[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 144 (Friday, September 15, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S13636-S13653]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                      FAMILY SELF-SUFFICIENCY ACT

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
  Mr. SANTORUM. I yield back the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I would like to emphasize to my colleagues 
that the House, which passed a very small welfare reform bill, which in 
many respects is really good, took a look at food stamps. They decided 
that the country could not afford, from a humanitarian and social point 
of view, to block grant food stamps at all.
  Now we have decided we should block grant food stamps. I agree that 
for the population that we are attempting to move from welfare into 
work we should block grant food stamps and be very different how we 
parcel out food stamps. But when we talk about children, the disabled, 
and the elderly, to block grant food stamps, it seems to me, is not 
what welfare reform is all about and not what we are trying to 
accomplish here. And that is why I am arguing that this population 
should be exempt from having their food stamps block granted and 
ultimately rationed out to them when that is not the intention of what 
this welfare reform bill is to accomplish.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I have no quarrel with the Senator from 
Wisconsin, but it is about $1.4 billion. We tried to accommodate some 
of the concerns on child care. And we have lost some savings on this 
side. And every time we accommodate one of these amendments, it means 
we are going to have to cut somewhere else in Medicare to reach the 
budget request because I understand we are going to be scored on this 
next week. And we are going to have to take our lumps, because we have 
made some accommodations.
  So I hope we can defeat this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Does the Senator yield back his time?
  Mr. KOHL. I yielded back my time.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 2550

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back. All time has 
expired.
  The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 2550.
  Mr. KOHL. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 47, nays 53, as follows:
                      [Rollcall Vote No. 432 Leg.]

                                YEAS--47

     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
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Murray
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Wellstone

                                NAYS--53

     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
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     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. 2550) was rejected.
                    Amendment No. 2564, As Modified

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 10 
minutes of debate equally divided on the Kennedy amendment No. 2564, as 
modified, to be followed by a vote on or in relation to the amendment.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, as I understand it, I think we can accept 
the amendment by the Senator from Massachusetts.
  I ask unanimous consent that the amendment by Senator Gramm be 
modified.
  I send the modification to the desk.
  Mr. HARKIN. Reserving the right to object. I might ask the leader, 
this is a modification of what?
  Mr. DOLE. Of an amendment Senator Gramm will offer and have a 
rollcall vote on. It is a modification suggested by Senator Kassebaum, 
chairman of the Labor Committee.
  Mr. HARKIN. May I review that first? I reserve the right to object.
  Mr. GRAMM. We are going to vote on it and debate it.
  Mr. HARKIN. I would like to look at it.
  Mr. DOLE. We have been letting everybody modify their amendments on 
that side, I might say.
  Mr. HARKIN. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                    Amendment No. 2617, As Modified

  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I renew the request with reference to Gramm 
amendment No. 2617. I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be so 
modified.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 2617), as modified, is as follows.
       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC.   . RESTRICTIONS ON TAXPAYER FINANCED LEGAL CHALLENGES.

       (a) In General.--No legal aid organization or other entity 
     that provides legal services and which receives Federal funds 
     may challenge (or act as an attorney on behalf of any party 
     who seeks to challenge) in any legal proceeding--
       (1) the legal validity--
       (A) under the United States Constitution--
       (i) of this Act or any regulations promulgated under this 
     Act; and
       (ii) of any law or regulation enacted as promulgated by a 
     State pursuant to this Act;
       (B) under this Act or any regulation adopted under this Act 
     of any State law or regulation; and
       (C) under any State Constitution of any law or regulation 
     enacted or promulgated by a State pursuant to this Act; and
       (2) the conflict--
       (A) of this Act or any regulations promulgated under this 
     Act with any other law or regulation of the United States; 
     and
       (B) of any law or regulation, enacted or promulgated by a 
     State pursuant to this Act with any law or regulation of the 
     United States.
       (b) Legal Proceeding Defined.--For purposes of this 
     section, the term ``legal proceeding'' includes--
       (1) a proceeding--
       (A) in a court of the United States;
       (B) in a court of a State; and
       (C) in an administrative hearing in a Federal or State 
     agency; and
       (2) any activities related to the commencement of a 
     proceeding described in subparagraph (A).
     
[[Page S 13637]]



                    amendment no. 2564, as modified

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I send a modification to the desk of my 
amendment No. 2564.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has that right. The amendment is 
so modified.
  The amendment (No. 2564), as modified, is as follows:

       On page 292, line 5, strike ``and''.
       On page 292, line 11, strike the period and insert a 
     semicolon.
       On page 292, between lines 11 and 12, insert the following 
     new subparagraphs:
       ``(F) the Head Start program (42 U.S.C. 9801); and
       (G) programs specified by the Attorney General, in the 
     Attorney General's sole and unreviewable discretion after 
     consultation with appropriate Federal agencies and 
     departments, which (i) delivers services at the community 
     level, including through public or private nonprofit 
     agencies; (ii) do not condition the provision of assistance, 
     the amount of assistance provided, or the cost of assistance 
     provided on the individual recipient's income or resources; 
     and (iii) are necessary for the protection of life, safety, 
     or public health.''

  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, we are prepared to accept the Kennedy 
amendment No. 2564, as modified.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Do the Senators wish to debate the amendment?
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I want to thank the Senator from Wyoming 
for his able assistance in working out this compromise.
  Mr. President, we all agree that illegal aliens should not be 
eligible for Federal programs. The only exception is when the 
assistance is in the nature of emergency services. Both the Dole bill 
and the Democratic bill underscore this policy.
  But the situation is very different with respect to legal immigrants. 
They are lawfully in this country, and they make substantial 
contributions to our communities and to our Nation. They work, they 
create jobs, they pay taxes, they promote family values, and they 
contribute to the sciences, the arts and culture.
  In fact, legal immigrants contribute $25 to $35 billion more in taxes 
each year than they take out in services, including the educational 
costs of their children.
  We all want to get tough on illegal immigration. But the Dole 
proposal does so in a way that turns countless churches, synagogues, 
and community groups into immigration police. If they receive 
Government funds to operate soup kitchens, food pantries, battered 
women's shelters, rape crisis centers, and many other community 
services, they must now check a needy client's immigration status 
before they can provide assistance.
  This means that priests, ministers, rabbis, social workers, teachers, 
family crisis counselors, and community health workers must become 
immigration police and check for green cards before they can offer help 
or carry out their humanitarian work.
  Imagine a shattered young girl, brutally raped and requiring 
immediate care and counseling at a rape crisis center. If the center is 
even partially funded with Government money, under this bill, the 
center must first determine if the traumatized young victim is a 
citizen or noncitizen. They must find out whether she is here legally 
or illegally. If she is illegal, they can't help her.
  In addition, if she is a legal immigrant, they must determine if she 
has a sponsor, find out what the sponsor's income is, and determine 
whether deeming the sponsor's income makes her eligible or ineligible 
for Government-funded help.
  This same lengthy and complicated process would be repeated countless 
times all across the country. Priests must check the immigration status 
of the homeless and hungry at church soup kitchens. Social workers must 
check the status of battered women seeking protection. Teachers must 
check the status of children enrolling in Head Start programs. Rabbis 
must check the status of the elderly for assistance to the homebound.
  For example, in 1993, Catholic charities provided services to needy 
people across America--citizens and nonciti- zens alike--including food 
pantries, soup kitchens, homeless shelters, family counseling programs, 
and other valuable community assistance. More than 60 percent of the 
funding for these services came from Federal, State, and local 
governments. This assistance is provided on the basis of need. As a 
result, under the Dole bill, Catholic Charities would be required to 
check immigration status before they help anyone.
  We all agree that Head Start programs give children an effective 
early start toward a more successful and fulfilling future. But under 
the Dole bill, Head Start teachers would have to check children's green 
cards before they enter the program.
  The Department of Health and Human Services offers a partial list of 
noncash programs under its jurisdiction which would be affected by the 
harsh features of the Dole bill. Significant portions of these programs 
are administered by community-based organizations, churches, and other 
nonprofit groups, who would be required by the bill to check the 
immigration status of their clients. The list includes:
  Programs serving abused and neglected children and preventing family 
and domestic violence. Programs providing critical public health 
services to women and children, including maternal and child health.
  Early childhood development programs. Youth development and violence 
prevention programs.
  The Dole bill exempts school lunches, WIC, emergency Medicaid and 
certain other noncash programs. But if we are to avoid forcing the 
Nation's clergy and teachers and social workers to become immigration 
police by demanding green cards of their clients, we need to do more.
  Rather than list individually the additional programs which should be 
exempted from the bill, my amendment leaves the decision to the 
Attorney General in consultation with the head of the agency or 
department administering the assistance program. In that way, before a 
program is exempted from the bill, the law enforcement perspective of 
the Attorney General, together with the benefits perspective of the 
agency providing the assistance, will determine the decision.
  I believe my amendment represents a responsible compromise on this 
issue, and I urge its adoption.
  Mr. SIMPSON. As I understand it, this amendment is intended to cover 
those few programs involving little cost in which an individual income 
determination is not required.
  Mr. KENNEDY. That is correct. My amendment is intended to cover 
programs which are in the interest of the community and are needed for 
the fundamental health or safety of the immigrant or the community. In 
giving the authority to make the determination to the Attorney General, 
it is my expectation that decisions regarding which programs to 
designate under this authority will be made with immigration law 
enforcement interests in mind as well.
  The kinds of program which I would envision being designated under 
this amendment are soup kitchens, battered women's shelters, rape 
crisis centers, and other similar programs. It will not cover 
entitlement programs.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the Kennedy 
amendment No. 2564, as modified.
  The amendment (No. 2564), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. DOLE. The next amendment is by Senator Simon and Senator Graham 
of Florida.


                           Amendment No. 2509

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 10 
minutes of debate, equally divided, on the Simon-Graham amendment No. 
2509, to be followed on a vote on or in relation to the amendment.
  Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, if I may have the attention of the floor 
manager on this, Senator Graham of Florida has become a chief sponsor 
of this amendment and is trying to work out an amendment. I do not know 
whether he is successful in that or not.
  I yield to the Senator from Florida.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, as my colleague has just explained, the 
basic thrust of this amendment is to maintain the status quo and the 
rules of the game under which those people who are currently in the 
country as legal immigrants, playing by the rules as they were at the 
time they entered the country, particularly as it relates to 

[[Page S 13638]]
that group of legal immigrants who are attending educational 
institutions and depend upon their access to things like guaranteed 
loans to be able to finance their education. There has been some 
discussion of possibly limiting the scope of this amendment to be more 
specifically focused on that one issue. As of this point, there does 
not appear to be interest in that limitation. But I will state to my 
colleagues that that is an extremely important part of what this 
legislation would do.
  It really means the ability for thousands of students across the 
country to be able to continue their education and continue their 
pursuit of the American dream--coming to America, getting an education, 
becoming a fully self-supporting citizen.
  I yield to my colleague.
  Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I ask for the attention of my colleagues 
here. Every change we have made in immigration in the past has been 
prospective, not retroactive. That is the way it should be. To say that 
if, for example, Senator DeWine was the chief sponsor for an immigrant 
named Senator Ford, and he agrees to be responsible for 3 years, that 
is the way it should be. When we change that to 5 years, we should do 
it prospectively, not retroactively. That is No. 1.
  The second point is that we should not go back to Senator DeWine and 
say, sorry, you agreed to 3 years, now we are going to make it 5.
  This is the point the Senator from Florida has made which is very 
important. There are thousands of students who are legal immigrants in 
this country, who are going to become citizens, and without this 
amendment, they cannot get any benefits in this country, and they are 
going to have to leave school. Without this amendment, they lose all 
education assistance. I do not think that makes sense for this country. 
So I am pleased to cosponsor this amendment with Senator Graham. I 
think it is important, and I hope it will be adopted.
  Mr. GRAHAM. How much time remains, Mr. President?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 1 minute 35 seconds.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I would like to reserve that to close.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, we have a matter involving the Senator from 
Wyoming, Senator Simpson. He will be here momentarily. We are also 
trying to determine the cost of this amendment. I understand it is 
about half a billion dollars.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, might I inquire as to the time for the 
Senator from Wyoming?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming has 4 minutes and 29 
seconds.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, again, as in last night's activity, a 
difficult and emotional issue, couched in the terms of immigration and 
welfare--either we do something or we do not. It is very simple.
  The Dole welfare reform bill would for 5 years require the deeming of 
a sponsor's income and resources in the case of a sponsored immigrant 
seeking public assistance. Immigration law is riddled with 
compassionate loopholes and people are fed up.
  We must place sensible controls on these continuing conditions or 
Americans will be in terminable compassion fatigue.
  This 5-year deeming period is consistent with the 5-year deeming 
period for SSI, which we did last year. It is exactly the same as that 
5 years. It is exactly the 5-year deeming period for AFDC and food 
stamps proposed by the President of the United States in his own 
welfare reform bill, the President's proposal. The sponsor's assets and 
income are deemed to be those of the immigrants when you come to the 
United States.
  The only immigrants affected by this 5-year deeming period are those 
who have already entered within the last 5 years and who apply for or 
are already receiving public assistance of some form or amount. Please 
hear that. Remember, please--and you cannot miss this point--the people 
who are admitted as immigrants to the United States, to this very 
generous land, are here only after their sponsors convinced the visa 
officer that the immigrant would not require public assistance at any 
time--not just for 5 years or the first 3 years or any year, but at any 
time, and that they would not become a public charge.
  Under the Graham-Simon amendment, sponsored immigrants who have 
entered within the past 5 years could continue to receive assistance 
under programs which they already benefit and could apply for and 
receive assistance under many other programs immediately, and several 
others in less than 3 years.
  Most other Americans would certainly question that fairness, when 
their own children cannot get in those programs because they happen to 
be native born.
  Keep in mind, now, these persons were admitted only--only--because 
they were able to convince, to make a promise to the visa officer that 
they would not become a public charge, and the law says ``at any 
time.''
  This amendment would therefore have the purpose of relieving the 
immigrants and his or her sponsor from that promised obligation to give 
the required assistance, and the good old American taxpayers would then 
take over to the tune of $623 million over 5 years.
  I want to emphasize that clearly again. Before an immigrant can be 
admitted, it must be established that he or she is not likely to become 
a public charge, that the real contract the immigrant and the sponsor 
have with the American people, the real promise of America, is keeping 
promises. Whether the affidavit of support is for 3 years or 5 years is 
much beside the point. The understanding was the immigrant would not 
become a burden on the public of the United States, especially not in 
his first 5 years in the United States.
  What would the American taxpayers say if they knew we were admitting 
persons as immigrants who they knew would then be covered under this 
amendment, would be able to receive public assistance so soon after 
their arrival, even within 3 years?
  My colleague from Florida is honestly concerned about college 
students in his State who are recent immigrants who may want to receive 
public-funded college assistance. It is good and in our national 
interest that the newcomers seek to improve themselves through 
additional education and training, but the agreement of admission, the 
promise made was that the immigrants and his or her sponsor would take 
care of the cost of that education and not the American taxpayers.
  A sponsor is a sponsor is a sponsor. If the Senator says that we must 
maintain the status quo and not change the rules of the game, there is 
a good way to do it: reject this amendment because the rule of the game 
is the newcomer must be self-supported, not likely at any time to 
become a public charge. Those are the words of the immigration law.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida has 1 minute and 25 
seconds. All time is expired on the other side.
  Mr. GRAHAM. This amendment keeps the status quo, particularly as it 
relates to students who are using Federal programs, such as the 
guaranteed student loan to continue their education.
  The Senator from Wyoming talks about holding sponsors responsible. If 
we had been able to hold sponsors responsible, we would not have to 
have the change in the law that is contained in the underlying 
amendment. The fact is that we have a policy which has been to set a 
period of time within which we would deem the sponsors' income. We are 
now about to change that in a prospective manner.
  Our previous policies relative to changing immigration law as it 
relates to legal immigrants have always been to do it for the future, 
not to change the rules of the game for those people who are here in 
America today.
  I believe this goes to two fundamental principles. One is we play by 
the rules of the game as those rules were set when the game begins. If 
you change the rules, you do it for the next game.
  Second, we want to encourage these people to get an education so that 
they can become, to the maximum possible extent, participants in the 
American dream, participants in building their families, communities, 
and this Nation.
  I urge the adoption of this amendment. 

[[Page S 13639]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired. The question is on 
agreeing to the Simon-Gramm amendment No. 2509. The yeas and nays have 
been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. I announce that the Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens] is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 35, nays 64, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 433 Leg.]

                                YEAS--35

     Akaka
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bumpers
     Chafee
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Feinstein
     Glenn
     Graham
     Hatfield
     Inouye
     Johnston
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mack
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pryor
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Specter
     Wellstone

                                NAYS--64

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bond
     Bradley
     Brown
     Bryan
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Exon
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Ford
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Packwood
     Pressler
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Stevens
       
  So the amendment (No. 2509) was rejected.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
amendment was rejected.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2568

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 10 
minutes of debate equally divided on the Graham amendment No. 2568 to 
be followed by a vote on or in relation to the amendment.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Pryor 
be added as a cosponsor of this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, the structure of this bill establishes 
objectives that States are to meet, particularly in the area of 
placement of people in work, 25 percent in 1996 rising to 50 percent in 
the year 2000. Those are laudable objectives.
  There are also some very serious sanctions against States that do not 
meet those objectives. A State is subject, for instance, to losing 5 
percent of its Federal grant if in any year it fails to meet the 
standard that has been set.
  What is the problem? The problem is that we are distributing to 
States wildly different amounts of Federal resources in which to meet 
those consistent objectives. We are telling, for instance, the State of 
Mississippi that it will have to use 88 percent of its Federal money in 
order to meet the mandates of this bill. Other States will be able to 
meet the mandates for less than 35 percent of the Federal money that 
will be made available.
  That seems inherently unfair, to have 50 States, each of which has a 
much different position at the starting line in terms of the kind of 
support they are going to meet but then say that each one has to get to 
the finish line at exactly the same point and, if they fail to do so, 
be subject to significant financial personality.
  What this amendment says is that the Secretary of HHS should look at 
the national standards and make adjustments based on the amount of 
Federal support that each State will receive and the number of minor 
children in poverty in that State, so that if we are going to have the 
starting line different from State to State we at least ought to have 
the finish line adjusted to those States' realistic capabilities. If we 
do not do this, I can tell you without question there are going to be 
substantial numbers of States that will be almost subject to automatic 
penalty. There will be virtually no chance that they can reach the same 
finish line, the same standard, for instance, of job placement, with 
the heavy commitments that that means in terms of training, support 
services, and child care, as the more advantaged States.
  It is a simple, straightforward amendment of fairness.
  I urge its adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. SANTORUM addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I hope Members listen to this because 
this is a gutting amendment. I heard a lot of comments on the other 
side of the aisle, even from the President, about how the Republican 
bill was weak on work. What the amendment of the Senator from Florida 
does is eliminate all the work requirements. What he does is say that 
it makes all the participation rates of people getting into work 
voluntary. It eliminates any of the work requirement.
  This is the 1988 act back with you again, which, of course, required 
work but did not sanction anybody if they did not work.
  What has happened? Four percent of the welfare recipients work in 
this country today. This is the nuclear bomb on this bill which would 
basically say no one will have to work; you will not be penalized as a 
State if you do not get people to work. It makes work completely 
voluntary on the part of the States. Anyone who has come up here and 
said they are for welfare recipients to work, if you vote for this 
amendment, you are not for welfare recipients to have to go to work.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I must say that I range between being 
somewhat offended by that description or concerned about our 
colleague's ability to read the English language because that is not 
what this does.
  The amendment retains the participation levels as stated in the bill. 
Then it directs the Secretary of HHS to make such adjustments in the 
rate. That is, a State, instead of being asked to meet a 50-percent 
standard, may be asked to meet a 55-percent standard, if it is one that 
is receiving a substantial amount of funds above the national average, 
as happens to be the case with the State of our colleague who just 
spoke, or it might be something less than 50 percent if you are getting 
substantially less than the national average in terms of Federal 
resources.
  It just seems to me patently unfair to start 50 States in such 
different positions in terms of their Federal resources per poor child 
and then say but at the end of the day they all have to get to the same 
end position. We retain the mandatory provision. We retain all of the 
requirements to work.
  I am proud to come from a State which has one of the demonstration 
projects which has already gotten in the first few months of operation 
almost 10 percent of its welfare beneficiaries in jobs, and it is 
moving toward the goal of having 50 percent of its welfare 
beneficiaries to work.
  I support that as an important principle, but I also recognize there 
are resources required to reach those objectives, and if you have made 
a decision that we are going to allocate resources in a differential 
manner, then I think fairness says we have to look at what will 
constitute success in a differential manner. Failure to do so is just 
going to mean that those who start poor are going to not only end poor 
but they are going to be beaten around the head and neck with penalties 
and sanctions because they have failed to achieve unrealistic 
objectives given the resources that were provided.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I will read from the Senator's 
amendment.

       A State to which a grant is made under section 403 shall 
     make every effort to achieve the national work participation 
     rate goals.

  This is not a mandate--shall make every effort to achieve the goal. 
It does not mandate that they have to participate. They do not get 
sanctioned if in fact they do not meet these participation rate goals. 

[[Page S 13640]]

  It is the 1988 act all over again which says we want you to do it, 
but if you do not do this you do not get any sanction. This is the 
nonwork amendment. And I urge its defeat. I yield back the remainder of 
my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
  Mr. SANTORUM addressed the Chair.
  Mr. GRAHAM addressed the Chair.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I can reclaim my time?
  Mr. GRAHAM addressed the Chair.
  Mr. SANTORUM. I yield my remaining time to the Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, could I ask one question of either the 
Senator from Pennsylvania or the Senator from Colorado.
  Would they please read the last page of the amendment.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, if I can can respond to the Senator from 
Florida, what it says is that the Secretary shall consult with the 
States and establish a goal. It does not say what that goal is. It 
could be 2 percent. It could be 5 percent. It does not say anything 
about any kind of goal of 35 or 50 percent, which is what this bill 
does. You make it all arbitrary.
  Mr. GRAHAM. I guess the Senator will not understand it then.
  Mr. SANTORUM. It eliminates the participation rates that are in the 
bill today. And I yield the remainder of my time to the Senator from 
Colorado.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I know the distinguished Senator from 
Florida has very good intentions, and he is known as a very thoughtful 
Member. I merely would add this for Members' consideration.
  In the 1988 act, we billed that as a requirement to either work or 
train or go to school, and what happened is without penalties we ended 
up with only 4 percent of the entire population in welfare in this 
Nation in work programs. In other words, when given an option and 
without penalties, work did not happen.
  The surest way to end the potential of getting people back in the 
mainstream by getting real work experience is to eliminate the 
penalties for not complying with the work requirement. If you leave 
this without a strong penalty for not working, you will eliminate our 
ability to get people back into the mainstream.
  I am convinced this may be the most important amendment that we have 
considered. I hope the body will vote resoundingly to retain those 
strong penalties because, believe me, without them our experience 
indicates it will not happen.
  I yield back the remainder of the time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
  The question occurs on agreeing to the Graham amendment. The yeas and 
nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. I announce that the Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens] is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Faircloth). Are there any other Senators 
in the Chamber who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 23, nays 76, as follows:
                      [Rollcall Vote No. 434 Leg.]

                                YEAS--23

     Akaka
     Bingaman
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Daschle
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Graham
     Heflin
     Inouye
     Johnston
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Lautenberg
     Mikulski
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pryor
     Sarbanes
     Simon

                                NAYS--76

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brown
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Frist
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Packwood
     Pressler
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner
     Wellstone

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Stevens
       
  So the amendment (No. 2568) was rejected.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the amendment was rejected.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                      Unanimous-Consent Agreement

  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent, notwithstanding 
the consent of September 14, that a vote occur on the Dole modification 
following the debate, and following the disposition of the two leaders' 
amendments, one of which will be a Dole motion to strike the Bradley 
amendment, the underlying Dole amendment No. 2280, as amended, be 
deemed agreed to.
  Mr. BRADLEY. Reserving my right to object, is there a time for debate 
on the motion to strike the Bradley amendment?
  Mr. SANTORUM. There is no time limit at this point. We will be 
willing to enter into a time agreement, but there is no time limit.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Gramm 
amendment No. 2617 be moved ahead of the Gramm amendment 2615, as 
modified.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2617

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 10 
minutes for debate equally divided on the Gramm amendment No. 2617, to 
be followed by a vote on or in relation to the amendment.
  Mr. GRAMM addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, the amendment before us is a very, very 
simple amendment. Let me just relate some facts about the amendment.
  On January 1, 1995, Indiana started a welfare reform pilot program in 
which welfare recipients were required to work or lose their benefits. 
The Legal Services Corporation of Indiana filed a lawsuit to block the 
implementation of that law.
  On October 1, 1991, Michigan, the first State in the Nation ever to 
comprehensively reform welfare, began its program to deny general 
assistance to nonworking, able-bodied, single adults without children. 
The Legal Services Corporation of Michigan filed a lawsuit to try to 
block the implementation of that law.
  In 1992, the New Jersey Family Development Act, which among other 
things, denied additional AFDC payments to mothers for children 
conceived while on welfare. Five federally funded New Jersey Legal 
Services grantees filed lawsuits to block the implementation of that 
law.
  In 1994, Pennsylvania law ended welfare benefits for nonworking, 
able-bodied recipients. The Legal Services Corporation in Pennsylvania 
filed a lawsuit to block the implementation of that law.
  Not one single State in the Union has tried to reform welfare, has 
tried to implement a mandatory work requirement, has tried to set up a 
limit on the amount of time you can be on welfare, or has tried to deny 
additional benefits to people on welfare who have additional children 
without being challenged at the taxpayers' expense.
  Not one such State action has failed to be challenged by Legal 
Services Corporation in the courts. These lawsuits have been long and 
protracted. They have been funded by Federal taxpayer funds.
  So this amendment says, very simply, this: No Federal taxpayer funds 
shall be used to block the implementation of this welfare reform bill, 
any State welfare reform bill, or any regulation emanating from those 
laws.
  Now, let me make it clear. Legal Services Corporation can fund a 
lawsuit where a recipient argues that the rules or the law are not 
being fairly implemented with regard to their claim. But taxpayer 
funding from the Federal Government cannot be used to try to overturn 
the law or overturn the regulation.
  It is a very simple amendment. I urge my colleagues to vote for it. I 
reserve the remainder of my time.

[[Page S 13641]]

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yields myself 2\1/2\ minutes. First of 
all, this is not just about Federal funds. The Senator's amendment 
includes all funds. It says if any advocacy group for disability or for 
children, as well as at Legal Services, receives a nickel from Legal 
Services, they cannot challenge any provision under this act, which is 
targeted on the most vulnerable individuals.
  Now, we have provisions in here dealing with adoption. We have 
provisions in here on child support. We have provisions in here on day 
care, and we have requirements on the States to make sure that those 
provisions are going to be effective.
  Under the Gramm amendment, if a mother in any of our States found 
that the State law was insufficient for the purposes of this law, she 
would be precluded from going ahead and challenging that rule or 
regulation or State law that otherwise should be meeting the 
requirements of this law. I mean, that absolutely makes no sense. Here 
we are putting in provisions on child care, provisions on disability, 
provisions affecting older Americans, making States go ahead and 
develop their own laws to implement those, and we are saying, even 
here, if they are not strong enough, we are denying any of the advocacy 
groups that they receive a nickel of Legal Services money or private 
money, if they receive a nickel of Legal Services money from protecting 
those vulnerable people.
  The Senator from Texas usually talks about the ``strings'' that are 
going on as a requirement of various Federal programs. He is putting 
strings on the private sector. In my State, in Boston, MA, about 35 
percent of the funds for Legal Services in Boston are Legal Services 
funds. But the others come from the private sector. He is saying you 
cannot even use a nickel of the private sector funds, from private 
companies, from private individuals, to protect the most vulnerable in 
our society. Child support, adoption, disability--his amendment would 
deny that. We will have a chance to debate this issue next week on the 
Appropriations Committee on Commerce. Why do it now?
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I am going to be the concluding speaker on 
the amendment. I ask Senator Kennedy to go ahead and use his time.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I will yield a minute--how much time do I have.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Two minutes 30 seconds.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I yield 20 seconds to Senator Biden.
  Mr. BIDEN. I will be very brief. This is the wrong place to consider 
this. As the Senator from Massachusetts pointed out, the committee is 
going to be taking up this question about the whole scope of Legal 
Services. I know that my friend from Texas has a problem with the 
entire entity of Legal Services. He would like to wipe it all out, 
period, under any circumstances, for any reason. This is not the place 
to do this.
  I respectfully urge my colleagues to vote against it, or if it is a 
tabling motion, vote to table it. Let us fight this out on the whole of 
the future of Legal Services, not on a welfare bill.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I yield a minute to the Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, this does not just go to Legal Services 
representing poor people. This goes to protection and advocacy groups 
representing disabled citizens of the United States. Many times, Legal 
Services entities in our States provide funds to protection and 
advocacy groups which we have set up under the law. These are legal 
entities set up to represent and to help people with disabilities to 
get through administrative procedures and legal proceedings.
  If you read the amendment of the Senator from Texas, it says that no 
legal aid organization, or other entity--other entity--so protection 
and advocacy groups for the disabled would be cut out. If you look at 
the last paragraph, defined is ``legal proceeding.'' In a court of the 
United States, court of the State, in an administrative hearing, in a 
Federal or State act. You might as well tell every disabled person in 
this country that they have no right to go into a court or no right to 
go into an administrative hearing to challenge the validity of a State 
regulation.
  For the life of me, I cannot understand why the Senator from Texas 
would want to pick on the most vulnerable in our society. Forget just 
about Legal Services. Focus on the disabled. This is going to cut every 
disabled person in this country of low-income means. Obviously, if you 
have the money, if you have the money, you can hire any lawyer you 
want. If you are disabled and poor, you will not be able to challenge 
the validity or legality of any regulation in any State regardless of 
how onerous it may be. For that reason, it ought to be defeated.
  Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from 
Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I have spoken before in the debate----
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 30 seconds.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I yield 15 seconds to the Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I actually will defer to the Senator from Maryland. We 
defeated a similar amendment last session.
  I yield to the Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I do not understand how you can profess 
to be a nation that believes in equal justice under the law and not 
make legal services available to people who are too poor to afford 
them. How do you make our legal system work, and how do you make the 
rule of law equitable and have a real system of justice?
  I very strongly oppose the amendment of the Senator from Texas.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas has 2 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, first of all, current law allows any Legal 
Services Corporation grantee in America to file a lawsuit on behalf of 
any client, using taxpayers' funds, regardless of whether or not the 
individual is being treated fairly under the Federal law or the State 
law or Federal regulations or State regulations emanating from the law. 
But what my amendment says is that taxpayer funding cannot be used to 
try to block the implementation of laws that the American people are 
for in overwhelming numbers.
  It is time that we stop taxpayer funds from being used to circumvent 
the will of the people who pay those taxes.
  Second, the lamenting that we are not funding advocacy groups--if 
they want to advocate, God bless them, but let them advocate with their 
own money, not the taxpayers' money.
  Finally, State law and Federal law cannot be challenged with Federal 
taxpayer money, but that does not keep the ACLU from challenging it. It 
does not keep private groups from doing it.
  My amendment is very, very simple. It stops what is going on all over 
America. Federal tax dollars, through the Legal Services Corporation, 
are being used to try to block every effort to force able-bodied 
welfare recipients to go to work. Every effort to try to reform welfare 
has been challenged using taxpayer money. I want to bring that to an 
end. If people oppose welfare reform, let them run for public office or 
put up their own money to challenge it in the court. But do not take 
the money of the people who do the work, pay the taxes, and pull the 
wagon in America to try to stop the implementation of law, which they 
strongly support.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment.
  Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I move to table the amendment and I ask 
for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a 
sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
table.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. I announce that the Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Nickles] and 
the Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens] are necessarily absent.
 
[[Page S 13642]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 51, nays 47, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 435 Leg.]

                                YEAS--51

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

                                NAYS--47

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brown
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Coats
     Cochran
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Faircloth
     Frist
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Pressler
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Nickles
     Stevens
       
  So the motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 2617), as 
modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. FORD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                    Amendment No. 2615, As Modified

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 10 
minutes of debate, equally divided, on the Gramm amendment No. 2615, as 
modified, to be followed by a vote on or in relation to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2615), as modified, is as follows:

       On page 792, strike lines 1 through 22 and insert the 
     following:

     SEC. 1202. REDUCTIONS IN FEDERAL BUREAUCRACY.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of Health and Human Services 
     shall reduce the Federal workforce within the Department of 
     Health and Human Services by an amount equal to the sum of--
       (1) 75 percent of the full-time equivalent positions at 
     each such Department that relate to any direct spending 
     program, or any program funded through discretionary 
     spending, that has been converted into a block grant program 
     under this Act and the amendments made by this Act; and
       (2) an amount equal to 75 percent of that portion of the 
     total full-time equivalent departmental management positions 
     at each such Department that bears the same relationship to 
     the amount appropriated for the programs referred to in 
     paragraph (1) as such amount relates to the total amount 
     appropriated for use by each such Department.
       (b) Reductions in the Department of Health and Human 
     Services.--Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, 
     the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall take such 
     actions as may be necessary, including reductions in force 
     actions, consistent with sections 3502 and 3595 of title 5, 
     United States Code, to reduce the full-time equivalent 
     positions within the Department of Health and Human 
     Services--
       (1) by 245 full-time equivalent positions related to the 
     program converted into a block grant under the amendment made 
     by section 101(b); and
       (2) by 60 full-time equivalent managerial positions in the 
     Department.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. GRAMM addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas is recognized.
  Does the Senator from Texas wish to modify his amendment?
  Mr. GRAMM. I believe, Mr. President, the amendment has already been 
modified.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Texas.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, this is a very important principle. The 
number of positions that are affected by the amendment are relatively 
small, but let me explain why the principle is important.
  We are in the process, in this welfare reform bill, of doing 
something that we have not done in 40 years. Rather than power and 
decisionmaking authority residing Washington, we are sending it back to 
the States, counties, cities and to the people.
  We are, in fact, in this bill, eliminating a Federal program known as 
AFDC [aid to families with dependent children]. We will be debating, 
later, the elimination of Federal job training programs where the money 
for those programs will be given back to the States. We will allow each 
State to conduct job training in such a way that the State believes 
will be most successful within its borders.
  Here is the question. Given that we are eliminating Federal programs, 
what about the people who are employed by the Federal Government to run 
those programs? What happens to the jobs in AFDC when we eliminate 
AFDC? What happens to the jobs in these training programs when we 
eliminate the training programs?
  What I am proposing is a very modest amendment. I am sure it will be 
strongly opposed by people who believe that immortality in a temporal 
sense is defined as a Government program or a Government position. But 
what I am saying is this: If you eliminate a program, you cannot keep 
more than 25 percent of the people who work directly on that program 
even though they have nothing to do. Second, you have to take the 
overhead of the department that the program is part of and you have to 
reduce that overhead proportionately because that program no longer 
exists.
  I think we have a legitimate right to be concerned--when giving power 
back to the States and eliminating Federal programs--about all of these 
Government employees who were running the old programs remaining 
Government employees and undercutting what the States are doing.
  In any other city in America, this would be an amendment in which 
anybody who opposed it would be laughed out of the room. Unfortunately, 
this is Washington, DC. We are talking about Government positions.
  And what I am saying is simply this: If you eliminate a Government 
program, you have to eliminate at least 75 percent of the positions. I 
think it ought to be 100 percent. You also have to lower the overhead 
for that portion of the program by 75 percent.
  It is an eminently reasonable amendment. It may make too much sense 
to be given consideration in the U.S. Senate. We shall see. But I 
wanted to offer it.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may require.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Grams). The Senator from Ohio is 
recognized.
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, that all sounds very good. In transferring 
this back to the States there will be a block grant except for one 
thing. For people in Washington, DC, we have loaded down the department 
with all sorts of requirements for monitoring and evaluation and advice 
to prevent some of the abuse of the States, among other things. With 
just a casual look at what current responsibilities are, the 
responsibilities of the Federal Government still remain.
  Under the Dole bill, it indicates that the Dole bill expands the jobs 
in Washington, not contracts. Less than 1 percent of the total staff 
administering welfare is employed at the Federal level--State, Federal, 
and local. Administrative costs account for less than 1,000 of the 
total 4(a) and 4(f) expenditures.
  We have assumed new responsibilities under the Dole bill to provide 
technical assistance to hundreds of tribes to design and implement new 
cash assistance programs; also, to gather, compile, evaluate, and 
disseminate data on a larger scale and with greater case specific 
variables.
  We are assuming new program analysis, and dissemination of 
information responsibilities. This is particularly true in the child 
support enforcement area.
  We have put all sorts of monitoring requirements on here that, if 
anything, a case could be made for needing more people to do it.
  Let me break this down more. Technical assistance to States: We have 
a whole series of new requirements under the Dole bill which most of us 
do not disagree with at all.
  Under tribal issues, supporting tribal efforts in designing 
assistance programs; reviewing and approving temporary assistance 
plans; we are collecting and evaluating some data collected 

[[Page S 13643]]
from the States, including all sorts of things that we were not 
required to do before. Under data collection and evaluation where there 
are five requirements now in existing law, under the Dole bill we now 
have 16 different--in other words 11 brandnew--data collection and 
evaluation requirements on this.
  In other words, on HHS we are giving them all these things to do and 
saying but it is an unfunded mandate. We are not going to give you the 
money to do this. We are going to cut the position to do the things we 
are telling you to do which does not make any sense at all to do this.
  I could go on with this if we had an hour or so. I would like to go 
into each one of these in detail. Policy and planning accounts, the 
same thing; accountability, all of these things. We do not want to cut 
back on accountability now. We have to review State and tribal audits, 
review and rank State performance, establish penalties, and administer 
appeals process.
  We are going to have to develop and program outcome measures at the 
same time we are cutting the people that are required to do all these 
things. And for each of these I have a paragraph reference in the bill 
itself.
  How much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio has 2 minutes.
  Mr. GLENN. I yield at this point 30 seconds to the Senator from New 
York.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, the Senator from Ohio has pointed out 
clearly something I find painful. In the very long time that I have 
been in this city I have never seen legislation imposing more 
regulatory requirements on State governments by the Federal Government 
than this bill.
  And I would simply respond, if I may. In a little bit of a caricature 
a couple of days ago when one of the these new regulatory provisions 
came along, I stood on this side of the aisle and said, ``Mr. 
President, as one who dearly loves Federal regulations imposed on 
States in minute, indecipherable detail, I accept this amendment with 
great gusto.''
  I could not say it better. It is going to be a great generation for 
regulators, but not very great for poor people and certainly not great 
for poor children.
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mr. GRAMM. How much time is left?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio has 35 seconds 
remaining.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
Senator from Missouri.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Just a reminder that the amendment that is 
offered by the Senator from Texas has been modified.
  The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Thank you Mr. President.
  I rise in support of the amendment. One of the taxes on poor 
Americans, people who are truly needy, is a bureaucratic tax. As a 
Governor, I can testify that the more the bureaucracy proliferates in 
Washington the greater the percentage of the resource at the State 
level that has to be used to respond to the bureaucracy in Washington 
rather than to meet the needs of the truly needy.
  I believe, to the extent that we can reduce the bureaucratic tax on 
the poor which is represented by Washington bureaucrats who are no 
longer needed because we cut the program, that we ought to do that, and 
for that reason I believe Senator Gramm's amendment is in order and 
ought to be supported by Members of this body.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 35 seconds.
  Mr. GLENN. Read the Dole bill. It puts more requirements on the 
Federal Government. I went through some of it here, a whole host of 
them, and at the same time we are saying we give an unfunded mandate to 
HHS we say you have to do more, you have to do more analysis, do all of 
these additional things that are listed right here. This is not 
fictitious stuff. We say you have to do a lot more in the way of 
analyzing, and so on. Yet, we are going to cut the people who do it. 
How on Earth are we going to prevent abuse in these programs if we do 
that kind of Government operation? It does not make any sense at all. 
It will not work this way. We are setting up a recipe for disaster, if 
we do it that way.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, let me remind my colleagues that we are 
eliminating this Federal program, that the money is going back to the 
States, and they are going to run the program. Yet, the Senator from 
Ohio says that a case can be made supporting the need for more 
employees in Washington, even once we have eliminated the program. 
There is nothing so immortal as a Government program.
  We celebrate here our giving back of funds to the States to run the 
program, and yet we are arguing that we have to preserve the Federal 
jobs in a program that no longer exists. No wonder the American people 
are outraged that Government grows like a cancer.
  My amendment is a very modest amendment. It says you have eliminated 
the program. Eliminate 75 percent of its jobs. It seems to me that we 
ought to eliminate 100 percent of them, but instead, I say keep 25 
percent of the people in an agency that no longer carries out a 
function, a function that is now run by the State.
  I see this as a very modest amendment. We ought to be eliminating 
every one of these positions, and I urge my colleagues to vote for this 
amendment.
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I move to table the amendment and ask for 
the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There appears to 
be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
table the amendment No. 2615. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The 
clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. I announce that the Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Nickles] and 
the Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens] are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 49, nays 49, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 436 Leg.]

                                YEAS--49

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

                                NAYS--49

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brown
     Burns
     Coats
     Cochran
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Faircloth
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Packwood
     Pressler
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Nickles
     Stevens
       
  So the motion to table the amendment (No. 2615), as modified, was 
rejected.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now is on agreeing to the 
amendment.
  Mr. GLENN. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment. 
The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  Mr. DOLE. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll to ascertain the 
presence of a quorum.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded. 

[[Page S 13644]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOLE. I ask unanimous consent that the pending matter be set 
aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.


                  Motion to Strike Amendment No. 2496

  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I intend to make a motion to strike the 
previously agreed to amendment No. 2496, which was offered by the 
Senator from New Jersey, Senator Bradley.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator is 
authorized to make that motion.
  Mr. DOLE. First, I want to apologize to my friend from New Jersey. I 
was so anxious to be accommodating, because I always have been, but I 
took the amendment before I realized that it had some points that were 
not what I thought they were. I do not suggest that he said anything, 
but I did not read it carefully enough.
  What the Bradley amendment would do is amend the plans that States 
must submit to receive Federal block grants. It does three things. It 
requires the State to define who is eligible and who is not eligible 
for cash assistance, and this creates the invitation for welfare 
litigation against the States over who is eligible for assistance. It 
creates an individual entitlement by requiring States to provide 
benefits to all individuals that the States deem eligible.
  This amendment shifts the time limit from the Federal Government to 
the State government. The cycle of dependency created by the 
entitlement must be broken. We do not want to shift that from the 
Federal to the State government.
  Finally, the amendment creates an unfunded mandate by possibly 
requiring States to provide unmatched funds to individuals. We do not 
want to create additional unfunded mandates.
  The point of this exercise, all the debate we have had, is to provide 
States with the needed flexibility to address welfare reform and not to 
create a possible unfunded mandate on the States or, as I said, second, 
another entitlement. We do not know what the cost of this amendment 
could possibly be. For the reasons stated, I should not have accepted 
the amendment.
  I now move to strike the amendment, and after the debate I will ask 
for the yeas and nays.
  Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, I do say to the distinguished majority 
leader that I was a little surprised when he said he would accept the 
amendment. I thought it was perfectly appropriate, because I would not 
characterize the amendment exactly as he has characterized the 
amendment.
  It does not create a Federal entitlement. It, first, does not add any 
additional spending. It does not touch the block grant. CBO has told us 
that it would not result in a penny of additional Federal outlays.
  Second, it does not entitle anyone to anything. A State can deny any 
individual--practically any person--benefits. It can deny benefits if 
you do not work. A State can deny benefits if you have additional 
children. It can deny benefits if you do not comply with the 
requirements of your individual agreement. The State can deny benefits, 
under this proposal, practically for anything. But what the State 
cannot do under this amendment is deny you benefits for no reason at 
all if you are a poor family who is eligible under the State's own 
rules.
  To those who object to this amendment, I just simply would like to 
ask, what is it that you want States to be able to do that they would 
not be able to do under this amendment? I, frankly, cannot imagine. I 
cannot imagine why States should not be required simply to say what 
their rules are for eligibility, what the benefits are, and who gets 
cut off, and then simply follow the rules.
  The only right that is created here is not a right to money, it is a 
right to know what the rules are. How do you determine who gets any 
benefits, unless the State has written rules that clearly state who is 
eligible? How do we decide that someone who fits the category of 
eligibility should not be given benefits if there are no rules?
  So I simply say that this is a very straightforward amendment. It is 
an attempt to add clarity to what will be a confused policy in States. 
I think it illustrates, once again, the problem of a block grant with 
no rules to implement the block grant. This came through in very vivid 
terms yesterday when we had an amendment--a well-intentioned 
amendment--that said in order to reduce illegitimacy, which is what all 
of us would like to do, a State that reduced illegitimacy would get a 
bonus, but the amendment read that the State would have to reduce 
illegitimacy without increasing abortions.
  So those are both pretty good intentions. But what that means, as I 
read that amendment, is that every woman in a State has to be asked if 
she has had an abortion.
  Otherwise, how do you determine how many abortions were performed in 
the State? The result of the amendment is a direct involvement of the 
State government in the lives of every woman in the State asking the 
question, have you or have you not had an abortion?
  Unless that is asked to every woman, how do you determine whether 
abortions have gone up or gone down? If you do not know whether 
abortions have gone up or gone down, how do you determine the offset 
against the illegitimacy rate?
  Mr. President, that amendment is another illustration of the problem 
with a block grant that has no requirement of any rule.
  This amendment would simply say that the State has to establish rules 
of eligibility and has to apply those rules of eligibility for every 
person who fits into that category. It is as simple as that.
  This is, again, not a new Federal entitlement. It is simply common 
sense.
  Mr. President, I am ready, if the majority leader would like to make 
the motion to strike at this time, to have the vote on the motion to 
strike.
  Mr. DOLE. I make a motion to strike the amendment numbered 2496.
  The Bradley amendment amends the plan that States must submit to 
receive Federal funds under the new block grant.
  Specifically, the amendment does three things:
  It requires the State to define who is eligible and who is ineligible 
for cash assistance. This creates the invitation for welfare litigation 
against the States over who is eligible for assistance.
  It creates an individual entitlement by requiring States to provide 
benefits to all individuals that the States deem eligible. This 
amendment shifts the entitlement from the Federal Government to the 
State government. The cycle of dependency that is created by the 
entitlement must be broken.
  Finally, the Bradley amendment creates an unfunded mandate on the 
States by possibly requiring States to provide unmatched funds to 
individuals.
  Mr. President, the point of this exercise is to provide States with 
the needed flexibility to address welfare reform, not to create another 
unfunded mandate on the States.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion has been made. Is there further 
debate?
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a 
sufficient second. The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The question is on the motion to strike the previously agreed-to 
Bradley amendment.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Dole 
amendment be set aside in order to accommodate one final amendment. It 
would be my understanding I will offer this amendment and then we would 
have two votes, perhaps three votes stacked, at least two votes, 
following debate on the Daschle amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                     Amendment No. 2682 to No. 2280

 (Purpose: To permit States to provide noncash assistance to children 
       ineligible for aid because of the 5-year time limitation)

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I will be very brief.
  We have had a good debate about a number of issues relating to 
welfare. The one that I do not think we have talked enough about, and I 
will be brief as we talk about it this afternoon, is what happens to 
children under circumstances that are not of their control. I believe 
we have to ensure, regardless of what else we do, that children do not 
pay for the mistakes or circumstances of their parents. Of the 14 

[[Page S 13645]]
million people on AFDC, 9 million are children. They did not ask to be 
born into these circumstances. They cannot get their parents out of 
these circumstances. Most importantly, these 9 million children are 
part of our future.
  We talk a lot about State flexibility, but the pending bill does not 
allow States to provide any assistance to children after 5 years.
  What my amendment does is simply say we will not prohibit the States 
from providing care for children if they so desire. If ever there was 
an argument for State flexibility, this is it. We are simply giving 
States the option to assist poor children, clothe children, or help 
children to stay off the streets. We are not telling States they have 
to do it; we are simply saying we will not prevent them from doing it.
  You have heard a lot about making people get out of the cart and pull 
it. That is right. We should make people get out of the cart and pull 
it when they can take responsibility. Able-bodied adults should work. 
But children, infants, and toddlers cannot be expected to pull the 
cart.
  This really just gives States the opportunity to recognize that fact. 
The amendment is very simple. It provides States with flexibility. It 
allows States to use block grant funds to provide vouchers for goods 
and services for children and their needs once the time limit hits, to 
ensure that children are protected. I do not understand why Washington 
should make such a critical decision about what is best for a State 
when it comes to children.
  We have talked about flexibility. We have talked about the need to 
protect kids. It would seem to me that simply saying we will not 
prohibit the States from issuing vouchers if they choose to do so and 
see it as in their best interests is reasonable. I think we ought to 
allow them to do that.
  Once the time limit hits, hopefully families will be off welfare, but 
we do not know. Maybe yes, maybe no. Children, however, did not cause 
this situation. Children cannot rectify it.
  This amendment is pretty harmless, but the ramifications for children 
could be great if we do not have this State option. Nine million kids--
it is simply a matter of giving the States the flexibility.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Did the Senator seek to call up the amendment?
  Mr. DASCHLE. I have an amendment at the desk that I call up.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from South Dakota [Mr. Daschle] for Mr. 
     Kennedy, for himself and Mr. Daschle proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2682 to amendment No. 2280.

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 40, between lines 16 and 17, insert the following 
     new paragraph:
       ``(4) Non-cash assistance for children.--Nothing in 
     paragraph (1) shall be construed as prohibiting a State from 
     using funds provided under section 403 to provide aid, in the 
     form of in-kind assistance, vouchers usable for particular 
     goods or services as specified by the State, or vendor 
     payments to individuals providing such goods or services, to 
     the minor children of a needy family.''.

  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I say very briefly, maybe I misunderstood. 
We thought this was part of the agreement. We increased the hardship 
exemption from 15 to 20 percent because this was a request earlier of 
the Senator from South Dakota. We could not agree on that.
  We thought we agreed to raise the hardship exemption which would take 
care of some of these cases. I hope the amendment would not be adopted.
  We thought we had an agreement, and we want to stick with that 
agreement. Maybe the Senator from South Dakota had a different 
interpretation, but I am still willing to leave the hardship exemption 
at 20 percent, but if we have an agreement--if not, maybe it ought to 
go back to 15 percent.
  In any event, I hope we defeat this amendment and also strike the 
amendment of the Senator from New Jersey, Senator Bradley.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
  Mr. DOLE. I yield back our time.
  I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a 
sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from South Dakota wish to 
offer his second amendment before the rollcall begins?
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, that concludes my list of amendments. I 
have no others to offer.


                  Motion to Strike Amendment No. 2496

  Mr. DOLE. I ask unanimous consent that we return to the motion to 
strike the Bradley amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion has been made to return to the 
motion to strike the Bradley amendment. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion to strike the amendment 
numbered 2496.
  Mr. DOLE. I ask that these be strictly 10-minute votes. We have 
Members on each side that want to leave.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. A reminder to the Senators that these will be 
strictly held at 10 minutes for each vote.
  The question now is on agreeing to the motion to strike the Bradley 
amendment. The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. I announce that the Senator from Missouri [Mr. Bond], the 
Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. Chafee], the Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. 
Nickles], the Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens], and the Senator from 
Wyoming [Mr. Thomas] are necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Wyoming [Mr. Thomas] would vote ``yea.''
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from California [Mrs. Boxer] is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 50, nays 44, as follows:
                      [Rollcall Vote No. 437 Leg.]

                                YEAS--50

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Brown
     Burns
     Campbell
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Exon
     Faircloth
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Packwood
     Pressler
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--44

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

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Bond
     Boxer
     Chafee
     Nickles
     Stevens
     Thomas
  So the motion to strike the amendment (No. 2496) was agreed to.
                       Vote on Amendment No. 2682

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment 
of the Senator from South Dakota, No. 2682. On this question, the yeas 
and nays have been ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. I announce that the Senator from Missouri [Mr. Bond], the 
Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. Chafee], the Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. 
Nickles], the Senator from Wyoming [Mr. Simpson], the Senator from 
Alaska [Mr. Stevens], and the Senator from Wyoming [Mr. Thomas], are 
necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Wyoming [Mr. Thomas],  would vote ``nay.''
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from California [Mrs. Boxer], 
and the Senator from Iowa [Mr. Harkin] are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
who desire to vote?

[[Page S 13646]]

  The result was announced--yeas 44, nays 48, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 438 Leg.]

                                YEAS--44

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Graham
     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
     Wellstone

                                NAYS--48

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Brown
     Burns
     Campbell
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Faircloth
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Packwood
     Pressler
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Bond
     Boxer
     Chafee
     Harkin
     Nickles
     Simpson
     Stevens
     Thomas
  So, the amendment (No. 2682) was rejected.
  Mr. DOLE. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. FORD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. FRIST addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.


                           Amendment No. 2526

  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I be added as a 
cosponsor to Senator Shelby's amendment No. 2526 relating to an 
adoption tax credit which was approved yesterday.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
                           amendment No. 2568

  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I strongly support the objective of moving 
just as many adult recipients or potential recipients of welfare into 
work and self-sufficiency as we possibly can.
  I have some large questions about some of the specific provisions and 
methodologies employed in the bill before us, and have supported 
amendments designed to increase their effectiveness and fairness. I am 
concerned that because most of those amendments have failed, in several 
important respects the bill will have a punitive effect and will leave 
many jobless adults without work; without adequate help in preparing to 
compete for, secure, and keep employment; and therefore with incomes 
inadequate to support themselves and their children. I also am 
concerned that as we act to have the Federal Government relinquish its 
primary responsibility for dealing with the needs of impoverished 
families and impose a much greater responsibility in that respect on 
State governments than they previously have borne, we have in several 
key ways failed to provide the states with adequate resources to meet 
their newly expanded responsibilities.
  Nonetheless, I support the bill's objective of moving Americans from 
welfare to work, and do not want to weaken the bill's ability to 
produce that outcome.
  I regret that the amendment of the Senator from Florida has been 
mischaracterized as weakening the bill's ability to move welfare 
recipients off the rolls and into work, because that is not its 
intention, nor would that be its effect. The Senator's amendment leaves 
intact the very same work participation standards contained in the 
underlying Dole bill. It leaves intact the penalties the bill provides 
for States that fail to meet the standards that apply to them.
  The amendment simply seeks to treat States more fairly in applying 
work participation standards than does the underlying bill, in 
recognition of the fact that the formulas for funding distribution 
contained in the bill result in considerable variation among the States 
in the amounts of Federal block grant funding per poor minor child the 
States receive. To achieve that end, the amendment provides for the 
Federal Government to ``adjust the national participation rate 
[standards]'' as they will apply to each State each year so that they 
``reflect the level of federal funds [each] state is receiving * * * 
and the average number of minor children in families having incomes 
below the poverty line that are estimated for the state for the fiscal 
year.''
  This does not give the Federal Government carte blanche to waive the 
work participation requirement contained in the bill. This does not 
eviscerate that requirement. The requirement remains. The penalty to be 
imposed on a State for failing to meet it still remains. The amendment 
only injects the ability for some human judgment to be applied in 
securing fairness among the States in applying the work participation 
requirement when the Secretary determines that the funding a State is 
receiving is not adequate to reasonably permit it to meet the national 
work participation standards set by the bill. No matter which party 
controls the administration at any point, political reality will not 
permit any administration to disregard the strongly evident intent of 
the Congress that all States be subject to work participation 
requirements assuming this bill becomes law.
  I support a strong work requirement. I support providing States with 
sufficient resources to enable them to meet that requirement. And I 
support this amendment to let good judgment be reflected in imposition 
of the work requirement on the States.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, it is my understanding, now that we have 
completed action on all the amendments, with the exception of the Gramm 
amendment No. 2615--there was a motion to table that amendment. It was 
49-49. It was not tabled. I think we have agreed that that vote can 
occur Tuesday.


                           Amendment No. 2683

         (Purpose: To make modifications to amendment No. 2280)

  Mr. DOLE. I am now prepared, if the Democratic leader is prepared, 
the two of us, to send up the modification.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Kansas [Mr. Dole] proposes an amendment 
     No. 2683.

  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 2683) is as follows:
       On page 17, strike lines 13 through 22 and insert the 
     following:
       ``(A) In general.--For purposes of paragraph (1)(A), a 
     State family assistance grant for any State for a fiscal year 
     is an amount equal to the sum of--
       ``(i) the total amount of the Federal payments to the State 
     under section 403 (other than Federal payments to the State 
     described in section subparagraphs (A), (B) and (C) of 
     section 419(a)(2)) for fiscal year 1994 (as such section 403 
     was in effect during such fiscal year), plus
       ``(ii) the total amount of the Federal payments to the 
     State under subparagraphs (A), (B) and (C) of section 
     419(a)(2),

     as such payments were reported by the State on February 14, 
     1995, reduced by the amount, if any, determined under 
     subparagraph (B), and for fiscal year 2000, reduced by the 
     percent specified under section 418(a)(3), and increased by 
     an amount, if any, determined under paragraph (2)(D).
       On page 77, line 21, strike the end quotation marks and the 
     second period.
       One page 77, between lines 21 and 22, insert the following 
     new section:

     ``SEC. 419. AMOUNTS FOR CHILD CARE.

       ``(a) Child Care Allocation--
       ``(1) In general.--From the amount appropriated under 
     section 403(a)(4)(A) for a fiscal year, the Secretary shall 
     set aside an amount equal to the total amount of the Federal 
     payments for fiscal year 1994 to States under section--
       ``(A) 402(g)(3)(A) of this Act (as such section was in 
     effect before October 1, 1995) for amounts expended for child 
     care pursuant to paragraph (1) of such section;
       ``(B) 403(l)(1)(A) of this Act (as so in effect) for 
     amounts expended for child care pursuant to section 
     402(g)(1)(A) of this Act, in the case of a State with respect 
     to which section 1108 of this Act applies; and
       ``(C) 403(n) of this Act (as so in effect) for child care 
     services pursuant to section 402(i) of this Act.
       ``(2) Distribution.--From amounts set-aside for a fiscal 
     year under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall pay to a State 
     an amount equal to the total amounts of Federal payments for 
     fiscal year 1994 to the State under section--
       ``(A) 402(g)(3)(A) of this Act (as such section was in 
     effect before October 1, 1995)for 

[[Page S 13647]]

     amounts expended for child care pursuant to paragraph (1) of 
     such section;
       ``(B) 403(l)(1)(A) of this Act (as so in effect) for 
     amounts expended for child care pursuant to section 
     402(g)(1)(A) of this Act, in the case of a State with respect 
     to which section 1108 of this Act applies; and
       ``(C) 403(n) of this Act (as so in effect) for child care 
     services pursuant to section 402(i) of this Act.
       ``(3) Use of funds.--Amounts received by a State under 
     paragraph (2) shall only be used to provide child care 
     assistance under this part.
       ``(4) For purposes of paragraphs (1) and (2), Federal 
     payments for fiscal year 1994 means such payments as reported 
     by the State on February 14, 1995.
       ``(b) Additional Appropriation.--
       ``(1) In general.--There are authorized to be appropriated 
     and there are appropriated, $3,000,000,000 to be distributed 
     to the States during the 5-fiscal year period beginning in 
     fiscal year 1996 for the provision of child care assistance.
       ``(2) Distribution.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall use amounts made 
     available under paragraph (1) to make grants to States. The 
     total amount of grants awarded to a State under this 
     paragraph shall be based on the formula used for determining 
     the amount of Federal payments to the State for fiscal year 
     1994 under section 403(n) (as such section was in effect 
     before October 1, 1995) for child care services pursuant to 
     section 402(i) as such amount relates to the total amount of 
     such Federal payments to all States for such fiscal year.
       ``(B) Fiscal year 2000.--With respect to the last quarter 
     of fiscal year 2000, if the Secretary determines that any 
     allotment to a State under this subsection will not be used 
     by such State for carrying out the purpose for which the 
     allotment is available, the Secretary shall make such 
     allotment available for carrying out such purpose to 1 or 
     more other States which apply for such funds to the extent 
     the Secretary determines that such other States will be able 
     to use such additional allotments for carrying out such 
     purposes. Such available allotments shall be reallocated to a 
     State pursuant to section 402(i) (as such section was in 
     effect before October 1, 1995) by substituting `the number of 
     children residing in all States applying for such funds' for 
     `the number of children residing in the United States in the 
     second preceding fiscal year'. Any amount made available to a 
     State from an appropriation for a fiscal year in accordance 
     with the preceding sentence shall, for purposes of this part, 
     be regarded as part of such State's payment (as determined 
     under this subsection) for such year.
       ``(3) Amount of funds.--The Secretary shall pay to each 
     eligible State in a fiscal year an amount equal to the 
     Federal medical assistance percentage for such State for such 
     fiscal year (as defined in section 1905(b)) of so much of the 
     expenditures by the State for child care in such year as 
     exceed the State set-aside for such State under subsection 
     (a) for such year and the amount of State expenditures in 
     fiscal year 1994 that equal the non-Federal share for the 
     programs described in subparagraphs (A), (B) and (C) of 
     subsection (a)(1).
       ``(4) Budget scoring.--Notwithstanding section 257(b)(2) of 
     the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 
     1985, the baseline shall assume that no grant shall be made 
     under this subsection after fiscal year 2000.
       ``(c) Administrative Provisions.--
       ``(1) State option.--For purposes of section 402(a)(1)(B), 
     a State may, at its option, not require a single parent with 
     a child under the age of 6 to participate in work for more 
     than an average of 20 hours per week during a month and may 
     count such parent as being engaged in work for a month for 
     purposes, of section 404(c)(1) if such parent participates in 
     work for an average of 20 hours per week during such month.
       ``(2) Rule of construction.--Nothing in this section shall 
     be construed to provide an entitlement to child care services 
     to any child.
       On Page 17, line 22, insert before the period the 
     following: ``, and increased by an amount (if any) determined 
     under subparagraph (D).''
       On Page 18, between lines 21 and 22, insert the following:
       ``(D) Amount attributable to state plan amendments.--
       ``(1) In general.--For purposes of subparagraph (A), the 
     amount determined under this subparagraph is an amount equal 
     to the Federal payment under section 403(a)(5) to the State 
     for emergency assistance in fiscal year 1995 under any State 
     plan amendment made under section 402 during fiscal year 1994 
     (as such sections were in effect before the date of the 
     enactment of the Work Opportunity Act of 1995) subject to the 
     limitation in clause (ii).
       ``(ii) Limitation.--Amounts made available under clause (i) 
     to all States shall not exceed $800 million. If amounts 
     available under this subparagraph are less than the total 
     amount of emergency assistance payments referred to in clause 
     (i), the amount payable to a State shall be equal to an 
     amount which bears the same relationship to the total amount 
     available under this clause as the State emergency assistance 
     payment bears to the total amount of such payments.
       On page 25, line 18, insert ``In the case of amounts paid 
     to the State that are set aside in accordance with section 
     419(9), the State may reserve such amounts for any fiscal 
     year only for the purpose of providing without fiscal year 
     limitation child care assistance under this part.'' after the 
     end period.
       Beginning on page 315, strike line 6 and all that follows 
     through page 576, line 12 (renumber subsequent titles and 
     section numbers accordingly).
       On page 29, between lines 17 and 18, insert the following:
       ``(d) Contingency Fund.--
       ``(1) Establishment.--There is hereby established in the 
     Treasury of the United States a fund which shall be known as 
     the `Contingency Fund for State Welfare Programs' (hereafter 
     in this section referred to as the `Fund').
       ``(2) Deposits into fund.--Out of any money in the Treasury 
     of the United States not otherwise appropriated, there are 
     hereby appropriated for fiscal years 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 
     and 2000, such sums as are necessary for payment to the Fund 
     in a total amount not to exceed $1,000,000,000.
       ``(3) Computation of grant.--
       ``(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), the 
     Secretary of the Treasury shall pay to each eligible State in 
     a fiscal year an amount equal to the Federal medical 
     assistance percentage for such State for such fiscal year (as 
     defined in section 1905(b)) of so much of the expenditures by 
     the State in such year under the State program funded under 
     this part as exceed the historic expenditures for such State.
       ``(B) Limitation.--The total amount paid to a State under 
     subparagraph (A) for any fiscal year shall not exceed an 
     amount equal to 20 percent of the annual amount determined 
     for such State under the State program funded under this part 
     (without regard to this subsection) for such fiscal year.
       ``(C) Method of computation, payment, and reconciliation.--
       ``(i) Method of computation.--The method of computing and 
     paying such amounts shall be as follows:
       ``(I) The Secretary of Health and Human Services shall 
     estimate the amount to be paid to the State for each quarter 
     under the provisions of subparagraph (A), such estimate to be 
     based on a report filed by the State containing its estimate 
     of the total sum to be expended in such quarter and such 
     other information as the Secretary may find necessary.
       ``(II) The Secretary of Health and Human Services shall 
     then certify to the Secretary of the Treasury the amount so 
     estimated by the Secretary of Health and Human Services.
       ``(ii) Method of payment.--The Secretary of the Treasury 
     shall thereupon, through the Fiscal Service of the Department 
     of the Treasury and prior to audit or settlement by the 
     General Accounting Office, pay to the State, at the time or 
     times fixed by the Secretary of Health and Human Services, 
     the amount so certified.
       ``(iii) Method of reconciliation.--If at the end of each 
     fiscal year, the Secretary of Health and Human Services finds 
     that a State which received amounts from the Fund in such 
     fiscal year did not meet the maintenance of effort 
     requirement under paragraph (5)(B) for such fiscal year, the 
     Secretary shall reduce the State family assistance grant of 
     such State for the succeeding fiscal year by such amounts.
       ``(4) Use of grant.--
       ``(A) In general.--An eligible State may use the grant--
       ``(i) in any manner that is reasonably calculated to 
     accomplish the purpose of this part; or
       ``(ii) in any manner that such State used amounts received 
     under part A or F of this title, as such parts were in effect 
     before October 1, 1995.
       ``(B) Refund of unused portion.--Any amount of a grant 
     under this subsection not used during the fiscal year shall 
     be returned to the Fund.
       ``(5) Eligible state.--
       ``(A) In general.--For purposes of this subsection, a State 
     is an eligible State with respect to a fiscal year, if
       ``(i)(I) the average rate of total unemployment in such 
     State (seasonally adjusted) for the period consisting of the 
     most recent 3 months for which data for all States are 
     published equals or exceeds 6.5 percent, and
       ``(II) the average rate of total unemployment in such State 
     (seasonally adjusted) for the 3-month period equals or 
     exceeds 110 percent of such average rate for either (or both) 
     of the corresponding 3-month periods ending in the 2 
     preceding calendar years; and
       ``(ii) has met the maintenance of effort requirement under 
     subparagraph (B) for the State program funded under this part 
     for the fiscal year.
       ``(B) Maintenance of effort.--The maintenance of effort 
     requirement for any State under this subparagraph for any 
     fiscal year is the expenditure of an amount at least equal to 
     100 percent of the level of historic State expenditures for 
     such State (as determined under subsection (a)(5)).
       ``(6) Annual reports.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall 
     annually report to the Congress on the status of the Fund.
       On page 40, line 13, strike ``15'' and insert ``20''.
       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC.  . ABSTINENCE EDUCATION.

       (a) Increase in Funding.--Section 501(a) of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 701(a)) is amended in the matter 
     preceding paragraph (1) by striking ``fiscal year 1990 and 
     each fiscal year thereafter'' and inserting ``fiscal years 
     1990 through 1995 and $761,000,000 for fiscal year 1996 and 
     each fiscal year thereafter''.


[[Page S 13648]]

       (b) Abstinence Education.--Section 501(a)(1) of such Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 701(a)(1) is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (c), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (2) in subparagraph (D), by adding ``and'' at the end; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(E) to provide abstinence education, and at the option of 
     the State, where appropriate, mentoring, counseling, and 
     adult supervision to promote abstinence from sexual activity, 
     with a focus on those groups which are most likely to bear 
     children out-of-wedlock.''.
       (c) Abstinence Education Defined.--Section 501(b) of such 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 701(b)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new paragraph:
       ``(5) Abstinence education.--For purposes of this 
     subsection, the term `abstinence education' shall mean an 
     educational or motivational program which--
       ``(A) has as its exclusive purpose, teaching the social, 
     psychological, and health gains to be realized by abstaining 
     from sexual activity;
       ``(B) teaches abstinence from sexual activity outside 
     marriage as the expected standard for all school age 
     children;
       ``(C) teaches that abstinence from sexual activity is the 
     only certain way to avoid out-of-wedlock pregnancy, sexually 
     transmitted diseases, and other associated health problems;
       ``(D) teaches that a mutually faithful monogamous 
     relationship in context of marriage is the expected standard 
     of human sexual activity;
       ``(E) teaches that sexual activity outside of the context 
     of marriage is likely to have harmful psychological and 
     physical effects;
       ``(F) teaches that bearing children out-of-wedlock is 
     likely to have harmful consequences for the child, the 
     child's parents, and society;
       ``(G) teaches young people how to reject sexual advances 
     and how alcohol and drug use increases vulnerability to 
     sexual advances; and
       ``(H) teaches the importance of attaining self-sufficiency 
     before engaging in sexual activity.''.
       (d) Set-Aside.--
       (1) In general.--Section 502(c) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 
     702(c)) is amended in the matter preceding paragraph (1) by 
     striking ``From'' and inserting ``Except as provided in 
     subsection (e), from''.
       (2) Set-aside.--Section 502 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 702) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(e) Of the amounts appropriated under section 501(a) for 
     any fiscal year, the Secretary shall set aside $75,000,000 
     for abstinence education in accordance with section 
     501(a)(1)(E).
       On page 29, between lines 15 and 16, insert the following:
       ``(f) Additional Amount for Studies and Demonstrations.--
       ``(1) In general.--There are authorized to be appropriated 
     and there are appropriated for each fiscal year described in 
     subsection (a)(1) an additional $20,000,000 for the purpose 
     of paying--
       ``(A) the Federal share of any State-initiated study 
     approved under section 410(g);
       ``(B) an amount determined by the Secretary to be necessary 
     to operate and evaluate demonstration projects, relating to 
     part A of title IV of this Act, that are in effect or 
     approved under section 1115 as of October 1, 1995, and are 
     continued after such date;
       ``(C) the cost of conducting the research described in 
     section 410(a); and
       ``(D) the cost of developing and evaluating innovative 
     approaches for reducing welfare dependency and increasing the 
     well-being of minor children under section 410(b).
       ``(2) Allocation.--Of the amount appropriated under 
     paragraph (1) for a fiscal year--
       ``(A) 50 percent shall be allocated for the purposes 
     described in subparagraphs (A) and (B) of paragraph (1), and
       ``(B) 50 percent shall be allocated for the purposes 
     described in subparagraphs (C) and (D) of paragraph (1).
       On page 29, line 16, strike ``(f)'' and insert ``(g)''.
       On page 57, beginning on line 22, strike all through page 
     60, line 2, and insert the following:
       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary, in consultation with 
     State and local government officials and other interested 
     persons, shall develop a quality assurance system of data 
     collection and reporting that promotes accountability and 
     ensures the improvement and integrity of programs funded 
     under this part.
       ``(b) State Submissions.--
       ``(1) In general.--Not later than the 15th day of the first 
     month of each calendar quarter, each State to which a grant 
     is made under section 403(f) shall submit to the Secretary 
     the data described in paragraphs (2) and (3) with respect to 
     families described in paragraph (4).
       ``(2) Disaggregated data described.--The data described in 
     this paragraph with respect to families described in 
     paragraph (4) is a sample of monthly disaggregated case 
     record data containing the following:
       ``(A) The age of the adults and children (including 
     pregnant women) in each family.
       ``(B) The marital and familial status of each member of the 
     family (including whether the family is a 2-parent family and 
     whether a child is living with an adult relative other than a 
     parent).
       ``(C) The gender, educational level, work experience, and 
     race of the head of each family.
       ``(D) The health status of each member of the family 
     (including whether any member of the family is seriously ill, 
     disabled, or incapacitated and is being cared for by another 
     member of the family).
       ``(E) The type and amount of any benefit or assistance 
     received by the family, including--
       ``(i) the amount of and reason for any reduction in 
     assistance, and
       ``(ii) if assistance is terminated, whether termination is 
     due to employment, sanction, or time limit.
       ``(F) Any benefit or assistance received by a member of the 
     family with respect to housing, food stamps, job training, or 
     the Head Start program.
       ``(G) The number of months since the family filed the most 
     recent application for assistance under the program and if 
     assistance was denied, the reason for the denial.
       ``(H) The number of times a family has applied for and 
     received assistance under the State program and the number of 
     months assistance has been received each time assistance has 
     been provided to the family.
       ``(I) The employment status of the adults in the family 
     (including the number of hours worked and the amount earned).
       ``(J) The date on which an adult in the family began to 
     engage in work, the number of hours the adult engaged in 
     work, the work activity in which the adult participated, and 
     the amount of child care assistance provided to the adult (if 
     any).
       ``(K) The number of individuals in each family receiving 
     assistance and the number of individuals in each family not 
     receiving assistance, and the relationship of each individual 
     to the youngest child in the family.
       ``(L) The citizenship status of each member of the family.
       ``(M) The housing arrangement of each member of the family.
       ``(N) The amount of unearned income, child support, assets, 
     and other financial factors considered in determining 
     eligibility for assistance under the State program.
       ``(O) The location in the State of each family receiving 
     assistance.
       ``(P) Any other data that the Secretary determines is 
     necessary to ensure efficient and effective program 
     administration.
       ``(3) Aggregated monthly data.--The data described in this 
     paragraph is the following aggregated monthly data with 
     respect to the families described in paragraph (4):
       ``(A) The number of families.
       ``(B) The number of adults in each family.
       ``(C) The number of children in each family.
       ``(D) The number of families for which assistance has been 
     terminated because of employment, sanctions, or time limits.
       ``(4) Families described.--The families described in this 
     paragraph are--
       ``(A) families receiving assistance under a State program 
     funded under this part for each month in the calendar quarter 
     preceding the calendar quarter in which the data is 
     submitted;
       ``(B) families applying for such assistance during such 
     preceding calendar quarter; and
       ``(C) families that became ineligible to receive such 
     assistance during such preceding calendar quarter.
       ``(5) Appropriate subsets of data collected.--The Secretary 
     shall determine appropriate subsets of the data describe in 
     paragraphs (2) and (3) that a State is required to submit 
     under paragraph (1) with respect to families described in 
     subparagraphs (B) and (C) of paragraph (4).
       ``(6) Sampling and other methods.--The Secretary shall 
     provide the States with such case sampling plans and data 
     collection procedures as the Secretary deems necessary to 
     produce statistically valid estimates of each State's program 
     performance. The Secretary is authorized to develop and 
     implement procedures for verifying the quality of data 
     submitted by the States.
       On page 62, after line 24, insert the following:
       ``(j) Report to Congress.--Not later than 6 months after 
     the end of fiscal year 1997, and each fiscal year thereafter, 
     the Secretary shall transmit to the Congress a report 
     describing--
       ``(1) whether the States are meeting--
       ``(A) the participation rates described in section 404(a); 
     and
       ``(B) the objectives of--
       ``(i) increasing employment and earnings of needy families, 
     and child support collections; and
       ``(ii) decreasing out-of-wedlock pregnancies and child 
     poverty;
       ``(3) the demographic and financial characteristics of 
     families applying for assistance, families receiving 
     assistance, and families that become ineligible to receive 
     assistance;
       ``(4) the characteristics of each State program funded 
     under this part; and
       ``(5) the trends in employment and earnings of needy 
     families with minor children.
       On page 63, beginning on line 3, strike all through line 
     16, and insert the following:
       ``(a) Research.--The Secretary shall conduct research on 
     the benefits, effects, and costs of operating different State 
     programs funded under this part, including time limits 
     relating to eligibility for assistance. The research shall 
     include studies on the effects of different programs and the 
     operation of such programs on welfare dependency, 
     illegitimacy, teen pregnancy, employment rates, child well-
     being, and any other area the Secretary deems appropriate.


[[Page S 13649]]

       ``(b) Development and Evaluation of Innovative Approaches 
     To Reducing Welfare Dependency and Increasing Child Well-
     Being.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary may assist States in 
     developing, and shall evaluate, innovative approaches for 
     reducing welfare dependency and increasing the well-being of 
     minor children with respect to recipients of assistance under 
     programs funded under this part. The Secretary may provide 
     funds for training and technical assistance to carry out the 
     approaches developed pursuant to this paragraph.
       ``(2) Evaluations.--In performing the evaluations under 
     paragraph (1), the Secretary shall, to the maximum extent 
     feasible, use random assignment as an evaluation methodology.
       On page 63, line 17, strike ``(d)'' and insert ``(c)''.
       On page 63, line 24, strike ``(e)'' and insert ``(d)''.
       On page 64, line 21, strike ``(f)'' and insert ``(e)''.
       On page 66, line 3, strike ``(g)'' and insert ``(f)''.
       On page 66, between lines 19 and 20, insert the following:
       ``(g) State-Initiated Studies.--A State shall be eligible 
     to receive funding to evaluate the State's family assistance 
     program funded under this part if--
       ``(1) the State submits a proposal to the Secretary for 
     such evaluation,
       ``(2) the Secretary determines that the design and approach 
     of the evaluation is rigorous and is likely to yield 
     information that is credible and will be useful to other 
     States, and
       ``(3) unless otherwise waived by the Secretary, the State 
     provides a non-Federal share of at least 10 percent of the 
     cost of such study.
       On page 163, line 16, add ``and'' after the semicolon.
       On page 163, strike lines 17 through 24, and insert in lieu 
     thereof the following:
       ``(iii) for fiscal years 1997 through 2002, $124, $211, 
     $174, $248 and $109, respectively.''
       On page 164, line 2, strike ``2000'' and insert in lieu 
     thereof ``2002''.
       On page 126, between lines 9 and 10, insert the following:
       (c) Treatment Services for Individuals with a Substance 
     Abuse Condition.--
       (1) In general.--Title XVI (42 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new section:


 ``treatment services for individuals with a substance abuse condition

       ``Sec. 1636. (a) In the case of any individual eligible for 
     benefits under this title by reason of disability who is 
     identified as having a substance abuse condition, the 
     Commissioner of Social Security shall make provision for 
     referral of such individual to the appropriate State agency 
     administering the State plan for substance abuse treatment 
     services approved under subpart II of part B of title XIX of 
     the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300x-21 et seq.)
       ``(b) No individual described in subsection (a) shall be an 
     eligible individual or eligible spouse for purposes of this 
     title if such individual refuses without good cause to accept 
     the referred services described under subsection (a).
       (2) Conforming amendment.--Section 1614(a)(4) (42 U.S.C. 
     1382c(a)(4)) is amended by inserting after the second 
     sentence the following new sentence: ``For purposes of the 
     preceding sentence, any individual identified by the 
     Commissioner as having a substance abuse condition shall seek 
     and complete appropriate treatment as needed.''.
       On page 126, line 10, strike ``c'' and insert ``(d)''.
       On page 127, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following 
     new subsection:
       (e) 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 (42 U.S.C. 300x-33), 
     $50,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 1997 and 1998.
       (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 (42 U.S.C. 300x-33) 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.
       On page 131, line 23, insert ``, including such 
     individual's treatment (if any) provided pursuant to such 
     title as in effect on the day before the date of such 
     enactment,'' after ``individual''.
       On page 158, between lines 11 and 12, insert the following:

                 Subtitle F--Retirement Age Eligibility

     SEC. 251. ELIGIBILITY FOR SUPPLEMENTAL SECURITY INCOME 
                   BENEFITS BASED ON SOCIAL SECURITY RETIREMENT 
                   AGE.

       (a) In General.--Section 1614 (a)(1)(A) (42 U.S.C. 
     1382c(a)(1)(A)) is amended by striking ``is 65 years of age 
     or older,'' and inserting ``has attained retirement age.''.
       (b) Retirement Age Defined.--Section 1614 (42 U.S.C. 1382c) 
     is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:

                            ``Retirement Age

       ``(g) For purposes of this title, the term ``retirement 
     age'' has the meaning given such term by section 
     216(l)(1).''.
       (c) Conforming Amendments.--Sections 1601, 1612(b)(4), 
     1615(a)(1), and 1620(b)(2) (42 U.S.C. 1381, 1382a(b)(4), 
     1382d(a)(1), and 1382i(b)(2)) are amended by striking ``age 
     65'' each place it appears and inserting ``retirement age''.
       (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to applicants for benefits for months beginning 
     after September 30, 1995.

  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I know there are some of our colleagues that 
want to make statements this afternoon on that. I would go over that 
just very quickly.
  I think we agree on the child care, the first provision, with a set-
aside in 1994 of $1 billion. Then we provide an additional $3 billion 
over 5 years for child care to be distributed among the States based on 
the funds for the title IV-A at-risk child care program.
  Job training. I will get that agreement, which I think has been 
cleared by the Democratic leader, which will be handled under a 
separate freestanding agreement.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Yes.
  Mr. DOLE. The contingency grant fund. This is in addition to the loan 
fund. We keep the loan fund at $1.7 billion. The contingency fund is $1 
billion over 7 years. Funds must be matched at Medicaid matching rates, 
and States must have maintained their 1994 level on spending on title 
IV-A and IV-F programs.
  Limited additional funds are available for those States whose base 
years do not fully reflect subsequent adjustments related to emergency 
assistance. I understand that affects 12 States. I am not certain of 
the total cost of that provision, but I think around $900 million.
  The hardship exemption has been increased from 15 percent to 20 
percent.
  There is $75 million per year for abstinence education.
  Program evaluation authorizes $20 million per year for evaluation.
  Food stamps. We worked out a provision which will save about $1.6 
billion. In the food stamp program, the standard deduction for all food 
stamp recipients will be reduced from the original S. 1120. It stages 
from its current level of $134 in increments of $2 per year down to 
$124 in fiscal year 2000. This modification will reduce the standard 
deduction to $132 in fiscal year 1996, as in the original S. 1120, and 
then immediately down to $124 in 1997, where it remains through fiscal 
year 2002. CBO gives this change a preliminary savings estimate of $1.1 
billion in additional savings.
  SSI. The SSI provision is the one, $50 million per year for 2 years 
for treatment, funded under the substance abuse block grant, a matter 
of interest to Senator Cohen and Senator Bingaman.
  I also ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record at this 
point a letter from the National Governors' Association. As the 
Democratic leader knows, we received letters asking for more child care 
funding and contingency grant funding and a number of other things.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                               National Governors Association,

                               Washington, DC, September 13, 1995.
     Hon. Robert Dole,
     U.S. Senate Majority Leader, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Dole: As you consider legislation to block 
     grant key welfare and child care programs, we urge you to 
     keep in mind the lessons states have learned over the last 
     decade of experimentation in welfare reform. As Governors we 
     know what it takes to reform the welfare system because we 
     are already doing it in our states--through state waiver 
     initiatives and through implementation of the Family Support 
     Act. Our experience tells us that three elements are crucial: 
     welfare must be temporary and linked to work; both parents 
     must support their children; and child care must be available 
     to enable low income families with children to work.
       Governors do believe that greater flexibility could aid 
     significantly our efforts to reform the welfare system. We 
     appreciate and support the changes that have been made 
     recently to your bill to ensure that states have the ability 
     to design their own welfare systems. These changes include a 
     state option to count vocational educational training toward 
     welfare-to-work participation rates and the ability to exempt 
     families with very young children from work requirements.

[[Page S 13650]]

       As the Senate considers welfare reform legislation, we 
     believe you should address several remaining key issues:
       Child Care. Child care represents the largest part of the 
     up-front investment needed for successful welfare reform. We 
     appreciate the flexibility that Title I of S. 1120 provides 
     for states to design child care services for families who are 
     participating in welfare-to-work activities or who have left 
     welfare for work, and the working poor. Further we are 
     pleased that the mandate to provide child care to mothers 
     with children under age six contained in the Senate Finance 
     Committee bill has been removed.
       We are concerned that unless adequate child care funding 
     continues to be provided at the federal level, the work 
     requirements in the bill could represent a significant 
     unfunded mandate on the states. While Governors differ on the 
     exact level of child care funding needed to implement the
      work requirements, we all agree that states will need 
     substantially more funding than is currently in your bill.
       We believe that if the following changes were adopted, the 
     federal-state partnership could be preserved for meeting 
     increased needs due to welfare work requirements and 
     increased child care needs could be minimized:
       Give states access to a limited amount of additional 
     federal matching fund for child care. These funds would be 
     available to states at the Medicaid match or 70 percent, 
     whichever is higher. Only states that were maintaining their 
     state levels of spending could qualify for these funds to 
     ensure that federal funds do not supplant state spending. 
     Funds would be allocated to states in the same way that At-
     Risk Child Care funds are currently distributed.
       To ensure protection for child care funding, fund the Child 
     Care Development Block Grant (CCDBG) as an entitlement to 
     states and eliminate prescriptive earmarks that limit state 
     flexibility in administering programs. Quality set-asides and 
     mandated resource and referral programs detract from states' 
     ability to provide needed child care services. Currently the 
     CCDBG is a discretionary program. The CCDBG is a critical 
     source of funds for child care assistance to poor families, 
     particularly for the working poor, and states will need the 
     assurance that these funds will be available at the level at 
     which the program is authorized.
       Give states the option of limiting required hours of work 
     to 20 hours per week for families with children under age 
     six. This would allow states to minimize the amount of child 
     care assistance needed by families with young children and 
     would allow states to set work expectations for low income 
     mothers with young children that are consistent with what our 
     society experts of other mothers with young children. The 
     bill approved by the Finance Committee did not require more 
     than 20 hours of work per week; S. 1120, however, mandates 35 
     hours per week by the year 2000. This is a major factor 
     behind estimates that by the year 2000 states will have to 
     spend several billion dollars annually, above and beyond 
     current spending, to meet the costs of providing child care 
     for welfare recipients.
       Contingency Grant Fund. Economic downturns can derail 
     welfare reform by sapping state revenues just when need for 
     assistance is rising. The greater flexibility of block grant 
     will allow states in normal economic times to control their 
     own welfare costs through eligibility, benefit and work 
     program decisions. We believe, however, that if a deep 
     economic recession occurs, the need for economic assistance 
     may well overwhelm the fiscal capacity of some states to 
     respond to that need. We urge you to include a contingency 
     grant fund that gives states that experience sharp increases 
     in unemployment access to federal matching grants. 
     Contingency funds would have to be matched at the Medicaid 
     match rates and states would only have access to these grants 
     if they have maintained their own level of state spending.
       Restrictions on Aid. In the past federal restrictions on 
     eligibility have served to contain federal costs given the 
     open-ended entitlement nature of federal cash assistance 
     funding. Governors believe that such restrictions have no 
     place, however, in a block grant system where federal costs 
     are fixed, regardless of the eligibility and benefit choices 
     made by each state. Accordingly we oppose any provisions that 
     prohibit states from aiding such groups as legal aliens, teen 
     parents, or additional children born to welfare recipients. 
     These decisions are most appropriately made at the state 
     level.
       Direct Funding to Tribes and Localities. Under current law, 
     federal welfare funds flow through state governments which, 
     in turn, add state matching funds and send the combined state 
     and federal funds to localities, including countries and 
     tribal reservations. S. 1120 would change this system by 
     allowing tribal governments to apply for direct federal 
     assistance, bypassing any state role. In addition, we 
     understand a floor amendment will be offered that would 
     similarly allow counties to bypass the state government. We 
     believe any direct funding to tribes or localities would be a 
     serious mistake. First, by eliminating the state role, it is 
     likely to lead to the end of future state funding to those 
     tribes and localities receiving direct federal funds. Second, 
     in the case of tribal families, it would be very difficult to 
     sort out who is responsible for serving families in areas 
     outside of reservations where tribal and nontribal families 
     live interspersed. Third, direct funding to localities will 
     prevent states from undertaking statewide reforms.
       State Penalties. As Governors we expect to be held 
     accountable for the use of any federal block grant funds, and 
     are fully committed to repaying any funds that the federal 
     government determines to have been misspent. We are 
     concerned, however, about the punitive nature of the 
     penalties in S. 1120. It goes beyond requiring states to 
     repay any misspent funds by creating a three-tier penalty 
     which 1) requires repayment of misspent funds; 2) imposes a 
     five percent reduction in a state's block grant allotment; 
     and 3) requires states to pay the five percent penalty out of 
     state general revenues rather than through any reduction in 
     program spending. These provisions should be modified.
       Performance Bonuses. Whether or not final welfare reform 
     legislation includes state penalties, we believe that it 
     should include bonuses for states with exceptional 
     performance. We support the proposal to give states 
     performance bonuses for each recipient they place in work. 
     States that have been successful in putting welfare 
     recipients to work should be rewarded and allowed to use such 
     bonuses for additional investments in child care for the 
     working poor and welfare-to-work programs.
       Thank you for your consideration of our views.
           Sincerely,
     Governor Tommy G. Thompson,
       State of Wisconsin.
     Governor Bob Miller,
       State of Nevada.

  Mr. DOLE. Before I yield--if I could get this--I ask as part of the 
unanimous consent that when the Senate proceeds to consideration of S. 
143, Calendar No. 153, that it be considered under the following time 
limitation: The committee-reported amendment be withdrawn, the managers 
be allowed to offer a substitute amendment; further, that the debate 
time be limited to a total of 9 hours equally divided between the two 
managers, with the only amendments in order to the bill be the 
following first-degree amendments, with no second-degree amendments in 
order, and that each amendment be limited to 45 minutes in the usual 
form.
  The amendments are: An amendment to strike the repeal of trade 
adjustment assistance; a Specter amendment regarding Job Corps; a 
Breaux amendment regarding dislocated workers; a Jeffords-Pell 
amendment regarding adult education; a Dodd amendment regarding 
national set-asides for migrant workers, dislocated workers, and 
others; five relevant Kassebaum amendments; and five relevant Kennedy 
amendments.
  This agreement was worked out with my colleague from Kansas, Senator 
Kassebaum, and the Senator from Massachusetts, Senator Kennedy.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOLE. I ask unanimous consent that the summary of the leadership 
amendment, the Dole-Daschle amendment, be printed in the Record. I 
stated just briefly what the summary entails.
  And there will be a record vote on this amendment; is that right?
  Mr. DASCHLE. Yes.
  There being no objection, the summary was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                          Leadership Amendment


                             1. Child care

       a. Set aside 1994 Title IV-A child care federal amount 
     (approximately $1 billion) annually to be used for child care 
     as currently provided in bill (as modified by Kassebaum). 
     Allocate based on state's 1994 spending on Title IV-A child 
     care.
       b. Provide additional $3.0 billion over 5 years for child 
     care. To be distributed among the states based on the funds 
     for the Title IV-A at-risk child care program. To be 
     eligible, state must have maintained 1994 Title IV-A spending 
     on child care. Must match under the medicaid matching 
     formula.
       c. At state option, single parents with children age 5 and 
     under may not be required to work more than 20 hours per 
     week.


                            2. Job Training

       Free standing bill under agreed upon time agreement.


                       3. Contingency Grant Fund

       (This is in addition to loan fund not in lieu of.)
       Over 7 years, provides $1 billion in grant fund to be 
     available to states under the following conditions.
       a. Funds must be matched at medicaid matching rates.
       b. States must have maintained their 1994 level of spending 
     on Title IV-A and IV-F programs.
       Limited additional funds available for those states whose 
     base year does not fully reflect subsequent adjustments 
     related to emergency assistance.


                         4. Hardship Exemption

       Increase current hardship exemption in the bill from 15 
     percent to 20 percent.

[[Page S 13651]]



                        5. Abstinence Education

       Increase funding for Title V Block Grant by $75 million per 
     year to be earmarked for abstinence education.


                         6. Program Evaluation

       Authorize $20 million per year for evaluation.


                             7. Food Stamps

       In the Food Stamp Program, the standard deduction, a 
     deduction from income given to all food stamp recipients, was 
     reduced, in the original S. 1120, in stages from its current 
     level of $134 in increments of $2 per year down to a level of 
     $124 in FY2000. This modification would reduce the standard 
     deduction to $132 in FY1996 (as in the original S. 1120) and 
     then immediately down to $124 in FY1997 where it would remain 
     through FY2002. CBO gives this change a preliminary savings 
     estimate of $1.1 billion in additional savings.


                                 8. SSI

       1. All recipients identified with substance abuse problem 
     must be referred for treatment.
       2. $50 million per year for 2 years (97-98) for treatment. 
     Funded under Substance Abuse Block Grant.
       3. For the next year, current recipients enrolled with RMAs 
     will continue with RMA.
       4. Conform age for eligibility to social security 
     retirement age.
                                                                    ____

  Mr. DOLE. I yield the floor.
  Mr. DASCHLE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished minority leader.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Let me thank the majority leader for his cooperation in 
bringing us to this point. Obviously, this was a matter of a great deal 
of discussion over the last several days, and I think it represents our 
best effort at attempting to reconcile a number of issues for which 
there is interest on both sides.
  Obviously, child care was the most significant. As the distinguished 
leader indicated, this bill provides for $3 billion over 5 years for 
childcare services to be provided by the States. That is in addition to 
the $5 billion over the next 5 years that was originally contemplated 
in the original Dole bill as well as the Democratic bill that we voted 
upon earlier.
  So it represents, in my view, the most significant commitment the 
Senate has made thus far to the realization that there is a very 
important investment required in child care if, indeed, we want the 
recipients of welfare ultimately to find work and to obtain the job 
skills necessary to work.
  In my view, as many of us have indicated, this is the linchpin to 
making welfare work better. Good child care means better participation, 
means greater success at what it is we are trying to do. So this is 
really the key of this amendment as well. Not only is it the key of the 
bill, but it was critical to finding some resolution to the issue. And 
as a result of a good deal of discussion and negotiation on both sides, 
we have now come to this point.
  I am very pleased that we can say with some satisfaction that we are 
providing States with resources that will be critical to their success 
in making welfare work.
  In addition, of course, we have had a good debate about what ought to 
be the level of maintenance that will be required of States over the 
next 5 years, what will be required of them, not just what will the 
Federal Government do, but what will the States do.
  We offered an amendment for which there was a very close vote in 
recognition of the need to require States to do a certain level of 
responsibility. We have agreed that an 80-percent real maintenance of 
effort is something that is prudent and something for which there ought 
to be strong bipartisan support.
  We also, as we have just indicated with this unanimous-consent 
agreement relating to job training, taken out those segments of the 
original Dole bill that would have authorized job training outside of 
the welfare context.
  Our view is that it is important for us to find ways to ensure that 
people who are not on welfare have good job training, people who have 
lost jobs who otherwise would be productive citizens may need to be 
skilled in new jobs. This whole section of the bill is designed to 
provide opportunities for that to happen. But it is not a welfare 
program, so we do not want to give it that welfare connotation.
  That is really, in essence, what this agreement does. It allows us to 
separate out job training and provide for the necessary legislation, as 
soon as we dispose of this bill and the appropriations bills, to return 
to job training and allow us to do that.
  Fourth, and just as importantly, we recognize that States on many 
occasions will find that the current allotment is not going to work. I 
am very concerned about whether the provisions in this bill will allow 
that to be addressed adequately. We provide $1 billion over 5 years. I 
recognize we are working under constraints in resources, but I am 
concerned that we may have to revisit this issue at some point in the 
future. But $1 billion is better than none at all. States have 
indicated they need it. This provides it.
  So we also, in a bipartisan way, I think, recognize that there will 
be emergencies, and this fund will allow us to deal with them in a 
meaningful way.
  It also provides a change in the time limits that are provided under 
the exemption. The original Dole bill allowed Governors a 15-percent 
exemption. This raises it to 20 percent. We provide $75 million per 
year in abstinence education and then, finally, at least $50 million 
over the next 4 years each year for substance abuse treatment. That was 
the Cohen amendment.
  Mr. President, this is a good compromise, a good amendment. I hope 
that it enjoys broad support next Tuesday when we have the opportunity 
to vote on it. I propose we have a little bit of time to revisit the 
issue, maybe 10, 15 minutes on a side prior to the point we vote on 
final passage and on this amendment. It is worthy of our support, and I 
appreciate the cooperation of Senators on both sides of the aisle who 
brought us to this point this afternoon.
  I yield the floor.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I want to compliment the two leaders for 
their leadership in helping to bring about this agreement. I hope 
everybody will support the leadership amendment. Not everybody is 
pleased. That is what compromises are all about. But I have to tell 
you, a lot of people felt when we started this debate that it would 
drag out for weeks; that there would be no effective resolution; that 
we could not bring both sides together, because there are too wide 
viewpoints: One side wants more and more for welfare and wants it for 
the best of reasons. The other side believes balanced budgets are the 
prime effort that we should be taking at this time, because if we do 
not, the moneys we have will not be worth anything anyway.
  If we go to $10 trillion in the national debt, who cares what is 
going to happen. What happened here because of the two leaders is we 
have been able to work together and bring together a package that is 
going to make a whale of a difference for the whole society. It is a 
savings package, a compassionate package. In other words, it is a 
package that points toward a balanced budget in a reasonable period of 
time by the year 2002.
  In particular, I want to talk a second or two about our majority 
leader. This has been one of the more difficult problems that I have 
seen on the floor. There are so many varying beliefs, so many varying 
difficulties in managing this bill. It has taken great patience, great 
tolerance, sometimes pretty tough talk, and an awful lot of leadership 
to bring this bill to this point where next week we are going to pass 
it, one way or the other, and we are going to pass it with this 
leadership amendment.
  There are a lot of very, very important parts of this bill. You 
cannot really say any one part was the linchpin or the only key part 
that really made this bill possible. We have had everything ranging 
from abstinence education to food stamps to program evaluation to SSI. 
Job training has been set apart, mainly because we know it is a very 
hot issue and a very difficult one to resolve with 150 different job 
training programs in the Federal Government. What is being done here is 
trying to consolidate them to make them work better, more efficiently 
and give the States a little more leeway to be able to solve some of 
these problems.
  On child care, let me tell you something, without the effective work 
of the majority leader, that would not have been brought about. He had 
it within his power and was pushed at one time to stop it, to cut out 
additional 

[[Page S 13652]]

funds for child care above the $5 billion originally in the bill. But 
he worked with both sides, cajoled both sides, tried to resolve the 
problems and, ultimately, we have done what really is right here.
  We provided an additional $3 billion for child care. First of all, we 
set aside the 1994 title IV-A child care Federal amount, which is 
approximately $1 billion, so that it will be used for child care as it 
should be. That was something that had to be solved. That was an 
amendment that I pushed very hard.
  The distinguished Senator from Kansas displayed a significant--both 
Senators from Kansas, but I am talking about, in this case, the 
distinguished chairman of the Labor and Human Resources Committee. 
Without her, we would not be anywhere near having a child care bill 
that is the integral part of this bill. She has done a terrific job, 
along with Senator Snowe from Maine, and others, that I would like to 
mention, but for want of time will not.
  I have to compliment the distinguished Senator from Connecticut, 
Senator Dodd, and Senator Kennedy from Massachusetts. These Senators 
wanted more money. They wanted to do more in this area, but they also 
had to recognize that there is a limit, that there are not the moneys 
there and that it is really wrong, basically and fundamentally wrong, 
to promise to the American people, especially those single heads of 
household who depend on child care, that there is going to be another 
$10 billion of child care there, when we are only talking about an 
authorization and there is no way to get that kind of money. It would 
have sent out a signal and sent out a message and would have 
demoralized a lot of people.
  What happened is we brought it all together under the leadership of 
Senator Dole. I have to say to my good friend from South Dakota as 
well, the distinguished minority leader, what a tremendous job these 
two leaders have done. As usual, the majority leader has consistently 
taken these tough, hard issues day after day, week after week, 
sometimes having more trouble on our side, but always having plenty of 
challenge on the other side and getting it done.
  In this case, I just cannot compliment these two leaders enough. I 
would feel badly leaving here today without at least expressing my 
fondness and my regard for them and their leadership.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. DOLE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished majority leader.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, let me also commend and congratulate the 
Senator from Utah, Senator Hatch, because we were in some very tense 
discussions yesterday.
 And we have tense discussions around here from time to time. It was 
over how do we do the right thing and still save enough money and 
change the system. I think we ended up right on track in all three 
areas. Much of it was due to the efforts of Senator Hatch working with 
Senators on the other side and working with a number on this side of 
the aisle and working with the majority leader. I, in turn, went to the 
Democratic leader, and we were able to come together after a little 
misunderstanding late in the afternoon about whether it was $2 or $3 
billion.

  In any event, we have now accomplished that, and I think we will have 
a little debate on Tuesday before the vote. I hope that the two leaders 
will have 5 minutes each so we can make a closing statement on the 
bill.
  I would expect broad bipartisan support. We have had 95 hours, I 
think, on this bill, and 38 votes, tough votes. There were a lot of 
votes today. In fact, there were 10 today. I think we have had a good 
debate. Everybody has had an opportunity to express their views. I 
believe when a final vote is taken, there will be a strong bipartisan 
support for changing welfare as we know it, giving power back to the 
States. I think that is a big step in the right direction.
  There are a number of amendments that have been cleared, and I will 
offer those at this time.
  I ask unanimous consent to temporarily set aside amendment No. 2683 
so that I may offer these amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendments Nos. 2552; 2567; 2499; 2580, As Modified; 2585, As Modified; 
                   2544; 2486, As Modified; and 2684

  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to consider and 
adopt the following amendments, en bloc, that any amendment be 
considered as modified where noted with the modifications I send to the 
desk, and that any statements accompanying these amendments be inserted 
at the appropriate place in the Record as if read. Those are as 
follows:
  A Bryan amendment No. 2552; a Graham of Florida amendment No. 2567; a 
Bond amendment No. 2499; a Grams of Minnesota amendment No. 2580, as 
modified; a Stevens amendment No. 2585, previously agreed to, now as 
modified; a McCain amendment No. 2544; a Levin-Dole amendment No. 2486, 
previously agreed to, as modified; and an Abraham-Jeffords amendment. I 
send them all to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendments are agreed 
to, en bloc.
  The amendments (Nos. 2552; 2567; 2499; 2580, as modified; 2585, as 
modified; 2544; 2486, as modified; and 2684) were agreed to.
  The modified amendments and amendment No. 2684 read as follows:
                    amendment no. 2580, as modified

       On page 36, between lines 13 and 14, insert the following:
       ``(4) Limitation on vocational education activities counted 
     as work.--For purposes of determining monthly participation 
     rates under paragraphs (1)(B)(i)(I) and 2(B)(i) of subsection 
     (b), not more than 25 percent of adults in all families and 
     in 2-parent families determined to be engaged in work in the 
     State for a month may meet the work activity requirement 
     through participation in vocational educational training.
                                                                    ____



                    amendment no. 2585, as modified

       On page 16, beginning on line 13, strike all through line 
     17, and insert the following:
       ``(4) Indian; indian tribe, and tribal organization.--
       ``(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B), 
     the term `Indian', `Indian tribe', and `tribal organization' 
     have the meaning given such terms by section 4 of the Indian 
     Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 
     450b).
       ``(B) In alaska.--For purposes of making tribal family 
     assistance grants under section 414 on behalf of Indians in 
     Alaska, the term `Indian tribe' shall mean only the following 
     Alaska Native regional nonprofit corporations:
       ``(i) Arctic Slope Native Association.
       ``(ii) Kawerak, Inc.
       ``(iii) Maniilaq Association.
       ``(iv) Association of Village Council Presidents.
       ``(v) Tanana Chiefs Conference.
       ``(vi) Cook Inlet Tribal Council.
       ``(vii) Bristol Bay Native Association.
       ``(viii) Aleutian and Pribilof Island Association.
       ``(ix) Chugachmuit.
       ``(x) Tlingit Haida Central Council.
       ``(xi) Kodiak Area Native Association.
       ``(xii) Copper River Native Association.
       On page 75, between lines 6 and 7, insert the following:
       ``(i) Special Rule for Indian Tribes in Alaska.--
       ``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     this section, and except as provided in paragraph (2), an 
     Indian tribe in the State Alaska that receives a tribal 
     family assistance grant under this section shall use such 
     grant to operate a program in accordance with the 
     requirements applicable to the program of the State of Alaska 
     funded under this part.
       ``(2) Waiver.--An Indian tribe described in paragraph (1) 
     may apply to the appropriate State authority to receive a 
     waiver of the requirement of paragraph (1).
                                                                    ____

                    AMENDMENT NO. 2486, AS MODIFIED

       On page 12, between lines 22 and 23, insert the following:
       (G) Community service.--Not later than 2 years after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act, consistent with the 
     exception provided in section 404(d), require participation 
     by, and offer to, unless the State opts out of this provision 
     by notifying the Secretary, a parent or caretaker receiving 
     assistance under the program, after receiving such assistance 
     for 6 months--
       ``(i) is not exempt from work requirements; and
       ``(ii) is not engaged in work as determined under section 
     404(c),

     in community service employment, with minimum hours per week 
     and tasks to be determined by the State.
                                                                    ____

       On page 51, strike the matter inserted between lines 11 and 
     12 by the modification submitted on September 8, 1995, and 
     insert the following:
       ``(e) Grant Increased To Reward States That Reduce Out-of-
     Wedlock Births.--
       ``(1) In general.--The amount of the grant payable to a 
     State under section 403(a)(1)(A) for fiscal years 1998, 1999, 
     and 2000 shall be increased by--
       ``(A) an amount equal the product of $25 multiplied by the 
     number of children in the 

[[Page S 13653]]

State in families with incomes below the poverty line, according to the 
most recently available Census data, if--
       ``(i) the illegitimacy ratio of the State for the most 
     recent fiscal year for which such information is available is 
     at least 1 percentage point lower than the illegitimacy ratio 
     of the State for fiscal year 1995 (or, if such information is 
     not available, the first available year after 1995 for which 
     such data is available); and
       ``(ii) the rate of induced pregnancy terminations for the 
     same most recent fiscal year in the State is not higher than 
     the rate of induced pregnancy terminations in the State for 
     fiscal year 1995 (or, the same first available year); or
       ``(B) an amount equal the product of $50 multiplied by the 
     number of children in the State in families with incomes 
     below the poverty line, according to the most recently 
     available Census data, if--
       ``(i) the illegitimacy ratio of the State for the most 
     recent fiscal year for which information is available is at 
     least 2 percentage points lower than the illegitimacy ratio 
     of the State for fiscal year 1995 (or, if such information is 
     not available, the first available year after 1995 for which 
     such data is available); and
       ``(ii) the rate of induced pregnancy terminations in the 
     State for the same most recent fiscal year is not higher than 
     the rate of induced pregnancy terminations in the State for 
     fiscal year 1995 (or, the same first available fiscal year).
       ``(2) Determination of the secretary.--The Secretary shall 
     not increase the grant amount under paragraph (1) if the 
     Secretary determines that the relevant difference between the 
     illegitimacy ratio of a State for an applicable fiscal year 
     and the illegitimacy ratio of such State for fiscal year 1995 
     or, where appropriate, the first available year after 1995 
     for which such data is available, is the result of a change 
     in State methods of reporting data used to calculate the 
     illegitimacy ratio or if the Secretary determines that the 
     relevant non-increase in the rate of induced pregnancy 
     terminations for an applicable fiscal year as compared to 
     fiscal year 1995 or the appropriate fiscal year is the result 
     of a change in State methods of reporting data used to 
     calculate the rate of induced pregnancy terminations.
       ``(3) Illegitimacy ratio.--For purposes of this subsection, 
     the term `illegitimacy ratio' means, with respect to a State 
     and a fiscal year--
       ``(A) the number of out-of-wedlock births that occurred in 
     the State during the most recent fiscal year for which such 
     information is available; divided by
       ``(B) the number of births that occurred in the State 
     during the most recent fiscal year for which such information 
     is available.
       ``(4) Poverty line.--For purposes of this subsection, the 
     term `poverty line' has the meaning given such term in 
     section 403(a)(3)(D)(iii).
       ``(5) Availability of amounts.--There are authorized to be 
     appropriated and there are appropriated such sums as may be 
     necessary for fiscal years 1998, 1999, and 2000 for the 
     purpose of increasing the amount of the grant payable to a 
     State under section 403(a)(1) in accordance with this 
     subsection.

  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. DOLE. There were 39 votes and there will be three more, so that 
is 42 votes before we complete action.


                      Unanimous-Consent Agreement

  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate 
reconvenes at 2:15 p.m. on Tuesday--and we will be here Monday, but 
this is after the policy lunch Tuesday--the Senate proceed to 30 
minutes of debate to be equally divided in the usual form, to be 
followed immediately by a vote on the Gramm amendment No. 2615, to be 
followed by a vote on the Dole modification, to be followed by adoption 
of the Dole amendment No. 2280, third reading and final passage of H.R. 
4, as amended, with 2 minutes for debate between the second and third 
votes, to be equally divided in the usual form.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOLE. For the information of all Senators, at 2:15 p.m., there 
will be 30 minutes for debate, under the control of the leaders or 
their designees, for wrap-up statements with respect to the welfare 
bill, and then the Senate will proceed to three back-to-back votes on 
the Gramm amendment No. 2615, the Dole modification, and final passage 
of H.R. 4.
  Mr. DASCHLE. If the majority leader will yield, just for the 
information of Senators, is it still the majority leader's intention to 
bring up the Agriculture appropriations bill on Monday?
  Mr. DOLE. If there is no objection, we would like to proceed to that. 
In fact, I think I have it here. At the hour of 10 a.m. we will proceed 
to calendar No. 186, H.R. 1976, the Agriculture appropriations bill.
  Mr. DASCHLE. The unanimous-consent agreement does include a reference 
to when votes will take place?
  Mr. DOLE. Not prior to the hour of 5:15.
  Again, candidly, I know some of our Senators have official business 
on Monday. So we are trying to accommodate their wishes. We are also 
trying to finish that bill by Tuesday. I have talked to Senator 
Cochran, the committee chairman. He believes it can be done. There is 
one particular amendment that will take 2 hours of debate on Tuesday 
morning, concerning chickens, chilled chickens. It is a matter 
involving three different States. Kansas is not one of them. It will be 
interesting.
  I hope we can complete action on that following final action on the 
welfare bill. We had hoped to go to the State, Justice, Commerce 
Department appropriations bill today. I do not believe we can do that 
now. I assume we will take that up following the Agriculture bill.

                          ____________________