Thank you, Mr. President.


                    Amendment No. 2495, As Modified

  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, at this time I call up amendment No. 2495 
and ask unanimous consent that the amendment be sent to the desk and 
that it be modified to reflect the language in this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment, as modified, is as follows:

       On page 52, lines 4 through 6, strike ``so used, plus 5 
     percent of such grant (determined without regard to this 
     section).'' and insert ``so used. If the strike does not 
     prove to the satisfaction of the Secretary that such unlawful 
     expenditure was not made by the State in intentional 
     violation of the requirements of this part, then the 
     Secretary shall impose an additional penalty of 5 percent of 
     such grant (determined without regard to this section).''.
       On page 56, strike lines 11 through 14, and insert the 
     following:
       ``(1) In general.--The penalties described in paragraphs 
     (2) through (6) of subsection (a) shall apply--
       ``(A) with respect to periods beginning 6 months after the 
     Secretary issues final rules with respect to such penalties; 
     or
       ``(B) with respect to fiscal years beginning on or after 
     October 1, 1996;
     whichever is later.
       On page 122, between lines 11 and 12, insert the following:

     SEC. 110A. CORRECTIVE COMPLIANCE PLAN.

       (a) In General.--
       (1) Notification of violation.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, the Federal Government shall, prior to 
     assessing a penalty against a State under any program 
     established or modified under this Act, notify the State of 
     the violation of law for which such penalty would be assessed 
     and allow the State the opportunity to enter into a 
     corrective compliance plan in accordance with this section 
     which outlines how the State will correct any violations for 
     which such penalty would be assessed and how the State will 
     insure continuing compliance with the requirements of such 
     program.
       (2) 60-day period to propose a corrective compliance 
     plan.--Any State notified under paragraph (1) shall have 60 
     days in which to submit to the Federal Government a 
     corrective compliance plan to correct any violations 
     described in such paragraph.
       (3) Acceptance of plan.--The Federal Government shall have 
     60 days to accept or reject the State's corrective compliance 
     plan and may consult with the State during this period to 
     modify the plan. If the Federal Government does not accept or 
     reject the corrective compliance plan during the period, the 
     corrective compliance plan shall be deemed to be accepted.
       (b) Failure to Correct.--If a corrective compliance plan is 
     accepted by the Federal Government, no penalty shall be 
     imposed with respect to a violation described in subsection 
     (a) if the State corrects the violation pursuant to the plan. 
     If a State has not corrected the violation in a timely manner 
     under the plan, some or all of the penalty shall be assessed.

  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, the amendment does not have to be read, as 
I understand it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. PRYOR. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I rise today to offer this amendment on behalf of 
myself and Senator Graham of Florida. This is an amendment that I think 
speaks to some real need for a common sense approach to the issues of 
penalties that this legislation could burden our States with.
  This amendment will give some flexibility to the penalty section that 
the States will be subjected to if they fail to quickly comply with the 
numerous requirements of this legislation.
  Mr. President, this amendment has the support of the National 
Governors' Association, the National Conference of State Legislatures, 
and the American Public Welfare Association. I would like to take this 
opportunity to publicly thank these fine groups for endorsing and 
supporting this amendment.
  Under the bill before us, Mr. President, as the States move to a more 
flexible block grant welfare system--and it appears that that is what 
is going to happen--the States of our Union are going to be subjected 
to harsh, inflexible penalties.
  These penalties should be designed to encourage States to play by the 
rules, not to injure them for unintentional mistakes made while they 
are trying to recreate their entire welfare systems with very, very 
limited resources and very little time to do it.
  This bill states that our States in our Union can be penalized by up 
to 5 percent of their block grant for each of the following violations. 
Let me reiterate, for each of the following violations: If a State, 
one, fails to submit a required report--any required report; if a State 
fails to use the income and eligibility verification system; if the 
State fails to comply with the increased paternity establishment and 
child support enforcement requirements; and if a State fails to meet 
work participation rates.
  The Congressional Budget Office says that most States will not be 
able to meet these work participation rates in the short time allowed 
by the proposed legislation.
  These penalties are very, very harsh. They are inflexible, and alone 
they could add up to 20 percent of a State's block grant.
  But a State can be penalized an additional 5 percent under this 
proposal for the improper use of funds, even if that misuse is not 
intentional.
  If I might cite a hypothetical example. If the State of Texas, for 
example, 

[[Page S 13584]]
unknowingly and by mistake erroneously paid $184 in welfare payments to 
a person who has violated his prison parole, the penalties would be as 
follows, Mr. President: The $184 that was improperly used, that would 
be a part of the penalty, plus 5 percent of the State's total block 
grant value which works out to be $25 million in penalties for the 
State of Texas.
  In addition, the State of Texas would have to use State funds, not 
Federal funds but State funds, to make up this entire penalty. I am 
certain that this is a classic case of unintended consequences, and I 
feel very certain, Mr. President, that the authors of the original bill 
had no intention of penalizing our States in this manner.
  In short, a State would be penalized in this situation, in this 
hypothetical condition, over $25 million for an unintentional $184 
violation, and that is only for one violation, unintentional as it 
might be.
  This amendment further solves a problem by applying a penalty of 5 
percent only--only--if the improper use is judged to be intentional. If 
it is the result of an honest mistake, the State would still have to 
repay the amount misused, plus an additional amount of State funds to 
maintain the block grant.
  An additional part of this amendment gives the State the necessary 
transition time that the States are going to need to put their welfare 
systems in place, while not delaying reforms in areas where the State 
is ready to move ahead. It will postpone the penalties of all but 
improper use of funds until 6 months after Health and Human Services 
issues the final rules. In the absence of final regulations, the States 
that try to interpret and meet the requirements of a statute in good 
faith may still be subject to penalties when the details of the law are 
fleshed out by Federal regulations.
  Finally, Mr. President, the amendment I offer today, once again, in 
behalf of myself and Senator Graham of Florida, the amendment that we 
offer will allow the States to enter into an agreement with HHS called 
a corrective compliance plan which spells out how the State will 
improve its systems and comply with the requirements of the act.
  This section of my amendment incorporates many of the ideas that were 
embodied in an earlier amendment by the Senator from Arizona, Senator 
McCain. It is similar to a provision in the current law that we now 
operate under. The penalties are suspended as long as the State 
continues to follow the plan.
  If the Secretary of HHS finds that a State is not working to improve 
its system, then the Secretary may impose all or some of the original 
penalties, depending on how much progress that particular State has 
made.
  This amendment does not weaken the Federal oversight on States. In 
fact, even with these changes, the penalties on States in this 
legislation will be far more strict than those penalties in the House 
bill. It is narrowly drawn to be fair. It is drawn to be flexible, and 
it is drawn to meet the test of common sense.
  The Congressional Budget Office estimates that there are no costs--no 
costs--associated with this amendment. I am very proud to say that this 
amendment has, we believe, bipartisan support in the U.S. Senate. And 
once again, I wish to thank the American Public Welfare Association, 
the National Conference of State Legislatures, and the National 
Governors' Association for the splendid assistance they have given us 
in preparing this amendment.
  I also appreciate the understanding shown and hopefully the ultimate 
acceptance of this amendment by not only the majority but also the 
ranking manager of this legislation.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  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. DOLE. 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. DOLE. We are prepared to accept the amendment of the Senator from 
Arkansas.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment 2495, 
as modified.
  The amendment (No. 2495), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. PRYOR. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, as I understand, the Senator from Alabama is 
prepared with an amendment, 40 minutes equally divided; the Senator 
from Maryland, Senator Mikulski, is prepared to offer her amendment, 20 
minutes equally divided; the Senator from California would follow the 
Senator from Maryland.


                           Amendment No. 2614

  Mr. DOLE. I think amendment 2614, as drafted, is acceptable.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. It is acceptable.
  Mr. DOLE. I send amendment 2614 to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Amendment 2614 is the pending question. The 
question is on agreeing to amendment numbered 2614.
  The amendment (No. 2614) was agreed to.
  Mr. DOLE. 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.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I believe I need a very short time for 
my amendment. I believe Senator Simpson would like to speak on the 
deeming amendment for 10 minutes, and it would be agreeable to have 10 
minutes on my side on that amendment.
  On the other amendment, 10 minutes is enough. Senator Kennedy would 
like to speak on the deeming amendment as well.
  Mr. DOLE. As I understand, there are two amendments.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. There are two amendments.
  Mr. DOLE. Naturalization and deeming?
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. That is correct.
  Mr. DOLE. Twenty minutes on each amendment?
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. That is fine.
  Mr. DOLE. We have Senator Shelby, Senator Mikulski, two amendments by 
Senator Feinstein, and then in our rotation plan it would come back to 
this side unless we have an agreement we can accept.
  Once the Senator from North Dakota has his worked out----
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. Leader, we think we have achieved agreement, so if we 
could get in the queue, we think we have that all taken care of.
  Mr. DOLE. Following Senator Feinstein.
  Mr. CONRAD. That certainly would be good. We could take 10 minutes.
  Mr. DOLE. Ten minutes.
  That will be four amendments by my colleagues on the other side. I 
assume we can have an equal number on this side.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Yes.
  Mr. DOLE. I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request of the 
majority leader?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2526

  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Amendment 2526, offered by the Senator from 
Alabama, is now the pending business.
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President I ask unanimous consent to add the 
following Senators as original cosponsors of the amendment: Senators 
Santorum, Grams, Helms, Gramm of Texas, Coats, and Lott.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, along with the Senators that I have just 
mentioned as cosponsors, that is, namely, Senators Craig, Lott, 
Hatfield, Coats, Santorum, Grams, Helms, and Gramm of Texas, I am 
introducing an amendment that we believe will help strengthen the role 
of the family in America.
  The out-of-wedlock birthrate in America is projected to reach 50 
percent by early next century, and I am concerned that this trend will 
result in a dramatic increase in the number of children abused and 
neglected. There are now close to 500,000 children in the 

[[Page S 13585]]
foster care system, but only 50,000 are placed for adoption each year. 
Our amendment would effectively find homes for many children who need 
parents and find children for parents who need families. The objective 
of this amendment is to provide an appropriate incentive to encourage a 
policy which should be embraced by all Americans.
  Adoption is a positive event that benefits everyone involved. 
Obviously a loving, caring family for a parentless child is the primary 
benefit of adoption. Studies show the adopted child receives a strong 
self identity, positive psychological health and a tendency for 
financial well-being.
  Parents who adopt children also benefit. They receive the joy and 
responsibility of raising a child as well as the love and respect only 
a child can give. The emotional fulfillment of raising children clearly 
contributes to the fullness of life.
  Lastly, we should not forget the advantages to communities as a whole 
in America. Society is unambiguously better off as a result of 
adoption. Statistics show time and again that children with families 
intact are more likely to become productive members of the community 
than children without both parents.
  Unfortunately more times than not, a financial barrier stands in the 
way of otherwise qualified parents. The monthly cost of supporting the 
child is not the hurdle, but instead the initial outlay to pay for the 
adoption. There are many fees and costs involved with adopting a child, 
which include maternity home care, normal prenatal and hospital care 
for the mother and child, preadoption foster care for infant, home 
study fees, and legal fees. These costs can range anywhere from about 
$13,000 to $36,000, according to the National Council for Adoption.
  Like the person who wants to buy a home, but cannot because the 
financial hurdle of a down payment stops them, potential parents often 
cannot adopt a child because of the substantial initial fees, fees that 
could actually exceed the cost of a down payment for a home. As a 
result, children are denied homes, and parents denied children.
  Our amendment seeks to address this problem. It would allow a $5,000 
refundable tax credit for adoption expenses. This credit would be fully 
available to any individual with an income up to $60,000 and phased out 
up to an income of $100,000. Other adoption tax credits have been put 
forth, but the key element of our adoption tax credit is its full 
refundability. This provision will allow many couples who may not have 
a tax liability in a given year to be able to afford to open up their 
home to a parentless child.
  A fully-refundable adoption tax credit is an essential part of any 
welfare reform measure like the one we have before us.
  Our amendment would also provide that employer-provided adoption 
assistance would be excluded from gross income for taxable purposes. 
Those receiving assistance from their employer to cover costs over and 
above the first $5,000--which would be taken care of by the credit--
would not have to count that assistance as income. Finally, the 
amendment provides that withdrawals from an IRA can be made penalty-
free and excluded from income if used for qualified adoption expenses. 
Representative Joseph Kennedy and others are advocating a proposal 
similar to this in the House.
  I believe these changes will go a long way in making adoption a 
reality for many children and helping them find the loving homes they 
so desperately need in America. This amendment has the strong support 
of 14 adoption organizations, which represent more than 1,000 adoption 
agencies and practitioners. Mr. President, I hope my colleagues will 
join us in reaching out to families in order to provide a better, 
brighter future for our children and a heightened degree of 
appreciation for the potential that adoption holds for our society. I 
urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate? The Senator from 
Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague from 
Alabama [Senator Shelby] in offering this amendment to provide for a 
refundable tax credit for adoption expenses.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If the Senator will suspend, we are under time 
control. Who yields time to the Senator?
  Mr. CRAIG. Excuse me, Mr. President.
  Mr. CHAFEE. What is the time situation here?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The proponents of the amendment have 13 
minutes and 33 seconds; opponents, 20 minutes.
  Mr. CHAFEE. How much time does the Senator want?
  Mr. CRAIG. Five minutes.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Fine.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, as I said--and I thank the chairman for 
yielding--I am pleased to join my colleague from Alabama [Senator 
Shelby] in offering this amendment to provide for a refundable tax 
credit for adoption expenses.
  In short, Mr. President, this amendment will amend the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 to provide a refundable tax credit for adoption 
expenses. This provision will exclude from gross income employee and 
military adoption assistance benefits and withdrawals from IRA's for 
use toward adoption expenses.
  Some people may ask, ``What does this have to do with welfare?'' It 
has very little to do with our current welfare system, but a great deal 
to do with a dramatically reformed system similar to that envisioned in 
the leader's bill.
  Through the use of block grants and other reforms, we are moving away 
from a welfare system that has created dependency, and into a system 
that encourages independence.
  As part of that, we also hope to see greater strength in the American 
family, reduce out-of-wedlock births, control welfare spending, and 
reduce welfare dependence. It is my concern that as we move in this 
direction, that the Congress needs to make adoption a more viable 
option for families.
  We all read the stories, both happy and tragic, of efforts couples 
have made to adopt a child. It is my hope that our work here will lead 
to more happy stories and fewer heartbreaking reports,
 of the tens of thousands of dollars spent traveling around the world 
by couples in search of children to adopt to make them a part of their 
family.

  I know this firsthand. Not that I suffered those hardships, but I am 
an adoptive parent and I adopted the children of my wife and we brought 
together a family unit. Even then, when there were no obstacles in 
front of us, the process was challenging in all of the hoops and 
hurdles that we had to go through to make sure it was done right.
  This amendment will give adoptive families a fairer shake. I have 
introduced similar legislation with other colleagues here in the Senate 
and hope that they will support this amendment.
  Adoption is a viable option that results the best of all worlds: 
Uniting a wanted child and a loving family. I think we need to keep 
focused on that fact, and continue our efforts to improve the adoption 
and foster care approaches that this Senate is so supportive of.
  Mr. President, before closing, I want to take a moment to discuss 
something that was not included in the Republican leadership welfare 
reform bill.
  There is good reason to highlight this item that was excluded, 
because it will have a big impact on our ability, as a nation, to 
ensure that there is a safety net to take care of children.
  The item that was excluded is the creation of a block grant of the 
title IV-E foster care and adoption assistance programs.
  In fact, both the GOP leadership bill, the Work Opportunity Act of 
1995, and the conservative consensus package maintain the title IV-E 
foster care and adoption assistance programs as entitlements.
  Mr. President, we need dramatic reform of our welfare system. And of 
all of us who have been engaged in that debate here for the last good 
number of days, the current one-size-fits-all approach of a federally 
designed and implemented program simply has not served this Nation well 
nor served those who find themselves in poverty and in need of welfare.
  It has also been unsuccessful in relieving poverty. Instead, it finds 
that 

[[Page S 13586]]
we put families in it and somehow they stay there. Here is an 
opportunity, as we move out to independence to assure greater chances 
for children without families, to find those families and families 
without children--to find those children.
  Instead of a program that reaches out to people and families to give 
them a hand up, we have a program with a hand out that constantly 
pushes people down and keeps them in the welfare cycle.
  The bill we have before us today will provide some of that needed 
dramatic reform. Changes in programs like aid to families with 
dependent children [AFDC] may have an impact on foster care services. 
This will be especially prevalent during the implementation and 
transition into the reformed welfare system.
  The impact of any changes to our welfare system is somewhat 
unpredictable. Therefore, Republicans here in the Senate have 
acknowledged that fact, and the need to maintain a safety net for 
children by maintaining title IV-E as an entitlement.
  Mr. President, this issue has been a concern of mine for some time. 
In Idaho, we have a number of excellent facilities that work with 
children in group home settings, with an emphasis on reuniting the 
family when possible. I have been to these facilities, my staff have 
seen them. The work they do there is nothing short of remarkable.
  My concern, Mr. President, is that we have a safety net available to 
ensure that the children who may be affected will be adequately taken 
care of through our foster care and adoption assistance programs. If 
these programs under title IV-E were converted into a block grant with 
a limited inflation adjuster, there would be little flexibility for 
States to meet the kind of unforseen demands that can shift children 
into these programs.
  There are also issues outside of welfare reform that affect these 
programs, such as changes in the economy, demographics and natural 
disasters. For example, Idaho had a 16-percent increase in the number 
of child abuses cases last year; many of those children ended up in the 
foster care system. Again, these are things that cannot be planned for, 
but add to the burden of the system.
  It is important to note that since the foster care and adoption 
assistance programs were established in 1980, there have been more than 
90,000 children with special needs adopted in the United States.
  Mr. President, there have been a number of references to those who 
are affected by what we do here.
  I would like to take a moment to share a story about we've been able 
to accomplish in Idaho with these title IV-E moneys. The Idaho youth 
ranch runs a family preservation program.
  Gina was a 7-year-old girl who was removed from her home by child 
protective services because her parent neglected to care for her. The 
goal of the referral was to see if the youth ranch could help the 
mother respond to the point that Gina and her two younger sibling could 
return home.
  The youth ranch staff began an assessment of the family situation and 
developed a plan in conjunction with the Child Protective Services 
staff, mom, and the children.
  Through the parent training, supportive services, and help the youth 
ranch provided, this family is now getting back on track. Mother is now 
working in a job close to home, has a healthy home environment set up, 
ready for the children's return, has the kids enrolled in school, and a 
responsible day care for her youngest child.
  The staff at the youth ranch will continue their work after the 
reunification of the children. It is a happy ending for the family, for 
the State, and most important, for Gina.
  Mr. President, that was quite a lengthy comment, but I felt it was 
important to note in this debate. In closing, I would just add that I 
hope my colleagues will support improving access to adoption, and will 
vote for the Shelby amendment.
  So I am proud to support and to be a cosponsor of the amendment of my 
colleague, Senator Shelby, and his concerted effort.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I would like to ask the proponent of the 
amendment a question.
  As I understand, this is going to cost $1.4 billion over 5 years. Has 
the Senator a method of paying for this?
  Mr. SHELBY. Would the Senator from Rhode Island state the question 
again?
  Mr. CHAFEE. It is my understanding that this amendment will cost, 
over 5 years, $1.4 billion.
  Mr. SHELBY. The Senator is correct. The revenue loss is projected to 
be $1.4 billion over 5 years but the underlying bill will result in 
savings of over $40 billion over 5 years.
  Mr. CHAFEE. I know we are going to have further discussion because I 
think there is a point of order that lies that is going to be raised. 
But I would point out that everything that comes in theory out of 
savings is something that the Finance Committee has to come up and pay 
for. We have just concluded a long meeting in connection with Medicare, 
and the difficulty of coming up with savings was made clear to us at 
that gathering.
  So, Mr. President, if there is no further discussion, I suggest the 
absence of a quorum, and this will be charged equally against both 
sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SANTORUM. 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. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes of time to the Senator 
from Texas, [Mr. Gramm].
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas is recognized for 3 
minutes.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the Shelby 
amendment.
  What the Shelby amendment does is it tries to provide tax equity to 
people who adopt children and in the process, provide a home and 
environment that represents our only sure-fire, guaranteed way to break 
the poverty cycle--allowing people the opportunity to escape from 
poverty and use their God-given talents.
  One of the reasons I feel so strongly about not giving people more 
and more money to have more and more children on welfare is that I am 
convinced if we stopped giving people cash bonuses to have more 
children on welfare and adopt the Shelby amendment giving tax equity to 
people who adopt children on a par with people who are having them, 
then we have an opportunity to find a home for every child born in 
America. That can solve not only the welfare problem but many other 
problems in the country.
  I do not know how our colleagues on the other side of the aisle are 
going to vote on this amendment, but I would simply like to note this 
paradox. In the compromises that have taken place in the last 2 hours 
in an effort to pass this bill, an initial agreement has been made 
which will spend $4 billion on programs that in all probability will do 
virtually nothing to help break the poverty cycle and will do virtually 
nothing to guarantee that people see an improvement in their lives.
  However, by giving tax equity to people who adopt children--up to 
$5,000 in tax credits to cover the costs they incur in adoption--we can 
guarantee that people will be able to adopt more children, bringing 
them into their homes, giving them love, and improving the lives of 
those children. I think this is an important amendment, and I think if 
we can follow it up someday with an amendment to streamline the 
adoption process, making it easier for people to adopt children, we can 
make a dramatic difference.
  One of our colleague's wives was in Bangladesh--I ask for an 
additional minute.
  Mr. SHELBY. I yield an additional minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for an additional 
minute.
  Mr. GRAMM. As I look at the Shelby amendment, it reminds me of a 
statement made by Cindy McCain, Senator McCain's wife. When she was in 
Bangladesh, there was this baby girl who had been set aside to die 
because she had a cleft palate. Cindy McCain decided that she was going 
to bring that little girl back to the United States of America and 
adopt her. Her point was, I cannot solve the problems of every 

[[Page S 13587]]
child in the world, but I can solve this child's problem.
  What the Shelby amendment does is let other people who want to solve 
this problem one child at a time, do it. So, I think, this is an 
important amendment. I hope it will be adopted, and I urge my 
colleagues to vote for it.
  I congratulate the distinguished Senator from Alabama. This provision 
was in our original welfare bill that Senator Shelby and other 
conservative Republicans and I put together. I think it is an important 
addition to this bill, and, quite frankly, of all the things we have 
talked about here, this is clearly welfare reform.
  I thank the Chair for its indulgence.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. I would simply make the point as a member of the 
Finance Committee that we have not considered this measure. It is a new 
credit that would be created without the means to pay for it. The 
proposal would cost $3 billion in revenues over the next 10 years, and 
there is no provision to pay for it.
  There is strong sentiment in favor of it; I can sense it. I 
understand that and share it, but it is a doubtful measure to be 
adopted at this point, and yet we have a long conference committee 
procedure before us and that may be the time to address it. I will 
leave it at that.
  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, over the past 25 years there has been a 
dramatic increase in the number of children born out of wedlock, 
children being raised by single parents, and children entering the 
foster care system because of abuse, neglect, or abandonment. Family 
disintegration is widespread.
  At the same time we have experienced an increase in family 
disintegration, we have seen a sharp decrease in the number of children 
being adopted, with formal adoptions dropping by almost 50 percent: 
from 89,000 in 1970 to a fairly constant 50,000 annually throughout the 
1980's into the 1990's. On any given day, 37,000 children in foster 
care are legally free and waiting--to be adopted.
  Why are children waiting? Why aren't families adopting? The reason, I 
propose, is not a lack of compassion on the part of families. Many 
thousands of families would be eager to adopt were it not for the costs 
can be prohibitive for working class families. The average cost of an 
adoption is $14,000 and it is not uncommon for this figure to reach 
upwards of $25,000.
  Adoption is the compassionate response to children in need of a home. 
Yet, there is currently inequity in the tax system. While certain 
medical expenses related to the conception, delivery, and birth of a 
child may be deducted as medical expenses, no similar relief is 
available for adoptive families.
  Mr. President, I, like many of my colleagues know the sacrifice 
required of parents. Children require 100 percent of us, 100 percent of 
the time. The financial burden can be significant. The time element, 
balancing the needs of work and family--these are all very significant. 
Yet there are thousands who make that sacrifice every day for children 
they have lovingly adopted into their family, and many thousands more 
who would--but for the costs. The Shelby amendment will put adoption 
within the reach of many families, and make an important public policy 
statement about the value and respect we have for the institution of 
adoption.
  I've heard some say adoption tax credits should be limited to 
children with special needs. Well, I believe that every child in need 
of adoption is a child with a special need for a loving, and permanent 
home.
  Money should never be a barrier to adoption. Adoption should be 
encouraged as a compassionate response to children of parents who find 
themselves unable or unwilling to care for them. These families deserve 
our support, and deserve to be treated the same as families formed 
biologically. The Shelby amendment sends a strong message that adoption 
is a valued way of building a family.
  Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. CHAFEE. I yield----
  Mr. DOMENICI. I do not need much time. One minute.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Three minutes to the Senator from New Mexico.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico is recognized for 
3 minutes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I commend Senator Shelby for the 
amendment.
  Frankly, I believe in this sea of problems with reference to unwed 
pregnancies and welfare children of this country, which are growing 
like a volcano erupting on America, this obviously attempts to address 
a very serious problem; that we are in need of more adoptions by good 
people who will raise children well in a good household. This amendment 
attempts to do that.
  Frankly, it has a problem, a technical problem. I think that is well 
known. Senator Moynihan expressed it. This is not a measure in which 
you can have tax credits and not pay for them. In a very real sense, it 
could be subject to a point of order. I, for one, believe we ought not 
raise it. We ought to vote on it, if that is what the distinguished 
Senator wants. And then it will take care of itself in terms of the tax 
provisions whether they will remain in the welfare bill or whether they 
will be taken care of in reconciliation as part of the tax bill. We can 
find out. We can wait and see. But essentially I think it is such a 
good idea that we ought to make sure it is done.
  Now, if somebody raises the point of order, I would say tonight I 
would join in trying to waive it with my good friend from Alabama.
  Mr. SHELBY. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. DOMENICI. So I do not think we ought to do that. I hope we will 
not.
  I compliment the Senator on the amendment and hope it passes here 
tonight one way or the other.
  I yield the floor.
  I thank Senator Chafee.
  Mr. CHAFEE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I think the distinguished ranking member 
of the Finance Committee made some good points, as has everybody else 
here today. This is a very commendable amendment. Although it is an 
amendment we have not had a chance to consider in the Finance 
Committee, it is a matter that will come before us when we are dealing 
with the tax provisions that we are surely going to get to later this 
year. And so, therefore, I am prepared to accept the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  All those in favor----
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is not a sufficient second.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum until 
there is a sufficient second.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further 
proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the 
Shelby amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Now, Mr. President, I would ask unanimous consent that 
the vote on the Shelby amendment be put off until 8 p.m.
  Mr. PRYOR addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. PRYOR. A point of clarification, please, from the Chair.
  Would the Mikulski amendment be the next amendment in order? Is there 
a Mikulski amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. PRYOR. And are we going to, on subsequent amendments--if I might 
ask the Chair, is it correct that we are going to basically stack the 
votes at approximately 8 p.m.?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There has been no order.
  There is a unanimous consent request pending that the Shelby 
amendment be voted on at 8 p.m.
  Mr. PRYOR. For the benefit of our colleagues, I have been informed 
that 

[[Page S 13588]]
is merely the intention. But it is the intention to basically stack 
votes that are considered between now and 8 p.m., stack those votes at 
8 p.m.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request that the 
vote on the Shelby amendment occur at 8?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Now, Mr. President, we have a list here. And Senator 
Mikulski is not here. I notice Senator Feinstein is here.
  Mr. President, is there any defined order that has previously been 
arranged?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct. There is a defined 
order. The Mikulski amendment is the next pending business. It would 
require a unanimous consent agreement to set it aside to deal with the 
Feinstein amendment.
  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. 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. 2669

  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I wish to send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Maryland [Ms. Mikulski] proposes amendment 
     numbered 2669.

  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The text of the amendment is printed in the Friday, September 8, 
1995, edition of the Record.)
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. President, my amendment deals with the role of men and how we can 
bring men back into the family, how we can eliminate marriage penalties 
and begin to really work toward two-parent households once again among 
the poor.
  One of the missing discussions in this year's welfare debate is how 
we involve fathers with their families. We can do that through tougher 
child support laws and, yes, it is true we need to crack down on 
deadbeat dads. But you know, Democrats and Republicans all agree that 
we need to have major child support reform to do that. But, quite 
frankly, men, fathers are more than a child support check.
  Our focus needs to be on the issues related to child rearing as much 
as child support. We need to get the men involved in the rearing of 
their own children and we do that by promoting two-parent families.
  Earlier this year, the nonpartisan Casey Foundation, which I am proud 
to say is headquartered in Baltimore, released their 1995 report called 
``Kids Count.'' It focused exclusively on the need to promote fathers 
as part of our Nation's strategy to reform welfare.
  One of the most compelling things that they outlined was the 
devastating effect on children when fathers are absent from the home. 
The Casey Foundation said this:

       Children in father-absent families are five times more 
     likely to be poor and 10 times more likely to be extremely 
     poor.
       Children of single mothers are twice as likely to become 
     high-school dropouts. These kids are more likely to end up in 
     foster or group care or, even worse, in juvenile justice 
     facilities.

  The Casey Foundation went on to tell us that:

       Girls from single-parent families have three times greater 
     risk of bearing children as unwed teenagers.

  Often in the debate, and I know the Senator from New York, Senator 
Moynihan, has often commented on the problems related to single-parent 
families, we often overlook the role of what happens to girls.

       And boys whose fathers are absent face a much higher 
     probability of growing up unemployed, incarcerated, and 
     uninvolved with their own children.

  During this welfare debate, we have heard about the staggering rise 
in illegitimacy and the households headed by single parents. Much of 
this rhetoric has focused on solving the problems through punishing the 
mother. They aim for the mother but, in turn, hit the child.
  The proposed solutions do not get at the heart of why we have fewer 
two-parent families, which is simply the decline in jobs that pay a 
family wage and the penalties in our public policy that work against 
the two-parent family.
  The chart next to me contains data from the ``1995 Kids Count'' 
report and it makes it graphically. Between 1969 and 1993, the 
percentage of children under 18 living in households headed by women 
jumped from 11 percent to 24 percent. During that same 23-year period, 
the number of men between the ages of 25 and 34 who did not earn enough 
to support a family of four jumped from 14 percent to 32 percent.
  The link is clear. If employment opportunities do not exist for men 
who are poor, it is unlikely they will get married. In fact, the ``Kids 
Count'' report points out most women consider a stable income an 
important element in choosing someone to marry.
  The Republican welfare bill is either silent on solutions or it 
focuses on the mother as the only solution, or actually it attacks the 
mother. In fact, it is what I have called ``the parent trap.'' They say 
they want women on welfare to get married and require tougher work 
requirements for people who end up getting married. The Republican bill 
allows States to impose family caps, but it never asks States to 
develop programs that will bring families together.
  Their bill also allows State welfare programs to cut families off if 
a father actually works too many hours. So we are going to penalize the 
father for being in the home, and we are going to penalize him for 
working too many hours. Hey, that is not the way to reform welfare or 
to move the poor out of poverty.
  It also allows a father's child support check to go to a State 
bureaucracy instead of directly to the family.
  We Democrats are serious about welfare reform, and we are serious 
about strengthening the family in this process. We aim for real reform 
by protecting the child, helping the mother and involving the father.
  The amendment that the Senator from New Jersey and I have proposed 
seeks to end this ``parent trap'' and instead include real solutions 
that promote two-parent families. We will do this in our amendment by, 
first, job placement for noncustodial fathers. This amendment sets 
aside a very small amount of money in the welfare block grant for 
States to enroll unemployed fathers in job training and placement so 
they can meet their child support and family obligations. Employing 
these fathers is the most significant step we can take to promote two-
parent families. In addition, the cost of this effort will be partially 
offset by increased child support payments as a result of the jobs 
which these fathers would have.
  Second, our amendment prevents States from creating welfare rules 
that penalize marriage. The amendment prevents States from reenacting 
the current AFDC man in the house rule at the State level that pushes 
the man out of the family.
  Third, it promotes marriage and not punishment.
  And fourth, we pay child support to mothers, not State bureaucrats. 
What do I mean? It means that, first of all, we have a rule called the 
man in the house rule. If you are a father living at home and you work 
over 100 hours a month, regardless of what you earn, your family is cut 
off from assistance.
  This is unacceptable. We need to promote and require work, and 
eligibility for assistance should be based on what you earn, not the 
number of hours it takes to earn it.
  Third, promote marriage. For those States that impose a family cap, 
the amendment would require them to come up with some incentives that 
promote marriage. If we are serious about strengthening families, let 
us not just cut people off and make no effort to encourage marriage.
  And fourth, pay child support to mothers not State bureaucrats. In my 
own State of Maryland, I had a roundtable with dads who are meeting 
their family obligations, but they told me how frustrating it was when 
they wrote their child support check it went into some big bureaucracy 
and when they went to visit their child, there had been no linkage 
between dad being the 

[[Page S 13589]]
provider and their family actually experiencing that and the check 
still coming from the welfare department.
  As a result, our amendment requires States to pass through the first 
$50 in a monthly child support payment to the family.
  Mr. President, my amendment has many other components to it. I could 
speak on many elements in this program. We deal particularly with 
helping interstate child custody orders and others. But I want to say 
this. Our amendment is good for fathers and their children. It 
recognizes that men are not only child support checks, but they must be 
involved as fathers. I want them not only paying child support, I want 
them to be a link within the family itself. The dad is not in the home, 
but still there is a relationship.
  Second, where possible, to be able to promote the family and get the 
dad back in the home.
  Mr. President, I know that the Senator from New Jersey wishes to 
speak on this amendment. How much time do we have left on our side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. One minute and twelve seconds.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, let me say this. We are not going to 
consume our full 10 minutes. Does the Senator from New Jersey want a 
couple minutes from us? Three minutes for the Senator from our 
allotment of time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey is recognized for 
4 minutes.
  Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, I rise in support of this amendment. I 
thank the Senator from Maryland for offering it. I think it makes one 
very clear point, and that is children that grow up in two-parent 
families have a better chance than children who grow up in single-
parent families. That does not mean that there are not a lot of single 
mothers who do a heroic job out there raising children against the 
odds, who teach them how to work hard and how to advance. It simply 
means that two incomes are better than one and that two supervisors are 
better than one.
  It is very interesting, because in the course of this debate, we 
discussed the family cap which says if you have an additional child, if 
you are on welfare, that child does not receive a payment.
  In my State of New Jersey, that would mean about $64 a month. We have 
the only family cap experiment in the country in New Jersey, and we 
deny a benefit to an additional child to a mother who is on welfare. 
But we also have a provision in the law that rewards marriage. It says 
that if a woman on welfare is married, her husband's income will not 
push her off of eligibility for welfare, up to about $21,000 in 
combined income.
  So what the distinguished Senator from Maryland is stating with this 
amendment is that we should have incentives in the welfare system for 
single parents to get married. We have that in the experiment in New 
Jersey at the moment. It is only a year old, so we do not have any 
conclusive results. I think it is an important amendment. That, then, 
underlines the deeper point the Senator from Maryland is making, which 
is that it is important in every child's life to have a father as well 
as a mother, a father involved with time and resources. It is very 
important.
  So I salute the Senator, and I cosponsor the amendment and hope that 
it will be adopted.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New Jersey. I 
also thank the Senator from Rhode Island for yielding him some time. I 
will ask for the yeas and nays, but I presume the Senator from Rhode 
Island wants to speak.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Yes, obviously, on my time. I have a couple of questions. 
This is an interesting amendment and rather a broad one, as I 
understand it. I think the Senator from Pennsylvania has some comments 
that will delve into matters that otherwise I might have covered.
  I have two questions. One, does the Senator from Maryland know what 
this would cost?
  The second question is, Does she have some way of paying for it?
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I believe this will cost $920 million over a 7-year 
period. We hope that part of the money will come from, first of all, 
child support itself. No. 2, by bringing men back into the family, 
which will decrease the need for public assistance. I am looking at the 
memo here on exactly where that comes from. I do not have an offset for 
this. I believe we were going to accept an adoption amendment which 
will cost $3 billion--and, by the way, I was a foster care worker and 
also involved in adoption work many years ago. So I support that 
amendment. But, there is not a cost that you can put on bringing a dad 
back into the home. If it is going to cost us a couple of bucks to do 
that, I think the long-term savings--you might think it is amusing, but 
I do not think it is.
  Mr. CHAFEE. I remind the Senator that she is on my time.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. You know what? I am.
  Mr. CHAFEE. I know the Senator is being facetious. I do not want to 
take her up on it too much. But a billion dollars is really what it is. 
She was being facetious when she used the words ``a couple of bucks,'' 
but I am not going to dwell on that.
  But we have a real problem here, Mr. President. Everybody is coming 
forward with amendments--wonderful amendments and good things, 
undoubtedly. But there is no method of paying for them. All that means 
is that those of us on the Finance Committee have to somehow come and 
make up that money. We are having terrible times coming up with amounts 
that we are designated to provide anyway. We have to come up with $530 
billion, and to load on $1 billion more in this bill--and other moneys 
have been expended in other measures that come before us.
  So I am, reluctantly, going to have to oppose the Senator's measure. 
I know the Senator from Pennsylvania has comments.
  Mr. SANTORUM. I thank the Senator.
  I just say that in addition to the billion dollars this spends, I 
question the rationale behind this. What this amendment says is, if you 
are a noncustodial parent you are eligible to participate in the job 
training and employment programs of the State. And you are eligible, if 
your child is receiving welfare, or if you are a noncustodial parent 
that owes past child support, even if you are a deadbeat dad. So if you 
are a father who does not support his kids and they are on welfare, or 
you do not pay child support, we will put you in a job training program 
or give you a job. I question that we are going to spend $650 million 
of new money on providing job training for deadbeat dads.
  You can say we are going to bring families together. This is a nice 
benefit for someone who is doing something you do not want them to do. 
I do not think we should be rewarding people who are turning their 
backs on their children. I think that is questionable.
  The other portion of the bill--and I know this is a lengthy amendment 
and has many different sections. I know there is one here that has the 
$50 pass-through, which is the first $50 of child support paid by a 
father, who is in arrears on his child support, goes directly--excuse 
me, the mother is on welfare, goes directly to the mother, not the 
State, to offset the benefits the State is paying the mother. This is 
something that is in current practice. Every State child support agency 
tells us that this is not a good provision. It does not help fathers or 
encourage fathers to pay any of this child support. It is simply $50 
that the State does not get that they are now paying as an offset for 
AFDC. This is not proven to be incentive. It does not work. It is 
something that we, at their suggestion, have dropped in the Dole 
amendment, and now they are trying to put it back in, and it costs 
money and does not provide incentive to pay back child support or child 
support to somebody on welfare.
  The cost is a billion dollars. We are going to be providing jobs and 
job training to deadbeat dads, fathers who allow their children to go 
on welfare. And there is the $50 pass-through. I think this, again, may 
be well-meaning. We may want to help fathers get back with their 
families and bring families together, but I do not think providing 
money to deadbeat dads for job training is the way I would go about 
doing it.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. SANTORUM. On whatever time I have remaining, I will do so, sure.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 1 minute 7 seconds.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Does the Senator think that simply because a father is 

[[Page S 13590]]
  in arrears on child support, he is a deadbeat and wants to abdicate his 
responsibility? Because, for whatever reason, earlier in their life, 
maybe he did not complete school, and he needs job training to get back 
into the labor market in order to assume his responsibility. That is 
what is behind our motivation in that part.
  Mr. SANTORUM. I understand there may be such cases that you mention. 
But I think the broader point is whether, when we have people who have 
violated their responsibilities to their children, we should now create 
a separate Government program to train them for jobs or create jobs for 
them. I understand there may be circumstances where people, well-
meaning, could not pay their child support. But at the same time, you 
want to set up a program because they have done that, apart from 
someone else who may be paying their child support and working two and 
three jobs to make sure they keep up. We do not help them at all, or 
train them, or do anything for them. That is a bad precedent. We should 
not be providing this kind of money for people who are shirking the 
responsibilities of their children.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time of the opponents has expired.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays and that the 
vote occur in whatever order or whatever time that was in the 
unanimous-consent agreement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a 
sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The vote will occur as indicated.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, subject to changes in the future, that 
vote on the Mikulski amendment would occur after the vote on the Shelby 
amendment which is scheduled to occur at 8 o'clock.
  Next on our list, we have Senator Feinstein who I understand has two 
amendments, each with 20 minutes equally divided. If the Senator would 
be good enough to identify which amendment she is discussing.


                           Amendment No. 2478

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, to the managing Senator, the amendment 
I call up is amendment No. 2478.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from California [Mrs. Feinstein] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2478.

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. 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.)
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator 
Kennedy be added as a cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, this amendment strikes the language in 
the Dole bill which precludes a naturalized citizen from obtaining at 
any time any cash or noncash welfare benefit.
  The language in this bill, as presently drafted, is the first time in 
the history of the United States that naturalized citizens would be 
treated differently than native-born citizens.
  The Constitution of the United States says that there is only one 
instance where there is a difference between the two; that is, one who 
seeks the Presidency of the United States.
  My mother became a naturalized citizen. My mother had very little 
formal education. She had difficulty reading and writing. She had to 
take the test three times before she became a citizen. I have to say 
the day she was naturalized she was prouder than any time in her life 
that I can remember. It meant a great deal because she was as good as 
any American citizen in her eyes. That is a very big thing.
  The amendment I am proposing is supported by the Department of 
Justice. I ask unanimous consent that a letter to Senator Kennedy from 
Justice, pointing out serious concerns about section 204's 
constitutionality as applied to naturalized citizens, be printed in the 
Record at the conclusion of my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See Exhibit No. 1.)
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. It is supported by the National Governors' 
Association, the National Conference of State Legislatures, and the 
American Bar Association.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter from the Bar 
Association and the Governors' Association be printed in the Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See Exhibit No. 2.)
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. It is supported by the National Association of 
Counties, the National League of Cities, the U.S. Catholic Conference, 
and the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, as well as several other 
organizations.
  I believe that we are essentially a nation of immigrants. I sit as a 
new member of the Immigration Subcommittee and I know there is a 
legitimate reason that the Government should try to dissuade, in any 
way we can, people from becoming naturalized simply to gain welfare. 
There is no question about it. I believe the immigration bill that we 
have marked up in the Immigration Subcommittee deals with that.
  What this bill does is it says that if you are a naturalized 
citizen--and let me give some specific examples. Take my mother's case 
and put it in the present day. My mother came to this country at the 
age of 3. Supposing her mother was naturalized, that would make her a 
naturalized citizen. Then supposing my mother did want to go to 
college, which she never had an opportunity to do, she would be 
eligible for a loan program. Under this bill, as drafted, my mother 
would never be eligible as a naturalized citizen for a program. Even 
Medicaid, she would not be eligible for it.
  Taking my mother again, say my mother came to this country as a 
spouse, never worked, was naturalized, was a naturalized citizen for 20 
years. Say my father left her and she was destitute. She would not have 
access to any aid program, cash or noncash, the way the bill is 
presently drafted. The language before the Senate simply deletes this 
language and keeps a class of ``American citizen'' as one class. If you 
are naturalized, you are as good as someone who is born anywhere in 
this great country.
  I yield the floor.
                               Exhibit 1

                                       U.S. Department of Justice,


                                Office of Legislative Affairs,

                                    Washington, DC, July 18, 1995.
     Hon. Edward M. Kennedy,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Kennedy: This letter follows your question to 
     Attorney General Janet Reno regarding the constitutionality 
     of the deeming provisions in pending immigration legislation 
     at the Senate Judiciary Committee's oversight hearing on June 
     27.
       You have asked for our views regarding the ``deeming'' 
     provisions of section 204 of S. 269, Senator Simpson's 
     proposed immigration legislation. Our comment here is limited 
     to the questions raised by application of section 204 to 
     naturalized citizens.
       We have serious concerns about section 204's 
     constitutionality as applied to naturalized citizens. So 
     applied, the deeming provisions would operate to deny, or 
     reduce eligibility for, a variety of benefits including 
     student financial assistance and welfare benefits to certain 
     United States citizens because they were born outside the 
     country. This appears to be an unprecedented result. Current 
     federal deeming provisions under various benefits programs 
     operate only as against aliens, (see e.g., 42 U.S.C. Sec. 615 
     (AFDC); 7 U.S.C. 2014(i) (Food Stamps) and we are not aware 
     of any comparable restrictions on citizen eligibility for 
     federal assistance. As a matter of policy, we think it would 
     be a mistake to begin now to relegate naturalized citizens--
     who have demonstrated their commitment to our country by 
     undergoing the naturalization process--to a kind of second-
     class status.
       The provision might be defended legally on the grounds that 
     it is an exercise of Congress' plenary authority to regulate 
     immigration and naturalization, or, more specifically, to set 
     the terms under which persons may enter the United States and 
     become citizens. See Mathews v. Diaz, 426 U.S. 67 (1976); 
     Toll v. Moreno, 458 U.S. 1, 10-11 (1982). We are not 
     convinced that this defense would prove persuasive. Though 
     Congress undoubtedly has power to impose conditions precedent 
     on entry and naturalization, the provision at issue here 
     would function as a condition subsequent, applying to 
     entrants even after they become citizens. It is not at all 
     clear that Congress' immigration and
      naturalization power extends this far.
       While the rights of citizenship of the native born derive 
     from Sec. 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment and the rights of the 
     naturalized citizen derive from satisfying, free of fraud, 
     the requirements set by Congress, the latter, apart from the 
     exception noted [constitutional eligibility for President], 
     becomes a member of the society, possessing all the 

[[Page S 13591]]
     rights of a native citizen, and standing, in the view of the 
     constitution, on the footing of a native. The constitution 
     does not authorize Congress to enlarge or abridge those 
     rights. The simply power of the national Legislature, is to 
     prescribe a uniform rule of naturalization, and the exercise 
     of this power exhausts it, so far as respects the individual.
       Schneider v. Rusk, 377 U.S. 163, 166 (1964) (internal 
     quotations omitted) (statutory restriction on length foreign 
     residence applied to naturalized but not native born citizens 
     violates Fifth Amendment equal protection component).
       Alternatively, it might be argued in defense of the 
     provision that it classifies not by reference to citizenship 
     at all, but rather on the basis of sponsorship; only those 
     naturalized citizens with sponsors will be affected. Again, 
     we have doubts about whether this characterization of the 
     provision would be accepted. State courts have rejected an 
     analogous position with respect to state deeming provisions, 
     finding that the provisions constitute impermissible 
     discrimination based on alienage despite the fact that they 
     reach only sponsored aliens. See Barannikov v. Town of 
     Greenwich, 643 A.2d 251, 263-64 (Conn. 1994); El Souri v. 
     Dep't of Social Services, 414 N.W. 2d 679, 682-83 (Mich. 
     1987). Because the deeming provision in question here, as 
     applied to citizens, is directed at and reaches only 
     naturalized citizens, the same reasoning would compel the 
     conclusion that it constitutes discrimination against 
     naturalized citizens. Cf. Nyquist v. Mauclet, 432 U.S. 1, 9 
     (1977) (``The important points are that [the law] is directed 
     at aliens and that only aliens are harmed by it. The fact 
     that the statute is not an absolute bar does not mean that it 
     does not discriminate against the class.'') Invalidating 
     state law denying some, but not all, resident aliens 
     financial assistance for higher education.
       So understood, the deeming provision, as applied to 
     citizens, would contravene the basic equal protection tenet 
     that ``the rights of citizenship of the native born and of 
     the naturalized person are of the same dignity and are 
     coextensive.'' Schneider, 377 U.S. at 165. To the same 
     effect, the provision might be viewed as a classification 
     based on national origin; among citizens otherwise eligible 
     for government assistance, the class excluded by operation of 
     the deeming provision is limited to those born outside the 
     United States. A classification based on national origin, of 
     course, is subject to strict scrutiny under equal protection 
     review, see Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214 (1944), 
     and it is unlikely that the deeming provision could be 
     justified under this standard. See Barannikova 643 A.2d at 
     265 (invalidating state deeming provision under strict 
     scrutiny); El Souri, 414 N.W.2d at 683 (same).
       The Office of Management and Budget has advised that there 
     is no objection to the submission of this letter from the 
     standpoint of the Administration's program.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Andrew Fois,
                                       Assistant Attorney General.
                               Exhibit 2

                                                 City of New York,


                                          Office of the Mayor,

                                 New York, NY, September 12, 1995.
     Hon. Dianne Feinstein,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Feinstein: As the Senate moves to 
     consideration of welfare reform legislation, I want to share 
     my serious concerns with you about the legal immigrant 
     provisions included in this bill. As the Mayor of New York 
     City, a city that has benefited immensely from the economic, 
     cultural, and social contributions of immigrants, I am 
     particularly troubled by unprecedented efforts to limit 
     benefits to legal immigrants and unfairly target them.
       The Senate welfare reform package, for the first time, 
     would impose extraordinary restrictions on qualified 
     immigrants' access to many federal benefit programs. The 
     Senate proposal would also extend sponsor deeming to a broad 
     range of programs not presently covered by deeming 
     restrictions. This proposal is likely to restrict benefits to 
     some legal immigrants even after they become naturalized 
     citizens, thereby creating a second class of U.S. 
     citizenship. Like yourself, I believe that extending deeming 
     beyond citizenship is unwise public policy and may prove 
     unconstitutional, and I support your efforts to end deeming 
     upon citizenship. In addition, I also support your attempts 
     to limit deeming to cash assistance programs only and not to 
     Medicaid or other non-cash assistance programs.
       While the denial of benefits to legal immigrants is 
     patently unfair to taxpaying residents, it will also result 
     in considerable cost-shifting to local and state governments. 
     Because the federal government has sole responsibility over 
     immigration policy, it must bear the concomitant 
     responsibility of serving the legal immigrants it permits to 
     enter states and localities. I am deeply concerned that 
     denying benefits to legal immigrants or extending deeming 
     beyond citizenship will not eliminate needs and, 
     subsequently, force state and local governments to bear the 
     financial consequences of unwise policy decisions. The Senate 
     welfare reform package fails to provide states and localities 
     with funding for expected high administrative costs 
     associated with implementing this proposal, and is an 
     unfunded mandate that New York and other cities should not 
     have to bear.
       Finally, I am concerned about potential efforts to amend 
     the Senate bill and federalize many of the harshest 
     provisions from California's Proposition 187. Such an 
     approach would deny services to illegal immigrants without 
     regard to the dangers it would create for American cities. 
     The problems of illegal immigration in our country is the 
     result of the federal government's inability to patrol its 
     borders and implement an effective deportation strategy. 
     Adoption of a federal Proposition 187 will do nothing to 
     address the overall problem of illegal immigration, but 
     instead will further highlight the federal government's 
     failure to enforce adequately our nation's immigration laws 
     and policies.
       If California's Proposition 187 becomes the law of the 
     land, the results for cities heavily impacted by illegal 
     immigration, such as New York, would be catastrophic. I urge 
     you to consider these possible scenarios. Faced with the 
     threat of deportation, many families would forego needed 
     medical care, keep their children out of school, and refuse 
     to report crime, or act as a witness in criminal cases. 
     Immigrant children kept out of school would be denied their 
     only chance at assimilation and productive futures, and, as a 
     result, many turn to the streets, and illegal activities. 
     Communicable diseases might well would go untreated if 
     immigrants are denied access to treatment. In addition, many 
     crimes would go unreported by illegal immigrants desperate to 
     avoid contact with the police.
       As the Senate debates welfare reform legislation over the 
     coming days, I am hopeful that the Senate will approve your 
     amendments and remove the bill's burdensome restrictions 
     placed on legal immigrants, and oppose any efforts to 
     federalize Proposition 187. Thank you for your good work on 
     this bill and for your consideration of New York City's views 
     on this important legislation.
           Sincerely,
                                              Rudolph W. Giuliani,
     Mayor.
                                                                    ____

         National Conference of State Legislatures, National 
           Governors' Association, National Association of 
           Counties, National League of Cities,
                                                September 6, 1995.
       Dear Senator: The National Conference of State Legislatures 
     (NCSL), the National Governors' Association (NGA), the 
     National Association of Counties (NACo) and the National 
     League of Cities (NLC) firmly believe that the federal 
     government is responsible for providing funds to pay for the 
     consequences of its immigration policy decisions. As you 
     consider welfare reform legislation on the Senate floor this 
     week, we urge you to support amendments which will protect 
     states and localities from immigration cost-shifts and 
     unfunded mandates. State and local governments cannot and 
     should not be the safety net for federal policy decisions. 
     The federal government has sole jurisdiction over immigration 
     policy and must bear the responsibility to serve the legal 
     immigrants it allows to enter states and localities.
       Eliminating benefits to legal immigrants or deeming for 
     unreasonably long periods will not eliminate needs. State and 
     local budgets and taxpayers will bear the burden under either 
     of these options. Denial of services to legal immigrants by 
     states and localities appears to violate both state and 
     federal constitutional provisions. As a result of the 1971 
     Supreme Court decisions Graham v. Richardson, states and 
     localities may not exclude persons from participating in 
     their welfare programs on the basis of lawful alienage. 
     Although the federal government has the option to drop legal 
     immigrants from its welfare rolls, states and localities may 
     not. We continue to support making affidavits of support 
     legally binding and imposing a limited deeming period.
       We understand that welfare reform proposals are likely to 
     extend sponsor deeming over a broad range of programs not 
     presently covered by deeming restrictions. These proposals 
     are also likely to restrict benefits to some legal immigrants 
     even after they become naturalized citizens. We believe that 
     sponsor deeming should be used in a more targeted fashion to 
     limit the financial and administrative burdens states and 
     localities will face in implementing an extended deeming 
     policy. First, deeming should end when an immigrant becomes a 
     naturalized citizen. Second, deeming should cover cash 
     assistance programs only and not be extended to Medicaid, 
     child protective services, or other non-cash assistance 
     programs. Lastly, certain groups of immigrants should not 
     face deeming under any circumstances, specifically legal 
     immigrants over the age of 75 and those who are victims of 
     domestic violence.
           Sincrely,
     William T. Pound,
       Executive Director, National Conference of State 
     Legislatures.
     Raymond C. Scheppach,
       Executive Director, National Governors' Association.
     Larry Naske,
       Executive Director, National Association of Counties.
     Donald J. Borut,
       Executive Director, National League of Cities.


[[Page S 13592]]

  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I believe I have 10 minutes to speak in 
opposition to the amendment of Senator Feinstein.
  I admire the Senator greatly. She has contributed so much, so 
vigorously, to my efforts and members of the subcommittee.
  This is an issue of an honest difference of opinion. I oppose the 
amendment for several reasons. I hope that my colleague will hear them 
clearly.
  To begin, I want to put to rest some serious misconceptions about the 
sponsor alien deeming--the ``deeming'' provisions in this bill.
  Please know that the bill's immigrants provisions do not affect 
anyone in the United States who is already a naturalized citizen. 
Please hear that.
  Similarly, noncitizens within the United States who become citizens 
will also be wholly unaffected by the bill's immigrants provision.
  Deeming provisions which the Feinstein amendment seeks to alter 
affect only those who immigrate after enactment. This Nation's policy 
on welfare used by immigrants should conform, in my mind, to three 
basic principle: First, the newcomers should be self-supporting. That 
is our Nation's first general immigration law. That was put on the 
books in 1882. It prohibited the entry of individuals likely to become 
a public charge. To this day our law prevents the immigration of those 
who are ``likely at any time'' to become a public charge or to use 
welfare. That is the language--``likely at any time.''
  Second, if a friend or a relative has promised to the U.S. Government 
that the newcomer will not require public assistance as a condition of 
that person's entry into the United States, and that is the condition, 
then it is the responsibility of that sponsor, that friend or relative 
who has promised the support, to provide aid before the newcomer turns 
to the American taxpayers for relief.
  Third, the welfare system should not induce immigrants to naturalize 
for the wrong reasons; for example, to obtain access to welfare. We 
should avoid provisions which would enable a recent immigrant to obtain 
a benefit or a sponsor to avoid responsibility solely by naturalizing.
  If we do not require the sponsored individual to disclose this 
particular asset in this situation--and that is the sponsor's contract 
to provide financial support and have it considered in the welfare 
determination--then we are treating the naturalized citizen better than 
we do the native-born citizen.
  I hope my colleague will hear that. When native-born citizens apply 
for welfare, they have to disclose their assets and their income, 
including court-mandated payments such as alimony or child support, or 
any contractual obligation.
  Under the welfare reform bill, a native-born citizen and a 
naturalized citizen would be treated exactly the same. There is no 
second-class citizen status. Both would be required to disclose all 
assets and income which reduce ``the need'' for public assistance.
  If naturalization enables both the sponsored individual and the 
welfare provider to ignore an individual's right to receive support 
from the sponsor, then the taxpayers will be much more likely, and, of 
course, the sponsors less likely, to provide the needed assistance.
  Also, immigrants would have a very strong incentive to naturalize for 
all of the wrong reasons, and the wrong reasons are to receive public 
assistance.
  One of the principal reasons for the general animosity toward 
immigrants' use of welfare is that many naturalized citizens have 
brought their elderly parents to the United States where after 3 to 5 
years, a period of deeming, the immigrant's parents receive SSI for the 
elderly.
 These elderly parents, who have never contributed to our system in any 
way, then receive a generous pension for the rest of their lives from 
the American taxpayer. And if deeming is ended, simply by 
naturalization, then the immigrants could receive the welfare just as 
if the sponsor's legalization, or legal obligation, never existed--and 
as early as 5 years after entry, to boot.

  Immigrants, I think, should naturalize because of a personal 
commitment to the democratic ideals and constitutional principles that 
America represents, and that, namely, is liberty and democracy and 
equal opportunity--not in order to find access and enter into the 
welfare system.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from California.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, may I ask how many minutes are 
remaining of my time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California has 5 minutes and 
46 seconds.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment of the 
Senator from California, which would require that the immigrant deeming 
requirements of the Dole bill end once the immigrant becomes a U.S. 
citizen.
  One of the fundamental principles of our Constitution is the equal 
treatment of all American citizens, regardless of race, sex, creed, or 
national origin. It is enshrined in the Bill of Rights and the 14th 
amendment. The Supreme Court has held repeatedly that there is only one 
area in which naturalized citizens do not have the same rights and 
privileges as the native-born--and that is in becoming President.
  The Dole bill departs from this basic American principle. It says 
that if you are a naturalized citizen of this country and fall on hard 
times, the welfare rules that applied to you as an immigrant could 
still apply. The income of your sponsor can be deemed as your own 
income in determining your eligibility for assistance, even though you 
are now an American citizen.
  This is second-class citizenship. This rule does not apply to native-
born citizens--only naturalized Americans. If you native-born mother or 
brother needs Medicaid, the Government does not consider your income in 
deciding whether they are eligible. But under this bill, if they are 
naturalized citizens, and if you sponsored them in coming to the United 
States--even if you did so years ago--the government could still count 
your income in determining their eligibility for help.
  At a Justice Department oversight hearing on June 27, I asked 
Attorney General Janet Reno about this proposal. She responded, ``Our 
Office of Legal Counsel has examined this provision * * * and it has 
very serious concerns about its constitutionality as applied to 
naturalized citizens.''
  An opinion I received from the Justice Department on July 18 
elaborates on the Attorney General's statement. It says:

       Because the deeming provision in question here as applied 
     to citizens, is directed at and reaches only naturalized 
     citizens, (this) compels the conclusion that it constitutes 
     discrimination against naturalized citizens.

  The opinion further states that:

       As a matter of policy, we think it would be a mistake to 
     begin now to relegate naturalized citizens--who have 
     demonstrated their commitment to our country by undergoing 
     the naturalization process--to a kind of second-class status.

  The Supreme Court has clearly said that distinctions between native-
born and naturalized citizens are unconstitutional. In 1964, in 
Schneider versus Rusk, the Court emphasized that ``the rights of 
citizenship of the native born and of the naturalized person are of the 
same dignity and are coextensive.''
  Some argue that in bringing an immigrant to this country, the sponsor 
enters into a contract, promising to assist the immigrant for a 
specified period, whether or not the immigrant becomes a citizen in the 
meantime. They argue that this contractual commitment is like a trust--
and that a trust is considered in determining eligibility for welfare, 
whether or not the applicant is a native-born citizen or naturalized.
  However, the fact remains that this kind of arrangement--the deeming 
of a sponsor's income--is one which would only apply to naturalized 
citizens. For this reason, the Justice Department regards it as 
national origins discrimination, since--

       Among citizens otherwise eligible for government 
     assistance, the class excluded by operation of the deeming 
     provision is limited to those born outside the United States.

  Those who naturalize and become citizens have made a substantial 
commitment to this country. They will have been here for at least 6 or 
7 years--5 years to qualify for citizenship and 1 to 2 years to 
complete the naturalization process. They are required under our laws 
to have demonstrated
 
[[Page S 13593]]

good moral character for the years preceding their naturalization. Most 
likely, they have worked and paid taxes throughout this period. And 
they have chosen America as the place to raise their children and build 
their futures.
  American citizens are American citizens, whether by birth or by 
choice. We should not undermine this fundamental principle of our 
Constitution. I urge the adoption of the amendment of the Senator from 
California to ensure that when American citizens fall on hard times, 
their Government will be there to help--whether they were born as 
Americans or are naturalized Americans.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, this is a very hard argument for me 
because I very much respect the Senator from Wyoming. He is my chairman 
on the committee. I do not think anyone in this body knows more about 
immigration. I doubt that he drafted the actual language in this bill.
  All I can say is our reading, and the reading of others of the bill 
itself, indicates to us that the way it is worded, it would in fact 
affect people in this country at this time. The Bureau of the Census 
has identified 121,000 spouses and children of U.S. citizens who came 
into this country between 1990 and 1994 who, for starters, would be 
most definitely affected by this bill.
  I mentioned earlier that I do not believe that anyone should come to 
the oath of being an American citizen and take that oath because they 
want welfare, whether it is cash or noncash. I would support any 
legislation to toughen the sponsorship requirements to provide for bona 
fide sponsorship. As a matter of fact, when the immigration bill is on 
the floor, I will offer an amendment to the bill which will provide 
that a sponsor must be responsible for health insurance for a person 
they are sponsoring to this country. So I fully believe that a sponsor 
should be responsible.
  Where I have the difficulty is in the creation of two classes of 
citizens, because once it starts, once the camel's nose is under the 
tent, it will not end. And the fact is that a naturalized citizen is 
entitled to all of the rights of citizenship; that is a clearly 
established constitutional principle. I believe it will really 
jeopardize the constitutionality of this entire bill. It is a major 
point, I believe.
  So I say, toughen sponsorship, toughen the naturalization process, do 
what you have to do to prevent somebody from using naturalization as a 
guise for some of these things. But once they get there, it must mean 
just what it means for every other citizen.
  It has been said that an affidavit of support is an asset like a 
child support order. I do not believe that is true, because having 
assets means one is ineligible for welfare. A child support order is 
not an asset when determining eligibility for welfare. The welfare 
caseload is swollen with mothers who cannot collect on child support 
orders. Approximately 25 percent of the existing caseload is comprised 
of mothers who cannot collect on child support orders.
  It has been said that people are not denied welfare because they have 
this asset. They are eligible for welfare benefits, the cost of which 
is only recovered if the Government is able to collect from the 
delinquent parent. If naturalized citizens could receive benefits while 
the Government attempts to collect from the sponsor, then the situation 
would be analogous. But that is not what the Dole bill says. And even 
if it did say that, it would still be treating naturalized citizens 
differently from native-born citizens. Denying assistance because there 
is an uncollected asset is not equal treatment under the law.
  So let me repeat: A native-born citizen is denied welfare benefits 
only if there are assets available to the applicant. Just as a child 
support order which is uncollected is not an available asset, an 
affidavit of support on the naturalized citizen which is unable to be 
collected would not be an available asset. True, the Government could 
attempt to collect later, as with a child support order, but in the 
meantime, under the Dole bill, the applicant who is now a U.S. citizen 
would be denied assistance. So I believe that is wrong.
  Let me speak for a moment to the 40 quarters of work and the 
contribution to the system. This affects the homemaker who does not 
work in a two-parent family. If the mother does not work, is supported 
by her husband, and her husband leaves, it is a major problem. 
Similarly, if you were an infant when your parents immigrated, you 
would not be eligible for benefits until you reached your 30's. That is 
hardly equal treatment.
  Mr. President, I believe I have used my time. I thank the Chair and I 
yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 4 minutes and 25 seconds.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I really appreciate the thoughts of my 
friend from California and will look forward to working with her on the 
issues of the sponsorship. I think that is a key thing. I think we can 
strengthen that, and I will look forward to working with her on that 
and on things such as insurance or support, releasing those who are not 
able to pay or be sponsors, perhaps setting a poverty level there. We 
can do those things.
  But I emphasize, too, we always get into immigration matters. Every 
one of us is a child or a grandchild or a great-grandchild of 
immigrants. That is my history, my heritage, my roots. And it is most 
interesting to me when I hear the discussion of the second-class 
citizen. I agree totally with my friend from California; there is no 
distinction between a naturalized citizen and a native-born citizen 
except the Constitution. This certainly does not draw the distinction. 
If there is a difference here, it is a difference expressed only by the 
sponsor of the amendment, because we are treating them exactly the 
same. We are treating the naturalized citizen and the native-born 
citizen exactly the same under this.
  I agree we should not in any way treat them differently, treat them 
as second-class citizens. Treat them the same. So here, in this case, 
as the bill is drafted, a native-born citizen today must disclose all 
assets when applying for welfare and the naturalized citizen should 
also, likewise, disclose all assets as well.
  One of the assets of the person to be naturalized is a contract of 
their sponsor that they will take care of them. It is the same as a 
court-ordered sponsor agreement. It is the same as any other thing, any 
other obligation of life. The sponsor's contract of support is an asset 
of the naturalized citizen, just as alimony or a child support 
agreement is an asset that must also be considered.
  We treat the naturalized citizen no differently than we do the native 
born. Both must present all of their assets while seeking public 
assistance. That is the intent of the legislation in its original form. 
If the sponsor loses his or her assets and income--please hear this--
the deeming period is over. If the sponsor dies, the deeming period is 
over. If the sponsor has too little wherewithal or assets to assist the 
immigrant, to help with school or whatever, the deeming then will not 
reduce the applicant's ability to receive this assistance.
 It is very critical that we hear these distinctions.

  What is the remainder of my time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. One minute 11 seconds.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I look forward to working with Senator 
Feinstein. I welcome these expressions to toughen the sponsor's promise 
that he or she will ``not at any time''--that is the law--permit the 
sponsored immigrant to become a public charge. That, in my mind, is a 
very key phrase. To me in this debate it means before naturalization 
and after naturalization.
  I thank the Chair.
  I yield the remainder of my time.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add 
Senators Simon, Kohl, and Graham as cosponsors.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays and for 
the vote to be set in the order of voting.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the vote is set for 8 
o'clock in sequence.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask that the votes that we originally 
asked 

[[Page S 13594]]
for to occur starting at 8 be postponed until 8:30.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, therefore, at that batting order, we will 
have the Shelby, Mikulski, and Feinstein amendments. And I know the 
Senator from California has another amendment, followed by Senator 
Conrad. But I want to work in a Republican. Senator DeWine was 
available. I do not see him now. So why do we not go with the second 
Feinstein amendment, and then work in a Republican Senator, Senator 
DeWine, and then Senator Conrad, if that is agreeable?
  I say to everybody that it is not necessary to prove one's 
credentials by having an amendment. Everybody is a full-fledged 
Senator, and we recognize that. We will continue to recognize that even 
though they do not come forward with an amendment on this piece of 
legislation. At the rate we are going, we are going to be here a long, 
long time. I mean this evening a long time. Every time I turn around 
somebody comes up with an additional amendment. Usually Senators stand 
here and say, ``Bring over your amendments. We are waiting to do 
business.'' Well, we have too much business to do here. So we are not 
seeking additional amendments. So everybody just call a halt to the 
amendment business so we can get to final passage.
  I see the Senator from Ohio has arrived. So if the Senator from 
California will just delay, we will go ahead with Senator DeWine's 
amendment.
  Mr. President, how much time is he asking for?
  Mr. DeWINE. Ten minutes.
  Mr. CHAFEE. I ask that we have 20 minutes equally divided.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. I am not sure who will speak on this side. But it is 
agreed.
  Mr. CHAFEE. I do not know what the amendment is. Maybe somebody on 
this side will oppose it.
  Mr. CONRAD. Do I understand from the acting manager that after we 
have disposed of the DeWine amendment and the final Feinstein 
amendment, we would then go to the Conrad-Lieberman amendment and 
dispose of that?
  Mr. CHAFEE. That is right.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I believe we erred in the description of 
the Senator from Rhode Island as an acting manager. I think he is very 
much a manager.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Titles mean nothing.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio is recognized.


                    Amendment No. 2517, As Modified

  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to modify my 
amendment No. 2517, and I send the modified amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is so 
modified.
  The amendment (No. 2517), as modified, is as follows:

       On page 637, line 17, strike the period and insert ``, as 
     provided pursuant to agreements described in subsection 
     (a)(18).
       On page 712, between lines 9 and 10, insert the following:

     SEC. 972. FINANCIAL INSTITUTION DATA MATCHES.

       Section 466(a) (42 U.S.C. 666(a)), as amended by sections 
     915, 917(a), 923, 965, 969, and 976 is amended by adding at 
     the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(18) Procedures under which the State agency shall enter 
     into agreements with financial institutions doing business 
     within the State to develop and operate a data match system, 
     using automated data exchanges to the maximum extent 
     feasible, in which such financial institutions are required 
     to provide for each calendar quarter the name, record 
     address, social security number, and other identifying 
     information for each absent parent identified by the State 
     who maintains an account at such institution and, in response 
     to a notice of lien or levy, to encumber or surrender, as the 
     case may be, assets held by such institution on behalf of any 
     absent parent who is subject to a child support lien pursuant 
     to paragraph (4). For purposes of this paragraph, the term 
     `financial institution' means Federal and State commercial 
     savings banks, including savings and loan associations and 
     cooperative banks, Federal and State chartered credit unions, 
     benefit associations, insurance companies, safe deposit 
     companies, money-market mutual funds, and any similar entity 
     authorized to do business in the State, and the term 
     `account' means a demand deposit account, checking or 
     negotiable withdrawal order account, savings account, time 
     deposit account, or money-market mutual fund account.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, as we are modifying amendments, I wonder 
if we might also modify an amendment that Senator Gramm submitted 
earlier. That is a modification to amendment No. 2280.
  Mr. President, I withhold that request. The Senator from Ohio may go 
ahead.
  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, one of the reasons that our welfare costs 
today are so high is the number of absent deadbeat parents who, in 
spite of a court order, in spite of judicial determination that they 
owe weekly or monthly child support, still flagrantly refuse to pay 
child support. This amendment goes a long way, I believe, to help deal 
with this problem.
  Let me take just a moment, if I could, to congratulate Senator Dole 
and to congratulate everyone else who has been directly involved in 
this bill because the child support enforcement section is a very good 
section. It was written after consultation with experts in the field, 
people who deal with this every day out in the 50 States who have to 
face the problem of trying to track down these deadbeat parents and 
then after they find them trying to figure out how to get money from 
them.
  This particular amendment that I am offering was also based on our 
consultation with experts in the field, particularly the State of 
Massachusetts, which has some very, very good success. In fact, this 
particular amendment was modeled after what Massachusetts is doing.
  The purpose of this amendment is to make it easier for States to 
crack down on deadbeat parents. We, of course, are all aware, Mr. 
President, that one of the key causes of our social breakdown is the 
failure of parents to be responsible for their own children. The family 
ought to be the school for citizenship, preparing the children for a 
responsible and productive life. Too often it is just the opposite, and 
parents do not do that. When they do not pay their child support, it is 
certainly very difficult for society to step in and fill the gap. We 
need to reconnect parenthood and responsibility, and making absent 
parents pay is one way that we can do it. We need to help States locate 
deadbeat parents and help States establish support orders for the 
children, and then finally enforce these orders. My amendment attempts 
to address this problem by providing for a more timely sharing of 
information with the States.
  As I said at the beginning, it is good to get the child support 
order. It is good to locate the parent. But if you cannot figure out 
where the parent's assets are, it does not do anyone any good. It does 
not do the children any good. It does not do society any good. So what 
this amendment is aimed at doing is making it easier to locate the 
assets of the parents.
  Today, Mr. President, the Federal Parent Locater Service in the U.S. 
Department of Health and Human Services gives the States banking and 
asset information about potential deadbeats on an annual basis--once a 
year.
  Now, if you go out into the States and talk with people who have to 
track down these deadbeats, they will tell you how difficult that whole 
process is. I first became involved in this a number of years ago, in 
the early 1970's when I was a county prosecuting attorney. I cannot 
tell you how frustrating it was. You got a support order. You got a 
judge to say the person owed so much money. And then they took off. You 
could not find them. Then after you found them, you could not figure 
out where their assets were.
  This amendment will help in that area. If you have to wait, Mr. 
President, a whole year to get the information about the bank assets of 
an individual, sometimes a year and a half, obviously many times that 
information is stale and many times that information does not give you 
the true information you really need. The person may have moved. They 
may have changed banks. They may not have any assets in the bank, et 
cetera.
  My amendment will allow States to enter into agreements with the 
financial community in their States to match financial data with child 
support delinquency lists on a more frequent basis. Not only will 
States get information on an annual basis, this 

[[Page S 13595]]
amendment will allow for more timely information on a quarterly basis.
  This quarterly system has already been implemented in the State of 
Massachusetts and the results have been nothing short of phenomenal, 
which this chart indicates. In 1994, Massachusetts child support 
enforcers collected $2.7 million in past due child support. This year, 
Massachusetts began a quarterly reporting system, and collections have 
dramatically increased. At the current rate, their child support 
collections for 1995 will be at $9.6 million. That, Mr. President, is 
more than three times what they collected last year. The year before, 
$2.7 million; this year, $9.6 million.
  Let me congratulate and also thank Marilyn Smith, who is the director 
of the Massachusetts Child Support Enforcement Agency, who worked with 
my office and with Dwayne Sattler of my office and the rest of my staff 
to really get the language down so that other States would be able to 
do what Massachusetts has done.
  So, Mr. President, when you are looking at what works and what does 
not work, this works. In short, when child support enforcers have 
timely information, they can make deadbeat parents pay what they owe, 
and that means more parents responsible for their children.
  We have received the CBO scoring on this amendment, and it will be at 
least revenue neutral. As someone who has worked in this field and did 
this for a number of years, let me tell you my guess is it is going to 
be a lot better than revenue neutral. This is going to be a very 
positive thing for each State. I believe it will save money for the 
Federal Treasury as more and more parents own up to their financial 
responsibility of having children.
  This amendment is cost-effective and it is necessary. The child 
support enforcers are doing a very tough and difficult job, facing 
horrible obstacles every single day. I think we should cut by 75 
percent, which is what this amendment does, the amount of time they 
have to wait to get this valuable information. Information is power, 
they say, but in this case information is money. So if you get the 
information on time, you take the court order, you go in, slap a lien 
on the bank account, you draw the money out, and guess what? That 
deadbeat parent has now started contributing his or her fair share not 
just to that family, which is the most important thing, but also to 
society as well.
  That is why I believe my amendment will do a great deal of good. I 
urge it be adopted.
  Mr. President, let me just clarify for the record that the amendment 
that I am modifying is amendment 2517 and not 2519.
  I thank the Chair.
  Mr. CHAFEE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President I would like to ask the sponsor of the 
amendment a couple of questions.
  Under the amendment as I read it, it is an option for the State; it 
is not mandatory. Is that correct?
  Mr. DeWINE. That is correct.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Second, the amendment says that the State shall enter 
into agreements with financial institutions to develop and operate a 
data match system.
  I understand under this the State would bring a list of those who are 
delinquent to the bank instead of the bank having to provide the State 
with the name of everybody who had a deposit in that bank. Is that 
correct?
  Mr. DeWINE. That is correct.
  If the Senator will yield, what we have done with this is to try to 
model the Massachusetts program. What Massachusetts has been able to do 
is to work out, it is my understanding, an agreement between the 
private banking community and the State to have a system that is not 
overly burdensome on the banking community; it is something that they 
can live with but something also that gives the information to the 
people who need it and give it in a very timely fashion.
  Let me just say that one of the things we did, Mr. President, is we 
checked with the Ohio banking community, just to try it out. We said, 
would you be willing to do something like this? And the answer was, we 
are citizens of the State and we want to be good corporate citizens. We 
want to help out. It is something we can live with. If it is not overly 
burdensome and is directed at dealing with the problem, we are more 
than happy to comply.
  What will happen, as the Senator knows, many times people move from 
State to State. With all States doing this, we will have in the law the 
system where the States can share information.
  And so what I would anticipate once this system is fully up is that 
not only in Ohio would you basically get this information, but if a 
person took off and went to Connecticut or Rhode Island or Arizona, 
that information could be shared by cooperating with that State.
  Mr. CHAFEE. As I read the amendment, it is not optional for the bank 
to participate if the State decides that they want the bank to 
participate. In other words, as I read the amendment, it says that the 
State shall work out agreements with the banks to develop a data match 
system in which such institutions are required to provide every 
quarter, et cetera.
  So it is not just an encouragement. It is a requirement if the State 
so chooses.
  Mr. DeWINE. That is correct. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. CHAFEE. I can see this being extremely burdensome for the bank if 
each quarter they have to come up with everybody who has a deposit in 
the bank that appears on some list the State submits to them.
  I presume the banks are permitted to charge something for all this.
  Mr. DeWINE. Absolutely. What will happen on a practical basis is what 
has happened in Massachusetts and what I am sure would happen in Ohio, 
and that is, quite frankly, the State officials would enter into an 
agreement with the banking association, whoever represents all the 
banks in the State, for something that is actually very, very workable.
  As someone who has dealt with this at the local community level, if 
you do not have the cooperation of a bank, if they do not want to do 
this, you are going to have a lot of problems. And so you have to have 
the good will of the bank. And to get the good bill of the bank, what 
you simply do is work out something that they clearly can in fact live 
with.
  The other point I would make to the Senator is that we are not 
talking about huge lists being supplied to a bank. We are talking about 
basically a single shot where you go in with a limited list and that 
would only be triggered basically once the parent locater, whatever 
that agency was in the State, had information that that person might be 
in that bank's jurisdiction.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Well, I am not sure it is so simple as all that. It comes 
up every quarter, four times a year. But I am not on the Banking 
Committee. This is the kind of thing that I really wish had gone 
through the Banking Committee and let them have hearings on it, and let 
them know what the costs are and what the problems are that arise under 
it.
  I do not know whether anybody else wants to speak on this. Does the 
Senator want a vote on this?
  Mr. DeWINE. If I just could say, we have worked closely with people 
in the banking community. And I do appreciate the Senator's comments 
about not having a hearing on it. I understand that. But this amendment 
is based on matching computer tapes, basically a computer match with 
tapes, which we are told is not, with today's technology, really much 
of a burden. It is not the creation and not asking for the creation of 
a new list. It is a computer match with tapes to get this particular 
job done.
  I also say that if a person wanted to get a court order in every 
case, they could go in and get a court order for the bank records 
anyway on a case-by-case basis. That is not the right way to do it. 
This, we believe, is the right way to do it.
  Mr. CHAFEE. I tell you what. We may be in a position to take this 
amendment. Why does not the Senator ask for the yeas and nays? And if 
he would be willing to vitiate those yeas and nays, if we can take it. 
We have got to check. Why not ask for the yeas and nays?
  Mr. DeWINE. I will at this point, Mr. President, ask for the yeas and 
nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? 

[[Page S 13596]]

  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Do the Senators yield back the remaining time?
  Mr. CHAFEE. I do.
  Mr. DeWINE. I do, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back.
  Mr. CHAFEE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Now we will go to the second amendment of the Senator 
from California.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Thank you, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for 10 minutes.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. And I thank the bill manager.


                           Amendment No. 2513

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, this amendment involves deeming. It is 
a complicated issue. Let me try and explain it simply. It only involves 
legal aliens.
  Presently, deeming only applies to cash programs, AFDC, SSI, food 
stamps. This amendment would remove the deeming requirements for 
Federal programs not traditionally considered Federal welfare programs. 
It would retain the deeming for the three principal Federal cash 
welfare programs: AFDC, SSI, and food stamps.
  Under the bill, a child of a legal immigrant would not have access to 
Head Start; a legal immigrant would not have access to Medicaid, would 
not have access to child protective services, would not have access to 
maternal health services, would not have access to foster care, would 
not have access to custodial care. All of these programs deemed--excuse 
me, not deemed--but all these programs which are noncash programs would 
not be available for anyone who was in this country legally.
  The amendment also provides that no one in this country legally who 
is a battered wife could ever make use of a domestic abuse program, a 
battered wife shelter. There are actually some 80 programs that provide 
noncash assistance, and I have named most of them. The most important 
one of these is Medicaid.
  Everyone in this room has heard Governors across this Nation bellow 
that the Federal Government is not dealing with the costs of immigrants 
to the States. Every one of them says this, that has the program.
  Essentially, the way the bill is drafted, it is a massive cost-shift 
to States because it says that the county then has to pick up these 
costs. The county would have to pick up the costs of Head Start if a 
youngster was going to go into it. The county would have to pick up the 
costs of Medicaid or the State. The county would have to pick up the 
costs of child protective services or foster care or any of those 
items.
  It is a major item. And I will be candid and frank with you; it falls 
most heavily on four States. It falls heavily on Texas, it falls 
heavily on Florida, it falls heavily on New York, and it falls heavily 
on California. And that is because that is where the largest 
percentages of these legal immigrants are.
  Now, as I mentioned earlier in the earlier discussion, I believe we 
should tighten the sponsorship requirements. I believe we should see 
that they are secure, even verify what they say. And I intend to 
introduce legislation that would provide that sponsors of immigrants 
must provide health insurance for those immigrants. But here we are 
with a situation that exists really creating a massive unfunded 
mandate, particularly in the area of legal immigration.
  This amendment is supported by the National Governors' Association, 
the National Conference of State Legislatures, the National Association 
of Counties, the National League of Cities, the United States Catholic 
Conference, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, Mayor Giuliani, 
Mayor Riordan, and many other people as well.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the letter from 
the National Governors' Association.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:


                               National Governors Association,

                                Washington DC, September 13, 1995.
       Dear Senator, As the Senate considers amendments to the 
     Work Opportunity Act of 1995, the National Governors' 
     Association [NGA] urges you to support increased flexibility 
     that will enable states to build upon the experiences of 
     state welfare reform efforts around the country and to design 
     programs in accord with their particular needs and 
     priorities. We have provided below a partial list of 
     amendments that are supported by the NGA. This list is not 
     meant to be exhaustive, and there may be other amendments 
     Governors support that are not on this list.
       We urge you to support these amendments based on the 
     recommendations of the nation's Governors, who will have 
     direct responsibility for meeting the challenge of designing 
     successful welfare-to-work and child care systems:
       State penalties under cash assistance block grant. (Pryor 
     #2495, McCain #2542) Delays the implementation of penalties 
     until October 1, 1996 or six months after the date the 
     Secretary issues the final rule, whichever is later. Provides 
     that the five percent penalty for unlawful use of funds can 
     only be imposed if the Secretary determines the violation was 
     intentional. Permits states with penalties to submit to the 
     federal government a corrective action plan to correct 
     violations in lieu of paying penalties under the cash 
     assistance block grant.
       Technical amendments. (D'Amato #2577, 2578, 2579) Technical 
     amendments relating to the date for determining FY 1994 
     expenditures, claims arising before effective dates and 
     efforts to recover funds from previous fiscal years.
       Equal treatment for naturalized citizens. (Feinstein #2478, 
     Kennedy #2563) Provides for equal treatment for naturalized 
     and native-born citizens so that once an individual becomes a 
     citizen he or she will be eligible for benefits whether or 
     not the deeming period has expired.
       Sponsor deeming. (Feinstein #2513) Limits deeming of 
     sponsors' income to those programs for which deeming is now 
     required under current law (AFDC, Food Stamps and SSI). 
     Additionally exempts legal immigrants who have been victims 
     of domestic violence from the 1) ban on SSI assistance and 2) 
     deeming requirements for all programs.
       Prospective application of legal immigrant provisions. 
     (Graham #2569) Provides that any changes with respect to 
     legal immigrants made by this bill will not apply to 
     noncitizens who are lawfully present in the United States and 
     receiving benefits under a program on the date of enactment. 
     (Simon, #2509) Eliminates retroactive deeming requirements 
     for legal immigrants already in the U.S.
       ``Good cause'' hardship waiver. (Rockefeller #2492) Gives 
     states the option of granting exceptions to the 5-year life-
     time limit and the participation rate calculation for 
     individuals who are ill, incapacitated, or elderly, as well 
     as for recipients who are providing full-time care for their 
     disabled dependents.
       High unemployment areas exemption. (Rockefeller #2491) 
     Gives states the option of waiving time limits in area of 
     high unemployment (ten percent or more). Recipients must 
     participate in workfare or community work to continue 
     benefits.
       Vocational educational training. (Jeffords #2557) Changes 
     the definition of work activities to allow vocational 
     education to count as an eligible activity of up to 24 
     months.
       Data reporting requirements. (McCain #2541) Provides that 
     states are not required to comply with excessive data 
     collection and reporting requirements, as determined by GAO, 
     unless the federal government provides sufficient funds to 
     meet the costs.
       Work supplementation. (McCain #2280) Removes the six month 
     limit for an individual's participation in a work 
     supplementation program under the food stamp program.
       Cash aid in lieu of food stamps. (Faircloth #2600) Allows a 
     state agency to make cash payments in lieu of food stamps for 
     certain individuals.
       Hardship waiver. (Kennedy #2623) Permits states to apply 
     for waivers with respect to the 15 percent cap on hardship 
     exemptions from the five-year time limit.
       Assistance to children. (Kennedy #2624) Permits states to 
     provide non-cash assistance to children ineligible for aid 
     because of the five-year time limit.
       Modification of participation rate (DeWine #2518) Permits a 
     pro rata reduction in a state's participation rate due to 
     caseload reductions not required by federal law or due to 
     changes in a state's eligibility criteria.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Gov. Bob Miller,
                                                  State of Nevada.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the chair.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. CHAFEE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum, and the 
time to be equally charged against--
  Mr. SIMPSON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator yield time to the Senator 
from Wyoming?
  Mr. CHAFEE. Yes. 

[[Page S 13597]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. SIMPSON. I just came to the floor many minutes ago to debate a 
different amendment. But I see apparently there is no one on the other 
side of this, and that should not go untended. If I may then speak in 
opposition to the amendment, that, first of all, this amendment is not 
about domestic violence and the other tragedies that visit upon our 
Nation.
  I have found--and I share with my colleague from California that on 
these issues of immigration, filled with emotion, fear, guilt and 
racism, your colleagues during the entire day say, ``Alan, we are very 
pleased to assist you in all this work.'' But when it comes time to 
stand on the floor, they are absent in great droves--droves--I have 
found, because these are not popular issues.
  How about cash assistance, noncash assistance? The Senate has already 
accepted an amendment from Senator Wellstone which will address all 
concerns about violence, domestic violence, all that. That is clear. 
That has already been done somewhere along the line. This amendment 
exempts all noncash programs from all of the immigration-related 
provisions within this entire welfare bill.
  The cost of it is $707 million. We are never going to reach the 
reconciliation instructions with this welfare bill. And the Finance 
Committee has now been charged--there are some on the floor. Senator 
Bradley serves on that committee. Of all the savings to be obtained in 
reconciliation, $607 billion are to be saved. And the Finance Committee 
is supposed to find a way to save $503 billion or $530 billion of that.
  This welfare bill has already taken us over the jumps. Senator 
Santorum will tell you that, the occupant of the chair--yes, yes, the 
occupant of the chair will tell you that we are a little bit over our 
mark. And we have done that out of charity and kindness and caring. And 
that is fine; those are good motives. But we are way over the target 
with this bill.
  Now, this amendment exempts all noncash programs and, as I say, all 
of the immigration-related provisions within this bill.
  Before a prospective immigrant may enter the United States, that 
person must guarantee that he or she will not use public assistance, I 
say to my colleagues. That has been the law of the United States since 
1882. It never worked because the court systems, in their 
interpretation of it, made it simply a neutered statute.
  So you could not prove anything. The deeming was overturned and 
sponsoring agencies scoffed at it, relatives scoffed at it. So what was 
a very precious thing--and it is still on the books, since 1882, that a 
person will not become a public charge when they come to the United 
States of America. That person indicates by oath that they will not, 
and the sponsor is indicating that they will not allow that usually 
precious relative to become a public charge.
  So, finally, in the Finance Committee, we corrected this abuse, a 
terrible abuse of the system, the kind of thing that makes people sour 
on immigration, sour on our precious heritage. That is what happens 
here.
  So, in turn, we have this measure which requires immigrants to look 
first to the sponsor, this friend or this relative who guaranteed this 
support. They did this. They could not bring them unless they did this.
  So we were saying in the bill, before receiving any public 
assistance, the sponsor is responsible for you, and his income is 
deemed to be yours for purposes of this. In the public's interest, the 
Dole bill then exempted certain limited programs, such as childhood 
immunizations and school lunch. I have no problem with that at all.
  Senator Feinstein's amendment would exempt all noncash programs. This 
includes Medicaid, public housing, job training and any other program 
which does not provide cash assistance to the recipient.
  That is where we are. I have a hunch where this amendment will go. It 
will be well received, but it is $707 million, and we are going to have 
to go find that somewhere in this process. Guess where it will come 
from, very likely? Medicaid. That is where it will come from, unless 
someone can tell me another approach to it.
  So here we are again with an immigration-related issue which has to 
do with compassion, kindness, tenderness. I know those things. Those 
are emotions not foreign to me, but I also know how this works. It is a 
great infertile field to just add and add and add. Sponsors have 
committed that the sponsored immigrant will neither require nor use 
assistance from the taxpayers of this country from any Federal welfare 
program, and that is the law of the United States of America.
  To be consistent, all Federal welfare programs should require the 
sponsored immigrant to look to this friend or this relative or this 
sponsoring agency for assistance before turning to the American 
taxpayer for support.
  We are not talking about illegal, undocumented persons who we care 
for with emergency medical assistance and hospital assurance. We are 
talking about people who are playing on the up and up when they came, 
sponsors who were playing on the up and up when they came, which was a 
very simple procedure: ``You come, I'll take care of you until you 
become self-supporting.'' That is the law of the United States of 
America.
  You keep making these exemptions, and now we have to go find $707 
million. I wish it were not a money item. It certainly is more than a 
money item. It is called responsibility for those you bring to the 
United States of America as a sponsor under the law of the United 
States.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, how much time do I have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Five minutes 9 seconds.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, bottom line, this bill as drafted, without this 
amendment, is a massive cost shift. As I said, the costs are shifted 
essentially to four States: Texas, Florida, New York, and California.
  What this bill says presently is no one in this country legally who 
is not a citizen can send their child to a Head Start Program, can be 
on Medicaid. It is not prospective. It affects everybody presently. 
That is why it is a cost shift. It would be one thing if it were 
prospective and said in the future, but it does not. It says to every 
legal immigrant's child out there that is in a Head Start class, ``Next 
year, forget it, you are no longer there.'' That is essentially the 
bottom line. Or somebody in the State has to pay for it, either the 
State or the county.
  California has a huge deficit. According to the General Accounting 
Office, California also has 38.2 percent of all legal immigrants, but 
52.4 percent of all immigrants receiving Federal welfare. New York has 
12.6 percent; Florida, 8.9 percent; Texas, 8.6 percent; and other 
States, 31.7 percent. So you see, there is a huge cost shift in dollars 
from the Federal Government to the States.
  That involves adoption assistance, it involves foster care, it 
involves child protective services. Can you believe it? If a child is 
being abused, the protective services are not going to be available if 
they are a legal immigrant? We passed legislation earlier--Senator 
Exon's amendment--overwhelmingly for people here illegally, and I agree 
with that. But these people are here legally and, therefore, I find the 
bill egregious as it stands right now.
  Again, I am hopeful--and I would say, toughen sponsorship, look at 
people coming more carefully in this regard. I do not have a problem 
with that. But this is going to affect large numbers of people who are 
already in this country.
  Eighty-three percent of all the immigrants receiving SSI or AFDC 
resided in the four States. AFDC and SSI are not covered by this 
amendment. It is only the noncash benefits, and I think I have spelled 
those out.
  I do not know if there is anyone who would like to speak on this.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield for a brief question?
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I will be happy to.
  Mr. KENNEDY. The implications of this are extremely significant with 
regard to the urban hospitals, are they not, especially where there are 
major 

[[Page S 13598]]
groupings of urban hospitals that primarily take care of the poor, the 
disadvantaged and many of the immigrants as well? We find situations 
where even though there are relatives and other members of the family 
that might be able to participate in helping to offset the costs, an 
increasing number of people are becoming uninsured, through no fault of 
their own. Therefore, their relatives do not have the ability to extend 
the coverage to these individuals. That is taking place among 
immigrants who are here legally. And in many instances, sponsors have 
abandoned them, even though they have a responsibility toward the 
immigrants they sponsor, and these immigrants are really left holding 
the bag. As a result, the urban hospitals and health providers will be 
left holding the bag as well.
  Does the Senator agree with me that without the Senator's amendment, 
there will be extreme additional stress placed on the health care 
providers, particularly in some of the neediest areas of the country?
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I certainly agree with the Senator from 
Massachusetts. I think particularly the public hospitals in the urban 
centers are going to be whacked in the head unless this amendment is 
adopted, because a large percentage of patients comprise this 
population and there would be no reimbursements, no Medicaid.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Who will end up paying for it then?
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. The county or the State would have to find a way. It 
is a cost shift.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Who yields time?
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask that the vote scheduled for 8:30 be 
postponed until the conclusion of this debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, it is my understanding--and I would like 
to ask the Senator from Wyoming this--in the case of domestic violence 
inflicted by the ``deemor,'' that has been taken care of, as I 
understand it, by the Wellstone amendment.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Oh, yes, that is true. The Wellstone amendment took care 
of battered women and foster children, without question.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Am I also correct that the suggestion was made by the 
Senator from California that it would be impossible for a legal alien's 
child to be in a Head Start program? As I understand it, if the 
``deemor's'' assets were not of significant value, the child is not 
prevented from being in a Head Start program, is he or she?
  Mr. SIMPSON. That was taken care of very nicely by Senator Kennedy. 
We agreed to exempt Head Start and soup kitchens. That has been done.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. CHAFEE. If I might complete my questions. In connection with the 
foster care problems, the Boxer amendment, I believe, addressed them, 
am I correct?
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, as far as I know, that, too, is also 
true, yes. But, Mr. President, there is another issue. The bill itself 
provides that there is a year period--an entire year--if a person is 
abused, if there is no money, if the sponsored individual is not there, 
or whatever may happen, it says that in the absence of assistance 
provided by the agency, if someone is unable to obtain food and 
shelter, taking into account the individual's own income, plus any 
cash, that is taken care of in this measure for 12 months--without 
question, whatever the reason. So this is not a case of some draconian 
business where we delight in taking people and waiting and suddenly see 
them fall into disarray and then whacking them or hitting them in the 
head. What will get hit in the head is Medicaid with this one.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, do I have any time remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired on the amendment.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Does the Senator from California want a vote on her 
amendment?
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. 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.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, we were to vote at 8:30. I ask that it be 
delayed for 10 minutes so the Senator from North Dakota, who has been 
patiently waiting for his amendment, might present it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.


                    Amendment No. 2528, as Modified

  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 2528, the 
Conrad-Lieberman amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That amendment is now pending.
  Mr. CONRAD. I ask unanimous consent to modify the amendment, as per 
the agreement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask if the Senator will withhold on that 
for a second.
  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, we can return to Senator Conrad's 
amendment.
  Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Senator from Rhode Island.
  I ask unanimous consent to modify my amendment, as per the previous 
agreement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is so 
modified.
  The amendment (No. 2528), as modified, is as follows:
       On page 50, strike line 6 and all that follows through page 
     51, line 11, and insert the following:
       ``(d) Requirement That Teenage Parents Live in Adult-
     Supervised Settings.--
       ``(1) In general.--
       ``(A) Requirement.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), if 
     a State provides assistance under the State program funded 
     under this part to an individual described in subparagraph 
     (B), such individual may only receive assistance under the 
     program if such individual and the child of the individual 
     reside in a place of residence maintained by a parent, legal 
     guardian, or other adult relative of such individual as such 
     parent's, guardian's, or adult relative's own home.
       ``(B) Individual described.-- For purposes of subparagraph 
     (A), an individual described in this subparagraph is an 
     individual who is--
       ``(i) under the age of 18; and
       ``(ii) not married and has a minor child in his or her 
     care.
       ``(2) Exception.--
       ``(A) Provision of, or assistance in locating, adult-
     supervised living arrangement.--In the case of an individual 
     who is described in subparagraph (B), the State agency shall 
     provide, or assist such individual in locating, a second 
     chance home, maternity home, or other appropriate adult-
     supervised supportive living arrangement, taking into 
     consideration the needs and concerns of the such individual, 
     unless the State agency determines that the individual's 
     current living arrangement is appropriate, and thereafter 
     shall require that such parent and the child of such parent 
     reside in such living arrangement as a condition of the 
     continued receipt of assistance under the plan (or in an 
     alternative appropriate arrangement, should circumstances 
     change and the current arrangement cease to be appropriate).
       ``(B) Individual described.--For purposes of subparagraph 
     (A), an individual is described in this subparagraph if the 
     individual is described in paragraph (1)(B) and--
       ``(ii) such individual has no parent, legal guardian or 
     other appropriate adult relative as described in (ii) of his 
     or her own who is living or whose whereabouts are known;
       ``(iii) no living parent, legal guardian, or other 
     appropriate adult relative who would otherwise meet 
     applicable State criteria to act as such individual's legal 
     guardian, of such individual allows the individual to live in 
     the home of such parent, guardian, or relative;
       ``(iv) the State agency determines that--

       ``(I) the individual or the individual's custodial minor 
     child is being or has been subjected to serious physical or 
     emotional harm, sexual abuse, or exploitation in the 
     residence of such individual's own parent or legal guardian; 
     or
       ``(II) substantial evidence exists of an act or failure to 
     act that presents an imminent or serious harm if such 
     individual and such individual's minor child lived in the 
     same residence with such individual's own parent or legal 
     guardian; or

       ``(v) the State agency otherwise determines that it is in 
     the best interest of the minor child to waive the requirement 
     of paragraph (1) with respect to such individual or minor 
     child.
       ``(C) Second-chance home.--For purposes of this paragraph, 
     the term `second-chance 

[[Page S 13599]]
     home' means an entity that provides individuals described in 
     subparagraph (B) with a supportive and supervised living 
     arrangement in which such individuals are required to learn 
     parenting skills, including child development, family 
     budgeting, health and nutrition, and other skills to promote 
     their long-term economic independence and the well-being of 
     their children.
       ``(3) Assistance to states in providing or locating adult-
     supervised supportive living arrangements for unmarried 
     teenage parents.--
       ``(A) In general.--For each of fiscal years 1998 through 
     2002, each State that provides assistance under the State 
     program to individuals described in paragraph (1)(B) shall be 
     entitled to receive a grant in an amount determined under 
     subparagraph (B) for the purpose of providing or locating 
     adult-supervised supportive living arrangements for 
     individuals described in paragraph (1)(B) in accordance with 
     this subsection.
       ``(B) Amount determined.--
       ``(i) In general.--The amount determined under this 
     subparagraph is an amount that bears the same ratio to the 
     amount specified under clause (ii) as the amount of the State 
     family assistance grant for the State for such fiscal year 
     (described in section 403(a)(2)) bears to the amount 
     appropriated for such fiscal year in accordance with section 
     403(a)(4)(A).
       ``(ii) Amount specified.--The amount specified in this 
     subparagraph is--
       ``(I) for fiscal year 1996, $25,000,000;
       ``(II) for fiscal year 1997, $25,000,000; and
       ``(III) for each of fiscal years 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 
     and 2002, $20,000,000.
       ``(C) Assistance to states in providing or locating adult-
     supervised supportive living arrangements for unmarried 
     teenage parents.--There are authorized to be appropriated and 
     there are appropriated for fiscal years 1998, 1999, and 2000 
     such sums as may be necessary for the purpose of paying 
     grants to States in accordance with the provisions of this 
     paragraph.
       ``(e) Requirement That Teenage Parents Attend High School 
     or Other Equivalent Training Program.--If a State provides 
     assistance under the State program funded under this part to 
     an individual described in subsection (d)(1)(B) who has not 
     successfully completed a high-school education (or its 
     equivalent) and whose minor child is at least 12 weeks of 
     age, the State shall not provide such individual with 
     assistance under the program (or, at the option of the State, 
     shall provide a reduced level of such assistance) if the 
     individual does not participate in--
       ``(1) educational activities directed toward the attainment 
     of a high school diploma or its equivalent; or
       ``(2) an alternative educational or training program that 
     has been approved by the State.
       On page 51, strike ``(e)'' and insert ``(f)''.
       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. ____. ESTABLISHING NATIONAL GOALS TO PREVENT TEENAGE 
                   PREGNANCIES.

       (a) In General.--Not later than January 1, 1997, the 
     Secretary of Health and Human Services shall establish and 
     implement a strategy for--
       (1) preventing an additional 2% of out-of-wedlock teenage 
     pregnancies a year, and
       (2) assuring that at least 25 percent of the communities in 
     the United States have teenage pregnancy prevention programs 
     in place.
       (b) Report.--Not later than June 30, 1998, and annually 
     thereafter, the Secretary shall report to the Congress with 
     respect to the progress that has been made in meeting the 
     goals described in paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection (a).
       (b) Out-of-Wedlock and Teenage Pregnancy Prevention 
     Programs.--Section 2002 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1397a) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(2) The Secretary shall conduct a study with respect to 
     the State programs implemented under paragraph (1) to 
     determine the relative effectiveness of the different 
     approaches for preventing out-of-wedlock and teenage 
     pregnancy utilized in the programs conducted under this 
     subsection and the approaches that can be best replicated by 
     other States.
       ``(3) Each State conducting a program under this subsection 
     shall provide to the Secretary, in such form and with such 
     frequency as the Secretary requires, data from the programs 
     conducted under this subsection. The Secretary shall report 
     to the Congress annually on the progress of the programs and 
     shall, not later than June 30, 1998, submit to the Congress a 
     report on the study required under paragraph (2).''.

     SEC. ____. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING ENFORCEMENT OF 
                   STATUTORY RAPE LAWS.

       It is the sense of the Senate that States and local 
     jurisdictions should aggressively enforce statutory rape 
     laws.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators 
Pryor, Bradley, and Kerry of Massachusetts appear as original 
cosponsors in addition to Senator Lieberman.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, this amendment promotes a comprehensive 
strategy that prevents teen pregnancy. Mr. President, if there is one 
agreement on both sides of the aisle, it is that teen pregnancy is a 
crisis in America. One out of three children being born today are born 
out of wedlock. In some cities of America, two out of three children 
being born are born out of wedlock. Here in the Nation's capital, this 
year, more than two out of three children are being born out of 
wedlock.
  Teen pregnancy is a critical challenge. It is a tragedy for America. 
It is a tragedy for the children. It is a tragedy for the young women. 
It is a tragedy for our entire country.
  Mr. President, in 1992, there were more than a half million births to 
teenagers, and 71 percent of those births were to unmarried parents. 
The Conrad-Lieberman amendment is designed as a comprehensive strategy 
to take on this challenge.
  Mr. President, the Conrad-Lieberman amendment does the following:
  It provides $150 million over 7 years for States to develop adult-
supervised living arrangements. I call them ``second-chance homes.'' 
They are places where young, unmarried mothers can get the structure 
and supervision they need to turn their lives around.
  It retains the requirement that teen parents live with their parents 
or another responsible adult.
  It requires that they stay in school.
  It establishes a national goal to prevent out-of-wedlock pregnancy to 
teens by 2 percent a year.
  It encourages communities to establish their own teen pregnancy 
prevention goals.
  Finally, it calls for the aggressive prosecution of men who have sex 
with girls under the age of 18.
  Mr. President, I think the most compelling testimony before the 
Finance Committee was from Sister Mary Rose McGeady, the head of 
Covenant House. She has been in the trenches, she has fought this 
battle, and she has been succeeding. They have dealt with hundreds of 
young mothers who have come into their facilities and have had the 
structure, the support, and the discipline, and the help in seeing 
themselves as having a future, the vision to see that they could do 
something more with their lives, if they did not have another child 
before they were able to care for it. Sister Mary Rose reported that 
they have been very successful in preventing those young women from 
having another child.
  Mr. President, I read in the Record yesterday the statement of Elena, 
a young woman in New York who was in one of these second-chance homes. 
I will repeat her statement:

       I feel this is a place where I can get my life together. I 
     am getting my education and learning to work. My mother never 
     cared if I went to school, and she never told me about having 
     babies or being a parent. The people here and the programs 
     here are helping me. I am learning to be a teacher's 
     assistant so that I can go to college and start my own 
     business and get off of public assistance.
      I needed this chance.

  Elena is not alone. There are others like her that need a chance.
  Mr. President, I ask to have printed in the Record a statement of 
Bishop John Ricard, Chairman of the Domestic Policy Committee, United 
States Catholic Conference, a statement of Catholic Charities USA also 
be printed in the Record, and a National Council of Churches of Christ 
in the USA, a statement in support of the amendment, also be printed in 
the Record.
  There being on objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

    Statement of Bishop John H. Ricard, SSJ, Chair, Domestic Policy 
              Committee, United States Catholic Conference

       We are pleased to offer our support and encouragement to 
     the efforts of Senator Conrad and others to provide 
     education, training and adult supervision to teen parents as 
     part of welfare reform in the Senate. We are hopeful that 
     this approach will be adopted rather than the cut-off of all 
     benefits to teen parents which some Senators are proposing. 
     We opposed such measures in the House welfare reform bill.
       In its March 1995 welfare reform statement, the Catholic 
     Bishops' Conference Administrative Board urged that 
     alternatives be proposed ``which safeguard children but do 
     not reinforce inappropriate or morally destructive 
     behavior.'' The Bishops went on to state that the Catholic 
     Church works every day against sexual irresponsibility and 
     out-of-wedlock births and they do not believe that teenagers 
     should be encouraged to set up their own households. At the 
     same time, however, the statement criticized legislation 
     which would deny benefits to children born to teen parents, 
     especially in states that pay for abortions. We believe that 
     the Conrad Amendment goes a long way towards providing 
     appropriate options for teen parents who 

[[Page S 13600]]
     are eligible for assistance without encouraging them to resort to 
     abortion.
                                                                    ____

                                  National Council of the Churches


                                         of Christ in the USA,

                                                   Washington, DC.

  Statement on Provisions Related to Teen Pregnancy in Welfare Reform 
                              Legislation

    (By Mary Anderson Cooper, Associate Director, Washington Office)

       As people of faith and religious commitment, we in the 
     churches are called to stand with and seek justice for people 
     who are poor. We share a conviction, therefore, that welfare 
     reform must not focus on eliminating programs but on 
     eliminating poverty and the damage it inflicts on children 
     (who are \2/3\ of all welfare recipients), on their parents, 
     and on the rest of society.
       We are particularly concerned that children not be 
     victimized by attempts at welfare reform. We reject proposals 
     which would deny benefits to children born to unmarried 
     mothers under the age of 18 in the name of preventing teen 
     pregnancy. Although such proposals are focused on the 
     desirable goal of reducing pregnancy outside of marriage, we 
     believe that they would result in punishing children and 
     their parents. Denying cash benefits for such families will 
     inevitably mean that the children and their mothers will eat 
     less well and live less well than they would have if they had 
     received cash benefits, and that their health will be 
     undermined. Whatever we may feel about the behavior or 
     situation of their parents, as a nation we must not allow 
     children to become the victims of a drive to reduce federal 
     spending or to punish their parents for conduct deemed 
     inappropriate by Congress.
       While we oppose denial of benefits to children born to 
     unmarried mothers, we do not believe that remaining silent on 
     the issue of teen pregnancy is helpful. The bearing of 
     children outside of marriage has reached nearly epidemic 
     proportions in this country. Both children and their parents 
     suffer as a result of this situation. There is much scholarly 
     evidence to suggest that despair about the future is one of 
     the things that leads young women to give birth before they 
     are able to care for their children in a stable family 
     setting. It is our belief that providing young people with 
     genuine hope for their futures is one key way of discouraging 
     adolescent pregnancies. Education, job training, and creation 
     of employment opportunity are components of that hope, as is 
     having the chance to relate to caring adults.
       The amendment being proposed by Sen. Conrad and his 
     colleagues goes a long way toward meeting our concern about 
     providing education and a chance at a decent future and 
     discouraging future pregnancies outside of marriage. By 
     providing cash benefits to allow young mothers to stay at 
     home with their parents and finish high school, the amendment 
     removes the incentive for them to set up separate, 
     unsupervised living arrangements. Their is legitimate concern 
     about the safety of young mothers who are in abusive 
     households; but Sen. Conrad's amendment contains thoughtful 
     provisions to allow such individuals to leave inappropriate 
     homes to live in other supervised setting with caring adults. 
     We particularly commend this flexibility.
       We recognize that the federal deficit must be reduced. 
     Nonetheless, we believe that reducing welfare costs by 
     denying benefits to teenaged mothers and their children is 
     short-sighted and will lead to the creation of a human 
     deficit that will ultimately be more damaging to our country 
     than an unbalanced budget could ever be.
                                                                    ____

    a statement of shared principles on welfare reform--introduction

       As people of faith and religious commitment, we are called 
     to stand with and seek justice for people who are poor. This 
     is central to our religious traditions, sacred texts, and 
     teachings. We share a conviction, therefore, that welfare 
     must not focus on eliminating programs but on eliminating 
     poverty and the damage it inflicts on children (who are \2/3\ 
     of all welfare recipients), on their parents, and on the rest 
     of society.
       We recognize the benefit to the entire community of helping 
     people move from welfare to work when possible and 
     appropriate. We fear, however, that reform will fail if it 
     ignores labor market issues such as unemployment and an 
     inadequate minimum wage and important family issues such as 
     the affordability of child care and the economic value of 
     care-giving in the home. Successful welfare reform will 
     depend on addressing these concerns as well as a whole range 
     of such related issues as pay equity, affordable housing, and 
     access to health care.
       We believe that people are more important than the sum of 
     their economic activities. Successful welfare reform demands 
     more than economic incentives and disincentives. It depends 
     on overcoming biased assumptions about race, gender and class 
     that feed hostile social stereotypes about people living in 
     poverty and suspicions that people with perspectives other 
     than our own are either indifferent or insincere. Successful 
     welfare reform will depend ultimately upon finding not only a 
     common ground of policies but a common spirit about the need 
     to pursue them for all.
       The following principles do not exhaust our concerns or 
     resolve all issues raised. The principles will serve 
     nonetheless as our guide in assessing proposed legislation in 
     the coming national welfare debate. We hope they may also 
     serve as a rallying point for a common effort with others 
     throughout the nation.


                               principles
       An acceptable welfare program must result in lifting people 
     out of poverty, not merely in reducing welfare rolls.
       The federal government should define minimum benefit levels 
     of programs serving low-income people below which states 
     cannot fall. The benefits must be adequate to provide a 
     decent standard of living.
       Welfare reform efforts designed to move people into the 
     work force must create jobs that pay a livable wage and do 
     not displace present workers. Programs should eliminate 
     barriers to employment and provide training and education 
     necessary for inexperienced and young workers to get and hold 
     jobs. Such programs must provide child care, transportation, 
     and ancillary services that will make participation both 
     possible and reasonable. If the government becomes the 
     employer of last resort, the jobs provided must pay a family-
     sustaining wage.
       Disincentives to work should be removed by allowing welfare 
     recipients to retain a larger portion of wage earnings and 
     assets before losing cash, housing, health, childcare or 
     other benefits.
       Work-based programs must not impose arbitrary time-limits. 
     If mandated, limits must not be imposed without availability 
     of viable jobs at a family-sustaining wage. Even then, some 
     benefit recipients cannot work or should not be required to 
     work. Exemptions should be offered for people with serious 
     physical or mental illness, disabling conditions, 
     responsibilities as
      caregivers for incapacitated family members, and for those 
     primary caregivers who have responsibility for young 
     children.
       Welfare reform should result in a program that brings 
     together and simplifies the many efforts of federal, state 
     and municipal governments to assist persons and families in 
     need. ``One-stop shopping centers'' should provide 
     information, counseling, and legal assistance regarding such 
     issues as child support, job training and placement, medical 
     care, affordable housing, food programs and education.
       Welfare reform should acknowledge the responsibility of 
     both government and parents in seeking the well-being of 
     children. No child should be excluded from receiving benefits 
     available to other siblings because of having been born while 
     the mother was on welfare. No child should be completely 
     removed from the safety net because of a parent's failure to 
     fulfill agreements with the government. Increased efforts 
     should also be made to collect a proper level of child 
     support assistance from non-custodial parents.
       Programs designed to replace current welfare programs must 
     be adequately funded. They will cost more in the short-term 
     than the present Aid to Families with Dependent Children; but 
     if welfare reform is successfully implemented, they will cost 
     less as the number of families in need of assistance 
     diminishes over the long-term. Funds for this effort should 
     not be taken from other programs that successfully serve poor 
     people.


                    national endorsing organizations

       Adrian Dominican Sisters; American Baptist Churches, USA; 
     American Ethical Union, Inc., National Leaders Council (AEU); 
     American Friends Service Committee; Bread for the World; 
     Church of the Brethren, Washington Office; Church Women 
     United; Columban Fathers Justice and Peace Office; Episcopal 
     Church; General Board of Global Ministries, United Methodist 
     Church, Institutional Ministries; General Board of Church and 
     Society, United Methodist Church; Interfaith IMPACT for 
     Justice and Peace; Jesuit Social Ministries, National Office; 
     Evangelical Lutheran Church in America; Maryknoll Society 
     Justice and Peace Office; Mennonite Central Committee, 
     Washington Office; Committee on Church and Society, Moravian 
     Church, Northern Province; National Council of Churches; 
     National Council of Jewish Women; NETWORK, A National 
     Catholic Social Justice Lobby; Presbyterian Church (USA), 
     Washington Office; Union of American Hebrew Congregations; 
     Unitarian Universalist Service Committee; United Church of 
     Christ, Office for Church in Society.
                                                                    ____

                                           Catholic Charities USA,
                                                   August 4, 1995.
       Dear Senator: As the Senate takes up welfare reform, we 
     urge you to adopt provisions to strengthen families, protect 
     children, and preserve the nation's commitment to fighting 
     child poverty.
       Across this country, 1,400 local agencies and institutions 
     in the Catholic Charities network serve more than 10 million 
     people annually. Last year alone, Catholic Charities USA 
     helped more than 138,000 women, teenagers, and their families 
     with crisis pregnancies. Because Catholic agencies run the 
     full spectrum of services, from soup kitchens and shelters to 
     transitional and permanent housing, they see families in all 
     stages of problems as well as those who have escaped poverty 
     and dependency.
       This broad experience, along with our religious tradition 
     which defends human life and human dignity, compels us to 
     share our strong convictions about welfare reform.
       The first principle in welfare reform must be, ``Do no 
     harm.'' Along with the U.S. Catholic Conference, the National 
     Right-to-Life Committee, and other pro-life organizations, we 
     have vigorously opposed child-exclusion provisions such as 
     the ``family cap'' 

[[Page S 13601]]
     and denial of cash assistance for children born to teenage mothers or 
     for whom paternity has not yet been legally established.
       We are also convinced that the idea of rewarding states for 
     reducing out-of-wedlock pregnancies is well-intentioned but 
     dangerous in light of the fact that the only state experiment 
     in this regard, the New Jersey family cap, already has 
     increased abortions without any significant reduction in 
     births. The ``illegitimacy ratio'' may well encourage states 
     to engage in similar experiments that would result in more 
     abortions and more suffering.
       We also support Senator Kent Conrad's amendment, which not 
     only would require teen mothers to live under adult 
     supervision and continue their education, but also would 
     provide resources for ``second-chance homes'' to make that 
     requirement a reality.
       The second principle should be to protect children. We are 
     very concerned that the new work requirements and time limits 
     for AFDC participation will leave children without adequate 
     adult supervision while their parents are working or looking 
     for work. The key to successful work programs is safe, 
     affordable, quality day care for the children. The bill 
     before the Senate does not guarantee or increase funding for 
     day care to meet the
      increased need associated with the work requirements and 
     time limits. Please, support amendments by Senators Hatch, 
     and Kennedy to guarantee adequate funding to keep children 
     safe while their mothers try to earn enough to support 
     them.
       The third principle should be to maintain the national 
     safety net for children. We oppose block granting Food 
     Stamps, even as a state option, because the Food Stamp 
     program is the only national program available to feed poor 
     children of all ages with working parents as well as those on 
     welfare. On the whole, the Food Stamp program works well, 
     ensuring that children in even the poorest families do not 
     suffer from malnutrition.
       We are encouraged by the fact that Senator Dole's bill does 
     not seek to cut or erode federal support for child protection 
     in the child welfare system. Proposals to block grant these 
     essential protections are ill-advised and dangerous to 
     children who are already abused, neglected, abandoned, and 
     totally at the mercy of state child welfare systems. Federal 
     rules and guarantees are essential to the safety of children.
       The fourth principle should be fairness to all citizens. 
     Certain proposals before the Senate would create a new 
     category of ``second-class citizenship,'' making immigrants 
     ineligible for most federal programs, even after they become 
     naturalized Americans. We urge you to reject this and other 
     proposals that would leave legal immigrants without the 
     possibility of assistance when they are in genuine need.
       The fifth principle should be to maintain the national 
     commitment to fighting child poverty. In exchange for federal 
     dollars and broad flexibility, states should be expected to 
     maintain at least their current level of support for poor 
     children and their families. We understand that Senator 
     Breaux will offer such an amendment on the Senate floor. 
     Please give it your support.
       In our Catholic teaching, all children, but especially poor 
     and unborn children, have a special claim to the protection 
     of society and government. Please vote for proposals that 
     keep the federal government on their side.
           Sincerely,

                                                  Fred Kammer, SJ,

                                                        President.

  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, each year, over 1 million teenagers become 
pregnant. For many, the birth of the child signals the beginning of the 
cycle of welfare dependency. In 1993, the U.S. Department of Health and 
Human Services reported at least 296,000 unmarried teen mothers on 
welfare, 67,000 under the age of 18.
  The current system of providing cash under AFDC to young teenage 
parents has failed. It has undermined families and provided the 
economic lifeline for generations of welfare dependency. It was wrong 
from the beginning for Government to provide checks to 15-year-old 
girls on the condition that they leave home and remain unmarried.
  But as this destructive policy is reconsidered, many young, pregnant 
women are still in need, not of cash, but of direction, compassion and 
support. Ending AFDC could have the perverse effect of encouraging 
these women to have abortions, which would compound the tragedy, not 
solve it. Neither the status quo, nor a total cutoff, are good options. 
Creative ways must be found to give women in crisis pregnancies 
compassionate help in their own communities.
  Private and religious maternity homes, also known by some as second 
chance homes, provide that help. They are a one-stop supportive 
environment where a young woman can receive counseling, housing, 
education, medical services, nutrition, and job and parenting training 
that gives them real opportunity for growth and decision making. 
Whether a pregnant mother makes a decision to parent themselves or to 
place the child up for adoption, she will receive important care, 
training, and life management skills to enable her make effective 
choices that will place her on the road to self-sufficiency.
  Studies have shown that the infant mortality rate of babies born to 
residents of maternity homes is much lower than the national average. 
In addition, residents are more likely to complete their education and 
receive better paying jobs than teens who continue in regular schools 
through their pregnancies. Those teens who choose to parent are 
provided intensive parenting courses so that their children are at less 
risk for abuse and neglect.
  Maternity homes are proven success stories. St. Elizabeth's Regional 
Maternity Center of New Albany, IN, is a prime example. Their mission 
is to ``address the needs of women and families that are in a crisis 
pregnancy by offering physical, emotional and spiritual support to 
ensure the physical and emotional health of the mother and the health 
of the baby.'' The results of St. Elizabeth's, like many other 
maternity homes, is impressive. Seventy percent of the women enrolled 
in their program have moved from welfare to self-sufficiency. Eighty-
five percent have earned a diploma or GED.
  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I rise today to voice my support for the 
Conrad teen parent amendment and to take a few minutes to discuss a 
serious social problem that must be addressed--teenage pregnancy.
  Senator Conrad's amendment allows all States to do what my home State 
of Arkansas is already doing. Currently, Arkansas has a waiver to 
operate two programs for teen parents. The first requires minor parents 
to remain in their parents' or guardian's household in order to receive 
AFDC benefits. If a teenage parent is unable to live at home, the State 
places the young woman in an adult-supervised living arrangement. Teens 
should not be on their own raising a child. They need supervision, 
education, and support.
  The second, requires teenage parents who have not finished high 
school to attend school or another training program to receive 
benefits, the point being that these teen mothers will never become 
self-sufficient if they drop out of school. However, the benefits are 
two-fold. The parent gets the education and skills she needs to become 
self-sufficient, and the children of these teen parents have a better 
chance of completing school themselves.
  Mr. President, I cannot stress enough the need for programs that will 
educate these mothers and their children. It may be the only way we can 
decrease the welfare rolls. By teaching young adults about the 
consequences of teen pregnancies and the importance of an education, we 
can keep these young people out of welfare lines and focused on 
improving their future. Our Nation must work together to fight teen 
pregnancy. We should involve businesses, schools, religious 
institutions, and community organizations in order to bring together 
all facets of society in an organized effort to combat teen pregnancy 
both now and in the next generation.
  Although birth rates among all teenagers are lower now than during 
the 1950's, the birth rate among unmarried teenagers has risen sharply 
over the last 30 years. In 1970, 70 percent of births to teens were to 
married teens. Now, 70 percent of births are to unmarried mothers. I 
find this statistic frightening.
  My home State of Arkansas runs a close second to Mississippi for 
highest level of teen pregnancies. Among women ages 15 through 19, 80 
out of every 1,000 give birth. In fact, in 1992, teenagers gave birth 
to more than 7,000 children in Arkansas. These facts cannot be ignored.
  Another fact that cannot be ignored: teens from poor and 
educationally disadvantaged families are more likely to become pregnant 
than those from more affluent and highly educated parents. A recent 
study indicated that education is the number one predictor of teen 
pregnancy. Teenagers whose mothers have at least a high school 
education are half as likely to become teen mothers themselves. I am 
convinced that education is the key to our teen pregnancy problem. I 
realize that this is not a cheap solution, nor is it a quick 

[[Page S 13602]]
one. It could take a generation to reduce teen pregnancies 
significantly. The point is, of the limited amount we know about teen 
pregnancy prevention, we do know that education works. We should 
require young women who get pregnant to stay in school. It is the only 
chance they have to be able to provide a future for themselves or for 
their child.
  Although teenage parents make up only a very small percentage of the 
current AFDC caseload, many older women on welfare had their first 
child as teenagers. Almost half of all adolescent mothers, both married 
and unmarried, began receiving AFDC within 5 years of giving birth for 
the first time. For unmarried adolescent mothers, this number increases 
to three-fourths. The fact is that the birth of a child compounds the 
disadvantages that many young people face and makes it more likely that 
they will live in poverty.
  Mr. President, my State requires teen mothers to live with a 
responsible adult and to stay in school through waivers to the current 
AFDC program. These programs are effective because they say to these 
young parents that we, our society, and our Government, are willing to 
help them succeed, to help them learn, to allow them to have the 
opportunities that they, as American citizens, deserve. I do not 
believe that Arkansas is the only State which would benefit from such 
programs. This is why I support Senator Conrad's teen parent amendment, 
and I urge my colleagues to join me in this support.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I have been trying to work out the 
amendment. I thought if we worked it out on the basis we would accept 
it and not be required to have a rollcall vote. As far as I know it is 
unanimous. I thought that is what part of the package was.
  Mr. CONRAD. I just say this to the leader. I was hopeful we could do 
this without a vote. Others who have been involved in this have 
insisted on a vote, and I am duty bound to honor their request after 
all.
  Mr. DOLE. I may not be duty bound to accept it. We will see what 
happens here. My view was we were trying to speed up the process. It is 
now 20 minutes of 9 o'clock. We have been working in good faith all 
day. I do not know who requested the vote. I wish they were there. We 
spent an hour on the amendment. We could have had three or four votes. 
We will reserve judgment on the amendment.
  Mr. CONRAD. I thank the majority leader. I say I was hopeful we could 
avoid a vote, and perhaps that could still be done. Maybe we can hear 
from Senator Lieberman.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Could I say it is a tremendous amendment. Everybody is 
for it. I do not see why we do not accept it and get it over with.
  I wonder if the Senator might do this. We have other amendments. If 
he could check with his cosponsors and see if they drop their 
objections as we are dealing with the other amendments, then we can at 
least pick up some time.
  Mr. CONRAD. I hope maybe we could have Senator Lieberman make a brief 
statement before we resolve it. The idea was to have a whole----
  Mr. CHAFEE. All Senator Lieberman can do is to lose now. Everybody is 
for the amendment.
  I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, heeding the admonition, growing up in 
Connecticut State politics really always taught me when you got the 
votes call the roll.
  I will be very brief and just say this: We have all talked about the 
problem of teenage pregnancy, of babies born out of wedlock and the 
extent to which that expands the welfare rolls; of the extent to which 
children born to poor, unwed mothers are born to a life that has very 
little hope in it; of the extent to which babies born to unwed mothers 
without a father in the house too often grow up to be the violent young 
criminals that disrupt, threaten, and hurt so many law-abiding people 
in our society.
  On this bill I think we are beginning to do something about the 
problem of teenage pregnancy and illegitimate births. No one can claim 
any certainty about how to deal with, let alone solve, so profound and 
complicated a human problem. We have begun to offer some opportunities 
to the States particularly to make a difference.
  Earlier today we sustained the part of this bill that deals with 
illegitimacy ratios and creates bonuses to States that are doing a good 
job at reducing the rate of illegitimacy.
  Here in the amendment Senator Conrad and I have crafted, which the 
Republican leader has worked with us on throughout the day, I think we 
make another constructive contribution.
  We set up a national program with national goals. We recognize the 
startling fact that so many of the babies born to teenage mothers are 
actually fathered by adult men by calling on the States to once again 
enforce statutory rape laws, and we fund these very hopeful second-
chance homes.
  I thank all on both sides who have worked to put this amendment 
together. It is constructive. It can make a difference.
  Let me say for the record I am not the one asking for the vote. I 
thank the Chair.
  Mr. CHAFEE. I yield back the remainder of my time.
  Mr. CONRAD. Might I ask for 15 seconds to resolve this matter?
  Mr. President, we have checked with cosponsors who had made a 
commitment to ask for a vote on this matter, and we have persuaded them 
that the better part of valor is to have this accepted.
  I ask unanimous consent that Senator Rockefeller be listed as a 
cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CONRAD. I ask that the majority leader also be listed as an 
original cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CHAFEE. The amendment is agreeable.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2528), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. DOLE. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. CHAFEE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. CHAFEE. I ask that the votes we are going to have be set aside 
for 10 minutes so the Senator from New Jersey can be heard.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2496

  Mr. BRADLEY. I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment No. 2496 is pending. The Senator 
is recognized for 5 minutes.
       Mr. BRADLEY.
        The purpose of this amendment is simply to put back into 
place the basic elements of a cash assistance program, which were left 
out, I hope inadvertently, from the bill. Without retaining at least 
the basic core of a system that assists poor families, we would have 
nothing to reform. It simply requires States to set their own rules for 
assistance and then follow those rules.

  What is it we are trying to do here? I think, or I thought, that we 
were trying to change the welfare system to send clear messages about 
values, work, and responsible parenting. But if you wants to send a 
clear message, the rules have to be clear and firm. Parents have to 
know that if they violate the State rules, they will lose benefits, 
period. And if they follow the rules, look for work, take 
responsibility, they will be helped. Period.
  Under the bill, States may use the grant in any manner that is 
reasonably calculated to accomplish the purpose of this part, and that 
purpose is defined simply as assisting needy families, which can mean 
anything. States could conceivably do no more than to refer needy 
families to a facility where some surplus cheese might be available for 
parents. States could operate a totally chaotic, arbitrary, 
discriminatory, or virtually nonexistent welfare system, while still 
collecting their funds under this block grant.
  Governors have assured us that they will administer funds fairly and 
responsibly. I have no doubt that most of them will try to. But we also 
know that most States will face increasing financial pressure. Only a 
few States, according to the CBO, can afford to pay for the work 
requirements in this bill. 

[[Page S 13603]]
So even if States don't completely ignore whole populations, they might 
provide minimal assistance in one region of the State or put very needy 
applicants on a waiting list after the Federal funds run out.
  The result will be the opposite of what is intended. Instead of 
imposing time limits on those who have been on welfare for a long time, 
we will put people who need help for the first time on a waiting list.
  Without basic standards, work requirements would become meaningless, 
since there is no basic definition of who is eligible and therefore who 
should be in a work program. If a State has trouble meeting the work 
participation requirements under this bill, they can simply stop 
serving those who are having the most trouble finding work.
  This amendment requires States to set basic eligibility standards, 
define categorical exceptions--such as time limits--and then follow 
those rules by assisting everyone eligible under those State rules. 
Everything in this debate suggests that this is what we expect States 
to do, so why not spell it out.
  My amendment retains every aspect of State flexibility ever asked for 
by any Governor. States would be free to set eligibility standards and 
benefits, as they do now, and to set rules for income and assets. They 
could set short-time limits or deny benefits to unwed teen mothers or 
additional children born to women receiving benefits, as long as they 
apply the rules consistently.
  I have also made clear in this amendment that States could also cut 
off benefits to any family under the terms of an individualized 
agreement with the family. The most innovative States, like Iowa and 
Utah as well as New Jersey, currently establish such contracts setting 
specific obligations for each family. A parent might agree, for 
example, to seek substance abuse treatment, and face a cutoff of 
benefits if he or she does not comply. This amendment makes clear that 
States can cut off benefits for failure to comply, as long as the rules 
are clear.
  This amendment does not challenge any specific reasons a State might 
choose to cut a family off benefits, even though I have doubts about 
the merits of some of the categorical cutoffs in the House bill. What 
this amendment goes after is the arbitrary refusal to help a family: 
The waiting list. The neglected region of a State. The bureaucrat who 
has not gotten around to looking at the application. The agency that 
does not want the hassle of dealing with someone who will require more 
time to place in a job.
  States could set any rules they like. But people have to know what 
the rules are. It's a very simple amendment, but without it, this bill 
is meaningless, empty, and potentially devastating news for families 
with children.
  Rebuttal to claim that this amendment recreates entitlement.
  This amendment does not entitle anyone to anything. It gives States 
total freedom to develop any kind of rule under which an individual can 
be cut off. If a State wants to say, you receive no benefits if you are 
seen jaywalking, they can do it.
  Rebuttal to claim that this amendment is too prescriptive on States:
  If Governors are concerned that this would prevent them from 
implementing some policy that they want to enact, I would like to know 
what that is. If Governors want to do something different from writing 
new rules and implementing them, I think they own us an answer about 
what it is they want to do.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2496) was agreed to.
  Mr. DOLE. 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.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be 2 
minutes between the second, third, fourth, and fifth rollcall votes--
second, third, and fourth rollcall votes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CHAFEE. And that after the first rollcall vote, the votes be 10 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                       Vote On Amendment No. 2526

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question occurs on amendment No. 2526, 
offered by the Senator from Alabama [Mr. Shelby] in which the yeas and 
nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. I announce that the Senator from Tennessee [Mr. Frist] is 
necessarily absent.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Maryland [Mr. Sarbanes] is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Grassley). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 93, nays 5, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 425 Leg.]

                                YEAS--93

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Brown
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Faircloth
     Feinstein
     Ford
     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
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pressler
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simon
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner
     Wellstone

                                NAYS--5

     Bryan
     Byrd
     Feingold
     Moynihan
     Packwood

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Frist
     Sarbanes
       
  So the amendment (No. 2526) was agreed to.
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. CRAIG. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. May we have order, Mr. President.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I have just had a discussion with the 
distinguished Democratic leader, Senator Daschle, and we would like 
anybody here who feels compelled--I underscore the word compelled--to 
offer an amendment tonight or sometime during the night to let us know 
during this next vote. We would like to wrap up this bill. We are 
working on a major amendment that we think will be acceptable. And I 
know some people think they need to offer every amendment, and some of 
these amendments are not really germane to this bill. But we would like 
to have some idea of how many amendments we have left.
  So if you would either let me know, if it is a Republican amendment, 
or Senator Daschle know, or the managers know, between now and the time 
the next couple of votes end, we would appreciate it.


                           Amendment No. 2669

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The next order of business is the Mikulski 
amendment 2669, 2 minutes evenly divided.
  Who yields time?
  The Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 1 minute.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. This amendment is offered by Senator Bradley and 
myself. Its purpose is to bring men back into the family: No. 1, to 
have tough child support; No 2, to promote marriage, and, No. 3, to end 
the parent trap that is in the GOP welfare reform bill. The GOP welfare 
reform bill does nothing to restore men in families.
  What this amendment does is provide job placement for noncustodial 
fathers, meaning if a dad wants a job and to go to work, if he does not 
have work, we work to place him in it.
  No. 2, we prevent States creating welfare rules that penalize 
marriage 

[[Page S 13604]]
and push men out of the family, particularly where they work more than 
100 hours a month.
  We also promote marriage. It says that where there is a family cap, 
this amendment would require them to come up with incentives that 
promote marriage. The other is we would pay child support to mothers, 
not to child support.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Our amendment is good for fathers, for kids, for 
America. I urge its adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The majority leader.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I know the Senator feels very strongly about 
this amendment.
  Let me just say, we have tried to accommodate a number of major 
amendments--child care. We have lost some savings on this bill, and our 
savings are not nearly as much as the House side. This amendment would 
cost $920 million over the next 7 years. That is almost $1 billion. 
There is no offset. It would come right out of the savings. I hope it 
will be rejected.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator yield back the time?
  Mr. DOLE. I yield to the Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, in addition to this amendment costing $1 
billion, this sets up a job training and job search program for 
deadbeat dads and for people who let their kids go on welfare.
  You have a hard-working parent who is trying to help their children, 
who is working in a job. They do not get any help from the Government. 
But if you have a deadbeat dad and you let your kids go on welfare, we 
are going to set up a job training and job search program for you. This 
is a misguided amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired. The question is on 
agreeing to the amendment. The yeas and nays have been ordered. This is 
a 10-minute rollcall vote. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. I announce that the Senator from Tennessee [Mr. Frist] is 
necessarily absent.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Maryland [Mr. Sarbanes] is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 34, nays 64, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 426 Leg.]

                                YEAS--34

     Akaka
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Feingold
     Ford
     Glenn
     Harkin
     Heflin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Johnston
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Murray
     Pell
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Simon
     Wellstone

                                NAYS--64

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brown
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Exon
     Faircloth
     Feinstein
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kerrey
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Packwood
     Pressler
     Pryor
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Frist
     Sarbanes
       
  So the amendment (No. 2669) was rejected.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the amendment was rejected.
  Mr. CHAFEE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, we must have order as a procedural 
matter is about to be discussed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator suspend? The Senator from New 
York wants order. The Chair asks every Senator to pay attention to the 
Senator from Rhode Island who seeks the floor.


                    Amendment No. 2517, As Modified

  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, just to intervene here, we are prepared to 
accept the following amendment after the Feinstein amendment, which is 
the DeWine amendment. I know the Senator from Mississippi had some 
reservations, and there are some changes that we would make in that 
DeWine amendment before the conference. The other side is prepared to 
accept it, and we are prepared to accept the DeWine amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is the Senator from Rhode Island seeking to 
vitiate the yeas and nays on the DeWine amendment?
  Mr. CHAFEE. Correct. I ask unanimous consent that the yeas and nays 
be vitiated on the DeWine amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The question is on agreeing to the DeWine amendment No. 2517, as 
modified.
  So, the amendment (No. 2517), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. CHAFEE. 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. 2478
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The next issue before the Senate is the 
Feinstein amendment 2478, with 2 minutes evenly divided. Who yields 
time?
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized for 
1 minute.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, the bill, as presently drafted, would deny cash and 
noncash welfare benefits to naturalized citizens. The Constitution of 
the United States provides for one class of citizens, and the only 
place it diverges is with respect to the President of the United 
States.
  In every other case, a naturalized citizen is as good as a native-
born citizen. I believe it is extraordinarily important that this 
amendment be adopted. It is supported by the American Bar Association, 
by the Governor's conference, by the State legislatures, by Mayor 
Giuliani, by Mayor Riordan of Los Angeles, by virtually a whole host of 
organizations. It would be my hope that in this bill we do not, for the 
first time in American history, create two classes of American 
citizens.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired. Who yields 
time? The Senator from Wyoming is recognized for 1 minute.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, as many of you know, through the years, 
we do immigration reform legislation. It is always materially dressed, 
and then when we come to tough votes, we do not stick. This is one of 
those. We are not making second-class citizens of anyone. We are saying 
that whether you are naturalized or whether you are native born, one of 
the assets that is considered as to whether you are a public charge 
should be a contract, should be a court-ordered support, and we think 
that one of the things that should be in there is the affidavit of 
support of the sponsor. That is all we are saying.
  That does not make anyone a second-class citizen. If you do not 
include that, then, in my mind, you are going to induce people to 
naturalize so they can get into the public support system. That is why 
I object to this measure.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired. The question is on 
agreeing to the amendment. The yeas and nays have been ordered. This is 
a 10-minute rollcall vote. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. I announce that the Senator from Tennessee [Mr. Frist] is 
necessarily absent.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Maryland [Mr. Sarbanes] is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 37, nays 61, as follows:

[[Page S 13605]]


                      [Rollcall vote No. 427 Leg.]

                                YEAS--37

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Biden
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Chafee
     Cohen
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hatfield
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Mack
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Murray
     Pell
     Robb
     Santorum
     Simon
     Snowe
     Specter
     Wellstone

                                NAYS--61

     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Brown
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Coats
     Cochran
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Faircloth
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kerrey
     Kyl
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Packwood
     Pressler
     Pryor
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Frist
     Sarbanes
       
  So the amendment (No. 2478) was rejected.
  Mr. CHAFEE. 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.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, this is the last vote in this category. We 
have others coming after this. But the others have not yet been debated 
or rollcalls ordered. This is the last one in this group.


                           Amendment No. 2513

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The next order of business before the Senate 
is the Feinstein amendment numbered 2513. There are 2 minutes evenly 
divided.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, under present law, deeming only 
applies to cash programs, AFDC, SSI and food stamps.
  Without this amendment, there is a massive cost shift, particularly 
to four States: New York, Texas, Florida and California. That cost 
shift is literally hundreds of millions of dollars because it means 
that legal immigrants presently in this country today would not have 
access to Medicaid, to Head Start, to child protective services, to 
foster care, to any of those noncash programs.
  Who would have to pick it up? The State or the local jurisdictions. 
It is a massive cost shift for four major States. I yield the floor.
  Mr. DOLE. I say this is a $700 million reduction in the savings. I 
know it is a problem.
  My view is we have already tried to accommodate a number of requests, 
and we believe we ought to protect the savings we have.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, we have already agreed to a Wellstone 
amendment which had to do with battered women and foster children, the 
exemption there. There was a Kennedy amendment with regard to Head 
Start, soup lines and kitchens. We have agreed to that.
  This opens up this bill. This includes Medicaid, public housing, job 
training and any other program which does not provide cash assistance 
to the recipient.
  We have a year's gap in the bill to take care of people in extremity 
who are broke or sponsors that cannot make it, or people who cannot 
make it and have no food and shelter. That is all in this bill. For a 
whole year we take care of those people.
  This opens the gate for $707 million. I do not know where it is 
supposed to come from--maybe Medicaid.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment 
No. 2513. The yeas and nays have been ordered. This is a is 10-minute 
rollcall.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. I announce that the Senator from Tennessee [Mr. Frist] is 
necessarily absent.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Maryland [Mr. Sarbanes], 
is necessarily absent.
  The result was announced--yeas 20, nays 78, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 428 Leg.]

                                YEAS--20

     Akaka
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Feinstein
     Glenn
     Graham
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Johnston
     Kennedy
     Kohl
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Simon
     Specter
     Wellstone

                                NAYS--78

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bond
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Brown
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Ford
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kyl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Packwood
     Pell
     Pressler
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Frist
     Sarbanes
       
  So, the amendment (No. 2513) was rejected.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. NICKLES. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, may we have order?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. McCain). May we have order in the Senate? 
The Senate is not in order.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I believe the Senator from Florida is 
next in our sequence. May I ask how much time the Senator will require, 
how little time the Senator will require?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair notes the distinguished majority 
leader is seeking recognition.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I was going to ask the same question, if we 
could get some agreement on time, or get a voice vote. Some of these 
things could be disposed of on a voice vote, I think. Like an 80-to-20 
vote, we could probably determine that by audible vote, if somebody 
wanted that. But if we could get a time agreement, that would be a 
start.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, 20 minutes, equally divided.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered. There will be 20 minutes, equally divided.
  Mr. DOLE. I yield to the Senator from West Virginia, Senator Byrd.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia is recognized.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I hope Senators will take their cue from the 
majority leader and have voice votes. If it is any satisfaction to 
offer an amendment at this stage, just to offer it, get a voice vote on 
it. These amendments are not going anywhere. Most of these amendments 
are going to be dead on arrival when they get to conference. We are 
just wasting our time. There are not many Senators listening now. Look 
around these walls. Just look at the people stacked around the walls. 
We cannot get order in the Chamber. Who wants to speak when Senators 
cannot listen? We are just wasting our time, spinning our wheels.
  We have had a good run for the bill. We have had a vote on the 
Democratic substitute. Several amendments have gotten good votes. I 
know that every person who offers amendments feels that they are good 
amendments. But we have reached a point now where the law of 
diminishing returns has set in.
  I hope Senators will curb their appetites for rollcall votes and call 
up their amendments, have a voice vote. We are not going anywhere 
anyhow. Not many amendments are even going to carry. 

[[Page S 13606]]

  We have been on this bill now for 12 session days. We have all had a 
good chance at it. We have had our run at it. Let us go home. I have a 
wife waiting on me and my little dog, Billy.
  [Laughter.]
  We have reached a point now where we are just looking foolish.
  I thank the leaders and all Senators who have listened.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, with some temerity making a point and 
bringing attention to the rules and the presence of the Robert C. Byrd, 
may I say that if they voice vote and it is close, a Senator may ask 
for a division and get a count. It need not take 20 minutes.


                      unanimous-consent agreement

  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I want to say that perhaps we can help 
resolve it, too, if we can get this consent agreement. Let me read it 
for my colleagues, and everybody can decide.
  I ask unanimous consent that the following amendments be the only 
amendments remaining in order, other than those cleared by the two 
managers; that they be debated this evening, and the votes occur on or 
in relation to the amendments tomorrow beginning at 9:30 a.m., with 10 
minutes between each rollcall vote to be equally divided in the usual 
form:
  Bingaman, No. 2483; Bingaman, No. 2484; Simon, No. 2468; Wellstone, 
No. 2503 and 2505; Kennedy, No. 2564; Kohl, No. 2550; Graham of 
Florida, No. 2509 and 2568; Gramm of Texas, No. 2615, as modified, and 
2617; Levin-Dole modification No. 2486.
  I further ask that following the votes, beginning at 9:30 a.m. on 
Friday, the two leaders be recognized to offer the compromise 
modification Dole amendment, with 40 minutes for debate to be equally 
divided in the usual form, and that following the conclusion or 
yielding back of time, the amendment be so modified.
  I also ask that following the modification, it be in order for one 
amendment to be offered by the majority leader and one amendment to be 
offered by ten minority leader; and that following the disposition of 
the two leaders' amendments, if offered, the Senate proceed to the 
adoption of the Dole amendment 2280, as amended; and that following the 
disposition of the Dole amendment, the bill be advanced to third 
reading, and final passage occur at a time and day to be determined by 
the majority leader after consultation with the Democratic leader.
  Let me explain what this would do. This would mean that those who do 
not have amendments would not have to stay here for debate. Debate 
would be completed this evening, and we will start to vote tomorrow.
  That would also give additional time--because we do have a rather 
major drafting effort going on--to others to take a look at that 
tomorrow morning to see if it is satisfactory to people on both sides.
  I think I inadvertently asked for a Bradley amendment, which might 
create a new entitlement program. I might need to strike that out. I 
did not read it carefully enough. I thank my colleague from New Jersey.
  So I might do that tomorrow because they are going to score this, and 
I do not want to lose any additional money. We have lost a little 
today.
  But that would be the UC agreement. I think we have protected 
everybody's rights.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, will the majority leader yield?
  Mr. President, I must confess I looked at it--with one exception that 
I believe our staffs have looked at--and I am a little concerned on 
reflection that the 40 minutes may not be an adequate period of time 
for people to look at the larger compromise amendment. we want to give 
everybody a chance to do that. It could be that less than 40 minutes 
may be required. If we could just delete any reference to a period of 
time, that would satisfy us.
  Second, if we could just have two amendments to be offered by the 
majority leader and the minority leader, I think that would take care 
of any concern that we have.
  Mr. DOLE. Two by the majority and two by the minority.
  I make those modifications.
  I take out the following words: ``With 40 minutes for debate to be 
equally divided in the usual form.''
  So the modification reads: To offer the compromise modification to 
the Dole amendment, and that following the conclusion or yielding back 
of time, the amendment be so modified.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Reserving the right to object, I shall not, I wonder 
whether on the Wellstone amendment 2503, I say to the majority leader, 
change that to ``modified.'' I think that is OK with everyone.
  Mr. DOLE. 2503, as modified. No problem. And 2505.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. 2505 is fine.
  Mr. DOLE. 2503, as modified.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. As I understand the agreement, the time for vote on 
final passage is still left.
  Mr. DOLE. Let me just assure everybody, I think this is a very 
important vote. Nobody wants to miss this vote. I know that some people 
are necessarily absent tomorrow. Some are necessarily absent on Monday.
  I hope we could say, after the Tuesday luncheons, if everybody is in 
town.
  Mr. DASCHLE. If I could just add not only that concern, but because 
we have made a lot of changes throughout the day, I think everybody 
ought to have plenty of opportunity to look at it prior to the time 
they are going to be casting their vote.
  So for both reasons, I think it would be good if we held it over 
until next week.
  Mr. DOLE. We want to get to third reading, have a vote, and we can 
start on appropriations tomorrow and wrap those up in a few days.
  [Laughter.]
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, could I ask the majority leader, does 
the unanimous consent agreement contemplate some time tomorrow for some 
few minutes to discuss each amendment before the votes occur?
  Mr. DOLE. Ten minutes. If you do not want to stay tonight, there are 
10 minutes between each vote tomorrow.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I thank the majority leader.
  Mr. DOLE. It might be better to do it tomorrow.
  Is there objection?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. BYRD. Reserving right to object, Mr. President, could we just 
have a better understanding as to when the final vote will occur?
  Mr. DOLE. On the bill itself, final passage?
  Mr. BYRD. Yes.
  Mr. DOLE. It is my hope--I have not consulted with the Democratic 
leader--if all Members are in town, following the luncheons on Tuesday, 
we would vote following the luncheons on Tuesday.
  Mr. BYRD. So is that part of the request?
  Mr. DOLE. Yes. That is not part of the agreement in case somebody is 
ill or is not able to be here. I think we ought to make every effort to 
have everybody available.
  Mr. BYRD. I thank the leader.
  Mr. BRADLEY. Reserving the right to object, I understand what the 
majority leader said about the amendment that I offered. I wanted to 
assure him that the second part of the paragraph that I was reading 
explaining the amendment would have gotten to that aspect of the 
amendment. But the majority leader cut me off and moved to pass the 
bill.
  So I appreciate what he said, and I look forward to tomorrow.
  Mr. DOLE. I will strike out the second part, then.
  [Laughter.]
  But we will work it out. We will not have any problem.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, could I 
just say that the Senator mentioned amendment 2564. This was to make it 
agreeable with the Senator from Wyoming because it deals with a narrow 
element in terms of the refugees. He had agreed to changes on it. I 
would like to be able to modify that, if that is agreeable.
  Mr. DOLE. Without objection, we would say 2564, as modified.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the leader.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOLE. We have the agreement.
  So Senator Bingaman is up now.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. I believe Senator Graham was.
  Mr. DOLE. Senator Graham from Florida, excuse me.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida is recognized.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Thank you, Mr. President.


                           amendment no. 2509

  Mr. GRAHAM. I call up amendment 2509.

[[Page S 13607]]

  Mr. President, this is another amendment that relates to the 
provisions in the bill having to do with that arcane subject of 
deeming. Deeming means that in calculating the financial status of an 
individual you deem to include in that individual's assets and income 
the assets and income of a third party. In this case, the individual 
who is affected is a person who----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator suspend?
  Will the Senate please by in order?
  The Senator from Florida is recognized.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, under this amendment, we are focused on 
one group of people, a finite, fixed number of individuals. Those are 
individuals who are in the United States lawfully as of the enactment 
date of this legislation. This is not an open-ended number of people 
which could be augmented by persons coming legally to the United States 
in the future.
  What this amendment says is that for those people who are in the 
country legally today, legal aliens, they should be treated under the 
rules that exist today with one very major exception, and that is they 
would be treated in the legislation the majority leader would provide 
as it relates to supplemental Social Security income.
  We are dealing in this amendment with a finite group of people, those 
who came into this country legally, who are in the country today, and 
who came here under certain rules and expectations. Frankly, one of 
those rules was that for many of these people they had a sponsor who 
sponsored their entry into the United States. Sadly, the fact is that 
by court ruling the sponsorships of legal aliens are extremely 
difficult to enforce, difficult to enforce by public agencies, 
difficult to enforce by private parties including the legal alien him 
or herself.
  It seems to me extremely unfair, now that these people are in the 
country legally--and I underscore the word legally--to change the rules 
on them. It is particularly unfair for a specific group within this 
class that I would like to talk about, and that is those who have come 
here as relatively young people and are now enrolled in an educational 
program.
  The largest community college in the country is Miami Dade Community 
College located in Miami. That one institution has some 20,000 legal 
immigrants within its student body, and 8,000 of those individuals are 
estimated to be ruled ineligible for student financial aid if an 
amendment such as the one that I have offered were not to be adopted.
  Here are people trying to do exactly what the American dream is all 
about, to improve themselves by hard work, by education, by increasing 
their ability to contribute to the well-being of themselves, their 
families, their communities, and their Nation. With the failure to 
adopt this amendment, we would make it extremely difficult for many of 
these students to continue their education.
  This legislation has the strong support of the American Association 
of Community Colleges and a variety of other State and local service 
providers who understand the implications of changing the rules for 
people who are in this country legally at the time this legislation 
goes into effect.
  Mr. President, I appreciate your courtesy. I would like to yield time 
to actually the individual who was the original author of this 
legislation and who has been kind enough to allow me to join him in 
that effort, Senator Simon of Illinois.
  I wish to assure that Senator Simon is fully listed as a sponsor of 
this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, is there a time agreement on this 
amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Ten minutes on either side.
  Mr. CHAFEE. On both sides?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Ten minutes on each side, 20 minutes equally 
divided.
  Mr. CHAFEE. I have a question of the Senator from Florida. Is there 
any cost estimate on this?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. I remind the Senator from Rhode Island, 
questions are to be addressed through the Chair.
  Mr. CHAFEE. I would ask the Chair----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Or if the Senator from Rhode Island wishes 
unanimous consent to engage in colloguy with the Senator from Florida.
  The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. GRAHAM. The estimate is that over the 5 years the total cost is 
$600 million.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Florida yield time to 
the Senator from Illinois?
  Mr. GRAHAM. I yield time to the Senator from Illinois.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida has 5 minutes and 46 
seconds remaining.
  The Senator from Illinois is recognized.
  Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I shall use less than 2 minutes.
  I would like to have the attention of my fellow colleagues who are 
here. What this amendment does is simply says let us make this 
prospective. Let us apply it in the future. Let us not take people who 
have agreed to sponsor people for 3 years and all of a sudden we are 
going to say sorry, this contract is for 5 years. And to take people 
who are in a college situation, who are going to become citizens, and 
say sorry, you are going to have to leave school, I do not think that 
makes sense.
  I hope that the distinguished Senator from Rhode Island and the 
distinguished Senator from Kansas might consider accepting this 
amendment. I think it does make sense to do this prospectively, not 
retroactively.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask if the proponents of the measure--we 
have gotten the cost of it--if they have an offset, any way of paying 
for it?
  Mr. GRAHAM. We do not have an offset.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. SIMPSON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Rhode Island yield time 
to the Senator from Wyoming?
  Mr. CHAFEE. Yes. Such time as he needs.
  Mr. SIMPSON. I think 5 minutes would be adequate.
  Mr. President, again, this is one of those areas of dealing with 
immigration and welfare and deeming provisions. Let us understand what 
deeming is. The sponsor brings you here to the United States, and his 
or her income is deemed to be yours. You as a sponsor are responsible 
for this person coming to the United States, for their assistance, 
their welfare. And you cannot come to the United States at any time if 
you are going to be a public charge. At any time you become a public 
charge while you are still in this category, you do not come on as a 
naturalized citizen. You must be self-sustaining. That has been the law 
since 1882.
  So, again, we are at one of these impasses where I am surprised some 
of these have been successful. This is an ancient ritual. It is about 
people who say we want to do something about legal immigration, we want 
to do something about illegal immigration, and we want to do something 
about people who misuse the systems. But we do not.
  Now, in the last Congress, we increased the deeming period for SSI to 
5 years. We did that. We already did that. In his proposal--I hope you 
all hear this--President Bill Clinton in his proposed welfare reform 
bill raised the deeming period for AFDC and food stamps to 5 years. 
This President, President Clinton, has agreed that this is what we 
should do. That is what the Dole bill quite logically and properly then 
does. It sets a deeming period on all welfare programs at 5 years, in 
accordance with the directive and the wishes of the Justice Department 
and the President of the United States.
  Please remember that the folks that are affected by this amendment 
were admitted as immigrants only--only--after they and their sponsors 
promised--promised--that they would not become dependent on public 
assistance at any time, period, not just for 5 years, but for any time.
  Now, under this amendment, they would be permitted to access the 
public welfare systems of the United States after only as few as 3 
years in the United States of America. The sponsor 

[[Page S 13608]]
would be off the hook, relieved of his promise of support, and the 
taxpayers would take over.
  I think that is basically very wrong. I guess to paraphrase the words 
of Gertrude Stein: A sponsor is a sponsor is a sponsor. If you do not 
want to take care of someone when you bring them to the United States, 
do not sponsor them. If you bring them in as an immigrant, you have to. 
That is why people have misused the refugee programs. If you come here 
as a refugee, the Government takes care of all of it. So we have people 
coming here as refugees who do not qualify in any way as refugees.
  We have presumptive refugees in certain areas of the world who wait 
1\1/2\ years to come here after they have been designated as a 
presumptive refugee. You talk about gimmickry of the system. I have 
been at this game for 16 years, and there is plenty of it. And this 
amendment would cost $623 million over 7 years.
  I want to say, too, that the students who the Senator has expressed 
concern for are sponsored immigrants who have been in the United States 
for less than 5 years. They are persons now seeking public assistance 
for college education who have a sponsor who promised, in order to get 
that immigrant admitted, to provide whatever assistance the immigrant 
might require in order to avoid becoming a public charge.
  That is where we are. It is not pleasant in any way to continually 
year after year stand here and try to present the issues as they really 
are without being described as mean spirited, pinched, riven, uncaring.
  That is not what we are talking about. We are talking about often 
people with a grand design of how to gimmick the systems. And if you 
really are watching, keeping your eye on the rabbit, this is not in any 
way helpful to the welfare system or to the immigration laws of the 
United States.
  Mr. GRAHAM addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, first, the question was asked do we have 
an offset? I answered we do not have an offset. We adopted other 
amendments here which create new entitlements, new benefits, new tax 
preferences without requiring an offset. This is the law today. What we 
are attempting to do is to retain the law today for those people who 
came here with the state of the law as it is. We are not trying to 
change the rules.
  We are trying to say, if these people came here with certain 
statements as to what their obligations would be, if the sponsor has 
entered into commitments with certain expectations as to what their 
obligations would be, we should keep those for those people who are in 
the country today. We are not proposing to make this an ongoing new 
standard. If you want to change the rules, we can change the rules and 
make it applicable to those who come after the rules are changed.
  Mr. President, this is not a particularly popular issue because, 
among other things, we are dealing with a small group of people. But we 
are dealing with people who embody what we as Americans most applaud--
people who desire freedom, independence, who want to be like us. People 
who are the target of this amendment are trying to improve themselves 
so they can be even better Americans.
  I think it is both shortsighted and unfair to change the rules on 
these people and deny them, among other things, the opportunity to get 
that education that is going to make them a more productive citizen. 
These people will repay in their lifetime much more than the $600 
million that this amendment calls for to continue to do for the next 5 
years for these people what we have provided for them in the past and 
what we have considered to be in America's best interest. It was then. 
It is now. And at least it will be for this current group of legal 
aliens who are in our country, particularly those who are utilizing the 
opportunities to extend their education.
  Let me yield to the Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. SIMON. I thank my colleague.
  Let me tell you what it does. John McCain sponsors an immigrant named 
Alan Simpson. And John McCain agrees he is going to be responsible for 
3 years. All of a sudden we have an amendment here that says, ``Sorry, 
John McCain. We have changed the law. You signed up for 3 years. We are 
going to make you responsible for 5 years.''
  Second, it is true, as Senator Simpson says, that if you take these 
young people out of college--some maybe are not young--that temporarily 
we are going to save money. But we know from all the statistics that, 
if you let them stay in college, they are going to be more productive, 
pay taxes, and do more for our country and make ours a more productive 
country.
  I think the amendment is a good amendment, and I hope we will have 
the good sense to adopt it.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island has 4 minutes 21 
seconds. The Senator from Florida has 1 minute 5 seconds.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I reserve my 1 minute 5 seconds.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Rhode Island seek 
recognition?
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I yield the remainder of my time to the 
Senator from Wyoming.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming is recognized.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I have not much time left. I just want to 
say again that when a sponsor gives an affidavit of support--if we are 
talking about the things cherished in America, let us talk about 
keeping a promise. That would be a good place to start.
  When a sponsor agrees to bring in an immigrant, they agree that that 
person will not become a public charge. Not just for 5 years or 3 
years, but the law says at any time. That is what the law says. I did 
not invent it. It came on the books in 1882. It says at any time, not 
just 5 years, not just 3. It does not matter what was thought to be 
agreed to, the sponsor is deemed to have their assets considered the 
assets of the immigrant for a period of any time, and that is the law 
of the United States and a contract or an obligation to do that----
  Mr. GRAHAM. Will the Senator from Wyoming yield?
  Mr. SIMPSON. Yes.
  Mr. GRAHAM. If that is the law, why do we need to change it? The 
statement that you have is that there are set periods of time in which 
a sponsor's resources are deemed to be part of the sponsor-legal 
immigrant's economic status. Those have been the law. If you are saying 
those were meaningless, in fact the 3-year periods we used to have in 
the past were inapplicable then, why do we need to change the law now?
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, in the last Congress, we increased the 
deeming period for SSI to 5 years. The President of the United States, 
in his welfare reform package, revised the deeming period for AFDC and 
food stamps to 5 years. We are trying to follow the President of the 
United States and his viewpoint.
  Then you wonder where the support is coming from. I can tell you 
where it is coming from: A small cadre of educational institutions. 
That is where it is coming from. We are not going to injure them in the 
process.
  We are just saying that a sponsor's promise is a sponsor's promise. I 
have been in these things for years. I am not the expert in any way. I 
would not even indicate that. But I do know what interest groups are 
when you deal with immigration. They come out of the woodwork. They are 
all out here right now, I suppose. There will be cadres of them. But 
one of them here is the group of educational institutions who see this, 
if this can get done, as tuition money, paid for.
  We have Pell grants, we have all sorts of things. We do take care of 
people in society. No one should miss the fact we are going to vote on 
a debt limit of $5 trillion in a few weeks, and Medicare will be broke 
and Social Security will be broke in the year 2031 and will go broke 
and start its decline, its swan song in 2013, and we will not even deal 
with that on the floor of the U.S. Senate, either party.
  Talk about obligations. And then just trot up $623 million and no 
place to get it. That is my humble viewpoint of this pointed issue.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida has 1 minute 5 
seconds. The Senator from Rhode Island has 24 seconds remaining.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I think the issue here is fairly simple. 
We have had rules under which people have guided their lives as it 
relates to the status of sponsors and legal immigrants, people who are 
in this country 

[[Page S 13609]]
playing by the rules, trying to prepare themselves to become self-
sufficient, contributing Americans.
  They are doing the heinous thing to continue their education: They 
are attending a vocational school; they are attending a community 
college. I think that is an activity that we should not say is just a 
matter of some interest group. Would you say the GI bill was just an 
interest group of a few college and university administrators? Of 
course not. It was a great program, it is a great program that has 
benefited this country manyfold.
  That is what the issue is in this amendment. I believe that we ought 
to say to these people, as part of their learning about America, that 
we play by the rules that were established when the game started. For 
you, we are going to complete the rules. If you want to change the 
rules for those in the future, that is perfectly permissible. I believe 
we should adopt this amendment as both an immediate and long-term 
contribution to a better America. Thank you.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator from Florida has 
expired.
  Mr. GRAHAM. 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 nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming has 24 seconds 
remaining.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, again, the affidavit of support may be 
for 3 years. But the overriding understanding of the American people is 
that the immigrant will not become a burden upon the taxpayers or the 
public. That is the issue. There is no other issue, especially not in 
his or her first 5 years here. It never would have been allowed to take 
place if they knew they were going to access the public support systems 
in the first 3 years of their presence here. That is what this is 
about. That was the real condition of admission. We are forgetting 
something here.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired. Under a previous 
agreement, the vote will be stacked until tomorrow morning.
  Mr. SIMON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.


                           Amendment No. 2468

  Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I do not know if we have an agreed-upon 
order, but I have an amendment I will be happy to discuss briefly.
  I offer this amendment in behalf of Senator Brown, Senator Reid and 
myself.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  Mr. SIMON. This is a modification. Let me offer it as a modification 
of amendment No. 2468.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to modify amendment No. 2468.
  If I may say to my colleague from Mississippi, what I am doing is 
instead of having this a setaside--this is the community WPA Program--I 
am making it an authorization so that I think it may be acceptable. We 
have passed this as an authorization by voice vote. Senator Boren was 
the sponsor about a year ago.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the modification?
  Mr. LOTT. Reserving the right to object, and I hope not to, Mr. 
President, but if I could address this question to the Senator from 
Illinois, has this been discussed or cleared, to his knowledge, with 
the managers?
  Mr. SIMON. I have not had a chance. Senator Brown indicated to me--I 
mentioned to him and to Senator Reid that I was going to change it to 
an authorization because, frankly, the word was, as a setaside, it 
could be opposed on your side, but as an authorization, it might be 
approved. So that is the reason. I, frankly, have not had a chance to 
discuss it with the managers of the bill.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, has this been discussed with and cleared 
with the Senator's cosponsors, for instance, the Senator from Colorado, 
Senator Brown?
  Mr. SIMON. I discussed this with the Senator from Nevada and the 
Senator from Colorado, both of whom strongly support it. I might add 
that we had cosponsors of this, as independent legislation, from your 
side as well, and it was adopted by voice vote here earlier--not this 
session, but an earlier session--as part of a larger bill which was 
vetoed but had nothing to do with this.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, one final question, if I could. We do have a 
copy of the modified language?
  Mr. SIMON. I have it at the desk. It just simply changes it from 
being a setaside to an authorization. Otherwise, there is no change.
  Mr. LOTT. I wonder, Mr. President, if I can suggest to the Senator 
from Illinois, we have not had a chance to take a look at the 
legislation. As the Senator knows, some of the staff has already left. 
I wonder if it would be permissible, under the agreement we have, to 
wait and modify this in the morning. I feel like probably there will be 
no problem getting an agreement. As the Senator knows, I am filling in 
here, too. The Senator from Illinois can discuss the modification in 
the morning under the time agreement agreed to.
  Mr. SIMON. That is perfectly satisfactory to me.
  Mr. LOTT. I think what he has done is improved the prospects, and 
probably there will be no problem. At this time, without the managers 
here and without the staff directly involved not here, we would like to 
have a chance to look at it.
  Mr. SIMON. The Senator's request is to withhold the request to 
modify?
  Mr. LOTT. Right.
  Mr. SIMON. OK. I will do that. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.


                           Amendment No. 2568

  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2568. It is one of 
the amendments under the unanimous consent agreement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Florida [Mr. Graham] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2568.

  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The text of the amendment is printed in the Friday, September 8, 
1995, edition of the Record.)
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida is recognized.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I do not wish to belabor this issue, 
because it is really an offshoot issue we debated at some length 
yesterday and the day before yesterday which related to the fact that 
there are very extreme differences in the amount of Federal resources 
that the 50 States will receive under this legislation.
  I introduced two amendments in an attempt to deal with that 
disparity. One of those amendments has been accepted and will be 
included in the managers amendment. That was what I called the 
``embarrassment'' amendment.
  In this bill, there is a provision which states that there will be a 
periodic or annual evaluation of how the individual States are 
performing under this bill, how well they are doing in terms of 
achieving its objectives, particularly in getting people off of welfare 
and into work.
  I would compare that standard to a series of football teams, some of 
whom are made up of professionals and others are junior high school 
players, because that is about the way in which the 50 States are being 
equipped to carry out these responsibilities.
  In the case of the assistant majority leader, his State is going to 
have to spend 88 percent of all of its Federal money just to meet the 
mandates in this bill. There are other States that can meet the 
mandates with less than 40 percent of the Federal money.
  So the first amendment, which, as I indicated, has been accepted for 
inclusion in a managers' amendment, will simply say that when we go 
through this embarrassment test of how well you have done, part of that 
evaluation will be: How many resources did the State have? We are not 
going to ask the State that has one-tenth the resources of another to 
necessarily perform at the same level. We are not going to subject that 
State to the ridicule of its inability to reach the same level of 
accomplishment.
  This is another amendment in the same spirit. We have in this bill a 
series of national work participation rates. For instance, for a family 
receiving assistance under this, where there 

[[Page S 13610]]
is a single adult in the family, we are expecting 25 percent 
participation in 1996, up to 50 percent participation by the year 2000.
  Again, I think it is unrealistic and unfair to expect the same 
standard of achievement for all States, given the fact that the 
resources available are unequal. So I provide in this amendment that 
the Secretary of Health and Human Services, after consultation with the 
States, shall establish specific work participation rate goals for each 
State, adjusting the national participation rate goals to reflect the 
level of Federal funds the State is receiving under this program and 
the average number of minor children in the families having income 
below the poverty line for that particular State.
  This will mean that we will set the goalposts consistent with how 
much money we are prepared to make available to that State. Those 
States that are going to be richly endowed under this program will have 
a long goalpost to meet. Those that are more limited in their 
participation will have a less demanding standard. That seems to me to 
be imminently fair and reasonable in terms of what we are going to be 
providing to the States to accomplish the objectives of this act.
  Mr. President, that is the amendment. I urge its adoption. I think it 
will be an amendment that the Senators who are on the floor today, who 
represent some of that diversity, would be very receptive to, and 
possibly even willing to accept.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I think this issue has been discussed, as 
the Senator pointed out, at great length. I do not think there is going 
to be an inclination to just accept it. But this will be resolved 
tomorrow. How much time do we have on our side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is no time agreement on the amendment.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I am prepared to move to close, unless there 
is any other Senator who wishes to speak at this point.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, in order to protect our interest, I would 
like to ask for the yeas and nays on this amendment, indicating that if 
we can arrive at an amiable resolution of this, I would be prepared 
tomorrow to ask to vitiate the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, after months of diligent work, the 
Senate is, at long last, debating the issue of welfare reform. This 
debate is simultaneously timely and long overdue. It is timely because 
so much attention has been focused on this issue for the last several 
months, and, in fact, for many months prior to the start of the 104th 
Congress. Members and staff have spent a vast number of hours reviewing 
concepts in welfare reform and developing legislation to meet our 
goals. Their work has lead to many well thought out proposals which are 
only now ready for full and vigorous debate on the Senate floor. It is 
overdue, however, because we have known for years that the welfare 
system in this country was flawed, and yet the status quo was 
maintained. We must act now to make the necessary changes, because we 
dare not look back on this time and tell our children we failed to take 
action when we had the opportunity.
  As I was preparing for this debate, I became curious about the 
history of the word welfare. Upon looking it up, I was interested to 
note it comes from the Old English phrase ``wel faran,'' which means, 
quite simply to go, or to fare, well. While it sounds like the word has 
changed little from its earlier days, in reality the difference between 
the Old English phrase and the modern word is dramatic. Most notably, 
under our current public assistance programs, Mr. President, no one is 
faring well.
  In our society, three groups of people are more directly impacted by 
welfare than any others--the beneficiaries, the tax payers, and the 
case workers. Obviously, the beneficiaries themselves are the most 
immediately affected by our current system. And what has this system 
done for them? Generations have grown up without knowing the 
satisfaction of work and personal improvement. The value of family has 
been ignored, aiding the increasing rate of illegitimacy. And possibly 
worst of all, children have been raised without hope in a system that 
does more to perpetuate poverty than to break the welfare cycle. 
Obviously, some people have been able to get ahead and get off welfare. 
But for far too many, the system offers no incentives and no promise of 
a better future. Can anyone argue that these are positive results? I 
firmly believe we should avoid the attitude that this Nation owes 
people something simply because they reside inside our borders. But I 
do believe we owe those in need the chance to reach above their 
situations--a chance which the current system denies.
   The taxpayers certainly should not be ignored in this debate. What 
the taxpayers of Idaho have been telling me is that they want to help 
those who truly are in need, but simply giving money away is not an 
answer. They also do not want a system which is open to fraud and 
abuse. Earlier this year, one of my constituents, Linda Murray-Donahue 
of Boise, cited a particularly glaring example of how the system was 
being abused. More significant than the example she sent were her 
comments. After noting her own difficulties in trying to raise two 
children after being laid off, she stated,

       I am disturbed at the prospect of continuing to struggle 
     for my boys and continue to make them sacrifice so that 
     [welfare abusers] do not have to take responsibility for 
     their own lives. . . I and others do not begrudge the truly 
     needy. However, the [welfare abusers] need to be put on 
     notice that we are demanding changes in their welfare way of 
     life.

  I believe this is an accurate representation of an attitude found 
throughout the Nation. People are not looking at welfare reform as a 
way to attack the unfortunate. Instead, they simply want to ensure that 
the truly needy are helped while those who can provide for themselves 
do so. In the process, they also want to know that their tax dollars 
are being used wisely and efficiently.
  In between the taxpayer and the beneficiary are the case workers and 
social workers. They too are frustrated by a system which they see 
thwarting their efforts to truly help people. While they work 
diligently to move families into work and a lifestyle of self-
sufficiency, too many of their efforts are focused on verifying 
eligibility. Even when they are able to help someone begin the 
transition from welfare to work, all too often they are stymied by a 
system which discourages people from trying to break the cycle of 
poverty. We owe it to the dedicated case workers and social workers to 
let them work under a system which will help, rather than hinder, as 
they try to give welfare recipients a chance to improve their 
situations.
  In this regard, Idaho has already taken an active approach to welfare 
reform. Earlier this year, several members of the Department of Social 
Work at Boise State University released a report entitled, ``Family 
Self Sufficiency: Welfare Reform in Idaho.'' I think many of the points 
which were made in that report are important to share with my 
colleagues. With regard to the state of affairs today, the report is 
clear, ``The current strategy of alleviating poverty through 
unconditional grants-in-aid has failed because it fosters dependency, 
weakens self-reliance, lowers attachment to work, and excludes the poor 
from the participation in the labor market.'' The report sums up the 
major problem with our welfare programs quite simply, ``[T]he system 
does not equip recipients with the means to leave poverty.''
  The introduction to that report, I believe, quite accurately 
describes the situation we now face, and the direction in which it may 
be best addressed. I would like to quote that portion of the report.

       Welfare should be a ``hand up'' and not a ``hand out.'' 
     Programs that do not stress self sufficiency erode the work 
     ethic. Policies that reduce the incentives for the 
     maintenance of families break them up. Programs that do not 
     encourage participation in the economy through training and 
     education go against the fabric of America's belief system. 
     At the same time, punitive programs diminish hope, hurt 
     children, and foster long term poverty.
       Welfare is not a right or an entitlement, it is an 
     investment. The traditional generosity of the American people 
     toward the poor and those who find themselves in difficult 
     situations is sorely tested when welfare programs make no 
     progress in either lifting clients out 

[[Page S 13611]]
     of poverty or of reinforcing self-reliance. The benefits the public 
     accords the poor, the destitute, the homeless, and the sick 
     grow out of a democratic commitment to social justice, equal 
     opportunity, and a belief that we as Americans are in this 
     together.
       Any welfare reform effort we undertake must reinforce these 
     principles. Welfare is an investment in people that ideally 
     benefits the recipient and society. In exchange for benefits, 
     able-bodied clients must take steps in partnership with the 
     state to lift themselves to self-support. And despite myths 
     to the contrary, the poor do work hard and welfare recipients 
     want to find jobs.

  In Idaho, Governor Batt has already begun to move ahead with efforts 
to address exactly the kind of reforms mentioned in the report I just 
mentioned. He has assembled a welfare reform advisory council--composed 
of legislators, community leaders, private citizens, and other key 
decision-makers. In the Executive Order which established the advisory 
council, Governor Batt noted,

       ``the current welfare system fails to foster fundamental 
     values relating to work, family, personal responsibility, and 
     self-sufficiency.'' The order went on to state, ``the current 
     welfare system isolates recipients from the economic and 
     social mainstream and maintains families at below poverty 
     levels with only limited support or incentives to become 
     independent of welfare assistance. . . [it] focuses on 
     writing checks and verifying circumstances rather than 
     helping people move rapidly to work.''

  The Governor's advisory council has now met with Idahoans throughout 
the state to hear the people's thoughts on welfare reform. In addition, 
it has solicited further public comment in newspaper advertisements all 
across Idaho. This information will be used to develop a welfare reform 
plan which is specific to Idaho's needs. Mr. President, the State of 
Idaho is prepared to take on the challenge of welfare reform, and has 
demonstrated the willingness to address the difficult issues which this 
endeavor encompasses. We should give them that opportunity.
  Idaho has specific concerns which it wants to address, concerns which 
in many cases are the same as those we have been discussing on a 
national level over the last few months. While these issues may be 
similar across the country, ideas for dealing with them are not. That 
is why we must let go of Federal control. As long as we continue the 
Federal strings, states will not have the needed flexibility to truly 
address their needs. They also will not have the flexibility to try 
innovative proposals which could serve as examples to other states 
about what approaches will lead to a truly productive welfare system.
  Mr. President, in my very first speech here on the floor of the U.S. 
Senate, I spoke about the need for States to be given the opportunity 
to develop their own solutions to specific problems. At the time, I 
said, ``I believe that we need to encourage innovation. The lessons we 
will learn from these different States, as they undertake these 
significant approaches, will be invaluable to us, both in learning what 
does work, and also in learning what does not work. . . We need to 
support those States that are willing to actively seek solutions.'' 
While that speech was in reference to Oregon's request for a Medicaid 
waiver, I believe it is just as applicable today. True reforms will 
come from the States, and we must give them the opportunity to prove 
they are up to the task of changing, for the better, our current system 
of welfare.
  The bill we are currently considering takes tremendous strides toward 
achieving our goals. First and foremost, it ``block grants'' many 
Federal welfare programs--including Aid to Families with Dependent 
Children, job training programs and child care programs. It also 
provides states with the option to accept Food Stamp funds as a block 
grant. This is the basis of real reform. Turning these programs over to 
the States will provide people with the chance to shape poverty-
assistance programs to meet local needs. As a former mayor, and as the 
author of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, S. 1, which was signed into 
law earlier this year, I understand the frustrations and hassles which 
accompany Federal requirements. By eliminating these mandates, we allow 
State and local officials to use their own creativity and their 
intimate knowledge of the people's needs to address their problems. And 
we do not make them go through a series of bureaucratic hoops in order 
to get a waiver to do so.
  Some have claimed the States cannot handle this responsibility. They 
claim State and local officials will, without strict Federal oversight, 
eliminate poverty assistance and turn their backs on the poor and 
needy. Mr. President, I do not understand how anyone could truly 
believe that argument. Do the naysayers really believe that State and 
local officials are cold, heartless individuals who would gleefully 
deny food to the hungry and let children suffer? Do they also believe 
that upon being elected to the Congress we all undergo some miraculous 
transformation which makes every member of this body more compassionate 
and knowledgeable than our State and local counterparts? The mere idea 
is ridiculous. Local and State officials are the ones who are in the 
best position to see what their programs do to people. They are the 
ones whose friends and neighbors are directly impacted as a result of 
their actions. And if they make a mistake, if they do something the 
people do not like, they are more directly and immediately responsible 
for that decision than anyone here in Washington. That, I would say to 
my colleagues, is a better guarantee that local needs will be met than 
any number of Federal rules, requirements or regulations.
  In contrast, the bill presented by the Democrat leadership, which was 
rejected by this body, would have continued that vaunted tradition of 
``Washington knows best.'' It would not have offered flexibility to the 
States, thus preventing innovation and creativity at the State and 
local level. It would have continued the entitlement status of welfare 
programs, preventing the States from requiring anything in return for 
welfare dollars. It would have kept the Federal bureaucracy firmly 
entrenched in the welfare system, a system which, under Federal 
control, has failed those it is alleged to serve. Finally, the bill 
would have allowed numerous exemptions to the so-called work 
requirements, in effect nullifying the requirements and making it 
easier to maintain the status quo.
  Mr. President, I believe the welfare reform debate is about one 
word--freedom. It is the freedom of State and local governments to 
decide how best to provide assistance to the needy. It is the freedom 
of the various levels of government to create innovative ways to meet 
the unique needs of the downtrodden in their city, county or State. It 
is the freedom to follow local customs and values rather than Federal 
mandates. I have said for some time that when the Government tries to 
establish a one-size-fits-all, cookie cutter approach to address a 
perceived need, it ignores the unique circumstances which are so 
important in developing the best way to address that need. The 
legislation presented by the Republican leadership recognizes this 
fact.
  The difficulties associated with the Federal approach to problem 
solving are especially evident in rural States, like my home state of 
Idaho. The kind of help which people in rural communities may need 
differs dramatically from the kind of assistance an individual in New 
York, or Miami, or Los Angeles may need. In order to address those 
needs, States must have flexibility. A program which is designed to 
help families who live in our major metropolitan areas, quite simply, 
will not work in Wallace, Idaho--a community with less than 2,000 
people. It may not even work in Boise, which is Idaho's largest city. 
The reverse is also true. A program which is capable of helping folks 
in a State like Idaho--which has a population density of just over 12 
people per square mile--is likely to have little relevance in Detroit 
or Boston. Mr. President, I do not want anyone in this country who is 
struggling to make something of themselves, whether they are from 
Idaho, or Minnesota, or Arizona, or North Carolina, to be hampered in 
their efforts because of rules and regulations which ignore the fact 
that this Nation is not uniform--that people in all areas of the 
country have unique circumstances which simply cannot be addressed in 
one prescriptive Federal package.
  Mr. President, I stated earlier that welfare reform is about freedom 
for the States. More importantly, it is about freedom for the people. 
For too long now we have witnessed a vicious cycle of poverty in this 
Nation which, once entered, is nearly impossible to escape. We have a 
system of welfare which does 

[[Page S 13612]]
not focus on getting and keeping people off the Federal rolls, but 
instead appears to be based on the belief that once one has become a 
part of the system, they will never again desire to become self-
sufficient. I do not believe this is true. I believe most welfare 
recipients, if given the opportunity, would gladly find a way to end 
their dependence on the Government. It is with these people in mind 
that we must complete our work on welfare reform legislation, so we may 
give current and future welfare recipeients the freedom to break out of 
poverty.
  Mr. President, I have listened to many of my colleagues share their 
thoughts on the legislation we are now considering. As could be 
expected, the bill does not have unanimous support. Some think it has 
too many strings on the block grants, other say not enough. Some 
believe even more programs should be block granted. Regardless of 
whether or not any particular amendments were added to the bill, 
however, I ask my colleagues to keep in mind the long-term implications 
of what we are trying to do. I would ask them to ask themselves one 
simple question, ``Does this bill get us closer to our goals then we 
would be if we did nothing?'' If the answer is yes, and I believe it 
is, I would urge them to support the leadership package. In doing this, 
we can finally break the cycle of poverty which has gripped too many 
Americans, and help them get back on their feet. And in so doing, we 
will help all Americans.
  In closing, in considering welfare reform I think we would be wise to 
heed the words of one of this nation's greatest leaders, President 
Abraham Lincoln. It was Lincoln who once said,

       The legitimate object of government, is to do for a 
     community of people, whatever they need to have done, but can 
     not do, at all, or can not, so well do, for themselves--in 
     their separate, and individual capacities. In all that the 
     people can individually do as well for themselves, government 
     ought not interfere.

  Mr. President, I believe this applies equally well to the 
relationship between the States and the Federal Government. The Federal 
Government should not attempt to do for the States what the States are 
capable of doing for themselves and for their residents. We have tried 
to do so for the last 30 years, and we have not succeeded. It is time 
we let the States decide how to meet the needs of the less fortunate, 
using State and local solutions. If we do this, we grant the States a 
level of freedom they have not had in years, and we move one step 
closer toward giving welfare recipients hope that they too may soon be 
free of a system which has perpetuated poverty and social decline. And 
freedom, I would say to my colleagues, is what this Government is 
supposed to be about.
  I thank the chair and the managers of the bill for their courtesy, 
and I yield the floor.
    the child abuse prevention and treatment act amendments of 1995

  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, child abuse is a critical issue facing our 
Nation. Each year, close to one million children are abused or 
neglected and, as a result, in need of assistance and out of home care. 
CAPTA is a small but vital link in the provision of these services.
  S. 919, which has been included in the Dole welfare reform bill, 
streamlines CAPTA's State plan and reporting requirements; eliminates 
unnecessary research and technical assistance activities; and 
encourages local innovation through a restructured demonstration 
program.
  Additionally, we have consolidated the Child Abuse Community Based 
Prevention Grants, Family Resource Centers, Family Support Centers into 
the Community-Based Family Resource and Support Grants.
  Finally, S. 919 repeals the Temporary Child Care for Children with 
Disabilities and Crisis Nurseries Act, title VII (F) of the McKinney 
Homeless Assistance Act, and the Emergency Child Abuse Prevention 
Grants.
  Mr. President, each day, hundreds of children and families come into 
contact with, and are affected by, our Nation's child protective 
system. For many, it is a frightening experience. For others--for those 
on the front lines, it is sometimes an opportunity to rescue children 
from horrific circumstances.
  Unfortunately, the issues facing this overburdened system are seldom 
easily resolved. Too often--overworked, underpaid, untrained, and 
sometimes overzealous caseworkers have a tremendous and devastating 
impact on families.
  Decisions are routinely made to remove children and place them in 
foster care--into situations that are sometimes far worse than from 
where they came. Other times, because of mounting paperwork and case 
files, a serious case goes uninvestigated--or a decision to return a 
child to an unsafe home is made because there are no more out-of-home 
placements available. These are all difficult circumstances that 
require balance, training, and resources.
  Since 1974, CAPTA, though a relatively small program, has assisted 
States in meeting child protection needs. It is a small, but powerful 
program, because its mandates have radically changed how we view child 
protection.
  Unfortunately, not all of these changes have been helpful. CAPTA has, 
until now, been viewed as a very prescriptive program, with States 
judged, not on how well they protect children, but how close they come 
to mirroring some Federal definition or example of how things ought to 
be.
  The 1995 CAPTA amendments are an important first step aimed at 
redressing some of the problems in CAPTA while, at the same time, 
building upon its strengths. Most experts agree that what CAPTA can do 
and do best is provide guidance to States; assist States with training 
and technical assistance; and promote better research and dissemination 
of information while allowing for maximum flexibility in approach and 
response.
  S. 919, as unanimously reported out by the Labor Committee and 
included in the Dole bill, builds on those strengths. Specifically, 
this legislation:
  Eliminates unnecessary bureaucracy by repealing mandates for a 
National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect, the U.S. Advisory Board, 
and the Interagency Task Force on Child Abuse. Instead, the Secretary 
may use her discretion in deciding whether or not they are an essential 
function;
  Restructures and consolidates various research functions into one 
coordinated effort;
  Places a significant emphasis on local experimentation by expanding 
Demonstration Grants to encourage local innovation and experimentation. 
One of these grants would be available for a triage system approach 
which Labor Committee members heard very exciting reports about during 
a subcommittee hearing. Others include training for mandatory 
reporters, families, service providers, and communities;
  And reforms the Basic State Grants by allowing greater flexibility to 
the States in determining the circumstances and intensity of 
intervention that is required, while encouraging them to look to other 
preventative services that can be provided to families, when intensive 
intervention is not called for.
  Determining the appropriate level of intervention is a very important 
consideration. We have studied closely the numbers of abuse and neglect 
reports that have been filed. Of the close to 3 million reports that 
have been filed, only one-third are eventually substantiated. This 
means that over 2 million are either unsubstantiated or even false. And 
while I know that these numbers and how they are interpreted are the 
source of some disagreement, the fact remains that for whatever reason, 
over 2 million investigations at some level, are occurring, and 
possibly resulting in inappropriate interventions--including removal of 
the child from the home.
  Members of the Labor Committee may recall the testimony of Jim Wade 
who spoke of his 3-year ordeal, in which his daughter was wrongfully 
removed from his home. I have received many such reports and 
complaints, and while we should be mindful not to legislate by 
anecdote, these stories involve real people and are chilling.
  With the State grant, we have worked to find ways to improve 
reporting so that caseworkers are able to assess and effectively 
respond to cases of abuse and neglect with an appropriate response.
  We have also ensured that persons who maliciously file reports of 
abuse or 

[[Page S 13613]]
neglect will no longer be protected by CAPTA's immunity for reporting. 
Only good-faith reports will be protected.
  Finally, we have clarified the definition of child abuse or neglect 
to provide additional guidance and assistance to States as they 
endeavor to protect children from abuse and neglect.
  Let me briefly mention the other programs authorized in the 1995 
CAPTA amendments: the new Community-Based Family Resource and Support 
Grants represent the result of nearly a full year's effort to 
consolidate the Community Based Prevention Grant, Respite Care Program, 
and Family Resource Programs; the Family Violence Prevention and 
Services Act which provides assistance to States primarily for 
shelters; the Adoption Opportunities Act which supports aggressive 
efforts to strengthen the capacity of States to find permanent homes 
for children with special needs; the Abandoned Infants Assistance Act 
which provides for the needs of children who are abandoned, especially 
those with AIDS; the Children's Justice Act; the Missing Children's 
Assistance Act and section 214 of the Victims of Child Abuse Act.
  Mr. President, I would like to thank the members for their attention. 
These are important programs and they will affect many children and 
families. I urge the adoption of the 1995 CAPTA amendments.


                              student aid

  Mr. MACK. Mr. President, with regard to title V of H.R. 4, the Work 
Opportunity Act, I am interested in clarifying an issue regarding the 
applicability of the term ``assistance * * * for which eligibility is 
based on need'' to various student loan programs. As I understand this 
legislation, eligibility for needs-based public assistance will either 
be subject to a deeming period or will be forbidden for a period of 
five years for most non-citizens. At this time, there seems to be an 
erroneous public perception that all student financial aid programs 
will be subject to these provisions. This is not the case. In the 
interests of responsible legislating, I think it is important to 
clarify that unsubsidized student loans are not needs-based and should 
therefore not be subject to the requirements of title V.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, Senator Mack is correct. Although the 
term ``assistance * * * for which eligibility is based on need'' in 
title V of H.R. 4 would apply to most forms of student financial aid, 
the unsubsidized student loan program is indeed a financial aid program 
which is not based upon need. Therefore, this particular program would 
not be subject to the deeming period or 5-year ban established in title 
V of this bill.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I would like to offer my support of the 
comments made by Senators Mack and Simpson on this issue.
                             children's ssi

  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I have a series of clarifications 
concerning the children's SSI program that I would like to discuss with 
the majority leader.
  But first, let me express my appreciation to Senator Dole for his 
leadership in helping us reach a compromise on this issue. The SSI 
agreement is not everything I had hoped to achieve when Senator Chafee 
and I introduced the Children's SSI Eligibility Reform Act, but it is 
clearly an improvement over the House bill.
  In addition, I believe the agreement includes a number of extremely 
important provisions to both address criticisms that have been leveled 
against the Children's SSI program and protect children with severe 
disabilities. I am extremely pleased we were able to reach a bipartisan 
compromise on this issue, and thank Senator Dole, Senator Santorum, 
Senator Daschle, Senator Chafee, Senator Simpson, Senator Jeffords, and 
others who were so deeply involved.
  Mr. President, I would like to clarify for the Record the intent 
surrounding several of the provisions in the amendment. First, the 
amendment deletes the word ``pervasive'' from the definition of child 
disability that was included in the welfare reform bill reported in May 
by the Finance Committee. This is an important change, and one that I 
fully support. Would the majority leader clarify his understanding of 
the intent of this change?
  Mr. DOLE. I want to thank the Senator from North Dakota for his 
leadership and hard work on this issue. Children with disabilities are 
certainly among those most at risk in our society, and we want to make 
sure we are doing the right thing by them. He and Senator Chafee have 
worked extremely hard to bring the Senate to this point.
  As for the Senator's question, I understand that the Senator from 
North Dakota was concerned that the term ``pervasive'' included in the 
earlier definition implied some degree of impairment in almost all 
areas of a child's functioning or body systems. That was not the intent 
of the earlier proposed change to the statute. It is expected that the 
children's SSI program will serve children with severe disabilities. 
Sometimes children will have multiple impairments; sometimes they will 
not.
  Mr. CONRAD. I also understand that the amendment is designed to 
facilitate expert analysis of the SSI program for children by the 
National Academy of Science, to ensure that program changes, including 
determination of disability, are based on the best possible science.
  Mr. DOLE. Yes, I think we can all agree that the children's
   SSI needs a tune up. The provision for a study by the National 
Academy of Sciences of the disability determination procedures used by 
the Social Security Administration will help accomplish this goal, and 
help us obtain a realistic picture of how an impairment affects each 
child's abilities.

  No doubt about it, the children's SSI program is extremely important 
for some children with disabilities. But as the Senator from North 
Dakota made mention, there have been widespread allegations that some 
children on SSI are not truly disabled, or money is spent in ways that 
do not benefit the child. I hope this study--in addition to the changes 
we have made in the law--will help restore confidence in this program.
  Again, it is my expectation that this program will continue to serve 
children with severe disabilities, and that includes properly 
evaluating children too young to test, children with multiple 
impairments, and children with rare or unlisted impairments which 
nevertheless result in marked and severe functional limitations.
  Mr. CONRAD. Is it expected that the Social Security Administration 
and the Congress will rely heavily on the expert advice of the National 
Academy of Science when engaging in future regulatory activity and 
deliberations regarding impairments of children in the SSI program?
  Mr. DOLE. Yes. But I also hope we hear from many others as well with 
good information to offer, including other experts, parents, and 
advocates.
  Mr. CHAFEE. If I might also ask the majority leader a question. The 
leadership amendment and the Finance Committee proposal are both silent 
about the purpose of children's SSI. However, unlike the House 
proposal, both retain the cash benefit nature of the program. This is a 
concept that Senator Conrad and I thought was extremely important when 
we introduced the Childhood SSI Eligibility Reform Act, and I am 
pleased that the majority leader's proposal retains flexibility within 
the SSI program by retaining the cash nature of the program. It is 
important for the SSI program to reflect the impact a disability has on 
families faced with a variety of circumstances. SSI often provides 
important assistance to families by replacing a portion of the income 
that is lost when a parent must care for a disabled child. The flexible 
nature of SSI is indispensable for many parents who are rendered unable 
to work because they must stay at home to provide care and supervision 
to their children with disabilities. Does the majority leader share our 
assessment?
  Mr. DOLE. No doubt about it, for some families with a severely 
disabled child, SSI can be a lifesaver. It allows them to care for 
their child at home--who might otherwise be institutionalized at much 
greater cost to the government--or obtain services they could not 
otherwise afford. If a small payment can help a disabled child stay 
with his family, or grow into a productive adult, it is better for the 
child and better for society. SSI benefits provide the greatest 
flexibility, and the least amount of bureaucratic redtape.

[[Page S 13614]]

  But I think there may be some difference of opinion about the purpose 
of the program. The SSI program was originally started to provide a 
small cash income to individuals who cannot work because of age or 
disability. But the children's SSI program had a somewhat different 
purpose--to help poor families with the extra costs of having a child 
with a disability. It seems the program has expanded without much 
Congressional attention. In my view, we need to revisit the purpose of 
the SSI program. The Finance Committee has not tackled this problem 
yet, but it should and I believe it will. But the Senate decision to 
retain the cash benefit is clearly an important difference from the 
House.
  Mr. CONRAD. I would like to join in the comments of both of my 
colleagues regarding the cash benefit nature of the SSI program. This 
provision is critically important, and I commend the Majority Leader 
for including it in the amendment. If I might address one additional 
question to the majority leader, it is the intent of this Senator and 
other supporters of this amendment on both sides of the aisle that this 
amendment is the position of the Senate, and that it will be vigorously 
defended in conference with the House of Representatives. Will the 
majority leader insist on this provision during conference with the 
House?
  Mr. DOLE. This is a bipartisan compromise with broad support, and in 
my view it should be a position to which the Senate should firmly hold 
in conference.
  Mr. CONRAD. Base on these assurances, I am pleased to support the 
compromise we have developed on children's SSI. This is not everything 
I had hoped to achieve, but it is critically important that the Senate 
enter conference with a solid, unified position.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise as one of the 
original cosponsors of the Republican leadership welfare reform bill.
  We have entered this historic debate because the 30-year War on 
Poverty remains a war, but the nation is losing. According to recent 
analysis, aggregate government spending on welfare programs over the 
last 30 years has surpassed $5.4 trillion, an expenditure that exceeds 
our national debt.
  Despite this spending, America's national poverty rate remains at 
about the same level as 1965, the year that President Johnson launched 
the War on Poverty.
  Despite the best of intentions, we have a welfare system that 
``traps'' children and families in a cycle of dependency, and that 
encourages behavior leading to indefinite reliance on welfare. It 
fosters a lifestyle that is in direct opposition to the motivators that 
propel others to get up and go to work every day.
  The Republican leadership's bill emphasizes work, families and 
genuine hope for the future while giving the States greater 
responsibility--and flexibility--for managing welfare.
  This measure has been a long time coming, and I do not just mean this 
summer. Our distinguished colleague from Colorado, Senator Hank Brown, 
did an outstanding job in 1993 and 1994 as chairman of the Republican 
Welfare Reform Task Force. Health Care Reform diverted the Senate, but 
it did not diminish the value of their work. Much of what we are 
considering today is built directly on the strong foundation of Senator 
Brown's early proposals.
  I also think back to the 1986 State of the Union Address of President 
Ronald Reagan. That year he proposed Welfare Reform. This was another 
step. The Reagan welfare reform plan, the Family Security Act of 1988, 
was guided to enactment by the fine hand of the then Finance Committee 
Chairman, Senator Moynihan of New York, who is now serving with such 
distinction as the co-manager of this bill.
  The Family Security Act of 1988 served as a laboratory for S. 1120. 
In 1988, we first dealt with the issues of workfare versus. welfare, 
the dilemmas of teen pregnancy and illegitimacy, the high costs of work 
requirements, and the need for broad federal waiver authority. It is 
the State and local levels of government which administer the American 
welfare system, not the Department of Health and Human Services.
  I am proud that under the waiver authority established by the Family 
Security Act, the Commonwealth of Virginia has been in the vanguard of 
welfare reform initiatives.
  While we are struggling to come together in the Senate to pass S. 
1120, my State has already enacted and is now implementing what we call 
the Virginia Independence Program or ``VIP'' for short.
  VIP is the visionary welfare reform program brought to the people of 
Virginia under the outstanding leadership of Gov. George Allen. It was 
no easy task to battle a sometimes hostile state legislature, dominated 
by the other political party, as well as the mountain of redtape 
required in securing the necessary Federal waivers. He succeeded 
splendidly, however, in achieving his goals, and now Virginia is in the 
careful, watchful, early stages of actual reform.
  Governor Allen, with his great courtesy, personally journeyed to 
Washington on September 13 to deliver a thoughtful and, in my judgment, 
immensely helpful letter on what he believes the Senate should 
accomplish in welfare reform.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my letter from Governor 
Allen be printed in the Record at this point for the benefit of all of 
my colleagues.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                         Commonwealth of Virginia,


                                       Office of the Governor,

                                               September 13, 1995.
     Hon. John W. Warner,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear John, As the United States Senate continues to debate 
     welfare reform this week, I believe that our experiences in 
     the Commonwealth of Virginia can be instructive.
       I hope you will consider Virginia's plan to be a model for 
     the nation. The comprehensive Virginia plan is based upon the 
     principles of the work ethnic and personal responsibility. 
     Our experiences support the need for an overall block grant 
     approach, that will give States the flexibility to 
     appropriately design programs that address the individual 
     needs of the citizens of their State, return AFDC to a 
     program of temporary assistance for those in need, and 
     require work for all able-bodied recipients.
       I understand that there will be attempts to amend S. 1120 
     by attaching new chains on the block grants to the States. As 
     a staunch proponent of federalism and self-determination, I 
     oppose such choke chains, whether they are ``conservative'' 
     or ``liberal'' ones, and respectfully encourage and request 
     that you to do likewise for Virginians.
       Experience shows that the States are perfectly capable of 
     taking this responsibility and exercising it wisely for our 
     citizens. Virginia's landmark welfare reform legislation is a 
     prime example. Our plan applies to the entire AFDC caseload, 
     with a work requirement for 48,000 of our 74,000 cases. It 
     incorporates common-sense principles into the welfare system 
     by rewarding responsible behavior and providing 
     compassionate, but temporary, assistance for those in need.
       In addition to providing opportunity and support to 
     recipients, the program is expected to save the taxpayers 
     more than $130 million over the first five years. Already, we 
     have had a significant drop in our caseload. Restrictive 
     maintenance-of-effort requirements rob States of the ability 
     to share in these savings and the incentives to achieve them. 
     They should be opposed.
       As you know, Virginia received a waiver to begin 
     implementing this landmark welfare reform plan on July 1 of 
     this year. You also should be aware that, before this waiver 
     was granted, we spent the better part of two months fending 
     off efforts by the Clinton Administration to completely 
     rewrite our plan. The administration proposed literally 
     hundreds of changes or conditions in the waiver process. Many 
     of them involved very fundamental things; if agreed to, they 
     would have raised the cost of the program significantly and 
     changed essential provisions.
       We had a tough fight in our state legislature--with a final 
     bill clearing the General Assembly only in the last hour of 
     the 1995 legislative session. At issue were questions such as 
     whether we would have a real work requirement and a real time 
     limit; whether there would be a child cap and strong 
     requirements for paternity establishment; and whether we 
     would require minor recipients to stay in school and live at 
     home with a parent or guardian.
       This spirited debate was expected, given the fundamental 
     nature of the changes and reforms we were proposing. We did 
     not expect, however--after the legislative process was 
     completed at the state level and we had decided what state 
     law and state policy were going to be--that we would have to 
     turn around and refight all those battles with the federal 
     bureaucracy through the waiver process. A good example was 
     the time limit. We went to the wall with HHS over the issue 
     of whether we in Virginia would be able to define the 
     circumstances that would allow 

[[Page S 13615]]
     someone a hardship exemption from the time limit. That is, of course, a 
     very fundamental issue.
       This ordeal leaves me firmly convinced that the whole 
     concept of waivers inherently flawed. The waiver process by 
     definition invites prescriptive micromanagement and nit-
     picking from federal bureaucrats in Washington.
      What States need in order to accomplish this fundamental 
     transformation of welfare is not new waiver guidelines, as 
     the President has suggested, but elimination of the need 
     for waivers in the first place through a genuine block 
     grant, with flexibility guaranteed by statute.
       There are other areas in which the Congress could learn 
     from the experience of States like Virginia. We have 
     implemented a child cap here that places responsibility for 
     additional children upon those who should bear the 
     responsibility--the parents. Our program places a cap on 
     benefits for additional children in an AFDC family, but 
     guarantees that 100% of support funds collected from the 
     father will be turned over to the family. This will encourage 
     responsibility, paternity establishment, and child support.
       In Virginia, we recognize the important relationship 
     between economic development and welfare reform. We cannot 
     continue to prepare AFDC recipients simply for welfare jobs. 
     Instead, we must train them to compete for existing jobs in 
     our expanding economy. After passage of our welfare 
     initiative, we turned our attention to workforce development. 
     In order to reform the welfare system effectively, we are in 
     the process of restructuring our job-training programs so 
     that they help match workforce training and skills with the 
     needs of our private sector in our local communities. I would 
     encourage you to ensure that workforce development 
     consolidation is included in the overall welfare reform bill, 
     as the two are essential to a State's success.
       What the debate really boils down to is who does the U.S. 
     Senate trust to make these policy decisions--the federal 
     bureaucracy or the elected representatives of the people at 
     the State level. This is a basic philosophical question. The 
     choices you make will determine whether the bold innovations 
     that are occurring in Virginia and other States can move 
     forward, or whether federal bureaucrats will continue to 
     micromanage and second guess the decisions of the people of 
     the States and their duly elected representatives. I 
     respectfully urge you to place your trust in the States, 
     which are leading the way.
       Thank you for all your solid leadership for our cause in 
     many ways and congratulations on your selection as Chairman 
     of the Rules Committee.
       With warm regards, I remain,
           Sincerely,
                                                     George Allen.

  Mr. WARNER. As you will note, the Governor fully supports the block 
grant process with as few Federal strings as possible. He desires 
neither conservative nor liberal mandates. In the spirit of true 
federalism, he is confident that the people of Virginia are fully able 
to design and administer our own welfare reform programs.
  Here are a few parallels between what we are seeking to do in S. 1120 
and what the Commonwealth of Virginia has already set into motion.
  We are seeking to block grant the entire Aid to Families With 
Dependent Children [AFDC] Program and have half the eligible population 
participating in work requirements by the year 2002. Virginia, on the 
other hand, will implement AFDC reform in 4 years for our entire 74,000 
caseload.
  While we have debated the duration of welfare payments and whether or 
not to guarantee transitional benefits such as child care, Virginia has 
passed a 2 year time period for welfare recipients, during which 
intensive work experience, education and training will be provided. To 
facilitate the transition from welfare to work, medical care, child day 
care, and transportation assistance will be provided. We did not need 
someone in Washington dictating what we already knew. Young welfare 
parents have to be freed from domestic burdens if they are to truly 
benefit from workfare participation.
  And, we promote and strengthen two parent families by assuring that 
both are eligible for benefits, that paternity is acknowledged, and 
that child support is more strictly enforced. Minor custodial parents 
are asked to live with their own parents or legal guardians, as long as 
the home is not abusive, and they must comply with compulsory school 
attendance laws.
   These and other commonsense reforms are all on the way in Virginia. 
We welcome and encourage other States to watch closely what we do and 
to lend us the benefit of your own experiences and expertise in 
reformulating the welfare equation.
  Mr. President, in closing, I would like to commend the Senate 
majority leader, Senator Dole, and his key staff members, Sheila Burke 
and Nelson Rockefeller. This has been a collective effort, requiring 
accommodation of broad and diverse views, and it could not have been 
done without the good efforts and offices of the Senate majority 
leader. They have fine tuned the art of compromise while maintaining a 
strong and underriding traditional Republican philosophy.
  In all seriousness, a brighter and more hopeful day for many 
disadvantaged Americans is almost within our reach. At the end of this 
day, let us not disappoint those who are looking to us now for an 
opportunity to join in the American success story.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, since last week, the full Senate has 
debated the arduous task of reforming a welfare system that has failed 
in its mission to eliminate poverty in America. Throughout our history, 
Americans have held to the belief that hard work and investment are the 
staples for family security and economic success. Yet, our Nation's 
welfare system has turned away from these basic principles. Working 
Americans complain that the welfare system promotes dependence and 
waste, while many welfare recipients struggle for the chance to work 
their way off the rolls.
  Since 1965, America has infused $5.4 trillion into a public 
assistance network composed of almost 80 State and Federal programs. At 
best, the War on Poverty has produced temporary gains for poor 
families. While the national poverty rate dropped from a high of 22 
percent in 1959 to an historic low of 11 percent in 1973, the poverty 
rate had risen to 15 percent by 1993. Most tragically, our welfare 
system has failed to assist our Nation's most vulnerable families. From 
1969 to 1993, the child poverty rate declined by less than 1 percent of 
families headed by single mothers.
  America's welfare system has lost its focus. In the 1930's, the 
Roosevelt Administration created the Aid to Families with Dependent 
Children Program to help widows, orphans, and families suffering from 
abandonment or unemployment through difficult financial times. Today, 
those in need must navigate an array of conflicting bureaucratic rules 
and program divisions that discourage work, and many times, family 
unity. Instead of liberating Americans from financial crisis, today's 
AFDC system fosters a detrimental cycle of generational welfare 
reliance.
  Few dispute that welfare reform is necessary. Without change, single-
parent families will continue to suffer from poverty, and the 
escalating cost of the status-quo will overwhelm our Nation's financial 
resources. Democrats and Republicans alike are focused on similar 
goals--State flexibility and the end of unconditional assistance. But 
how can these goals be attained? The answer is real, commonsense 
reform.
  First, we must fundamentally restructure the way our welfare system 
works. Our patchwork system of Federal and State welfare programs has 
produced a complex and inconsistent means for distributing benefits. In 
increasing numbers, States are requesting Federal waivers to 
restructure federally defined welfare programs so they can effectively 
deliver the services their citizens need. President Clinton recently 
promised the Nation's Governors a waiting period of only 120 days for 
the processing of their waiver requests. However, states need more than 
a fast-track system for bureaucratic review. They need real 
flexibility--the authority to develop public assistance programs that 
promote work, rather than automatic check writing.
  Americans are increasingly concerned that an unconditional 
entitlement to welfare is displacing the desire for independence with 
the expectation of permanent dependence. To successfully reduce 
poverty, welfare must focus on employment, not exemptions to work. Over 
the years, we have tried a variety of complex, federally dominated work 
programs. Efforts to attain sustainable employment for AFDC recipients 
have become little more than a paper chase under the current Job 
Opportunities and Basic Skills [JOBS] Program. Despite good intentions, 
the JOBS Program has failed and must be repealed. To effectively 
respond to the day-to-day reality of the job market, States should be 
empowered with the authority to develop and adjust their 

[[Page S 13616]]
work programs according to recipient need and local job resources.
  Welfare recipients also should know that public assistance is not 
free money but an investment in their work potential. Welfare must be 
contingent on real work. While appropriate job training is important, 
we must not lose sight of the fact that classroom lessons mean nothing 
unless one can actually apply them to the workplace. Real work also 
means real responsibility. Those who refuse to work without sound cause 
should see their actions directly reflected in their welfare benefit. 
Just like every other American employee, an hour's work should equal an 
hour's pay. In addition, a 5-year lifetime limit focuses recipients on 
welfare's fundamental purpose--support for the attainment of self-
sufficiency.
  Second, reform should focus on abolishing abuse. I don't know of one 
taxpayer that wants Food Stamps used for the purchase of drugs or 
alcohol. I know that many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle 
share my concern with fraud in our Nation's largest welfare program. I 
have dedicated considerable effort to
 legislative proposals that would curtail waste, fraud, and abuse in 
the Food Stamp Program. The welfare reform bill before us meets this 
challenge and helps ensure that food stamps are used for their intended 
purpose: to help needy Americans buy food to supplement their diet.

  I am also pleased to see that this bill retains child nutrition 
programs at the Federal level while successfully reducing excessive 
Federal regulation. These programs work and have successfully ensured 
the health and nutritional well-being of future generations of 
children.
  Third, it is essential that welfare reform uphold a standard of 
responsibility to our Nation's children and families. Illegitimacy in 
America is becoming the rule rather than the exception. The facts are 
alarming. Today, 1 in 3 children are born out-of-wedlock--by the turn 
of the century, this figure will be 1 in 2. Most disturbing of all is 
the drastic increase in out-of-wedlock births among our youth. In 1960, 
15 percent of births to women under the age of 20 were out-of-wedlock. 
By 1992, this figure had increased to 71 percent.
  Today, the specter of poverty haunts single mothers and their 
children like never before. From 1976 to 1992, the proportion of 
single, never-married women receiving AFDC more than doubled, from 21 
percent to almost 52 percent. Yet welfare assistance has failed to 
shepherd these needy families to a better future. The Congressional 
Budget Office found that single women receiving AFDC in 1992 were 
poorer than in 1976, even though they worked in about the same 
proportions.
  The increasing number of single mother families living in poverty is 
fueled by the ease with which absent fathers ignore their parental 
responsibilities. To reverse this devastating trend, we must take 
seriously the necessity of paternity identification. Fatherhood is not 
a one-time-only event--it is a lifelong responsibility and should be 
treated as such.
  Paternity identification is an essential step toward the improved 
collection of child support. In Kentucky, efforts in paternity 
identification have head a substantial impact upon the collection of 
child support for AFDC dependent families. In fiscal year 1994, 7 
counties ranked in the top 10 for both paternity identification and 
child support collection.
  Without a doubt, dead-beat dads must be held accountable for their 
child support obligations. In 1991, fathers owed $17.7 billion in child 
support payments. Only 67 percent, however, was paid--a shortfall of 
$5.8 billion. If a father refuses to support his child, States have the 
right to make his parental responsibility crystal-clear by suspending 
his driver's or professional license.
  Mr. President, real reform means transforming welfare from a dead-end 
street to a bridge toward self-sufficiency and family security. Last 
year in Owensboro, KY, three mothers shared with me their personal 
experiences in the welfare system. They were deeply concerned about the 
future--how they would care for the health and well-being of their 
children as they tried to work their way off welfare. As they spoke, it 
was clear that their success depended on their tenacity to break free 
from the confines of a welfare system that promises much but delivers 
little. It is for them and each of our Nation's 5 million AFDC families 
that we must reject the status-quo of an empty entitlement system and 
return our welfare system to the basics of fairness, work, and family 
security.


                  the maintenance of effort amendment

  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, Senator Graham asked a question yesterday 
during consideration of my amendment on maintenance of effort which I 
am not sure I fully understood, and I wonder if he could ask the 
question again.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Thank you, Mr. President. The question is does the Chafee 
modification to the maintenance of effort mean that a State would have 
to continue to maintain its effort at 80 percent if the Federal share 
is reduced.
  Mr. CHAFEE. I thank the Senator from Florida for clarifying the 
issue. The answer is no, if the Federal share is reduced for whatever 
reason, the State maintenance of effort would also be reduced. This is 
the hold-harmless provision that was included in both my amendment and 
the amendment offered by the Senator from Louisiana, Senator Breaux.
  Mr. GRAHAM. I thank the Senator from Rhode Island for clarifying this 
issue for me.
  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, today's debate is the culmination of a 
long process of rethinking social programs. Welfare originally was 
designed as a transitional program--a safety net. The system is no 
longer a temporary safety net, but a lifetime security blanket. The 
result? Millions of Americans now are trapped in a cycle of dependency. 
To end this cycle we must rethink our concept of welfare. We need a new 
approach.
  The bill offered by the majority leader, Senator Dole, represents the 
fresh start we desperately need. The Dole bill would bring common sense 
back to welfare. It would restore personal responsibility and self-
sufficiency. Compassion can no longer be defined in the number of 
dollars spent on welfare. Since the War on Poverty began three decades 
ago, welfare spending has increased to more than $137.6 billion. 
Despite this massive infusion of cash, our poverty level remains 
virtually the same--roughly 13 percent. Today, more than 69,000 South 
Dakotans are on welfare. That is more people than the population of 
Rapid City. We can no longer throw taxpayer dollars at a so-called 
poverty program that has not worked. We must change the incentives in 
the current system that encourage dependency on welfare. We must 
refocus our priorities to emphasize work and family. The Dole bill does 
just that.
  My liberal friends on the other side of the aisle prefer to continue 
the status quo. I do not understand why. The current system is cruel 
and unfair--to both welfare recipients and taxpayers. The current 
system holds people in a dependent state of poverty. It prevents them 
from realizing their personal potential and contributing to their 
family and community through work. Last June, I met with a group of 
mothers from South Dakota who are on welfare. Their heartfelt stories 
varied, but all are working actively for the day when they will leave 
welfare. They want welfare to be a transitional program. Their goal 
should be the welfare system's goal as well.
  We can no longer tolerate blatant gaming of the system. Generations 
of able-bodied families have stayed on welfare rather than work. This 
abuse is an insult to hardworking Americans. South Dakota has many 
working poor families. The small farmer, the local waitress and 
convenience store clerk struggle daily to provide for their families 
without government assistance. Welfare recipients should not get a free 
ride at the expense of hard working taxpayers. Frankly, they should not 
live easier or better than our working poor, who strive daily to put 
food on the table without a handout. The loopholes that allow people to 
cheat the system and defraud taxpayers must be closed.
  The Dole plan would transform welfare to workfare. It would restore 
personal responsibility by requiring work for benefits after 2 years on 
public assistance. Work would be required for food stamps as well. It 
would impose a 5 year lifetime limit on benefits. The bill would end 
disability assistance payments for alcohol and drug addicts to continue 
their habits, which is allowed under current law. It would 

[[Page S 13617]]
tighten eligibility for food stamps. It would toughen child support 
enforcement. The Dole bill also would streamline child care programs, 
child nutrition programs, and job training programs. Collectively, 
these steps would move our antipoverty programs from welfare to 
workfare; dependency to personal responsibility. It is about time.
  We all agree that we have a responsibility to provide public 
assistance to truly needy children and families. This bill would 
continue the necessary transition assistance for those families who 
find themselves in circumstances beyond their control. It would not cut 
benefits to needy children. Instead, it would eliminate one-third of 
the cumbersome bureaucracy at the Department of Health and Human 
Services and scores of needless Federal regulations.
  The second pillar of personal responsibility is family. Welfare 
reform should remove disincentives to a sound family structure. The 
current system rewards illegitimacy and discourages marriage. An entire 
class of children are growing up in single parent families, usually 
without fathers. South Dakota small towns and cities are no longer 
immune to these problems. If we expect to restore family values, we 
must first restore the family structure. We should encourage marriage 
and family values while we encourage work.
  Perhaps most importantly, the Dole bill would give South Dakota and 
other States the ability to craft the solutions that best serve local 
needs. It has been proven time and again that Washington bureaucrats 
cannot completely understand unique local needs from thousands of miles 
away. Nor can we expect Washington bureaucrats to be the sole source of 
creative changes. By giving States welfare funds in a block grant, 
South Dakota would be free to pursue innovative ways to meet the needs 
of their welfare recipients.
  Like many other States, South Dakota has been operating under a 
waiver from the Federal Government since January 1, 1995. This waiver 
has allowed them to make some of the key reforms called for in the Dole 
bill. South Dakota implemented work for benefits, and incentives to 
moving off welfare, such as a transition period between AFDC support 
and employment. These changes are working. Case rolls are decreasing 
dramatically. In fiscal year 1994, South Dakota had a monthly average 
of 19,446 people on aid to families with dependent children [AFDC]--the 
central welfare cash assistance program. In May 1995, we had 16,737 
people on AFDC. This reduction is proof that workfare truly works. We 
can change the incentives in the system. Further, South Dakota, like 
other States, can do a better job than the Federal Government.
  I would like to speak for a few moments about the unique welfare 
problems in South Dakota. A number of the welfare problems in South 
Dakota are ours alone--in fact, they differ greatly from even our 
Midwest neighbors. My State has three of the five poorest counties in 
the entire Nation. Our State has the lowest wages in the country. More 
than half of our welfare recipients--58 percent--are native Americans--
the highest percentage in the country. In some reservation areas, 
unemployment runs more than 80 percent. Long distances between towns 
and a lack of public transportation are further barriers to gainful 
employment and quality child care. All of these factors create a 
situation that needs special attention. What is needed to end welfare 
dependency in Oglala, Fort Thompson, or Rapid City, SD, is not what is 
needed in Los Angeles or Mississippi. With this bill, we recognize that 
we are a nation with people of vastly different needs. As such, we need 
individualized solutions.
  True welfare reform in South Dakota demands welfare reform on our 
reservations. Because of South Dakota's special problems, I have been 
especially concerned with the treatment of native American tribes in 
this legislation. Both the tribes and the State of South Dakota agree 
that the best way to relieve poverty and welfare dependency on 
reservations is give tribes the option to run their own welfare 
programs. A number of my colleagues--Senators McCain, Hatch, Murkowski, 
and Domenici--and myself, have agreed on a proposal which is included 
in the Dole bill. Our proposal would give tribes the ability to 
allocate their share of a State's AFDC dollars among tribal members. 
Much like the overall welfare system, handing out unlimited Federal 
dollars in public assistance has not changed the deplorable poverty on 
reservations. Welfare reform for native American tribes also means 
changing incentives. Workfare must be employed on our native American 
tribes, but done in a manner that recognizes the unique circumstances 
that exist. By making tribes directly responsible for their members, 
tribes will have an incentive to find solutions to chronic unemployment 
and poverty. This also is consistent with the long-standing Federal 
policy of tribal self-governance. Under our proposal, for example, 
tribes in high unemployment areas such as Shannon County would be given 
some flexibility in meeting participation rates. This proposal is fair 
and I thank all my colleagues for their help in taking the first step 
to resolve this important, but difficult issue.
  I am proud to be part of this effort today. Ultimately, what this 
bill is about is change--positive change. We can change the current 
failed system to help people become self-sufficient and productive 
members of society. We can change incentives to restore personal 
responsibility and family values. I look forward to working with my 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle to see that workfare becomes a 
reality.


                          ____________________