[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 146 (Tuesday, September 19, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S13770-S13804]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                      FAMILY SELF-SUFFICIENCY ACT

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report H.R. 4.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 4) to restore the American family, reduce 
     illegitimacy, control welfare spending, and reduce welfare 
     dependence.

  The Senate resumed consideration of the bill.

       Pending:
       Dole modified amendment No. 2280, of a perfecting nature.
       Gramm modified amendment No. 2615 (to Amendment No. 2280), 
     to reduce the Federal welfare bureaucracy.
       Dole/Daschle amendment No. 2683 (to Amendment No. 2280), to 
     make certain modifications.


                Amendment No. 2692 to Amendment No. 2280

              (Purpose: To provide a technical amendment)

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk. 

[[Page S13771]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Domenici], for Mr. Dole, 
     proposes and amendment numbered 2692 to amendment No. 2280.

  Mr. DOMENICI. 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 is as follows:

       On page 12, between lines 22 and 23, in the matter inserted 
     by amendment no. 2486 as modified-
       (1) in subparagraph (G), strike ``3 years'' and insert ``2 
     years''; and
       (2) in subparagraph (G), strike ``6 months'' and insert ``3 
     months''.
       On page 69, line 18, in the matter inserted by amendment 
     no. 2479, as modified--
       (1) in section 413(a), strike ``country'' and insert 
     ``country''; and
       (2) in section 413(b)(5), strike ``eligible countries are 
     defined as:'' and insert ``Eligible country.--A county may 
     participate in a demonstration project under this subsection 
     if the county is--''.
       On page 50, line 6, in the matter inserted by amendment no. 
     2528--
       (1) in subsection (d)(3)(A), strike ``1998'' and insert 
     ``1996'';
       (2) in subsection (d)(3)(C), strike ``1998, 1999, and 
     2000'' and insert ``1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, and 
     2002''; and
       (3) in subsection (d)(3)(C), strike ``as may be necessary'' 
     and insert ``specified in subparagraph (B)(ii)''.
       On page 77, between lines 21 and 22, insert the following 
     new section:

     ``SEC. 420. ELIGIBILITY FOR CHILD CARE ASSISTANCE.

       Notwithstanding section 658T of the Child Care and 
     Development Block Grant Act of 1990, the State agency 
     specified in section 402(a)(6) shall determine eligibility 
     for child care assistance provided under this part in 
     accordance with criteria determined by the State.''.
       On page 303, line 15, add ``and'' after the semicolon.
       One page 304, line 22, strike ``and'' after the semicolon.
       On page 305, line 16, insert ``, not including direct 
     service costs,'' after ``administrative costs''.
       On page 305, line 18, strike the second period and insert 
     ``; and''.
       On page 305, between lines 18 and 19, insert the following:
       ``(C) by adding at the end thereof the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(6) Services for the working poor.--The State plan shall 
     describe the manner in which services will be provided to the 
     working poor.'''.
       Beginning on page 305, strike line 19, and all that follows 
     through line 6, on page 306, and insert the following:
       (d) Clarification of Eligible Child.--Section 658P(4)(B) of 
     the Child care and Development Block Grant Act of 1990 (42 
     U.S.C. 9858n(4)(B)) is amended by striking ``75 percent'' and 
     inserting ``100 percent''.
       On page 738, line 10, strike ``on'' and insert ``for''.
       On page 753, line 8, strike ``subsections (c) and (d)'' and 
     insert ``subsection (c)''.
       On page 753, lines 20 and 21, strike ``or serious physical, 
     sexual, or emotional harm, or'' and insert ``, serious 
     physical or emotional harm, sexual abuse or exploitation, or 
     an act or failure to act which''.
       On page 776, line 1, strike ``other'' the second time such 
     term appears.
       On page 786, line 7, strike ``, through 2000'' and insert 
     ``and 1997''.
       On page 22, line 12, strike ``$16,795,323,000'' and insert 
     ``$16,803,769,000''.
       On page 99, line 20, strike ``$92,250,000'' and insert 
     ``$100,039,000''.
       On page 100, line 9, strike ``$3,150,000'' and insert 
     ``$3,489,000''.
       On page 100, line 22, strike ``$4,275,000'' and insert 
     ``$4,593,000''.
       On page 99, strike lines 4 and 5 and insert the following:
       (I) by inserting ``(or paid, in the case of part A of title 
     IV)'' after ``certified''; and
       On page 27, strike lines 17 through 22, and insert the 
     following:
       ``(B) Rate of interest.--The Secretary shall charge and 
     collect interest on any loan made under subparagraph (A) at a 
     rate equal to the current average market yield on outstanding 
     marketable obligations of the United States with remaining 
     periods to maturity comparable to the period to maturity of 
     the loan.
       On page 54, line 25, add after ``amount.'' the following: 
     ``The Secretary may not forgive any outstanding loan amount 
     nor interest owed thereon.''
       On page 293, lines 8 and 9, strike ``any benefit described 
     in clause (1)(A)(ii) of subsection (d)'' and insert ``any 
     benefit under a program described in subsection (d)(2)''.
       On page 293, line 19 strike ``subsection (d)(2)'' and 
     insert ``subsection (d)(4)''.
       On page 293, line 21, insert ``the'' before ``enactment''.
       On page 294, line 20, insert ``under a program'' after 
     ``benefit''.
       On page 297, line 11, strike ``Federal''.
       On page 297, line 20, strike ``and''.
       Beginning on page 297, line 21, strike all through page 
     298, line 3, and insert the following:
       (2) the term ``poverty line'' has the same meaning given 
     such term in section 673(2) of the Community Services Block 
     Grant Act (42 U.S.C. 9902(2)).
       On page 298, line 3, strike ``involved.'' and insert 
     ``involved; and''.
       Line to be added at the appropriate place in Title XII of 
     Dole's Amendment to HR. 4:
       ``In making reductions in full-time equivalent positions, 
     the Secretary is encouraged to reduce personnel in the 
     Washington, DC area office (agency headquarters) before 
     reducing field personnel.''
       (1) In section 501(b)(1), strike ``(IV), or (V)'' and 
     insert in lieu thereof ``or (IV)''.
       (2) In section 502(f)(1), strike ``(IV, or (v)'' and insert 
     in lieu thereof ``or (IV)''.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, this amendment contains technical 
changes. I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be considered and 
agreed to, en bloc. It has been approved on the other side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  So the amendment (No. 2692) was agreed to.


                   Modification to Amendment No. 2683

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Dole, I send a 
modification to amendment No. 2683 to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has that right. The amendment is 
so modified.
  The modification is as follows:

       Strike page 7 and insert in lieu thereof the following: 
     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.--
       ``(i) In general.--For purposes of subparagraph (A) and 
     subject to the limitation in clause (ii), 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).
       ``(ii) Limitation.--Amounts made available under clause (i) 
     to all States shall not exceed $800,000,000 for the 5-fiscal 
     year period beginning in fiscal year 1996. 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.
       ``(iii) 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 subparagraph after fiscal year 2000.
       Strike page 11, and insert in lieu thereof the following: 
     fiscal years 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002 
     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 State 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.

  Mr. DOMENICI. I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendments to 
H.R. 4 at the desk be withdrawn, other than the Gramm and Dole 
amendments. This has been agreed to, also.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 30 
minutes for debate be postponed, to begin following the next two back-
to-back rollcall votes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I yield the floor.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 2615

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
2615.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered. 

[[Page S13772]]

  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. I announce that the Senator from Oregon [Mr. Hatfield] is 
necessarily absent due to illness.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Oregon [Mr. Hatfield] would vote ``yea.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 50, nays 49, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 441 Leg.]

                                YEAS--50

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

                                NAYS--49

     Akaka
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Graham
     Harkin
     Heflin
     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

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Hatfield
       
  So the amendment (No. 2615) was agreed to.


                Vote on Amendment No. 2683, as Modified

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment 
numbered 2683, as modified.
  Mr. DOLE. 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 amendment 
of the Senator from Kansas. 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 Oregon [Mr. Hatfield] is 
absent due to illness.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Oregon [Mr. Hatfield] would vote ``yea.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Inhofe). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 87, nays 12, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 442 Leg.]

                                YEAS--87

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Brown
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Frist
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Heflin
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nunn
     Packwood
     Pell
     Pressler
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Shelby
     Simon
     Simpson
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner
     Wellstone

                                NAYS--12

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Coats
     Faircloth
     Gramm
     Grams
     Helms
     Inhofe
     Lott
     Moynihan
     Nickles
     Smith

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Hatfield
       
  So, the amendment (No. 2683), as modified, was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, amendment 2280 is 
adopted.
  So the amendment (No. 2280), as further modified, as amended, was 
agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the engrossment of the 
amendments and third reading of the bill.
  The amendments were ordered to be engrossed, and the bill to be read 
a third time.
  The bill was read a third time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will be 30 minutes for debate equally 
divided.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Texas, 
Senator Hutchison.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I want to thank the majority leader 
because this Senate is getting ready to take a major step to end 
welfare as we know it. The majority leader has put together a coalition 
that is bipartisan.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, may we have order? The Senator is 
entitled to be heard. She is making a very important statement. And 
could we insist on order for the remaining half hour?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order.
  The Senator from Texas.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I want to say that when we take this 
major step to end welfare as we know it, we will owe a great deal of 
the thanks to our majority leader for putting together this bipartisan 
coalition.
  We are making an important policy change in America today. Welfare 
will be a hand up but not a handout. Welfare will be there for a 
transition, for people in trouble, but it will not become a way of 
life.
  There will be a 5-year lifetime limit on able-bodied people getting 
welfare, so that family that is working hard to do better, to educate 
their children will know that they are not paying a bill for someone 
who is able but not willing to work.
  In our bill, block grants replace entitlements for seven AFDC 
programs. We will be saving $60 billion in welfare costs, the most ever 
cut in welfare in our country's history.
  What could have killed this bill was the inequity in block grants 
among the States. The States could have said, ``Well, if I don't get 
this for my State, I'm walking away from welfare reform.''
  But many of us were able to get together and say each State is 
different. What we have done in the past is different, what we are 
going to do in the future is different and, therefore, we must 
accommodate each State.
  Everyone has given so that we will have parity over the next 7 years. 
That is the hallmark of this bill: States rights, State flexibility to 
provide the programs that fit their needs.
  In fact, it is the policy set by the Congress that States can become 
more efficient and responsive if Washington, DC, will just get out of 
the way. And today, Mr. President, Washington is going to get out of 
the way. Thank you.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to the indomitable 
Senator from Illinois, [Ms. Moseley-Braun].
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Thank you very much, Mr. President.
  Mr. President, the Senate is poised to take action on one of the most 
political issues facing this Congress. There is bipartisan agreement 
that welfare reform is needed, welfare is not a free ride, and work 
requirements should be placed on adult recipients as a condition of 
receipt. Certainly anybody who can work should work.
  Welfare should have more than one goal, however. It should not only 
put people to work but it should also protect children. This bill, 
however, regrettably, does neither. It bears repeating. Of the 14 
million-plus welfare recipients, two-thirds, or nearly 9.6 million 
people, are children; 60 percent of those children are under 6 years 
old. It is the 5 million preschool-age babies who will be the real 
objects of our decisionmaking today.
  The most stunning error of this bill, in my opinion, is that it 
ignores entirely the plight of poor children. It dismantles the 60-
year-old Federal safety net that has assured at least some assistance 
to them. This bill completely ignores the consequences to our national 
community of the abandonment of a safety net for poor children. 

[[Page S13773]]

  Earlier in this debate, I showed pictures from around the turn of the 
century, before we had a national Federal safety net. Those pictures 
showed young children sleeping on grates and picking through trash. Is 
that where we want to be when we enter the 21st century?
  Mr. President, I am afraid this bill could make that shameful history 
a new reality. In my opinion, this bill takes a Pontius Pilate approach 
to Federal responsibility. As a national community, we are here washing 
our hands of responsibility for these poor children. This bill sends 
the problem to the States with high-flown rhetoric about State 
responsibility and innovation.
  But what if--what if--a State proves unwilling to address the poverty 
of children in its midst? Are we to concede there is nothing that we as 
a national community should do? This bill makes certain that there is 
nothing that we can do.
  And what if the States find, as Senator Moynihan has shown, that 
incidents of child poverty in this country are localized in urban areas 
or in pockets of rural poverty? What if the States find that? Child 
poverty may not be a problem that is most effectively addressed by 
block grants to State governments. Who will speak for the children 
then?
  It is said that this bill will end welfare as we know it. Had it 
ended welfare abuses, I would have been among the first to applaud it. 
Had it rationally addressed ending the poverty that is the first level 
qualifier for welfare, I would have enthusiastically supported it. But 
it does neither, and it will not end welfare as we know it but rather 
creates 50 welfare systems with the potential for real tragedy for 
children.
  In my opinion, Mr. President, that is the fatal flaw of this 
legislation; that this is welfare as we knew it, back to the days of 
street urchins and friendless foundlings and homeless half-orphans. I, 
for one, am not prepared to take so giant a step backward or to be so 
generous with the suffering of those 5 million poor children under the 
age of 6.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. DOLE. I yield 2 minutes to my colleague from Kansas, Senator 
Kassebaum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, first, I would just like to respond to 
my colleague, whom I admire and whom I know feels deeply about 
children, about those who may not have a safety net protection. I would 
just like to say to Senator Moseley-Braun that I think one of the real 
strengths of this legislation is that we did strengthen child care, and 
child care is a very important requirement in order to have successful 
welfare reform.
  I think this bill does strike a good balance, and I express my 
appreciation to those on both sides of the aisle who have worked to 
shape an exceptionally strong welfare reform bill, particularly the 
majority leader, Senator Dole, who has tried hard to balance the 
interests of many people on both sides of this aisle, to Senator 
Santorum who also has worked tirelessly among those on our side of the 
aisle and those on the other side of the aisle. I will say to Senator 
Dodd, as well, who has cared a great deal about trying to meet the 
needs of children in this legislation, that I think we do have a good 
welfare reform bill and, most importantly, it is not welfare as an 
entitlement. That starts us on a new path and one that I think will be 
most successful.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. I happily yield 3 minutes to my friend, the Senator 
from Minnesota [Mr. Wellstone].
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I have offered amendments that have 
been adopted--and so have other colleagues--that have mitigated some of 
the harshest effects of this piece of legislation. But an essential 
truth remains. For the first time in 60 years, we are eliminating a 
floor below which we never before allowed children to fall. Mr. 
President, for the first time in 60 years, we are saying that as a 
national commitment, as a national community, we will no longer take 
the responsibility to make sure that every child, even the poorest of 
children, at least has some minimal level of assistance, that children 
do not go hungry.

  Mr. President, I ask myself the question: Will the passage of this 
legislation mean that there will be more impoverished children and more 
hungry children in America? The answer to that question is yes, and 
that is why I must vote no.
  Mr. President, I ask myself the question: Is it true that the passage 
of this legislation will shut out hundreds of thousands of disabled 
children from essential services? The answer to that question is yes. 
That is why I will vote no.
  Mr. President, I ask myself, as a Senator from Minnesota, the 
following question: In the context of all of the slash and burn--cuts 
in housing, cuts in Medicare, cuts in Medicaid, cuts in EITC, cuts in 
all these programs, with States then having to figure out where they 
are going to come up with the resources--I ask myself the question: Who 
is going to lose out? The answer is that it is going to be the 
children. They do not have a lobbyist. They do not have the PAC's. They 
are not the heavy hitters. They are the ones who are going to be left 
behind. And it is for that reason, Mr. President, that I will vote no.
  We moved to a national standard in the early 1970's because we had 
children with distended bellies in our country. We had malnourishment 
and hunger in America. We said as a national community that we would 
not let that happen. Now we are turning the clock back. For the first 
time in 60 years, we move away from that commitment.
  This is a profound mistake for America.
  Mr. President, I ask myself the question: Is it the Minnesota 
tradition--an almost unique tradition--to speak for children, to 
advocate for children, to vote for children, to vote for all of God's 
children? And the answer to that question is ``yes.'' Therefore, as a 
Senator from Minnesota, I will vote ``no.''
  The Dole bill will also affect the Hmong, approximately 30,000 of 
whom live in Minnesota and share with us their rich heritage and 
culture. Many in the Hmong community came to the United States to 
escape persecution after they aided the United States in the secret war 
of Laos.
  Many of the Hmong now receive SSI and will be in danger of losing 
their benefits under the Dole bill. It is difficult--due to language 
barriers, lack of formal education and age--for the Hmong to become 
self sufficient. A large number of them depend on SSI benefits for 
their survival.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Rhode 
Island [Mr. Chafee].
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I want to express my support for the 
measure before us today. We have been working on this for many months. 
I am pleased we are finally able to approve a bill with bipartisan 
support. This bill is very conscious of the needs of children, a group 
I strongly believe should be cared for in any welfare program.
  The measure before us contains additional money for child care and 
requires States to continue to maintain their financial effort for the 
life of the bill, for the 5 years. Senators Breaux and Dodd were very 
helpful in those issues. Under this measure, States would also be 
prohibited from denying benefits to single custodial parents with young 
children who do not work because the parents do not have child care.
  This provision is extremely important for the protection of these 
very young children. The last thing we want to have happen is for 
parents to be placed in the untenable position of having to choose 
between leaving their children unsupervised while they work or losing 
their entire cash benefit.
  I would like to note that S. 1120, the bill before us, does not make 
any changes in the foster care and adoption assistance programs. It has 
long been my belief that the Federal entitlement for these programs 
should continue and we should not roll back the Federal protection 
parts of the foster care and adoption assistance. Those entitlements 
are continued in this legislation.
  On the subject of children's SSI, the Senate bill retains the concept 
of cash assistance for poor, disabled children and does not go as far 
as the House in scaling back eligibility. I am pleased that the Senate 
chose to take a more balanced approach to this issue than 

[[Page S13774]]
the House. Most of the children in this program are severely disabled. 
Were it not for SSI, they would not be able to remain at home with 
their families.
  I would like to thank Senator Domenici for his contribution to this 
bill in two areas--particularly in providing for the maintenance of the 
effort by the States. Senator Domenici led that effort. I also thank 
him for his help in removing the mandatory family cap. Under the 
Domenici approach, which we adopted, the family cap remains an option 
for the States. There is no evidence that denying benefits to women who 
have additional children while on welfare has any impact on birth 
rates. Senator Domenici spoke forcefully on that.
  Finally, I praise our majority leader, Senator Dole. But for his 
extraordinary efforts to find a common ground, we would not be here 
today. That is no easy feat, given our differences when we started out.
  I thank him for his able leadership and the fact that we were able to 
achieve a bipartisan bill today.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to be able to yield 3 
minutes to my esteemed colleague from New Jersey, Senator Bradley.
  Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, I will vote against this bill because I 
think it would wipe out protection for families with children but would 
do nothing to repair what is really wrong with welfare. We have made 
some improvements in this bill, eliminating the job training 
consolidation that never belonged in the welfare bill in the first 
place. We tightened and strengthened child support enforcement. But the 
fundamental structure is deeply flawed and can only lead to deeper 
poverty and more dependency.
  All we are really changing in this bill is the one thing that is not 
wrong with welfare--the financial relationship between the Federal 
Government and the State bureaucracy. That is not the problem. In fact, 
block grants create a new problem because States that have increasing 
numbers of poor families, because of a bad economy or simple population 
growth, would not have enough funds to assist these poor people.
  Federal politicians should not simply transfer pots of money to State 
politicians without any standards about what the money would be used 
for. We do not need to transfer money from one bureaucrat to another 
bureaucrat. We need commitment to individual poor children.
  While this bill would abandon the commitment, the real problems of 
welfare would remain--the rules that penalize marriage and work, the 
indifferent local and county bureaucrats who treat people as numbers 
and do nothing to help people take care of themselves, the brutal job 
market, the deep cultural forces driving increases in divorce, 
illegitimacy, and teen pregnancy; all these problems would remain, and 
many would get worse.
  All this bill does is require States to penalize the children who are 
born into and live in the midst of all of this turmoil.
  With all the rhetoric about changing welfare, how did we wind up with 
a bill that does nothing to change what is wrong with welfare? The 
short answer is: politics.
  Neither party was as serious about really changing welfare as it was 
about capturing the welfare issue from the other party. Democrats 
promised to end welfare as we know it by tinkering with the levers of 
government, mostly in a positive way, but not in a way that deeply 
changes the lives of people on welfare. Republicans promised to do even 
better--abandon the welfare state. They would toss aside the Federal 
responsibility for poor families and children altogether. They did not 
know how to deal with the reality of poverty and welfare, so they came 
up with the solution by handing the whole problem over to the States 
for them to solve. Block grants create an appearance of change, but no 
real change.
  The debate in the last few days, during which we accepted every 
amendment that did not challenge the underlying political rhetoric, 
also indicates the problem. The legislation does not abandon the 
mythical welfare state. But it does abandon our society's commitment to 
protect poor children from abject poverty, hunger, abuse, neglect, and 
death. Meanwhile, it does nothing to fix the real problem.
  I urge everyone to think twice before joining the rush to send this 
deeply flawed bill forward into a process where it will get even worse.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished 
Senator from North Carolina.
  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. President, as I have been saying ever since Congress began 
welfare reform debate, unless we address illegitimacy, which is a root 
cause of welfare dependency, we will not truly reform welfare.
  Only by taking away the cash incentive to have children out of 
wedlock can we hope to slow the increase of out-of-wedlock births and 
ultimately end welfare.
  Middle-class American families who want to have children have to 
plan, prepare, and save money because they understand the serious 
responsibility involved in bringing children into this world. It is 
unfair to ask the same people to send their hard-earned tax dollars to 
support the reckless, irresponsible behavior of women who have children 
out of wedlock and continue to have them, expecting the taxpayers to 
support them.
  It is clear that our country must begin to address the crisis of 
illegitimacy. Today, one-third of all children are born out of wedlock. 
According to Senator Moynihan, the illegitimacy rate will hit 50 
percent by 2003, or sooner. The rise of illegitimacy and the collapse 
of the family has had a devastating effect on children and society. 
Even President Clinton has declared that the collapse of the family is 
a major factor driving up America's crime rate.
  Halting the rapid rise of illegitimacy must be the paramount goal of 
welfare reform. Unfortunately, the Senate has been unable to follow the 
example set earlier by the House and has not included provisions, like 
the family cap, ending the current cash incentives for teenage mothers 
to have children out of wedlock.
  The bill before us is far better than the one we started with. It has 
strong work provisions, transfers flexibility to the States and, 
overall, is a good bill. Unfortunately, it fails in the one key area 
which I feel very strongly about. It does fail to address the crisis of 
illegitimacy.
  It is a missed opportunity for the Senate to send out a loud and 
clear message that society does not condone the growth of out-of-
wedlock childbearing, and that the taxpayers will not continue the same 
open-ended subsidies for illegitimacy which has characterized welfare 
in the past.
  I hope this bill returns from conference with strong provisions on 
illegitimacy. If it does, I will support it enthusiastically.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to my friend from 
Massachusetts, Senator Kennedy.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, there is a right way and a wrong way to 
reform welfare. Punishing children is the wrong way. Denying realistic 
job training and work opportunities is the wrong way. Leaving States 
holding the bag is the wrong way. Too many of our Republican colleagues 
want to reform welfare in the worst way, and that is exactly what this 
bill does.
  After more than 60 years of maintaining a good-faith national 
commitment to protect all needy children, the Senate is on the brink of 
committing legislative child abuse. This measure is an assault on 
America's youngest and most vulnerable citizens. I urge my colleagues 
to join with me in doing the right and compassionate thing, and vote 
``no''.
  In 1935, President Roosevelt said:

       The test of our progress is not whether we add to the 
     abundance of those who have much. It is whether we provide 
     enough to those who have little.

  In passing the Social Security Act, Congress made a bold pledge to 
the elderly and to the children of our society that their well being 
would be ensured. It was a sign of what we stood for as a society.
  With that legislation, Congress, made a historic promise--that no 
child would be left alone to face the cruel forces of poverty and 
hunger. Today, more than 60 years later, the Senate is breaking that 
promise. As an institution, we are turning our back on America's 
children.
  If this legislation passes, whether needy children receive a helping 
hand 

[[Page S13775]]
will depend on whether they are fortunate enough to be born in a State 
that has the resources and the will to provide that assistance. A 
minimal safety net for children will no longer be a part of what makes 
America America, but rather a gamble of geography.
  This bill nullifies one of the fundamental roles of the Federal 
Government--to bring our country together as a nation. Instead it will 
encourage border wars as States across the country selfishly compete to 
assure that they do not become too generous to the needy and attract 
families from other States.
  Granted, the child care and other modifications achieved in recent 
days have made this legislation less bad than it was. And that is no 
small achievement. But it is hardly a reason to support a measure that 
will devastate the lives of millions of American children to say it 
could be even worse--and probably will be after the Conference with the 
House.
  This bill is not about moving American families from welfare to work. 
It is about cutting off assistance to millions of poor, hungry, 
homeless, and disabled children.
  This bill is not about fiscal responsibility or deficit reduction. It 
is about misguided priorities--for which, as the columnist George Will 
has said, we will pay dearly as a society for years to come.
  This bill is not about eliminating the barriers to employment that 
exist for people on welfare. It is about short-changing the job 
training and child care programs needed to give people a chance. It is 
about setting arbitrary time limits on assistance for families who 
cannot find jobs, and providing grossly inadequate resources to make 
genuine opportunity a reality.
  This bill is not about giving States more flexibility. It is about 
Congress washing its hands of a difficult problem, by slashing Federal 
funding, and then turning the remains over to the States with little 
accountability or guidance and even less leadership.
  This bill is not welfare reform--it is welfare fraud. We are all for 
work--but this plan will not work. The Congressional Budget Office 
estimates that only 10 to 15 States will be able to meet the bill's 
work requirements and the rest will simply throw up their hands.
  These actions are in no way required by the current balanced budget 
environment. The Republican majority has already shown that it is 
willing to spend money when the cause is important enough to them. When 
the Republican majority wanted to preserve a $1.5 billion tax loophole 
for American billionaires who renounce their U.S. citizenship, they 
found the money to preserve it. When the Republican majority wanted to 
increase defense spending $6.5 billion more than the Defense Department 
requested for this year, they found the money to fund it. When the 
Republican majority wanted to give the wealthy a $245 billion tax 
break, they will find the money to fund it.
  But now, when asked to reform welfare and create a genuine system to 
help America's 10 million children living in poverty, the Republican 
majority tells those children: ``Sorry--check returned--insufficient 
funds.''
  For billionaires, the Republicans will move mountains. For poor 
children they will not lift a finger--and their record makes that 
clear. As President Kennedy said in his inaugural address: ``If a free 
society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who 
are rich.''
  Poor children in America are worse off than poor children in 15 of 
the 18 Western industrial nations. The annual incomes for the poorest 
10 percent of Canadian families, including all benefits, is nearly 
twice that of families in the United States. The United States has the 
greatest gap between the rich and the poor--a gap that will surely grow 
in the years ahead because of this harsh legislation.
  Despite these realities, the Republican majority wants to take $60 
billion over the next 7 years from programs supporting poor children 
and families, in order to help balance the budget and pay for their tax 
breaks for the wealthy. That is their priority.
  When we tried to pay for increases in child care by closing the 
billionaires' loophole or ending other forms of corporate welfare, the 
Republicans said no--take it out of food stamps. They would rather harm 
poor children than offend fat cats who live on corporate welfare.
  Some in the Republican majority say that this legislation will 
succeed--that faced with the prospect of benefits being cut off, 
welfare recipients will have no choice but to find work. Governor 
Engler of Michigan made that argument when eliminating Michigan's 
State-funded General Assistance Program. Unfortunately, things did not 
work out the way the Governor had said. Only one-fifth of the former 
welfare recipients found jobs --the majority became even more 
destitute.
  And so it goes when social experiments go wrong. The Republican 
majority is asking us to put the lives of children in their hands as 
they prepare to push welfare recipients off the cliff in the hope that 
they will learn to fly. And what happens if they fail? Ten million 
children, who make up the majority of AFDC recipients, will pay the 
price, and as a society, so will we.
  This is not just theory. We already know some of the havoc this 
legislation will cause. The administration estimates that the 5-year 
time limit in the bill will result in one-third of the children on AFDC 
becoming ineligible for assistance--4 million children. Yet when we 
proposed to give the States the option of providing vouchers to protect 
these children after the time limit, the Republicans said no. So much 
for States rights.
  Of the parents who will be affected by the time limit, only one-third 
have a high school degree. Yet recent studies show that three-quarters 
of the available jobs in low-income areas require a high school 
diploma. Sixty percent of those jobs require experience in a particular 
type of job. And there are already two to three jobseekers for every 
job vacancy.
  This bill is not seriously designed to change those realities. There 
is no way this bill can create jobs for millions of low-income, low-
skilled parents who will be looking for work at the same time in the 
same communities. It will not help schools do a better job of preparing 
young men and women for an increasingly demanding workplace. In fact, 
the Republican majority is busy cutting the very education and job 
training funds necessary to produce a skilled American work force in 
the years ahead.
  Welfare reform cannot be accomplished on the cheap. Governor Tommy 
Thompson of Wisconsin, whose welfare expertise has been praised 
repeatedly by the Republican majority, was recently quoted in Business 
Week as saying that in order for welfare reform to be successful, ``It 
will cost more up front to transform the welfare system than many 
expect.'' After his reforms in Wisconsin, administrative costs rose by 
72 percent.
  My Republican colleagues are correct when they say that this is an 
historic moment in the Senate. If this bill passes, today will go down 
in history as the day the Senate turned its back on needy children, on 
poor mothers struggling to make ends meet, on millions of fellow 
citizens who need our help the most. It will be remembered as the day 
the Senate broke a noble promise to the most vulnerable Americans. I 
urge my colleagues to vote ``no''--for the children who are too young 
to vote and who cannot speak for themselves. This bad bill can be 
summed up in four simple words--``Let them eat cake.''
  I say to my colleagues--can you look into the eyes of a poor child in 
America and say, ``This is the best hope for your future'' I cannot--
and that is why I must vote ``no''.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, it is with reluctance that I rise in 
support of the welfare legislation which the Senate is about to pass.
  I have serious reservations about many aspects of the bill as it now 
stands, not the least of which is the ability of States to address the 
needs of poor children during periods of recession or economic 
downturns.
  Having said that, I believe that the modifications adopted in the 
agreement between the Democratic and Republican Leaders begin to move 
this bill in the right direction. Compared to legislation passed by the 
House earlier this year, it is substantially more responsible and in 
that sense, more likely to succeed.
  First, the bill provides for an additional $3 billion for child care 
for those moving from welfare to work. We should expect those people on 
welfare 

[[Page S13776]]
to go to work. But to do so, we must give them the tools to go to work. 
And child care is the most significant problem young mothers face as 
they try to move into the work force.
  Second, the bill now requires States to maintain a safety net for 
poor children through the so-called maintenance-of-effort requirement. 
As a result, States must continue to spend at least 80 percent of their 
current welfare spending for the next 5 years. This will help ensure 
States go the extra mile to move people from welfare to work, rather 
than simply forcing recipients off of the rolls with no chance for 
employment.
  Third, the bill does not include a job training block grant that 
could have siphoned off precious dollars used to help retrain victims 
of foreign competition, base and plant closings, or the negative 
effects of corporate downsizing.
  Fourth, the bill creates a very modest contingency grant fund of $1 
billion which States could tap to deal with increased need due to the 
effects of a recession or population growth.
  In addition to these provisions, the bill incorporates much of the 
Democratic Work First proposal, S. 1117, in several key areas.
  Teen Pregnancy: The bill includes the tough stay-at-home and stay-in-
school provisions of the Work First bill. It also makes $150 million 
available as seed money for second chance homes, locally-based, 
supervised group homes for teen-age mothers which have been popularized 
by the Democratic Leadership Council.
  Private sector work bonus: The bill also contains a bonus pool of 
funds that will be awarded, in part, on the basis of States' success at 
moving welfare recipients into private sector work.
  Parent empowerment contract: The final bill has a requirement for a 
parent empowerment contract that welfare recipients would have to sign 
once they sign up for benefits. This contract obligates them to take 
charge of their own lives, commit to acting as responsible parents, and 
undertake an intensive job search--all designed to move them from 
welfare to work.
  Work requirements: Finally, the bill includes provisions of the work 
first bill that tell States they should do everything they can to be 
moving welfare recipients into the work force as quickly as possible, 
with the expectation that the period for a transition from welfare to 
work should be approximately 6 months.
  Having announced my support for this measure, albeit with some great 
reservations, I want the conferees on this bill to know that I will not 
support any conference report that moves in any significant and 
substantial way toward the punitive and harsh proposals in the House-
passed welfare bill.
  If the conference agreement contains a mandatory family cap, or 
arbitrarily cuts off benefits for young women, I will oppose it.
  If it modifies the child care or maintenance of effort provisions now 
in the Senate bill, I will not support it.
  If it has no means for States to cope with economic downturns, I will 
withdraw my endorsement.
  If it moves to block grants for foster care and adoption assistance, 
for food stamps or child nutrition programs, this Senator will cast a 
``no'' vote on that conference report.
  I hope that the Senate framework will emerge from the conference 
committee so that we can have bipartisan welfare reform this year. But 
if not, this Senator will be on this floor later this year fighting to 
stop a bad bill from getting enacted.


               information technology and welfare reform

  Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, I would like to raise a subject which I 
believe will be a key problem for the States in implementing welfare 
reform under block grants--ensuring the States are able to make the 
necessary investments in information technology.
  Most of our attention here on the floor has been with regard to very 
contentious social issues such as work requirements and unwed mothers. 
We have devoted little attention to the problems States will face in 
managing the vastly increasing responsibilities which this legislation 
will transfer to them. I am concerned that all our hard work to set the 
stage for new and successful human services programs will fall short of 
its goal if States are not equipped with the necessary information 
systems. If the States are unable to handle these enlarged 
responsibilities, pressure will rapidly build for the Federal 
Government, piece by piece, to become involved once again in managing 
these programs.
  The unfortunate fact is that many States are far behind the rest of 
our society in computerizing and reinventing the delivery of their 
services. Among the State agencies, it is often the human service 
agencies which are the most in need of automation. While I endorse the 
concept of block grants and the latitude they provide to States, I 
believe the Federal Government must continue to provide specific 
assistance to States to automate.
  Mr. SANTORUM. My colleague raises an excellent point. Many States at 
present are struggling to take advantage of the benefits which 
information technology can provide. Twenty-two States are currently 
under court order to improve their child welfare programs. One of the 
saddest examples is right here in the District of Columbia, where the 
foster care system was placed in receivership by the courts.
  According to the court-appointed receivers, the system of foster care 
placement was failing some of the city's most needy children. One of 
the major problems was a lack of information available to the field, 
largely due to the lack of even basic computer support in the 
District's foster care system. This is symptomatic of problems across 
our Nation, problems which can be overcome through effective use of 
information technology. Yet the States and the District face compelling 
alternative uses for the funds as caseloads increase.
  Mr. COHEN. Congress over the years has sought to ensure that States 
have the proper tools to handle their responsibilities in human 
services programs. For example, the fiscal year 1993 Omnibus 
Reconciliation Act provided matching of State funds over a 3-year 
period to be spent or information systems for foster care and adoption 
assistance programs. Forty-six States and the District of Columbia have 
responded, and are on their way to improving their information 
technology systems in these critical areas.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Increased automation will bring many efficiencies to 
human services programs. In numerous cases, State workers enter 
essentially the same information as many as 200 times in required 
paperwork. This wasteful duplication can be eliminated through 
automation. Further, investments in information technology yield 
substantial savings in welfare programs through elimination of waste, 
fraud, and abuse. In Rhode Island, for example, a $10 million 
investment in technology saved over $7.7 million in erroneous welfare 
benefit payments in the first year of operation. By now this investment 
has paid for itself many times over. The system allowed the State to 
handle a 40-percent increase in welfare cases, while reducing its 
program work force by 15 percent over a 4-year period.
  Mr. COHEN. Unfortunately, without Federal help, many States will not 
be able to afford the up-front costs required to plan, develop, and 
install these systems, and train personnel on their use. This is why 
the Federal Government has always maintained a leadership role in this 
area. I strongly believe we must continue specific assistance to States 
in making information technology investments, even in a block grant 
environment. I call on the eventual conferees on this legislation to 
carefully consider this point, and work with the House to ensure the 
States have the resources to make the necessary investments.
  Mr. SANTORUM. I join my colleague in making this request. I think 
some further consideration of the information technology needs of the 
States is vital for welfare reform to succeed.


                           Amendment No. 2683

  Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the Dole 
modified amendment. Every Member of this body has come to the floor and 
declared that it is time to ``end welfare as we know it.'' We have 
disagreed on the most appropriate ways to do that but I hope that there 
can be no disagreement that welfare reform will not succeed without a 
more generous provision for child care services.
  Even under the current system of entitlement, there are more than 
3,000 

[[Page S13777]]
children of working parents already waiting to receive child care 
assistance in Maine. Some of these parents have transitioned off of 
welfare, others are at-risk of going on welfare. One child care center 
in Maine has just now started serving families who have been on a 
waiting list for more than 2 years.
  This amendment will create a separate block grant for child care 
services. By creating this separate grant fund, we hope to assist 
States by providing them with a specific amount of child care funds. 
This is identical to the approach the House of Representatives elected 
to take in the Personal Responsibility Act. We have gone further to 
provide States with additional funds and to help ensure that child care 
funding does not disappear for welfare families and low-income families 
alike.
  I am glad to see that the Governors have finally weighed in on this 
issue. Last week, I received a copy of a letter sent to both the 
majority and minority leadership from the National Governor's 
Association requesting supplemental funds for child care services. I 
would like to quote one sentence from the letter, signed by Governor 
Thompson from Wisconsin and Governor Miller from Nevada. The NGA states 
that:

       Child care represents the largest part of the up-front 
     investment need for successful welfare reform.

  More women will be able to work when there are child care funds 
available. More women who have jobs now will keep them if there are 
funds for child care. In a report issued by the General Accounting 
Office in December, GAO found that child care costs are a significant 
portion of most low-income working families' budgets. In fact, child 
care consumes more than one quarter of the income for a family below 
the Federal poverty level. For families above the Federal poverty 
level, child care consumes about 7 percent of income.
  Unlike the Dodd-Kennedy amendment, we know where the funds are coming 
from to pay for additional child care slots. I support our efforts to 
eliminate the deficit by 2002 but finding money for States to follow 
through on welfare reform is imperative. By agreeing to realize a 
smaller amount in overall savings from this legislation, we have taken 
the steps necessary to lead to successful welfare reform and help us 
maintain our goal to zero out the deficit.
  While there has been an emphasis on the need to help States meet work 
participation requirements, of utmost concern is the safety of 
children. Some parents are already forced to leave their children in 
unsafe settings. I recently reviewed a report from the State of 
Illinois where more than 40 children, half of them under the age of 
two, were discovered being cared for in a basement by one adult. The 
cost of that care was $25 per week.
  This is not an isolated case. Recent studies have indicated that 1 
out of every 8 children in child care are being cared for in an unsafe 
setting.
  The provision for child care services in Senator Dole's earlier 
substitute did provide certain protections for children who are not yet 
in school by prohibiting States from penalizing mothers who cannot work 
because there simply is no child care available.
  The Senate also overwhelmingly approved an amendment sponsored by 
Senator Kassebaum to eliminate a provision that allowed a transfer of 
up to 30 percent of the funds from the child care development block 
grant. The CCDBG has played an important role since its creation in 
1990 as a source of funds targeted at enhancing the quality of child 
care and providing subsidies to low-income families.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Without access to 
child care, mothers will not be able to work. When 92 percent of AFDC 
mothers are single mothers, the need for additional child care slots 
must be met if our version of welfare reform is going to be successful.


                    interracial adoption provisions

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, earlier this year I introduced the 
Adoption Antidiscrimination Act of 1995, S. 637, to ensure that 
adoptions are not denied or delayed on the basis of race, color, or 
national origin. I am pleased that the House passed an almost identical 
provision in its welfare reform bill, H.R. 1. It is my hope that the 
members of the conference committee on welfare reform will recognize 
the importance of this issue, and incorporate interracial adoption 
provisions in the conference report.
  In the late 1960's and early 1970's, over 10,000 children were 
adopted by families of a different race. This was before many adoption 
officials decided, without any empirical evidence, that it is essential 
for children to be matched with families of the same race, even if they 
have to wait for long periods for such a family to come along. The 
forces of political correctness declared interracial adoptions the 
equivalent of cultural genocide. This was, and continues to be, 
nonsense.
  Sound research has found that interracial adoptions do not hurt the 
children or deprive them of their culture. According to Dr. Howard 
Alstein, who has studied 204 interracial adoptions since 1972, ``We 
categorically have not found that white parents cannot prepare black 
kids culturally.'' He concluded that ``there are bumps along the way, 
but the transracial adoptees in our study are not angry, racially 
confused people'' and that ``They're happy and content adults.''
  Since the mid-1970's, there have been very few interracial adoptions. 
African-American children who constitute about 14 percent of the child 
population currently comprise over 40 percent of the 100,000 children 
waiting for adoption in foster care. This is despite 20 years of 
Federal efforts to recruit African-American adoptive families and 
substantial efforts by the African-American community. The bottom line 
is that African-American children wait twice as long as other children 
to be adopted.
  Last year, Senator Metzenbaum attempted to remedy this problem by 
introducing the Multiethnic Placement Act of 1994 [MEPA]. 
Unfortunately, the bill was weakened throughout the legislative process 
and eviscerated by the Clinton administration Department of HHS in 
conference.
  After the original MEPA bill was hijacked, a letter was sent from 
over 50 of the most prominent law professors in the country imploring 
Congress to reject the bill. They warned that it ``would give 
Congressional backing to practices that have the effect of condemning 
large numbers of children--particularly children of color--to 
unnecessarily long stays in institutions or foster care.'' Their 
warning was not heeded, and the bill was passed as part of Goals 2000. 
As Senator Metzenbaum concluded, ``HHS intervened and did the bill 
great harm.''

  The legislation that was finally signed by the President does 
precisely the opposite of what was originally intended. This is because 
it contains several huge loopholes that effectively permit continuing 
the practice of racial matching. For example, it states that an agency 
may not ``delay or deny the placement of a child for adoption or into 
foster care solely on the basis of [race, color, or national origin]''. 
This language can be used by those opposed to inter-racial adoptions to 
delay or deny placements by using race, color, or national origin as 
only part of their rationale.
  An even bigger loophole is contained in the ``permissible 
consideration'' section of MEPA which states that an agency ``may 
consider the cultural, ethnic or racial background of the child and the 
capacity of the prospective foster or adoptive parents to meet the 
needs of a child of this background as one of a number of factors used 
to determine the best interests of a child.'' While this language may 
appear innocuous, it can be used by those who are committed to racial 
matching to delay or deny a placement simply by claiming that an inter-
racial adoption is not in the best interests of the child.
  DHHS has issued guidelines for implementing the Multiethnic Placement 
Act. Again, on their face, the guidelines do not appear to be 
objectionable. However, consistent with the underlying MEPA law, they 
continue to allow race to be a major consideration that may be used by 
those who wish to stop interracial placements. Consequently, the 
National Council for Adoption and Institute for Justice have informed 
the Department that its guidelines do not adequately address this 
issue. They continue to believe that new legislation is necessary.
  Clearly, we need to fix last year's flawed legislation. In 
considering the 

[[Page S13778]]
House provisions on this issue, the conferees should prohibit, under 
any circumstances, an agency that receives Federal funds from delaying 
or denying the placement of a child on the basis of the race, color or 
national origin. Racial or cultural background should never be used as 
a basis for denying or delaying the placement of a child when there is 
at least one qualified household that wants the child.
  Perhaps, there are certain extremely limited circumstances in which 
an agency should be allowed to consider race, color or national origin, 
only when there are two or more qualified households that want the 
child and only as one of a number of factors used to determine the best 
interests of the child. But under no circumstances should such 
considerations be allowed to delay the adoption of a child. When there 
is only one qualified household that wants the child, that placement 
is, by definition, in the child's best interests.

  Mr. President, I hope that the conferees will be willing to adopt a 
strong prohibition against consideration of race, color or national 
origin in placement decisions, and to close the gaping loopholes in the 
current law. By incorporating strong and reasonable antidiscrimination 
provisions in the Conference Report, we will help to remedy the 
national problem of children being held in foster care because the 
color of their skin does not match that of the individuals who wish to 
adopt them.


                           amendment no. 2542

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, the welfare reform bill imposes upon the 
States a 6-month time limitation for any individual to participate in a 
Food Stamp Work Supplementation Program. This amendment, which is 
supported by the National Governor's Association and the American 
Public Welfare Association, would replace the 6-month limit with a 1-
year limit. It would continue to allow an extension of this time 
limitation at the discretion of the Secretary.
  Arizona's current cash-out of food stamps under its Empower welfare 
program allows individuals to participate in subsidized employment for 
9 months with an option for a 3-month extension. There is no reason 
that the State should have to make another special request to the 
Secretary in order to maintain this policy. This amendment would allow 
States with such policies to continue their programs without 
disruption.
  Ideally, I would prefer that the States be able to plan their work 
supplementation programs without being constrained by requirements 
imposed by the Federal Government. The States know best how to 
structure their programs to help their citizens become employable. 
Thus, my preference would be to eliminate the time limitation 
altogether.
  However, I recognize that many of my colleagues are insisting upon a 
time limitation for individuals under the program, and I am pleased 
that we were able to come to an agreement that meets the needs of 
Arizona and other States that wish to pursue similar policies. In the 
future, I plan to revisit this issue to allow States maximum 
flexibility to plan their work supplementation programs.
  Mr. President, a primary objective of this bill is to encourage the 
States to innovate. The best way to achieve this is to get out of their 
way. We should not impose requirements limiting the States' flexibility 
unless there is a compelling reason to do so. This amendment will give 
States additional leeway to innovate in their work supplementation 
programs and will thereby help them achieve their employment 
objectives.


                           amendment no. 2544

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, this amendment would give States the right 
to correct problems in their welfare programs before penalties are 
imposed by the Federal Government. Titles I, III, and VIII of the bill 
impose significant penalties, in the form of reductions in grant funds, 
for States that are out of compliance with Federal requirements. I 
believe that it is simply unfair to punish States without first giving 
them an adequate opportunity to remedy the problems.
  Under this amendment, a State would have 60 days in which to submit 
to the Federal Government a corrective action plan to remedy any 
violations for which a penalty could be assessed. The Federal 
Government would then have up to 60 days to accept or reject the 
State's corrective action plan. If it does not act within this period, 
the plan will be deemed to be accepted. Finally, the State would have 
90 days to correct the violation pursuant to the plan before penalties 
may be imposed. A longer correction period would apply if it is part of 
an accepted plan.
  A major objective of the welfare reform bill is to give States 
greater flexibility and freedom from Washington regulations in helping 
their welfare recipients to be productive, independent citizens. Where 
Federal requirements are imposed, States should have ample opportunity 
to comply with those requirements and correct any problems without 
being penalized. This amendment ensures this objective and the overall 
approach of giving States the flexibility to implement their programs.
  Mr. President, this amendment is strongly supported by the National 
Governors' Association, the National Conference of State Legislatures, 
and the American Public Welfare Association. I ask unanimous agreement 
that the letter of support from the APWA be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                                   American Public


                                          Welfare Association,

                               Washington, DC, September 12, 1995.
     Hon. John McCain,
     Russell Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator McCain: The American Public Welfare 
     Association strongly supports your amendment number 2541, 
     that relieves states from the excessive data collection and 
     reporting requirements in H.R. 4, if sufficient funding to 
     allow states to meet such excessive requirements is not 
     provided. We are deeply concerned that between the 15% 
     administrative cap approved by the Senate earlier this week, 
     the bill's penalty provisions, and the array of new and 
     burdensome reporting requirements contained in H.R. 4, states 
     will not have the systems support they will all need for 
     greatest transformation of their welfare systems to date.
       APWA fully supports State accountability in the use of 
     block grant funds for national programmatic and fiscal goals. 
     APWA policy calls for a state federal partnership in the 
     establishment of minimal, clear, concise federal audit 
     standards, related penalties, or sanctions for noncompliance. 
     In addition, APWA supports your amendment number 2544, 
     providing states with advance notice of any impending 
     penalty, with the option of entering into a corrective action 
     plan. The measure provides for accountability by states and 
     the Secretary of Health and Human Services during the 
     implementation of a corrective action plan, and provides 
     states with the opportunity to remain focused on reforming 
     their systems, while coming into compliance with the statute.
       Finally, we support your amendment number 2543, to broaden 
     the definition of work to include job readiness workshops as 
     a work activity. With regard to work programs under a cash 
     assistance block grant, APWA policy calls for enhanced state 
     flexibility to design and implement work programs, including 
     the right to define work. We also support your amendment 
     number 2542, to remove the six month limit for an 
     individual's participation in a work supplementation program 
     under the food stamp program. Each of your amendments 
     contribute to increased flexibility for states.
       Again, Senator McCain, thank you for offering these 
     amendments that are so vitally important to the successful 
     implementation of welfare reform.
           Sincerely,
                                            A. Sidney Johnson III,
                                               Executive Director.

                         welfare reform, again

  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, like many voters, I have heard before 
the siren call of welfare reform--that if we only pass revolutionary 
legislation, the recipients will work, the poor children will be 
nurtured, and benefits reductions will be returned to taxpayers. 
Frankly, I am very skeptical that this plan will work better than those 
that went before.
  First, its promises continue to feed rife misperceptions. Note the 
following facts:
  Welfare actually is less than 2 percent of our budget.
  Illegitimacy, far from rising due to the United States welfare 
system, has risen across the board to approximately one third of all 
births (not just welfare births) in America, France, and England 
despite different welfare systems and declining welfare benefits in the 
United States.

[[Page S13779]]

  True reform that employs recipients and cares for children is likely 
to cost more in the short run, not less.
  In short, the savings proposed in this legislation are unlikely to 
materialize. The bill would not stop the rise in illegitimacy. And, 
without a newfound commitment from Governors to fill the gap in child 
care, children will be worse off.
  Furthermore, the basic funding mechanism for this legislation is 
seriously flawed. Southern States, for a variety of reasons including 
lack of funds, have built smaller welfare programs as part of the 
historic Federal-State welfare funding partnership. Now, the 
legislation before us proposes to end that partnership and provide each 
State with a frozen level of funding and a requirement to employ 50 
percent of recipients. Reasonably, the Federal Government should 
provide an equal per-child amount to each State under this approach 
since each State must reach the same target. Instead, this reform bill 
locks States in at the vastly different historic funding rates:


                       Federal funding per child

New York..........................................................$2036
Rhode Island.......................................................2244
Washington.........................................................2340
Vermont............................................................2275
Alaska.............................................................3248
Massachusetts......................................................2177
South Carolina......................................................393
Alabama.............................................................408
Arkansas............................................................375
Mississippi.........................................................331
Texas...............................................................405

  I don't know why southern children are worth so little to our current 
welfare theorists. There is no reason--indeed, it is offensive--to 
freeze in place past inequities in the name of forward-looking reform.
  Again, South Carolina and Rhode Island will each be given about $100 
million per year to run their respective welfare programs, although 
South Carolina has more than three times as many people. Similarly, 
South Carolina has slightly more people than Connecticut--3.5 million 
rather than 3.2 million--but under the Dole plan, the Federal 
Government will give Connecticut more than twice as much--$247 million 
yearly instead of $103 million for South Carolina. In effect, the South 
Carolina taxpayer will chip in a double payment to help Connecticut 
while struggling to meet an extra burden at home to meet the Federal 
child care and training targets.
  How about Kansas? Kansas has 2.5 million people. South Carolina has 
3.5 million people. Despite having a million fewer people, Kansas gets 
$18 million more than South Carolina from Federal taxpayers over the 
next 3 years to run its welfare program.

  Mr. President, this unfairness has not fazed many of our governors. 
They want the cash and the control, whether or not the plan will work. 
I predict that the promises of reform will again prove false, but as 
before, I endorse the goals. In 1988, I voted to make it possible for 
States to draw down adequate funding for workfare programs and child 
care to really reform welfare. We have recently seen a few glimmers of 
success after that legislation, but only where investments have been 
made. Similarly, I have voted for a community works progress pilot 
program to allow communities and welfare recipients to benefit mutually 
from community improvement jobs.
  More importantly, I urge my colleagues to pay attention to the policy 
areas that are not called welfare, but which in reality, have huge, 
long-term effects on welfare rolls. Chief among these policy areas are 
education and job protection.
  For instance, over the past 20 years, high school dropouts have 
become more likely to end up on welfare. Overall, the welfare rate for 
young adults has risen slightly from 4 percent to 5 percent. However, 
among the high school dropouts, the rate has nearly doubled, from 9.7 
to 17.1 percent. These particular high school dropouts are mostly 
women, since women and their dependent children make up the vast 
majority of welfare recipients.
  However, a similar economic decline has faced their male 
counterparts, who generally do not have dependent children who would 
trigger welfare eligibility. Earnings for black male high-school 
dropouts fell by half from 1973 to 1989. About one third of all 
American men aged 25-34 earn too little to raise a family of four out 
of poverty. And, not surprisingly from the perspective of poor women 
seeking a mate, poor young men and less than one third as likely to be 
married. In short, jobs have dried up for the high school dropout, 
marriage has become less likely than before and the children of their 
incomplete families are more likely to be on welfare at a lower benefit 
level.
  I urge my colleagues to take note of these facts--the importance of 
education and livable-wage jobs to preventing welfare dependency--as 
they work on the related issue of welfare reform. While we pass this 
reform bill on the Senate floor, recently passed cuts to education are 
headed for conference with the House. Just as States are taking the 
initiative to eliminate high school general-track education and replace 
it with tech prep programs that move graduates into better paying jobs, 
we are cutting back on the Federal tech prep program that provided 
leadership and the Carl Perkins vocational education program 
appropriations that have helped fund implementation. Just as data show 
that the economic split between college graduates and non-college 
graduates is widening, we are cutting back on Perkins loans, student 
incentive grants, and in budget reconciliation, college loans. In 
short, the data is telling us to go one way on education, but we are 
going the other way fast and bragging about welfare reform.
  Similarly, on trade we have unilaterally disarmed, and in 
manufacturing we refuse to invest. I have proposed a competitive trade 
policy, including a competitive restructuring of our tax policy, and 
have worked to invest in a stronger American manufacturing base.
  Mr. President, I do not brag about today's welfare reform 
legislation. In fact, my favorable vote today is largely an effort to 
protect the child care improvements I have worked for in the Senate 
bill as it goes to conference with a less favorable House bill. 
Furthermore, I support it in the hope that, with welfare off the table, 
my colleagues will look at the underlying problems that I have outlined 
and continue to work on improving access to jobs and education.
  Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, there is no doubt that our current system 
of welfare needs reforming. Each Member of the Senate knows that severe 
short-comings exist in our welfare program and each is sincere in their 
efforts to solve these problems.
  The bill before us highlights block grants as the principal 
instrument for reform. By folding several programs into a block grant 
directly to States, the Federal Government will be giving broad 
authority to the States to run their welfare programs, as well as lump-
sum Federal payments to help cover costs. If this is done, the Federal 
guarantee of cash assistance to all eligible low-income mothers and 
children will end.
  I originally supported the Daschle-Breaux-Mikulski Democratic 
alternative as the best, most compassionate means of reforming welfare. 
The Work First reform plan would have changed the current system by: 
abolishing the AFDC Program and replacing it with a Temporary 
Employment Assistance Program; establishing the Work First employment 
block grant for States to get welfare recipients into jobs and to keep 
them in the work force; and permitting the States to use block grant 
funds to provide such services as job-placement vouchers, wage subsidy 
and work supplementation, on-the-job training or other training or 
education for work preparation to assist recipients in obtaining jobs, 
and allowing the States to establish all eligibility rules.
  Furthermore, it would have increased the Federal matching rate for 
work-related activities, consolidated child care programs and increased 
the Federal matching rate to make child care available to all those 
required to work or prepare for work, and extended Medicaid coverage 
for an additional 12 months beyond the current 1-year transition 
period. It would have also required community service for those not 
working within 6 months. In short, the Democratic plan would have met 
the basic objective of the Republican plan in terms of allowing for 
State flexibility.
  Its strength was that it provided for much more flexibility on the 
part of the State governments while also correctly recognizing that 
arbitrary time-

[[Page S13780]]
limits and monetary caps do not meet the test of sound policymaking. 
The plan which I strongly supported provided for major reforms in the 
system, but at the same time allowed for the fact that every situation 
and case is unique, and that arbitrary standards and block-grants are 
not panaceas for addressing every situation. It is these unique cases 
and situations that, unfortunately, are not addressed in the Republican 
plan. These are also the cases and situations which will end up costing 
the system more in the long-term than under the current system. I still 
believe this was the best reform plan we could have adopted.
  The Dole-Daschle compromise welfare reform legislation, while not as 
sound as the original Democratic plan, is still a vast improvement over 
the Republican bill. I still have some objections to certain provisions 
contained in the measure, but I believe, overall, that the good 
outweighs the bad. As is the case with virtually any comprehensive 
omnibus legislation we consider, this test has to be our bottom line: 
Are there enough positives to offset the negatives? I think the 
compromise we have struck is a step in the right direction, and an 
overall positive effort at ending welfare as we know it.
  One of the major problems I had with the original Dole bill was its 
funding formula, which, in my judgment, was somewhat punitive to the 
Southern States. In essence, it places the very States where most of 
the welfare population lives at a disadvantage as compared to other 
regions. The formula in the Graham-Bumpers children's fair share 
amendment, which was rejected, would have substantially increased poor 
States' funding for legitimate recipients of welfare. Senator Graham 
tried again last Friday to alleviate some of the problems with the 
funding formula by allowing the Secretary of Health and Human Services 
more discretion in certain funding decisions, but that amendment was 
also defeated. As with most funding formulas, the figures can be 
misleading. In any event, I think that any problems that remain can be 
properly addressed when they appear in the future. There will also be 
an opportunity for the conference committee to address remaining 
deficiencies in the funding formula.
  The Senate also agreed to a Daschle amendment creating a contingency 
fund for States during times of economic hardship. The original GOP 
block grant froze funding for States over the next 5 years, with no 
consideration for economic or natural disasters. This important 
provision provides eligible States with the resources necessary to 
manage unforeseen emergencies that are impossible to predict.
  The second major objection I had to the original Republican plan was 
that it did not provide enough funding for child care for those mothers 
who will be required to work after 2 years. As Senator Moynihan 
succinctly put it during the debate on child care, we will either have 
to pay for child care, or for orphanages.
  Senate leaders wisely opted to cover more expenses for child care. 
Democrats were able to secure an additional $3 billion over 5 years for 
a total of $8 billion in funding to guarantee the availability of child 
care for mothers required to work. This is the key to shifting mothers 
of young children from the welfare rolls to the pay rolls. This major 
change will assist many mothers and their families to permanently move 
off of welfare and into the work force.
  Welfare reform legislation is among the most important issues we will 
tackle during this or any other Congress. Our debate over the last 
couple of weeks has been civil, constructive, and, ultimately and most 
importantly, productive. We now have a bill before us which is a 
testament to the Senate and its leadership. In essence, it is a product 
of the Senate's legislative process working as it was designed to work, 
and I will vote in favor of this landmark welfare reform measure.
  We have seen some hard-fought battles and witnessed significant 
changes in the original bill after some intense debate and good-faith 
negotiations between the two sides of the aisle. Each side has made 
concessions, while holding firm to certain core principles. We have 
arrived at agreements on several major issues. As a result, we now have 
a bill that contains stronger work provisions and that is not as harsh 
on children. While there are undoubtedly problems still remaining in 
the legislation that will have to be addressed down the road, the Dole-
Daschle compromise is an overall positive step for reforming welfare, 
reducing dependency, and offering a brighter future for millions of 
American families.


                  contingency fund eligibility trigger

  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, before we vote on the leadership 
compromise amendment, I would like to raise a concern about the 
contingency fund provision. I am concerned that, although included with 
the best of intentions, the unemployment-rate criteria used to trigger 
State eligibility has not worked particularly well in the extended 
unemployment benefits program, and may not be the best measure of State 
need for contingency fund assistance. I would appreciate the 
opportunity to work with the Finance Committee to identify another 
trigger that more effectively accomplishes the purpose of the 
contingency fund--to provide some degree of protection for States that 
experience economic downturns, population shifts or natural disasters. 
I would like to clarify whether the authors of the amendment share my 
concerns.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I share the concerns of the Senator from 
North Dakota. I, too, am concerned about the ability of State to 
receive needed assistance from the contingency fund in the event of a 
recession or some other economic, demographic or natural calamity. I am 
very interested in the potential for exploring other trigger options in 
conference.
  Mr. DASCHLE. The Senators from North Dakota and Florida have raised a 
very important issue. I believe this issue should be looked at more 
closely during conference. The trigger provision in the amendment is 
identical to the trigger for extended benefits under the unemployment 
program. I think it's fair to say that few of us are completely 
comfortable with using that trigger in this context. We clearly need 
more information than time currently allows before finalizing this 
issue.
  Mr. DOLE. I share the opinion of the Democratic leader. We have every 
intention of closely examining this issue to ensure the contingency 
fund provides States with the protection it is intended to provide.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, might I just say that this is an 
extremely important issue, and requires the attention of the conference 
committee.
  Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, one of the clear messages sent by the 
voters in last year's elections was that confidence in the Federal 
Government to solve problems has declined precipitously over the past 
20-30 years. As David Broder observed in his Washington Post column, 
the 1994 elections ``ushered in a fundamental debate about what 
government should do, and what level of government should do it.''
  There is a growing sense that the trend toward more centralized 
government in Washington should be reversed and that decisionmaking 
authority should revert back to the State and local levels. Some 
functions of government, like defense, must be conducted at the Federal 
level. Other functions, however, may best be left to the States.
  Having said that, I believe we have a common and national interest in 
assuring an effective social safety net for all Americans, regardless 
of where citizens may reside. So I would not support any effort to 
completely remove the Federal Government from the welfare system.
  Washington does not have all the answers. It is misguided, if not 
downright arrogant, for us to assume that one-size-fits-all Federal 
solutions offer better hope than granting more freedom to States to 
design approaches that address a State's unique set of circumstances.
  In considering our welfare system, I think it is useful to 
distinguish beneficiaries by three major groups.
  First, there are those in need of temporary assistance. People who, 
while they are generally able to support themselves and their families, 
they have fallen on hard times. Food stamps and other assistance must 
be there to provide temporary help when unforeseen economic crises 
occur.
  The second group includes those whom most of us would agree cannot 

[[Page S13781]]
  work. These individuals--through no fault of their own, are simply not 
able to economically provide for themselves. They have disabilities 
that warrant our compassion not our scorn. The welfare system should be 
there for them.
  The third group consists of people who fall somewhere in between the 
first and second groups. They have been on and off the welfare rolls 
for years, yet they do not seem to fit the profile of someone whom most 
would agree cannot work.
  It is this third group that should be the focus of the current 
welfare debate. The debate has often been extremely polarized. Many on 
the left are reluctant to vest any sense of personal responsibility in 
welfare recipients. They view them as unwitting victims of societal 
injustices, refusing to acknowledge the role that personal behavior may 
play.
  On the other hand, many on the right are reluctant to acknowledge 
that no person is an island--that each of us thrives or fails to 
thrive, to some extent, as a result of our environment. Some on the 
right naively believe that we all have the same opportunities and that 
a failure to succeed is simply evidence of laziness.
  As in most cases, the truth lies somewhere in the middle. We do no 
one a favor by excusing them of all personal responsibility. But some 
of the poorest members of our society are born into environments of 
drugs, crime, and severe poverty. Through government, we have an 
obligation to try to counter these negative influences.
  Unavoidably, a debate about welfare is a debate about values. Richard 
Price, the author of ``Clockers,'' a book about life in the inner city, 
said that during his year of living in a New York slum that he wanted 
to try to understand why some kids worked in McDonald's, earning 
minimum wage, while some of their peers hustled drugs outside, earning 
upward of $1,000 a day.
  He said the key difference he was able to discern was that the kids 
working in McDonald's had someone to go home to who offered them hope. 
For these kids, working at McDonald's was a beginning not an end. The 
kids dealing drugs, however, had little hope about the future. They 
sensed that, if they went to work in McDonald's, they would never get 
out.
  According to the author, the corollary to the hope that some homes 
offered was a sense of expectation that their children would meet 
certain expectations. They instilled a sense of discipline and a sense 
of hope that convinced their kids that minimum wage at McDonald's was 
better than hundreds of dollars in the drug trade.
  Parents are the principal source of moral teaching. Regrettably, too 
many of our young people are growing up without two parents involved in 
their lives. The correlation between single parenthood and welfare 
dependency is overwhelming. Ninety-two percent of AFDC families have no 
father in the home.
  Society must also acknowledge the correlation between crime and 
fatherlessness. Three-quarters of all long-term prisoners grew up 
without fathers in their homes or active in their lives. When 24 
percent of children born today are born to unwed mothers, we cannot 
avoid this issue if we hope to break the cycle of poverty and crime 
that permeate some of our communities.
  Unfortunately, no one really knows how to counter this trend. For 
this reason, I do not support efforts to attach a lot of strings to the 
welfare block grants, including provisions ostensibly designed to curb 
illegitimacy. It is clear that welfare reform cannot disregard the 
growing incidence of out-of-wedlock births, teen pregnancy, and absent 
fathers, but it is also clear that we do not know what will counter 
this trend. Accordingly, we ought not prescribe a Federal solution that 
would hamstring the ability of States to try different approaches.
  Time will tell how effective States will be in improving our welfare 
system. To the extent that we clarify what level of government is 
responsible for welfare, I think we will go a long way to making the 
system more accountable and thereby more effective.
  I support the general thrust of the pending welfare legislation to 
turn more decisionmaking authority over to the States. Consistency 
would suggest that we not at the same time put a lot of requirements on 
States on how and who to spend Federal welfare dollars. I do think that 
it is important to ensure that States share responsibility with the 
Federal Government by investing dollars at the State level in welfare 
programs. For this reason, I think it is important that the block grant 
provision include a maintenance of effort requirement.
  Under current law, States have an incentive to spend their own money 
on AFDC and related programs. That incentive is the Federal match. 
Fourteen States receive 1 Federal dollar for each State dollar they 
invest. The rest of the States receive more than a dollar-for-dollar 
match.
  A maintenance of effort provision continues the incentive for a State 
to spend its own resources to aid its own people. Understand, however, 
that the State match does not require a State to spend money. If a 
State is successful in trimming its costs, there is no requirement that 
it maintain its spending. But if a State is going to realize savings in 
its welfare program, I think the Federal Government should share in the 
savings, too.
  I am also concerned about the bind States may find themselves in with 
respect to child care. Even under the current system of entitlement, 
there are more than 3,000 children of working parents already waiting 
to receive child care assistance in Maine. Some of these parents have 
transitioned off of welfare, others are at risk of going on welfare. 
The pending legislation has a strong work requirement--States that are 
not successful in placing 25 percent of recipients in work programs in 
1996 will lose 5 percent of their block grant allocation, no questions 
asked.
  The provision for child care services in Senator Dole's substitute 
does provide protections for children who are not yet in school by 
prohibiting States from penalizing mothers who cannot work because 
there simply is no child care available.
  I believe we are addressing my concerns with child care. Last week, 
the Senate overwhelmingly approved Senator Kassebaum's amendment which 
prohibits the transfer of money from the child care development block 
grant to activities not associated with child care. The amendment also 
streamlines the administration of child care programs because States 
will now be able to operate a unified child care system. No longer will 
mothers who successfully move off of welfare have to move their 
children out of a child care facility simply because they are no longer 
eligible for AFDC.
  To give States a shot at meeting the goals of welfare reform, we have 
now provided States with $3 billion to expand child care services. In 
the year 2000, States must put 50 percent of their welfare population 
to work. This means that Maine will have to increase the number of 
working welfare recipients by 64 percent. Now that we have reached an 
agreement to realize a smaller amount of overall savings in the short 
term, in the long term these additional dollars will pay off.
  A vivid example of a welfare program run amuck is the SSI Program, 
which I have investigated over the past several years through my work 
on the Special Committee on Aging.
  Our investigations have discovered that the Federal disability 
programs, which were intended as a vital safety net for America's most 
vulnerable citizens--the elderly and the disabled poor--have mushroomed 
into the largest and fastest growing cash welfare programs in the 
Federal Government. Despite the huge outlay of taxpayer and social 
security trust fund dollars, we have paid far little attention to how 
these benefits are being spent and taken far too little notice of how 
the disability programs are being abused.
  The lax management and rampant abuses in the SSI Program that have 
come to light through these investigations shocked the public. Drug 
addicts and alcoholics have been using cash SSI benefits to subsidize 
and perpetuate their addictions, and many addicts were actually seeking 
out the SSI Program as a steady source of cash to support their habits. 
The message of the program has been, ``Stay addicted and you qualify 
for benefits. But stop drinking or shooting up drugs and the benefits 
will stop.''
  Tragically, these policies have not only drained the Federal 
Treasury, but 

[[Page S13782]]
have also been destructive to substance abusers themselves, by 
rewarding addiction and discouraging, or failing to require, necessary 
treatment to pave the way to rehabilitation.
  Following legislation I introduced to correct these abuses, Congress 
took swift action to place protections on disability benefits paid to 
drug addicts and alcoholics. We took the cash out of the hands of the 
addicts by requiring them to have third parties handle their benefits 
for them, and made alcoholics and addicts eligible for SSI only if they 
receive treatment for their addictions. Finally, we imposed a 3 year 
cut-off of SSI and disability insurance benefits for addicts and 
alcoholics.
  These changes enacted last year removed major incentives for abuse of 
the SSI Program and encouraged rehabilitation, rather than lifelong 
dependency.
  Another stunning example of abuse of the SSI Program pertains to one 
of the major areas of growth in the SSI Program, namely, benefits for 
legal immigrants. Just last week, for example, I released a GAO report 
finding that the Social Security Administration is not doing enough to 
crack down on fraud by translators who fraudulently assist legal 
immigrants qualify for SSI benefits. In one case, a middleman arrested 
for fraud had helped at least 240 immigrants obtain $7 million in SSI 
benefits by coaching them on medical symptoms and providing false 
information on their medical histories. The GAO has identified major 
weaknesses in how SSA awards SSI benefits to legal immigrants.
  While the bill before us will go far in reducing the problem of 
unchecked benefits to legal immigrants, this will continue to be an 
area of potential abuse that we must continue to watch carefully.
  Fraud and abuse in SSI should not be the only cause for reform of the 
disability programs. Even more fundamental problems should motivate 
reform. First, the SSI and disability insurance programs as now 
structured encourage lifelong dependency, not rehabilitation. The 
programs return virtually no one to work: Less than 1 person in 1,000 
on the SSI-DI rolls gets off the program through the programs' 
rehabilitation efforts.
  We must address the growth of these programs if we are to preserve 
them for the truly disabled. Persons are getting SSI at younger ages, 
with very little chance of ever getting off the rolls. The SSA recently 
estimated that a typical SSI recipient will stay on the rolls for about 
11 years, and we are paying out roughly $51,000 in SSI benefits to each 
new person on the rolls over this period of time. The cost to the 
Government for each recipient is far higher when Medicaid and food 
stamps are added to the equation: Recipients can receive total Federal 
benefits of about $113,000 when these other programs are taken into 
account.
  With dollars this large at stake it is crucial that we do all we can 
to reform the disability program so that it emphasizes rehabilitation 
rather than dependency. In reforming this program, our guiding 
principle must be that we preserve the disability programs for the 
truly disabled, but that we not remain blind to the very real problems 
that exist within the SSI Program.
  As Marvin Olasky noted in his recent book, ``The Tragedy of American 
Compassion,'' effective welfare requires the ability to distinguish 
those who have fallen on hard times and need a helping hand from those 
who simply refuse to act in a disciplined and responsible manner. When 
welfare is a Federal entitlement, it is very difficult to make these 
distinctions. Giving State and local governments more discretion in the 
welfare system is a step in the right direction.
  Block-granting AFDC to the States is not a panacea. A welfare system 
that has clearer lines of responsibility and accountability will be 
more effective. But this is not the end of the welfare debate. 
Hopefully, the legislation we enact this year will make meaningful 
improvements in the current system. But turning these programs over to 
the States will not itself fix the problems. Congress and the President 
must continue to work with States to improve the welfare system to make 
sure that a safety net is there for those who need it but is denied to 
those who abuse it.
  Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise in support of H.R. 4, the landmark 
welfare reform legislation that the Senate will be adopting this 
afternoon.
  Mr. President, I call H.R. 4 landmark legislation first and foremost 
because it ends the 60-year status of welfare as a cash entitlement 
program. Once this bill becomes law, no person will be able to choose 
welfare as a way of life. Likewise, no person will be entitled to cash 
benefits from the Federal Government simply because he or she chooses 
not to work.
  By dramatically cutting the Federal welfare bureaucracy and providing 
welfare block grants for the States, H.R. 4 recognizes that the best 
hope for making welfare programs successful lies in shifting major 
responsibility for their administration to a level of government where 
innovation and experimentation can flourish. That is a significant step 
toward reinvigorating federalism in our system of government.
  H.R. 4 transforms welfare from a handout that fosters dependency into 
a temporary helping hand for those who fall on hard times. The bill 
places a 5-year lifetime limit on receiving welfare benefits. 
Individuals will be permitted to move on and off of the welfare rolls, 
but will, after a cumulative total of 5 years, become ineligible for 
additional benefits.
  In return for Government's temporary helping hand, H.R. 4 requires 
that welfare recipients work for their benefits as soon as their States 
determine that they are ``work ready.'' If a recipient refuses to 
report for work, then a pro rata--or greater--reduction in benefits is 
imposed. In fact, the States may terminate benefits for such recipients 
if they so choose.
  Although I supported amendments to the bill that would have taken 
stronger steps to reduce the Nation's escalating out-of-wedlock birth 
rate, H.R. 4 does address that crisis in several very important ways. 
Most important, the legislation requires that minor mothers who have 
children out-of-wedlock must stay in school and live under adult 
supervision in order to receive welfare benefits. In doing so, the bill 
removes the perverse incentive under current law for a young girl to 
become pregnant and have a baby in order to receive a welfare check and 
thus become financially independent of her parents.
  Moreover, Mr. President, H.R. 4 permits the States to refuse to give 
more cash benefits to mothers who have additional children while on 
welfare. Finally, H.R. 4 provides $75 million to encourage the States 
to establish abstinence education programs designed to reduce out-of-
wedlock births and encourage personal responsibility.
  I am also pleased, Mr. President, that H.R. 4 takes a number of steps 
toward ending the abuse of the welfare system by those legal immigrants 
who come to America not to go to work, but to go on welfare. H.R. 4 
does this by giving the States the option to deny welfare benefits to 
noncitizens.
  Equally important, Mr. President, H.R. 4 requires that, for most 
means-tested welfare programs, both the income and the assets of a 
legal immigrant's sponsor are deemed to be those of the noncitizen for 
a period of 5 years. This ``deeming'' provision is designed to prevent 
noncitizens from going on welfare. This is good public policy. 
Noncitizens, after all, remain, by definition, citizens of other 
countries. If they come to the United States and fall on hard times, 
they can, quite simply, go home. They should not, in all fairness, 
expect to be supported by Americans who are not their fellow citizens.
  In summary, Mr. President, I commend those among my colleagues in the 
Senate who have worked long and hard to make this a strong welfare 
reform bill. I am pleased to support it. I look forward to supporting 
an even stronger bill when it comes back from the conference committee.
  Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, this is not the best welfare reform bill 
that Congress could pass. And, this is not how I would have designed a 
welfare reform bill. There are, in my view, still some problems with 
it.
  But, I cannot ignore why we are here today. Democrats and Republicans 
sat down together and came up with a bipartisan compromise.
  That is what the American people sent us here to do. Not to bicker. 
Not to fight. Yes, to have honest disagreements. But, in the end, to 
sit down and 

[[Page S13783]]
work out our differences. That is exactly what happened here on welfare 
reform.
  The result of us working together is a dramatically better bill than 
when we started. Not perfect. But, much, much better. And, it is far 
superior to the bill passed by the House of Representatives earlier 
this year.
  The welfare bill before us today stresses that welfare recipients 
work for their benefits--and many will be required to do so.
  It limits the amount of time that individuals can spend on welfare--
so that welfare is no longer a way of life.
  It takes a significant step toward ensuring that innocent children 
are protected--by providing safe day care while their mothers are 
working.
  And it toughens the child support enforcement laws--so that everyone 
knows that when they bring a child into this world, they have a 
responsibility for that child.
  These are the general principles that I have previously outlined as 
the major components that must be included in any welfare reform bill. 
And, the requirement that welfare recipients work for their benefits is 
a proposition that I have advocated since 1987.
  Nevertheless, as I said a moment ago, this bill is not perfect. The 
details are not as good as I believe they could--or should--be.
  I believe we could have had a bill that was both more compassionate 
to the children--by ensuring that they are taken care of even if their 
parents are kicked off of welfare--and also more demanding of the 
parents--through even stricter work provisions.
  And, I still have concerns about the whole concept of block grants to 
States.
  But, as Senator Moynihan stated long ago, we should not let the best 
be the enemy of the good. This is not the best bill, but it is a better 
bill. And, I dare say that after the bipartisan agreement, it is a 
pretty good bill.
  Mr. President, I cannot turn my back on the significant improvements 
that have been made in this proposal. And I cannot turn my back on the 
good faith bipartisan effort at reforming our welfare system.
  So, I will--despite my continued reservations about some aspects of 
the legislation--vote for this welfare reform bill.
  I only hope that this delicate compromise--and not the draconian 
House bill--is accepted when the bill goes to conference.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I will vote for passage of the welfare 
reform bill that has been crafted over the past several weeks.
  I do so, however, with trepidation over where this reform may lead.
  The Senator from New York [Mr. Moynihan] has spoken eloquently on 
many occasions about the potential consequences of ending over 60 years 
of Federal commitment to the welfare of children who through no fault 
of their own have either been born into a life of poverty, or who have 
fallen into poverty because of family misfortune.
  I will vote for this bill because the current system is badly broken, 
and we must find an alternative to the status quo.
  No one likes the current system, least of all the families trapped in 
an endless cycle of dependency, poverty, and despair. We must change 
the system and I see this bill as the most moderate measure likely to 
move forward in the current climate.
  The basic premise of this bill rests upon the notion that the current 
system has failed and that we ought to allow the States the opportunity 
to try to do a better job, with as much flexibility as possible. This 
approach places a great deal of faith in the good will of State 
governments to implement programs designed to help, not punish, needy 
citizens.
  As a former State legislator, I have a good deal of respect for State 
governments. I am not convinced that the Federal Government always 
knows best how to handle every problem. Certainly, there are areas--
like civil rights--which are national in dimension, which require a 
consistent, bedrock level of Federal involvement to insure that rights 
derived from our national constitution are fully protected. But I am 
not convinced that social policy, welfare policy in particular, must 
always be controlled from Washington.
  I recognize that part of my willingness to try this approach of 
greater State control is based upon the fact that I come from a State, 
Wisconsin, which has long been a laboratory for progressive social 
policy and demonstration programs. I have said on the Senate floor that 
much of what Wisconsin has tried to do through direct investment in job 
training programs for welfare recipients makes sense and is designed to 
help people join the workforce. Some of the policies, like Learnfare 
and Bridefare, I have voted against because there is little evidence to 
show that they will have any real impact on helping people move off 
welfare and into the work force. I have voted against mandatory family 
caps for the same reason.
  Mr. President, I want to reiterate that this is not the kind of bill 
I would draft if I were the author.
  I think it falls far short of what is needed in the areas of child 
care, job training, and services that will help families become self-
sufficient.
  Mr. President, the changes made in the bill through the bipartisan 
leadership amendment make this a more desirable bill than the one we 
began debating several weeks ago.
  This amendment will provide an additional $3 billion for child care 
services. It includes a maintenance of effort that will require States 
to spend at least 80 percent of their 1994 level of State funding in 
order to receive the block grant. Without such a maintenance of effort 
requirement, Federal dollars would simply replace state contributions, 
and States like Wisconsin which make a substantial contribution to 
investing in welfare programs would have simply seen their dollars 
shifted to States which lack such investments.
  The amendment contains a contingency grant fund to help States which 
run out of money under the block grant because of higher unemployment 
rates. It provides that up to 20 percent of recipients can be exempted 
from the 5-year time limitation for welfare assistance--a provision 
that will allow some flexibility in a provision which might otherwise 
cause untold hardships. The inclusion of each of these provisions has 
been critical to my decision to support this bill.
  At the same time, the bill still falls far short of what I think 
needs to be done to achieve real, meaningful change. I believe that the 
States will be back here within a few short years asking for more 
Federal dollars to get the job done.
  I am also deeply concerned about the provisions of the bill that 
remove the guaranteed Federal safety net for young children, replacing 
that 60-year Federal commitment with a system of State block grants 
which will create a patchwork quilt across this Nation to replace the 
current Federal commitment.
  Many States will continue to provide protections for these children 
and will work hard to help families move from welfare into the work 
force. The Senate wisely rejected several efforts to impose the 
punitive-type provisions contained in the version of welfare reform 
passed by the other body.
  But there will be some States which will exercise the punitive 
options available under this bill and will opt to impose harsh 
requirements upon needy families.
  These provisions and the lack of national protections for children, 
wherever they may live, are deeply troubling to me.
  But we cannot continue the current system. I am hopeful that many of 
the States will enact innovative programs, like the New Hope program in 
Milwaukee, WI, that will provide real opportunities for welfare 
recipients to become economically self-sufficient members of the work 
force.
  This bill will give the States the opportunity to demonstrate whether 
they are willing to make the kinds of investments that will promote 
this self-sufficiency, rather than serve simply to punish those who 
fall through the system.
  As I said at the outset, I am voting for this bill because I am not 
convinced that welfare policy can only be made in Washington, DC. I 
think the problems of welfare policy are so complex and difficult that 
it is a mistake to believe that there is only one approach. This bill 
will encourage State experimentation which may well lead to better 
policy development over the long period. 

[[Page S13784]]

  I believe that the vote being cast today is either for or against the 
status quo, and I do not support the status quo.
  Although I will vote for the Senate bill, I want to make it very 
clear that I will not support a conference report that contains the 
kinds of punitive, harsh measures contained in the welfare reform bill 
proposed by the other body. I hope that the bill that emerges from 
conference will reflect the moderate efforts that went into the Senate 
bill.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, in my home State of New Mexico and 
across the country, agreement is virtually unanimous: it is time to 
reform our Nation's welfare system.
  The current system is not working as well or as efficiently as it 
could. The many State waivers already approved by the Secretary of 
Health and Human Services are compelling evidence that the current 
system is incapable of meeting the wide variety of differing needs 
across our country.
  We need a system that is less costly; more efficient; and truly 
capable of moving people permanently from welfare to work. Most 
important, we need a system that gives States the flexibility they need 
to fund and operate programs specifically tailored to meet the needs of 
their citizens.
  But as we move toward reform, we must do so carefully and 
thoughtfully. We need to fully understand the ramifications of our 
actions, and we need clear, measurable goals.
  As we prepare to vote on final passage of welfare reform legislation, 
I would like to take a few moments to talk about effective goals and 
objectives for reform and to discuss how the majority leader's Work 
Opportunity Act and the Democratic Leader's Work First Act meet these 
goals. I would also like to discuss three critical differences in the 
two bills and the effect of these differences on my home State of New 
Mexico.
  Recently, I read a book on homelessness in America, ``The Visible 
Poor'' by Joseph Blau. One of the statistics in the book that made a 
significant impression on me was that something like one-third of all 
the homeless people in this country are working Americans.
  These Americans are doing everything we ask, and they still do not 
have the resources to afford basic housing.
  Joseph Blau attributes this phenomena to several factors. One is the 
sorry state of our economy, and the fact that the minimum wage is not 
really a living wage in this country.
  Many Americans are facing a declining standard of living. This has 
the obvious effect of forcing people to allocate a larger percentage of 
their income to the basic necessities; and when all of their income is 
not enough, to relinquish adequate housing in favor of food.
  The declining standard of living in America also has the effect of 
exerting downward pressure on our social safety net.
  I think all of us agree with the principle that work has to be 
rewarded. Working should pay more than not working.
  For most of American history, when our living standards were on the 
rise, this philosophy did not conflict with ensuring that everyone in 
this Nation had the basic necessities of life. It was quite possible to 
help some people in need to obtain food, housing, and clothing without 
violating the premise that those who were working should have a better 
life. We did not create the perfect social safety net, but we did the 
best we could to ensure that the poorest among us--especially children, 
who are the most vulnerable members of any society--had the basics of 
life.
  Today, however, when our economic living standard is in decline, some 
think the way to ensure that working pays more than not working is to 
take away from those who are not in the system.
  In other words, the argument is that if our Nation is confronted with 
a situation where a person can work and still not be able to afford a 
place to sleep, then to correct this problem, we need to remove any 
benefits that would have enabled those outside the employment system to 
have a place to sleep.
  Rather than making sure that those who work have a standard of living 
we can be proud of, we find ourselves taking away from the most 
vulnerable in society to make sure that those who work at least can 
find someone worse off in this Nation.
  I believe a saner approach is to make sure that everyone who works 
for a living in this Nation gets a decent living. This approach ensures 
that everyone who can work has the right incentives to do so, and that 
we do not have to literally take food and shelter from children to 
ensure that those who work are receiving more than those who do not.
  I hope that in the future, the Senate will engage on a debate on how 
to raise the rewards of working, through increasing the minimum wage, 
keeping the earned income tax credit, improving job training, and 
creating a national strategy on competitiveness. That would be an 
excellent policy debate.
  In the meantime, however, it appears that we must first fight to 
ensure that we do not force more people who are on public assistance to 
the streets so that to work becomes relatively attractive.
  I believe the scope of the compromise amendment worked out by the 
Democratic and Republican leadership is limited to this basic issue. 
The agreement should not be characterized as a significant step forward 
in the effort to reform and improve our Nation's welfare system.
  The agreement simply will help prevent us from taking too many steps 
backward.
  The compromise we are voting on today will enable States to get more 
unemployed parents into the work force because it will help make 
affordable child care more accessible for some. Not all families in 
need will be covered under the compromise, but a number parents in each 
State will be able to move from welfare to work.
  If the Senate votes today to reject the compromise amendment, in 
favor of the majority leader's bill, there is no question but that a 
substantial number of families, a growing percentage of the homeless 
already, will be forced onto the streets.
  If we vote to accept the compromise amendment, we will lessen the 
blow to some, but not all, of these families. Throughout the welfare 
reform debate, I have been concerned about the effect of a massive 
overhaul of our public assistance programs on these families, and the 
working Americans who are hanging on to the economic ladder just one 
rung above them.
  I am not saying that change is not needed. Some change is clearly 
needed. But in making changes, the Congress and the American people 
need to be aware of the degree to which these issues and programs are 
interconnected.
  We need to understand the ripple effect of changing one, or two, or 
three Federal programs. If one nutrition program is eliminated or 
consolidated, are more working Americans going to have to make a choice 
between food and housing?
  Of particular concern to me is the ripple effect in New Mexico: What 
does block-granting vital domestic programs mean to New Mexico's 
children?
  What does it mean to New Mexico's poor working families who can just 
barely make ends meet today?
  How are we going to guarantee that the basic needs of New Mexico's 
poor working families are met?
  How are we going to guarantee that poor, rural States like New Mexico 
are not left with disproportionate and unmanageable financial and 
administrative burdens?
  In seeking answers to these and other questions, I have reached the 
conclusion that the chief goals of welfare reform should be to create a 
system that encourages--and demands--personal responsibility and that 
helps people become self-sufficient, productive members of our society 
and workforce.
  To reach these goal, I believe we need a system focussed on education 
and on building the skills they will need to compete in the global 
marketplace of the 21st century. Four key components of an education-
oriented system are: First, a strong public education system that 
includes training for adults, and, in particular, parents; second, 
affordable, accessible child care; third, affordable, accessible 
primary and preventive health care, including nutrition programs such 
as child care food assistance, and school lunch and breakfast programs; 
and fourth, real opportunities to earn a wage that allows working 
families to maintain a decent standard of living. 

[[Page S13785]]

  I do not believe the Republican leadership's Work Opportunity Act 
will help us reach these goals. In fact, I believe the block grants 
contained in the Republican bill take us in the wrong direction and 
lead us away from our goals.
  Reducing essential funding and lumping many important social service 
programs into a few omnibus block grants, without any assurance of 
accountability or continuity among the states simply is not be the best 
way to reach our goals.
  Instead, we in the Congress need to work together with three 
objectives in mind: First, to enact well-considered, effective, and 
fair legislation where needed; second, to consolidate, coordinate, or 
eliminate duplicative or outdated programs; and third, to support and 
improve those Federal programs with proven track records of success, 
such as child care programs, the school lunch program, and the child 
care nutrition program.
  In my view, these three objectives are at the core of the Democratic 
leader's Work First welfare reform plan, which I am pleased to 
cosponsor.
  The Work First plan recognizes the need for a Federal partnership 
role in helping States and individuals gain the tools and skills--
education, effective job training, and child care--they need to become 
productive, contributing members of society. The Republican bill does 
not.
  The Democratic and Republican plans differ significantly in three key 
areas: First, commitment to work; second, commitment to child care; and 
third, commitment to States and American families in general.
  The top priority of the Democratic leader's plan is to move people 
from welfare to work. In fact, under the plan, welfare recipients must 
either go to work or enroll in school or job training within 6 months 
or sooner. To help meet these stringent work requirements, the 
Democratic bill helps States fund the education and training programs 
they will need. States will submit detailed plans for program 
implementation, so progress toward goals can be measured, but the 
states will have a great deal of flexibility in designing programs.
  The majority leader's Work Opportunity Act also sets up work 
requirements, but it does not fund them. Instead, the bill shifts AFDC, 
Emergency Assistance, and transitional and at-risk child care into a 
single block grant to the States; then it freezes the annual funding 
for the total block grant at the fiscal year 1994 level--$16.7 
billion--for the next few years.
  If the Senate leadership's compromise is adopted, and additional $3 
billion in funding for work-related child care, above the fiscal year 
1994 level, will be available over the next 5 years.
  Because the work requirements under the Republican plan are 
mandatory, many believe the bill essentially amounts to an unfunded 
mandate of more than $23 billion over 7 years.
  In my home State of New Mexico, the unfunded work mandate totals $161 
million over 7 years.
  As I understand it, the compromise agreement addresses a portion of 
the burden of this State mandate by allowing States, at their option, 
to require that single parents with children age 5 and under work 20 
hours per week, as opposed to 35 hours under Senator Dole's bill.
  A key difference in the two bills, which is addressed in the 
compromise, involves child care. Both the Democratic bill and the 
compromise recognize that the No. 1 barrier to work for most parents is 
lack of child care.
  The Democratic bill would ensure that child care is available for all 
welfare recipients who are working. The Senate leadership's compromise 
would help ensure that child care is available for many welfare 
recipients who are working.
  In my view, this is a key difference between the Republican and 
Democratic bills--under the Dole plan, child care is not required or 
ensured. Existing Federal programs are simply lumped into an omnibus 
block grant to the States.
  Under the Democratic bill, access to child care is real. No parent 
will be able to use inability to find child care as an excuse for not 
finding work. Under the compromise, child care is not guaranteed, but 
it is more likely to be available. In addition to the overall increase 
in funding, $3 billion over 5 years, the compromise stipulates that 
funding will be distributed at the Medicaid match rate to those States 
that agree to maintain funding for at-risk child care programs.
  Despite the improvements that the leadership compromise would make to 
the majority leader's legislation, the Democratic and Republican 
proposals remain dramatically different in their fundamental commitment 
to the States and American families. The foundation of the democratic 
plan is an individual entitlement to American children and families. 
The foundation of the Republican plan--and the Senate leadership's 
compromise--is a block grant to the State.
  Why is this distinction important, particularly in light of the 
increased funding under the compromise?
  It is important, especially to poor families and poor States, because 
an individual entitlement is an unbreakable promise made by the Federal 
Government to its States and its citizens that in times of need, 
assistance will be there.
  Now, I want to make clear: this is not unconditional assistance. This 
is not a give away. Always, assistance will be contingent on certain 
requirements, such as job training, completing school, or seeking 
employment.
  Consistent with the Democratic bill's focus on work, the entitlement 
has a 5-year time limit, with exceptions for children. In addition, it 
is dependent on the signing of a parent empowerment contract, stating a 
participant's commitment to finding a job. No aid is provided unless a 
contract is signed, and penalties will be applied to those who violate 
the terms of their contract.
  On the other hand, the majority leader's plan and the leadership 
compromise are based on block grants. These are fixed amounts of money 
given to the States with little or no requirement for accountability, 
either to taxpayers or the State's citizens, and with no assurance of 
continuity among State programs unless amendments offered and accepted 
during the floor debate are retained in conference.
  The real problem is that the block grant may or may not be sufficient 
in times of need. When a State runs out of money, it runs out of money. 
Help simply will not be available to eligible, needy children and their 
families unless State and local taxpayers pick up the tab.
  To help alleviate this situation, the compromise includes a $1 
billion contingency grant fund, which States could use--so long as they 
meet certain matching requirements--in fiscal emergencies.
  According to the information and statistics I have, my home State of 
New Mexico could be one of the first to apply for such a grant.
  Under the Republican leadership's plan, an additional 14,400 jobs for 
welfare recipients would be needed in New Mexico by 2000, or the State 
would be assessed a 5 percent penalty in reduced Federal funding. Now, 
14,400 new jobs may not sound like a high figure when compared to 
States like Texas or California, which must add more than 116,000 and 
358,000 jobs to their economies respectively. But in a poor, rural 
State like New Mexico, 14,400 new jobs is a significant number--it 
represents a required increase in the State's current welfare-related 
work participation rate of 123 percent. And it represents an increased 
cost to the State of $13 million in fiscal year 2000 alone.
  Directly tied to the increased work requirements are increases in the 
number of families needing child care.
  In fiscal year 1994, about 2,970 children in New Mexico received 
AFDC/JOBS-related child care. Based on the Republican plan's work 
requirements, the number of children needing AFDC/JOBS-related care 
would grow to at least 4,720 by 2000. This represents an increase of 
159 percent, and an increased cost of at least $23 million in fiscal 
year 2000.
  Yet, the Republican plan does not provide any additional funding to 
cover the child care needs of these families. As a portion of the new 
temporary assistance block grant, the plan freezes funding for AFDC/
JOBS child care at the fiscal year 1994 level.
  The Senate leadership's compromise is only slightly better. It would 
make an additional $3 billion available over the next 5 years. When the 
additional 

[[Page S13786]]
funding is divided between the 50 States and spread over 5 years, the 
significance of the compromise tends to diminish. Fortunately from New 
Mexico's perspective, this additional funding would be drawn down by 
the States at the Medicaid match rate.
  Mr. President, let me just review the costs to New Mexico of the 
increased work requirements and related child care expenses. Estimates 
are that by 2000, New Mexico would have to spend: $13 million more for 
work-related operating costs, $23 million more in child care costs. In 
total, from fiscal year 1996 to fiscal year 2000, $115 million 
increase.
  These two costs represents 40 percent of New Mexico's total block 
grant, leaving only 60 percent to cover cash assistance and other 
programs. If this is insufficient, as it would be if benefit levels 
remained where they are today, the State will have no option but to 
greatly reduce benefits, deny eligibility to many families, or spend 
much more than it does today in State funds.
  Based on current law projections, by 2005, 72,000 New Mexican 
children would be eligible for AFDC benefits. Under the Republican 
plan, which would strip parents--and their children--of all AFDC 
benefits after 60 months, 19,000 children--or 26 percent of all 
recipients--in New Mexico would be denied benefits.
  Further, the State could decide to maximize its Federal funds by 
implementing various penalties available as options under the 
Republican plan. Each penalty denies more children benefits:
  Children denied family cap: 12,000 if the family cap is added back in 
conference.
  Children denied birth to unwed teen: 320.
  Children denied family benefits for 24 months: 36,673.
  Today, we are debating the wisdom of block granting essential safety 
net programs. The block grants would be authorized for the fiscal years 
1996 to 2000. Because we cannot project with certainty the economic and 
employment situations of each State in future years, or whether 
migration among States will be more or less significant than it is 
today, or a variety of other factors, we cannot precisely project the 
actual degree of harm one State may endure under a fixed formula for 
block grants.
  Mr. President, earlier in my remarks I said it was critical that we 
in the Senate work together, in a bipartisan matter, to enact real, 
goal-oriented welfare reform. I believe the compromise amendment worked 
out by the Senate leadership represents a step--albeit a small step--in 
that direction.
  I will support the compromise, and despite some serious misgivings, I 
will vote to pass the underlying bill. However, I remain deeply 
concerned that in the rush to cut spending and send a message to the 
American people, the very people who need our compassion and assistance 
the most--vulnerable children and their families--could be the most 
gravely hurt.
  In closing, I urge my colleagues who will take this bill to 
conference with the House to approach their deliberations carefully and 
thoughtfully.
  Without question, we need to better coordinate our public assistance 
programs; we need to streamline many of them; but we cannot do so in a 
way that threatens the health and well-being of New Mexico's--or any 
State's--children and their families.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I intend to support this welfare reform 
bill and advance it to a conference with the U.S. House of 
Representatives. I do so even though I have some real problems with 
some provisions. Despite my concerns, I think it is important to move 
this legislation forward.
  Mr. President, there is broad consensus in this country that the 
current welfare system serves no one well--not the recipients, not 
their children, not the American taxpayer. It fails both the people who 
need help and the working people who are paying for it. It has trapped 
all too many people, especially women, into a lifetime of dependency 
instead of helping them on a temporary basis to get on their feet and 
into the labor force. Sadly, the children of long-term welfare 
recipients all too often suffer irreparable harm and are likely to 
remain poor and disadvantaged for the rest of their lives.
  Mr. President, the American people want us to overhaul a system which 
they perceive to be one that encourages dependency rather than one 
which encourages work. They see the current system as inefficient, 
unproductive, and a waste of their hard-earned tax dollars. They want a 
system that demands responsibility and accountability--a system where 
able-bodied individuals are required to work for their benefits. That 
is why we are here today.
  But the American people are also compassionate. They do not want 
innocent children punished for the behavior of their parents. They 
expect us to protect poor and vulnerable children. And that is the most 
serious flaw in the legislation before us--innocent children are not 
guaranteed protection. The bill before us today does not guarantee that 
the children of parents who violate the rules or are removed from the 
rolls because of they have exceeded the time limits for benefits are 
protected.
  I think we have a moral responsibility for these children. They ought 
not to be punished for the mistakes of their parents. There ought to be 
a safety net in this bill to ensure their protection. There is not. If 
this egregious hole in the social safety net is not remedied by the 
conference committee, I will have great difficulty supporting the final 
package. I am not willing to gamble with the life of one child in 
welfare reform.
  Despite my very serious concerns about the impact this legislation 
will have on innocent children, the bill we are considering today is a 
vast improvement over the bill that emerged from the Finance Committee 
this spring. With bipartisan support, a number of the most serious 
flaws in the original legislation were corrected.
  Nevertheless, I remain concerned about the block grant, no-strings-
attached approach to welfare reform. I am especially concerned that the 
block grant funding levels are frozen for a 5-year period. In my view, 
that is a dangerous experiment. And it is an experiment that could 
impact the lives of 10 million children.
  If a cash assistance welfare block grant had been enacted in fiscal 
year 1990, an historical analysis by the Department of Health and Human 
Services concludes that States would have received 29 percent less 
funding in fiscal year 1994 than they would have received under current 
law? If States do not have enough money to meet needs, what do we 
expect them to do? Surely, they will not raise taxes. What they will be 
inclined to do is establish more stringent eligibility criteria and 
reduce benefit levels to make ends meet. And who could suffer? Poor and 
vulnerable kids.
  So let me repeat. I have serious reservations about the block grant 
concept. But a majority of Members of Congress seem to like the idea, 
and most governors relish it. We will not know the results of this 
block grant experiment for a number of years. Only then will be know 
for certain if it has been a wise or foolish undertaking.
  Every expert agrees that lack of adequate child care is the No. 1 
barrier in moving individuals from welfare to work. It is the linchpin 
for successful welfare reform. Yet, as originally proposed, not 1 
dollar of the block grant was earmarked for child care. Under the 
compromise offered by Senators Dole and Daschle, $5 billion of the 
block grant was earmarked for child care and an additional $3 billion 
was added to that pot. While the $8 billion funding level is still well 
short of the estimated need, it is a step in the right direction. 
Without this commitment to child care, the welfare reform effort was 
doomed to failure. If the final package does not contain this 
commitment to child care, I simply cannot support it.
  Other modifications to the original Republican proposal were 
important to garnering my vote in support of this measure. First, 
mothers with children under age one will not be forced to go to work to 
receive benefits. Second, single mothers with children under age 5 will 
be exempt from the 5 year time limit if no child care is available. In 
other words, the 5-year clock will not begin ticking for these mothers 
if States do not make child care available to them. This makes eminent 
good sense. The last thing we should want to do is create a situation 
where young children will be left home alone. That is irresponsible. 
And that was exactly 

[[Page S13787]]
the scenario we were creating under the original proposal.
  Finally, States will be given the option of not requiring single 
mothers with children under age 5 from working more than 20 hours a 
week. Giving mothers the ability to stay at home and nurture their 
children during the most formative years is the right thing to do.
  These three improvements were crucial components in my decision to 
support this bill, and they must be retained in conference or I intend 
to oppose the final measure.
  Shortly before final passage, the Senate finally agreed to include a 
maintenance of effort provision. As originally crafted, this bill did 
not require states to contribute one red cent of their own money for 
welfare reform. Under current law, states contributions constitute 
about 45 percent of total welfare expenditures. Think about that. 
Without a maintenance of effort provision, the pot of welfare money 
could have been reduced by almost half overnight. That was 
unconscionable in my view. Welfare has always been a State-Federal 
partnership. That partnership should be retained. The compromise 
agreement requires States to contribute at least 80 percent of the 
money they spent on welfare in 1994 in order to be eligible for their 
block grant money. While I would have preferred a 100 percent 
requirement, I can live with this percentage. This State maintenance of 
effort requirement must be retained by the conference committee. It is 
the right and fair thing to do.
  Lastly, Mr. President, the compromise included a provision to address 
the crisis of teen pregnancy. Seventy percent of teen mothers are not 
married, and that percentage has escalated each year for the past two 
decades. If we do not get a handle on this problem, all our good 
efforts for welfare reform could prove to be in vain.
  Too many unmarried teens are becoming parents, and too few are able 
to responsibly care for their children either emotionally or 
financially. The result: the child is deprived of a fair start in life, 
and the mother will very likely be doomed to a lifetime of poverty. No 
welfare reform effort can succeed without addressing this problem.
  The compromise that was agreed to last week included a provision on 
teen pregnancy that was part of the Democratic plan. It is a good 
provision. It will establish second chance homes where unmarried teen 
parents can live in adult-supervised homes where they will receive the 
support and guidance they need to finish school and become successful 
parents and productive citizens. This provision ought to be 
enthusiastically embraced by the conference committee.
  Mr. President, the original Republican plan for welfare reform has 
been significantly improved with the adoption of some very important 
bipartisan amendments. I commend the leadership of both parties for 
working together to make these changes. And I hope the bill will be 
further improved by the conference committee. If the final bill does 
not guarantee that innocent children are protected, however, I will 
have great difficulty in supporting it.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Today, we will vote on final passage of S. 1120, the so-
called Work Opportunity Act of 1995, better known as welfare reform.
  During the robust Senate debate on welfare reform, I have been a 
critic and a skeptic about the fundamental fairness and the workability 
of the legislation advanced by our majority leader, Senator Dole.
  I have also watched this bill improve with time, and I remain hopeful 
that progress will continue through the conference process.
  I remain hopeful because I have an abiding, underlying interest in 
achieving genuine welfare reform because I know the current system does 
not work.
  The incentives in the current system are in all of the wrong places 
and trap individuals into welfare dependency. For so many Floridians on 
welfare, it pays to stay there instead of to work.
  Why? Because without day care you can not train to get a job that 
pays a living wage. Without transitional, subsidized day care it is 
difficult to make ends meet when you first go back to work. And, 
finally, without some form of health insurance, a sick child in the 
house, is reason enough to stay at home and to stay on welfare.
  That is the failed system that we have today in America. That is what 
we seek to discard today.
  But we must make sure that the new system we are contemplating today 
is not a patchwork of slogans and wishful thinking, but instead a 
meaningful attempt to provide temporary assistance to families in need 
until they can return to the work force quickly.
  Mr. President, you cannot just wish away the children on welfare 
while you deal with the adults who receive the welfare checks.
  We must remind ourselves that children comprise almost 70 percent of 
the number of welfare beneficiaries. It is for the children that the 
old system was built, and in so many cases that system has failed them.
  As we construct a new system, we must look at the real needs of the 
children: quality and available child care is a critical need.
  I spoke earlier of the recent efforts which have been made to improve 
S. 1120. I would be remiss if I did not commend the leadership on both 
sides of the aisle, and also Senator Dodd who helped lead the charge, 
for the improvements in the child care provisions from the original 
bill.
  The additional $3 billion in funds for child care represents 
meaningful progress in the movement toward true welfare reform.
  We know very well from our experiences in Florida that you can not 
get a mother back to work if her children have no place to go during 
the work day.
  The old system forced a woman to choose between her children and 
work, and an enhanced Federal investment in subsidized child care can 
allow her to address both concerns. That is what the $3 billion Federal 
investment is intended to buy.
  But before we celebrate these advances in the funding levels for 
child care, we need to look at the cold realities facing the families 
who comprise the so-called working poor.
  Today in Florida, there is a waiting list of 25,000 children who are 
seeking subsidized day care. This number is not even representative of 
the actual unmet need when those who do not bother to add their names 
to this gargantuan list are considered.
  Because Florida has taken steps the last several years to invest more 
dollars into its child care system, the amount of Federal dollars that 
will go to Florida due to the additional $3 billion in this bill, will 
barely maintain Florida where it is today.
  This new money will actually only assist Florida to the point that it 
does not have to cut back on its subsidized day care program. Today 
Florida is investing in child care well beyond the 1994 spending base 
upon which S. 1120 is predicated.
  Further, I think every Member of the Senate should pause and 
contemplate the effect the new work requirements will have on the 
availability of subsidized child care for the working poor.
  In Florida, of the total child care pie, about half of it goes to the 
children of the working poor, primarily through the child care 
development block grant and the social services block grant programs.
  S. 1120 imposes a requirement that 25 percent of all welfare 
recipients must be working in the first year, and 50 percent by the 
year 2000. Therefore, the States will be under extreme pressure to move 
all eligible welfare families to the front of the line for day care, at 
the expense of the working poor families presently enrolled.
  The numbers speak for themselves, and currently Florida is barely 
half way toward that goal of 25 percent employment.
  As the conferees wrestle with the issues of maintenance of effort, 
work requirements and State flexibility, they need to focus on this 
important child care trade-off.
  This is not the time for shell games, moving some people off welfare 
and into work, while forcing others on welfare because we have 
withdrawn child care help from them. For a working poor family trying 
to make ends meet, the approximately $300 a month per child in day care 
in Florida can be a budget buster.
  Mr. President, I want welfare reform. The people of Florida want 
welfare reform. The people of America want welfare reform. 

[[Page S13788]]

  For that reason, I am voting for this bill, with reservations. I am 
voting for this bill to keep this legislative process alive, with the 
hope that the bill will be improved when we vote on the conference 
report.
  I would rather support this bill and keep this process moving, than 
vote no and kill any chance of welfare reform this year.
  With that premise stated, I want to outline two key reservations 
about this bill:
  First, The fundamental inequity of distributing resources under the 
proposed block grants to States.
  Under this legislation, we would divide Federal resources based on 
spending patterns in 1994. This arbitrary method would lock in current 
inequities, would disadvantage growth States, would be difficult to 
change once its in place, and would set a troubling precedent for our 
upcoming decisions on Medicaid.
  In the past, the Federal welfare allocation to States has varied from 
State to State due to the local match incentive. If a State put more 
funds into the welfare system, it got more funds from Washington.
  By using 1994 as the baseline for future allocations, we would 
perpetuate wide disparities among States. On a per-child basis, some 
States would receive five or six times the amount received by less-
affluent States.
  These stark disparities raise fundamental questions of fairness which 
I am hopeful the conference committee will address.
  Second, My second reservation about this bill deals with its unfair 
treatment of legal immigrants.
  Mr. President, most people of this Nation trace their heritage to 
somewhere else. My family came here from Scotland.
  This Nation has benefited from a long tradition of legal immigration. 
Let me repeat: Legal immigration.
  We set out rules and expectations for legal immigrants to become 
citizens. Under this bill, we are saying to legal immigrants who have 
followed the rules that we are going to change the rules, 
retroactively, on their way to citizenship.
  Again, this raises fundamental questions of fairness.
  Denying benefits to legal immigrants would unfairly impact certain 
communities in this Nation that have attracted a large number of 
newcomers.
  I will leave for another day the discussion over how Florida 
currently picks up the Federal tab for illegal immigration, to the tune 
of hundreds of millions of dollars each year.
  Permit me to focus on the dollars that are spent today for legal 
immigrants. In Florida in November, 1994, there were 34,224 legal 
immigrants on the welfare rolls, and 149,732 on the food stamp rolls. 
The estimated annual costs associated with these groups are $39 million 
and $133.5 million, respectively. In addition, Medicaid costs for legal 
immigrants in Florida in 1994 was greater than either AFDC or food 
stamps.
  This represents a substantial sum of money which Florida spends and 
which Florida might be asked to absorb under certain versions of this 
welfare reform legislation.
  This is a significant issue which must be addressed in conference.
  Furthermore, changing the rules for legal immigrants would be unfair 
to the newest Americans. I am particularly concerned about access to 
education.
  One of the great principles of America, that has bound us together as 
a diverse people and provided a foundation for the American Dream, is 
access to education.
  I implore my colleagues to consider the impact of this legislation on 
students. At Miami-Dade Community College, an estimated 8,000 students 
could lose financial aid.
  Is that the type of message we want to send to tomorrow's citizens, 
that the door to education is closed to you in the name of welfare 
reform?
  I am hopeful that the House-Senate conference can work to remedy this 
inequity in the overall bill. In part, I base my hope on public 
comments made by Majority Leader Bob Dole, who visited Florida last 
weekend.
  Senator Dole said he would prefer more flexibility on the issue of 
providing benefits to legal immigrants.
  The Gainesville Sun, on Sunday September 17, reported Senator Dole's 
views as follows:

       Dole later said he supported giving some benefits to legal 
     immigrants and said the amendment would be reviewed when the 
     welfare package goes to conference committee.

  I am pleased that the majority leader has not closed the door on 
changes to the portion of this bill that deals with treatment of legal 
immigrants.
  I look forward to reviewing the product of the conference committee 
with the hope that my concerns about fairness will be addressed.
  Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise to commend my colleagues for the 
honest debate which has produced the legislation we will vote on later 
today . . . legislation which takes a solid step toward fixing our 
badly broken welfare system. Both sides have put forth credible 
arguments, and more often than not we've been able to work together to 
find common ground.
  Yes, we may disagree on many of the details of this compromise 
legislation . . . but we all agree that the welfare system is in 
desperate need of an immediate overhaul.
  These facts are clear and indisputable: today, one American child in 
seven is being raised on welfare . . . one in three children is now 
born out of wedlock. And despite the $5.4 trillion taxpayer dollars we 
have funneled into the welfare system over the last 30 years, the 
poverty level has remained nearly the same.
  Three years ago, during his presidential campaign, President Clinton 
promised the American people that he would ``end welfare as we know 
it.'' Since then, however--even though his party controlled both the 
House and Senate--the welfare system remained untouched. Today, less 
than one year after Republicans gained control of both Chambers, we are 
on the verge of passing legislation to dramatically reform a welfare 
system which has too often entrapped both welfare recipients . . . and 
the taxpayers who subsidize them.
  At the heart of our legislation is the strong message from this 
Senate that the days of welfare without work are over.
  The American taxpayers are fed up, Mr. President. They go to work 
every day--both spouses, more often than not--and struggle to make ends 
meet while trying to carve out a better life for themselves and their 
families. They make a combined average income of $47,000 . . . but hand 
over more than a third of that to the Federal Government. And when they 
see those precious tax dollars going to support welfare recipients who 
simply refuse to work . . . well, they have every right to be furious.
  The taxpayers of this country have always been generous . . . but 
nobody likes to be taken for a fool.
  The ``pay for performance'' provisions of this welfare reform 
legislation offered by myself and Senator Shelby are intended to put 
accountability into the system. If a welfare recipient wants a federal 
check, all we ask is that they start making a contribution to society . 
. . to their own future . . . by working for that money.
  It is hardly a revolutionary concept. Every taxpayer in the Nation 
does the very same thing.
  I am proud that this bill incorporates a second amendment of mine to 
further strengthen its work requirements. This amendment permits 
states--for the purpose of meeting their work participation rate--to 
count no more than 25% of their welfare caseload as ``working'' if they 
are enrolled in vocational education.
  Without my amendment, the work requirements in this bill could be 
circumvented by substituting vocational education for actual time spent 
on the job. It is already happening in many states, where officials are 
avoiding the work requirements of the 1988 ``Family Self-Sufficiency 
Act'' by counting voc-ed programs as work.
  Let me make this clear, Mr. President--work does not mean sitting in 
a classroom. Work means work.
  Any farm kid who rises before dawn for the daily chores can tell you 
that. Ask any of my brothers and sisters what ``work'' meant on our 
family's dairy farm. It didn't mean sitting on a stool in the barn, 
reading a book about how to milk a cow. ``Work'' meant milking cows.
  Now, I am not opposed to vocational education. Not every voc-ed 
program can be considered a success, but we are 

[[Page S13789]]
fortunate to have a number of effective programs operating in Minnesota 
. . . and we need to continue to give these kinds of efforts a chance.
  But my neighbors back home are tired of sending other people's kids 
through school. They are struggling to send their own children to 
school. They want this government to reflect their values--hard work, 
respect, personal responsibility, and accountability.
  It sometimes seems that the work ethic upon which this Nation was 
founded has gotten a little dusty. For example, experts say that less 
than one percent of the adults who receive welfare benefits are 
currently engaged in real work. That is a sharp departure from the 
past: during the Great Depression, welfare beneficiaries were expected 
to work for the assistance they received through federal programs such 
as the Civilian Conservation Corp and the Work Progress Administration.
  What has changed?
  Mr. President, the government has become the first call for help. But 
what we too often forget is that the government is funded by other 
people's money . . . and should be the last call for help.
  One leading welfare expert sums it up quite clearly: ``In welfare, as 
in most other things, you get what you pay for. By undermining the work 
ethic, the welfare system generates its own clientele. The more that is 
spent, the more people in apparent need of aid who appear.''
  What is most troubling of all is that because there are no incentives 
to move themselves off welfare and into the workforce, too many welfare 
mothers and fathers have given up the search for that better life. And 
the taxpayers who foot the bill feel powerless, too.
  Mr. President, if we ever want welfare recipients to become self-
sufficient, we must begin holding them to the same standards that apply 
to the taxpayers. How can we ever expect welfare beneficiaries to lift 
themselves up if we continue to ask less of them than we do of every 
other productive, taxpaying American citizen?
  By allowing states to count 25% of their welfare caseload as 
``working'' if they are engaged in vocational education, my amendment 
closes a gaping loophole . . . strengthens the work requirement . . . 
and gives states the flexibility to continue successful vocational 
education programs, while recognizing there is no substitute for work. 
Most importantly, this amendment moves welfare recipients a bit closer 
toward self-sufficiency.
  Mr. President, the Majority Leader's welfare reform legislation is a 
serious first step toward fixing our fractured welfare system. While I 
am pleased that both of my tough work amendments were included in this 
final bill, I recognize that we still have a ways to go before we can 
say we've truly conquered the welfare problem.
  Many important provisions which were not included in the Senate bill 
will be addressed by the House-Senate Conference Committee. I look 
forward to the Senate's consideration of the conference report . . . 
which I hope truly will end welfare as we know it. That is what we 
promised the American people, and that is what we must deliver.
  ``Far and away the best prize that life offers is the chance to work 
hard at work worth doing,'' said Theodore Roosevelt.
  I urge my colleagues to hear those words and give this bipartisan 
legislation their support. It is good for welfare families . . . it is 
good for the taxpayers . . . and it is good government.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I have decided to vote for the Senate's 
welfare reform bill because I believe a bipartisan consensus has 
greatly improved it.
  First child care to job training, to going after deadbeat parents--
this Senate bill has moved in the appropriate direction.
  I strongly oppose the House bill and believe that a strong vote going 
into the conference committee is essential.
  I must state, however, that it is unfortunate to see the National 
Government backing away from a responsibility toward our Nation's 
children--a responsibility embraced by the Democratic alternative which 
was tougher on work and more compassionate toward children. I will work 
in the future for adoption of that kind of commonsense welfare reform.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I will vote for the compromise welfare 
reform bill which is before the Senate.
  The Nation's welfare system does not serve the Nation well. It is 
broken in a number of places. It has failed the children it is intended 
to protect. It has failed the American taxpayer.
  The compromise bill before us represents a bipartisan and 
constructive effort. Meaningful reform should protect children and 
establish the principle that able-bodied people work. Also, it would 
tighten child support enforcement laws and be more effective in getting 
fathers to support their children.
  Additional funding has been included to assure that more child care 
resources will be available for children as single parents make the 
transition into work. This is a significant improvement in the bill and 
strengthens the work requirement because it better assures that States 
can effectively move people into job training, private sector 
employment, and community service jobs.
  A provision has been added to strengthen the requirement on States to 
assure that they will take more responsibility and maintain their on-
going contribution to the welfare program.
  The compromise adds a $1 billion contingency fund to provide for 
assistance to the States in economic emergency situations. The 
establish of such a provision is very important. As responsibility is 
shifted to the States and a block grant provided, it is critically 
important that there is some flexibility in the event of a recession or 
other economic crisis. I am particularly concerned about working people 
who lose their jobs and have exhausted their unemployment insurance 
benefits. Tens of thousands of such individuals are currently on 
welfare in my home State of Michigan. Such working people need the 
assurance of the safety net. I am also concerned that adequate 
contingency funds be available to protect children during periods of 
economic hardship. The contingency fund is a step toward such 
flexibility. I doubt that $1 billion will prove to be adequate, but 
Congress can revisit that issue in the future.
  I am particularly pleased that the compromise bill contains my 
amendment which strengthens the work requirement in the bill.
  The original Dole legislation required recipients to work within 2 
years of receipt of benefits. My amendment, in its final version, adds 
a provision which requires that unless an able-bodied person is in a 
private sector job, school, or job training, the State must offer, and 
the recipient must accept, a community service employment within 3 
months of receipt of benefits. In order to obtain its passage, it was 
necessary to include a provision which gives the States the flexibility 
to opt out of the requirement. However, I hope and expect that pressure 
from the American people, who overwhelmingly support strong work 
requirements, will convince their States to enforce the provision and 
not opt out.
  Mr. President, this welfare reform bill is a positive step in the 
effort to get people, now on welfare, into jobs. It is a significant 
improvement over the original proposal put before us. It is stronger on 
work. It better protects children. It cracks down on parents who do not 
meet their responsibility to support their children. It provides some 
necessary child care.
  I am troubled by some shortcomings. I would prefer a bill which did 
not end the Federal safety net for children, a bill like the Daschle 
Work First legislation which failed in the Senate narrowly and which I 
cosponsored. I am not fully convinced that the block grant approach 
will prove to be the right approach. Also, as I have already mentioned, 
I am not certain that the contingency fund which we have established 
will be adequate in a recession.
  The decision is a close one.
  So it is particularly important that partisanship not dominate the 
conference between the House and the Senate.
  If it does, the progress made in the Senate would be undermined and 
welfare reform would be jeopardized.
  Mr. PELL. Mr. President, the Senate has now debated welfare reform 
legislation for several weeks. The changes that have been incorporated 
in the legislation before us today are profound, 

[[Page S13790]]
marking a great departure from the system that has been in place for 60 
years. As one who has served my State of Rhode Island and this Nation 
as a U.S. Senator for 35 of those 60 years, I do not take lightly the 
vote that I am casting today. I have thought long and hard about the 
desire for change, for reform, and for a better welfare system, and I 
share all of those goals.
  As I look at the bill before us, I remain concerned. It does not 
provide nearly enough of what I think is necessary for quality welfare 
reform. And it does not sufficiently protect our children or provide 
adults with the tools they need to move off of welfare and into work.
  But the bill before us is also a drastic improvement over the House 
welfare legislation, and, with the addition of the Dole-Daschle 
compromise, moves us more in the direction that I think is best for our 
Nation. So while it is with some reluctance. I have decided to cast my 
vote in favor of the bill before us today. I am doing so with the 
understanding that the American people want and demand action, and are 
seeking a new way of accomplishing what the existing system has not 
been able to accomplish. I am willing to try a new way, but acknowledge 
freely that without the minimal protections put into place by the Dole-
Daschle agreement with respect to child care and other important 
provisions, I would not be voting ``yea'' today.
  I cannot help hope that the conference committee will see fit to 
incorporate more of the provisions contained in the work-first proposal 
introduced by Senator Daschle, which I cosponsored. I still support and 
strongly prefer its provisions--its emphasis on transitioning welfare 
recipients to work, its understanding that providing childcare is a 
linchpin of successful reform, and its premise that, despite very real 
abuses of the current system by some welfare recipients, most people 
want to get off welfare and work at a job that provides a living wage. 
But I realize that the conference committee is more likely to move this 
bill in a direction that I cannot support, by being more punitive to 
parents and, in the process harming children who have not chosen their 
parents or their circumstances.
  Mr. President, it would be my intention, should the bill return from 
the conference committee stripped of these moderating provisions, or 
including any of the more draconian provisions we defeated during the 
Senate debate, to cast my vote against the conference report. I hope 
that this will not be necessary and that we will be able to pass a 
conference report that really does move the Nation in the direction 
that we all want to see toward workable reform that moves this 
generation off of dependency while ensuring that the next generation 
does not suffer from its parents' failures or misfortunes.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in support of a 
comprehensive overhaul of our Nation's welfare system.
  I would like to commend the distinguished Majority Leader, Senator 
Dole, and many of my colleagues for bringing a much-needed and timely 
bill to the floor of the Senate for action.
  I am also looking forward to what I believe can be a genuine spirit 
of bipartisanship as we seek to address some of the aspects of our 
welfare system that have hurt, rather than helped, Americans forge a 
better future for themselves and their families.
  Although it has been characterized as such, welfare reform should not 
be a conservative-versus-liberal issue, or a Democrat-versus-Republican 
issue. It should be an issue where we seek to involve and include 
various constructive points of view for a cause whose worth stretches 
beyond partisan political lines.
  Simply put, what we must strive for in this debate is to end welfare 
as a way of life for millions of Americans and their families, while at 
the same time preserving a safety net for those in our society who need 
a leg-up rather than a hand-out to succeed in their personal quest of 
the American dream.
  What we must be compelled to accomplish is to require more individual 
responsibility, a strengthened work ethic, and a sense of discipline 
and order to the family, all while continuing to maintain our historic 
and compassionate commitment to those who need our help in those dark 
times that are a part of everyone's life at some time or another.
  Mr. President, I believe we can--and must--give them change with a 
human face. It is not necessary to be less compassionate or less 
understanding, but it is possible to be less spendthrift and less 
generous to those who have taken undue advantage of our system.
  As we begin to meet these challenges and others, I am eager to work 
with all my colleagues to further improve this legislation and, in the 
process, craft a better America and set our Nation on a new and more 
responsible course into the 21st century.
  Everything we and our parents have worked for to give us a better 
life and instill in us a sense of national purpose as well as personal 
responsibility is at stake in this debate.
  We, in America, all too frequently judge our Nation and measure our 
country's worth as a people by standards of economic statistics, by 
gold, silver and bronze medals won at world tournaments, or by military 
might as the world's greatest democracy.
  But to judge America in terms of a society, clearly we are lacking in 
many respects.
  In today's society, it is hardly uncommon for an individual to be 
smoking or drinking by the time they are 10; to be caught stealing by 
the time they are 11; to be hooked on drugs by the time they are 12; to 
be sexually active by 13 years of age; to be pregnant by the time of 
their 14th birthday; to be on welfare at 15; to be a high school drop-
out at 16; and to have the American dream be nothing more than a pipe 
dream at 17.
  Mr. President, to many this may be nothing less or nothing more than 
a worst-case scenario. But, unfortunately, in the 1990's it has become 
an acceptable scenario in America. How tragic; and how wrong.
  Welfare in America has become a way of life, a culture of 
despondency, a tradition of dismay, and has bequeathed a sad 
inheritance of dependance for millions of our citizens.
  Our challenge in these proceedings is not to make their lives more 
difficult by our efforts here, or to perpetuate any negative 
stereotypes, or to treat harshly those people in need of help; our 
solemn challenge is to give them a new chance, a new beginning, and to 
show them a different and better way of life.
  In the 1960's, when many welfare programs were designed and 
implemented by the Federal Government, we were willing to risk the 
involvement of central government in people's lives for the benefit of 
helping them to help themselves.
  Instead, welfare in the 1990's is out of touch, out of cash, and out 
of tune with people's lives. In an August 1993 Yankelovich poll, 
respondents were asked, ``Do you think our current welfare system helps 
more families than it hurts, or hurts more families than it helps?'' 
Twenty-four percent said that it helps more, while a commanding 62 
percent said it hurts more.
  Many might wonder what it is that we have bought with over $5 
trillion in welfare funds over the past 30 years. Many might wonder 
what the returns have been on an investment we made three generations 
ago.
  It is a disappointing litany of our shortcomings as a society and as 
a compassionate democracy.
  Mr. President, what we are doing is rewarding the failure of the 
individual spirit to strive for greatness and personal responsibility. 
As one pollster said, ``Welfare rewards what life punishes.''
  Moreover, these social and cultural trends play a major role in other 
trends involving crime and violence, both on the streets and in our 
homes; they affect education, urban decay, and our economy. Their link 
to each other is unmistakable.
  As former Education Secretary William Bennett said:

       Over the last three decades we have experienced substantial 
     social regression. Today, the forces of social decomposition 
     are challenging--and in some instances, overtaking--the 
     forces of social composition. And when decomposition takes 
     hold, it exacts an enormous human cost.

  These figures exact the toll and tally that cost.
  Since 1960, illegitimate births have soared by more than 400 percent; 
while only 5.3 percent of all births were out-of-wedlock in 1960, 
illegitimate births rose to 30 percent of all births by 1992.

[[Page S13791]]

  The pregnancy rate among unmarried teenagers has more than doubled 
since the early 1970's, amounting to over one million--one million--
teen pregnancies every single year.
  While America's marriage rate has declined spectacularly for 20 years 
by almost one-third to an all-time low, America's divorce rate has 
increased by nearly 300 percent in the past 30 years, subjecting more 
of our children to more broken families than ever before.
  The Congressional Budget Office reports that 77 percent of unmarried 
adolescent mothers become welfare recipients within 5 years of the 
birth of their first child. And many of them are staying on welfare for 
a long time. In fact, more than half of the 9.5 million children 
receiving AFDC have parents who never married each other.
  Single-parent families account for 65 percent of poor families with 
children, and they account for over half of all poor families. I should 
mention that studies show that almost 1 out of every 4 children from 
one-parent families will be in poverty for 7 years or more, compared 
with only 2 percent from two-parent families.
  And, despite an explosion in welfare spending, more children live in 
poverty today--22 percent--than in 1965; 15 percent, which is when the 
famous--or infamous--War on Poverty began. What does 22 percent mean in 
real terms? Try over 15 million children living in poverty in America 
today.
  The percentage of all American children dependent on AFDC welfare 
increased from 3.5 percent in 1960 to over 13 percent in the 1990's.
  While we are talking about AFDC--it has become a $23 billion Federal-
State program supporting approximately 14.5 million people--and that is 
a 31-percent increase not over 1960 or 1965 or even 1970, but a 31-
percent increase over 1989; only 6 short years ago.
  Probably worst of all, among these terrible numbers, are these:
  First, of the 4.5 million households currently receiving AFDC 
benefits, well over half will remain dependent on the program for over 
a decade--10 years--and many will remain dependent for 15 years or even 
longer.
  Second, and even worse, children raised in single-parent families are 
three times more likely to become welfare recipients themselves as 
adults--a clear continuing legacy of failure and the unmistakable mark 
of what the Heritage Foundation calls intergenerational dependence.
  That is highlighted by the fact that 60 percent of welfare recipients 
today are the children of welfare dependents from the previous 
generation.
  As I mentioned, America has spent $5 trillion in welfare assistance 
since the start of the War on Poverty.
  Mr. President, we are losing--badly losing--the war within our 
borders against poverty and social decay.
  But through the haze and maze of this debate, we can learn from some 
of the success stories of people who were once on welfare and had the 
courage and stamina to leave the system and seek a better life.
  For some, welfare meets a critical need; sometimes, a critical 
lifeline in troubled times. Our challenge is to reform this system so 
that it works for more people, encourages more to leave the system for 
good and return to wage-earning jobs, and yet retains the vital 
portions of the safety net for the neediest among us.
  It can happen. It can work. We can make it a reality.
  I know because I have met the success stories firsthand. Take Melissa 
Brough from Portland, ME. She succeeded in welfare. Sadly, she 
succeeded despite the system, not because of it. Listen to what she has 
to say:

       I started out just needing some subsidized child care so I 
     could find a job to support us. I ended up trickling down 
     through the system for 4 years. What a way to build self-
     confidence and self-esteem!
       It's no wonder people get trapped in the welfare system, 
     when competing resources seem to have money and statistics in 
     mind instead of individuals * * * [L]et's provide the 
     resources and support * * * to help people along the road to 
     self-sufficiency.

  Mr. President, Melissa is right. Self-sufficiency should be our goal, 
and the system we design must provide the resources and support to help 
people along that road.
  Sometimes, getting to success and self-sufficiency requires short-
term sacrifices and tough choices. But there are stories to show that 
they are worth it.
  Tecia Girardin is a proud mother of three sons living in Readfield, 
ME. She works 50 hours a week and takes home $350 weekly in pay through 
her job at Progressive Distributors, a warehouse distribution center. 
She is now getting $345 a month in child support, and 2 years ago put a 
downpayment on 48 acres of land, where she hopes to build a house in 
the near future.
  But it was not always this way for Tecia and her boys. Years ago, she 
counted on food stamps to put food on her table at night. She used to 
rummage for aluminum cans to pay for the rent.
  Looking back, Tecia recalls, ``It was a nightmare, but we made it.'' 
She adds, ``I was determined to make it on my own. I just do not think 
a life of dependency is good--whether it is dependency on alcohol, 
drugs, or government assistance * * * I wanted to be free of welfare.''
  With her pride and her self-confidence, Tecia broke the shackles of 
welfare and took several tough jobs before landing a position at 
Progressive Distributors, where she has now been for 5 years. She is 
off food stamps and off Medicaid, and it is been 4 years since her last 
benefit check. But times are still tough for her and her family.
  We still need to do more to help people like Tecia break free of the 
system.
  I believe the majority leader's plan makes a good attempt to help 
people break free of the labyrinth of welfare.
  This legislation recognizes that the Federal Government does not have 
the ability to create a one-size-fits-all welfare program. Instead, it 
has made a necessary and bold change: States are awarded block grants 
to design a local program that meets unique State needs.
  I support this basic concept, and believe it is essential that 
welfare reform give States the flexibility to address the unique 
problems of their citizens. At the Federal level, we simply do not know 
what will work. Each State should have the flexibility to address the 
problem as they understand it.
  In Maine, the principle reason that families go on welfare is divorce 
or separation. That is the No. 1 reason: 42 percent of all AFDC 
recipients are forced onto welfare as a result of divorce or 
separation. In Maine, 61 percent of adult AFDC recipients have obtained 
their GED. The people behind these statistics may require quite 
different welfare programs than people in densely populated States.
  That is why flexibility is a crucial tool--missing from existing 
welfare programs--that must be extended to the States.
  I also support the restoration of AFDC as a temporary assistance 
program, rather than a program which entangles and traps generation 
after generation after generation.
  The legislation before us allows States to provide benefits for 5 
years, but after that point benefits are terminated. As soon as a 
recipient is work ready, he or she will be required to work for their 
benefits. All recipients will be required to work after receiving 
benefits for 2 years.
  Nothing like a time-limited welfare system has ever been tried in 
this country. But we need to send a message to recipients that there 
are responsibilities associated with receiving a welfare check: 
responsibility brings dignity. And to promote responsibility, there 
must be consequences to action or inaction.
  This bill also makes progress in another critical area of concern, 
one that, for many welfare recipients, has forced them into poverty: 
child support enforcement.
  Child support enforcement is one of the most important provisions in 
our campaign to revamp the welfare system of this country. It affects 
every State--children at every income level--and it affects both 
single-mothers and single-fathers. As a national problem, child support 
enforcement merits a national solution. And we must demonstrate our 
leadership by providing it.
  I am proud to have worked in a bipartisan manner with the majority 
leader, Senator Dole, and the Senator from New Jersey, Mr. Bradley, to 
develop a sound and comprehensive national child support enforcement 
solution. The major provisions of our legislation have been 
incorporated into this proposal. 

[[Page S13792]]

  To strengthen efforts to locate parents, the bill expands the federal 
parent locator system and provides for State-to-State access of the 
network.
  To increase paternity establishment, the bill makes it easier for 
fathers to voluntarily acknowledge paternity and encourages outreach.
  To facilitate the setting of effective child support orders, it calls 
for the establishment of a National Child Support Guidelines Commission 
to develop a national child support guideline for consideration by 
Congress, and provides for a simplified process for review and 
adjustment of child support orders.
  And to facilitate child support enforcement and collection, the bill 
expands the penalties for child support delinquency to include the 
denial of professional, recreational, and driver's license to deadbeat 
parents, the imposition of liens on real property, and the automatic 
reporting of delinquency to credit unions.
  This provision has proven very effective in my own State of Maine, 
where the State has collected more than $21 million in child support 
payments by sending letters to delinquent parents with a very real 
threat to revoke professional licenses.
  This bill also grants families who are owed child support the right 
of first access to an IRS refund credited to a deadbeat parent and 
permits the denial of a passport for individuals who are more than 
$5,000 or 24 months in arrears.
  Mr. President, as I have pointed out, this legislation seeks to 
implement on a national level some of the successful child support 
enforcement mechanisms being utilized by some innovative States, like 
my home State of Maine.
  Clearly these efforts pay off. But we can--and must--do much more. We 
have the tools to replicate the successes of States like Maine on a 
national level and begin to ease and eventually lift the economic and 
emotional burdens caused by delinquent child support payments.
  Mr. President, as we reform the system to encourage welfare 
recipients to work, we must also ensure that we provide for appropriate 
and adequate child care for mothers with young children. And in 
instances where that child care is not available, we cannot penalize 
mothers with young children at a very fragile and unstable time in 
their lives as they struggle to make ends meet.
  When we in this chamber talk about the need to protect the neediest 
in society and to protect some of our less fortunate citizens by 
casting a so-called safety net, nothing could represent that support 
more than helping mothers care for their children as they seek to make 
the move from the world of welfare to the world of work.
  We must not condone a situation where a woman would be forced to 
choose between her children's well-being and her job and benefits.
  We cannot allow, for example, a woman to leave her two young children 
at home alone, unattended, because she is required to work. To do so 
would be to give them a Catch-22 choice, a choice between the devil and 
the deep blue sea.
  And many more women could be faced with that difficult choice than 
ever before under this bill. By requiring work participation rates to 
reach 50 percent by fiscal year 2000, it is estimated this will add an 
additional 665,000 children to those currently in need of child care.
  The truth is, we have a long way to go before we can assure access to 
child care--let alone affordable child care. In dozens of States across 
America, there are long waiting lists for child care. In Alabama, for 
example, there are nearly 20,000 children on the waiting list for child 
care, adding up to an average wait between one and one-and-a-half 
years.
  In Texas, a staggering 35,692 children are on the waiting list, with 
waits as long as two years. In my home State of Maine, there are more 
than 3,000 children on the child care waiting list.
  Fortunately, there is light at the end of what for many women in this 
country is a very long tunnel.
  I am extremely pleased to be able to say that the majority leader has 
decided to incorporate a major provision, I authored along with some of 
my colleagues, into this proposal to help address the issue of child 
care for parents on welfare. This is a critical issue for welfare 
reform, and one I have been working to address since the debate on 
welfare began.
  With this new provision incorporated into the proposal, States will 
be prohibited from sanctioning mothers with children aged 5 or under if 
the State cannot provide adequate and affordable child care for those 
recipients whom it requires to go to work.
  This is important considering that the Department of Health and Human 
Services has estimated that almost 62 percent of welfare recipients 
have children aged 5 or under.
  I am also pleased to have been involved in a bipartisan effort by 
working with Senators Orrin Hatch, Christopher Dodd, Bill Cohen, John 
Chafee, Jim Jeffords and Nancy Kassebaum to allocate an additional $3 
billion over 5 years in child care services funding.
  Under this agreement reached with the majority leader, the States 
will be required to match child care funds at the Medicaid match rate.
  This additional funding, when combined with the $1 billion that 
Senator Hatch's amendment sets aside for child care, will go a long way 
to ensuring that we make our welfare reform proposals viable and 
realistic options for single parents who need care for their children 
in this country.
  Adequate child care funding is a major issue that the Governors 
themselves--in a letter to Majority Leader Dole dated September 13--
called the largest part of the up-front investment needed for 
successful welfare reform. And they are right.
  This provision on child care funding is a significant point of 
agreement and consensus for all of us in this historic legislation, and 
I am heartened to see its addition to the bill.
  We have also made progress in another area that I consider critical 
to our reform efforts--and that is the important issue of State 
maintenance of effort.
  I, along with many of my colleagues, believe this area is a central 
component to the success of the reforms before us because we believe it 
is essential to continue the shared Federal-State partnership in 
welfare.
  Since 1935 when title IV of the Social Security Act was signed into 
law, welfare has been a shared Federal-State responsibility. As we move 
to reengineer the system, both sides must renew their commitment to the 
partnership--and by this I mean both their moral commitment and their 
financial obligations.
  Indeed, the States, like the Federal Government, face many competing 
forces for funding.
  With the mandate from the public to reduce spending and balance State 
budgets, Governors and State legislatures face the same tough choices 
that we in Congress are in the process of making.
  Some have written that this ``is not a question of trust.'' But I 
believe it is, and some States are working hard to meet that trust, and 
they are succeeding.
  Many States, like my State of Maine, have already made a strong 
commitment to welfare reform and I know that they will continue to do 
so. But my concern is that some States--precisely because of those 
competing forces for funding--may not.
  States have a tremendous stake in the success of our welfare system. 
They should have a financial commitment as well, both in the cost as 
well as in the potential savings.
  That is why we must include provisions requiring States to continue 
the Federal-State partnership.
  Let me be clear about one point: We are not asking the States to 
increase their financial contribution, but we need to make sure that 
they do contribute. Toward that end, I supported and was cosponsor of 
the Breaux amendment to make those figures a 90 percent contribution 
over five years.
  In response, the leadership agreed to include language that would 
require States to provide 80 percent of their fiscal year 1994 
contribution to welfare for 5 years--the full lifespan of this bill.
  Mr. President, let me conclude by saying that, like all broad-
reaching Government reforms, this is not a perfect solution to the vast 
challenges that face our welfare system. There are some aspects that 
can--perhaps should--be improved. But I believe that this legislation 
moves us closer to a workable solution. 

[[Page S13793]]

  We have already spent countless billions on a welfare system that has 
made little progress in resolving the problems of the poor. We cannot 
afford to simply do nothing--to maintain the status quo, with all of 
its perverse incentives.
  Instead, we must act now, and begin the process of ending welfare as 
a way of life, and restoring welfare assistance to its original 
purpose, to provide temporary help to our neighbors in need.
  Americans have long demonstrated their generosity and their 
commitment to help our neighbors, families, and children in need. Yet 
Americans deserve to see results for their efforts and their investment 
in assisting the neediest. For 30 years, our welfare system has 
delivered positive results sporadically at best. Americans are 
demanding more for their investment, and we in Congress must heed their 
call and help States achieve welfare's noble goals.
  Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, for a very long time, I have argued 
for welfare reform. My fundamental goal for reform is to see parents 
work and accept personal responsibility. Welfare should be a temporary 
program to help people become independent, not a trap of long-term 
dependency. But at the same time, innocent children should be protected 
and not punished for circumstances beyond their control.
  I rise to explain how I came to the conclusion to vote for the final 
version of welfare reform legislation before the Senate this afternoon. 
My vote is for the basic idea that the current welfare system can't be 
continued. It must be changed. This bill is now our opportunity for 
changing the rules and encouraging major reform. While I strongly 
opposed the original bill offered by the Majority Leader, Bob Dole, I 
am relieved that the persistent, dedicated work of a team that I was 
proud to join has resulted in many changes--including some major 
improvements that were essential for West Virginia--to the legislation. 
In my view, there are still flaws and disappointments in this bill. But 
as someone who serves to achieve the most good possible through 
consensus and cooperation, I am voting for this bill to do just that.
  West Virginians have told me for a long time why they are anxious for 
welfare reform. It is unfair to hard-working families when it is too 
easy for others to receive public assistance that does not end. And for 
parents who want to work or can work, the system has to emphasize the 
means to that end instead of the criteria for staying on welfare. None 
of this will be easy, but it is time for these changes.
  This is not a new mission for me. I have worked on ways to reform our 
welfare system for years. In 1982 as Governor of West Virginia, I was 
proud to start a program called Community Work Experience Program in 
our State that required many parents on welfare to work in their 
community when they could not find private sector jobs, mostly because 
of high unemployment. This idea is more commonly known as workfare, and 
West Virginia was one of the first two States in the country to start 
this program and we are still using it today. I believe in workfare and 
community service as important alternatives when a private sector job 
is not available.
  In the Senate, I continued to work on changing the welfare system, 
and I am proud of the efforts begun in 1988 under the Family Support 
Act that passed with strong bipartisan involvement and support. This 
legislation was an important first step. While we all know that the 
Family Support Act was not perfect, it began to change the system to 
move families from welfare to work. The Family Support Act also gave 
States the latitude to try various approaches to welfare reform which 
have now encouraged bolder efforts, today.
  Based on my goals for West Virginia and my work as Chairman of the 
National Commission on Children, I participated in the welfare reform 
debate as a cosponsor and strong proponent of the Democratic Leader's 
bill, ``Work First.'' In my view, it was a mistake for the Senate to 
reject our amendment containing this bill. ``Work First'' would end 
welfare as we know it by eliminating the existing Aid to Families With 
Dependent Children (AFDC). The Democratic alternative would require 
work and promote parental responsibility, and yet at the same time 
provide the best safeguards for both children and State budgets during 
times of economic downturns. Unfortunately, this strong package was not 
taken seriously by the Republican side and was defeated.
  So in good faith, Democrats did not disappear from the process to 
enact welfare reform, nor did we surrender on the goals we think the 
American people share, too. We have spent the last week on the floor to 
push for consensus and compromise on very important issues. It was 
discouraging to deal with the original Republicans' bill that made 
promises without the means to keep those promises. The early refusal to 
work in a bipartisan spirit was unnecessary, and made it very difficult 
to work through decisions that will have consequences for taxpayers and 
poor families in our States. But we persisted in order to make our best 
attempt at achieving welfare reform and protecting principles 
represented in the ``Work First'' alternative.
  As a result, major changes have been made to the Republican bill on 
the Senate floor, including adding a maintenance of effort requirement 
to ensure that States continue to invest their fair share to help needy 
children and their families. This was a victory for the principle of 
responsible government and a major step in reserving adequate resources 
for poor children.
  Child care funding is another fundamental change to the original Dole 
bill that is absolutely crucial if we are serious about moving parents 
from welfare to work. We should insist that parents go to work, but we 
also must be realistic and acknowledge that a lack of safe, affordable 
child care remains a barrier. Democrats worked very hard to secure 
additional funding for child care. I still worry that this final 
compromise might be short on funding, but I am relieved that we secured 
the additional funds for something that families literally can not go 
without. Let us remember that parents are put in jail for leaving 
children unattended. Government can not require parents to be at work 
if they do not have a way for their children to be cared for. When we 
talk about family values, child care belongs in how to turn our 
rhetoric into reality.
  If we make the huge leap from an entitlement to a block grant 
program, one of my early goals has been to secure a contingency fund to 
provide additional help to States when poverty rises. Under the 
Democratic ``Work First'' alternative, we maintained the historic 
Federal-State shared responsibility for this population so there was no 
need for a contingency fund. But under a block grant approach, there is 
a need for some type of safeguard in times of high unemployment, 
natural disasters, or other unforeseen reasons that increase the number 
of very poor families in a State.
  As a former Governor who led my State of West Virginia through a 
severe recession with double-digit unemployment rates, I am keenly 
aware of this problem. Families who always worked and never wanted 
welfare were temporarily forced to seek assistance because of harsh 
economic conditions in my State in the 1980s. Then, Federal assistance 
was there to help needy families through hard times even though our 
State revenues declined, and it would have been impossible for West 
Virginia to serve needy families without additional Federal help. Even 
with a contingency grant fund, I worry how a block grant approach will 
work when a State or several States face problems of high unemployment 
or a natural disaster. But after a hard battle, we managed to get a 
provision into this final legislation that will make the contingency 
fund a grant program, instead of loans, and which will offer real help 
when families and States hit difficult times.
  As we think about the problems of unemployment, it brings to mind the 
worries of what happens to families who hit the time-limit in the midst 
of a deep recession? I know numerous personal stories, because I know 
families on welfare in West Virginia who would eagerly work, but the 
jobs just are not there. I submitted two specific amendments to this 
bill designed to give States the option of waiving the time limits for 
good reasons--such as high unemployment or if adults simply could not 
work because they were ill, incapacitated, or caring for a disabled 

[[Page S13794]]
child. In my view, it would be best to spell out limited reasons for 
exceptions. While my criteria were not adopted, our success in winning 
an increase in the States' hardship waiver from 15 percent to 20 
percent will achieve the same goal. I appreciate the strong support for 
my amendments that was voiced by the National Governors' Association, 
State Legislatures, and other officials who know the practicalities 
involved in real welfare reform.
  I also want to note why it is so essential to maintain the Senate 
approach on child welfare, foster care and adoption assistance. In the 
Finance Committee, we specifically stated our intention to retain 
current law so that the Nation's basic commitment to abused and 
neglected child would continue. Child welfare is very different than 
general cash assistance for poor children. Child welfare serves 
children at risk of abuse and neglect in their own homes. We should not 
reduce or cap Federal aid to such vulnerable children. That means we 
must maintain the entitlement nature of foster care and adoption 
assistance. There is support from both sides of the aisle for this in 
the Senate, and I specifically want to commend Senator Chafee for his 
leadership on the important issue. The Senate approach on child welfare 
and foster care system must be preserved in the conference, and I am 
personally determined that we not retreat from the country's important 
guidelines and reliable support that abused and neglected children rely 
on.
  Bold changes in child support enforcement are a real victory in this 
legislative package. Because this was one section developed in a 
bipartisan manner from an early point, it has not attracted much debate 
or public attention. But West Virginians and our fellow Americans 
certainly know the significance of child support and insisting on 
parental responsibility. There are billions of dollars owed to children 
by absent parents. I cosponsored the bipartisan legislation offered by 
Senator Bradley which provided a good framework for the tough 
provisions in this legislation that will help collect those dollars. 
Getting tough on child support is a priority.
  In addition to changing the rules, we also need to change attitudes. 
It is pathetic that adults are more responsible about paying their car 
loan payments than their child support. This is unacceptable and must 
be turned around.
  As Chairman of the bipartisan National Commission on Children, I have 
been working on the issue of welfare and families closely for years. I 
want to find creative, bipartisan ways to strengthen and stabilize 
families. Our Commission issued a unanimous report that called for a 
whole new approach on children and family policy at all levels--
Federal, State, and in our communities. The legislation passed today 
reflect some of the direction recommended by the Children's Commission. 
I strongly support the idea that States and local communities must take 
a leadership role in helping all families, including those needy 
families on welfare.
  And again, I repeat my hope that this country will maintain a 
nationwide, steadfast commitment to safeguarding children. Our country 
has a stake in every child, whether a child is born to a poor family in 
rural West Virginia or a family in an inner city. A child born to an 
unwed mother has the same basic needs and the same potential, as a 
child who is more fortunate and born into a stable, wealthy family. I 
honestly don't believe that the legitimate cry we hear for welfare 
reform is a demand to forget or abandon children.
  As I said at the outset, I believe in welfare reform, and it is 
obvious that the American public demands it.
  As someone who has fought for children and families for years, I hope 
that the States receiving so much new responsibility for the fate of 
their poor citizens will take it very, very seriously.
  Children are two out of three people who depend on welfare today, and 
they should not be punished. Because of this deep concern, I was one of 
the members who pushed very hard to incorporate an evaluation amendment 
into this legislation. We should acknowledge that this legislation is a 
huge experiment. We are eliminating the Federal safety net that has 
assured minimum support for needy children and families for over 60 
years, and this legislation will replace it with a new approach. While 
AFDC has serious flaws and must be changed, this approach is new and 
untested. I feel a strong moral obligation to thoroughly study and 
evaluate how this new approach serves children and families. Optimists 
and staunch supporters of the Work Opportunity Act predict this bill 
will reduce dependency and move families from welfare to work. Critics 
warn that children will end up on the streets.
  I am willing to try, and I am willing to vote for this legislation. 
But I insist that we monitor it closely to evaluate carefully how 
children are affected. Because of our evaluation amendment, we now have 
this commitment and obligation.
  I truly hope that this bill fulfills its bold promise to help move 
families from welfare to work and to end the cycle of dependency. When 
a conference is established to negotiate the final welfare reform bill 
to send to the President, I hope that the debate and revisions that 
have taken place here in the Senate will be taken extremely seriously. 
And if and when a welfare reform bill is signed into law, and if the 
warnings of the critics are true and children are abandoned, we must 
swiftly revise the law and try again.
  My fundamental principle remains that children should be protected. 
From my work on the National Commission on Children, I believe in 
building consensus and trying creative approaches. For the sake of our 
children, and the future of our country, we need to chart a bipartisan 
course that emphasizes cooperation on behalf of children and families. 
Children should not become pawns in a partisan rhetoric and politics, 
and I hope that the conference on welfare reform will adopt such an 
approach so that common ground and reasonable compromises will be 
achieved.
  I congratulate the numerous Senators, staff members, and experts who 
devoted untold hours and energy into preventing the original Dole bill 
from succeeding and working out important, vital improvements. West 
Virginia was better served through the process of these revisions, and 
will be better equipped to prod and help poor families avoid 
dependency. I worked hard to achieve the changes most important to my 
State, and I hope they will remain in the final welfare reform 
legislation that must be negotiated with the House.
  Welfare reform must also work in the real world. We have seen in the 
recent months once again how attractive the words are to politicians 
and others who see advantage in dividing people, scoring cheap points, 
and pretending that the country's problems are easy to solve. That is 
an injustice to all Americans, to taxpayers frustrated with the welfare 
system and to the families who find themselves poor for whatever 
reason. We know that America feels best when we succeed in achieving 
ambitious goals by pulling together, living up to our Nation's 
principles, and making the effort required to get the job done. Welfare 
reform is a very ambitious goal, and the passage of this bill takes us 
one step further to accomplishing the real results and true change that 
Americans expect.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, 30 years ago President Johnson had a dream 
of a ``Great Society'' where the United States Government would 
undertake to lift the poor out of their wretchedness. Today, the 
intended nobility of his dream has been obliterated by the horrors of 
crime, drugs, illegitimacy and total family breakdown. Mr. President, I 
am not just saying that welfare does not work; I am saying that it is 
hurting those it purports to help.
  Hundreds of thousands of Americans are suffering because the Federal 
Government insists on centralized control over a system that is not 
living up to its promises. Thirty years of welfare state have not 
eradicated poverty, not made a dent in poverty; if anything, poverty in 
America has become more wretched than ever before.
  What we know now, Mr. President, is a Federal bureaucracy that has 
shown itself virtually incapable helping needy people. More Federal 
mandates are not the answer. Control over welfare must be relinquished 
to State and local governments. Federal control certainly does not 
work, and the only way we can determine what kind of public assistance 
program will work is if we let 

[[Page S13795]]
States and local communities experiment.
  Mr. President, I have heard from people in Washington State who have 
knowledge of and experience with the present system and who fervently 
believe in disassembling welfare as we know it.
  This year, Washington State legislators tried to overhaul the State 
welfare system. Their frustration mounted as their innovative ideas 
were killed by overwhelming amounts of waivers, directors and general 
red tape from the Federal Government.
  Social workers are often too busy keeping up with paperwork and 
complicated, sometimes conflicting, Federal regulations to help people 
get jobs and become self-sufficient.
  I have listened to people who are on or have been on welfare. Their 
stories alone are enough to convince me that the system has to be 
charged. Welfare, you see, punishes people for trying to get out. One 
woman in Whatcom County was not allowed to participate in a job 
training program because she hadn't been receiving public assistance 
long enough.
  Mr. President, the faults and iniquities of welfare run wide and 
deep. We must face the problem. We must stop pretending that by 
tinkering here or changing a bit there that everything will be better. 
What we must do is completely restructure public assistance in America. 
It is well past time for Washington, DC to relinquish control over 
welfare to States and local communities.
  There are a lot of things the Federal Government is good at--handing 
out checks and creating bureaucracies are particular areas of 
expertise. But the Federal Government is not so good at setting people 
free from its control.
  The current system pits people against government institutions. it 
prohibits innovation. When local communities try to implement new ways 
to combat poverty, unemployment and illegitimacy, the bureaucracy 
balks, throwing up barriers to new ideas and community involvement, and 
enforcing the same old mandates.
  Frankly, Mr. President, bureaucracies do not care if people get off 
welfare or stay on it for the rest of their lives. But there are many 
of us who do care, who do want to relieve the plight of so many of our 
fellow Americans.
  The liberals who have supported the Welfare State these many years 
are reacting with vehemence against proposals to let States and local 
communities have more of a say in public assistance programs. This 
reaction points to the distrust most liberals have toward people, as 
opposed to government institutions. Does it make sense to say that a 
bureaucrat in Washington, DC cares more about needy people in Spokane, 
WA, than do the actual citizens of that community? I do not believe so.
  Mr. President, the only way to stop the dependency, the illegitimacy, 
the family breakdown, and the hopelessness of the current system is to 
truly change--not merely tinker with--the way it is run. If our goal is 
to improve people's lives, then we can't continue on the path we're on 
now.
  We must allow people the opportunity to make their own lives, to 
provide for themselves and their families, to feel the pride of honest 
work, and to be the deciders of their fate--not to have the Federal 
Government as their master.
  Mr. President, I support the majority leader's welfare reform bill 
because it provides the best means for giving responsibility back to 
local communities and ending the Federal Government's control over how 
money is spent and programs administered. This legislation, America's 
Work and Family Opportunities Act of 1995, does not fall into the trap 
of trying to manage the system from Washington, DC. State and local 
governments, instead of being told what to do by Federal bureaucrats, 
are allowed to experiment and come up with solutions that meet local 
needs.
  The last thing we need is yet more Federal mandates to stifle local 
innovations and solutions. Mandates that sound wonderful in the 
Nation's Capital can wreak havoc when they are put into practice--in 
truth, we have no way of knowing if they will work. Giving States 
flexibility will produce programs both successful and unsuccessful; 
when we can distinguish one from the other, perhaps more Federal 
guidance will be in order.
  Our only hope for ending welfare as we know it, Mr. President, is to 
end the bureaucracy, end the incentives for staying on the rolls and 
out of work, and end the institution which has bred social 
disintegration. Washington, DC is going to have to do something 
entirely foreign to its nature: give up some of its power and mind its 
own business.
  Mr. President, it is no longer enough to say that we mean well, that 
we have the proverbial good intentions. Let's stop the arrogant, self-
important assumption that we can single-handedly run things out of 
Washington, DC. In the case of welfare, that's what we've been doing 
for 30 years, and its been a disaster.
  My goals is reforming welfare area straightforward: Do away with the 
current system, and replace it with one that encourages work, 
discourages illegitimacy, and stops the cycle of family destruction. I 
believe America's Work and Family Opportunities Act of 1995 will best 
accomplish these goals.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, although I vote today in support of welfare 
reform, it is with strong reservations.
  We all agree that our Nation's welfare system needs reform. Members 
on both sides of the aisle, most of our constituents, our Governors, 
everyone agrees that the current system does not work.
  And while we all have agreed that the system needs change, there has 
not been agreement on the right approach. The original Dole welfare 
proposal was totally unacceptable. It failed to designate a dime for 
child care, would force parents to leave kids home alone, and did not 
focus on actually getting our current welfare recipients into real 
work.
  Enough significant improvements have been made, however, to lead me 
to vote for this bill. It looks totally different from the House 
version and is no longer the bill introduced by the majority leader.
  The bill now emphasizes work. Unlike its original version, it now 
measures work instead of participation rates. It recognizes that child 
care is essential to getting people with young children to work. The 
bill now includes a work bonus for States and includes other provisions 
that truly commit us to moving adults off the welfare rolls and onto 
payrolls.
  The current version of the bill also includes many more protections 
for children. The original Dole bill designated no money for child 
care. We now have $8 billion over 5 years to help ensure that no child 
is left home alone. I initially pushed for $11 billion, the amount we 
have heard is necessary to make the work requirements effective, and 
came close to securing that amount.
  In the original Dole bill, women with infants and toddlers, in 
effect, would have been told to leave their kids home alone or face 
penalties. The bill we vote on today says that mothers with children 
under 6 cannot be sanctioned if they cannot find child care. The 
modification also says that States can limit required work hours for 
parents with kids under age 6 from 35 hours to 20 hours per week.
  Democrats made significant improvements in other areas too. The bill 
now includes a maintenance of effort requirement for States so that 
taking care of our Nation's poor children remains a joint 
responsibility between the Federal and State governments. And the bill 
provides a limited contingency fund for States to deal with downturns 
in the economy. It is not as much as I would like to see, but it 
recognizes that flat-funded block grants do not address sudden or 
prolonged changes in a State's economy.
  The bill also, now, provides money for second chance homes--as a way 
to really try and get at the problem of teen pregnancy. The original 
Dole bill had no money for these homes. I also am pleased that punitive 
measures that would have required all States to impose the family cap 
and deny benefits to teen mothers have been defeated and excluded from 
the bill.
  While I am pleased with the changes we were able to make in the bill, 
problems remain. It includes no protection for children whose parents 
meet the time limit. Republicans opposed even allowing States to decide 
whether or not they would provide vouchers for children whose parents 
met the time 

[[Page S13796]]
limit. The absence of this provision--a safety net for kids--troubles 
me.
  Also of concern, the contingency fund offers States only $1 billion 
where we sought $5 billion. I worry, ultimately, about the impact of 
these deficiencies on States that face economic downturns.
  But ultimately, all of us must make a choice here today, and despite 
the measure's deficiencies--I intend to vote to move the process 
forward. But I want to make myself perfectly clear: if it returns from 
the House, looking less like the bill we have here today--if it 
destroys child protection programs, if it takes away school lunches, if 
its child care provisions do not reflect the significant progress 
that's been made in this body over the passed week--then this bill and 
welfare reform is in real trouble.
  So I hope that a strong vote for the bill today will not be construed 
as an indication of support for whatever comes back from conference. 
This is simply not the case. A serious retreat from what we adopt here 
today will lead me to stand up and oppose the legislation.
  As I have said all the way along, I believe that going from welfare 
to work is something that ought to be supported. This vehicle gives us 
the opportunity to do that with the improvements that have been made in 
it. So, with reluctance, I will support this legislation and await the 
outcome of the conference.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, making significant alterations in a 
governmental service or program that affects many people almost always 
will be controversial. The Senate will act today on a bill that falls 
into that category. The welfare reform legislation addresses a vexing 
set of social problems, a portion of our population that indisputably 
has great need, and our society's hopes and desires that people, 
especially children, be treated humanely but that all adults able to do 
so contribute to the Nation in which they live and achieve self-
sufficiency to the extent of their potential.
  There are some component issues about which there is widespread 
agreement. The existing welfare structure fails in far too many cases 
to provide a sufficient incentive to adults--and the various kinds of 
temporary assistance they need--to move toward self-sufficiency. The 
abuses of the existing system--while they very likely are statistically 
infrequent--are sufficiently frequent and sufficiently provocative that 
the system has lost the support of the American people. The commendable 
benevolence of the American people toward those who truly have 
experienced misfortune due to no fault of their own and need some help 
in getting back on their feet, has been sorely tested.
  Indeed, my patience with the existing welfare system has been 
exhausted. It is my judgment that our welfare system badly needs 
overhaul. It is failing to contribute sufficiently to the self-
sufficiency of those it is intended to help. Instead, all too often it 
perpetuates dependency.
  Welfare reform was a prominent objective of those whose party won the 
elections last fall, and who gained control of both Houses of the 
Congress. They produced legislation to dramatically alter the existing 
welfare structure and system. Earlier this year, the House of 
Representatives passed a far-reaching bill. That bill basically takes 
the welfare problem and dumps it in the lap of State governments. It 
announces in effect, ``Henceforth, the wellbeing of impoverished adults 
and their children will not be a Federal problem.'' That bill takes the 
Federal funding now being spent on welfare, and, after cutting the 
amount, simply hands it to the States and says ``Go solve this problem. 
Good luck.'' While that is admittedly a dramatic oversimplification of 
the bill, it is a bill I could not support.
  The majority leader, Senator Dole, brought a welfare reform bill to 
the Senate floor in August--a significantly modified version of 
legislation reported earlier by the Senate Finance Committee. Mr. 
President, that bill was not satisfactory to me. It was excessively 
punitive--it appeared to penalize the poor harshly for conditions not 
infrequently beyond their control. It, like its House counterpart, 
appeared to be a headlong rush to dump the problem of welfare on State 
governments, with little concern for the impact on the impoverished or 
the States or the social fabric of our Nation.
  But I'm pleased and relieved to say that, to a considerable extent, 
the legislative process our Founding Fathers established worked as it 
was designed. A number of colleagues on this side of the aisle, some on 
the other side, and I offered a series of amendments designed to 
transform the bill into a bill worthy of the term ``reform.''
  The results of this process confront us today, Mr. President. It is 
not a perfect bill, not by a long shot. It differs in a number of ways 
from the bill I would design were I in a position to decree the 
complexion of our Nation's welfare system.
  But in the face of great need to shore up the way in which our Nation 
deals with its impoverished population, a widespread demand by the 
public to make major changes in our welfare system, and the social 
imperative to focus our available resources on moving poor adults into 
self-sufficiency and provide a path from poverty for poor children, I 
believe this is a bill that meets the threshold test for acceptability. 
It turns the corner from a street going the wrong direction onto a 
street pointing toward our objective.
  One has only to look at the altera- tions made in the bill while it 
was being considered on the floor.
  While the ultimate responsibility for poor people is shifted to the 
States, the States are required, for the next 5 years, to continue to 
spend a minimum of 80 percent of the amounts they spent for welfare in 
past years and 100 percent of the amounts they have spent for child 
care. The original Dole bill contained no such maintenance of effort 
requirements.

  The original Senate bill contained no funding whatsoever for child 
care for children of adults required by the bill to seek work. The bill 
on which we will vote today authorizes $8 billion for this purpose.
  The original bill measured its success in moving persons from welfare 
to work on the basis of participation rates. The bill on which we will 
vote today will measure actual work.
  The original Dole bill raided existing job training funds to include 
them in the welfare block grants to the States. The bill before us 
today drops the job training titles, and the Senate will return to 
address those separately at a later date.
  The Dole bill required all adults on welfare to seek work and accept 
jobs when offered. The bill on which we will vote today exempts mothers 
of infants less than 1 year old.
  The Dole bill made no distinction between women with very young 
children and women with school-age children. The bill we consider today 
permits the States to comply with the work requirement if mothers of 
children under age 6 work a minimum of 20 hours a week.
  Mr. President, I am confident this bill will pass the Senate today. I 
intend to support it. Should this bill, or one substantially like it, 
become law, it will establish the national laboratory desired by the 
Governors and legislators of many of our States. The attention will now 
shift to the States--to see if they can, as they have fervently 
maintained, achieve economics never realized by the Federal Government, 
and, in particular, to see if they can move adult welfare recipients 
into work. I am very hopeful that the advocates--both at the State 
level and here in Washington--knew what they were talking about and 
will show themselves to have merited our trust and confidence on these 
very important matters.
  This course is not without risk, but the imperative for reasonable 
action demands that we take some risk. That is the only way we can 
leave behind a psychology of dependency and instill a psychology of 
self-help with temporary, transitional government assistance. It is the 
only way we can redefine welfare so that, for the able bodied adult 
population, it means assistance in preparing for, finding, and holding 
gainful employment. I support these changes in direction; consequently 
I will vote to pass this bill.
  In conclusion, Mr. President, I want to emphasize two key 
considerations. First, the conference action on this bill will be 
critical. The safeguards and moderations added to the bill on the 
Senate floor are vital to my support and that of a number of my 
colleagues. 

[[Page S13797]]
I am very hopeful that the conferees, particularly those of the 
majority party, will keep this in mind, and that they want to enact a 
bill that has the support from both parties that will be necessary to 
secure enactment.
  Second, if this bill passes today--even if this bill becomes law--no 
one should prepare to relax. Some of the vexing problems confronting 
our society are addressed in this bill. But by and large this bill 
deals with persons who already have been left behind by our society. 
Its provisions are remedial. The bill does nothing to reach out to this 
Nation's greatest resource--our children--and provide to them the 
educational opportunities and the opportunities for participation in 
positive activities ranging from Boy and Girl Scouts to athletics that 
will weave them into the fabric of our culture, prepare them to take 
their place as self-sufficient and psychologically stable adults, and 
give them an alternative to falling into the activities of the street 
that can spell alienation, lives of crime, or even untimely death. We 
have much, much more to do, Mr. President, and this is only the opening 
chapter.
  I commend those who struggled to make this bill more realistic, more 
humane, and more likely to live up to the grand promises it pronounces. 
I share the hope of those who vote for the bill that it will, indeed, 
change the course of public assistance for the benefit of the children 
and adults directly affected, our communities, our taxpayers, and our 
Nation as a whole.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, the American people are united by the 
fundamental issues of welfare reform which have divided us throughout 
much of this debate. It is clear that they have demanded a dramatic 
change to a system which they view as ineffective and indeed as an 
impediment to the progress of both the individual and society as a 
whole. The $387 billion welfare system has sapped the spirit of many, 
most especially of our young people, and our national economic 
strength.
  It has now been 60 years since the Social Security Act was passed 
which created the aid to families with dependent children program. 
According to the act itself, the purpose of title IV of the Social 
Security Act, is in part, to help maintain and strengthen family life 
and to help such parents or relatives to attain or retain capability 
for the maximum self-support and personal independence.
  For too many, this is no longer a system which helps to maintain and 
strengthen family life in America. Many, in fact, believe the welfare 
system has the opposite effect on families. The theories which 
supported public policy in the past have been dispelled by the last 30 
years of experience. The misplaced hope that Washington could somehow 
correctly calculate the formula to solve the problems of poverty is 
simply wrong. What happens in the home, in the neighborhood, in schools 
and churches is far more powerful than the Federal Government. We have 
known this all along.
  But knowing is different than doing. Today is the day we do something 
about what we know.
  We know that work is necessary to attain self-support and personal 
independence, Today, we elevate the value of work to its proper level 
of esteem in public assistance programs. We know that if welfare is to 
be only a temporary means of support, the key to personal independence 
is work. We know this basic fact of life is true for all families, at 
all levels of income. It is true for past generations. It is true for 
this generation and all future generations. Work is not only necessary 
as the means for obtaining our daily bread, it is part of our social 
fabric. Whether in the neighborhood or in the world, work brings order 
to chaos. Many other freedoms flow from the freedom to work.
  We know the current welfare system is designed for failure. Under the 
heavy hand of the ponderous and paralizing bureaucracy of the Potomac, 
non one is accountable for results.

  Today, we will provide the States with the responsibility and 
authority they need to break down the barriers and false promises of 
the present system. Properly understood, welfare reform is about 
reforming how Government works. The American people will greatly 
benefit from the rejuvenation of the States' role in our system of 
federalism. The lines of accountability have been blurred for far too 
long.
  Mr. President, today is the day to leave the past behind. To sum up 
what this debate is truly about, let me quote from a letter sent last 
week by Governor Allen of Virginia:

       What the debate really boils down to is who does the U.S. 
     Senate trust to make these policy decisions--the Federal 
     bureaucracy or the elected representatives of the people at 
     the State level. This is a basic philosophical question. The 
     choices you make will determine whether the bold innovations 
     that are occurring in Virginia and other States can move 
     forward, or whether Federal bureaucrats will continue to 
     micromanage and second guess the decisions of the people of 
     the States and their duly elected representatives. I 
     respectfully urge you to place your trust in the States, 
     which are leading the way.

  Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to put our confidence and faith 
in the sovereign States. Let us break from the past and free the States 
and the families who need a temporary hand-up from the system which has 
failed us all.
  Mr. President, there are a number of Members and staff who deserve 
our recognition and appreciation for moving this legislation forward. 
Above all, the majority leader has done a masterful job in delivering 
on the promise of welfare reform. At several points over the past few 
months, it looked as though a comprehensive bill would slip through our 
fingers. Once again, he has demonstrated his skills as a true leader.
  I congratulate Senator Moynihan on his tireless efforts on this 
legislation. His knowledge of these issues cannot be matched.
  Let me also thank those Senators who did remarkable jobs managing 
this legislation under very demanding and trying circumstances, 
especially Senators Nickles, Santorum, Grassley, Chafee, Hatch, and 
Simpson.
  Few people will understand or appreciate the enormous job done by the 
staff in helping to get this legislation passed. The bill itself was 
nearly 800 pages long at the beginning of consideration. We added more 
than 200 amendments into the process. The staffs from Finance, 
Agriculture, and Labor Committees as well as from the leadership 
offices, the Congressional Budget Office, and legislative counsel 
accomplished a rather remarkable feat. In particular, let me thank and 
commend Sheila Burke in the leader's office, and Lindy Paull, Kathy 
Tobin, Rick Grafmeyer and Joe Zummo from Finance for their great 
efforts and dedication. Other staff members who deserve our thanks are 
Dave Johnson, Peg Brown, Susan Hattan, and Shannon Royce. From the 
Democratic side, Margaret Malone, John Secrest, Joe Gale, and Mark 
Patterson made special contributions to this legislation.
  There is still much work ahead of us as some of the details differ 
between this legislation and welfare reform as passed by the House last 
March. But the most important test, the strength of our will to break 
the cycle of poverty, has been met. I look forward to completing our 
work and to sending real welfare reform to the President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished managers and 
the Senator from Wisconsin for permitting me to speak for 5 minutes at 
this point on the welfare reform package. I have been engaged for the 
past several weeks, almost continuously, with the Ruby Ridge hearings, 
but I did want to make a few comments and have them printed in the 
Record before the vote.
  Mr. President, I think we have passed a reasonable welfare reform 
package today with overwhelming, bipartisan support. The issue of 
welfare reform has been one that I have been very much concerned about 
for many years, having introduced welfare reform legislation going back 
to the 99th Congress, with Senate bills S.2578 and S.2579, and then in 
the 100th Congress, with Senate bills S.280 and S.281.
  I especially compliment my colleague, Senator Santorum, for his 
outstanding contribution on this bill and all the Senators for working 
on a bill which has broad bipartisan support--a virtual consensus--of 
87 votes in favor of this bill.
  I am very much worried, frankly, about the admonition of our 
distinguished colleague from New York, Senator Moynihan, who has issued 
the concern, the warning, that we may find 

[[Page S13798]]
children sleeping on grates. As we have structured this 5-year reform 
package, we have to be vigilant on that. Certainly, we have seen the 
development of a homeless class in America as a result of the release 
of people from mental institutions in the late 1970's without 
appropriate community support.
  I am pleased to see that there have been significant improvements on 
this bill, characterized by the Congressional Quarterly this week at 
page 2805, September 16, 1995, commenting about how centrist 
Republicans have been able to achieve significant results with what you 
might characterize as the balance of power, coming in with a very 
strong stand on important matters like child care and maintenance of 
effort provisions for the States.
  The bill did contain a provision, on which I worked from the outset 
of the welfare reform debate, that would not sanction the benefits of a 
single, custodial parent with a child under 5 who demonstrated an unmet 
need for child care.
  There were a couple of important provisions where, frankly, I casted 
a couple of votes I was not happy about but did so in order to set the 
stage for compromises. One of them was an amendment to fund child care 
offered by Senator Dodd, which was defeated narrowly, 50 to 48. My 
principal concern for opposing the amendment was a lack of an offset 
for six of the eleven billion it proposed. But that negative vote was 
cast in anticipation of a compromise which was later reached, providing 
for some $3 billion over 5 years exclusively for child care.
  The second issue was the maintenance of effort provision, where 
Senator Breaux offered an amendment requiring States to maintain 90 
percent of their 1994 match on welfare spending for 5 years--the 
duration of the bill. I opposed the Breaux amendment with the assurance 
from the managers and the distinguished majority leader, Senator Dole, 
that a 80 percent provision on maintenance of effort for the States 
would be inserted and would be fought for in conference as opposed to 
the 90 percent provision which would not be retained in conference. As 
usual, the better is the enemy of the good. I supported the majority 
leader's position, voted to defeat the Breaux amendment, and we have 
eight-tenths of the loaf with an 80 percent maintenance of effort.
  Senator Domenici led a very important battle on the vote to strike 
the family cap, which was agreed to by a very substantial number, 66 to 
34.
  So that as we have come to the end of the debate on welfare reform, I 
think we have a reasonably good bill. Of course, we will all be 
watching it very, very closely to see what the outcome is from the 
conference. Beyond the conference report, we will have to maintain a 
very close vigil over this very important subject to make sure that the 
prediction and concerns expressed by Senator Moynihan do not eventuate, 
where we do not find the situation where children are sleeping on 
grates.
  Mr. DOLE. I yield 1 minute to the Senator from Michigan, Senator 
Abraham.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Thank you, Mr. President.
  For 30 years we have tried to fight the war against poverty and after 
30 years, poverty is winning that war. We talk about helping children, 
yet today more people are below the poverty line than when we began the 
war on poverty--most of them children.
  It is hard to argue that the programs that have been in effect are 
the ones that help children when you see the results of those programs 
up close, as we do in my State of Michigan. The last few years, through 
waivers, we had more flexibility in our State and we have been able to 
address many of the welfare problems much more effectively than any 
other State in the country.
  This bill gives all States the kind of flexibility to deal with these 
problems the way we are dealing with them in Michigan. I believe it 
will succeed in moving more people to work and helping more children 
than the present system possibly could allow.
  Mr. President, this bill also addresses, I think for the first time, 
the illegitimacy problem in this country. It may not go as far as some 
would like but takes an important first step in that direction. And, 
above all, I think by requiring tough work sanctions, it finally places 
the welfare debate, I think, where most persons would like to see it, 
where people who are the beneficiaries of Federal support and State 
support perform some type of community service or work in order to make 
a contribution to the process.
  As a result, I think the majority leader deserves great credit for 
what he has done in 9 short months here. We have really ended business 
as usual. When we pass this bill today, we will be saying business as 
usual in welfare is over.
  Thank you, Mr. President,
  Mr. DOLE. I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from New Mexico, Senator 
Domenici, chairman of the Budget Committee.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, fellow Senators, first I want to join in 
complimenting Senator Dole on putting together a bipartisan bill.
  I have been sitting here listening to those who oppose this bill and 
it seems to me they are talking about a program, talking as if we have 
a welfare program that works. The problem is, we have a welfare program 
that does not work. We are not the only ones saying it does not work. 
About 90 percent of Americans say it does not work.
  Why would we keep something that does not work? It would seem to me 
that we ought to try something new and different.
  My second point is a very simple one. We are talking here as if the 
only one that knows how to take care of poor people is the U.S. 
Government. As a matter of fact, Mr. President, and fellow Senators, 
there is no welfare in America unless the States put up money. If the 
States have decided they do not care about children and they do not 
care about need, there would be no welfare program in the sovereign 
States of America.
  All we are saying, since they put up the money, at least part of it--
half of it or more--let them try to run the program. Some would have us 
think that that money they will get for 5 years from us they can spend 
on highways. They have to spend it on those people that are needy in 
their State.
  We are giving them some flexibility to try to do it better. What is 
wrong with that? Essentially, we are saying to our States, ``You have 
been paying for a program. We have been telling you how to run it. Now 
we would like you to run it yourselves.'' And the only way that the 
ominous predictions of those on the other side who have opposed this 
would be anywhere close to true is if the States in America, the 
Governors and the legislators, decide that they are going to purposely 
ruin the program. And even at that, they cannot spend the money on 
anything else.

  I believe we are going to have better welfare programs, more 
responsive programs, that people are going to go to work if they are 
able-bodied--and I stress able-bodied--and I do not think there is 
anything wrong with that experiment.
  It is as noble as the experiment that has failed.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I yield myself 2 minutes of the Democratic 
leader's time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, my colleagues in the Chamber today should 
vote for this bill, not because it is a perfect bill, because it is 
not, but because it is a good start. Some have said this bill is a 
block grant and for the first time Washington, DC, gets out of the way. 
My concern is that, being a block grant, it does nothing to solve the 
problems of welfare reform. It just puts all the problems in a box and 
mails it off to the States and hopes the State do a good job.
  Someone said ``Today, Washington, DC, gets out of the way.'' The 
original Republican proposal said and allowed for the Federal 
Government to, perhaps, pay for 100 percent of the costs of welfare 
reform. That is hardly saying that Washington would get out of the way, 
but rather that Washington would get stuck with the entire bill for 
welfare reform.
  This bill really does address work. For the first time it says people 
should go to work within 6 months. Welfare 

[[Page S13799]]
reform is not about programs, it is about creating good jobs for people 
on welfare. This bill is a step in the right direction.
  Reform should be about taking care of children, and while this bill 
is not perfect, it provides $8 billion for child care because of the 
efforts of many of us--my colleague from Connecticut on this side 
included. When it left the Finance Committee it had zero money for 
child care. This bill puts $8 billion in it for child care.
  In addition, it says the State should do something. That is reform. 
The Finance Committee bill said the States had to do nothing 
whatsoever, and that was going to be reform. This bill says the States 
have to maintain at least 80 percent of what they were doing.
  Mr. President, we should pass this bill. It can become a better bill. 
That is our hope.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired. The 
majority leader.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from 
Pennsylvania, Senator Santorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SANTORUM. I thank the leader for yielding. Mr. President, I want 
to say, we have come a long way. Having worked on the House task force, 
2 years ago, on welfare reform, and having introduced a bill and worked 
on it diligently since then, I do not think anyone, in as short a time 
as 2 years ago, would have expected us to pass a bill as dramatic, as 
progressive, and as focused in trying to create a dynamic system to try 
to help people out of poverty as we created in the Senate today, and I 
am proud of the accomplishment.
  I want to recognize several people who turned this ship around when 
it did not look like it was going to sail. First, I thank Senator 
Packwood from the Finance Committee. He put together the shell of this 
bill and really did work diligently with Senator Ashcroft and Senator 
Gregg, two former Governors, in putting together this shell that we 
then filled in as the process of negotiations off the floor and on the 
floor continued.
  I also thank Senator Hutchison. I think, if we had not figured out 
the financing mechanism, the formulas, this bill would just simply not 
have been able to sail. She just did yeoman's work in putting that 
together, and really deserves a lot of credit for moving this bill 
forward.
  For what happened all throughout the process, but particularly at the 
end, I thank the leader. He really had faith in the process to continue 
to move it forward, to bring it up when many thought it could not be 
done. He continued to push forward, finding common ground between the 
moderates and conservatives, bringing people together, constantly 
bringing people together to keep moving. Because I think he recognizes, 
as all of us do, the importance of solving this serious problem for 
millions of Americans. He deserves a lot of credit for this bill.
  This bill is dramatic. You are going to hear reported it does not go 
as far as the House bill, and this is a minor reform, and they are 
going to downplay this. All they are going to talk about in the press 
is how we differ from the House. But I tell you, this bill goes so much 
father than anyone could have anticipated just a short time ago. It 
ends the entitlement to welfare. It requires work. It puts a time limit 
on welfare benefits, which again is a dramatic change in the current 
system.
  I have heard people say we have eliminated the safety net. I do not 
know what safety net they are looking at, but I tell you, when you see 
millions of people trapped in poverty for their whole lives, generation 
after generation, that is not a safety net, it is a fisherman's net. 
You are trapping people in a fisherman's net, and what we are trying to 
do is cut back the net so people can climb out, not so people fall 
through.
  That is the difference between what has been proposed in the past and 
what we are proposing today, and it is dramatic. It is significant. And 
I can tell you, the difference between the House and the Senate, while 
it will be played up in the press, is not that significant. What we 
have are the frameworks of two bills that are very similar. We are 
going to move in the same direction. I believe, when we get to 
conference, we will be able to get a bill and I do not think it is 
going to take as long as people think.
  We have a lot of common ground here. We understand it is important to 
get this bill in for reconciliation and I believe we will do it. I, 
again, just want to tip my hat to the leader for his tremendous work on 
this bill. If it was not for him, we would not be here today.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired. Who 
yields time?
  The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask consent to speak for 2 minutes under 
the leader's time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I will be very brief. First of all, let me 
commend those who have been involved in this debate. We talked about a 
number of Members here today. Let me point out, as I have on numerous 
occasions, the distinguished senior Senator from New York, who has 
forgotten more about this issue than most people ever remember. I 
commend him and thank him for the enlightenment which he has shed on 
this particular issue.
  Having said that, I am going to vote for this bill. I do so with a 
high degree of reluctance, as my colleagues know. I think this is a 
narrow call, but in my view, the product we vote on now is a 
substantial improvement over what was originally proposed. I say that 
with all due respect to my friend and colleague from Kansas, the 
majority leader. There are improvements here. And, it is substantial in 
its difference over what was passed in the House of Representatives. Of 
course, there are fundamental differences which may never be resolved 
over issues such as the entitlement.
  But, because of the 20 or so improvements that were made to this bill 
by amendments offered from people on both sides of the aisle, 
principally on this side, this is a bill which I think can be supported 
today. It goes much further than the original proposal, certainly, in 
the area of child care. There was zero money designated for child care 
in this legislation at first. My colleagues know that I would have done 
more in the child care area. I would have liked to have seen as much as 
$11 billion over 5 years. We ended up with $8 billion over 5 years--
still, a substantial improvement.
  Let me say to those who will be responsible for moving this product 
forward, if this bill comes back from the House with any kind of 
serious retreat from what we have adopted here, then I will stand up 
and vehemently oppose the legislation and recommend that the President 
veto the legislation.
  This is a bill that, in my view, can be supported. It steps in a 
direction, and no one can say with absolute certainty where it will 
take us. I appreciate that. But, clearly, the system does need changing 
and this proposal offers us that opportunity.
  As I have said all the way along, I believe that going from welfare 
to work is something that ought to be supported. This vehicle gives us 
the opportunity to do that with the improvements that have been made in 
it. So, with reluctance, I will support this legislation and await the 
outcome of the conference.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from 
Wyoming, Senator Simpson, a member of the Finance Committee.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I never dreamed, when I came on the 
Finance Committee, we would be involved with so many vigorous 
activities. Of course, this was the principal beginning, and now, 
within these next hours, our committee will meet to decide how to trim 
some $470 billion from Medicare and Medicaid. And that is a must or 
else that program will go broke in the year 2002.
  Welfare reform is long overdue. We have had 2 weeks of debate on all 
of the issues. It is time to pass this in a bipartisan way, give these 
programs over to the States. What we have done before has failed. So 
change is difficult, but something is very, very wrong with welfare. We 
know it. The Democrats know it. The Republicans know it. The President 
knows it. Now is the chance--to have a chance for the States to run 
these programs with 

[[Page S13800]]
much less Federal regulation, much more flexibility. They have 
recognized the needs of so many of us in this body.
  I want to commend leader Dole, Bob Dole, Senator Dole, on listening 
to our concerns, paying careful attention to our needs at every level, 
every State receiving necessary attention to the things that concern us 
and, because of his efforts, this is now a bipartisan effort with most 
Senators voting to support this legislation. He has accommodated many 
of the Democratic concerns, including much needed child care, State 
maintenance of effort, and a contingency fund for the States.
  I thank him for his efforts. We will wait for the conference report 
but, hopefully, those of us who have been involved in this one so long 
know it is better to get a crumb when you cannot get a loaf, in this 
type of work.
  Thank you very much.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I yield myself the remaining 3 minutes 
in opposition.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, the word reform means to restore to an 
earlier good state. Sir, there was no earlier good state of our present 
welfare system. It began as a widow's pension, a societal 
transformation program.
  In 1988, with the Family Support Act we began to say that welfare 
cannot be a permanent way of life; it has to be a transition. It has to 
be an exchange of effort between the society, and the individual caring 
for children.
  A year and a quarter ago on this floor, I introduced S. 2224, the 
Work and Responsibility Act of 1994. This was the administration's 
welfare reform measure. I introduced it on behalf of myself and Mr. 
Mitchell, the majority leader at that time, Mr. Breaux, Mr. Daschle, 
Mr. Dodd, Mr. Kennedy, and Mr. Rockefeller. It had taken a year and a 
half to get to it, but it was welcomed, and it was in the tradition 
that we have upheld for a good 20 years now.
  The table of contents sets the tone. Title I, JOBS--job opportunities 
and basic skills; title II, work; title III, child care; title IV, 
provisions with multi-program applicability; title V, prevention of 
dependency; title VI, child support enforcement; title VII, improving 
Government assistance and preventing fraud; and title VIII, self-
employment and microenterprise demonstrations. That was the track we 
were on. The Family Support Act of 1988, to which this was to be a 
successor, came out of this Senate floor 96 to 1.
  I fear we have lost that tradition. We are ripping out a portion of 
the Social Security Act today. I fear we may be now commencing the end 
of the Social Security system.
  The one thing not wrong with welfare was the commitment of the 
Federal Government to help with the provision of aid to dependent 
children. We are abandoning that commitment today.
  Mr. President, I thank the Chair. I thank all concerned.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. DASCHLE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority leader.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that both the 
majority leader and I have each have 10 minutes remaining in the final 
moments of this debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, first let me begin by thanking Senators 
Mikulski, Breaux, Dodd, and Moynihan for the great effort they have put 
forth to bring us to this point. Were it not for their leadership and 
their participation, we would not be here today.
  I also want to thank the majority leader for his willingness to work 
with us and address many of the concerns that we have raised during the 
course of the last several months.
  Most of us began this debate with the realization that the current 
welfare system needs repair. It does not enable people to become self-
sufficient. It does not contain the resources to put people to work. It 
is not flexible enough for many States. It sends the wrong messages to 
welfare recipients--that work does not pay and that welfare can become 
a trap.
  As a result, most people agree that reform--or whatever term we may 
want to use to address those problems--be addressed legislatively. We 
recognize that there is no perfect solution. There is no easy solution. 
As Senator Moynihan has said, in spite of our best efforts, we have not 
found one today.
  The disagreement really has been about the solution. In the view of 
most Democrats, the original Republican bill was extreme and misguided. 
It boxed up all of the current system and shipped it off to the States, 
saying, ``You do it.'' It was our view that that was not reform.
  The bill we have before us today is a better bill. The bill before us 
today requires that the States provide at least an 80 percent 
maintenance of effort, and 100 percent maintenance of effort for child 
care. There is a $1 billion contingency grant fund, and there are no 
mandates from the extreme right wing.
  In our view, the original bill was not about work. In fact, the 
Finance Committee bill did not even require work. It did not measure 
work. It only measured what we call participation in the welfare 
system. No work was required for two years, and in our view that was 
not reform.
  We have a better bill now, a bill reached in agreement over the last 
several days that measures real work and provides a work bonus when 
States exceed the goals that we lay out in this legislation. It sets 
out $8 billion in child care funds, dollars that can only be used for 
child care and nothing else. It requires 80 percent maintenance of 
effort from states. It deletes the job training titles that ought to be 
outside the realm of welfare itself, and provides for them to be 
addressed in other legislation later on.
  It establishes a personal responsibility contract very similar to the 
parent empowerment contract that was required in the Work First bill. 
It allows a work exemption for mothers with children under 1, and 
requires work after 3 months.
  Mr. President, we have made very significant improvements in many 
areas of the legislation that I believe warrant our support today. The 
original bill hurt children. It included no funds for child care. In 
fact, many of us originally called it the ``home alone bill'' simply 
because of our concern for what it meant for children whose mothers and 
fathers would have to go out and find jobs.
  It sanctioned mothers who could not find or afford child care. It 
allowed 30 percent of the funding under the child care development 
block grant to be transferred. It included no safety net for children 
and only a 10-percent exemption to the time limit. And that, in our 
view, was not reform at all. That is aiming at the mother and hitting 
the child.
  But we have a better bill now, reached in agreement over the last 
several days--$8 billion in child care: $5 billion as part of the block 
grant, and $3 billion in additional funding to address the very needs 
that we have talked about for the last several weeks. One hundred 
percent maintenance of effort is required on child care. Transfer of 
funds from the child care development block grant is prohibited. 
Mothers with children under 6 will not be sanctioned if they cannot 
find or afford day care.
  We gave States the option to allow mothers with children under 6 to 
work no more than 20 hours per week in lieu of the 35 hours per week 
that was originally required. We increased the time-limit exemption 
from 15 to 20 percent. We require teen mothers to stay at home or live 
in an adult-supervised environment, just as required in the Work First 
bill. We provide $150 million for second chance homes, and we do not 
have any mandates that deny aid to teen mothers or impose family caps.
  This is a better bill. The original bill was an unfunded mandate of 
enormous proportion. It provided no funds for child care, even though 
child care is the linchpin between welfare and work. Although work 
rates increased from 20 to 50 percent, the CBO originally projected 
that 44 States would have failed to meet them. There was no contingency 
grant fund for uncontrollable circumstances.
  That is not reform. That is shifting the welfare problem to the 
States. That is telling local taxpayers that they have to pick up the 
tab.
  But Mr. President, it is a better bill now. Through agreements 
reached over the last several days, we provide the $3 

[[Page S13801]]
billion in additional child care money, and $1 billion in contingency 
grant funds. We passed an amendment offered by the distinguished 
Senator from Minnesota, Senator Wellstone, to revert the Food Stamp 
Program back to an entitlement if the number of hungry children 
increases.
  It is a better bill now. It is not perfect. It is not the bill I 
would have drafted alone. It is not the bill that would have passed 5 
years ago or perhaps even last year. It does reflect, in my view, the 
political reality of today. It is the best bill that we are going to 
get under the circumstances that exist in the caucus, in the Senate, in 
the Congress, and in the country.
  I have a number of reservations about this bill. There were 
provisions in the Work First bill that I regret were not adopted. I 
regret, for example, that the bill does not have the vouchers we 
proposed to address the needs of children after the time limit.
  I regret that the bill ends the Federal-State matching responsibility 
for all those who qualify based on State-set criteria.
  I regret the bill does not exempt families from time limits based 
upon specific criteria like high unemployment or serious disability.
  I regret that there is no increased funding, beyond child care, for 
States to really put people to work.
  I regret that the contingency fund is probably underfunded and we 
will likely have to revisit that issue again in the future.
  I regret that the food stamp block grant option was not eliminated. 
Many food stamp recipients are working poor trying to stay off welfare; 
similarly, many food stamp recipients are elderly, and their problems 
will only be exacerbated. I remain concerned about the food stamp block 
grant choice.
  So, as other Senators have indicated, we will be watching what the 
conference does. We were successful in enacting more than 20 major 
changes in this legislation, and those changes, Mr. President, are 
absolutely critical to retaining our support in the future. If the 
conference bill is not very close to the Senate bill, I will oppose it 
and I will recommend the President veto that bill when it reaches his 
desk.
  The American people want a welfare system that is truly reformed. The 
American people want changes, not through rhetoric, but through 
reality. They want able-bodied adults to work. But they also want 
children to be protected. Children left home alone is no good for 
anybody. Arbitrary time limits alone will mean local taxpayers pick up 
the tab.
  We have to ensure that we maintain the broad bipartisan support that 
final passage in just a few moments will represent. We will be watching 
the conference closely.
  This is the beginning, Mr. President. If we can, indeed, come back 
from the conference with what we have accomplished in the Senate 
intact, then I believe it is the beginning of a series of changes over 
the course of the next several years that can move us to a welfare 
system that truly will work as we want it to. This cannot be the final 
word on what happens on welfare this decade. I support this legislation 
with reservations. I will watch closely as work continues in the 
conference committee.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Democratic leader. 
I thank him for his support and his cooperation in getting us this far. 
I think we are going to have a display that we have not had recently of 
bipartisan support for major legislation, which I believe the American 
people will appreciate.
  The Senate began debating welfare reform on August 7, and I predicted 
in my opening statement we were going to have a lot of contentious 
votes, a lot of debate, tough votes, and I also said that throughout 
all the debate we could not lose sight of two overriding facts. No. 1 
was that our current welfare system had failed and, No. 2, it was our 
duty to fix it--talking about the Senate, not Republicans or Democrats.
  So we have had about 100 hours of debate since that time, and some of 
it contentious, and we have now had I think 40 votes; 41 will be the 
final vote.
  My colleagues remember the first week in August we thought we might 
be able to take up and finish welfare reform. But it appeared we had 
reached a roadblock after a couple days, and I recall some of the 
headlines. The media was quick to report that the Senate Republicans 
had failed and that welfare reform was on its last legs. The media got 
the story wrong because what is on its last leg in this Congress is the 
status quo.
  Today, I am proud to say that the Senate has kept its promise--no 
more business as usual, no more tinkering around the edges with a 
system that has cost American taxpayers $5.4 trillion--that is with a 
``T''--in Federal and State spending over the past 35 years. Instead, 
we are fulfilling our duty. We are not only fixing welfare, we are 
revolutionizing it. We are writing truly historic landmark legislation, 
legislation that ends--ends--a 60-year entitlement program. And in the 
process we are closing the books on a 6-decade-long story of a system 
that may have been well-intentioned but a system that failed the 
American taxpayer and failed those who it was designed to serve.
  So today we begin to write a new story, a story about Americans who 
earn a paycheck rather than drawing a welfare check, a story about an 
America where welfare is no longer a way of life and where people no 
longer will be able to receive endless Federal cash benefits just 
because they choose not to work, a story about an America where power 
is actually transferred away from Federal bureaucrats in Washington and 
given back to our 50 State capitals and our Governors, Democrats and 
Republicans, and our State legislatures, Democratic or Republican, a 
story about an America that recognizes that the family is the most 
important unit in our society.
  Mr. President, there are some in this Chamber, including Senator 
Moynihan from New York, for whom I have the greatest respect, who 
believe the story we write today may turn out to be a harsh one. I 
disagree. I believe nothing could be more harsh on American men and 
women and children in need than to continue with the system that has 
failed them year after year after year. And rather than being harsh, I 
believe the vast majority of Americans agree that the system we create 
today is fair, it does help those in need and, above all, it is based 
on common sense.
  It is common sense to require welfare recipients who are actually 
able to work to do just that. It is common sense to put a 5-year 
lifetime limit on welfare benefits so it does not become a way of life. 
It is common sense to give our States the flexibility to devise 
programs that meet the specific needs of their citizens.
  I remember what Governor Thompson of Wisconsin told a group of us in 
my office, speaking to the Governors, that we were talking about 
mandating Governors, strings, conservative strings in this case, and 
Governor Thompson said, ``Who do you think we are? We are elected by 
the same people you are. Do you think I am going to allow somebody to 
go without medical treatment or without food in the State of 
Wisconsin?''
  It is common sense. It is putting our faith in elected officials who 
are closer to the people. It is common sense to put a cap on spending 
because no program with an unlimited budget will ever be made to work 
effectively and efficiently. It is common sense to require that teenage 
mothers who have children out of wedlock stay in school and live under 
adult supervision in order to receive benefits. Otherwise, they have no 
chance to move off welfare. It is common sense to grant our States the 
ability to try to reduce our alarming illegitimacy rate.
  Mr. President, the American people should know that this legislation 
is not perfect. It is not going to magically solve all the problems, 
regardless of how we vote today, whatever the conference vote may be 
when it comes back. But the Work Opportunity Act does put an end to a 
failed system. It does offer hope and opportunity to millions of 
Americans. It is a revolutionary step in the right direction, and it is 
further proof of the commitment this Congress has made to the American 
people.
  At the risk of forgetting someone, Mr. President, I wish to thank a 
number of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who helped make 
today's victory for the American people possible. 

[[Page S13802]]
There have been references to my colleagues, Senator Breaux and Senator 
Dodd and certainly the Democratic leader and others on that side of the 
aisle. All members of the Senate Finance Committee, including Senator 
Packwood, who was our chairman when we started this revolution, 
certainly deserve credit. Senator Packwood put the original bill 
together, brought it to the floor and we have made changes. Senator 
Hutchison was instrumental in reaching agreement on the formula which 
kept the bill alive. Senator Faircloth led the fight for important 
amendments regarding abstinence education.
  I wish to say a special word of thanks to our remarkable freshman 
class. They sunk their teeth into this issue from day one and never let 
go. Senators Abraham and Snowe and Ashcroft authored important 
amendments, and particularly Senator Santorum, who was in the Chamber 
every day, almost every minute, making certain the debate was moving 
forward. And he understands the program because he worked on it on the 
House side. I think he did an excellent job. And I know there are 
others I may have forgotten. But I thank also America's Governors, 
Republicans and Democrats--particularly Republicans because I work 
closely with the Republican Governors, whether it is Governor Voinovich 
of Ohio, Governor Engler of Michigan, or Governor Edgar of Illinois or 
Governor Thompson of Wisconsin, Governor Pataki of New York. They 
worked very closely with us throughout the process and so did State 
legislators and local governments because they are going to have the 
authority.
  We are going to follow the 10th amendment. We are going to return 
power to the people, power to the States that the 10th amendment and 
Bill of Rights say we should.
  So we are going to cast our votes in a few moments. It is not the end 
of the process; as the Democratic leader has indicated, we have to go 
to conference. We will have to reconcile our differences.
  In the Senate-passed bill, I think we save between $65 billion and 
$70 billion. The House has more savings. About $40 billion of our 
savings, I think, are under the jurisdiction of the Finance Committee. 
I think we will iron out the differences we have, and then we will send 
a historic bill to the President of the United States, who has 
indicated, at least preliminarily, he will sign the bill.
  I hope he will join with this Congress and the American people in 
writing a new chapter in the history of this great Nation.
  As I listened to the debate and I listened to the Senator from 
Illinois and the Senator from Minnesota, I regret that they believe we 
are going to punish America's children. I disagree with that, because I 
believe we are creating a better opportunity for our children in this 
legislation, a future of more hope and more opportunity.
  All of us come from different places in our lifetime. We have 
different backgrounds. Many come from hard-scrabble backgrounds and 
some not so hard scrabble. I can recall a long time ago in my family, 
in the small town of Russell, KS, when every member of the family 
worked. There were four children. Both my mother and father worked.
  I can remember a time, even in those days, because of the Dust Bowl 
and a lot of other things that were happening, we could not make ends 
meet. We moved into the basement, six of us, and rented out the 
upstairs so we could make ends meet.
  I think all of us can go back into our lives and say we had it tough. 
I remember coming to the Congress and working with Senator George 
McGovern from South Dakota on the Food Stamp Program, the WIC Program, 
and a lot of other programs that I believe protect children, contrary 
to what the Senator from Minnesota may have indicated.
  I also can think back to the days when I was a county attorney in my 
small county of Russell County. One of the responsibilities of the 
county attorney in those days in my State was to sign every welfare 
check that left the office. In a small county, you know everybody who 
received those checks. In fact, it was old age assistance at the time. 
I knew two of them, my grandparents, who were caught up in the Dust 
Bowl days, in the dust storms and who had no other recourse but to seek 
help.
  So I think when we vote on this bill, we should understand that, 
obviously, some are going to be in need and they are going to be taken 
care of and they are going to be young and old. But it is our hope that 
what we have demonstrated here, based on a lot of hearings and a lot of 
debate, is that we want to help people move out of this cycle of 
welfare, generation after generation, back in the mainstream, working, 
regaining their dignity and their self-esteem. That would be the goal 
of any welfare reform plan that I can think of.
  So I know how tough it is for some people to accept assistance, and I 
have always had the view that people want to work. If given the 
opportunity, they will work. We call our bill the Work Opportunity Act 
of 1995. It is not going to be perfect but, in my view, it is a big, 
big step in the right direction.
  I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote for this 
bill. It is a big, big step in the right direction. The American 
people, by a vote of 88 percent, said this is the way they want to go, 
and I hope we will follow their lead.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators 
vote from their desks and that their vote be announced.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  The bill having been read the third time, the question is, Shall the 
bill pass, as amended?
  Mr. DOLE. 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 clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. I announce that the Senator from Oregon [Mr. Hatfield] is 
absent due to illness.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Oregon [Mr. Hatfield] would vote ``yea.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thompson). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 87, nays 12, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 443 Leg.]

                                YEAS--87

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brown
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Frist
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Packwood
     Pell
     Pressler
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--12

     Akaka
     Bradley
     Faircloth
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Wellstone

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Hatfield
       
  So the bill (H.R. 4), as amended, was passed.
  Amend the title so as to read: ``An Act to enhance support and work 
opportunities for families with children, reduce welfare dependence, 
and control welfare spending.''.
  Mr. DOLE. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
insist on its amendments and request a conference with the House, and 
the Chair be authorized to appoint conferees.

[[Page S13803]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
 Mr. PACKWOOD. Mr. President, I would like to take this 
opportunity to praise the magnificent work of the people on the Senate 
Finance Committee, majority office, and in my personnel office who were 
at the core of my welfare reform team and who helped develop and reach 
a consensus on much of the historic welfare reform legislation that has 
passed the Senate today.
  These individuals have been working tirelessly and at length this 
entire year with me and with other Senators, crafting policy that ends 
the broken welfare system as we currently know it. The reforms will 
help our Nation's poor develop self-respect, train them for jobs, 
lessen the burdens on the hard working taxpayers of this country, give 
our Governors the greater flexibility they have been asking for, and 
leave the safety nets of aid and nutrition in place for families, for 
the elderly and for the disabled. Well deserved praise and my thanks to 
Lindy Paull, Rick Grafmeyer, Kathy Tobin, Joe Zummo, and Rob Epplin of 
the Finance Committee, and Marcia Ohlemiller and Ginny Worrest on my 
personal staff.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I would like to take a few minutes to 
tell my colleagues why I voted against the Dole welfare reform bill.
  Mr. President, we live in the greatest Nation on earth. We are the 
wealthiest country in the world. But it is clear that some in our 
society do not share in this wealth. They are poor. They are jobless 
and in some cases homeless. And they must rely on public assistance to 
survive. In America, this is unacceptable. And we should be committed 
to improving their lives.
  Mr. President, there is no question that the current welfare system 
needs reform. But the central goal for any welfare reform bill should 
be to move welfare recipients into productive work.
  This will only happen if we provide welfare recipients with education 
and job training to prepare them for employment. It will only happen if 
we provide families with affordable child care. It will only happen if 
we can place them into jobs, preferably in the private sector or--as a 
last resort--in community service.
  But the Dole bill is not designed to help welfare recipients get on 
their feet and go to work. It's only designed to cut programs--pure and 
simple.
  It's designed to provide funds so that Republicans can provide huge 
tax cuts for the rich. That's what's really going on here.
  Unfortunately, Mr. President, the radical experiment proposed in this 
legislation will harm our society while producing defenseless victims.
  Those victims are not represented in the Senate offices. They're not 
here lobbying against this bill. They don't even know they're at risk.
  The victims will be America's children. and there will be millions of 
them.
  Mr. President, the AFDC Program provides a safety net for 9 million 
children. These young people are innocent. They did not ask to be born 
into poverty. And they don't deserve to be punished.
  These children are African-American, Hispanic, Asian, and white. They 
live in urban areas and rural areas. But, most importantly, they are 
American children. And we as a nation have a responsibility to provide 
them with a safety net.
  The children we're talking about are desperately poor, Mr. President. 
They're not living high off the hog. These kids live in poverty.
  Mr. President, it's hard for many of us to appreciate what life is 
like for the 9 million children who live in poverty and who benefit 
from AFDC.
  I grew up to a working class family in Paterson, NJ, in the heart of 
the Depression. Times were tough. And I learned all too well what it 
meant to struggle economically.
  But as bad as things were for my own family, they still weren't as 
bad as for millions of today's children.
  These are children who are not always sure whether they'll get their 
next meal. Not always sure that they'll have a roof over their heads. 
Not always sure they'll get the health care they need.
   Mr. President, these children are vulnerable. They're living on the 
edge of homelessness and hunger. And they didn't do anything to deserve 
this fate.
   Mr. President, if we're serious about reforming a program that keeps 
these children afloat, we won't adopt a radical proposal like the Dole 
bill. We won't put millions of American children at risk. And we won't 
simply give a blank check to States and throw up our hands.
   Mr. President, this Republican bill isn't primarily a policy 
document. It's a budget document.
   Mr. President, if the Republicans were serious about improving 
opportunities for those on welfare, they would be talking about 
increasing our commitment to education and job training. In fact, only 
last year, the House Republican welfare reform bill, authored in part 
by Senator Santorum, would have increased spending on education and 
training by $10 billion.
  This year, by contrast, the bill before us would cut education and 
training dramatically, with the bill's total cuts exceeding $65 
billion.
  So what's changed? The answer is simple. This year, the Republicans 
need money for their tax cuts for the rich.
   Mr. President, shifting our welfare system to 50 State bureaucracies 
may give Congress more money to provide tax cuts. But it's not going to 
solve the serious problems facing our welfare system, or the people it 
serves.
  To really reform welfare, Mr. President, we first must emphasize a 
very basic American value: The value of work.
  We should expect recipients to work. In fact, we should demand that 
they work, if they can.
  Of course, Mr. President, that kind of emphasis on work is important. 
But it's not enough. We also have to help people get the skills they 
need to get a job in the private sector. I'm not talking about 
handouts.
  I'm talking about teaching people to read. Teaching people how to run 
a cash register or a computer. Teaching people what it takes to be 
self-sufficient in today's economy.
  We also have to provide child care.
  Mr. President, how is a woman with several young children supposed to 
find a job if she can't find someone to take care of her kids? It's 
simply impossible. There's just no point in pretending otherwise.
  Unfortunately, the Dole bill doesn't address these kind of needs. It 
doesn't even try to promote work. It doesn't even try to give people 
job training. It does little to provide child care.
  All it does is throw up its hands and ship the program to the States. 
That's it.
  Mr. President, that's not real welfare reform. It's simply passing 
the buck to save a buck. And who's going to get the buck that's saved? 
The people the Republicans really care about: Those who are well off.
  Mr. President, the Senate did adopt the leadership amendment that 
made some improvements in the Dole bill. This amendment increases 
funding for child care, limits State cuts in welfare to 20 percent, and 
includes a $1 billion contingency fund.
  Mr. President, I commend the Senators who crafted these improvements. 
But they do not change the basic design of the bill, which remains 
deeply flawed.
  This bill would take away the safety net we established for poor 
children 60 years ago. It does far little to move recipients from 
welfare to work. And, when you get right down to it, it's main effect 
will be to take from the poor so that Congress can give a huge tax cut 
for the rich.
  This was a historic vote, Mr. President. And I fear we are making a 
bad situation even worse. I only hope I am proved wrong.
  I yield the floor.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, the Senate voted to approve welfare 
reform legislation by a vote of 87-12 this afternoon. I have spent 
weeks thinking about my vote on this issue, and today, after listening 
to people on all sides of this issue, including my family and my 
colleagues, I reluctantly cast my vote in favor of the Dole bill, as 
amended. In my brief tenure here in the U.S. Senate, this was one of 
the most difficult votes I have cast. Mr. President, I would like to 
explain why.
  From the beginning of the welfare reform debate, my No. 1 concern has 
been about finding a way to rebuild American families. I have always 
believed we can only do that by emphasizing 

[[Page S13804]]

real personal responsibility, providing adequate child care for both 
working poor and welfare families, and ensuring our children can count 
on help from adults.
  It has been my hope that we could achieve some positive changes to 
the current system. If there is one thing everyone can agree on, it's 
that the current system is flawed. It needs fixing, and I vowed to 
support reform. My challenge has been to influence that reform in the 
most constructive direction possible.
  As someone who came to the Senate during the 1992 election year, I 
know we cannot continue to do things the way we always have. We must 
take a hard look at the sum total of our Government programs, and 
rework them to accurately reflect society's strengths, weaknesses, and 
needs.
  We entered the debate with two bills, the Dole version and the 
Daschle Work-First bill. I cosponsored and voted in favor of the 
Daschle bill. I supported it because I felt it was the right place to 
start. It reflected a genuine commitment to helping poor families move 
up and into the work force.
  Unfortunately from my perspective, a majority in the Senate rejected 
the Daschle bill. But I didn't give up there. I and others began 
devoting our energies to improving the Dole bill.
  First, we offered an amendment to require full funding, and full 
protection for child care and children's programs. It would have 
provided the full $11 billion estimated by the Department of Health and 
Human Services to be necessary to meet child-care needs. Again, this 
amendment was narrowly defeated, 50-48.
  Given the closeness of this vote, Senators Dole and Daschle were able 
to reach a compromise that strengthened the Dole bill, but fell short 
of our original amendment. It includes provisions which: require States 
to maintain their welfare spending at a minimum of 80 percent of 
current levels; strike the job training title--which had no business in 
a welfare bill to begin with, establish a contingency grant fund to 
take care of States in times of economic downturns, and provide a total 
of $8 billion for childcare services nationwide. I support this 
compromise, though I feel ultimately we will have to do more.
  Following the child-care debate, I cosponsored an amendment to 
establish greater protection for victims of domestic violence. I 
believe domestic violence to be the single, most destructive force 
against families in America today. No one, not the Senate, the 
President, or anyone else, can place a value on the price paid by 
mothers and their children attempting to survive an abusive household. 
This time the Senate agreed, and my amendment was adopted unanimously.
  Having worked hard to improve the Dole bill, I found myself faced 
with a very difficult decision. I could either vote against the Dole 
bill based on its shortcomings for children, or I could vote to affirm 
the improvements we made to it.
  I believe the Dole bill to be deeply flawed. I believe it draws into 
question the welfare of poor children throughout the Nation. But I also 
believe we have to start somewhere. The current system needs to be 
changed, and the Dole bill changes it fundamentally. Therefore, I voted 
yes.
  Mr. President, change of any kind always involves risk. We will never 
know how great that risk is until we try something different. What we 
do know, however, is that change brings new responsibility.
  We do not know whether this bill will make it into law. If it is 
enacted, we don't know if it will work. It may prove a fabulous 
success, or it may only prove to make problems worse for the poor.
  But today, we have created a grave new responsibility for this 
Senate: to be watchdogs for our children. More than ever before, all 
Senators have an obligation to make the law work in favor of poor 
children, All Senators have a responsibility in the future to consider 
the successes and failures they have created this day, and to be 
prepared to make changes later if things don't work out.
  The most unfortunate part of this debate, in my opinion, is that 
people don't think of children when they think of welfare. People think 
of dependency, complacency, poverty, and all the worst stereotypes. 
This troubles me because it is children who face the most difficult 
struggles. It is children who are most deserving of our care.
  The outcome of this debate does not change one iota this basic fact: 
we need a national commitment to children in this country. I believe 
this to the very core of my being.
  Children are under assault every single day in this country. In their 
homes, in school, on the streets, and yes, in this Congress. We see it 
in cuts to education and dismantling of crime prevention. We see it in 
Medicaid cuts, defunding of AmeriCorps, and elimination of student 
loans.
  Today, I voted for change, to try something new. But I also took 
responsibility to live with that change, ad to work even harder 
promoting a broad, national commitment to our children. Mr. President, 
I urge my colleagues to accept that responsibility with equal sobriety, 
and with equal vigor.
  The outcome today was not in doubt. Nor is this the end of the 
debate. There will be a conference committee. We may even debate a 
conference report. More likely, we will see this bill again in the 
budget reconciliation yet to come.
  I think we can change welfare for the better, and move more people 
into the work force. I look forward to working with you, Mr. President 
and all my colleagues, to this end; but also to build a stronger 
commitment to children. We must do this in welfare reform, and across 
the whole spectrum of issues we consider this session. The future is 
simply too important. And unlike before, it is our new responsibility.
  Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

                          ____________________