[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 144 (Friday, September 15, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S13628-S13636]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
Amendment No. 2483, As Modified
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to send a
modification of the amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. SANTORUM. Reserving the right to object, we are still in the
process of reviewing the modification. If the Senator can start the
debate on the amendment, after we review the modification, we hope we
will have no objection to it.
Mr. BINGAMAN. I will be glad to do that, Mr. President.
This amendment is a very simple, straightforward amendment. I really
do not understand how anyone can object to it. It simply puts in law a
requirement that the States receiving these block grants under the
family assistance block grant program that is being established in this
legislation--that they develop a plan, a plan for how they are to spend
that money. The plan is very general in the requirements for what would
be in the plan, but we basically say the same planning requirement that
Senator Dole had proposed for the work force training block grants,
that same kind of planning should occur in the case of the family
assistance programs. Once a State has its program in place, this
amendment, in my view, would help both Federal and State taxpayers and
officials evaluate the success of the State programs through State-
established goals and benchmarks.
I do not really understand any credible argument against it. The
proposal here is very consistent with the provisions specified in the
Government Performance and Results Act of 1993, which I know Senator
Roth had a great involvement in, to establish performance-based program
management in the Federal Government. This continues to leave the
decisionmaking, the substantive decisionmaking, to the States. But
under the bill as it presently sits before us, there is virtually no
planning required or encouraged or ensured. States need not do any
long-range or strategic planning, nor do they need to establish any
goals or benchmarks. There is no accountability to State or Federal
taxpayers as to those goals actually being achieved.
We are talking, in this legislation, about block grants that add up
to something over $16.8 billion in Federal money each year. In my view,
it is not unreasonable for us, as stewards of that Federal money, to at
least ask for a written document that explains how it is to be spent.
So that is the essence of the amendment. I ask the manager of the
bill if he has had a chance to review the modification and if he sees a
problem with it? If not, I ask unanimous consent, again, I be allowed
to modify the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request?
Mr. SANTORUM. We have no objection to the request. In fact, as the
Senator has modified his amendment, we would be willing to accept the
amendment without a rollcall vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is so
modified.
The amendment (No. 2483), as modified, is as follows:
On page 12, between lines 22 and 23, insert the following:
``(2) Family assistance program strategic plan.--
``(A) In general.--A single comprehensive State Family
Assistance Program Strategic Plan (hereafter referred to in
this section as the `State Plan') describing a 3-year
strategic plan for the statewide program designed to meet the
State goals and reach the State benchmarks for program
activities of the family assistance program.
``(B) Contents of the state plan.--The State plan shall
include:
``(i) State goals.--A description of the goals of the 3-
year plan, including outcome related goals of and benchmarks
for program activities of the family assistance program.
``(ii) Current year plan.--A description of how the goals
and benchmarks described in clause (i) will be achieved, or
how progress toward the goals and benchmarks will be
achieved, during the fiscal year in which the plan has been
submitted.
(iii) Performance indicators.--A description of performance
indicators to be used in measuring or assessing the relevant
output service levels and outcomes of relevant program
activities.
``(iv) External factors.--Information on those key factors
external to the program and beyond the control of the State
that could significantly affect the attainment of the goals
and benchmarks.
``(v) Evaluation mechanisms.--Information on a mechanism
for conducting program evaluation, to be used to compare
actual results with the goals and benchmarks and designate
the results on a scale ranging from highly successful to
failing to reach the goals and benchmarks of the program.
``(vi) Minimum participation rates.--Information on how the
minimum participation rates specified in section 404 will be
satisfied.
``(vii) Estimate of expenditures.--An estimate of the total
amount of State or local expenditures under the program for
the fiscal year in which the plan is submitted.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I appreciate that willingness to accept
the modified amendment. If that concludes debate on this issue, I
suggest we go to a vote.
Mr. SANTORUM. I yield the remainder of my time.
Mr. BINGAMAN. I yield the remainder of my time as well.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back. If there be no
further debate, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 2483), as modified, was agreed to.
Amendment No. 2484
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 10
minutes of debate equally divided on Bingaman amendment No. 2484, to be
followed by a vote on or in relation to the amendment.
The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, this amendment, amendment No. 2484, I
gather, is at the desk. I will not ask it be read. Let me explain
briefly what the amendment does.
The amendment simply provides that we will make our bill, this bill
that Senator Dole has proposed here, consistent with the House
legislation on welfare reform in that we would provide $100 million for
each of fiscal years 1997 through the year 2000 to States to help them
provide treatment for drug addiction and alcoholism.
Let me review the situation we have as I understand it and then
invite any correction if the manager of the bill or anybody else would
like to correct my impression.
This morning I put together a very simple chart which demonstrates my
skill at calligraphy, but also, I think, makes the point I am trying to
get at here. These, as I understand it, are proposed losses in Federal
funds for drug and alcohol treatment, prevention and education,
assuming this legislation is passed and assuming we go forward with
other budget cuts that are contemplated.
Let me specify how I get the figures. As I understand it, the
legislation we have here proposes to eliminate any funds for
beneficiaries under SSI who are there by virtue of having a drug or
alcohol abuse problem. So they are no longer eligible to receive SSI
benefits. That is estimated to save the taxpayers $300 million.
Payments to RMA's are also eliminated. These are the organizations,
as I understand it, that provide services and do monitoring of the
problems that alcoholics and drug abusers have throughout the country.
That is $100 million.
We are eliminating Medicaid eligibility for alcoholics and drug
abusers. That is another $100 million.
Then there are a series of cuts which I am informed have been voted
by the Appropriations Committee, the Labor, HHS, Education
Appropriations Committee, on Wednesday. I assume those will be agreed
to here when they come to the full Senate. Those amount to $108 million
cut in substance abuse block grant funding, $100 million in drug
treatment demonstration programs, $29 million in drug abuse prevention
demonstrations, and $166 million in drug-free school money which will
be eliminated. The alcohol and other health programs that Health and
Human Services runs we are cutting by $242 million.
So the total reduction in Federal support to States and to
beneficiaries in this area of drug and alcohol treatment prevention and
education is $1.345 billion this next year.
[[Page S 13629]]
Mr. President, I have concerns about that kind of drastic cut. The
amendment I have offered will try to help resolve some of that by at
least adding in $100 million. The $100 million is a very, very small
part of what is being lost. I think that is obvious to everybody. At
least it is a good-faith effort. As I understand the agreement that has
been worked out between the leadership on the Republican side and the
leadership on the Democratic side, the intent is to add in $25 million
a year to offset the $1.345 billion which is being lost. To my mind,
that is not a credible effort by the Senate and it is not adequate to
what we are doing. So all I am saying is, let us at least do what the
House of Representatives did, let us at least provide $100 million
additional funds for substance abuse block grants in this next fiscal
year and each year during the time this legislation is in law.
The issue here is not just whether you like people who are
beneficiaries of this. The issue is how this impacts on the criminal
problems we face in the country. I have a press release here from the
Department of Justice. This is August 9.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for an
additional 3 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. SANTORUM. I yield the Senator 3 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, this press release from the Department
of Justice, dated August 9, is entitled, ``The Nation's Prison
Population Grew Almost 9 Percent Last Year.'' When you read over on
page 3 of this it says: More than a quarter of State and Federal
inmates were imprisoned for drug offenses, that is 234,600 prisoners in
1993. Prisoners serving a drug sentence increased from 8 percent of the
State and Federal prison population in 1980 to 26 percent in 1993.
In Federal prisons--this is a startling statistic; people really
should focus on this--inmates sentenced for drug law violations were
the single largest group. Sixty percent in 1993 of the prisoners in our
Federal prisons were there for drug law violations. That was up from 25
percent in 1980.
When you look into how we deal with the problem of more and more
people going into prisons for drug offenses, the solution is in this
area. The solution is in treatment, prevention, and education.
There is a publication which recently came out by the National
Association of State Alcohol and Drug Abuse Directors which makes a
very compelling case, that where we put these people in treatment, the
incidence of criminal activity reduces very substantially. In my home
State of New Mexico, they have estimated that the rate of DWI arrests
in the year before treatment was 27.8 percent in the group that
received treatment, while in the 1-year post-treatment period, the rate
was 9.8 percent. That is an enormous reduction.
I know that the majority leader is concerned about how it impacts on
his State. The report I am referring to says that Kansas has reported a
reduction in legal problems on the addiction severity index comparison
data between admission and discharge for 2,700 of its clients who
received treatment services in fiscal year 1993. Between admission and
discharge, there was a 35 percent decrease in the severity of legal
problems for clients in treatment.
Mr. President, if we are serious about dealing with the crime
problem, we need to maintain some level of funding here. My amendment
simply provides $100 million in funding to offset the $1.3 billion
which is contemplated in this legislation and in the appropriations
bill that I referred to.
I know that people are concerned about not spending too much money.
Mr. President, this is a good investment. If we do not spend the money
here, we will be spending it down the road in building more prison
cells. That is the tradeoff, and I believe very strongly that we ought
to at least support the House level of expenditure for this drug and
alcohol treatment prevention and education.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, we are still working on this amendment,
I think, between the two leaders. And if we could set this amendment
aside temporarily and allow--I believe the Senator from Illinois is
somewhere on the floor and may be willing to bring up his amendment at
this point, and we will see if we can work this out.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I have no objection. I believe the
Senator from Maine, Senator Cohen, wanted to speak for a few moments.
Mr. SANTORUM. There is time remaining on our side. We could allocate
2 minutes.
Mr. BINGAMAN. I have no objection to putting the amendment aside
under those circumstances.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Under the previous order, there will now be 10 minutes of debate
equally divided on the Simon amendment No. 2468, to be followed by a
vote on or in relation to the amendment.
Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I see the Senator from Illinois is here.
I would allow him to proceed with his amendment.
Mr. SIMON addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
Amendment No. 2468, as Modified
Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to modify the
amendment 2468.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment, as modified, is as follows:
At the appropriate place, insert the following new title:
TITLE --COMMUNITY WORKS PROGRESS ACT
SEC. 00. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the ``Community Works Progress
Act''.
SEC. 01. FUNDING FOR COMMUNITY WORKS PROGRESS PROGRAMS.
(a) Authorization for Temporary Assistance For Needy
Families.--There is authorized $240,000,000 for a
demonstration Community Works Progress Administration up to
$240,000,000 of the amounts authorized under this section may
be used for the purpose of paying grants beginning with
fiscal years after fiscal year 1997 to States for the
operation of community works progress programs. Such amounts
shall be paid to States in accordance with the requirements
of this title and shall not be subject to any requirements of
part A of title IV of the Social Security Act.
(b) Limitations on Costs.--
(1) Administrative expenses.--Not more than 10 percent of
the amount of each grant awarded to a State may be used for
administrative expenses.
(2) Compensation and supportive services.--Not less than 70
percent of the amount of each grant awarded to a State may be
used to provide compensation and supportive services to
project participants.
(3) Waiver of cost limitations.--The limitations under
paragraphs (1) and (2) may be waived for good cause, as
determined appropriate by the Secretary.
(c) Amounts Remaining Available for State Family Assistance
Grants.--Any amounts appropriated for making grants under
this title for a fiscal year under section 403(a)(4)(A)(i) of
the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 603(a)(2)(A)(4)(A)(i))
that are not paid as grants to States in accordance with this
title in such fiscal year shall be available for making State
family assistance grants for such fiscal year in accordance
with subsection (a)(1) of such section.
SEC. ____01A. ESTABLISHMENT.
In the case of any fiscal year after fiscal year 1997, the
Secretary of Labor (hereafter referred to in this title as
the ``Secretary'') shall award grants to 4 States for the
establishment of community works progress programs.
SEC. ____02. DEFINITIONS.
For purposes of this title:
(1) Community works progress program.--The terms
``community works progress program'' and ``program'' mean a
program designated by a State under which the State will
select governmental and nonprofit entities to conduct
community works progress projects which serve a significant
public purpose in fields such as health, social service,
environmental protection, education, urban and rural
development and redevelopment, welfare, recreation, public
facilities, public safety, and child care.
(2) Community works progress project.--The terms
``community works progress project'' and ``project'' mean an
activity conducted by a governmental or nonprofit entity that
results in a specific, identifiable service or product that,
but for this title, would not otherwise be done with existing
funds and that supplements but does not supplant existing
services.
(3) Nonprofit entity.--The term ``nonprofit entity'' means
an organization--
(A) described in section 501(c) of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986; and
(B) exempt from taxation under section 501(a) of such Code.
[[Page S 13630]]
SEC. ____03. APPLICATIONS BY STATES.
(a) In General.--Each State desiring to conduct, or to
continue to conduct, a community works progress program under
this title shall submit an annual application to the
Secretary at such time and in such manner as the Secretary
shall require. Such application shall include--
(1) identification of the State agency or agencies that
will administer the program and be the grant recipient of
funds for the State, and
(2) a detailed description of the geographic area in which
the project is to be carried out, including such demographic
and economic data as are necessary to enable the Secretary to
consider the factors required by subsection (b).
(b) Consideration of Applications.--
(1) In general.--In reviewing all applications received
from States desiring to conduct or continue to conduct a
community works progress program under this title, the
Secretary shall consider--
(A) the unemployment rate for the area in which each
project will be conducted,
(B) the proportion of the population receiving public
assistance in each area in which a project will be conducted,
(C) the per capita income for each area in which a project
will be conducted,
(D) the degree of involvement and commitment demonstrated
by public officials in each area in which projects will be
conducted,
(E) the likelihood that projects will be successful,
(F) the contribution that projects are likely to make
toward improving the quality of life of residents of the area
in which projects will be conducted,
(G) geographic distribution,
(H) the extent to which projects will encourage team
approaches to work on real, identifiable needs,
(I) the extent to which private and community agencies will
be involved in projects, and
(J) such other criteria as the Secretary deems appropriate.
(2) Indian tribes and urbanized areas.--
(A) In general.--The Secretary shall ensure that--
(i) one grant under this title shall be awarded to a State
that will conduct a community works progress project that
will serve one or more Indian tribes; and
(ii) one grant under this title shall be awarded to a State
that will implement a community works progress project in a
city that is within an Urbanized Area (as defined by the
Bureau of the Census).
(B) Indian tribe.--For purposes of this paragraph, the term
``Indian tribe'' means any Indian tribe, band, nation, or
other organized group or community, including any Alaska
Native village or regional or village corporation as defined
in or established pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims
Settlement Act (43 U.S.C.A. 1601 et seq.), which is
recognized as eligible for the special programs and services
provided by the United States to Indians because of their
status as Indians.
(c) Modification to Applications.--If changes in labor
market conditions, costs, or other factors require
substantial deviation from the terms of an application
approved by the Secretary, the State shall submit a
modification of such application to the Secretary.
SEC. ____04. PROJECT SELECTION BOARD.
(a) Establishment.--Each State that receives a grant under
this title shall establish a Project Selection Board
(hereafter referred to as the ``Board'') in the geographic
area or areas identified by the State under section
____03(b)(2).
(b) Membership.--
(1) In general.--Each Board shall be composed of 13 members
who shall reside in the geographic area identified by the
State under section ____03(b)(2). Subject to paragraph (2),
the members of the Board shall be appointed by the Governor
of the State in consultation with local elected officials in
the geographic area.
(2) Representatives of business and labor organizations.--
The Board--
(A) shall have at least one member who is an officer of a
recognized labor organization; and
(B) shall have at least one member who is a representative
of the business community.
(c) Duties of the Board.--The Board shall--
(1) recommend appropriate projects to the Governor;
(2) select a manager to coordinate and supervise all
approved projects; and
(3) periodically report to the Governor on the project
activities in a manner to be determined by the Governor.
(d) Veto of a Project.--One member of the Board who is
described in subparagraph (A) of subsection (b)(2) and one
member of the Board who is described in subparagraph (B) of
such subsection shall have the authority to veto any proposed
project. The Governor shall determine which Board members
shall have the veto authority described under this
subsection.
(e) Terms and Compensation of Members.--The Governor shall
establish the terms for Board members and specify procedures
for the filling vacancies and the removal of such members.
Any compensation or reimbursement for expenses paid to Board
members shall be paid by the State, as determined by the
Governor.
SEC. ____05. PARTICIPATION IN PROJECTS.
(a) In General.--To be eligible to participate in projects
under this title, an individual shall be--
(1) receiving, eligible to receive, or have exhausted
unemployment compensation under an unemployment compensation
law of a State or of the United States,
(2) receiving, eligible to receive, or at risk of becoming
eligible to receive, assistance under a State program funded
under part A of title IV of the Social Security Act,
(3) a noncustodial parent of a child who is receiving
assistance under a State program funded under part A of title
IV of the Social Security Act,
(4) a noncustodial parent who is not employed, or
(5) an individual who--
(A) is not receiving unemployment compensation under an
unemployment compensation law of a State or of the United
States;
(B) if under the age of 20 years, has graduated from high
school or is continuing studies toward a high school
equivalency degree;
(C) has resided in the geographic area in which the project
is located for a period of at least 60 consecutive days prior
to the awarding of the project grant by the Secretary; and
(D) is a citizen of the United States.
(b) Work Activity Under Block Grants for Temporary
Assistance for Needy Families.--For purposes of section
404(c)(3) of the Social Security act, as added by section
101(b) of this Act, the term `work activity' includes
participation in a community works progress program.
SEC. ____06. MANDATORY PARTICIPATION.
Able-bodied individuals who reside in a project area and
who have received assistance under a State program funded
under part A of title IV of the Social Security Act for more
than 5 weeks shall be required to participate in a project
unless--
(1) the project has no available placements; or
(2) the individual is a single custodial parent caring for
a child age 5 or under and has a demonstrated inability to
obtain needed child care, for 1 or more of the following
reasons:
(A) Unavailability of appropriate child care within a
reasonable distance of the individual's home or work site.
(B) Unavailability or unsuitability of informal child care
by a relative or under other arrangements.
(C) Unavailability of appropriate and affordable formal
child care arrangements.
SEC. ____07. HOURS AND COMPENSATION.
(a) Determination of Compensation.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2),
project participants in a community works progress project
shall be paid the applicable Federal or State minimum wage,
whichever is greater.
(2) Exceptions.--If a participant in a community works
progress project is--
(A) eligible for benefits under a State program funded
under part A of title IV of the Social Security Act and such
benefits exceed the amount described in paragraph (1), such
participant shall be paid an amount that exceeds by 10
percent of the amount of such benefits; or
(B) eligible for benefits under an unemployment
compensation law of a State or the United States such
benefits exceed the amount described in paragraph (1), such
participant shall be paid an amount that exceeds by 10
percent the amount of such benefits.
(b) Work Requirements Related to Participation.--
(1) In general.--
(A) Maximum hours.--In order to assure that each individual
participating in a project will have time to seek alternative
employment or to participate in an alternative employability
enhancement activity, no individual may work as a participant
in a project under this title for more than 32 hours per
week.
(B) Required job search activity.--Individuals
participating in a project who are not receiving assistance
under a State program funded under part A of title IV of the
Social Security Act or unemployment compensation under an
unemployment compensation law of a State or of the United
States shall be required to participate in job search
activities on a weekly basis.
(c) Compensation for Participants.--
(1) Payments of assistance under a state program funded
under part A of title IV and unemployment compensation.--Any
State agency responsible for making a payment of benefits to
a participant in a project under a State program funded under
part A of title IV of the Social Security Act or under an
unemployment compensation law of a State or of the United
States may transfer such payment to the governmental or
nonprofit entity conducting such project and such payment
shall be made by such entity to such participant in
conjunction with any payment of compensation made under
subsection (a).
(2) Treatment of compensation or benefits under other
programs.--
(A) Higher education act of 1965.--In determining any
grant, loan, or other form of assistance for an individual
under any program under the Higher Education Act of 1965, the
Secretary of Education shall not take into consideration the
compensation and benefits received by such individual under
this section for participation in a project.
(B) Relationship to other federal benefits.--
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any compensation
or benefits received by an individual under this section for
[[Page S 13631]]
participation in a community works progress project shall be excluded
from any determination of income for the purposes of
determining eligibility for benefits under a State program
funded under part A of title IV, title XVI, and title XIX of
the Social Security Act, or any other Federal or federally
assisted program which is based on need.
(3) Supportive services.--Each participant in a project
conducted under this title shall be eligible to receive, out
of grant funds awarded to the State agency administering such
project, assistance to meet necessary costs of
transportation, child care, vision testing, eyeglasses,
uniforms and other work materials.
SEC. ____08. ADDITIONAL PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS.
(a) Nonduplication and Nondisplace- ment.--
(1) Nonduplication.--
(A) In general.--Amounts from a grant provided under this
title shall be used only for a project that does not
duplicate, and is in addition to, an activity otherwise
available in the State or unit of general local government in
which the project is carried out.
(B) Nonprofit entity.--Amounts from a grant provided to a
State under this title shall not be provided to a nonprofit
entity to conduct activities that are the same or
substantially equivalent to activities provided by a State or
local government agency in which such entity resides, unless
the requirements of paragraph (2) are met.
(2) Nondisplacement.--
(A) In general.--A governmental or nonprofit entity shall
not displace any employee or position, including partial
displacement such as reduction in hours, wages, or employment
benefits, as a result of the use by such entity of a
participant in a project funded by a grant under this title.
(B) Limitation on services.--
(i) Duplication of services.--A participant in a project
funded by a grant under this title shall not perform any
services or duties or engage in activities that would
otherwise be performed by any employee as part of the
assigned duties of such employee.
(ii) Supplantation of hiring.--A participant in a project
funded by a grant under this title shall not perform any
services or duties or engage in activities that will supplant
the hiring of other workers.
(iii) Duties formerly performed by another employee.--A
participant in a project funded by a grant under this title
shall not perform services or duties that have been performed
by or were assigned to any presently employed worker,
employee who recently resigned or was discharged, employee
who is subject to a reduction in force, employee who is on
leave (terminal, temporary, vacation, emergency, or sick), or
employee who is on strike or who is being locked out.
(b) Failure To Meet Requirements.--The Secretary may
suspend or terminate payments under this title for a project
if the Secretary determines that the governmental or
nonprofit entity conducting such project has materially
failed to comply with this title, the application submitted
under this title, or any other terms and conditions of a
grant under this title agreed to by the State agency
administering the project and the Secretary.
(c) Grievance Procedure.--
(1) In general.--Each State conducting a community works
progress program or programs under this title shall establish
and maintain a procedure for the filing and adjudication of
grievances from participants in any project conducted under
such program, labor organizations, and other interested
individuals concerning such program, including grievances
regarding proposed placements of such participants in
projects conducted under such program.
(2) Deadline for grievances.--Except for a grievance that
alleges fraud or criminal activity, a grievance under this
paragraph shall be filed not later than 6 months after the
date of the alleged occurrence of the event that is the
subject of the grievance.
(d) Testing and Education Requirements.--
(1) Testing.--Each participant in a project shall be tested
for basic reading and writing competence prior to employment
under such project.
(2) Education requirement.--
(A) Failure to satisfactorily complete test.--Participants
who fail to complete satisfactorily the basic competency test
required in paragraph (1) shall be furnished counseling and
instruction. Those participants who lack a marketable skill
must attend a technical school or community college to
acquire such a skill.
(B) Limited english.--Participants with limited English
speaking ability may be furnished such instruction as the
governmental or nonprofit entity conducting the project deems
appropriate.
(e) Completion of Projects.--
(1) In general.--A governmental or nonprofit entity
conducting a project or projects under this title shall
complete such project or projects within the 2-year period
beginning on a date determined appropriate by such entity,
the State agency administering the project, and the
Secretary.
(2) Modification.--The period referred to in paragraph (1)
may be modified in the discretion of the Secretary upon
application by the State in which a project is being
conducted.
SEC. ____09. EVALUATIONS AND REPORTS.
(a) By the State.--Each State conducting a community works
progress program or programs under this title shall conduct
ongoing evaluations of the effectiveness of such program
(including the effectiveness of such program in meeting the
goals and objectives described in the application approved by
the Secretary) and, for each year in which such program is
conducted, shall submit an annual report to the Secretary
concerning the results of such evaluations at such time, and
in such manner, as the Secretary shall require. The report
shall incorporate information from annual reports submitted
to the State by governmental and nonprofit entities
conducting projects under the program. The report shall
include an analysis of the effect of such projects on the
economic condition of the area, including their effect on
welfare dependency, the local crime rate, general business
activity (including business revenues and tax receipts), and
business and community leaders' evaluation of the projects'
success. Up to 2 percent of the amount granted to a State may
be used to conduct the evaluations required under this
subsection.
(b) By the Secretary.--The Secretary shall submit an annual
report to the Congress concerning the effectiveness of the
community works progress programs conducted under this title.
Such report shall analyze the reports received by the
Secretary under subsection (a).
SEC. ____10. EVALUATION.
Not later than October 1, 2000, the Secretary shall submit
to the Congress a comprehensive evaluation of the
effectiveness of community works progress programs in
reducing welfare dependency, crime, and teenage pregnancy in
the geographic areas in which such programs are conducted.
Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, this is an amendment offered by Senator
Brown, Senator Reid, and myself. This is an amendment which would
authorize, but not have a set-aside, four demonstration WPA-type
projects where people would be on welfare only 5 weeks. After 5 weeks,
like the WPA, the local people would pick the projects. They would have
to work 4 days a week at the minimum wage. The fifth day they would
have to be out trying to find a job in the private sector.
Why this is important is there is a tendency that is not going to
change for the demand for unskilled labor to go down, and an awful lot
of people on welfare are these people who are unskilled. We are going
to pay people ultimately either for being productive or nonproductive.
I think it makes much more sense to pay them for being productive.
And this is an amendment, I might add, that was passed last year. And
I say to the Presiding Officer that the chief sponsor was Senator
Boren. I was a cosponsor, as was Senator Reid, and I think a few others
on the other side also.
The idea is, let us have a demonstration. Let us see what we can do
if we try this. What is going to happen--and this would be a voluntary
thing--to the numbers if everyone after 5 weeks is required to work but
is paid at minimum wage.
I would hope this would be accepted. It was accepted by voice vote a
year ago. But if it is not accepted, I would require a vote on it.
Let me just add one other point while we are talking, Mr. President.
We have heard a lot about teenage pregnancy. I took some counties in
Illinois, and you see a direct correlation between teenage pregnancy
and the number of people working.
The counties in California with a population over 250,000 get the
same statistics. The same pattern is here.
If we really want to do something about teenage pregnancy, if we can
put people to work--and I think it is not simply that they are
occupied; I think it is that they have the spark of hope. Teenage
pregnancy frequently comes with hopelessness. Anyway, I think it is a
worthwhile experiment. I would hope we could move in this direction,
and I am pleased to have some supporters on that side of the aisle as
well as this side of the aisle.
I hope that we can accept this. I would be happy to answer any
questions. Otherwise, I would yield the floor at this point.
Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, my understanding is the chairman of the
Labor Committee, Senator Kassebaum, is still opposed to this amendment
even in the modified form. It sets up a demonstration project with $240
million in four States. I know the Senator from Kansas believes that
there is adequate money under AmeriCorps and other programs existing
for these kinds of projects to occur.
I do not believe the Senator will be able to make it here to debate
that. But my understanding is that we object to the amendment.
[[Page S 13632]]
Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, again, I would hope that this would be
acceptable. I understand that it will require a vote now.
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. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I yield the remainder of my time.
Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 53 seconds remaining.
Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, let me just add one other point. We talked
a lot on the floor in the Senate about the crime problem. My instinct
is, if we guarantee jobs to people and require work--not just guarantee
but require work--we will see a change in the crime rate.
You show me an area of high unemployment--black, Hispanic, white,
whatever the area--and I will show you an area of high crime. I think
this makes sense. I hope it could be accepted by the body.
Mr. President, I yield the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is all time yielded back?
Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, we would like to stack a couple of
votes, and I see the Senator from Minnesota is here to debate his two
amendments. We have one amendment I believe of the Senator from
Minnesota we can agree to related to agriculture. The second one will
require a vote. And then we still have outstanding the Bingaman
amendment which may require a vote.
How long will the Senator from Minnesota need on his first amendment
on agriculture?
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I would say to the Senator from
Pennsylvania that I can do this in less than 5 minutes.
Mr. SANTORUM. And on the second amendment there will be 10 minutes
equally divided? Ten minutes equally divided on the second amendment?
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, that is fine.
Mr. SANTORUM. Why not have the first vote at around 10 o'clock.
I would ask unanimous consent that the Simon amendment vote be
postponed until 10 o'clock.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I wonder whether I could just--I am
ready to go--suggest the absence of a quorum for 30 seconds.
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. WELLSTONE. 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 2503, As Modified
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I send an amendment as modified to the
desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the modification?
Without objection, the amendment is modified.
The amendment (No. 2503), as modified, is as follows:
On page 229, between lines 13 and 14, insert the following;
``(4) Sunset of election upon increase in number of hungry
children.--
``(A) Findings.--The Congress finds that--
``(i) on March 29, 1995 the Senate adopted a resolution
stating that Congress should not enact or adopt any
legislation that will increase the number of children who are
hungry;
``(ii) it is not the intent of this bill to cause more
children to be hungry;
``(iii) the Food Stamp Program serves to prevent child
hunger; and
``(iv) a State's election to participate in the optional
state food assistance block grant program should not serve to
increase the number of hungry children in that State.
``(B) Sunset.--If the Secretary of Health and Human
Services makes two successive findings that the hunger rate
among children in a State is significantly higher in a State
that has elected to participate in a program established
under subsection (a) than it would have been had there been
no such election, 180 days after the second such finding such
election shall be permanently and irreversibly revoked and
the provisions of paragraphs (1) and (2) shall not be
applicable to that State.
``(C) Procedure for finding by Secretary.--In making the
finding described in subparagraph (B), the Secretary shall
adhere to the following procedure:
``(i) Every three years, the Secretary shall develop data
and report to Congress with respect to each State that has
elected to participate in a program established under
subsection (a) whether the child hunger rate in such State is
significantly higher than it would have been had the State
not made such election.
``(ii) The Secretary shall provide the report required
under clause (i) to all States that have elected to
participate in a program established under subsection (a),
and the Secretary shall provide each State for which the
Secretary determined that the child hunger rate is
significantly higher than it would have been had the State
not made such election with an opportunity to respond to such
determination.
``(iii) If the response by a State under clause (ii) does
not result in the Secretary reversing the determination that
the child hunger rate in that State is significantly higher
than it would have been had the State not made such election,
then the Secretary shall publish a finding as described in
subparagraph (B).''
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, there is some history to this
amendment, and I am very pleased it has been accepted.
The history is this. Early on in this session, I came to the floor
with a sense of the Senate that we would go on record saying we would
take no action which could increase hunger or malnutrition among
children in America. That amendment was defeated several times but then
finally passed.
I believe the Senate is now on record on that question.
What this amendment says is that every 3 years, if we are going to
block grant food stamps, Health and Human Services develops data on
child hunger for each State that gets food stamps as a block grant.
What we want to look at is whether or not, after moving to block
grants, the malnutrition and hunger among children goes up. HHS reports
back the data to Congress and also sends a report out to the States and
gives States a chance to respond. But if Health and Human Services
finds out, based upon this survey--and it is two 3-year increments, as
a matter of fact--States have gone to block granting and what has
happened is you have seen an increase in hunger among children, then in
fact it is no longer a block grant and it goes back to the Federal Food
Stamp Program with the national standards.
Mr. President, I think this is a kind of proof-in-the pudding
amendment. If in fact there are no problems, then there are no
problems, and I certainly would assume that is exactly what Senators
hope for.
My view is that we could very well be making a terrible mistake. My
view is that we are coming very close, or we have I think moved away
from a fundamental idea that there is a minimal role for the Federal
Government in making sure that every child in America, no matter how
poor, no matter from what family, no matter in what region of the
United States of America, has some minimal level of assistance. This is
an amendment that I think provides some check on that.
I thank my colleagues on the other side for accepting this amendment,
and I urge its approval.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator yield back his time?
Mr. WELLSTONE. I would be pleased to.
Mr. SANTORUM. I yield back the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back. The question is on
agreeing to amendment 2503, as modified.
The amendment (No. 2503), as modified, was agreed to.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. SANTORUM. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Amendment No. 2505
Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I think we now move to the next
Wellstone amendment and the Senator should proceed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under a previous order, there will now be 10
minutes of debate equally divided on the Wellstone amendment No. 2505
to be followed by a vote on or in relation to the amendment.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I call up amendment 2505.
Mr. President, I think the best way for me to proceed on this--and I
must say to my colleagues, I am actually puzzled; this is the amendment
that I thought would be accepted without any
[[Page S 13633]]
question--is to let me go through the findings.
Findings. The potential loss of Medicaid coverage
represents a large disincentive for welfare recipients to
accept jobs that offer no health insurance.
Mr. President, we all know that one of the problems when a mother
wants to move from welfare to workfare is that quite often without any
kind of transitional support from Medicaid she is worse off than she
was before and just as importantly her children are worse off. Please
remember, of the 15 million AFDC population, 9 million are children.
Whereas thousands of the Nation's employers continue to
find the cost of health care out of reach; whereas the
percentage of working people who receive health insurance
from their employer has dipped to its lowest point since the
1980's; and whereas children are the largest proportion of
the increase in the number of uninsured in recent years, it
is the sense of the Senate . . .
I am really puzzled by the opposition. I would say this to Senators,
that any Medicaid reform enacted by the Senate this year should require
that States continue to provide Medicaid for 12 months to families that
lose eligibility for welfare benefits because of more earnings or hours
of employment.
Mr. President, we have said in this health care reform bill that we
will have an extension of Medicaid for a year. This sense-of-the-Senate
amendment just says the Senate will do what it says it is going to do.
I do not understand how there could be any opposition to this
amendment. We have said that real welfare reform means there has to be
this transition and there are all these proposed cuts in Medicaid. And
so what this amendment just says is look, when we take up Medicaid
separately, we go on record that the Senate will make sure that with
that Medicaid funding there will be 1 year of transitional support.
I say to all of my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans alike, we
cannot have it both ways. We cannot say that we are in favor of and we
know we must provide some transitional coverage so that women and
children are not in worse shape because of reform, and make a
commitment to do that and now vote against the sense-of-the-Senate
amendment that says we will do what we said we were going to do.
Mr. President, how much time do I have?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 2\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. WELLSTONE. I will reserve the remainder of my time to maybe get a
sense--I am puzzled why this amendment has not been accepted.
Mr. SANTORUM addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, the opposition on this side lies in the
fact that right now we are in negotiations trying to deal with the
problem of Medicaid and trying to come up with solutions that will
provide services, health care services to the poor in our country and
at the same time come within the reconciliation targets that are set.
And we believe that if one of the options that is available to us, as
has been discussed openly, is the idea of a block grant. A block grant
would in fact give flexibility to the States to design their own
program. And we would not be able in that situation to guarantee a
transitional benefit.
So, what we want to do is maintain the flexibility for us to deal
with this issue in a way that the Senate can come together to try to
provide these services, health care services for the poor in our
society. And one of the options on the table that we do not obviously
want to foreclose is the option of doing a block grant to States to
have them provide services. In fact, what we have seen in States that
have gotten waivers, which would, in a sense, be similar to a block
grant, States like Tennessee where we have seen a dramatic increase in
the number of people covered--the Senator from Tennessee, who I do not
know if he is around or on the floor, but Senator Frist was one of the
principal architects of the Tenn care plan that provided this
flexibility, this flexibility from the Federal level, but allowed
Tennessee to redesign their Medicaid Program to cover more people. In
fact, more people are covered under Medicaid now in Tennessee and at
less cost.
So we have seen State experiments that have worked in reducing health
care costs and covering more people on Medicaid. And we do not want to
foreclose that option for States to be able to do that in the future.
And that is the reason we oppose the amendment.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Will the Senator yield for a question?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. SANTORUM. Yes.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Is the Senator saying there is a possibility that we
would rescind what we have stated is a major provision of this welfare
reform bill, namely, the requirement that States extend the Medicaid
coverage for a year? Is that what the Senator is saying, that we may
very well rescind what we have now passed?
Mr. SANTORUM. I think the Senator from Minnesota knows very well
there are discussions with respect to Medicaid and those discussions
should not be foreclosed by action taken by the Senate.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Well, Mr. President, then what my colleague from
Pennsylvania has said is that this amendment----
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator yield further?
Mr. SANTORUM. I do not yield further.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator reserve the remainder of his
time?
Mr. SANTORUM. Yes.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, this is amazing. I want people in the
country to understand this. We have said we are going to have this
welfare reform, it is not going to be punitive. We changed this for the
better. States will be required to carry Medicaid for 1 year. I have a
sense of the Senate that makes it clear that in the Medicaid debate
that comes up we make a commitment that we will do what we said we
would do.
And now I hear my colleague from Pennsylvania say, we may very well
turn around and not do that. My amendment asks the Senate to go on
record that we will do what we have said we are going to do in this
piece of legislation. And now I have colleagues that equivocate on this
question and say, you know what? This might be a sham. We say we are
going to have transitional coverage to make sure that women and
children are not hurt, but that is just for now. When it comes to the
Medicaid debate, we may very well take away that funding.
I do not think the Senators can have it both ways. Are we not going
to live up to our word as is now stated in this provision of this piece
of legislation? I hope my colleagues will overwhelmingly support this
amendment because this is all about the Senate's integrity. Are we for
what we say we are for? Will we live up to our commitment?
Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative 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. I will yield back the remainder of our time.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, how much time do I have left?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 58 seconds left.
Mr. WELLSTONE. For every Senator that is going to vote on this, I am
puzzled. This amendment says:
It is the sense of the Senate that any Medicaid reform
enacted by the Senate this year should require that States
continue to provide Medicaid for 12 months to families who
lose eligibility for welfare benefits because of more
earnings or hours of employment.
That is exactly what we said we are going to do for reform in this
bill. Otherwise, there will not be any funding and then this will be
truly punitive.
So we should go on record voting for what we said we were going to
do. I hope every Senator will vote for this amendment.
I yield back the remainder of my time.
Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
[[Page S 13634]]
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Amendment No. 2484
Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, it is my understanding that we have not
been able to reach an agreement on the Bingaman amendment, which would
then require a rollcall vote. I do not see anybody else on our side
looking for time. All I would suggest is, the Bingaman amendment deals
with a subject we have dealt with in the Daschle-Dole compromise. The
Daschle-Dole compromise provided $100 million for drug treatment over
the next 2 years. It was a compromise between what Senator Cohen and
Senator Bingaman had sought, which was $100 million per year. We came
up with $100 million over the next 2 years. It was intended to be a
compromise.
As compromises are, we compromise, and hopefully when you compromise
you do not go forward and offer the amendment that we compromised on.
But, unfortunately, that has occurred in this case. It is going to cost
$300 million more for this drug treatment. And I hope that, given the
fact that this bill is far under the reconciliation target that we need
to meet to balance the budget, this is another $300 million that we
will have to take out of Medicaid or Medicare or somewhere else in the
Finance Committee. And I think the Finance Committee has a hard enough
burden as it is without adding more money for drug treatment for
people, for people who are taken care of with $50 million a year for
the first 2 years.
Obviously, this is something that we can come back and visit in the
future. But we are well over. And I hope that Senators will recognize
that we have got some tough decisions to make in the future. This is
going to make it much tougher.
I yield back the remainder of my time.
I ask unanimous consent that votes occur in the order in which they
were debated, starting at 10 a.m.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 2484, As Modified
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, could I ask a question of the manager?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, we have made some modification in the
amendment to accommodate concerns that were raised on the other side.
Is it permissible for me to send the modification of the amendment and
have that voted on?
Mr. SANTORUM. Reserving the right to object----
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is seeking unanimous consent to
modify his amendment?
Mr. BINGAMAN. Yes. I do seek unanimous consent to modify the
amendment.
Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, 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. 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, we have no objection to the modification
of the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is modified.
The amendment, as modified, is as follows:
On page 127, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following
new subsection:
(d) Supplemental Funding for Alcohol and Substance Abuse
Treatment Programs.--
(1) In general.--Out of any money in the Treasury not
otherwise appropriated, there are hereby appropriated to
supplement State and Tribal programs funded under section
1933 of the Public Health Service Act, $100,000,000 for each
of the fiscal years 1997 through 2000.
(2) Additional funds.--Amounts appropriated under paragraph
(1) shall be in addition to any funds otherwise appropriated
for allotments under section 1933 of the Public Health
Service Act and shall be allocated pursuant to such section
1933.
(3) Use of funds.--A State or Tribal government receiving
an allotment under this subsection shall consider as
priorities, for purposes of expending funds allotted under
this subsection, activities relating to the treatment of the
abuse of alcohol and other drugs.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the
modified amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is all time yielded back?
Mr. SANTORUM. I yield back the remainder of the our time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. the question is on agreeing to the Bingaman
amendment No. 2484, as modified.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. LOTT. I announce that the Senator from Utah [Mr. Hatch] is
necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. DeWine). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 41, nays 58, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 429 Leg.]
YEAS--41
Akaka
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Bradley
Bryan
Bumpers
Cohen
Conrad
Dodd
Dorgan
Exon
Feinstein
Ford
Glenn
Graham
Harkin
Heflin
Hollings
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnston
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Mikulski
Moseley-Braun
Murray
Nunn
Pell
Pryor
Reid
Robb
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Simon
Wellstone
NAYS--58
Abraham
Ashcroft
Baucus
Bennett
Bond
Breaux
Brown
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Chafee
Coats
Cochran
Coverdell
Craig
D'Amato
Daschle
DeWine
Dole
Domenici
Faircloth
Feingold
Frist
Gorton
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hatfield
Helms
Hutchison
Inhofe
Kassebaum
Kempthorne
Kohl
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Moynihan
Murkowski
Nickles
Packwood
Pressler
Roth
Santorum
Shelby
Simpson
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Warner
NOT VOTING--1
Hatch
So the amendment (No. 2484) was rejected.
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the next two votes
be 10-minute votes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the next two votes will be
10-minute votes.
Vote on Amendment 2468, as Modified
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the Simon
amendment, No. 2468, as modified.
The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 37, nays 63, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 430 Leg.]
YEAS--37
Akaka
Boxer
Bradley
Breaux
Brown
Bryan
Bumpers
Byrd
Conrad
Daschle
Dodd
Dorgan
Feingold
Feinstein
Harkin
Heflin
Hollings
Inouye
Johnston
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Lautenberg
Levin
Lieberman
Mikulski
Moseley-Braun
Murray
Nunn
Pell
Pryor
Reid
Robb
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Simon
Wellstone
NAYS--63
Abraham
Ashcroft
Baucus
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Burns
Campbell
Chafee
Coats
Cochran
Cohen
Coverdell
Craig
D'Amato
DeWine
Dole
Domenici
Exon
Faircloth
Ford
Frist
Glenn
Gorton
Graham
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hatch
Hatfield
Helms
Hutchison
Inhofe
Jeffords
Kassebaum
Kempthorne
Kerrey
Kyl
Leahy
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Moynihan
Murkowski
Nickles
Packwood
Pressler
Roth
Santorum
Shelby
Simpson
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Warner
So the amendment (No. 2468), as modified, was rejected.
Vote on Amendment No. 2505
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now occurs on the Wellstone
[[Page S 13635]]
amendment, No. 2505. On this question, the yeas and nays have been
ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
who desire to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 49, nays 51, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 431 Leg.]
YEAS--49
Akaka
Baucus
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Bradley
Breaux
Bryan
Bumpers
Byrd
Cohen
Conrad
Daschle
Dodd
Dorgan
Exon
Feingold
Feinstein
Ford
Glenn
Graham
Harkin
Heflin
Hollings
Inouye
Johnston
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Mikulski
Moseley-Braun
Moynihan
Murray
Nunn
Pell
Pryor
Reid
Robb
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Simon
Snowe
Specter
Wellstone
NAYS--51
Abraham
Ashcroft
Bennett
Bond
Brown
Burns
Campbell
Chafee
Coats
Cochran
Coverdell
Craig
D'Amato
DeWine
Dole
Domenici
Faircloth
Frist
Gorton
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hatch
Hatfield
Helms
Hutchison
Inhofe
Jeffords
Kassebaum
Kempthorne
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nickles
Packwood
Pressler
Roth
Santorum
Shelby
Simpson
Smith
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Warner
So the amendment (No. 2505) was rejected.
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. SANTORUM. 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.
Amendment No. 2550
Mr. DOLE. I ask we temporarily set aside the Kennedy amendment No.
2564 and move to the Kohl amendment No. 2550.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Under the previous order, there will now be 10 minutes of debate
equally divided on the Kohl amendment No. 2550, followed by a vote on
or in relation to the amendment.
Mr. KOHL. I thank the Chair.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent at this time that Senator
Leahy be added as an original cosponsor to this amendment No. 2550.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, we should not need to debate this amendment
for very long. It is straightforward. This amendment would exempt the
food stamp benefits that go to children, the elderly and disabled from
the optional State block grant program set up in the bill.
I want to emphasize to my colleagues that the House in its welfare
reform bill did not choose to block grant food stamps at all.
The argument for this amendment is simple. If it is not broke, do not
fix it. Welfare is broke, financially and philosophically, but by
``welfare,'' what we have always meant are the federally driven
programs that pay benefits to able-bodied adults who are not working.
Most of us and most Americans want to see the welfare programs
redesigned to emphasize moving recipients to work rather than paying
them to stay home. And many of us believe that such work-based welfare
programs can best be managed at the State and local level where
officials understand the local economy and the specific needs of those
in the community who are without jobs.
But Federal nutrition programs that serve the elderly, the disabled
and children are not broken. In all the meetings that I have held
throughout Wisconsin on welfare reform, no one has complained to me
about Federal programs that have provided a hot meal to elderly
retirees or a school lunch to children. No one has suggested that we
ought to make these populations work for their food stamps.
So we should not lump food stamps to the elderly, disabled and the
children in with the welfare programs that so many Americans want
ended. In ending welfare as we know it, we should not end successful
nutrition programs that keep our children, the disabled, and the
elderly from going hungry. This amendment would still leave States with
the ability to take as a block grant food stamps and money that go to
adults that can and should work. However, children, the elderly, and
the disabled would retain the assurance that nutritional assistance and
Federal nutrition standards will be there when they are needed. And,
again, I want to remind my colleagues that the House did not block
grant food stamps at all.
This amendment has been endorsed by the Children's Defense Fund, the
Food Research & Action Center, and Bread for the World. I ask unanimous
consent that letters I have in support from these antihunger groups be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Bread for the World (A Christian Citizens' Movement in
the USA),
Silver Spring, MD, September 11, 1995.
Dear Senator Kohl: Bread for the World, a nation-wide
Christian citizen's movement against hunger, opposes the
optional food stamps block grant found in the Work
Opportunity Act of 1995, S. 1120. We hope there will be
attempts to remove the Food Stamps Program from the welfare
reform legislation and urge you to support an amendment that
would do so. However, in the absence of such an amendment, we
would support your amendment to exempt children, the elderly
and disabled from the optional food stamps block grant.
Current nutrition programs need to be strengthened in order
to assure access to a nutritious diet for every person. Bread
for the World supports proposals by the Department of
Agriculture to make improvements in the Food Stamp Program.
But deep funding cuts and the option to block grant would
inevitably spawn more hunger in this country, particularly
for children.
The Food Stamps Program is this nation's leading defense
against hunger in this country and ensures those in need
access to an adequate diet. The program targets some of the
most vulnerable members of society, including children and
elderly persons. Over eighty percent of benefits go to
households with children and sixteen percent of food stamp
households contain at least one elderly person.
Tufts University released a study in July of this year
showing that the federal Food Stamp Program greatly impacts
diets of poor children in this country. The study found that
food stamp participation reduces dietary deficiencies among
poor children by 30-50% for certain nutrients, and over 70%
for others. Over half of all food stamp recipients are
children.
We strongly believe that federal standards on eligibility
and benefit levels are important to the food stamps program
to ensure it is available on an equitable basis for all who
need it. However, at the very minimum, we must as a nation
ensure that our children do not go hungry.
Sincerely,
David Beckmann,
President.
____
Food Research
& Action Center,
Washington, DC, September 11, 1995.
Dear Senator: We write to urge your support for the Kohl
amendment to S. 1120 (amendment #2550) which could exempt the
elderly, disabled persons, and children from the proposed
optional food stamp block grant. FRAC supports this amendment
as necessary to protect the ability of the Food Stamp Program
to serve the most vulnerable in our society.
FRAC strongly opposes the optional food stamp block grant
as it would eliminate the assurance of assistance for all
eligible persons in need when they need assistance. The Food
Stamp Program has been successful in alleviating hunger
precisely because of its ability to respond automatically,
especially in times of recession or natural disaster.
It is because of the vital role the Food Stamp Program
plays in feeding the most vulnerable among us, particularly
children, the elderly and the disabled, that FRAC strongly
supports the amendment to exclude these populations from a
block grant. We thank you for your consideration.
The Food Research and Action Center.
____
Children's Defense Fund,
Washington, DC, September 12, 1995.
Hon. Herb Kohl,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Kohl: I am writing in support of your
amendment, #2550, to the welfare reform bill currently being
debated on the Senate floor. The amendment would exempt
children and people who are elderly or disabled from the
proposed optional food stamp block grant.
While we oppose the proposed optional food stamp block
grant, if the block grant is passed this amendment would be a
significant step in the right direction towards protecting
vulnerable children from hunger.
Thank you for your leadership on this issue.
Sincerely yours,
Marian Wright Edelman.
[[Page S 13636]]
Mr. KOHL. So, Mr. President, I urge the Senate to support this change
to guarantee that children, the elderly, and the disabled do not go
hungry. I urge my colleagues to support the Kohl-Leahy amendment.
I thank the President.
Mr. SANTORUM addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SANTORUM. Aside from the administrative nightmare that would be
created for the States to give them a block grant for some people and
an entitlement for others and the administrative problem, this costs
$1.4 billion over the next 7 years.
As we have said many times, we are well under our reconciliation
targets. This is money that is going to have to come out of other
programs. We simply cannot afford this amendment. I urge rejection of
the Kohl amendment.
____________________