[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 86 (Wednesday, June 12, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6144-S6150]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. INOUYE (for himself and Mr. Akaka):
  S. 1864. A bill to transfer jurisdiction over certain parcels of 
Federal real property located in the District of Columbia, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.


               federal real property transfer legislation

 Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I introduce a bill to transfer 
jurisdiction over a parcel of land from the Architect of the Capitol to 
the Department of the Interior. This no-cost transfer would allow this 
parcel to be used to establish

[[Page S6145]]

a memorial to Japanese-American patriotism in World War II, since 
monuments cannot be built on the Capitol Grounds. I am pleased to note 
that this transfer has the support of the National Park Service, the 
Bureau of Land Management, and the Architect of the Capitol.
  This memorial, authorized in 1992 by Public Law 102-502 to honor the 
patriotism of Americans of Japanese ancestry during World War II, must 
begin construction by October 24, 1999. It is essential that the land 
exchange take place as soon as possible in order to begin the formal 
approval processes for the memorial's design.
  I hope that my colleagues will join me in supporting this measure's 
expedient passage.
                                 ______

      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN:
  S. 1865. A bill to direct the Administrator of the Federal Aviation 
Administration to issue regulations relating to recirculation of fresh 
air in commercial aircraft, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.


                   The Aviation Clean Air Act of 1996

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation having 
to do with the quality of air in passenger cabins of commercial 
aircraft.
  I want to begin for a moment by telling you how I got into this. 
Three years ago, obviously coming to the Senate, I began a whole series 
of flights from San Francisco and from Los Angeles to Washington, and I 
noticed something. I noticed when I rode a 747 I did not get a headache 
and the circulation in my hand did not cease. When I rode a 757 or a 
767, I began to get rather severe headaches. If I fell asleep, the 
circulation in my hand ceased. This, then, promptly woke me up.
  I began to look into it. What did I find? I looked at Federal clean 
air standards for enclosed spaces. I found that the Federal standard 
for fresh air in prison cells is 20 cubic feet per person per minute. 
The fresh air standard for an office building, for a theater lobby, for 
a restaurant, is the same. Then I found there were no fresh air 
standards for commercial aircraft.
  So I asked, what are the existing levels? Let me tell you what I 
found. The average amount of fresh air circulation in a 757 is 9 cubic 
feet per person. The average amount of fresh air in a 767 is 9.1 cubic 
feet per person per minute. The new 737's, provide an average of 9.6 
cubic feet per person per minute. Now, what is the significance? The 
significance is that it is less than one-half the fresh air that is 
required in a prison cell, an office or a restaurant. And then I began 
to ask flight attendants about the problems. What I learned is that 
stories documented of sore throats and headaches, of difficulty of 
breathing, of poor circulation in the body and swollen legs, of colds, 
flus, and airborne diseases, such as flu and tuberculosis are now 
beginning to spiral throughout the 1.4 million passengers per day that 
ride commercial airlines.
  Well, today I want to introduce in the Senate an idea whose time has 
come, and that is an aviation clean air act. This is also being 
introduced in the House of Representatives at the same time. 
Essentially, what this bill would require is that commercial airlines 
provide ventilation systems that provide 20 cubic feet of fresh air per 
person per minute in the cabin. This is equal to what is provided today 
by older aircraft, namely, the 747. Many of the larger commercial 
aircraft, such as the 737's, 757's, or 767's, as I said, provide less 
than one-half of what is provided by a 747.
  Second, the bill would ensure that air filters used in airplane cabin 
air recirculation systems are monitored and changed regularly.
  Third, it would require that airlines monitor humidity and ozone 
levels.
  Fourth, it would require the FAA to create a ``1-800'' number to 
receive reports of illnesses relating to air travel.
  I also want to introduce into the Record directly following my 
statement a statement of Patricia Friend, the international president 
of the Association of Flight Attendants; a statement of Andrew 
Parramore, a flight attendant; a statement of Joe Johnson, a member of 
the Association of Flight Attendants, and Janie Johnson, a member of 
the Association of Flight Attendants.
  I ask unanimous consent that they be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the materials were ordered to be printed in 
the Record as follows:

    Statement of Patricia Friend at an Aviation Clean Air Act Press 
                               Conference

       On behalf of the 40,000 members of the Association of 
     Flight Attendants, I would like to thank Senator Dianne 
     Feinstein and Representative Jerrold Nadler for today 
     introducing legislation that will significantly air quality 
     in the airplane cabin.
       This legislation seeks to establish a minimum ventilation 
     standard of 20 cubic feet of fresh air per minute per person 
     in the cabin. In addition to the ventilation standard, the 
     proposed legislation would also require the monitoring of air 
     filters, ozone and humidity. The Aviation Clean Air Act of 
     1996 seeks to establish a toll-free telephone number at the 
     FAA for individuals to report cabin air quality incidents. 
     These are critical elements to achieving a healthy workplace 
     for flight attendants.
       While frequent fliers often complain of headaches, nausea, 
     dizziness, consistently coming down with upper respiratory 
     viral infections after flying, and in some cases, passing out 
     during flight and having oxygen administered by the flight 
     attendants, the flight attendants themselves are at even 
     greater risk from poor cabin air quality.
       Flight attendants are inflight safety professionals. In the 
     daily performance of our duties, we inhale a greater amount 
     of air, increasing our exposure to viruses and bacteria, 
     fumes from chemical solvents, and carbon monoxide from 
     incomplete combustion of fuel. Flight attendants who 
     routinely work in cabins with poor air quality complain of 
     respiratory problems and other health difficulties such as 
     dizziness, severe headaches, loss of balance and numbness in 
     the hands.
       Our position on increased fresh air in the cabin is 
     supported by the FAA's recently introduced final rule. The 
     FAA determined that health and safety considerations justify 
     these standards, stating that cabin crew members must be able 
     to perform their duties without undue discomfort or fatigue.
       Regrettably, their rule did not address air quality in 
     aircraft currently being operated but applies only to future 
     generation aircraft. After 7 years of pending rule-making, 
     the FAA's final rule is still unsatisfactory offering too 
     little, too late.
       Recall the USAir Flight 1016 accident on a DC9-31 (with 
     100% fresh air), in which the flight attendants helped 
     passengers to escape from the aircraft. One of them, Rich 
     DeMary, repeatedly risked his life to single-handedly save 
     four persons from the burning wreckage. Imagine what might 
     have happened had these flight attendants been suffering loss 
     of balance, headaches, or numbness in their hands. Whether it 
     is reacting to severe turbulence, safely evacuating 
     passengers during an emergency or responding to an onboard 
     fire, flight attendants must be ready to respond at a 
     moment's notice.
       AFA strongly supports the legislation to establish a 
     minimum standard of 20 cubic feet of fresh air per minute per 
     person in the cabin. Both Senator Feinstein and 
     Representative Nadler deserve the thanks of all flight 
     attendants and passengers, whose health and safety will 
     benefit from this legislation.
                                                                    ____


                     Statement of Andrew Parramore

       On April 25, 1994, on an aircraft with recirculated air, 
     scheduled to fly from Los Angeles to the East coast, with 103 
     passengers and 7 flight attendants aboard, developed severe 
     air cabin quality problems. The result was an eventual 
     unscheduled landing in Chicago, where passengers and crew 
     were met by paramedics, and one flight attendant was 
     hospitalized with abnormally high carbon monoxide levels. 
     Four others went en route sick list, experiencing headache, 
     disorientation, motor skill impairment and respiratory 
     difficulties, symptoms, I was told by a physician, which are 
     consistent with prolonged exposure to carbon monoxide 
     poisoning and resultant oxygen deprivation.
       Immediately upon takeoff the coach cabin filled with dense 
     white smoke, the flight attendants experienced eye 
     irritation, smells described as overheating metal and/or 
     electrical fire, and a bitter metallic taste. The cockpit was 
     notified, the cabin was searched for source of possible fire, 
     and the problem attributed to a deferred, inoperative air 
     pack which had been activated. Crewmembers noted an unusually 
     high percentage of coach passengers in a deep, heavy sleep; 
     the few conscious complained of dizziness, fatigue, headache, 
     nausea, and complained of the cabin air. Flight attendants 
     were unable to complete the beverage service without rotating 
     to the cockpit for supplementary oxygen.
       At this point, one of the flight attendants described what 
     happened:
       ``I tried to finish setting up two liquor carts. I had to 
     leave at least twice and go to the forward galley to warm up 
     and clear my head, but eventually I went to the cockpit for 
     oxygen as well. When I was in the cockpit, I again told the 
     pilots we were feeling ill and several passengers had 
     complained. [The pilots] hypothesized what the problem could 
     be but I definitely got the impression that they thought this 
     was a cosmetic problem (bad smell in the cabin) and our 
     illness was all in our heads. They asked why the first class 
     flight attendants were not feeling ill. I said the smoke and 
     fumes were primarily in the main cabin and not first class.''
       I then came into the cockpit to take oxygen.

[[Page S6146]]

       Our symptoms worsened, and individual oxygen bottles were 
     soon retrieved. The flight attendant crew experienced 
     increasing loss of motor skills and mental alertness, loss of 
     ability to judge time passage and elementary computations, 
     disorientation, headache, extreme fatigue. The lunch service 
     was canceled, passengers awakened with great difficulty and 
     relocated from coach to business class [which is designed to 
     provide a somewhat increased level of fresh air per person] 
     where effects seemed less severe. The flight attendants 
     responsible for the coach section of the aircraft spent the 
     last two hours of the flight seated, breathing from oxygen 
     bottles. Individual flight attendants intermittently lost 
     consciousness. Passengers were either completely ``out'', 
     often with flushed faces, or in an apathetic, non 
     communicative ``daze''. The airline safety official's ``best 
     guess'' is that the malfunctioning air pack combusted 
     superheated synthetic oil, flooding the coach cabin with 
     resulting fumes and particulate irritants and as a byproduct 
     created poisonous carbon monoxide.
                                                                    ____


                        Statement of Joe Johnson

       I have been a flight attendant for about 16 years and 
     traveling by air for much longer than that. With the 
     relatively recent introduction of aircraft with recycled air 
     systems, I have experienced a reduction of air quality on 
     board. I have experienced fatigue, difficulty in breathing, 
     lightheadedness, and headaches on some flights. Passengers 
     often complain to me of the same. The first thought is that 
     this could be due to smoking on board flights. However, since 
     most flights have been nonsmoking for some time, I believe 
     this is just a contributing factor.
       There is a marked difference in air quality when flying 
     older aircraft such as the 747-100 series, any 727 or 737-200 
     series. I am told by experts in the field this is due to 100 
     percent fresh air exchange on the older airplanes. On some 
     newer generation airplanes, we frequently ask the pilots to 
     turn off the recirculation fans, which I understand, allows 
     more fresh air into the cabin. This procedure, I am told by 
     our engineers, theoretically uses more fuel, however, it does 
     improve air quality. You can surmise in an era of cost 
     control that this practice is not popular among airline 
     management's.
       Another area that contributes to poor air quality is the 
     lack of adequate maintenance of the filtration systems. I 
     have witnessed filters that are so black and clogged I don't 
     know how any air could have passed through. On a recent 
     flight from Los Angeles to Washington, a frequent flying 
     passenger repeatedly asked me to ask the pilots to improve 
     the air quality and air flow. He proclaimed to all who were 
     around that, ``I travel all the time and we are all going to 
     have black lungs from the air on board airplanes. These new 
     planes are terrible.'' I repeatedly relayed his requests to 
     the cockpit.
       Due to design, it would appear, air quality continues to 
     deteriorate. This is a real problem for flights attendants as 
     well as the traveling public.
                                                                    ____


                       Statement of Janie Johnson

       As a veteran flight attendant for 23 years, I believe the 
     air quality continues to deteriorate. A great number of 
     flight attendants experience headaches, have difficulty 
     breathing, suffer from upper respiratory problems and are 
     fatigued.
       On August 24, 1994, I worked a flight from Washington, DC 
     to Anchorage International via Denver's Stapleton airport. It 
     was an aircraft with recirculating cabin air and was a non-
     smoking flight. The air was stuffy. Many passengers requested 
     aspirin and I myself had a terrible headache, with sharp 
     pains between my eyes. I also had a difficult time breathing. 
     It was as if someone was standing on my chest.
       We reported this to the pilots and they turned off a 
     recirculation fan to see if it would help and it did. Within 
     approximately 20 minutes I found it much easier to breath and 
     my headache was gone.
       Upon our return flight from Anchorage to Dulles, via Denver 
     on a different aircraft of the same type, we experienced the 
     same symptoms and again the pilots turned off one of the 
     recirculation fans. The results were the same. We did notice 
     that the ceiling vents in both galleys were obstructed by 
     lint. We logged the problems with the air quality and upon 
     our arrival into Denver, mechanics removed the covers and 
     cleaned the filters. They were almost totally blanketed with 
     what appeared to be lint, and other debris.
       I am not a doctor nor a mechanic but just a flight 
     attendant that makes a living of working on board airplanes. 
     Lack of good air quality is negatively impacting not only my 
     health but the health of my flying partners and passengers 
     who travel on board our airplanes every day. During a 
     conference call regarding air quality on one of the new 
     generation of aircraft with recirculated air, the maintenance 
     engineer commented, ``when I went to training for this 
     system, I was told it was a flying cold.''
       Numerous incidents of poor air quality have been filed by 
     flight attendants, yet, over the years, conditions continue 
     to worsen. It would appear for the sake of some fuel savings, 
     air quality and our health and safety continue to suffer.
                                 ______

      By Mr. HOLLINGS:
  S. 1866. A bill to amend title 18, United States Code, to clarify 
Federal jurisdiction over offenses relating to damage to religious 
property.


                The Church Arson Prevention Act of 1996

  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill aimed 
at providing a mechanism for Federal law enforcement to combat the most 
recent scourge to sweep across the Southeast. I am talking about the 
burnings of black churches that have been making such dramatic 
headlines lately. The burning of houses of worship have been taking 
place for the past 5 or 6 years, but this particular outbreak of fires 
has all the characteristics of an epidemic. Not since the sixties have 
I been witness to such blatant intolerance and hatred, such utterly 
despicable acts of American citizens against their fellow Americans as 
has I have seen over these past few weeks. I turn on the news and see a 
burning church, a haunting image with horrific symbolic and practical 
implications, and I say this must stop. Not just this specific rash of 
crime, but the whole trend toward violence and intolerance in our 
society. We as Americans have fought too hard to let racial or 
religious intolerance once again pollute our democracy.
  This morning I accompanied President Clinton as he traveled to South 
Carolina. I welcome his strong presence in the midst of this unsettling 
trend, and moreover I welcome the message he brought to my home State. 
This country is stronger than the forces of hatred that would divide 
us. We will rebuild, and we will punish those responsible for these 
episodes of destruction.
  To fight against the forces of divisiveness, we must pull together as 
a community. In the South, that means rebuilding, it means 
congregations of churches all over America picking a Sunday and 
dedicating their collections to rebuild these burned churches. Here in 
the Government, in means using every means within our power to make 
sure that this never happens again.
  As of this moment, we don't have legislation that adequately 
addresses this brand of criminal behavior. The investigations by 
Federal authorities, and their ability to prosecute these cases have 
been limited by the current law. The bill I propose will remove the 
impediments to bringing Federal cases, and give the Attorney General an 
effective, and necessary weapon with which to combat these crimes. 
Section 247 of title 18, United States Code, makes it a crime to damage 
religious property or to obstruct persons in the free exercise of 
religious beliefs. I propose to amend this by requiring only that the 
offense ``is in or affects interstate or foreign commerce.'' Congress 
will be effectively granting jurisdiction over all conduct which may be 
reached under the interstate commerce clause of the constitution.
  Additionally, the bill eliminates the $10,000 threshold for fire 
damages to grant Federal jurisdiction in cases where there is only 
minimal damage. This way, desecration or defacement of houses of 
worship can be prosecuted under 18 U.S.C. 247.
  I urge the Senate to act quickly and adopt this provision. As I 
understand a similar measure is making its way through the House, the 
Senate should also act in an expeditious manner to ensure the Federal 
Government has the necessary authority to combat this tragic epidemic.
  More importantly, this country must come together, leave racial 
intolerance behind, and insure that we end this type of bigotry.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1866

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Church Arson Prevention Act 
     of 1996''.

     SEC. 2. DAMAGE TO RELIGIOUS PROPERTY.

       Section 247 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) so that subsection (b) reads as follows:
       ``(b) The circumstances referred to in subsection (a) are 
     that the offense is in or affects interstate or foreign 
     commerce.''; and
       (2) in subsection (a)(1), by inserting ``, racial, or 
     ethnic'' before ``character''.
                                 ______

      By Mr. BIDEN (for himself and Mr. Specter):

[[Page S6147]]

  S. 1867. A bill to restore the American family, enhance support and 
work opportunities for families with children, reduce out-of-wedlock 
pregnancies, reduce welfare dependence, and control welfare spending; 
to the Committee on Finance.


               the bipartisan welfare reform act of 1996

  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, since 1987, when I first proposed an 
overhaul of the welfare system, I have argued that welfare recipients 
should be required to work. Nine years later, America is still in need 
of fundamental welfare reform.
  So, today, Mr. President, Senator Specter and I are introducing the 
Bipartisan Welfare Reform Act of 1996--the Senate companion to 
legislation introduced in April by Representatives Mike Castle and John 
Tanner and 30 moderate House Members from both parties.
  Let me briefly review how we got to this point and why we are taking 
this action.
  Last September, the Senate passed a bipartisan welfare reform bill by 
an overwhelming vote of 87-12. I voted for that bill, and President 
Clinton said he could sign it.
  Since then, however, polarizing partisanship and Presidential 
politics have permeated this issue. And, the result has been paralysis. 
Nothing has been accomplished.
  In an attempt to break the gridlock, last February, the Nation's 
Governors--led by my Governor, Tom Carper--proposed a bipartisan 
welfare reform bill. In April, Representatives Castle and Tanner and a 
group of other moderates wrote what I believe is a first-rate 
bipartisan welfare reform plan.
  No such bipartisan plan to date has been introduced in the Senate. 
And, as this issue will be back before us again soon, Senator Specter 
and I decided that now is the time--and the Castle-Tanner proposal is 
the bill to move us forward.
  What this bill proposes, in and of itself, is not new. What is new is 
that it is being proposed all together in a bipartisan fashion.
  For that, Representative Castle and Senator Specter deserve great 
applause. They are reaching across the aisle to do what the American 
people sent us to Congress to do--work together to solve the problems 
facing this country. And, again, I think the bill we are introducing 
today is a first-rate bill.
  To highlight the basic principles: there would be a 5-year time limit 
on receiving welfare benefits. After 2 years, welfare recipients would 
be required to work--at least 25 hours per week. And, child care would 
be available, so that children are not left home alone while their 
mothers are working.
  The bill would make getting tough on the deadbeat dads who do not pay 
child support as high a priority as getting tough on the welfare moms. 
And, the bill takes steps to crack down on welfare--particularly food 
stamp--fraud.
  This will all sound familiar to those who have followed this debate. 
And, as I said a moment ago, it is. For the principles have never been 
in doubt--almost everyone agrees on them.
  You see, what has been lost in the shuffle and shouting of the last 
10 months is that there is a great deal of common ground on welfare 
reform. So much so, that if you leave behind the politics and the 
partisanship, a tough, bipartisan welfare reform bill is easily within 
reach.
  I think this is that bill. But, if not, it is awfully darn close. Let 
me just mention a couple of examples of bipartisan compromise.
  For Republicans, the bill converts aid to families with dependent 
children--AFDC-- to a block grant to the States. For Democrats, it more 
adequately invests in child care.
  For Republicans, the bill freezes funding for cash welfare payments. 
For Democrats, it provides additional help to those States faced with 
economic downturns.
  For Republicans, the bill imposes a family cap. For Democrats, it 
gives States flexibility to opt out.
  Is this bill exactly how I would have written a bill on my own in the 
solitude of my office? The answer is no. But, if we are going to move 
forward, we must stop insisting that there be a perfect bill or no bill 
at all.
  It is time to say that we do not care who gets credit for reforming 
welfare. It is time to just do it--in a bipartisan fashion--for the 
sake of the American people and for the sake of the people on welfare.
  I urge my colleagues to cosponsor the Biden-Specter Bipartisan 
Welfare Reform Act, and I ask unanimous consent that a summary of the 
bill prepared by Representative Tanner be included in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

        Highlights of the Bipartisan Welfare Reform Act of 1996


 title i--block grant for temporary assistance to needy families (tanf)

       Basic grant. Consolidates funding for AFDC, JOBS and 
     Emergency Assistance (EA) into a $16.35 annual billion block 
     grant to states beginning in FY 1997 called the Temporary 
     Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grant.
       Supplemental grant fund of $800 million for FY 1997-FY 2000 
     for states with high population growth and/or low grant 
     amounts per poor person.
       Contingency Fund for State Welfare Programs. Establishes a 
     contingency fund for states of $2 billion in matching funds 
     over five years (FY 1997-2001) for states that experience 
     high unemployment or an increase in the food stamp caseload. 
     States must also meet a 100% maintenance of effort 
     requirement in the year they use the contingency fund. Funds 
     are provided at the end and cannot exceed 20% of a state's 
     annual TANF grant in a fiscal year.
       State plan. States would be required to submit a state plan 
     for approval in order to receive federal funds. The Secretary 
     must approve any plan which meets the following basic 
     requirements:
       Work Requirements. Require all able-bodied recipients to 
     engage in work activities within two years of receiving 
     assistance.
       Fair and equitable treatment. Set forth objective criteria 
     for the delivery of benefits and the determination of 
     eligibility and fair and equitable treatment, treat families 
     with similar needs and circumstances similarly and provide 
     opportunities for recipients who have been adversely affected 
     to be heard in a state administrative or appeal process.
       Out of wedlock pregnancies. Establish goals and take 
     actions to reduce the incidence of out of wedlock 
     pregnancies, with special emphasis on teenagers.
       Other programs. Have in place a child support enforcement 
     and child protection programs.
       Local Control. Certify that 1) local governments and 
     private sector organizations are included in all phases of 
     developing the plan; 2) local officials who are responsible 
     for administration of services are able to plan, design and 
     administer programs in their jurisdiction; and 3) there are 
     no unfunded mandates on local governments.
       Non-displacement. Certify that the state program will not 
     result in the displacement of any current employees or 
     replacement of an employee who was terminated with 
     individuals receiving assistance under the state plan.
       Maintenance of effort. 85% maintenance of effort 
     requirement through FY 2001 based on a state's FY 1994 
     spending on AFDC, JOBS, and AFDC-related child care and EA. 
     State spending on programs that were not part of the state's 
     AFDC program would not be counted in meeting the maintenance 
     of effort. The Secretary may reduce the maintenance of effort 
     requirement by up to 5% (down to 80%) for states that have 
     high performance in placing individuals in private sector 
     employment and increase the states maintenance of effort by 
     up to 5% (up to 90%) if the state fails to meet the work 
     participation rates.
       Transferability. States may transfer up to 20% of the 
     federal TANF grant to the Child care and Development Block 
     grant.
       Time limits on benefits:
       Five year federal limit. A state may not provide cash 
     assistance to a family that includes and adult who has 
     received any assistance under the TANF grant for 60 months.
       State option for time limits. States have the option of 
     terminating benefits to a family that includes an adult who 
     has received assistance for 24 months.
       Exemption to time limits. States may grant exemptions to up 
     to 20% of the caseload for either reason of hardship or if 
     the individual has been battered or subject to extreme 
     cruelty.
       Vouchers. States have the option of providing assistance in 
     the form of vouchers for the needs of the child (diapers, 
     etc.) for families who lose benefits as a result of the 
     federal five year time limit. States must provide vouchers to 
     families who lose assistance as a result of a state time 
     limit of less than five years.
       Work requirements. States must require a parent or 
     caretaker receiving assistance under the program to engage in 
     work after receiving assistance for 24 months:
       Individual Responsibility Contract. Require welfare 
     recipients sign an individual responsibility contract 
     developed by the state upon becoming eligible for cash 
     assistance. The individual responsibility contract would 
     outline what actions the individual would take to move to 
     private sector employment. The contract will also outline 
     what services the state will provide to the individual.
       Eligible work activities. Unsubsidized employment; 
     subsidized private and public sector employment; work 
     experience, on-the-job

[[Page S6148]]

     training; job search and job readiness (limited to 12 weeks 
     in a year); community service; vocational educational 
     training (not to exceed 12 months for any individual). 
     Education and job skills training will not count toward 
     meeting the first 20 hours of participation (unless in the 
     case of education, the parent is a teen). Individuals who 
     have welfare for private sector employment (``leavers'') 
     would be considered as engaged in work activities for 
     purposes of calculating participation rates for six months 
     provided that they remain employed.
       Required hours. The minimum average number of hours per 
     week for all recipients in 20 hours for FY 1996, FY 1997, and 
     FT 1998; and 25 hours in FY 1999 and thereafter.
       Participation rates. States must meet the following 
     participation rates for single parent families: 1996-15%, 
     1997-20%, 1998-25%, 1999-30, 2000-35%, 2001-40%, 2002 and 
     thereafter-50%. The rates for two-parent families are: 1996-
     50%, 1997-75%, 1998-75%, 1999 and thereafter-90%.
       Pro rata reduction in participation rate. States will 
     receive pro rata reduction in the participation rate 
     requirement if the number of families receiving assistance 
     under the State program is less than the number of families 
     that received the AFDC in FY 1995.
       Work Funding. Provides $3 billion in supplemental funds for 
     the operation of work programs that states can draw down 
     beginning in 1999 if the state is maintaining 100% of 1994 
     state spending on AFDC work programs and demonstrates that it 
     needs additional funds to meet the work requirements or 
     certifies that it intends to exceed the work requirements. 
     The state must match the additional federal funds for work 
     programs at FMAP.
       Other Provisions:
       Minor mothers. Teen parents under age 18 must attend school 
     and live at home or with a responsible adult. States have the 
     option of denying aid to unmarried teen mothers and their 
     children.
       Family cap. States have the option of denying cash 
     assistance to additional children born or conceived while the 
     parent is on welfare.
       Bonuses for reducing out-of-wedlock births. Includes 
     bonuses to states that reduce out-of-wedlock births without 
     increasing abortions.


                          Title II--SSI REFORM

       SSI Benefits for children. Reform the SSI program to 
     address the so-called ``crazy check'' problem in the child 
     SSI program by eliminating the current Individualized 
     Functional equivalency standards, maladaptive behavior and 
     psychoactive substance dependence disorder. The Social 
     Security Administration would be required to revise 
     functional equivalency standard within the medical listings. 
     All children who are currently on the rolls as a result of 
     the IFA process would be reevaluated under the new criteria 
     established in Section 9601. Parents would be required to 
     demonstrate that funds received from SSI were used to assist 
     the disabled child during the review. The provisions would be 
     effective on October 1, 1996.
       Deeming of parents income for children. Increase the 
     portion of the income of a child's parents that is ``deemed'' 
     in determining the eligibility of that child for SSI for 
     families with incomes above 150% of poverty.
       Disability Review for SSI recipients who are 18 years of 
     age. Requires children who received SSI benefits to undergo a 
     disability review before being placed on the adult rolls at 
     age 18.
       SSI benefits for individuals convicted of fraud. Denies 
     benefits for ten years to an individual who is found to have 
     fraudulently misrepresenting residence in order to receive 
     AFDC, TEA, Food Stamps or SSI benefits simultaneously in two 
     or more states.
       SSI benefits for fugitive felons and probation and parole 
     violators. Denies SSI benefits to individuals in any month in 
     which the individual is fleeing prosecution or imprisonment. 
     Authorizes SSA to provide information regarding SSI 
     beneficiaries if requested by law enforcement officers for 
     recipients who are fleeing prosecution or imprisonment.
       SSI Continuing Disability Reviews. Requires Social Security 
     Administration to schedule continuing disability reviews 
     (CDRs) for all current and future adult SSI recipients to 
     ensure that they are still eligible. The CDRs would be 
     scheduled on a staggered schedule with reviews every three 
     years for covered individuals. Individuals who have 
     disabilities which are not expected to improve or who are 
     more than 65 years old would be exempt.


                        Title III--CHILD SUPPORT

       Distribution. Post-welfare arrearages must be paid to the 
     family first beginning October 1, 1997. Pre-welfare 
     arrearages will also be paid to the family first but the 
     effective date for this provision will be October 1, 2000. If 
     pre-welfare arrearages paid to the family exceed state 
     savings from the elimination of the $50 disregard and other 
     methods of improving collections in the bill, the federal 
     government will pay the difference to the state.
       Incentive adjustments. The Secretary will develop a new 
     performance-based incentive system to be effective October 1, 
     1997.
       System automation. Extends the 90% enhanced match for state 
     implementation of the data systems requirement that were 
     created by the Family Support Act until October 1, 1997. 
     States must have submitted their advance planning document by 
     September 30, 1995. Increases in the funding available for 
     new systems requirements to $400 million from the $260 
     million, originally included in both bills. Provides an 
     enhanced match of 80% for new requirements.
       Paternity establishment rate. Increases the paternity 
     establishment rate from 75% to 90%. States failing to reach 
     it or make adequate progress will have their TANF grant 
     reduced. Paternity establishment ratio is amended to be based 
     on all children born out-of-wedlock, not just to those 
     receiving AFDC or child support services.
       New requirements. States must establish an automated 
     central registry of IV-D case records and support orders and 
     an automated directory of new hires; operate a centralized 
     unit to collect and disburse all child support orders (not 
     just IV-D cases); and meet expanded requirements around 
     enforcement and paternity establishment.
       Licenses. Requires states to have laws suspending drivers, 
     professional, occupation and recreational license for overdue 
     child support.


                         Title IV--IMMIGRATION.

       Food stamp and SSI bar. Current and future immigrants are 
     barred from food stamps and SSI until attaining citizenship 
     with the following exceptions:
       (1) Children are exempted from the food stamp ban;
       (2) Disabled children;
       (3) Victims of domestic abuse;
       (4) Refugees in their five years in the U.S.;
       (5) Veterans and active duty service members and their 
     spouses and dependents;
       (6) Individuals who have worked and paid FICA taxes for 60 
     months.
       5-year ban. New entrants are denied all other federally 
     means-tested benefits for five years after arrival in the 
     U.S. with same exemptions as above. Programs not included in 
     the bar include Medicaid emergency medical services, child 
     nutrition, immunization programs, foster care and adoption 
     assistance, higher education loans and grants and Chapter 1.
       Deeming until citizenship required for Medicaid (same 
     exemptions as above) for all immigrants until citizenship.
       State options. New immigrants would be barred for five 
     years from Medicaid, Title XX and the TANF block grant. 
     States have the option to deny or restrict benefits under 
     these programs for current immigrants and new immigrants 
     (after their first five years). State authority to limit 
     eligibility of immigrants for state and local means-tested 
     programs. Non-profit organizations and community 
     organizations designated by the state attorney general would 
     be exempted from enforcing this ban.
       Affidavits of support. Sponsors' affidavits of support are 
     binding and enforceable against the sponsors until the 
     immigrant attains citizenship.


          title v.--reductions in federal government positions

       Requires a reduction of 75 percent in the number of federal 
     positions in agencies that administer programs that have been 
     converted into a block grant.


                  title vi.--reform of public housing

       Ensures that penalties imposed by states against 
     individuals who fail to comply with rules under welfare 
     programs do not result in reduced public and assisted housing 
     rents.


                         title vii.--child care

       Funding. Over the period FY 1997-FY 2002, combines $13.85 
     billion in mandatory funding and $6 billion in discretionary 
     spending into the Child Care and Development Block Grant 
     (CCDBG):
       Discretionary funding (representing the old CCDBG) is 
     authorized at $1 billion annually and must be appropriated 
     annually. Allocation of these funds to states is based on 
     current CCDBG formula.
       Mandatory funding or entitlement funding levels are $1.967 
     billion in FY 1997, $2.067 billion in FY 1999, $2.367 billion 
     in FY 2000, $2.567 billion in FY 2001 and $2.717 billion in 
     FY 2002. States will receive a ``base allocation'' based on 
     what they received in previous years funds above this amount 
     will be distributed on a matching basis.
       CCDBG rules. Rules and regulations of the Child Care 
     Development Block Grant apply to all funds under the child 
     care section. Retains current requirement that states apply 
     minimum health and safety standards to providers and adds a 
     requirement that states not implement any policy or practice 
     that has the effect of restricting parental choice. All funds 
     must be transferred to the lead agency under the Child care 
     and Development Block Grant. There will be a 5 percent cap on 
     administrative costs.


                       Title IX.--CHILD NUTRITION

       Child and Adult Care Food Program. Restructures the meal 
     reimbursements for family day care homes in the Child and 
     Adult Care Food Program (CACFP) by targeting assistance to 
     poorer areas.
       Summer Food Service Program. Reduces the reimbursement rate 
     for breakfast, lunches and snacks served under the Summer 
     Food Service Program.


                      Title X.--FOOD STAMP REFORM

       Fraud and Abuse. All of USDA's proposals to combat food 
     stamp fraud and abuse are included, whereas HR 4 included 
     only some of those proposals.
       Cooperations with child support agencies Requiring food 
     stamp participants to cooperate with child support agencies 
     will be an option for the States, rather than a mandate as 
     under HR 4.

[[Page S6149]]

       Adjustments to Thrifty Food Program. Food stamp benefits 
     will be based on 100% of the Thrifty Food Plan rather than 
     103% as in current law, as in both bills. The standard 
     deduction used in calculating food stamp eligibility and 
     benefit levels will be reduced.
       Simplified food stamp program States will be authorized to 
     operate a simplified food stamp program, combining elements 
     of the food stamp program and the cash welfare program. Such 
     a program must be approved by the Secretary and may not 
     increase federal costs or substantially alter the appropriate 
     distribution of benefits according to household need.
       Waiver authority USDA will be required to respond to a 
     request of a State for a waiver of food stamp rules within 60 
     days of receipt of the request.


                        Title XI.--MISCELLANEOUS

       Appropriation of funds by state legislature. Requires that 
     block grants must be appropriated in accordance with the laws 
     and procedures applicable to expenditures of the state's own 
     revenues, including appropriation by the state legislature. 
     Applies to the cash assistance, child care, child protection 
     and optional food stamp block grants. (This would preempt 
     state law in a number of states.)
       Social Services Block Grant. Reduces the mandatory spending 
     level of the Social Services Block Grant by 10% beginning in 
     FY 1997 through FY2002--from $2.8 billion to $2.52 billion 
     annually.
       Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) programs. Exempts state 
     and local government electronic benefit transfer programs 
     from Regulation E of the Electronic Funds Transfer Act.

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to speak on the 
Biden-Specter Bipartisan Welfare Reform Act of 1996, a companion 
measure to H.R. 3266, the Castle-Tanner Bipartisan Welfare Reform Act 
of 1996. At the outset, I want to compliment my colleague from 
Delaware, Senator Biden, and Congressmen Castle and Tanner for their 
efforts in drafting a strong, bipartisan bill that represents 
commonsense welfare reform and should attract a broad consensus. Our 
basic objective in reforming the welfare system is the reduction of 
poverty and the improvement of the standard of living of millions of 
Americans. We should not let this goal become lost in partisan politics 
and we should not wait for the next election to achieve welfare reform 
and a balanced budget. This Congress can be known as the can do 
Congress if we work together on these vital issues.
  I support many of the principles reflected in the Bipartisan Welfare 
Reform Act, such as establishing new work requirements in conjunction 
with improved job training, child care, and other support services for 
welfare recipients trying to end their dependence on Government 
assistance. I also support its get-tough policy on collecting overdue 
child support and on reducing fraud in various Government benefit 
programs. Although I have concerns about some of the provisions in our 
legislation, such as the calculation of the formula for the State block 
grant, it is important to demonstrate that there is a bipartisan effort 
in the Senate on reforming welfare and I intend to address my 
reservations during the coming weeks as welfare reform proposals are 
considered in the Senate. While I have some reservations, I believe 
this bill is a good starting point for bipartisan legislation.
  Looking back to my youth, I began to learn about some of the problems 
of welfare while growing up in Russell, KS, a small agricultural-oil 
community. Then, upon moving to Philadelphia for college I saw the 
problems that can arise in a large city. I have observed problems of 
welfare dependency for more than 30 years, going back to my earliest 
days of public service. As an assistant district attorney in 
Philadelphia, I saw the tremendous impact, the tremendous cost 
occasioned by a program which did not realistically move people from 
welfare rolls to payrolls. I learned a great deal about the problems of 
poverty and the interrelation of jobs, housing, education, welfare, and 
crime. Later, as district attorney, I brought prosecutions on welfare 
fraud which I believe were among the first to be brought in the 
country. So my concern about welfare reform goes back a long way.
  Mr. President, in the mid-1980's I had the pleasure of introducing 
and cosponsoring several pieces of welfare reform legislation that 
included job training for economically disadvantaged individuals. In 
the 99th Congress, I cosponsored Senate bills 2578 and 2579 with 
Senator Moynihan, which were directed toward improving the welfare 
system. In the 100th Congress, I introduced similar legislation with 
Senator Dodd and worked closely with Senator Moynihan on the 
legislation that became the first comprehensive welfare reform bill, 
the Family Welfare Reform Act of 1988, which was signed by President 
Reagan.
  It is against this background of my own involvement with the problem 
of welfare that I am seeking to work with my colleagues again this year 
in fashioning legislation that will constitute firm action to put many 
able-bodied people back to work while ensuring that a social safety net 
continues to exist, particularly where children are involved.
  As we revisit this debate, it is painfully obvious to me that our 
welfare system has not worked. When one weighs all the factors, it is 
apparent that we must try a new approach at the Federal level. 
Consider, for example, the astonishing fact that the overall percentage 
of persons in poverty in 1994 was roughly equivalent to poverty rates 
in 1965--the year the Federal Government broadened its role in reducing 
poverty in our society. In my own State of Pennsylvania, I have been 
troubled that as many as 5 percent of our more than 11 million 
residents were receiving some form of welfare benefits as of the end of 
1994, more than double the 2.4 percent that were receiving benefits in 
1965. Further, since 1965, the number of Pennsylvanians receiving aid 
to families with dependent children has risen from 276,000 to 608,000.

  There are ongoing efforts at real welfare reform at the State level, 
such as in Wisconsin, where Gov. Tommy Thompson has made notable 
progress. In Pennsylvania, Gov. Tom Ridge recently signed into law far-
reaching welfare reform which will institute agreements between the 
government and welfare recipients that spell out the steps they must 
take to move from welfare to work. Pennsylvania's new law emphasizes 
work, personal responsibility, job training, child care, and other 
support services, all of which are key elements of the Biden-Specter 
reform plan. While I do not agree with all provisions of the proposed 
Pennsylvania legislation, I do concur that reform legislation is 
needed.
  Because a new approach is merited, Congress should pass welfare 
reform legislation that the President will sign into law. Last year, 
Congress passed H.R. 4, the Personal Responsibility and Work 
Opportunity Act of 1995, and H.R. 2491, the Balanced Budget 
Reconciliation Act of 1995, both of which were vetoed by President 
Clinton. In order to bridge the differences between Congress and the 
President concerning how to balance the budget and reform welfare, I 
began working with the centrist coalition, a bipartisan group of 22 
Senators led by Senators Chafee and Breaux, to craft a 7-year 
comprehensive balanced budget proposal. This plan, which would achieve 
$45 to $53 billion savings by reforming the welfare system, was offered 
as a substitute to the fiscal year 1997 budget resolution, but failed 
by a vote of 46 to 53. Although the coalition budget failed to win a 
majority, it showed once again that there is great potential in this 
body for initiatives presented in a bipartisan manner. If the policies 
work, there is ample credit to be shared. But, if we don't try to work 
together, we deserve to share the blame.
  The bill which I am jointly introducing today, the Bipartisan Welfare 
Reform Act of 1996, represents another attempt to generate a broad 
consensus and achieve meaningful welfare reform this year. The Biden-
Specter bill builds on the conference report to H.R. 4 and the 
bipartisan Governors' proposal, but is more specific and requires 
stronger State accountability and maintenance of effort in important 
areas, such as child care and contingency funding. Like other proposals 
considered by this Congress, this legislation delivers a strong message 
that many Americans who are currently on welfare need to get into the 
work force and pursue job training. Significantly, we will be giving 
the States greater latitude to analyze and deal with the problems 
closer to home. I am hopeful that this will result in better tailored, 
more cost-effective social programs. However, effective welfare reform 
is not simply a matter of increasing flexibility or shifting 
incentives. The movement toward block grants is a sound one, provided 
that there are some limitations

[[Page S6150]]

and requirements that continue to be imposed by the Federal Government 
in Washington. We need to make sure that we simply do not give the 
States a blank check where money may be spent for other purposes that 
fail to protect a national interest identified by Congress.
  Among its key provisions, the legislation we are introducing today 
does the following: First, it limits benefits--no cash assistance 
beyond 5 years except exemptions for up to 20 percent of a State's 
caseload for reason of hardship or if individual was battered or 
subject to extreme cruelty; second, it requires that 50 percent of 
welfare recipients must be working by the year 2002--all able-bodied 
recipients must engage in work activities within 2 years of receiving 
benefits, generally 25 hours/week, but 20 hours/week for parents with 
children 6 and under; third, it requires States to meet 85 percent 
level of maintenance of effort, which is stronger State accountability 
than last year's GOP plan, 75 percent, Chafee-Breaux, 80 percent or 
this year's GOP plan, 75 to 80 percent; fourth, it requires welfare 
recipients to sign an individual responsibility contract developed by 
the State upon becoming eligible for cash assistance, which would 
outline steps the individual must take to get in private sector and 
would outline the State's obligations; fifth, it allows eligible work 
activities to include unsubsidized employment, subsidized private and 
public sector employment, on-the-job training, vocational training, 
community service; sixth, it provides an additional $3 billion for 
work-related programs beginning in 1999 if States are meeting 100 
percent of their fiscal year 1994 spending levels and need more funds 
for work participation; seventh, it provides $20 billion in mandatory 
and discretionary child care funding over the next 6 years, an amount 
higher than last year's Senate bill, similar to Chafee-Breaux, and 
recommended by the National Governors Association--also maintains 
current law's Federal health and safety protections for licensed child 
care providers; eighth, during economic downturns, States can access a 
$2 billion contingency fund if they have high unemployment rates or 
high rates of increase in their food stamp population--also provides 
$800 million in additional funding for States with rapid population 
increases and a $1.7 billion loan fund for States that need additional 
money; and ninth, it requires States to enforce and improve existing 
child support laws, including the suspension of certain licenses for 
overdue child support--also increases the likelihood that a child's 
paternity will be established.

  As my colleagues are aware, I had some real reservations about some 
aspects of last year's welfare reform legislation. Although I supported 
the conference report on H.R. 4 because it advanced the underlying goal 
of reforming a program that has discouraged poor families from working, 
I would have preferred that the original Senate-passed bill, agreed to 
by a virtual consensus of 87 to 12, become law. Some of my concerns are 
met by the legislation we are introducing today. I am hopeful that my 
additional concerns will be met as the Senate considers this and other 
welfare reform legislation during the balance of the 104th Congress.
  Mr. President, as we move forward with budget reconciliation, I will 
continue to work with my colleagues to craft legislation that will not 
only save money and help families mired in poverty to move off of 
welfare and become self-sufficient, but also protect children and 
preserve the rights, dignity, and well-being of those currently 
involved in our welfare system. I urge my colleagues to support the 
Biden-Specter Bipartisan Welfare Reform Act of 1996 as a commonsense 
approach to this difficult, complex issue which is so important to the 
future of our society.

                          ____________________