[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.
____________________