[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.

                          ____________________