[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 106 (Thursday, July 18, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8105-S8150]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY, WORK OPPORTUNITY, AND MEDICAID RESTRUCTURING 
                              ACT OF 1996

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
  Mr. ASHCROFT addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.


                           Amendment No. 4901

    (Purpose: To ensure that welfare recipients are drug-free as a 
condition for receiving welfare assistance from the American taxpayers)

  Mr. ASHCROFT. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Missouri [Mr. Ashcroft] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 4901.

  Mr. ASHCROFT. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that further 
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:
       Strike existing Section 2902, and replace with the 
     following:

     ``SEC. 2902. SANCTIONING WELFARE RECIPIENTS FOR TESTING 
                   POSITIVE FOR THE USE OF CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES.

       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, States shall 
     randomly test welfare recipients, including recipients of 
     assistance under the temporary assistance for needy families 
     program under part A of title IV of the Social Security Act 
     and individuals receiving food stamps under the program 
     defined in section 3(h) of the Food Stamp Act of 1977, for 
     the use of controlled substances and shall sanction welfare 
     recipients who test positive for the use of such illegal 
     drugs.

  Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I understand the distinguished Senator from Missouri 
will agree to 15 minutes and Senator Kennedy, in opposition, to 15 
minutes. I ask unanimous consent that there be 15 minutes on each side 
for a total of 30 minutes on this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. DOMENICI. And I ask unanimous consent that there be no second-
degree amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. CHAFEE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. CHAFEE. I wonder if we could get some indication, while the 
managers are here, of what is going to transpire for the remainder of 
the evening, perhaps tomorrow.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that this not 
be deducted from the time on the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. That was understood, but we will be glad to agree.
  I say to Senator Chafee, we have 28 Democratic amendments and 22 
Republican amendments. We have not had a chance to go through and see 
if there are significant numbers that we could agree to accept. So for 
now we are in business until we get to talk with our leader and see 
what he wants to do. We will take this amendment and use that time to 
see what we can give the Senator by way of assurance. There are a lot 
of Senators who have things planned for this evening, but I think the 
leader made it clear that we want to try to finish this reconciliation 
bill by a time certain, and we are nowhere close to that. So for now, 
the best I can do is say let us wait for at least 30 minutes and then 
try to give you a more concrete answer.
  I thank Senator Ashcroft for yielding.
  Mr. ASHCROFT addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Madam President, the debate over the provisions before 
us today represents an opportunity to change the way we view welfare in 
this country. The question is simple: Will we continue to allow Federal 
assistance to be a way of life?
  That is the fundamental choice we face. Will we see welfare as the 
intergenerational problem that it is, or will we continue to fund this 
failure, this dependence?
  There are a number of things in this bill that would help us make 
sure welfare is no more than a transition. We put time limits on 
welfare, for instance. But if we really want to move people from 
dependence to independence, if we want individuals to move from welfare 
to work, if we really want individuals to change their behavior, I 
think we ought to be asking people to display a set of behaviors which 
readies them for the real world.

  If you want to be part of the working world, you ought to be drug-
free. When you go to work in the private sector, this is the standard. 
As the chart behind me indicates, even in small firms with 1 to 500 
employees, 62 percent test for drugs. Similarly, 88 percent of all 
firms employing over 10,000 people in America require drug testing.
  Now, I ask a simple question: What good does it do for us to allow 
people to remain on drugs if they have little or no capacity to be 
placed in the private sector? If you are on welfare, you should be off 
drugs. Period.
  That is the point that I make, that the American people should not be 
asked to spend their hard-earned resources supporting the drug habits 
of uninterested addicts. Under my amendment, each State would be 
required to create a random drug-testing program as well as sanction 
those individuals who test positive.
  It does mandate that the States require drug testing. No question. It 
is time, however, for us to stop funding the drug habits of individuals 
who have no intention of working toward a job.
  I am pleased, then, to send this amendment to the desk, and to say to

[[Page S8106]]

those individuals who are on welfare, it is time to move from 
dependence to independence and opportunity. I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I yield myself 10 minutes.
  Madam President, I listened with interest to the presentation made by 
the Senator from Missouri regarding his amendment. I bring to the 
attention of the membership that the amendment says ``notwithstanding 
any other provision of law, States shall''--not may, but ``shall''--
``shall test welfare recipients.'' So, effectively this is a mandate. 
The Senator has not commented about how much money these tests would 
cost and who would pay for them. We heard a good deal earlier this year 
about unfunded Federal mandates. Well that's what this amendment is. 
This amendment says that the States shall undertake this activity.
  Now, if the Senator offered an amendment to provide that the 
Governors, or the State legislatures and the Governors, may do this, I 
might urge the Senate to support it. I might support giving States the 
discretion to test, within constitutional limits, provided that they 
comply with the HHS guidelines which ensure maximum accuracy and 
appropriate safeguards.
  But the Senator says we will not leave this matter up to the States. 
We will not let the Governors make a decision or judgment about this. 
This amendment provides no flexibility based on different State 
experiences. This amendment says that every State shall do it.
  I hope in the remaining time, the Senator from Missouri would explain 
to the Senate where the States will get the money to do it. If they use 
money from this bill, it is going to come out of other vital 
activities. If they had discretion, Governors might decide that drug 
testing was a sensible priority for these scarce funds, or they might 
not. But this amendment provides no discretion. As a result, the money 
spent on drug testing will be money not spent on children's programs 
and expectant mother programs. We are going to cut back on those even 
further.
  I would have thought the Senator would at least attempt to justify 
his proposal by arguing that there is a higher incidence of substance 
abuse among AFDC recipients, but he has not made that point. He has not 
made that point because there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that 
it is true. But evidently he believes that poor people need this kind 
of testing, but that other, different groups that get Federal benefits 
do not. We do not drug test farmers applying for crop subsidies. We do 
not drug test homebuyers applying for a federally guaranteed mortgage. 
We do not drug test corporate executives applying for marketing 
assistance overseas. But we are singling out this particular group of 
poor people for this stigmatizing, intrusive procedure.

  Now, the latest information from HHS is that it costs at least $35 to 
conduct a drug test, and that does not include the cost of an 
administrative appeals process, or the cost of treatment for those who 
test positive. There are some 5 million adults receiving AFDC, and that 
is only one category of welfare recipients. So we are looking ar a bare 
minimum price tag of $1.75 billion. That is $1.75 billion, without any 
assurance about what particular tests or laboratories we will have.
  Madam President, it seems to me it would make more sense to say that 
the States may go ahead and develop these programs if they choose 
within constitutional limits and in compliance with the HHS guidelines. 
Let the Governors make that decision. But that is not what this 
amendment is about.
  At an appropriate time, Mr. President, I will make a point of order 
against the amendment.
  Madam President, just a brief comment on the underlying piece of 
legislation that we are considering here this evening. It is shocking 
to me that after months of what I had hoped was progress, our 
Republican friends are once again prepared to shed the fragile and 
frayed safety net designed to protect nearly 9 million American 
children. As I said from the beginning, 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. We all want to 
move families from welfare to work, but we should be clear that this 
bill is still not about real welfare reform but is simply more welfare 
fraud.
  After more than 60 years of a good-faith national commitment to 
protect all needy children, our Republican friends are still proposing 
legislative child neglect, if not abuse. This measure, the broad 
measure, the underlying measure, is an assault on the youngest and most 
vulnerable Americans.
  I urge my colleagues to join with me in doing the right compassionate 
thing and eventually voting no. Granted, after being called on the 
carpet for putting forward their home alone welfare bill, a proposal 
that would have forced mothers into workfare programs even if they had 
no one to care for their children--this bill provides funding for child 
care services. In addition, the Republicans have finally let go of 
their desire to dismantle existing protections for abused and neglected 
children. These are improvements.
  The bill, nevertheless, poses many of the very same dangers to 
children as the bills that have already been vetoed. Madam President, 
here are a few of the tragic consequences. Under the Republican bill, 
destitute children would no longer be able to count on even the most 
basic concern in a time of need. In 1935, Congress made a historic 
promise that no child would be left to face poverty, hunger, and 
disease. This bill permanently breaks that promise. If the Republicans 
have their way, when children need a helping hand, it 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. It will no longer be 
a matter of national policy. It will be a gamble geography.

  Under the Republican bill, more than 1 million adolescent children 
and 4 million parents would lose their currently guaranteed access to 
health care. We know that adequate health care is a major barrier to 
employment. If we are serious about promoting work and reducing long-
term health care costs, this is a major step backward.
  Under the Republican bill, food stamp payments would be reduced to 66 
cents a meal. I do not know how many of my colleagues have tried to 
feed a child for 66 cents, but it is just not possible. By slashing $27 
billion from critically important nutrition programs, the Republican 
bill will leave more than 14 million children at risk of hunger, 
malnutrition, stunted development, and school failure.
  Under the Republican bill, 300,000 children with serious 
disabilities, including mental retardation, tuberculosis, autism, and 
head injuries, will be denied SSI cash benefits and Medicaid 
eligibility.
  The Republican bill pulled back the welcome mat for legal immigrants 
who enter this country under our laws, play by the rules, pay taxes, 
and contribute to our communities. It bans legal immigrants from SSI 
and food stamps. Even if their sponsors cannot help them, they still 
cannot help. Many immigrants, particularly those who come to fill needs 
rather than to unite with families, do not even have sponsors to turn 
to when they need help. Under this bill, if you are a legal immigrant 
and you fall on hard times, you are out of luck.
  Madam President, I can think of no measure that expresses a greater 
hostility toward the immigrants that have made this country great than 
to ban legal immigrants from the ultimate safety net--Medicaid.
  There is a solution to ensure that public assistance is truly a last 
resort for immigrants. We should hold sponsors accountable for the care 
of the immigrants they sponsor. But where the sponsor cannot shoulder 
the burden, or where there is no sponsor, we should be prepared to lend 
a helping hand, particularly to the children. There is much more.
  The Republican bill provides far too few Federal resources to help in 
the training, education, and services needed to help move families from 
welfare to work. It prohibits the States from offering assistance to 
babies born to families on welfare--unless and until they enact laws to 
exempt themselves from this requirement. These provisions are a direct 
assault on children and have nothing at all to do with meaningful 
reform.
  Madam President, right here in the Senate, much of what America has

[[Page S8107]]

stood for is being dismantled and destroyed.
  In the movie ``Independence Day,'' people go to the theater, the 
lights go down, and they sit in the dark to watch a battle between 
aliens and America's best fighters, who win in the end. Here we are 
talking about American children living in poverty, the innocent victims 
of fate. If this bill passes, they will be the innocent victims of 
their own Government.
  Tonight, after the movies, when people shut out their lights, we 
should all think about how fate has treated us and about what kind of 
country we want to live in, about what kind of children we want to grow 
up in this country. We do not need to worry about aliens; we need to 
worry about what we are doing to ourselves, our country, and our 
children. We may be reaching for the gold in Atlanta, but when it comes 
to caring for our children, we are certainly trailing the rest of the 
industrial world here in Washington. Surely, we can do better.
  Mr. BIDEN. Madam President, I support random drug tests, and I have 
voted for random drug tests for welfare and food stamp recipients--as 
recently, in fact, as last May in Senate vote 133. But the big 
distinction between that and what Senator Ashcroft is proposing here is 
that he is making it mandatory--and not providing the money to pay for 
it. We spent the first part of this Congress in 1995 debating the 
entire issue of unfunded mandates. And, here is an unfunded mandate. If 
this amendment had provided the funding or allowed States to do random 
drug tests, I would have supported it, as I have similar proposals in 
the past. But I cannot support this.
  Madam President, I support the right of States to require welfare 
recipients to submit to drug tests and to fulfill a commitment to 
remain drug free as a condition for receiving public assistance. Drug 
abuse is serious, and is all-too-often a heartbreaking problem, 
particularly among young people. And we have to attack it on as many 
fronts as we can. Just yesterday, I joined my friend and colleague, 
Senator Hatch of Utah, in introducing a bill to crack down on the 
manufacture and importation of methamphetamine, or crank.
  But whether a State chooses to combat drug abuse among welfare 
recipients through random testing and punishment, or through other 
methods of screening drug use and efforts to help people get off drugs 
permanently, is a decision that should be left to the States. Random 
drug testing is not cheap, and this amendment, as written, would force 
the States to spend up to $200 million--even if they had in place 
another means to go after drug use money recipients. While I support 
the right of States to test welfare recipients for drug use, I cannot 
support this unfunded mandate.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Madam President, I ask that the Senator from Oklahoma 
[Mr. Nickles] be added as a cosponsor, and I yield 4 minutes to the 
Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SHELBY. Madam President, I rise tonight to join my friend from 
Missouri, Senator Ashcroft, in offering this amendment, which would 
require the States to sanction individuals testing positive for drug 
use. This amendment would go a long way in restoring integrity into our 
system of public assistance.
  Madam President, I trust there is not one Senator in this Chamber who 
would stand here and argue that taxpayers should be forced to subsidize 
the drug habits of other individuals. Yet, if the Federal Government 
continues to send cash payments to individuals using drugs, that is 
exactly what is happening. Not only is that directly contrary to the 
intent of the AFDC program, and others, and a complete waste of the 
taxpayers' money, but it is also very harmful to the parents using 
drugs and the children living in that environment.
  Subsidizing the parents' drug habits will, in the end, destroy their 
chances for ever becoming self-sufficient. They will remain trapped on 
welfare longer and will require substantial rehabilitation.
  However, Madam President, think of what we are doing to the children 
living in that environment. Giving cash to parents using drugs is one 
of the cruelest forms of Federal child abuse I can think of. By cutting 
off or limiting public assistance to those buying drugs, we are 
limiting their ability to buy the drugs. That will improve not only 
their lives, but the lives of their children.
  Madam President, I believe the amendment offered by the distinguished 
Senator from Missouri will restore a great deal to our welfare system. 
I hope my colleagues will support it.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, has all time expired?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. No. The Senator from Missouri has 6 minutes 
and 10 seconds. The Senator from Massachusetts has 5 minutes.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I am more than glad to yield back 4 minutes of the time 
and just take 1 more minute if the Senator wants to yield back his 
time. I am more than glad to do that. If he is going to retain the 
time, I will retain mine.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Before the Senator does that----
  Mr. KENNEDY. I will not do anything until I hear what Senator 
Ashcroft is going to do. If he wants to yield time, I will as well. If 
he does not, I will retain my time.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. I would like to use my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri is recognized.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. I yield myself 4 minutes of the time remaining.
  I have to say that I agree totally with the senior Senator from 
Massachusetts. This amendment is about children. As a matter of fact, 
drug use has been damning to children. It has, as a matter of fact, 
been lethal.
  I would like to introduce you to one such child. This young man is no 
longer with us. His name was Jason. His mother was a 21-year-old 
recipient of the welfare of which we speak, and she funded her drug 
habit with the methamphetamine drug known as crank. Not only was her 
child born drug-addicted, but as a result of the nursing, the child 
literally died of an overdose of methamphetamine.
  So, this amendment is about children. It is also about drug use and 
what that use does to children. It kills them. It is time for us to 
stop this killing.
  This amendment is also about preparing for a job. If we are willing 
to say that people who are involved in job training should be subject 
to mandatory drug tests, as we did last October, it seems to me that 
welfare recipients should be held to the same standard. That is what 
this amendment would do.
  Mr. President, let us not lure welfare recipients into a false sense 
of security; stay on drugs and we will still support you. Let us make 
it clear from the very beginning. If you are on welfare, you will be 
off drugs. The taxpayers and the children who aspire to a better 
tomorrow deserve nothing less.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, we can all have a feel good vote and 
support Senator Ashcroft's amendment and think we are doing something 
about children. But the underlying bill cuts back on nutrition support 
for 14 million children in the United States. So who really favors 
children?
  It is interesting listening to this Senator from Missouri. He says we 
know better, Washington knows better, we ought to tell those States how 
to run their programs. Of course he tells us something entirely 
different in another context. I hope we can let the Governors make this 
decision.
  And remember the backdrop against which this amendment is offered. 
This Republican Congress has spent the last 2 years cutting back on the 
drug treatment and prevention programs that are designed to help the 
families whose lives have been affected by the scourge of drugs. We 
have tens of thousands of individuals who need and want drug treatment 
today, to free themselves from addiction, but they languish on the 
waiting lists of the treatment programs that still exist after the 
Republican budget cut these programs almost 20 percent. So we can 
pretend to be tough about drugs by voting for this amendment, but if we 
really wanted to fight drugs we would provide treatment to the people 
who need it and are begging for it.
  The Senator from Missouri talks about substance-abusing mothers. But 
there is no money in here to assist any of those individuals who might 
test positive and want freedom from addiction. Does the amendment have 
any

[[Page S8108]]

money for treating these women so that they can be better mothers to 
their children? No. It is not provided.
  Not only is money for treatment not provided. There is no money in 
here for the testing itself. It is $1.75 billion, and the Senator does 
not show where it comes from.
  On the underlying measure, we have 1.3 million children who are going 
to be thrown off Medicaid. We are supposed to shed crocodile tears 
about drug-abusing mothers under the Ashcroft amendment, but the bill 
says to 1.3 million Americans, ``You are going to be denied any kind of 
help and assistance.'' Are we going to say to the 4 million mothers who 
are being denied Medicaid, many of them of childbearing age, that they 
are going to be denied prenatal care? The baby may get some care, but 
we are denying the mothers the prenatal care? Do we care about 
children?
  It is difficult for me to be persuaded by the Senator's argument 
about how concerned we are about children when the underlying bill so 
badly frays the social safety net for children.
  In conclusion, the amendment is an unfunded mandate on the States. It 
does not provide the money to conduct the drug tests. And it is simply 
inhumane to test these people and throw them into the street when the 
Republican budget so dramatically cuts back on the drug treatment 
programs that provide assistance for those individuals who want to free 
themselves from substance abuse.
  I withhold whatever time I have.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Are we clear on time on amendments yet?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 2 minutes left for each side.
  Mr. ASHCROFT addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Madam President, thank you very much.
  The case of Jason Allen is not an isolated case. I could fill the 
Record with cases of children who are drug abused, or victims of the 
drug abuse of their parents, all funded by a welfare system that is the 
subject of this debate.
  This amendment does nothing to impair our ability to care for 
children. Far from it. This amendment merely says that we ought to 
provide incentives for our children to live in drug-free environments, 
not drug-laden environments.
  If we care about children, we cannot allow the current devastation to 
persist. It has occurred for too long. It has ruined families and 
ruined children. This amendment is an important first step in the right 
direction.
  With that, Madam President, I thank you. I yield the floor.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, we still have not heard from the 
Senator about what is going to happen to those children. What is going 
to happen if the mother is thrown off the welfare rolls for testing 
positive? Say she has been denied treatment, she is on a waiting list 
for drug treatment, and so she tests positive for drug use and forfeits 
her family's welfare benefits. How does that possibly help the 
children? You are prohibiting these women from getting vouchers so that 
they can get diapers, so they can get milk, or infant formula. So what 
happens to these families? They get thrown out on the street, and they 
are made homeless. There is no provision in here to look after the 
children.
  I just think this is a harsh proposal. It is directed toward the 
mother, but it hits the children. It is also reflective of the 
underlying problem with the whole welfare bill. We are fragmenting the 
safety net for children in this country, and I think that is why the 
underlying measure should be defeated as well.
  I withhold the remaining time. I have to withhold enough time to be 
able to make a point of order.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Madam President, I would be pleased to yield the 
remainder of my time for raising the point of order by the Senator from 
Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I yield back all my time, and as I understand when all 
time is yielded that it is appropriate to make the point of order that 
the pending Ashcroft amendment is not germane. I raise the point of 
order that the amendment violates section 305(b) of the Congressional 
Budget Act.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Madam President, I move to waive the Budget Act for 
consideration of my amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the time 
be yielded back on the motion to waive.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. ASHCROFT. There is no objection on my part.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, before we proceed to a vote, could I 
ask Senator Dodd? I understand he has an amendment. If the sponsor and 
the opposition to the previous amendment would permit us, we would like 
to set the motion aside temporarily and take up the Dodd amendment. I 
think the Senator is going to go to 30 minutes equally divided.
  Mr. DODD. That is correct.
  Mr. DOMENICI. And there be no second-degree amendments.
  Mr. DODD. Right.
  Mr. DOMENICI. After which time we will order a rollcall on it, and we 
will then ask they be sequenced----
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Reserving the right to object, might the Senator from 
New Mexico estimate the time at which a vote would occur on this 
amendment, on the motion to waive the budget act?
  Mr. DOMENICI. It looks to me like it would be 6:10.
  Does the Senator want that agreed to now so we do not violate that?
  Mr. ASHCROFT. If it is possible, I would like to defer the vote until 
perhaps 8:30.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I think maybe we better proceed to vote on the motion 
to waive right now, Mr. President. We will just do that and take 
Senator Dodd's up in due course.
  Mr. DODD. I say to my colleague, we will try to get it done quickly. 
The amendment is not a matter of great controversy. I know a lot of 
people wanted to say something about the amendment.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Would the Senator take less?
  Mr. DODD. I will try to do it in 20 minutes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. The amendment was going to be agreed to, so I assume 
the Senator is going to get a very big vote. Would the Senator want to 
agree to let us accept the amendment?
  Mr. DODD. I want a vote, I say, with all due respect, to the 
Chairman, on an issue that has gone back and forth.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Reserving the right to object, is there a reason the 
Senator wants to make his remarks in advance of the vote?
  If the Senator from Connecticut needs to leave for other reasons, I 
would indicate to him that that is the condition in which the Senator 
from Missouri finds himself.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I withdraw my unanimous-consent 
request and ask for the regular order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
waive the Budget Act. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk 
will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Oregon [Mr. Hatfield] 
is necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Oregon [Mr. Hatfield] would vote nay.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Bradley] 
and the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Pryor] are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bennett). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber who desire to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 50, nays 47, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 203 Leg.]

                                YEAS--50

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brown
     Burns
     Campbell
     Coats
     Cochran
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Faircloth
     Feinstein
     Frahm
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kassebaum
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Lieberman
     Lott
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Pressler
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simpson

[[Page S8109]]


     Smith
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--47

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Chafee
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feingold
     Ford
     Glenn
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kempthorne
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lugar
     Mack
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Pell
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Snowe
     Specter
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Bradley
     Hatfield
     Pryor
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 50, the nays are 
47. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected. The point of order is 
sustained.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, our leader will announce his intentions 
shortly, but I just want to say, from the best I can ascertain, there 
are 28 known amendments on the Democratic side, and that does not 
include the list of Byrd rule violations which could be considered to 
be votes. And on our side, there are 22, as of the last count.
  I think the longer we are here, I say to the leader, it is an 
invitation for phone calls. We have about nine additional phone calls 
in our cloakroom from Senators who want to add amendments. So I do not 
believe it is going to be very easy to get this completed. We are going 
to need substantial time.
  I yield to the leader, because I can't do anything about it at this 
point.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, first, I would like to inquire, are we in a 
position where we can get a 20-minute time agreement, equally divided, 
on the Dodd amendment and get a vote on that in 20 minutes?
  Mr. DODD. I say to the majority leader, we had 30 minutes, and we 
will try to use less than that. We have a number of people who want to 
speak. That is the problem. I will try to keep it to no more than 30.
  Mr. LOTT. Are you talking about a total of 30 minutes equally 
divided?
  Mr. DODD. Yes, 30.
  Mr. LOTT. Let me lock this in.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be a 30-minute time 
agreement equally divided on the Dodd amendment, with a vote to follow 
immediately after that time, and no second degrees be in order.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I thought this was an amendment they were 
going to accept.
  Mr. DOMENICI. We told the Senator we would accept it. He desires a 
rollcall vote and desires debate.
  Mr. CHAFEE. If it is going to be accepted, how much debate is there 
going to be on the other side? Can you take 10 minutes?
  Mr. DODD. We are wasting time debating. Why don't we get to the 
amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I don't want to delay time here. There has 
been a suggestion made that we try to work together on both sides of 
the aisle to get a reasonable list of amendments that would be debated 
and voted on. If we could get that done, then we could go to events 
that are scheduled tonight. Some of the Senators would like to be at 
the Olympics tomorrow at 12. Then we would have a series of votes on 
those amendments beginning at 9:30 Tuesday. Basically that is the 
outline of what we were trying to do. But instead of the amendments 
shrinking, they are growing on both sides of the aisle.

  I have suggested to the Democratic leader that we will get our list 
down to five amendments on our side of the aisle for votes, which means 
that some of them will be accepted, some of them will come up another 
day. I mean, that is reasonable. I hope there will be an effort on the 
other side. We debated this before. We made our points. You can make 
your points on your five amendments and we can make whatever points we 
have to on our five amendments or so. It does not have to be exactly 
that number. But if we are talking about a series of 20 to 40 
amendments on Tuesday, that is no accomplishment.
  We do have an alternative. That is to stay here tonight and stay 
tomorrow and complete the time that is remaining and vote on amendments 
tomorrow, which would suit me fine. But I would like to be able to 
accommodate Members on both sides of the aisle who have things that 
they would like to do. I think that would be fair.
  So at this point, I just ask everybody--we have 30 minutes here. Let 
us get serious. Let us get this agreement worked out. Then we can go on 
and do what we need to do tonight and tomorrow. We can take up the 
agricultural appropriations bill Monday. We can debate the amendments 
tonight, tomorrow, and 4 hours on Monday and we can vote on Tuesday. 
That is a mighty good arrangement. We have been having good cooperation 
all week. Let us see if we cannot do it one more time on this very 
important piece of legislation that the President wants and both sides 
of the aisle want. With that, I plead with Members on both sides to 
cooperate with us and let us get a reasonable list worked out.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, let me reiterate as well my desire to see 
if we cannot work this list down in the next 30 minutes. I hope every 
one of the colleagues on my side of the aisle will come to me and tell 
me, No. 1, when they intend to offer the amendment and, No. 2, whether 
they really need a rollcall or whether they would be satisfied with a 
voice vote.
  If we cannot get it down to a reasonable list, I think it is fair to 
say that within a half-hour we would be then in a position to say 
whether we will be here tonight, tomorrow and Monday. So, if we 
cannot--I do not have any plans--we will be here tonight. I have no 
objection to being here tomorrow and Monday, but there are a lot of 
people who have expressed an interest in trying to accommodate the 
schedule that the majority leader has discussed, and I hope we can do 
that, just to take into account some of the people who have already 
made their plans. But we will have to make that decision within the 
next 30 minutes. So, I hope everybody will come to me, and we will 
decide within that 30-minute timeframe whether or not we will be here 
tomorrow and Monday or not.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Could we ask our side to do the same--30 minutes?
  Mr. LOTT. Absolutely.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Just come into the Cloakroom and tell us. We want to 
dispose of them. Thank you.

  Mr. DODD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 4902

  (Purpose: To restore health and safety protections with respect to 
                              child care)

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for 
its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Dodd] for himself, Mr. 
     Coats, Mr. Kennedy, Mrs. Kassebaum, Ms. Snowe, Ms. Mikulski, 
     Mr. Harkin, Mr. Kohl, Mr. Kerry, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Kerrey, Mr. 
     Cohen, Mr. Reid, and Mr. Leahy, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 4902.

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:
       On page 628, strike clauses (vi) and (vii) of section 
     2805(2)(A).

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I offer this amendment on behalf of myself 
and my colleagues, Senators Coats, Kennedy, Kassebaum, Snowe, Mikulski, 
Harkin, Kohl, Kerry, Murray, Kerrey, Cohen, Reid, and Leahy. As you can 
see by this list, Mr. President, this is a bipartisan effort.
  I have asked for a rollcall vote here because this is an issue that 
has been adopted in the past and yet mysteriously ends up dropping out 
of the bill every time we turn around. So I am asking for a rollcall 
vote, and hopefully an overwhelming vote here, so that when we get to 
conference on this legislation, it stays in the bill. Despite the fact 
that we passed this a number of times, every time we get it done, 
somehow it manages to disappear from the bill again, as it did from the 
Finance Committee bill. For those reasons, we will ask Members to be 
recorded on this issue.

[[Page S8110]]

  Mr. President, let me just briefly point out that what we are doing 
here is restoring to the bill the child care health and safety 
standards that we adopted now 6 years ago when the senior Senator from 
Utah and I offered the child care legislation and set up broad 
guidelines for health and safety standards, leaving to the States the 
specifics on how they would achieve those particular goals.
  I am thankful for the efforts of my colleague from Indiana, and 
Senator Snowe, Senator Kassebaum, and others who worked on this over 
the years. We have felt that it has been very, very helpful to have 
these standards in place. If we are going to have, as we must have, 
child care resources as we move people from welfare to work, these 
children have to be in a safe place. We have standards by which we 
maintain our pets and our automobiles. In this case here we are setting 
basic minimum standards for children. It is something that we ought to 
all be able to agree on.
  There was a study done, Mr. President, a few years ago that assessed 
the health and safety standards at child care settings across the 
country. The conclusion of that study, Mr. President, was that in only 
14 percent of the cases was it where the child care centers provided 
good quality care. In 85 percent of those settings, almost 86 percent, 
the study concluded it was not good quality at all. So there is a 
necessity for requiring that these children be in a healthy and safe 
setting. We are talking about a setting where you are seeing to it that 
there are not open electrical outlets, there is electrical safety, 
water safety, basic requirements so that these children will be 
adequately protected.
  Mr. President, as I pointed out earlier today, let us try to keep 
this debate in perspective. Of the 13 million people on welfare, 8.8 
million of those are children. And 78 percent of that 8.8 million are 
under the age of 12. Almost 50 percent of the 8.8 million children are 
under the age of 6. So there is going to be a substantial number of 
children who will need child care as their mothers or fathers who are 
on welfare go to work.
  There is money for child care. I would like more, but it certainly is 
an improvement over what existed in the past. But it is not just a 
question of having funding for child care. These children must also be 
in a safe environment.
  A little later on this evening or tomorrow, or whenever, you are 
going to have another amendment offered by my colleague from Louisiana 
dealing with another aspect of children's safety. Let me urge my 
colleagues here, many of whom support this amendment, to look at the 
Breaux amendment and look at the other amendments dealing with 
children. I do not think there is any debate in this Chamber about 
trying to get adults from welfare to work. But there ought not to be 
any debate either, in our view, about trying to see to it that innocent 
children who through no fault of their own have been born into 
circumstances where they need some help, whether it is in food or 
health care or child care, are protected.
  So we urge the adoption of the amendment and also amendments that 
would provide that safety net for these children.
  At this point, if I can, Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to my 
colleague from Maryland, and then I will yield to my colleague from 
Indiana. At that point we will try to wrap up the debate here, unless 
others want to be heard, and get to a vote on this amendment.

  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the Dodd-
Mikulski-Kassebaum-Coats, et al. amendment. This amendment is really 
quite simple. It restores basic health and safety standards for child-
care providers receiving Federal funds.
  The bill before us repeals those modest standards. I think that is 
shocking. Safe child care is too important to be left to chance.
  Mr. President, we have to make sure that what we explicitly state are 
our values we put in our legislative policy. This bill does that. It 
restores the requirement that states have standards in place to protect 
children. These standards protect children from infectious diseases, 
make sure their buildings and playgrounds are safe, and require the 
people who take care of children to know first aid.
  I hope that every Senator will support this amendment because in 
moving families to work, we must ensure not only the adequacy of child 
care, but that child care is safe. Sure, we often focus on debating the 
amount of money we are going to spend on child care. And this is one 
Senator who believes we need to provide more funding for child care. 
However, we have to make sure that child care is not only affordable, 
but that it is safe. There is a basic need for health and safety 
standards for child care facilities and providers. We need standards to 
make sure our kids are not around open electrical outlets, that there 
are not open manholes like little Jessica fell down some years 
ago. This is basic. Child care has to be more than warehousing kids. 
Parents have to have some assurance that their children are in a 
hazard-free environment, and that those who are taking care of them 
know at least basic first aid, so they will know what to do if a child 
is hurt or becomes ill.

  This is not an unfunded mandate. It is not even a mandate at all. It 
is common human decency. Requiring States to assure certain basic 
health and safety standards is the least we can do to give parents 
peace of mind, while they are working to provide for their children.
  Mr. President, in 1990 the Congress enacted a major child care bill. 
We had bipartisan support for that bill. It provided Federal funds for 
tax credits and grants to make child care more affordable. It also 
ensured that providers who receive those funds had to meet minimum 
health and safety standards, which each State would establish.
  We recognized that basic standards were needed to ensure that all 
children would be safe and well-cared for. The 1990 child care bill 
made sense then and it makes sense now. Under that law, States set the 
standards; they decide what will work best for their State.
  In my own State of Maryland, we have a three tiered system of health 
and safety standards. Maryland felt it was important that child care 
centers that care for lots of kids have a higher level of regulation 
than someone who provides care in a home setting or in the child's own 
home. Maryland also ensures background checks to screen providers for 
criminal records.
  Other States have different standards to meet the particular needs of 
their State. But this law ensures that each and every State must have 
at least a minimal level of safety and health standards. If we are 
serious about protecting children, we absolutely must maintain that 
requirement.
  It is what every mom and dad wants for their kids. We should vote our 
values and support the Dodd-Mikulski, et al, amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I will be brief. I know time is of the 
essence here, and we will yield back some of our time.
  Let me state that I support very much what Senator Dodd and Senator 
Mikulski are attempting to do here. This is essentially the same 
legislation that we are attempting to restore that we enacted in the 
1990 child care legislation. This gives States a great deal of 
flexibility.
  For instance, the State of California has a program called Trust Line 
which allows the State to require background checks, criminal 
background checks, of child-care providers. In those background checks, 
they found 5 percent of those who had applied to be State-certified 
child-care providers had criminal backgrounds and they had to 
disqualify them. Not all States have chosen to operate on that basis, 
although I think that is a reasonable requirement that a State might 
want to impose on a child-care provider. That is just one example of 
the flexibility that a State has to impose, those minimal conditions 
for safety and health, under child-care provisions.
  Now, the House Ways and Means committee has supported this. The House 
Employment Economic Opportunity Committee, President Bush supported 
this in 1990, the Congress supported it on a bipartisan basis, the 
Governors have supported this. What we are attempting to do is correct 
something that I believe was an error, maybe it was not, but I think 
all indications are that it was an error as it was put in the 
reconciliation bill. This

[[Page S8111]]

would restore it to what, essentially, is current law and what the 
Congress agreed to in 1990. I urge its adoption.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President I ask unanimous consent that Senator Boxer of 
California be added as a cosponsor, as well as Senator Exon and Senator 
Wellstone.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DODD. I end on the note I began with here. I hope our colleagues 
will look at some of the other amendments dealing with children, 
particularly the voucher proposal from Senator Breaux. I believe we can 
develop a pretty good bill here.

  I do not think there is much debate about moving 4 million adults in 
the country from welfare to work, and I hope we could develop some 
consensus, particularly on the children under the age of 12. I 
understand people make an argument for 16-, 17-, and 18-year-olds, but 
when you have 80 percent of the 8.8 million kids on AFDC under the age 
of 12, 50 percent under the age of 6, it seems to me we ought to find 
the means to provide a safety net for them, whether in a child-care 
setting or regarding adequate nutrition.
  I do not think we need any real debate about ideological differences 
on that point. While I think we will get a strong vote here, I urge my 
colleagues to look at these other amendments and judge them on their 
merits and decide whether or not you do not think this will help 
strengthen and improve a welfare-to-work piece of legislation that 
draws us all together in this body, makes it a stronger bill, and one 
that I think will adequately give the kind of protection to children 
that all of us want to give.
  Do not blame the innocent child for the circumstances they have 
arrived in. They ought not to go hungry without adequate health care 
and the protection of a child-care setting.
  Mrs. BOXER. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. DODD. I am happy to yield to the Senator.
  Mrs. BOXER. I commend the Senator and both sides of the aisle for 
their leadership here, and say as one who has fought hard and long with 
the Senators from Maryland, Connecticut, and certainly Senator Pryor 
and others for nursing home standards, we have to take care of our 
vulnerable populations. This is a big step forward.
  Mr. President, back in 1990, we passed a law in the reconciliation 
bill to enact basic health and safety protections for child care.
  That current law now requires providers receiving funds through the 
child care development block grant [CCDBG] to have basic health and 
safety protections in place.
  The Dodd amendment restores these basic health and safety protections 
which are otherwise repealed in the pending welfare bill.
  What do we mean by basic?
  Requirements regarding the prevention and control of infectious 
diseases.
  Building and physical premises safety.
  Minimum health and safety training.
  These standards ensure, for example, that children have up-to-date 
immunizations. That poisonous substances stay out of the reach of young 
children. That electrical outlets have plugs in them.
  Simply put, these basic standards reduce the numbers of accidents, 
incidence of illness, and safe childrens' lives.
  Mr. President, we are about to make major changes to the way welfare 
programs in our country are run.
  We hope that these changes will mean a lot more people will be 
getting off welfare and going to work.
  I think the least we can do is give people some assurance that their 
children's caregivers meet a minimum level of health and safety 
standards.
  Spurred by the Federal health and safety standards we put in place in 
1990, California decided to pass a law to give even more protection for 
children from providers with a criminal record.
  The law California passed created Trust Line.
  Turst Line is a criminal background check for child care providers 
who are exempt from State licensing requirements.
  Through Trust Line, the State found that 5 percent of these providers 
had criminal records--60 percent of which involved child abuse 
convictions.
  Repealing the Federal standards would be a huge step backward for 
protecting our children.
  Many of us here are parents. I think we understand that having piece 
of mind about our childrens' safety is literally priceless.
  The least we can do for the welfare recipients we will be sending off 
to work is to assure them that some minimum health and safety standards 
are in place for their child's day care facility.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Dodd amendment.
  Mr. EXON. Have the yeas and nays been requested?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. No.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. DODD. I yield 30 seconds to my colleague from Delaware.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I compliment my friend from Connecticut and 
our Republican colleagues.
  Mr. President, it was not too long ago--1990-- that we first put the 
child care health and safety standards in place. The Senator from 
Connecticut--who led the effort--remembers all too well the extensive 
discussion--and, bipartisan compromise--that went into enacting these 
standards.
  It would be unfortunate if we repealed them today. They were the 
product of a bipartisan effort 6 years ago. They were retained in the 
bipartisan Senate bill that passed here last September. And they are 
retained in the bipartisan Castle-Tanner bill.
  Frankly, I am not sure why we are repealing them. Usually, we hear 
the argument about Federal requirements being a burden on people.
  But, in fact, in my State of Delaware, the people who are the 
strongest supporters of these health and safety standards are the very 
people who have to comply with them--the child care providers.
  Yes, child care providers in Delaware have come to me and said, 
``Don't get rid of the safety standards. Don't get rid of the quality 
in day care.''
  It may sound strange. But, think about it. They want Federal 
standards and Federal requirements because they remember what it was 
like before there were standards. And, they do not want to go back.
  And at a time when we are increasing child care funding--and going to 
see significant increases in the number of children in day care as 
welfare mothers are required to work--it is crucial that the child care 
providers who will be caring for kids meet minimum standards. I don't 
think that's too much to expect.
  In fact, I think every parent with a child in day care would expect 
no less. Parents who drop their children off every morning want to know 
that their kids will be safe. They want to be sure that they are not 
leaving their child at some fly-by-night, shoddy, unsafe, unhealthy day 
care center.
  So, I just urge my colleagues to think about what is being proposed 
here.
  I add one point, I do not know how we can, in fact, have the kind of 
bill we want without this amendment. I think it is very important. I 
yield the floor.
  Mr. DODD. I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise in strong support, and as an original 
cosponsor, of the amendment by the Senator from Connecticut.
  I agree with much of what is in the welfare legislation before us 
today and I plan to vote on it. We owe it to the low-income families of 
this country to end a welfare system that keeps them down rather than 
helps them up. We owe it to the taxpayers to spend their money in a way 
that strengthens their communities. We owe it to ourselves to be honest 
when we have failed--as we have with our current welfare system. And we 
owe it to this country to develop a welfare system that respects and 
encourages this Nation's longstanding values of work and family. I 
think this bill, on the whole, does that, and that is why I support it.
  But before we send this bill out of the Senate, there is room for 
improvement. One of my chief concerns with this bill is the unwise 
elimination of the bipartisan, minimal Federal standards that govern 
the quality of child care. We ought to be doing exactly the opposite.

[[Page S8112]]

  Not only does the repeal of safety standards jeopardize quality of 
care for children from welfare families, it threatens child care safety 
for all children. Children of families from all income levels benefit 
from the current health and safety standards.

  We need to return welfare to the States because the Federal program 
has proven itself a disaster. But turning the program over does not 
mean turning our backs on the people and communities welfare is meant 
to help. We still have a responsibility at the Federal level to make 
sure that State-run welfare systems are able to succeed where the 
Federal system so dismally failed.
  And that means doing everything we can to keep the national economy 
healty--so there are jobs for welfare recipients to move into. And that 
means strengthening our child care infrastructure--so there are safe 
and stimulating places for the children of welfare recipients to spend 
their days as their parents go back to work.
  As States begin to move mothers off the welfare rolls and into jobs, 
the demand for child care is going to soar. Preliminary estimates done 
for the city of Milwaukee have shown that welfare reform will create 
the demand for 8,000 new child care slots--child care that does not 
exist today. Already in the State of Wisconsin, there are almost 6,500 
children from 4,000 families on waiting lists for child care.
  At the Federal level, there is much we can do to start putting a 
broader child care infrastructure in place. But one thing I know we 
cannot do is move backward and eliminate the minimal Federal standards 
that now regulate the quality of child care.
  At the very heart of the welfare debate is the Government's 
responsibility to the impoverished children of this county. We failed 
them with our current welfare system, and today we rightly admit that 
failure and ask the States to try and do better. As we turn welfare 
over to the States, we cannot fail those children again by ignoring the 
real need they have for protection and education while their parents 
work. We can--and should--turn over welfare. But we cannot turn away 
from the children who need and deserve quality day care.
  I ask my colleagues to support the Dodd amendment.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President. I rise today as a proud cosponsor of 
Senator Dodd's amendment to restore child care health and safety 
standards to this welfare reform bill. During consideration of last 
year's welfare reform bill, I worked with my distinguished colleague 
from Connecticut to add crucial child care funds to the welfare reform 
bill. In fact, the $3 billion in child care funds which we succeeded in 
adding to the bill resulted in an overwhelming vote of 87 to 12 in 
favor of the bill.
  I am pleased to join my colleague once again, as we consider a new 
welfare reform bill almost one year later, on another important child 
care issue. Maintaining health and safety standards for federally 
subsidized child care is a basic issue of accountability for Federal 
dollars. But above all, it is about guaranteeing the safety of this 
Nation's youngest and most vulnerable children. The amendment is a 
significant step toward ensuring that American children from low-income 
and working families receive safe child care.
  These health and safety standards were created as part of the child 
care and development block grant in 1990, with broad support from 
President Bush, Congress, and the Nation's Governors. The 1990 
legislation did not dictate regulations governing child care 
facilities. Instead, it required child care facilities receiving 
Federal funds to meet basic requirements set by the states in three 
areas: building premises safety; prevention of infectious diseases; and 
training for child care providers.
  Again, I emphasize that these health and safety standards are set by 
the States. And because they are set by the States, they allow States 
the same State flexibility that motivates this welfare reform bill.
  Six years after the creation of these health and safety standards, we 
know that they work to protect this Nation's children. For example, 
California protects children through Trustline, which institutes 
background checks for providers that are exempt from State licensing 
requirements. Through these background checks, the State found that 5 
percent of these providers had criminal records--of which 60 percent 
involved child abuse convictions.
  Yet despite their proven success, this welfare bill does not contain 
these crucial protections for children. Instead, it simply requires 
States to certify that they have State licensing requirements for child 
care. However, a significant percentage of child care facilities are 
exempt from State licensing requirements. In fact, only 9 States 
require all family child care homes to be regulated regardless of size. 
The children who attend these exempted facilities would do so with no 
assurances that these facilities met even minimal health and safety 
requirements. And yet Federal funds would pay for this potentially 
substandard care where children are offered no protections for their 
health and safety.
  This does not make sense. After all, we offer consumers protection 
when they buy food and cars, use public transportation on our highways, 
and have their hair cut. It does not make sense that this bill would 
leave the Federal Government with no way to ensure that children 
receiving public child care funds are in minimally healthy and safe 
settings.
  This amendment simply ensures that when Federal child care funds are 
used they will not be in settings where poisonous substances are within 
easy reach of children; where electrical outlets are left exposed and 
open; where unfenced play areas expose children to busy streets; where 
children are allowed to go unimmunized; and where child care providers 
have a criminal record. How can we allow public funds--taxpayer 
dollars--to be spent in such a reckless and uncaring manner?
  Finally, if we are talking about welfare reform helping people become 
self-sufficient, why wouldn't we want to ensure that children get off 
to a good start by having safe child care? Experts believe that the 
first few years of life--those years during which an increasing number 
of children are in child care --are the most crucial for a child's 
development. If children are to develop to their full potential, we 
need to ensure that they are cared for in safe environments by 
responsible adults who are knowledgeable about child development.
  Research shows that unregulated child care is generally of lower 
quality than regulated care. This means that children are less likely 
to receive the care they need to enter school ready to learn. The 
children that will receive child care under this bill are some of the 
most vulnerable children in our society. They should not be placed at 
greater developmental risk because they begin life in substandard child 
care.
  As a Nation, it is the least we can do to ensure that Federally 
funded child care meets minimum health and safety standards. I urge my 
colleagues to support this important amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Oregon [Mr. Hatfield] 
and the Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Inhofe] are necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Oregon [Mr. Hatfield] would vote ``yea.''
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Pryor] and 
the Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Bradley] are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 96, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 204 Leg.]

                                YEAS--96

     Abraham
     Akaka
     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
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Frahm
     Frist
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hatch

[[Page S8113]]


     Heflin
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pressler
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Shelby
     Simon
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Bradley
     Hatfield
     Inhofe
     Pryor
  The amendment (No. 4902) was agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. BREAUX. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum, the 
time to be charged equally.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LOTT. I want to say before I ask this unanimous consent request 
that I appreciate the cooperation, again, from the Democratic leader. 
There has been an effort on both sides to reduce the number of 
amendments. We have not been able to get it reduced as much as we had 
hoped for on either side of the aisle. We worked on it. We will 
continue working on it. We are trying to accommodate as many Senators 
as we possibly can, with a variety of personal problems or needs, and 
to get our work done. It is very hard to get both of those done 
simultaneously. So we have come up with a unanimous consent request 
that I think will allow us to do our job and still allow for 
consideration of as many Senators' needs as possible.
  The summation of it is basically we will begin now and continue to 
take up as many as nine amendments tonight for debate. Hopefully, some 
time limitations could be agreed to on those. We will begin voting at 9 
a.m. tomorrow morning on those amendments taken up tonight. There will 
be a series of votes on those amendments. Then we will return to debate 
on amendments throughout the afternoon tomorrow and for 4 hours on 
Monday, at which point we will turn to the agriculture appropriations 
bill and make an effort to complete that bill, if it is at all 
possible, on Monday. All time on all amendments would be done Friday 
afternoon and Monday, during that time. Then we will go to the final 
votes beginning at 9:30 on Tuesday and complete action on the 
reconciliation bill.
  I think that is as fair a process as we can come up with because we 
still have 13 hours of time remaining. We still have a long list of 
amendments remaining. It does take time to debate those amendments, 
though, so this will allow us to have a substantial portion of that 
time used up tonight. We are going to be counting on Senators to stay 
and offer those amendments. We have offered at least three on our side 
and six on the other side. We will have the votes in the morning. I 
think that is a fair arrangement.
  I have submitted a unanimous-consent request. The leader is reviewing 
that now, and I think we can achieve this.


                      Unanimous-Consent Agreement

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent during the remainder 
of the Senate's consideration of S. 1956, the following amendments be 
the only amendments in order and those amendments be subject to germane 
second degrees and all other provisions under the statute remain in 
effect and any rollcall votes ordered this evening with respect to 
amendments offered tonight occur at 9 a.m. on Friday, July 19, in a 
stacked sequence, with 2 minutes for debate to be divided equally prior 
to each vote, and following the disposition of amendments the Senate 
proceed to further debate on the remaining amendments.
  I further ask that following those stacked votes on Friday, any 
additional rollcall votes ordered with respect to the amendments be 
stacked in the same fashion as described above beginning at 9:30 on 
Tuesday, July 23, and following disposition of the amendments, the bill 
be advanced to third reading and the Senate proceed immediately to the 
House companion bill, H.R. 3734, and all after the enacting clause be 
stricken, the text of S. 1956 as amended be inserted, and the bill be 
immediately advanced to third reading and final passage occur, all 
without further action or debate.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. DASCHLE. Reserving the right to object.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I do not object, but I ask if you could insert that 
time on the amendments be no longer than 30 minutes, equally divided?
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I think in some cases we are not going to 
need 30 minutes. I know at least in one case, the amendment to be 
offered by the distinguished Senators from Delaware and Pennsylvania, I 
think they wanted 45 minutes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I withdraw that request. We will work on it.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I would like to, if we could, at the end of the 
colloquy, announce the list and the order in which the amendments are 
going to be taken so Senators will be put on notice as to when their 
amendment could be expected.
  Mr. LOTT. If I could respond to that suggestion, Mr. President, we 
are working on a list right now. Of course, we will try to identify 
them in order. We will try to go back and forth so you are getting your 
amendments offered, although tonight there may not be exactly that 
number. We have three, I think, committed tonight. You may have as many 
as six.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Six.
  Mr. LOTT. I urge the Senators to agree to time agreements, hopefully 
less than 30 minutes. If we have one that needs 40 minutes, we will do 
that. But we will, at the end of this, try to identify the list 
somewhat in the order they would come up.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Senator from Rhode 
Island.
  Mr. CHAFEE. May I ask the leader a question, please?
  Mr. LOTT. That will be fine, Mr. President.
  Mr. CHAFEE. I have an amendment which is up near the top of the list. 
I greatly prefer if I did not have to debate that tonight. I will be 
perfectly prepared to debate it after we have completed our rollcalls 
tomorrow.
  Mr. LOTT. I do not think there will be any problem. I know the 
Senator has a couple of problems tonight. We will accommodate that. We 
have identified other amendments that can be offered tonight, and yours 
could be one of the first tomorrow.
  Mr. CHAFEE. As far as the time agreement, I am perfectly prepared to 
agree to 30 minutes. I do not know what the Senator from Delaware would 
say, but I am agreeable to 30 minutes equally divided.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, if I understood the unanimous consent 
request, any amendment that would be offered would be debated either 
tonight, sometime on Saturday----
  Mr. LOTT. Friday. Friday afternoon or Monday morning.
  Mr. EXON. Or Monday.
  Mr. LOTT. Yes, sir.
  Mr. EXON. There would be no amendments debated--if you want to offer 
an amendment on this bill, you are going to have to do it by Monday, is 
that correct?
  Mr. LOTT. Yes, sir.
  Mr. EXON. But there would be 2 minutes of debate equally divided, on 
every amendment that was offered, on Tuesday before the vote?
  Mr. LOTT. That is the way it has been done, and that is what is 
incorporated in the request.
  Mr. EXON. I thank my friend.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I further ask unanimous consent that all 
amendments must be offered and points of order must be offered and 
debated during the remainder of the session this evening, during 
tomorrow's session of the Senate, or Monday, July 22, between the hours 
of 10 a.m. and 2 p.m., with that time for debate on Monday to be 
equally divided. That is in response to the question that the Senator 
from Nebraska just asked.

[[Page S8114]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LOTT. So, for the information of all Senators, there will be no 
further votes this evening. The next vote will occur at 9 a.m. on 
Friday, July 19, 1996. Following those stacked votes, the Senate will 
continue to debate the reconciliation bill. The next voting series will 
be on July 23, 1996.
  Members are put on notice, if they intend to offer amendments under 
the consent agreement just reached, they must be offered and debated 
tonight, during the session of the Senate on Friday, or on Monday 
between the hours of 10 a.m. and 2 p.m. No further amendments or debate 
other than the 2 minutes of closing debate will be in order.
  I thank all Senators for their cooperation in this matter.
  Mr. HARKIN. Will the majority leader yield?
  Mr. LOTT. I yield.
  Mr. HARKIN. As I understand it, tomorrow morning at 9 votes will 
start. After those stacked votes, there will be no more votes after 
that.
  Mr. LOTT. We will shorten the time for votes by agreement, and there 
will be no more recorded votes after that sequence of votes, which 
could be as many as nine votes in a row.
  Mr. HARKIN. I thank the majority leader.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I am submitting for the Record a list of 
amendments that we have identified. I still hope some of these will be 
accepted on a voice vote or be worked out, but we are submitting this 
list for the Record. This would foreclose any other amendments on our 
side being offered, other than on that list.
  I send the list to the desk and ask unanimous consent that it be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the last was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

       1. Jeffords: LIHEAP.
       2. McCain: Child support--Indians.
       3. Chafee: Standards of eligibility.
       4. Shelby: Adoption assistance.
       5. Craig: Childcare.
       6. Hatch: SOS EIC.
       7. Helms: Food stamp--work.
       8. Abraham: Illegitimacy ratio.
       9. Faircloth: Funds for teenager mothers.
       10. Faircloth: SSI outreach.
       11. Ascrost: Children immunization.
       12. Faircloth: Childcare work.
       13. Bono/Abraham etc.: Waivers.
       14. Gramm: Deny drug benefits.
       15. Coats: Independent accounts.
       16. Coats: Kinship.
       17. Pressler: FS Fraud.
       18. Nickles: Reports on small businesses.
       19. Ascroft: Limit time.
       20. D'Amato: Work requirement.
       21. Lott: Manager's package.
       22. Domenici: Manager's package.

  Mr. LOTT. We would like to ask that a similar list be submitted from 
the Democratic side.
  Mr. DASCHLE. That will be provided.
  Mr. DOMENICI. When will that list be provided, the overall list?
  Mr. DASCHLE. We will provide it within the next half-hour; even 
sooner. It is available. We just want to put it in a form that is 
presentable.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Presentable.
  Mr. LOTT. You are not adding any more to it? I inquire how many that 
is? What number is that?
  I will not put you on the record, because I hope whatever it is, it 
will be less than that when it is submitted for the Record or, in fact, 
when they are brought up.
  Mr. DASCHLE. That is our intention.
  Mr. LOTT. We still have a real problem with the colleagues not being 
cooperative enough with us. There is no reason why we should have 40 
votes on amendments on this bill. We can make our points. Some of these 
can be taken on voice votes. Senators insisted, ``I want a recorded 
vote.''
  I remember one time, when Senator Daschle and I were in the House of 
Representatives, a Congressman who won on a voice vote insisted on a 
recorded vote and lost. There is a great message in that.
  I, again, ask our colleagues, cooperate with us. There is no reason 
why we should have more than 10 or 12 additional amendments voted on in 
this process. Vote-a-ramas do not help anybody and it makes us all look 
very bad.

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, if it is appropriate, I ask unanimous 
consent that the first 15 minutes of this series of amendments to be 
considered be for the distinguished Senator from Washington, to be 
joined by the Senator from Illinois, and we will dispose of the first 
amendment.
  Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I say to Senator Daschle, I just checked 
as to what that amendment is. That is an amendment in the jurisdiction 
of the Agriculture Committee, not either Senator Roth or myself. We 
were wondering if we could have someone from the Agriculture 
Committee--we will proceed. Do you want to go for 15 minutes?
  Mr. DASCHLE. Can we do 15 minutes? I do not know if you need more.
  Mr. DOMENICI. We will take up to 15 minutes. Let's get that locked in 
and proceed.
  We will say to Senators around waiting to offer their amendments, we 
are going to use this 15 minutes to sequence eight or nine amendments 
so Senators can know when they are coming up.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Washington.


                           Amendment No. 4903

 (Purpose: To strike amendments to the summer food service program for 
                               children)

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Washington [Mrs. Murray] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 4903.

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

       Strike section 1206.

  Mrs. MURRAY. Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. President, I offer this amendment that simply strikes provisions 
relating to the Summer Food Program in the welfare bill that is in 
front of us. I hope this can be accepted on a voice vote. If not, we 
will have it be one of our recorded votes tomorrow.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, the Senate is not in order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The point is well taken. The Senate is not in 
order.
  The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Thank you, Mr. President.
  Again, the amendment that I have sent to the desk simply strikes the 
provisions that are related to the Summer Food Program. As all of the 
Members of the Senate know, we debated the school lunch issue over the 
last year and a half. Understand, the consensus across this country is 
people believe we do need to make sure that our children get adequate 
nutrition. The Summer Food Program is the same argument.
  The Senate bill that is before us makes an 11-percent cut to the 
reimbursement rate for lunches provided in the Summer Food Program. 
This reduction is a 23-cent cut on each lunch that is provided. It will 
reduce the amount of money that is provided for these lunches from 
$2.16 to $1.93. That is a substantial cut, Mr. President, and will have 
a dramatic impact on the programs offered across this country that 
assure each one of the children of those programs get adequate 
nutrition.
  We have heard the arguments many times over the last year how 
important it is that a child get proper nutrition and, without that 
nutrition, is unable to learn. That is exactly what these cuts will do. 
They will dramatically impact the ability of our kids to have a 
nutritious meal in these summer programs.
  It also will mean many of these summer programs will not survive. If 
they have to charge the people in these programs an additional $20 or 
$30 a month in order to make up the difference, it will mean that many 
of these programs will be lost, particularly in our rural areas where 
costs are substantial and it is very difficult for parents to come up 
with adequate money for these programs to begin with.
  Estimates vary by State, but a recent report concluded that this cut 
that is being proposed in this welfare bill will result in a 30- to 35-
percent drop in the number of sponsors, most of them in our rural 
districts. It will result in a 20-percent cut in the number of children 
who are able to participate, and many of the larger sponsors are going 
to have to drop their smaller sites.

[[Page S8115]]

  I think it is very critical that this Senate go on record saying that 
we understand the nutrition needs of young children in this country 
today, and I urge my colleagues, hopefully by voice vote, to accept 
this reasonable amendment to assure that young children in this country 
do get the proper nutrition in the Summer Food Program that is in the 
welfare bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak 
for about 15 minutes. I probably will not use it all.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  If the Senator will suspend, the Senate is not in order. The Chair 
suggests that the negotiations that are going on take place in the 
cloakroom. It is making it very difficult for Senators to proceed.

  The Senator from Illinois.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Thank you very much, Mr. President, for restoring 
order.
  Mr. President, I would like to speak to the bill. Maintaining a 
social safety net for the poor has always been a complex and 
paradoxical challenge. How does one provide sufficient support for the 
poorest Americans while simultaneously promoting self-help and 
individual initiative?
  The bill before us offers one approach to the problem in the current 
welfare system by implementing time limits on benefits, requiring 
individuals to work and, at the same time, increasing parental 
responsibility. However, the problem lies in that this bill does not 
focus welfare reform on the people that welfare really serves. I know 
you have heard me use these statistics before, but I think it is 
important to restate them.
  There are 14 million people in this country on welfare; 9 million, or 
67 percent, of those people are children, almost 60 percent of whom are 
below the age of 6.
  Is it fair that these children lose the safety net that the Federal 
Government and the States have maintained for 60 years, in the name of 
welfare reform?
  Whenever we cite problems with the current welfare system, such as 
encouraging family breakups or fostering dependence, I have never heard 
anyone arguing that we are giving children excessive resources as a 
complaint. Therefore, Mr. President, as we consider welfare reform 
today, my question remains the same as I posed months and months ago 
when this debate first started. What about the children?
  Mr. President, may we have order?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate is not in order. Once again the 
Chair requests that negotiations that are going on go on inside the 
cloakroom.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, there is room for staff to have seats in the 
back. That would help some.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The point is well taken. If staff are not 
required on the floor, they can retire to the cloakroom.
  The Senator from Illinois.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. I thank you again, Mr. President. I really 
appreciate it, and I appreciate Senator Ford's interjection.
  My question remains the same: What about the children, our children? 
What about America's future? No one has answered that question, and all 
the sponsors of this initiative can do is speculate, guess, come up 
with hypothetical responses about the answer. What happens to the 
children is the great unanswered issue in this welfare reform debate.
  I am sure that my colleague will recall the discussions about what 
happened in this country before we had a safety net for children.
  We found many children being left to their own devices. Subsequently, 
the term ``homeless half-orphan'' was formed. I do not believe for a 
moment, Mr. President, the architects of this bill want to move this 
country back to the bad old days with homeless half-orphans and 
friendless foundlings and children left to their own devices begging in 
the streets. I do not believe that.
  But I am a bit dismayed with the Members' apparent ability to 
conclude, while they do not yet know what the implications are for 
children with this bill, we still must go forward, we still must reach 
closure on this issue in spite of the fact that we have not answered 
that great unanswered question.
  Many of my colleagues seem to be willing to take the chances that the 
States will do no harm to children. There is also, it seems to me, the 
perception that we have to do something no matter how misguided it may 
be. Frankly, Mr. President, I am concerned. I do not agree it is better 
to do something bad than to do nothing at all. If any of us were 
directly affected by this bill, if we were directly affected by what 
happens here, I believe we would all be a lot less willing to take that 
chance. That is a chance that we are now forcing on those who are the 
most vulnerable in our society.
  I want to take this opportunity to discuss two core implications of 
this bill, its impact on children and the disproportionate impact on 
States and communities.
  First, what about the children? Currently, Mr. President, 22 percent 
of American children live in poverty. That is about 15 million 
children, or one in every five. That number is twice the number of 
children in poverty in Canada and Australia; four times that of France 
and Germany, the Netherlands and Sweden.
  Consequently, there are 9 million children on welfare and about 
300,000 homeless children in our Nation. These facts are disheartening 
enough because America is the greatest country on Earth. There is no 
reason why we have so many kids, so many children stuck in poverty. As 
a Nation, we are No. 1 in terms of gross domestic product, the number 
of millionaires and billionaires, health technology, and defense 
expenditures.
  It is shameful that we are number 16 in living standards among our 
poorest one-fifth of the children, number 18 in the gap between rich 
and poor children, number 18 in infant mortality rates, and number 19 
in low-birthweight rates.
  Mr. President, these children are not responsible for being born 
poor. They did not choose to have parents who refuse to play by the 
rules, nor do these children have the means of fighting a State or 
local decision made during difficult budget times.
  The Department of Health and Human Services has estimated last year 
that about 1.5 million children would be pushed below the poverty level 
by last year's passed Senate welfare bill. Essentially, the same 
provisions that pushed children below the poverty line last year are 
included in this bill as well, and the result is likely to be the same.
  Nearly 1.5 million American children pushed into poverty who are not 
today in poverty. This alone should set off the warning sirens that we 
are doing something wrong here, that there is something flawed with 
this approach. The ramifications of welfare reform should not be to 
push more children into poverty than are already there.
  The Department of Health and Human Services, HHS, again, currently 
estimates that under a best-case scenario, which would be every State 
having 5-year time limits and exempting 20 percent of families, about 
2.6 million children would be cut off of subsistence that public 
assistance provides now--left with absolutely nothing.

  This legislation even prohibits the States from providing in-kind 
assistance to children whose families reach the time limits. I cannot 
understand, Mr. President, the reasoning behind this provision. Efforts 
in the Finance Committee to restore even the State option to provide 
noncash assistance to children were opposed and were defeated. The 
entire block grant approach is supposed to be--is supposed to be--
predicated on State flexibility, and yet this policy in this bill says 
to the States that they cannot use funds, they cannot use their own 
money that they are already getting from the block grants to provide 
for the children of their States through the best possible means that 
they decide are the best possible means under the circumstances.
  In other words, it is a mandate in a direction that cuts against 
flexibility. Again, it is stunning to me that that

[[Page S8116]]

would happen in the context of a bill that is touted as giving local 
flexibility. Perhaps my colleagues are tired of the question, ``What 
about the children?'' I cannot, however, help believing that the 
implications of this welfare reform genuinely are not fully understood 
yet. And 1.5 million children will be pushed into poverty, and 2.6 
million children cut off altogether. We are not talking about 1.5 
million cars or 2.6 million trees. These are children. And they are 
poor through no fault of their own.
  Should not we, as Americans, as the wealthiest nation in the world, 
provide a safety net to ensure that our children do not go hungry, do 
not become homeless--a minimum level beneath which no American child 
can fall?
  Adults, of course, must be held responsible and held accountable. 
Everyone who can work, should work. I mean, I do not think there is any 
debate at all by anybody on that score. There are currently about 5 
million adults on welfare, lower than the number of children. But of 
the 5 million adults on welfare, 4 million of them, approximately, are 
able-bodied and can work. They, therefore, should work.
  However, demanding that adult welfare recipients work is not enough. 
We need also to recognize there has to be 4 million jobs for those 4 
million people. It is unlikely, Mr. President, that the job market can 
so quickly absorb that number of people.
  Again, a second unanswered question in this legislation. Where does 
the job creation come from? How do these people find jobs? We have to 
be careful. We have to be certain, Mr. President, that we do not punish 
9 million children based on unrealistic assumptions about the 
employability of 4 million adults. And that is what this legislation 
does.
  The Massachusetts welfare program that began in November of 1995 
demonstrates this fact. That program required 20,000 AFDC recipients to 
work at least 20 hours a week. As of June of this year, only 6,000 had 
actually found work. I want to point out, of that 6,000 who actually 
found work, 1,900 of those were working in subsidized jobs. Only 30 
percent of the 20,000 individuals have found work of any sort, paid or 
unpaid.
  Massachusetts has realized that a lack of education and skills among 
these parents, half of whom have never completed high school, seems to 
be a factor in the failure of that program so far. The State is 
encountering numerous unanticipated problems, including an inadequate 
job supply. So again, this legislation, which does not create any jobs, 
forces the 4 million adults into the job market, and then, thereby, if 
they do not find jobs, if they cannot support their families, those 9 
million children will suffer. I think that these assumptions ought to 
be looked at very carefully as we rush to judgment on this legislation.

  The second point I am going to talk about has to do with the State 
and community variation which I call the ``food chain'' argument. We 
have all heard the expression that ``all politics are local.'' Well, 
caring for the poor, dealing with poverty is also local. The needs of 
the poor do not just stop because the Federal Government decides to 
stop paying for it. Again, this legislation moves in that direction. 
The block grant program will lock in the Federal funding to the States. 
And no matter what happens--no matter what happens in the economy--that 
funding will not change.
  Currently, many States, particularly in the Midwest, are experiencing 
revitalized growth, and welfare rolls are in fact declining. These are 
good economic times in this country. We heard the discussion about that 
this morning in committee. So, of course, many States weigh the 
flexibility of block grants versus the projected decline in needs and 
say, ``Well, OK, this program, this new initiative is acceptable to 
us.''
  I am not surprised that many Governors concluded that block grants 
were acceptable because their budget estimates tended to indicate that 
fewer people will need welfare and that they can have this free block 
grant money to play with. Financially, this probably looks like a good 
deal to a lot of Governors.
  But what happens when the business cycle takes its normal dip or, 
even worse, a recession? That is the time in which more difficult 
decisions will have to be made. Will a State raise additional revenues 
to meet needs, shift responsibilities to localities, or reduce 
benefits? That is the key question.
  Although this bill includes a $2 billion contingency fund for States 
to tap into during economic downturns, the fine print on the access to 
that fund makes it clear that it will be too little and too late to 
help people who lose their jobs when the economy turns sour.
  Some States and communities do a better job of taking care of poor 
people than others. Also, States and communities often start from very 
different positions. The Federal Government and the States have 
maintained a 60-year commitment to abolishing child poverty through the 
AFDC program. This bill would take this national problem, turn it over 
to the States, and say to the Governors, ``Here. Go fix it.'' I fear 
that a system will develop in which Governors will be forced to say to 
mayors and county commissioners, local governments, ``Here is a 
problem. Go fix it.''
  The result will be of this pushing down of accountability, the 
successive washing of hands, that our children will become victims of 
geography. The benefits available to a child may depend on what State 
that child lives in or what region of the State that child resides in.
  I want to show you a national chart, Mr. President, about the 
variation in child poverty rates between the States. The variation in 
child poverty rates between the States reflects these likely 
disproportionate impacts. The increase in color, from beige to red, 
indicates States with high poverty rates. These are the high-poverty-
rate States.

  You recall, I indicated 22 percent of children are below the poverty 
line. Well, there are great variances. In Virginia, it is a 14-percent 
poverty rate under the age of 6; Illinois, 18.9 percent poverty rate 
for children under 6; Texas, 25.6 percent poverty rate of children 
under 6. How can my State be expected to care for children under the 
same conditions as a State like Virginia with such different needs?
  In all likelihood, the provisions of the bill will force the States 
to handle the burden for those who simply cannot find work to local 
units of government. Yet, there is even more in child poverty rates 
among counties within a State, more variation than among the States 
generally.
  My own State of Illinois, Mr. President, is an illustration. We have 
an overall child poverty rate for children under 6 of almost 19 
percent. However, as you can see, there is considerable variation among 
the counties, ranging from less than 3 percent in DuPage County, to 57 
percent down here in the south, Alexander County. Virginia and Texas 
show a similar pattern. Texas goes from 7 percent in some counties to 
almost 70 percent in others.
  Again, the debate surrounding the solution to those living in poverty 
has gone on and will probably go on for a long time. Yet, as we attempt 
to address this difficult issue, let us not relive a past where we turn 
over the problem and let children fend for themselves.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. I ask unanimous consent for an additional 2 
minutes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I have no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for 2 additional 
minutes.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. This bill aims to make people more responsible and 
may have some minor success in achieving that objective. However, in 
teaching others responsibility, let us not forget our own 
responsibility. Let us not just wash our hands of the responsibility we 
have to the children of this Nation, as we hand it down to States and 
local communities. The existing disparities between State and local 
communities will only be exacerbated, and our children, these American 
children, will be the losers.
  Mr. President, welfare reform is necessary. Few would argue that we 
need to do something to encourage change here, to give people a chance, 
to give them the opportunity to pull themselves up by their bootstraps 
and take care of their own children. Welfare reform must be based on 
welfare reality, not welfare mythology. We must not forget who the real 
victims are, or beneficiaries are, depending on your point of view--our 
Nation's children.

[[Page S8117]]

  In the absence of information, in the absence of real data about the 
impact of this legislation, we should not abandon our responsibility to 
be thoughtful as we approach our legislative duties.
  I want to say in conclusion, Mr. President, I was with my son one 
time and we were driving down the street. He asked why there were so 
many homeless people. I tried to describe to him it was a function of 
failed policy. Folks just did not pay attention to decisions they were 
making when we made some decisions in terms of the mentally ill. The 
result is we have people laying in the gutters talking to themselves in 
the alleys.

  Mr. President, I do not want to look up 5 years from now and discover 
we have children living in the gutters, sleeping on the streets, and 
begging on the corners because we did not wait until HHS or anybody 
else could come up with decent numbers regarding the impact of our 
decision, that we did not think about the fact that counties within a 
State had variations, that we did not think about the economic impact.
  Mr. President, I understand it is a popular issue. I understand it is 
a political issue. I say, Mr. President, and I quote my colleague, 
Senator Moynihan, who said at one point that this is the most 
regressive social legislation we have seen in this century. It is for 
that reason that I am going to oppose this, as I have opposed this 
legislation.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SANTORUM. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Murray amendment for a 
couple of reasons. No. 1, there is no offset identified in the Murray 
amendment. For the information of Members, what that means is we have 
$214 million of savings that the Agriculture Committee was required to 
come up with that now we are going to have to come up with savings 
somewhere else, in some other program, which, given where the big money 
is in the agriculture bill, we are talking about looking at the Food 
Stamp Program.
  We have already heard from many Members on the other side that the 
Food Stamp Program already has been squeezed, so we are back to a very 
tough decision. That is a very important reason to oppose this 
amendment.
  No. 2, really, this amendment is not necessary to continue to meet 
the needs of the summer feeding programs for children. The reason I say 
that is because the rates that are in the underlying bill for the 
Summer Food Service Program for lunch is $1.93 a meal. The ordinary 
rate for a lunch, a school lunch, in an ordinary school in America 
during the year is $1.79. Let me repeat that: The ordinary rate for a 
school lunch during the year, during the school year, is $1.79. The 
rate in the bill for a lunch during the summer is $1.93 for that lunch. 
That, by the way, that reimbursement rate is roughly equivalent to the 
amount we pay to severe-need schools. Those are schools that have at 
least 60 percent of their children at the school who are in poverty. So 
we are paying a rate, actually, slightly above the rate that we pay 
during the school year for severe-need schools.
  Now, I understand that the Summer Food Service Program for Children 
is targeted at poor communities, but we are paying a reimbursement rate 
here which is equal to the rate we pay to poor communities during the 
school year. So I guess we believe that this was a responsible place to 
find a reduction, that we are still paying enough money for school 
lunches, to encourage venders to participate, schools to participate in 
providing the service for children throughout the summer.
  If we do not make a reduction in this program, and I think it is a 
judicious reduction, then we have to come up with money from someplace 
else in the budget, which may, in fact, be tougher on children than the 
reduction proposed in the underlying bill.
  I encourage Members to oppose the Murray amendment for those reasons. 
I reserve the balance of my time.

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I will be very brief because I know there 
are a number of Senators who want to offer amendments.
  I heard two arguments, one that there is no offset. It is my 
understanding that when this Senate struck the Medicaid provisions in 
this bill, that had a $70 billion impact, without worrying about where 
the offsets were. So in this provision, it only affects $24 million. I 
say because it is the right policy that we care for our children and 
make sure they have nutritious foods, it seems legitimate and like-
minded to do what we have done with the Medicaid provision in this 
bill.
  Second, the other argument was that the price for these meals is 
higher than what is offered during the school year. That is, of course, 
true, because during the school year the volume, the number of children 
that are served is quite large, is much larger. In the summer, we are 
serving fewer students, and, therefore, the cost of meals goes up.
  Second, during the school year, the facility is provided. During the 
summer, programs have to pay for the sites, and the cost goes up 
prohibitively because of that. That is why the summer program costs 
more than the school-year program.
  It is a very legitimate concern. I will again say that the bill 
reduces the amount of the program by 23 cents on each lunch. That will 
have a dramatic impact. We will lose sites, especially in rural areas, 
and see as much as a 35-percent drop in the number of programs that are 
able to offer this.
  Again, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment tomorrow 
morning. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. SANTORUM. My response to that, Mr. President, first, the Senator 
from Washington knows the fact is that the Agriculture Committee was 
given a reconciliation instruction, and by removing this part from that 
portion of the bill we will have to come up with money elsewhere. It is 
not like Medicaid is part of that instruction. It is not. It is a 
separate instruction, a separate area, an area that is gone for now. We 
are deeming with this portion of the bill.
  We cannot just say we cut something somewhere else, and, therefore, 
we should not worry about it here. It is apples and oranges. We do have 
to come up with the money somewhere else. I think this is a reasonable 
place to come up with it. The rate of $1.93 was increased in the 
committee by Senator Leahy. He sought to increase it more himself, but 
he recognized that to do that he would have had to find savings 
somewhere else. It was his judgment--obviously, by his amendment--that 
this was an area that could afford a reduction more than other areas of 
the agriculture budget. And so I think, going from the attempt that he 
made in committee, that this was probably the best place to find the 
reduction at the time. So I ask, again, that Members oppose the 
amendment.
  I yield the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, has the Senator yielded back her time?
  Mrs. MURRAY. How much time is left?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has approximately 5 minutes left.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I will simply conclude by saying that we 
have had this argument about the importance of providing nutritious 
meals for our kids so they have the ability to learn and learn well.
  I urge my colleagues to remember those children when we vote on this 
amendment tomorrow morning.
  I yield the remainder of my time.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I am going to try to just informally 
establish a little bit of the order, so that Senators who know they are 
going to offer amendments tonight will kind of know the sequencing. The 
first thing we would like to do, however, is to ask the distinguished 
chairman of the Finance Committee to shortly offer three amendments, en 
bloc, which have been cleared on both sides.
  The order would be as follows: We have just completed debate on 
Murray. Next would be Senator Faircloth on our side. He has two 
amendments. We will have the first Faircloth amendment. Senator Breaux 
would be next.
  Mr. FORD. If the Senator will yield, are we going to try to have time 
agreements on these?
  Mr. DOMENICI. I tried that a while ago, and we decided to just wait 
on each one.

[[Page S8118]]

  Mr. FORD. I was just hoping.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I am hoping, too. Senator Faircloth is not going to 
take much time. Maybe we can get an agreement now. While we are waiting 
for him, to put everybody on notice, Senator Breaux would follow 
Senator Faircloth.
  There will be a second Faircloth amendment, to be followed by Senator 
Biden. And then we would have a Santorum-Frist amendment with reference 
to waiver. Then there will be a Senator Harkin amendment and then an 
Ashcroft amendment. Then we would have Senator Wellstone, who, I 
believe, has two. We would be pleased to let him proceed with two in 
sequence. And then we would have Senator Graham of Florida and Senator 
Dodd.
  If we can complete those, we will be set up for a vote in the morning 
on 11 amendments. Senator Faircloth will be right along. We will ask 
for 15 minutes to a side, if that is satisfactory.
  Mr. FORD. That suits me. If we can get a finite time or an 
understanding, it would be helpful to all concerned.
  Mr. DOMENICI. If the Senator is prepared, can Senator Faircloth agree 
to 15 minutes on his amendment?
  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. I can do it in about 3 minutes. They are bringing it 
over from the office.
  Mr. FORD. Would it be all right for Senator Breaux to go ahead with 
his?

  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. I only need about 3 minutes for just a brief 
description.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Senator Faircloth wants 3 minutes. How much does the 
opposition want?
  Mr. FORD. I do not know whether we will oppose it. Give us 3 minutes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I ask unanimous consent that there be 3 minutes to a 
side on the Faircloth amendment, and that it be the next amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I ask unanimous consent that no second-degrees be in 
order to the Faircloth amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. How much time would Senator Breaux like on his 
amendment?
  Mr. BREAUX. I think 10 minutes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I ask unanimous consent that there be 10 minutes on 
each side on the Breaux amendment, with no second-degrees in order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Senator Faircloth has a second amendment. While we are 
waiting for him, does anybody know if 15 minutes will be satisfactory 
for Senator Biden?
  Mr. FORD. He has a total substitute, so it will be a little longer, 
probably.
  Mr. DOMENICI. On Senator Faircloth's second amendment, I ask 
unanimous consent that there be 3 minutes on a side, with no second-
degrees in order to that amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. We have Senator Biden's amendment, and we are trying to 
find out what he would like. In the meantime, will Senator Santorum, 
Senator Frist, and Senator Abraham decide what they need? And then we 
will lock that in shortly. Those three Senators are participating in 
waiver amendments.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum, and I ask 
unanimous consent that the time be charged equally.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I have a unanimous consent agreement to 
propound to dispose of four amendments which have been agreed to on 
both sides of the aisle. These amendments are Senator Jeffords' 
amendment to protect recipients of Federal energy assistance; the 
second is Senator Gregg's amendment to require administrative summons 
to request child support information from public utilities; the third 
is Senator McCain's amendment to allow child support agencies to enter 
into cooperative agreements with Indian tribes; and the fourth, Senator 
Coats' amendment relating to placing children separated from their 
parents with a relative. Senator Wyden is a cosponsor of this 
amendment.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order for me to 
offer these four amendments, which I now send to the desk en bloc, that 
they be considered and agreed to en bloc, and that the motions to table 
and the motions to reconsider be agreed upon en bloc, and that they 
appear on the Record as if considered individually.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I apologize. 
We have failed, and those on the other side have failed, to talk to the 
ranking member of the Indian Affairs Committee, Senator Inouye. It has 
not been cleared with him yet. I suspect that it will be. But I hope 
that the Senator will withhold this until such time as we might contact 
him. And that would be within a minute or two.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I withhold my request until such time as we 
hear from the senior Senator from Hawaii.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, why don't we ask unanimous consent that this 
motion be set aside? It would automatically come back, I say to the 
Senator, if that is all right. I ask unanimous consent, then, that this 
amendment be set aside so that we might proceed to the Faircloth 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Under the previous order, Senator Faircloth is recognized for 3 
minutes.


                           Amendment No. 4905

(Purpose: To prohibit recruitment activities in SSI outreach programs, 
      demonstration projects, and other administrative activities)

  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Mr. President, this is a very simple one but is a very 
direct one and I think a very important one to the American taxpayers.
  I am offering an amendment which clarifies that no Federal funds 
should be used for recruitment activities in the SSI program.
  I send the amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Faircloth) proposes an 
     amendment numbered 4905.

  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. 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 399, between lines 10 and 11, insert the following:

                     Subchapter F--Other Provisions

     SEC. 2241. PROHIBITION OF RECRUITMENT ACTIVITIES.

       (a) In General.--Section 1631 (42 U.S.C. 1383) is amended 
     by adding at the end the following new subsection:


                ``prohibition of recruitment activities

       ``Nothing in this title shall be construed to authorize 
     recruitment activities under this title, including with 
     respect to any outreach programs or demonstration 
     projects.''.

  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Mr. President, this amendment says very simply that we 
will not use the taxpayers' money to solicit people to come into the 
SSI program, which we are doing, and spending massive amounts of 
taxpayers' dollars to solicit people to come and sign up for SSI 
benefits. We are doing it through mailing, advertising, and even door-
to-door solicitation with people who are hired and paid by the Federal 
Government. SSI outreach programs are used to try to maximize 
participation in the SSI program.
  I believe we owe it to the American people to assure them that we are 
using the hard-earned dollars that we spend on welfare programs only to 
provide assistance to the truly needy and that we are not out spending 
more of their money and hiring bureaucrats to solicit people to come 
get their money.
  So this is a very simple program. It forbids the use of Federal funds 
for the recruitment of people into the SSI program. I do not think we 
should be hiring people to solicit people to come get welfare.
  Mr. President, I yield the remainder of my time.
  Mr. BREAUX addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. BREAUX. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I was just looking at the amendment. It is the first 
time I

[[Page S8119]]

have had the opportunity to see it and read it. The Social Security 
Disability Program that the Senator is referring to is essentially cash 
benefits for disabled people, most of which are elderly.
  The question I am concerned about when the Senator's amendment says 
``nothing shall be construed to authorize recruitment activities, 
including any outreach program, or demonstration projects,'' I think it 
is important that the agencies let people know what the program is 
about.
  I tend to agree with the Senator about going out and trying to 
recruit people to come in and engage in a program that is there. But is 
the Senator's amendment intended to prohibit trying to let people know 
what is in the program? Would they be prohibited under the Senator's 
amendment from telling people about what the program does and how it 
works?
  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. It would not prohibit them from telling them if they 
come in and ask about it. They can come into the Social Security office 
and ask about the program. They would be told.
  Mr. BREAUX. Let me ask the Senator something further. We have a lot 
of Federal programs that provide benefits and loans. For instance, the 
Senator is aware of the farm programs. The Farmers Home Administration 
has loan programs and things that are beneficial to farmers. They try 
to communicate that information to the farm community to let them know 
that we have a program that does the following three things. ``If you 
are interested, come in and talk to us.''
  Would this prohibit the Social Security people from doing the same 
thing that other Federal programs are able to do with regard to 
informing people about the benefits of the program?
  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. I am not sure how they inform all the people about the 
programs because there are many Federal programs and many, many ways of 
informing people. But we have simply created here an issue that we 
could simply go out and solicit door to door. We bring people in to try 
to get the benefits. If they come to the office and ask about the 
program, then it certainly is perfectly all right.
  Mr. BREAUX. Would his amendment prohibit publishing a brochure 
describing what the program does?
  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. No, not if they kept it in the office, but not start 
mailing them and delivering them door to door.
  Mr. BREAUX. The concern I have is that it is sort of like we will 
have a Federal program, but we are going to hide it; that we are not 
going to let anybody know about it. I do not think that a Federal 
agency should go out and recruit people to benefit from a program. If a 
program is a legal program, I am concerned about getting to the point 
of trying to say we are going to have this program but we do not want 
to tell anybody about it. If you are lucky enough to find out about it 
on your own, maybe you could come and apply for the benefits. We are 
talking about people who are disabled. A lot of them are disabled. They 
cannot get anywhere. How do they find out about it?
  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. The Senator is well aware that we have never had a 
Government program in which we have given away money that was not well 
advertised.
  Mr. BREAUX. My concern is we are taking about a disabled person who 
may be homebound and who cannot get out. They are disabled. We are 
talking about disabled people. That person is disabled. How are they 
going to find out about the program if you cannot tell them about it?
  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. They are going to find out about the program.
  Mr. BREAUX. I am wondering how they would find out about the program. 
How?
  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Innumerable ways; family members. They will find out 
about the program. But we have gone out soliciting people door to door 
that are not homebound, that are not sick.
  Mr. BREAUX. Let me ask the Senator this question.
  Would his amendment prohibit the Social Security Administration from 
getting a list from the county health authority on people who are 
disabled and then sending them a brochure telling them about the 
benefits?
  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Getting this from where?
  Mr. BREAUX. Would the Senator's amendment prohibit the Social 
Security Administration from getting a list of people who are disabled 
from the county health authority and then sending them a brochure 
describing what the benefits are?
  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. No, the amendment would not prohibit that. I would be 
willing to amend it so we could do that. That is certainly within the 
realm of what we could do. But door-to-door solicitation, big ads in 
the newspaper, come-and-get-it type ads, that is what I am trying to 
get at.
  Mr. BREAUX. The Senator is aiming at door-to-door solicitation and 
running ads advertising the program, but other than that, communicating 
by any other means would be legitimate communication?
  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. They can do it if they do not use Federal funds. There 
are many advocacy groups that are working and soliciting--I am saying 
advocacy groups cannot use Federal funds.
  Mr. BREAUX. Is the Senator saying the Social Security Administration 
could not use funds to print a brochure to describe the benefits?
  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. They can print the brochure, they can mail it, but 
they cannot give money to advocacy groups going door to door.
  Mr. BREAUX. Could they mail it to the disabled?
  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Certainly. Who else would you mail it to?
  Mr. BREAUX. I just want to make sure we are not trying to hide the 
program so well nobody will ever find out anything about it.
  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. I do not think there has ever been a Federal program 
in which we gave away money like we have with SSI that was very well 
hidden.
  Mr. BREAUX. I wonder under the unanimous-consent agreement whether 
the Senator's amendment would be amendable.
  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. It would be amendable, yes.
  Mr. BREAUX. It would be. Would it take unanimous consent to amend it?
  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. It would not.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Smith). The Chair would inform the 
Senators the time on the amendment has expired.
  Mr. FORD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. FORD. May I ask the distinguished Senator from North Carolina a 
question. I understood the Senator to say to the Senator from Louisiana 
he would be able to amend it to be sure that door-to-door solicitation 
and that sort of thing was not acceptable but what he explained would 
be. Is there a chance we might set it aside and work out an agreement 
so it could be accepted and we would not have a vote?
  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. That would be agreeable, yes.
  Mr. FORD. I ask unanimous consent then that the Faircloth amendment 
be set aside temporarily.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Chair hears none, and 
it is so ordered.
  Mr. FORD. Now, Mr. President, as I understand it, the Roth proposal 
is now the pending business?
  Mr. BREAUX. I do not think so.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Roth amendment was withdrawn by consent. 
The Senator can renew the request.
  Mr. FORD. All right, I ask him to renew it then, because at the time 
I was the culprit because we had not checked completely with the 
ranking members and now it has been cleared and we are in full support 
of Senator Roth's proposal.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request of the 
Senator from Delaware? Is there objection? The Chair hears none, and it 
is so ordered.


               Amendments Nos. 4906 Through 4909, En Bloc

  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I would ask permission to renew my request 
that the four amendments which I identified earlier be agreed to en 
bloc, they be considered and agreed to en bloc, that the motions to 
table the motions to reconsider be agreed to en bloc, and that they 
appear in the Record as if considered individually.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will report the amendments by number.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:


[[Page S8120]]


       The Senator from Delaware [Mr. Roth] proposes amendments en 
     bloc numbered 4906 through 4909.

  The amendments (Nos. 4906 through 4909), en bloc, are as follows:

                           amendment no. 4906

     (Purpose: To protect recipients of federal energy assistance)

       Beginning on page 1-5, strike line 18 and all that follows 
     through page 1-7, line 12, and insert the following:
       (a) In General.--Section 5(d) of the Food Stamp Act of 1977 
     (7 U.S.C. 2014(d)) is amended by striking paragraph (11) and 
     inserting the following: ``(11)(A) any payments or allowances 
     made for the purpose of providing energy assistance under any 
     Federal law, or (B) a 1-time payment or allowance made under 
     a Federal or State law for the costs of weatherization or 
     emergency repair or replacement of an unsafe or inoperative 
     furnace or other heating or cooling device,''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--Section 5(k) of the Food Stamp 
     Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 2014(k)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1)--
       (A) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``plan for aid to 
     families with dependent children approved'' and inserting 
     ``program funded''; and
       (B) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``, not including 
     energy or utility-cost assistance,'';
       (2) in paragraph (2), by striking subparagraph (C) and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(C) a payment or allowance described in subsection 
     (d)(11);''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(4) Third party energy assistance payments.--
       ``(A) Energy assistance payments.--For purposes of 
     subsection (d)(1), a payment made under a State law to 
     provide energy assistance to a household shall be considered 
     money payable directly to the household.
       ``(B) Energy assistance expenses.--For purposes of 
     subsection (e)(7), an expense paid on behalf of a household 
     under a State law to provide energy assistance shall be 
     considered an out-of-pocket expense incurred and paid by the 
     household.''.

  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I wish to correct what I think is a 
serious problem with this bill. I ask my colleagues to support my 
amendment to remove from the welfare section of this bill those 
provisions that unfairly burden poor families who rely on both food 
stamps and Federal energy assistance. Not only does the bill change a 
long-standing bipartisan policy, it does so without bringing any 
savings to the bill.
  As it's currently drafted, S. 1956 will cut the food stamp benefits 
of poor families and elderly people who receive Federal low-income 
energy assistance. The bill achieves this end by counting LIHEAP 
benefits as though they were income available to families to purchase 
food. The result is that any time a poor family with children or an 
elderly person receives Federal help to pay a fuel bill, they'll get 
less in food stamp benefits that month.
  The good news is this is a very easy provision to fix. Linking LIHEAP 
benefits to food stamp eligibility doesn't add any savings to the bill 
because under new scoring policies, CBO doesn't score any savings to 
this provision. We can remove this harsh provision from the bill 
without reducing our welfare savings.
  I'd like to take a few minutes now to remind my colleagues of the 
importance of both the Food Stamp Program and the energy assistance 
program to our most vulnerable populations.
  Who is receiving food stamps?
  Households with children--80 percent of the food stamp population.
  Elderly people--another 7 percent.
  People living at half the poverty level--more than half of all food 
stamp benefits go to people living at half the poverty level.
  That's who's getting food stamps--families with children, the 
elderly, and extremely poor people, Food stamps benefit our most 
vulnerable populations. We can't lost sight of that fact.
  LIHEAP, too, serves the poorest of the poor:
  Households with incomes less than $8,000--two-thirds of LIHEAP funds 
goes to these households.
  Half of the households receiving LIHEAP have incomes below $6,000.
  One-third of LIHEAP households have elderly people living in them.
  One-third of LIHEAP households have disabled people living there.
  LIHEAP is the program that prevents many disadvantaged households 
from having to choose between putting food on the table or heating or 
cooling their homes.
  What we've done in the bill as drafted is force people to make that 
choice again. If they need help heating or cooling their homes, there 
will be less food stamp benefits available to them. In households with 
incomes of less than $8,000, we shouldn't be forcing people to make 
that choice.
  Food and shelter are very basic human needs. On $8,000 a year, there 
can be no doubt that the entire household income must be devoted to 
meeting the needs of basic human existence: clothing, medical care, and 
maybe transportation. In my mind, it's simply bad policy to force those 
basic needs to compete with each other.
  This welfare reform package is about helping people to get back on 
their feet: helping them to move beyond poverty and dependence into 
productive and contributing citizenship. To the extent that we're 
talking about populations we don't expect to hold down jobs: the 
severely disabled, the elderly, and children--this policy is even more 
problematic. Either way, we need to make sure that people have the fuel 
they need to heat their homes, or cool them if that's necessary. We 
need to make sure people have food for their children and for 
themselves. It's not a one or the other proposition--people need both. 
Federal law has recognized this fact since the mid-1980's, and there's 
no reason to change the policy now.
  For many years, it has been our policy to not count aid provided 
under LIHEAP assistance as income. Members of both parties have 
recognized in the past that reducing the food stamps of LIHEAP 
recipients would be counterproductive. Do we really want a policy that 
says ``whenever LIHEAP helps a poor family or elderly person pay high 
utility bills, they well have their food stamps cut?'' I don't believe 
we're really helping if we implement this policy. People will still 
face major difficulty in paying basic bills and securing adequate food 
at the same time.
  According to CBO estimates, the welfare bill already cuts the Food 
Stamp Program by $28 billion over the next 6 years. The food stamp cuts 
in this bill are $4 billion deeper than the cuts in those years under 
last year's Senate welfare bill. The cuts in the benefits of the 
households receiving energy assistance would be on top of the food 
stamp benefit reductions already in the bill. Since the provision 
cutting the food stamps of poor households that receive LIHEAP doesn't 
score any savings, we should remove this link from the bill and retain 
current law.
  Again, I urge my colleagues to join me and my colleagues, Senators 
Snowe, Chafee, Cohen, Leahy, Lieberman, Simon, Kennedy, Kohl, and 
Wellstone in supporting this amendment.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 4907

    (Purpose: To modify the requirement for expedited procedures to 
   establish paternity and to establish, modify, and enforce support 
                              obligations)

       Beginning on page 467, line 22, strike all through page 
     469, line 18, and insert the following:
       ``(D) Access to information contained in certain records.--
     To obtain access, subject to safeguards on privacy and 
     information security, and subject to the nonliability of 
     entities that afford such access under this subparagraph, to 
     information contained in the following records (including 
     automated access, in the case of records maintained in 
     automated data bases):
       ``(i) Records of other State and local government agencies, 
     including--
       ``(I) vital statistics (including records of marriage, 
     birth, and divorce);
       ``(II) State and local tax and revenue records (including 
     information on residence address, employer, income and 
     assets);
       ``(III) records concerning real and titled personal 
     property;
       ``(IV) records of occupational and professional licenses, 
     and records concerning the ownership and control of 
     corporations, partnerships, and other business entities;
       ``(V) employment security records;
       ``(VI) records of agencies administering public assistance 
     programs;
       ``(VII) records of the motor vehicle department; and
       ``(VIII) corrections records.
       ``(ii) Certain records held by private entities with 
     respect to individuals who owe or are owed support (or 
     against or with respect to whom a support obligation is 
     sought), consisting of--
       ``(I) the names and addresses of such individuals and the 
     names and addresses of the employers of such individuals, as 
     appearing in customer records of public utilities and cable 
     television companies, pursuant to an administrative subpoena 
     authorized by subparagraph (B); and
       ``(II) information (including information on assets and 
     liabilities) on such individuals held by financial 
     institutions.

  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, my amendment will bring the child support 
enforcement language in this bill

[[Page S8121]]

in line with Federal law on privacy protections. I understand it has 
been accepted by the committee, so I will keep my remarks brief. I 
sincerely appreciate the help and support of the chairman, Senator 
Roth, and the ranking member, Senator Moynihan.
  Mr. President, part of our effort to reform the welfare system in 
this country has been to ensure that parents are responsible for the 
financial support of their children. Efforts to streamline the ability 
of States to identify and collect child support payments from dead-beat 
parents is a big part of the Personal Responsibility and Work 
Opportunity Act of 1996. In our ardent effort to accomplish this, 
however, we must also remain mindful of legal protections that should 
be provided for private entities that would be required to supply 
necessary information for the enhanced enforcement of child support 
payments.
  It is important to note that the private entities that will be 
required to participate in the bill's support enforcement efforts 
should be able to operate within the constraints of existing laws 
designed to protect privacy.
  Current privacy protections in Federal law (18 U.S.C. Sec. 2703), 
require that private information can be provided only pursuant to a 
warrant, court order, or administrative subpoena. The bill's current 
provisions, which allow States to obtain information by merely 
requesting it, would be in conflict with this Federal statute. Without 
addressing this issue, the bill would put private entities such as 
telephone companies in a needlessly difficult situation. My amendment 
will resolve this problem.
  In short, Mr. President, what my amendment would do is allow States 
the ability to obtain this information in the simplest manner, while 
complying with Federal statute, by requiring only an administrative 
subpoena for the procurement of private information for the purposes of 
child support enforcement. It will also provide these private entities 
with the necessary protection from lawsuits.
  An administrative subpoena is not an onerous or time-consuming 
requirement for State agencies. In fact, in the States where it is 
currently used, the device actually streamlines the process of 
obtaining necessary information. Under an administrative subpoena, if 
preapproved conditions and standards are met, an agency has the 
authority to issue a subpoena without having to submit individual cases 
for a court's approval. In fact, it is my understanding that some 
States allow certain individuals, within an appropriate agency, the 
authority to issue subpoenas. For example, that could include a 
caseworker, who is working directly with the issue, to issue an 
administrative subpoena. This procedure is recognized by courts, and 
allows agencies to quickly obtain information, while providing private 
entities the necessary protection from lawsuits based on the 
unauthorized release of private information.

  Mr. President, the private entities involved, such as telephone 
companies, have a good record of complying with these requests, and 
working with agencies within the constraints of the law. Given that 
fact, and an expressed desire on the part of industry to be able to 
continue those efforts under this legislation, this minor change needs 
to be made. Otherwise, we could see a new problem arise with less 
timely compliance on the part of industry, if the protections of an 
administrative subpoena are not guaranteed.
  As I mentioned before, I thank the committee for their assistance and 
for accepting this amendment.


                           amendment no. 4908

 (Purpose: To provide for child support enforcement agreements between 
         the States and Indian tribes or tribal organizations)

       On page 411, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following:
       ``(4) Families under certain agreements.--In the case of a 
     family receiving assistance from an Indian tribe, distribute 
     the amount so collected pursuant to an agreement entered into 
     pursuant to a State plan under section 454(33).
       On page 411, line 3, strike ``(3)'' and insert ``(4)''.
       On page 554, between lines 7 and 8, insert the following:

     SEC. 2375. CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT FOR INDIAN TRIBES.

       (a) Child Support Enforcement Agreements.--Section 454 (42 
     U.S.C. 654), as amended by sections 2301(b), 2303(a), 
     2312(b), 2313(a), 2333, 2343(b), 2370(a)(2), and 2371(b) of 
     this Act is amended--
       (1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (31);
       (2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (32) and 
     inserting ``; and'';
       (3) by adding after paragraph (32) the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(33) provide that a State that receives funding pursuant 
     to section 428 and that has within its borders Indian country 
     (as defined in section 1151 of title 18, United States Code) 
     may enter into cooperative agreements with an Indian tribe or 
     tribal organization (as defined in subsections (e) and (l) of 
     section 4 of the Indian Self-Determination and Education 
     Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 450b)), if the Indian tribe or 
     tribal organization demonstrates that such tribe or 
     organization has an established tribal court system or a 
     Court of Indian Offenses with the authority to establish 
     paternity, establish, modify, and enforce support orders, and 
     to enter support orders in accordance with child support 
     guidelines established by such tribe or organization, under 
     which the State and tribe or organization shall provide for 
     the cooperative delivery of child support enforcement 
     services in Indian country and for the forwarding of all 
     funding collected pursuant to the functions performed by the 
     tribe or organization to the State agency, or conversely, by 
     the State agency to the tribe or organization, which shall 
     distribute such funding in accordance with such agreement; 
     and
       (4) by adding at the end the following new sentence: 
     ``Nothing in paragraph (33) shall void any provision of any 
     cooperative agreement entered into before the date of the 
     enactment of such paragraph, nor shall such paragraph deprive 
     any State of jurisdiction over Indian country (as so defined) 
     that is lawfully exercised under section 402 of the Act 
     entitled `An Act to prescribe penalties for certain acts of 
     violence or intimidation, and for other purposes', approved 
     April 11, 1968 (25 U.S.C. 1322).''.
       (b) Direct Federal Funding to Indian Tribes and Tribal 
     Organizations.--Section 455 (42 U.S.C. 655) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(b) The Secretary may, in appropriate cases, make direct 
     payments under this part to an Indian tribe or tribal 
     organization which has an approved child support enforcement 
     plan under this title. In determining whether such payments 
     are appropriate, the Secretary shall, at a minimum, consider 
     whether services are being provided to eligible Indian 
     recipients by the State agency through an agreement entered 
     into pursuant to section 454(33).''.
       (c) Cooperative Enforcement Agreements.--Paragraph (7) of 
     section 454 (42 U.S.C. 654) is amended by inserting ``and 
     Indian tribes or tribal organizations (as defined in 
     subsections (e) and (l) of section 4 of the Indian Self-
     Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 
     450b))'' after ``law enforcement officials''.
       (d) Conforming Amendment.--Subsection (c) of section 428 
     (42 U.S.C. 628) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(c) For purposes of this section, the terms `Indian 
     tribe' and `tribal organization' shall have the meanings 
     given such terms by subsections (e) and (l) of section 4 of 
     the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act 
     (25 U.S.C. 450b)), respectively.''.

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues, Senators Inouye, 
Domenici, and Daschle, for joining me in offering this important 
amendment.
  The amendment is similar to provisions adopted by the Senate during 
debate last year on H.R. 4, the original welfare reform bill. The 
amendment has bipartisan support, and as revised, is now endorsed by 
the National Council of State Child Support Enforcement Administrators.
  The non-controversial amendment I am offering should be adopted 
because it addresses a long-standing problem which Indian tribes and 
States have both experienced in providing child support enforcement 
services and funding affecting Indian children.
  The amendment would further the goals of enforcing child support 
enforcement activities by encouraging State governments with Indian 
lands within their borders to enter into cooperative agreements with 
Indian tribal governments for the delivery of child support enforcement 
services in Indian country. Let me repeat--the cooperative agreements 
would be encouraged; they would not be mandated.
  The amendment provides funding to achieve these purposes within the 
overall spending allocated to this effort. It gives the Secretary the 
authority, in specific instances, to provide direct Federal funding to 
Indian tribes operating an approved child support enforcement plan. 
This approach is consistent with the government-to-government 
relationship between tribal governments and the Federal Government, and 
the other provisions contained in the reconciliation measure.
  Mr. President, the problem is this--title IV-D of the Social Security 
Act

[[Page S8122]]

was enacted to assist all children in obtaining support and moving out 
of poverty. Under title IV-D, State child support offices are required 
to provide basic services to parents who apply for these services, 
including those that receive welfare assistance. These services include 
collecting and distributing child support payments from dead beat dads. 
Yet this program has been of little assistance to Indian children 
residing in Indian country because under title IV-D, only States are 
eligible to receive Federal funds to operate IV-D programs under 
Federal regulations which, as a practical matter, all but prohibits 
them from providing services to Indian children on reservations. 
Because of this, Indian children have lost, and will continue to lose, 
vitally-needed services.
  Mr. President, there is a great need for child support enforcement 
funding and services in Indian country. There are approximately 557 
federally-recognized Indian tribes and Alaska Native villages in the 
United States. According to the most recent Bureau of Census data, 
children under the age of 18 make up the largest age group of Indians. 
Approximately 20.5 percent of American Indians and Alaska Natives are 
under the age of 10 compared to 14 percent for the Nation's total 
population. In addition, one out of every five Indian households are 
headed by single females. This data reveals that the need for 
coordinated child support enforcement and service delivery in Indian 
country exceeds the need in the rest of America.

  There are also jurisdictional barriers to effective service delivery 
under IV-D programs on Indian reservations. Federal courts have held 
that Indian tribes, not States, have authority over Indian child 
support enforcement issues and paternity establishment of tribal 
members residing and working on the reservation. These jurisdictional 
safeguards, although necessary, have hampered State child support 
agencies in their efforts to negotiate agreements for the provision of 
services or funding to Indian tribal governments. The types of services 
provided under title IV-D include genetic blood testing and other 
measures used to establish paternity, and the establishment and 
enforcement of child support obligations through wage withholdings and 
tax intercepts. These activities fall within the exclusive jurisdiction 
of the Indian tribes for reservation residents. Yet there is no 
mechanism to enable tribes to receive Federal funding and assistance to 
conduct these activities.
  This amendment in no way forces or compels an Indian tribe or State 
to act, nor does it affect well-established State or tribal 
jurisdiction to establish paternity or support orders. It merely 
recognizes the problems of child support collection and distribution 
between States and tribes as they exist under the current system. 
Simply put, this amendment encourages cooperative agreements between 
two governments to satisfy the goals and purposes of uniform child 
support enforcement. Let me just point out that some of these 
agreements are already in place in States like Washington and Arizona.
  State administrators, such as in my own State, have attempted to meet 
the goals of uniform child support enforcement by extending their 
efforts to Indian country, but the administrative and jurisdictional 
hurdles make it all but impossible to get these services out to the 
children in need. These obstacles have lead to costly litigation. The 
ability of State governments to work with tribal governments to provide 
these services is quite limited because Indian tribes are not mentioned 
in title IV-D. The amendment would clarify that Indian children are 
entitled to the same protections from deadbeat dads as all other 
children in our country.
  Mr. President, this problem is not new to those involved in State 
child support enforcement agencies or national organizations concerned 
with these issues. For instance, in 1992, the American Bar Association 
and the Interstate Commission on Child Support Enforcement recognized 
the problems created by the omission of Indian tribes from the title 
IV-D legislation. In fact, the American Bar Association issued a 
handbook for States and tribes to use in attempting to negotiate State/
tribal cooperative agreements for child support enforcement. Also in an 
extensive report issued in 1992, the Interstate Commission on Child 
Support Enforcement recommended that the Congress address this problem 
in Federal legislation. Until now, nothing has been done to implement 
this recommendation.

  More recently, I received a letter from the President of the National 
Council of State Child Support Enforcement Administrators in support of 
the amendment I am offering. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent 
that a copy of the letter appear in the Record following my remarks.
  I will also say that there are several other weaknesses in our 
welfare reform bill that I remain very concerned about, issues raised 
by Indian tribes that have not been adequately addressed. The amendment 
I am offering does not address those concerns. But I want to take this 
opportunity to briefly outline the deficiencies I see.
  The welfare reform legislation we have before us eliminates the Child 
Protection Block Grant Program. I am concerned because the elimination 
of this program takes away the funding that tribes currently receive 
under the title IV-B child welfare programs.
  Currently tribes receive funding under the title IV-B, subpart 1 
program, known as child welfare services. The Secretary is directed to 
make grants to tribes, but the law does not specify a particular 
amount. Previous HHS regulations were very restrictive, and required 
that only those tribes which contracted under the Indian Self-
Determination Act for all BIA social services were eligible for the IV-
B, subpart 1 program. The result was that relatively few tribes were 
able to access this program. But HHS has recently revised, and greatly 
improved, the regulations for funding to tribes. Beginning in fiscal 
year 1996, HHS changed the IV-B Subpart 1 regulations to drop the 
requirement that only those tribes which contract for BIA social 
services would be eligible. The new regulations also increased the 
weight given to tribes in the formula, and they combined the IV-B 
incentive funds with the regular program, thus making more money 
available. Tribes are still in the process of applying for Title IV-B, 
subpart 1 funds under the new regulations. HHS Region X reports that 
the fiscal year 1996 applications from tribes thus far represent a 3-
fold increase over those of 2 years ago. And they expect more tribes to 
apply before the end of the fiscal year.
  Tribes also receive under current law a statutory 1 percent 
allocation under the title IV-B, subpart 2, Family Preservation and 
Support Services. But the welfare reform bill under consideration in 
the Senate today removes all funding for the child protection block 
grant program, meaning that Indian tribes will likely lose these funds.
  The House version of the bill, however, does provide for funding for 
the Child Protection Block Grant, including Indian tribes. Under the 
House bill, there are two streams of funding for the Child Protection 
Block Grant. First, under the House bill, Indian tribes would receive 1 
percent of funds under the mandatory money, or about $2.4 million 
annually. And tribes would be authorized to receive .36 percent, or 
about \1/3\ of 1 percent of the discretionary stream of funding. If the 
discretionary program is fully appropriated, tribes would receive about 
$1 million under this section of the Child Protection Block Grant. This 
.36 percent reflects the amount tribes received under the very 
restrictive title IV-B, subpart 1 regulations.
  I urge the conferees to adopt a figure which would reflect the amount 
of IV-B, Subpart 1 funds tribes would receive under the new 
regulations. As a rule, the relative funding levels provided to Indian 
tribes should, at the very least, not be reduced below previous levels. 
I have refrained at this time from offering amendments in the Senate in 
the hope that the conferees will ensure that Indian tribes are at least 
held harmless on these funds in the final version of the bill at 
conference. I urge the conferees to adopt the House approach in 
providing direct funding to tribes under the Child Protection Block 
Grant. We should make the funding under the discretionary program 
consistent with the mandatory funding in the Child Protection block 
grant and provide at least 1 percent for tribes.
  With that, Mr. President, I ask that my colleagues accept the 
amendment I am offering today that would allow

[[Page S8123]]

States and Indian tribes to cooperate on child support enforcement 
activities.
  There being no objection, the letter referred to was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

         National Council of State Child Support Enforcement 
           Administrators, July 18, 1996.
     Re Senator McCain's Senate Floor amendment to Senate bill 
         1956, the Balanced Budget Reconciliation Act.

     Hon. John McCain, Chairman,
     Senate Committee on Indian Affairs,
     Hon. William V. Roth, Chairman,
     Senate Finance Committee,
     Hon. Pete V. Domenici, Chairman,
     Senate Budget Committee, Washington, DC
       Gentlemen: I am writing you on behalf of the National 
     Council of State Child Support Enforcement Administrators 
     (NCSCSEA) in reference to the amendment offered on the Senate 
     floor by Senator McCain regarding child support enforcement 
     services to Native Americans.
       The amendment has been reviewed by the members of NCSCSEA's 
     Committee on Native American Children. Although not all 
     members of the Committee have responded on the amendment, a 
     majority of the Committee members have indicated their 
     support of it. Therefore, I feel comfortable expressing 
     NCSCSEA's support for this amendment.
       We feel this is an important step toward the goal of 
     providing all children the benefits of child support 
     enforcement. On behalf of NCSCSEA, I want to express our 
     appreciation to Senator McCain for his efforts on this 
     important issue.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Leslie L. Frye,
                                                        President.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 4909

    (Purpose: To require a State plan for foster care and adoption 
  assistance to provide for the protection of the rights of families, 
using adult relatives as the preferred placement for children separated 
 from their parents where such relatives meet the relevant State child 
                         protection standards)

       At the end of chapter 7, of subtitle A, of title II, add 
     the following:

     SEC. ____. KINSHIP CARE.

       Section 471(a) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     671(a)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (16);
       (2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (17) and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(18) provides that States shall give preference to an 
     adult relative over a non-related caregiver when determining 
     a placement for a child, provided that the relative caregiver 
     meets all relevant State child protection standards.''.

  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, each year, scores of abused, neglected, and 
abandoned children are herded into the world of child protection to be 
cared for by strangers. For many of these children, foster care will be 
a refuge, for others, a nightmare. Being separated from a parent is 
never easy, but we can make the transition smoother by looking to 
relatives when a child must be removed from his home.
  And so I wish, with my colleague from Oregon, to introduce the 
kinship care amendment. This amendment encourages States to use adult 
relatives as the preferred placement option for children separated from 
their parents. We are introducing this amendment because we feel 
strongly that if a child has to be separated from their parents for a 
period of time, that separation should be as smooth as possible.
  Kinship care is a time honored tradition in most cultures. Care of 
children by kin is strongly tied to family preservation. These 
relationships may stabilize family situations, ensure the protection of 
children, and prevent the need to separate children from their parents 
and place them in a formal foster care arrangement within the child 
welfare system.
  Yet, rather than encourage relative or kinship care some States have 
made it increasingly difficult for relatives to provide care for their 
own. Immense financial, emotional, and regulatory challenges are often 
barriers willing kinship caregivers.
  The amendment I am offering is consistent with current law. The 
Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980, Public Law 96-272, 
requires that when children are separated from their parents and placed 
in the custody of a public child welfare agency, the State must place 
them in the least restrictive alternative available. While relatives 
are not expressly mentioned, this requirement has been interpreted by 
many child welfare practitioners as a preference for placement with 
relatives when separation from parents must occur.
   Mr. President, this amendment is also consistent with previous 
positions I have taken on this matter. In S. 919, the 1995 amendments 
to the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act which was passed 
unanimously by the Labor Committee, includes a kinship care 
demonstration project. This demonstration project, which is 
administered by the Secretary of HHS, awards grants to public entities 
to assist in developing or implementing procedures using adult 
relatives as the preferred placement for children removed from their 
home, when those relatives are found to be capable of providing a safe, 
nurturing environment for the child.
  Additionally, S. 1904, the Project for American Renewal, includes The 
Kinship Care Act which creates a $30 million demonstration program for 
States to use adult relatives as the preferred placement option for 
children separated from their parents.
   Mr. President, this country is truly facing a very serious crisis 
concerning many of our children.
  By the end of 1992, 442,000 children were in foster care, up from 
276,000 in 1985, at a Federal cost in fiscal year 1993 of $2.6 billion. 
The population of children in foster care is expected to exceed 500,000 
by the end of 1996.
  The National Foster Parent Association reports that between 1985 and 
1990, the number of foster families declined by 27 percent while the 
number of children in out of home care increased by 47 percent.
  Children placed for foster care with relatives grew from 18 percent 
to 31 percent of the foster care caseload from 1986 through 1990 in 25 
States that supplied information to the Department of Health and Human 
Services.
  Children in kinship care are less likely to experience multiple 
placements than their counterparts in family foster care. Of the 
children who entered California's foster care system in 1988, for 
example, only about 23 percent of those placed initially with kin 
experienced another placement, while 58 percent of children living with 
unrelated foster families experienced at least one subsequent placement 
during the following 3.5 years.
  This amendment will: Ensure that grandparents and other adult 
relatives will be first in line to care for children who would 
otherwise be forced into foster care or adoption; strengthen the 
ability of families to rely on their own family members as resources. 
It will also help soften the trauma that occurs when children are 
separated from their parents. Living with relatives that they know and 
trust will give these children more immediate stability during this 
painful transition; and provide a hopeful alternative to traditional 
foster care.
  I hope that all my colleagues can see the critical importance of 
ensuring that children who are in need of out-of-home placement will be 
placed with relatives who they know and trust, rather than strangers. 
Please join me and Senator Wyden in supporting the kinship care 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, those amendments now 
are agreed to.
  The amendments (Nos. 4906 through 4909), en bloc, were agreed to.
  Mr. ROTH. I yield back the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 4910

   (Purpose: To ensure needy children receive noncash assistance to 
  provide for basic needs until the Federal 5-year time limit applies)

  Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk under the 
previous order and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Louisiana [Mr. Breaux] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 4910.

  Mr. BREAUX. 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:
       Section 408(a)(8) of the Social Security Act, as added by 
     section 2103(a)(1), is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(E) Effects of denial of cash assistance.--
       ``(i) Provision of vouchers.--In the event that a family is 
     denied cash assistance because of a time limit imposed under 
     this paragraph--

       ``(I) in the event that a family is denied cash assistance 
     because of a time limit imposed at the option of a State that 
     is less

[[Page S8124]]

     than 60 months, a State shall provide vouchers to the family 
     in accordance with clause (iii); and
       ``(II) in the event that a family is denied cash assistance 
     because of the 60 month time limit imposed pursuant to this 
     paragraph, a State may provide vouchers to the family in 
     accordance with such clause.

       ``(ii) Other assistance.--The--

       ``(I) eligibility of a family that receives a voucher under 
     clause (i) for any other Federal or federally assisted 
     program based on need, shall be determined without regard to 
     the voucher; and
       ``(II) such a family shall be considered to be receiving 
     cash assistance in the amount of the assistance provided in 
     the voucher for purposes of determining the amount of any 
     assistance provided to the family under any other such 
     program.

       ``(iii) Voucher requirements.--A voucher provided to a 
     family under clause (i) shall be based on a State's 
     assessment of the needs of a child of the family and shall 
     be--

       ``(I) determined based on the basic subsistence needs of 
     the child;
       ``(II) designed appropriately to pay third parties for 
     shelter, goods, and services received by the child; and
       ``(III) payable directly to such third parties.

  Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President and my colleagues, this is the amendment 
that has been referred to as the so-called voucher amendment which we 
have authored.
  I would point out that the legislation which originally came to the 
Senate from the House was much more reasonable in this area than the 
bill that is now before the Senate, which is the reason for this 
amendment.
  What we are basically talking about is the situation of what happens 
to children after we cut off a parent from a welfare program. Everybody 
wants to cut the parent off if they are not doing what they are 
supposed to be doing. We want to really be tough on parents. We are 
really going to be tough about work. We want to put work first. But we 
should not put children last.
  That is what I am trying to get at. I do not think there is a lot of 
difference between the position of my Republican colleagues and 
Democrats on this issue. We have time limits on the bill. Everybody 
agrees we ought to have time limits now. At least most people agree we 
ought to have time limits. We said in this legislation there was going 
to be a maximum period of time someone could be on welfare, and after 
that, they are off.
  A State under our legislation can pick a time limit of shorter than 5 
years. They can make it 24 months. My State is probably going to do 
that. Many other States are going to make it a lot shorter than 5 
years.
  So we are saying to parents, we are going to be very tough on you; we 
are going to make you realize that welfare is not forever, that it is 
temporary. We want you to get a job. We want you to go to work. We want 
you to earn a check and not just get a check.
  That is what all of this debate is basically about, trying to get 
people off welfare into the work force. I agree with that. I think most 
people in this body share that desire as well. Let us face it. Most 
people on welfare are not parents. Most people on welfare are children. 
And the majority of those children are young children. The majority of 
those children cannot get a job. They cannot work. Most of them do not 
even go to school because they are too young.
  So the point is, when we get tough on parents, fine, but how many 
people want to get tough on innocent children who did not ask to be 
born? I think we as a Nation have a responsibility to make sure that 
while we get as tough as we can on parents, we do not harm innocent 
children at the same time.
  Here is the problem. Under the Republican plan that is now pending 
before the Senate, if, after 5 years, a person is taken off welfare, 
there can be no assistance to children. There cannot be any vouchers to 
children. There can be no noncash assistance to children after 5 years. 
They are gone. I can agree that the parent may be gone as far as 
Federal assistance or State assistance. I do not agree that a young, 
innocent child, maybe 2 or 3 years old, should be neglected and 
forgotten by their country.
  That is the principal problem, because it forbids any type of 
assistance even to children, which are the majority of the people on 
welfare. Two-thirds of all people on AFDC assistance are children. In 
my State of Louisiana, 34.5 percent of all children are living in 
conditions below the poverty line--34.5 percent of the children living 
in Louisiana are at the poverty level or lower. So why should I as a 
Senator say that after the parent is taken off welfare, I am also for 
taking the child off any help or assistance?

  Is that what America is all about? I suggest it is not. We ought to 
be talking about putting children first in what we are trying to do for 
the future. The Republican plan, if the State takes a 2, 3 or 4-year 
period, allows them to give assistance but does not require it. And 
this is Federal money.
  In my State, the State puts up 28 percent, and the Federal Government 
puts up 72 percent. Should we not, as managers of the money we raise, 
say to the States they should use those funds to take care of innocent 
children?
  So the Breaux amendment which is now pending says to States, after 5 
years, they can use funds that they are getting in their block grant to 
help children, and it requires the States to do that if they pick a 
period to cut off the parent in a period shorter than 5 years.
  Let me tell you what we do with the amendment. It is absolutely, 
totally flexible in what it would allow. No. 1, the State, as they do 
when they select people on welfare, does an assessment. They do an 
assessment that determines whether this family should be on welfare. 
They know what the income level is; they know if they have a house or a 
car or truck or clothes or what have you. They make an assessment. They 
decide whether the person is eligible for welfare assistance or not. 
They know things about the family already.
  What my amendment simply says is that a voucher under conditions that 
we have set out--for instance, mandating it if the period is less than 
5 years--shall be based on the State's assessment of the needs of the 
child. The State makes the determination that the child is needy. If 
they make a determination that the child is in need, then that State 
will pay to third parties, for shelter, for goods, for services, 
clothing for the child if they need clothes, diapers if it is an infant 
and they cannot afford diapers in the family, a crib or medicine. How 
many people want to say we are not going to provide medicine for an 
innocent child because we kicked the child off welfare? How many people 
want to say we do not want to pay for medicine you need to survive? Or 
how many people want to say if the child wants to go to school and has 
no money to buy school supplies, that we, as a nation, are going to say 
to the children of America we are not going to help you buy school 
supplies to go? That is all we are saying.

  We are telling the State: You make the assessments. You determine if 
there is a need. If you determine there is a need, for heaven's sake, 
let us make sure we take care of the child. Not with cash. There is no 
money here. We are talking about in-kind vouchers so they could go to a 
third party: Maybe it is a Wal-Mart, maybe it is the local drug store, 
maybe it is a grocery store to get the food, but to take care of the 
child. The parent does not get the cash. There is no cash. The third 
party would get it, under my amendment, payable directly to third 
parties. The third party gets the money and uses those funds to take 
care of the children who did not ask to be born, who are innocent 
victims here. And we better start treating them better or we are going 
to have more people on welfare, not less.
  Are we going to allow children to get sick and just neglect them? 
Some say there is Federal money available under title 20. Great, $2 
billion a year and it goes to the elderly and goes to programs like 
Meals on Wheels and child care and everything else. Some will say this 
title 20, they can use it for that. ``There ain't no money left.'' 
There is no money in title 20. It has been frozen practically since we 
instituted the program. If they have food stamps, then the State 
determines that if the child is getting food stamps they do not need 
any of this.
  Really, what we are saying is let us be fair and treat children fair 
in this country. Let us be as tough as we possibly can on the parent 
who refuses to work. But for heaven's sake, we as a nation owe 
something to the children of America. The Breaux amendment, I think, 
would do just that.
  I reserve any time I may still have left.

[[Page S8125]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania is recognized.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I yield myself 5 minutes.
  Mr. President, this is a nice idea that is unnecessary. The current 
legislation very well takes care of what problem the Senator from 
Louisiana has laid out in his vouchers for children amendment. The 
Senator from Louisiana suggests, and correctly suggests, in the first 5 
years of the program, when someone enters the program, under the 
Republican bill the States are allowed--are allowed to provide a 
voucher program for those who disqualify themselves, usually, in most 
cases, because they refuse to comply with the law there, by not 
working. I should say those are people who are still eligible for a 
voucher. The States can use Federal dollars to provide those vouchers. 
OK? So it allows the State to provide a voucher using Federal dollars.
  What the Senator from Louisiana wants to do is, frankly, an 
additional cost to the State and not a requirement of the State. What 
he requires the State to do is an assessment after someone has broken 
their eligibility for welfare within the 5-year time period. He 
requires the State to do an assessment of the family to determine 
whether the children in that family are in need now, now that mom has 
decided not to go to work.

  So, an additional assessment is necessary under his plan. So they are 
required to do the assessment. What they are not required to do is 
provide a voucher. It is up to the State whether they want to provide 
that voucher or not. That, to me, is a cost and the State will say: 
Look, if you are going to make us do the assessment we will spend the 
money we would have spent maybe providing the vouchers, doing the 
assessment and not help anybody. So I think it is well intentioned but 
it could actually have the reverse effect, of getting fewer vouchers 
approved for those people within that 5-year window.
  On the other side of the 5-year window, again I think the Senator 
from Louisiana has missed the mark. He is correct, his amendment allows 
States to use the block grant funds for the AFDC block grant. It allows 
them to use those funds for vouchers after 5 years. That is what his 
amendment does. Our bill does not allow you to use the block grant 
funds in the AFDC block grant, now it is called the TANF block grant, 
for vouchers. But what we do allow under current law is to use title 20 
block grant money for that provision of services.
  So there are several block grants we are giving to the State. One is 
the block grant to the States for social services. It is an existing 
block grant and there is nothing in this law--in fact I will read it. 
``Services which are directed at the goals set forth in this section, 
2001, include, but are not limited to . . .'' and it includes child 
care services and a whole bunch of other things. It is very clear 
within this block grant, the Governors, the legislature if they want to 
provide it, can give Federal dollars for a voucher program after the 5-
year time limit is expired. They have Federal dollars right here to do 
it.
  We are all talking about the same pot of money. The Senator from 
Louisiana does not put up more money to provide vouchers after 5 years. 
We have the same pots of money here. All we are suggesting is we want--
and here is the difference. If you want to know the difference between 
what the Senator from Louisiana wants to do and what the Republican 
bill wants to do--I should put it this way.
  The Republicans want all the block-granted funds for AFDC to go in 
the first 5 years, to concentrate that money to get people off welfare. 
We do not want any of those funds diverted to maintain people on 
welfare. We want all that money spent in the first 5 years. We believe 
we want every conceivable dollar we can get to get people up and going 
and off so we do not have to worry about the next 5 years.
  By spending less the first 5 you guarantee people will be there at 
the end, and we do not want to do that. We want to make sure it is all 
spent. If there is a problem after the 5-year period, then we will say: 
Look, there are some other Federal dollars out here. If you want to use 
those dollars, you are certainly welcome to use those dollars. In 
addition, obviously there is nothing in either of these bills that 
prohibits the State from using State dollars to fund a voucher program 
after the 5-year period.
  Mr. FORD. Will the distinguished Senator yield for one question?
  Mr. SANTORUM. I will be happy to yield.
  Mr. FORD. Did the Republican welfare bill that was passed last year, 
the one that was proposed last year, have in it the same thing that the 
Senator from Louisiana is trying to propose now? In this bill have you 
restricted it more than the previous bill?
  Mr. SANTORUM. You have two questions there, actually, in order to 
give the answer.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will say to the Senator, the time of 
the Senator has expired.
  Mr. SANTORUM. I yield myself an additional 30 seconds.
  It is restrictive in some respects; in some it is not. We do not 
require in the first 5 years--in the original bill you have to do these 
reviews and have to provide some service, so that is not the same. The 
Breaux amendment in fact goes further. In the second 5 years there was 
an allowance in the conference report, I believe, and I can check on 
that, that after 5 years they could use Federal funds.
  Mr. FORD. I say to the Senator I do not believe--you allowed 
noncash----
  Mr. SANTORUM. Correct.
  Mr. FORD. At the discretion of the State. Now you are not allowing 
it, you are cutting it off at the end of 5 years.
  Mr. SANTORUM. I think that was in the conference report and not the 
Senate bill, but I will check on that.
  Mr. FORD. It was somewhat different. You allowed it before and now 
you say you cannot.
  Mr. SANTORUM. But we do not go as far as, I believe in the wrong 
direction, the Breaux amendment goes at this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, how much time do we have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana has 2 minutes and 
50 seconds.
  Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, let me just make a couple of comments. I 
do not want to belabor this point. When the Senate votes tomorrow, it 
is going to be faced with the question of how do we do welfare reform? 
Do we do welfare reform by being tough on parents who refuse to work? 
Or are we going to be tough on kids who do not have a choice in life?
  I think this country, as strong as we are, should be as tough as we 
possibly can on deadbeat parents or parents who do not want to work or 
refuse to work, whatever the reason. But we should not take it out on 
innocent children who did not ask to be born.
  This amendment simply says that, after a family has been taken off 
AFDC assistance, we should at least allow the States to use their block 
grant money they already get to pay for vouchers to give to third 
parties to provide for the needs of children whose parents have been 
kicked off AFDC assistance.
  This is a child, and most of the people on welfare are children. Over 
two-thirds are children, and those children are poor children. I am 
merely saying with my amendment that we should at least allow--and the 
Republican bill says it is forbidden--at least allow a State to use its 
block grant money to aid a child with in-kind assistance, not with cash 
dollars to the parent, not with cash money to the child, but in-kind 
contributions to help that child survive, in many cases in terms of 
getting food, in terms of getting clothing, in terms of getting 
diapers, yes, or in terms of getting medicine.
  The Republican bill forbids it. This amendment says we allow the 
State to do it. It simply says, if the State is going to cut them off 
after a shorter period of time, we ought to require them to do that. 
The State makes a determination whether there is a need. The State 
makes a determination what kind of benefits they get, how much and for 
how long. This is truly in keeping with the block grant concept that 
the States should have the maximum flexibility in this particular area.
  The National Governors' Association endorses this, and a majority of 
them are Republicans. They said, ``Don't prevent us from doing this if 
we want to do it.'' That is the NGA position. They have sent a formal, 
written letter to those of us on the committee which

[[Page S8126]]

says, ``Please do not prohibit us from helping children if we want to 
help children.''
  The Republican bill is absolutely contrary to the NGA position. Even 
more, it is contrary to what this country is about, and that is give an 
opportunity for children to survive.
  I think without this amendment we make a very strong statement that 
we are going to be so tough we are going to step on the rights and 
futures of the children of this country. That is not what this Congress 
is about; that is not what this country is about. I suggest this 
amendment be adopted.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator from Louisiana has 
expired.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I want to make two quick responses. No. 
1, the Senator from Kentucky is absolutely right, it was in the 
conference report, but I tell the Senator from Kentucky, it was not in 
the House bill, it was not in the Senate bill, and I have been informed 
by staff it was a drafting error in the conference report. It was a 
mistake on the part of the drafters in putting that in. It was not 
intended policy by either body to include what the Breaux amendment 
does.
  I think one of the reasons is--and I get back to the fact that there 
are Federal dollars out there for the States to use for that last 5 
years, and I think that is more than generous and complies with what 
the Governors want to do, which is to have Federal dollars available 
for the voucher program after the 5-year period.

  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, may I just say to the Senator from 
Pennsylvania, it is strange to blame staff.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Two minutes 30 seconds remain.
  The Senator from Delaware is recognized.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I reiterate what my distinguished colleague 
from Pennsylvania has said. First of all, the States are still free to 
use title XX money for whatever purpose they see fit. So it is not 
accurate to say that funds are shut off so that children cannot be 
helped.
  I point out that even with the 5-year time limit to implement the 
important welfare reforms we are considering, families receiving 
Government assistance will still be eligible for more than 80 means-
tested programs. That is quite a few. These programs range from food 
stamps, WIC, health care, to section 8 low-income housing. In other 
words, placing a 5-year time limit on implementing our welfare reform 
package is not Government pulling away a lifeline; rather, it is 
Government encouraging people to swim and giving them the time 
necessary to learn.
  Mr. President, I believe we must keep the 5-year time limit, and I 
encourage my colleagues to see that we do. I encourage them to join me 
in seeing that real and necessary reforms take place in a real and 
positive way.
  Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time on the amendment has expired.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I make a point of order against the Breaux 
amendment on the grounds that it is nongermane under sections 305 and 
310 of the Budget Act.
  Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the 
Congressional Budget Act, I move to waive all applicable points of 
order under that act for the purposes of the Breaux amendment.
  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 vote will be delayed under the previous 
order.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, what is the order of business? Was there 
agreement as to the order? I was not sure whether the Senator from 
North Carolina--I am told he has 3 minutes; is that correct? I do not 
want to usurp his order.
  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. I think the order is Senator Abraham.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will clarify it was not a unanimous 
consent agreement, it was a general understanding that the Senator from 
North Carolina would proceed.
  Mr. BIDEN. As I understand it, Mr. President, it was a general 
understanding that after the Senator from North Carolina finished, the 
Senators from Pennsylvania and Delaware would have the floor to offer 
their amendment. That was my understanding. I know it is not a UC.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. I have Senator Faircloth, Senator Biden, 
Senator Santorum.
  Mr. BIDEN. I assume we will do that. If we do not, I will not yield 
the floor.

  So I ask unanimous consent that upon the completion of the 6 minutes 
on the Faircloth amendment, then myself and Senator Specter be 
recognized to offer our amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to that?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I have been trying to get----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator reserve the right to object?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Reserving the right to object, can I ask unanimous 
consent that I be in order after the Biden-Specter amendment?
  Mr. SANTORUM. No. I object.
  Mr. DOMENICI. We already placed the Senator from Minnesota and 
indicated when he is going to come up. We indicated that at least 
informally.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. When is that? I might ask.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair informs the Senator from Minnesota, 
the Senator from New Mexico is correct. Under a general agreement, not 
a unanimous-consent agreement, the Senator is due to be recognized 
after the Senator from Missouri, Senator Ashcroft.
  The Chair will clarify: Senators Faircloth, Biden, Santorum, Harkin, 
Ashcroft, Wellstone, Graham and Dodd.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Wellstone has two.
  Mr. FORD. Wellstone has two.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Mr. President, I am ready to proceed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 4911

      (Purpose: To address multi-generational welfare dependency)

  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Mr. President, I have an amendment that I send to the 
desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from North Carolina [Mr. Faircloth] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 4911.

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

       On page 245, line 22, insert ``and subparagraph (C),'' 
     after ``(B)''.
       on page 249, between lines 14 and 15, insert the following:
       ``(C) Requirement that adult relative or guardian not have 
     a history of assistance.--A State shall not use any part of 
     the grant paid under section 403 to provide cash assistance 
     to an individual described in subparagraph (B)(ii) if such 
     individual resides with a parent, guardian, or other adult 
     relative who is receiving assistance under a State program 
     funded under this part and has been receiving this assistance 
     for a 3-year period.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for 3 minutes.
  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Mr. President, this amendment is intended to address 
the problem of multigenerational welfare dependency. In other words, 
this is an attempt to cut off the money, to break the cycle of welfare 
dependency.
  The bill before us requires that minor children be required to live 
with the parent to receive assistance. I agree with this. But, 
unfortunately, in many cases that parent or, as it might turn out to 
be, grandparent to the child to be born, has a history of dependency 
herself and has continuously for a long time been dependent upon 
welfare and Aid to Families with Dependent Children, to cash payments. 
My amendment says simply that if the parent is currently receiving 
welfare, and has been for a 3-year period, that the minor may not 
receive cash benefits.
  This amendment is not intended to reduce benefits. States are not 
prohibited from giving noncash benefits. This amendment will simply 
prevent more cash from going to a household with a clear history of 
welfare dependency. In its very simplest terms, if the grandmother of 
this child to be born or that has just been born has been on welfare 
for 3 continuous years, then the mother of the child cannot receive a 
check,

[[Page S8127]]

a cash check benefit. She can receive all other benefits, food stamps, 
diapers, whatever would be appropriate, medical care. But two cash 
checks cannot go to the same household.
  Mr. President, I think this is what we are trying to do, to cut out 
the dependency upon direct Government taxpayers' cash money. This will 
do it in this case. I yield the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from North 
Carolina does have 30 seconds remaining. Who yields time?
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I do not believe there is anyone on our side 
who would like to take the 3 minutes. I understood the Senator from 
North Carolina yielded back his time.
  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. I yield back my time.
  Mr. FORD. On behalf of the floor manager, I yield back the 3 minutes 
on our side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back. All time on the 
amendment has expired.
  Mr. BIDEN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.


                           Amendment No. 4912

            (Purpose: To provide for a complete substitute.)

  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for 
its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Delaware [Mr. Biden], for himself and Mr. 
     Specter, proposes an amendment numbered 4912.

  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further 
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under 
``Amendments Submitted.'')
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Pennsylvania.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the pending amendment is the substance of 
a bill which the distinguished Senator from Delaware, Senator Biden, 
and I introduced some time ago, Senate bill 1867. This bill was 
introduced as a companion bill to H.R. 3266, which was a bipartisan 
bill introduced by Congressman Castle of Delaware and Congressman 
Tanner.
  The purpose of this effort was to try to find a bipartisan way to 
move to agreement on welfare reform. At that time, in the context of 
the muddled situation which was then presented, welfare reform was 
stalled because, after the Senate approved a welfare reform bill by a 
vote of 87 to 12, and the House passed its own bill, and then the 
conference report produced legislation which was divided pretty much 
along party lines, when the conference report came out of the Congress 
that bill was vetoed by the President.

  There has been a general consensus in America that welfare reform is 
necessary with President Clinton's famous statement, ``We need to 
reform welfare as we know it.'' There has been a very considerable 
effort in both Houses to have welfare reform. When welfare reform was 
stalled, Congressman Castle and Congressman Tanner introduced the 
bipartisan bill in the House, and Senator Biden and I followed suit 
with a bipartisan bill in the Senate.
  Thereafter, the Budget Committee reported out a new welfare reform 
bill, Senate bill 1956. Having started with a bipartisan effort with 
Senator Biden, I intend to continue that. It is my view that, in a 
side-by-side comparison of the committee report contrasted with the 
original Biden-Specter bill, our bill is preferable, although candidly 
they are very close.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion of my 
remarks, a 7-page summary of the comparison of the welfare reform 
proposals, of the budget reconciliation bill, S. 1956, compared to the 
Biden-Specter, bill be printed in the Record, together with a 1-page 
summary of the major differences in the welfare proposals.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. SPECTER. Briefly, Mr. President, I will itemize six of these 
issues which I believe show the superiority of the Biden-Specter bill 
over the committee report as embraced in Senate bill 1956.
  The first difference is that the budget reconciliation bill 
eliminates child-care safety standards from existing law, whereas the 
Biden-Specter bill maintains those child-care safety standards, which I 
submit are very important.
  The second significant difference in provisions is that in the Biden-
Specter bill there is an individual responsibility contract, while the 
budget reconciliation bill has none. This individual responsibility 
contract is an agreement entered into by the Government on one side and 
the welfare recipient on the other, which specifies the 
responsibilities of each, which I submit is a significant step forward 
and is desirable to have in the legislation.
  The third significant activity is that the Biden-Specter bill 
provides funding for work-activities funding, which is a very important 
element. There is some contention that this may put us out of order in 
terms of funding, but it is my understanding that on the Castle-Tanner 
bill, the identical bill, there was a budget estimate which puts us 
within the appropriate range.
  The fourth significant difference is on the safety net provisions. 
The budget reconciliation bill has the States prohibited from using 
Federal funds to provide vouchers after the 5-year time limit. Under 
Biden-Specter, there is a State option for such benefits, to both 
children and adults, after 5 years. It is my submission that leaving 
the State option is preferable to having an absolute Federal 
prohibition in line with the general theory of leaving the State 
options.
  The fifth significant difference relates to food stamps, where there 
is a retention of the entitlement under the Biden-Specter bill, 
contrasted with the budget reconciliation bill, which gives a State 
option for a block grant.
  Overall, the Biden-Specter bill does not contain entitlements. But on 
this one item, food stamps, there is a retention of this existing 
entitlement because of our consideration that food stamps are so 
important, so basic that there ought not to be the option for the 
States to eliminate food stamps.
  The Sixth item relates to immigrant exceptions, where the Biden-
Specter bill retains the exemptions or has an identical provision as to 
the retention of immigrant exceptions under the budget reconciliation 
bill as to exempting refugees, veterans, and military personnel. But we 
add to it disabled children, victims of domestic abuse, and all 
children in the case of food stamps.
  Mr. President, we are in a very complex matter here. It is my hope 
that the Congress will adopt welfare reform legislation which will be 
signed by the President and that the gridlock will not continue. In 
maintaining my support for Senate bill 1867, I understand that the 
budget reconciliation bill, Senate bill 1956 has the support of a 
majority of Republicans, but having started all this effort to have a 
bipartisan legislative proposal with Congressmen Castle and Tanner 
joining Senator Biden and I, I intend to stay there.
  I do believe there are some beneficial provisions which are included 
in Biden-Specter which are not present in the budget reconciliation 
bill. For these reasons, I urge Members to support this amendment which 
Senator Biden and I are proposing this evening.

                               Exhibit 1

                 COMPARISON OF WELFARE REFORM PROPOSALS                 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Budget                             
                               reconciliation (S.     Bipartisan Reform 
                              1956, as approved by   Act (Biden-Specter,
                              Finance and reported    S. 1867) (Tanner- 
                                   by Budget)        Castle, H.R. 3266) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            GRANTS TO STATES                            
                                                                        
Cash Assistance Block Grant.  Ends AFDC             Same.               
                               entitlement and                          
                               combines AFDC, EA,                       
                               and JOBS into a                          
                               block grant to the                       
                               states. Funding                          
                               totals $16.4                             
                               billion annually.                        

[[Page S8128]]

                                                                        
Maintenance-of-Effort.......  80% of FY 94          85% of FY 94        
                               spending on AFDC      spending on AFDC   
                               and related           and related        
                               programs.             programs.          
                               Percentage could be   Percentage could   
                               lowered to as low     range anywhere from
                               as 72% for ``high     80% to 90%,        
                               performance''         depending on a     
                               states (see           state's success in 
                               performance bonus     meeting the work   
                               section below).       participation      
                                                     requirements.      
Supplemental Grant..........  $800 million fund     Same.               
                               for states with                          
                               high population                          
                               growth and/or below                      
                               average AFDC                             
                               benefits.                                
Loan Fund...................  $1.7 billion loan     Same.               
                               fund, which must be                      
                               repaid with                              
                               interest within 3                        
                               years.                                   
Contingency Funds...........  $2 billion            Same, except (1)    
                               contingency fund      minor differences  
                               for states with       in triggers to     
                               high unemployment     qualify; (2) if the
                               rates or increases    fund is exhausted  
                               in food stamp         as a result of a   
                               caseload. State       national or        
                               maximum equal to      regional recession,
                               20% of block grant.   additional money   
                               States must           would be added to  
                               maintain 100% of      the fund; and (3)  
                               state spending in     state maximum equal
                               order to tap          to 40% of block    
                               contingency funds.    grant minus the    
                                                     supplemental grant 
                                                     a state receives.  
Work Activities Funding.....  No provision........  $3 billion work fund
                                                     available beginning
                                                     in FY 1999 for     
                                                     states that        
                                                     maintain 100% of   
                                                     state spending on  
                                                     work programs and  
                                                     match federal funds
                                                     at the Medicaid    
                                                     rate.              
Illegitimacy Bonus..........  States that reduced   Same.               
                               their out-of-                            
                               wedlock birth rates                      
                               without increasing                       
                               their abortion                           
                               rates would be                           
                               eligible for                             
                               additional funding                       
                               equal to 5% to 10%                       
                               of block grant.                          
Performance Bonus...........  $200 million per      No provision.       
                               year, beginning in                       
                               FY 1999, available                       
                               to states with                           
                               ``high                                   
                               performance,'' as                        
                               determined by a                          
                               formula to be                            
                               developed by HHS.                        
                               Each state's                             
                               performance bonus                        
                               could not exceed 5%                      
                               of block grant.                          
                                                                        
                               CHILD CARE                               
                                                                        
Child Care Block Grant......  $13.8 billion over 6  Same.               
                               years in guaranteed                      
                               funding (annual                          
                               amount increases                         
                               each year). An                           
                               additional $1                            
                               billion per year is                      
                               authorized and                           
                               subject to annual                        
                               appropriations.                          
Child Care Maintenance of     To receive funds      Same, except states 
 Effort.                       above base            must maintain 100% 
                               allocation ($9.3      of FY 95 spending  
                               billion), states      on child care.     
                               must maintain 100%                       
                               of FY 94 or FY 95                        
                               spending on child                        
                               care, whichever is                       
                               greater, and match                       
                               federal funds at                         
                               the Medicaid rate.                       
Transfer of Funds...........  States may transfer   States may transfer 
                               up to 30% of cash     up to 20% of cash  
                               block grant to        block grant to     
                               child care.           child care.        
Health and Safety Standards.  Eliminates health/    Maintains health/   
                               safety standards      safety standards   
                               for child care        for child care     
                               providers.            providers.         
                                                                        
                               TIME LIMITS                              
                                                                        
Time Limits.................  5 years (less at a    Same.               
                               state's option, but                      
                               no less than 2                           
                               years).                                  
Hardship Exception..........  States can exempt     Same.               
                               20% of caseload                          
                               from the time limit                      
                               for reasons of                           
                               hardship or abuse/                       
                               extreme cruelty.                         
Safety Net..................  States prohibited     If states have time 
                               from using federal    limit of less than 
                               funds to provide      5 years, in-kind/  
                               vouchers after the    voucher benefits   
                               five-year time        must be provided to
                               limit.                kids. State option 
                                                     for such benefits  
                                                     to both kids and   
                                                     adults after 5     
                                                     years.             
                                                                        
                                  WORK                                  
                                                                        
Individual Responsibility     No provision........  To be eligible for  
 Contract.                                           benefits,          
                                                     individuals must   
                                                     sign an individual 
                                                     responsibility     
                                                     contract.          
Work Requirements...........  Welfare recipients    Same.               
                               must work after two                      
                               years of receiving                       
                               assistance.                              
Work Participation Rate.....  States must have the  States must have the
                               following             following          
                               percentages of        percentages of     
                               welfare recipients    welfare recipients 
                               working: FY 97--      working: FY 97--   
                               25%; FY 98--30%; FY   20%; FY 98--25%; FY
                               99--35%; FY 00--      99--30%; FY 00--   
                               40%; FY 01--45%       35%; FY 01--40%; FY
                               FY02--50%.            02--50%.           
Financial Penalties on        States that failed    No provision. (See  
 States.                       to meet the work      maintenance-of-    
                               participation rate    effort section     
                               would lose 5% of      above.)            
                               their block grant                        
                               in the first year,                       
                               10% in the second                        
                               year, 15% in the                         
                               third year, etc.                         
Hourly Work Requirements....  To count as work,     To count as work,   
                               individuals would     individuals would  
                               be required to work   be required to work
                               the following hours   the following hours
                               each week: FY 97-     each week: FY 97-  
                               98--20; FY 99-25;     98--20; FY 99--25. 
                               FY 00-01--30; FY                         
                               02--35.                                  
Work Requirement Exemption..  State option to       Same, except there  
                               exempt from work      is no one-year     
                               requirement those     aggregate lifetime 
                               with children under   cap per family.    
                               age 1, with one-                         
                               year lifetime                            
                               aggregate exemption                      
                               per family. Those                        
                               with children under                      
                               age 6 are required                       
                               to work 20 hours                         
                               per week.                                
Child Care Exemption........  States cannot         Same, except applies
                               penalize those who    to those with      
                               refuse to work if     children under age 
                               they have children    six.               
                               under age eleven                         
                               and cannot find or                       
                               cannot afford child                      
                               care.                                    
Work Activities.............  ``Work'' is defined   Same. Also,         
                               as employment; on-    individuals leaving
                               the-job training;     welfare for work,  
                               work experience;      and working at     
                               community service;    least 25 hours per 
                               job search            week, would count  
                               activities (for 4     toward the state   
                               weeks, or for 12      participation      
                               weeks if state        requirement for six
                               unemployment          months.            
                               exceeds national                         
                               average); and                            
                               vocational training                      
                               (for 12 months and                       
                               no more than 20                          
                               percent of                               
                               caseload).                               
                               Teenagers in                             
                               secondary school                         
                               would be considered                      
                               ``working.''.                            
                                                                        
                                TEENAGERS                               
                                                                        
Teen Parents................  In order to receive   Same.               
                               cash assistance,                         
                               unmarried teens                          
                               under the age of 18                      
                               must stay in school                      
                               and live at home or                      
                               in another adult-                        
                               supervised setting.                      
Denial of Benefits to         State option........  Same.               
 Unmarried Minors.                                                      
Federal Strategy to Prevent   Requires HHS to       Same.               
 Teen Pregnancies.             establish a                              
                               strategy for                             
                               preventing out-of-                       
                               wedlock teen                             
                               pregnancies and                          
                               have a teen                              
                               pregnancy                                
                               prevention program                       
                               in 25% of all U.S.                       
                               communities.                             
                                                                        
                    OTHER CASH ASSISTANCE PROVISIONS                    
                                                                        
Family Cap..................  Federal mandate,      Same.               
                               with state ability                       
                               to opt out.                              
Existing Waivers............  States with existing  Same.               
                               welfare waivers                          
                               would have the                           
                               option to continue                       
                               to operate under                         
                               their waivers,                           
                               regardless of the                        
                               provisions of this                       
                               bill. However,                           
                               funding for that                         
                               state would be the                       
                               amount under the                         
                               block grant.                             
Transitional Medicaid.......  Provides Medicaid     Retains current law 
                               coverage during a     of one-year        
                               one-year transition   transition Medicaid
                               period for those      coverage for all   
                               who leave welfare     welfare recipients 
                               for work as long as   who leave welfare  
                               family income is      for work.          
                               below the poverty                        
                               line.                                    
State Accountability........  States must           Same, except that   
                               establish             the federal        
                               procedures to         government must    
                               ensure that           approve state      
                               eligibility and       welfare plans and  
                               benefits are          therefore has      
                               determined in a       oversight on       
                               fair and equitable    fairness and due   
                               manner--and that      process            
                               similar families      requirements.      
                               are treated                              
                               similarly. States                        
                               must have due                            
                               process procedures                       
                               for those denied                         
                               assistance.                              
                                                                        
                              CHILD SUPPORT                             
                                                                        
Licenses/Passports..........  Requires states to    Same.               
                               have laws                                
                               suspending drivers,                      
                               professional,                            
                               occupation, and                          
                               recreational                             
                               licenses for                             
                               overdue child                            
                               support. Federal                         
                               government will                          
                               deny or suspend                          
                               passports to those                       
                               with arrears in                          
                               excess of $5,000.                        
Paternity Establishment.....  Increases the         Same.               
                               paternity                                
                               establishment rate                       
                               from 75% to 90%.                         
                               States that fail to                      
                               meet this                                
                               percentage would                         
                               have their block                         
                               grant reduced.                           
Distribution of Child         Beginning FY 1998,    Same.               
 Support.                      arrearages                               
                               collected after                          
                               family leaves                            
                               welfare would be                         
                               paid to family                           
                               (unless collected                        
                               through IRS                              
                               intercept).                              
                               Beginning FY 2001,                       
                               pre-welfare                              
                               arrearages would be                      
                               paid to family                           
                               (unless collected                        
                               through IRS                              
                               intercept). Ends                         
                               $50 pass through.                        
Automation..................  States must have      Same.               
                               central registry of                      
                               child support cases                      
                               and support orders--                     
                               and an automated                         
                               directory of new                         
                               hires. Also, states                      
                               must operate a                           
                               centralized unit to                      
                               collect and                              
                               disburse all child                       
                               support orders.                          
                               Increases funding                        
                               for states for                           
                               systems automation.                      
Individual Cooperation......  Individuals           Same, except the    
                               receiving cash        minimum penalty    
                               assistance who fail   would be the amount
                               to cooperate in       of family          
                               establishing          assistance         
                               paternity or          attributable to the
                               collecting child      adult.             
                               support would have                       
                               family benefit                           
                               reduced at least                         
                               25%. States could                        
                               deny all benefits                        
                               to the family.                           
Interstate Enforcement......  Requires states to    Same.               
                               enact Uniform                            
                               Interstate Family                        
                               Support Act and                          
                               have expedited                           
                               procedures for                           
                               interstate cases.                        
                               Creates forms for                        
                               use in collection                        
                               of interstate                            
                               orders. Requires                         
                               states to respond                        
                               within 5 days to a                       
                               request by another                       
                               state for                                
                               enforcement of an                        
                               order.                                   
Work Requirement............  States must have      Same.               
                               procedures to                            
                               ensure that                              
                               noncustodial                             
                               parents in arrears                       
                               have a plan for                          
                               payment or                               
                               participate in work                      
                               programs.                                
Grandparent Liability.......  State option to hold  Same.               
                               parents of                               
                               noncustodial minor                       
                               parent (the                              
                               grandparents of the                      
                               child receiving                          
                               welfare)                                 
                               responsible for                          
                               child support.                           
Health Care Support.........  Requires states to    Same.               
                               have procedures to                       
                               ensure that all                          
                               child support                            
                               orders include the                       
                               provision of health                      
                               care benefits for                        
                               the child.                               

[[Page S8129]]

                                                                        
Access/Visitation...........  Creates grants for    Same.               
                               states to establish                      
                               programs and                             
                               systems of access                        
                               and visitation for                       
                               noncustodial                             
                               parents.                                 
                                                                        
                            SSI FOR CHILDREN                            
                                                                        
Eligibility.................  Eliminates            Same.               
                               comparable severity                      
                               standard,                                
                               Individual                               
                               Functional                               
                               Assessment (IFA),                        
                               and references to                        
                               maladaptive                              
                               behavior.                                
                               Establishes new                          
                               definition of                            
                               disability for                           
                               children.                                
Grandfather Clause..........  All children          Same, except that   
                               currently receiving   the earliest       
                               SSI benefits must     disenrollment date 
                               be reevaluated        is January 1, 1997.
                               under the new                            
                               definition. But, no                      
                               child currently                          
                               receiving benefits                       
                               would be                                 
                               disenrolled before                       
                               June 30, 1997.                           
Continuing Reviews..........  Disability reviews    Same.               
                               must be conducted                        
                               at least every                           
                               three years for                          
                               children under age                       
                               18. Representative                       
                               payees must prove                        
                               that children are                        
                               receiving treatment                      
                               for their                                
                               condition.                               
                               Eligibility would                        
                               be determined using                      
                               adult disability                         
                               definition within                        
                               one year of turning                      
                               18.                                      
Privately Insured,            Benefits limited to   Same.               
 Institutionalized Children.   $30 per month.                           
Deeming of Parents Income...  No provision........  Disregards some     
                                                     income of the      
                                                     parents of disabled
                                                     children to provide
                                                     a monthly benefit  
                                                     for those with     
                                                     lower incomes that 
                                                     is greater than    
                                                     those with higher  
                                                     incomes. Medicaid  
                                                     eligibility would  
                                                     be retained for    
                                                     those who lose     
                                                     benefits under this
                                                     provision.         
Fraud.......................  Individuals who have  Same.               
                               fraudulently                             
                               misrepresented                           
                               their residence in                       
                               order to receive                         
                               welfare, food                            
                               stamps, or SSI                           
                               benefits in more                         
                               than one state                           
                               simultaneously                           
                               would be ineligible                      
                               for benefits for 10                      
                               years. Benefits                          
                               would not be                             
                               available to                             
                               fugitive felons.                         
                                                                        
                               IMMIGRANTS                               
                                                                        
Food Stamps/SSI.............  Current and future    Same, except        
                               immigrants barred     following people   
                               from receiving food   also exempted:     
                               stamps and SSI        *Children (food    
                               until attaining       stamps only);      
                               citizenship or        *Disabled children;
                               working 40            *Victims of        
                               quarters. Exempts     domestic abuse.    
                               the following                            
                               people: *Refugees                        
                               (first 5 years                           
                               only) *Veterans/                         
                               Active duty                              
                               military and their                       
                               dependents.                              
All Other Means Tested        Five-year ban on      Same, except for the
 Programs.                     means-tested          additional people  
                               benefits for new      exempted under food
                               immigrants, with      stamps/SSI. Also,  
                               same exceptions as    ban does not apply 
                               food stamps/SSI.      to Medicaid (but   
                               Ban does not apply    sponsor's income   
                               to the following      would be deemed;   
                               programs:             see below).        
                               *Emergency medical                       
                               care; *Emergency                         
                               disaster relief;                         
                               *Child nutrition;                        
                               *Immunizations;                          
                               *Testing and                             
                               treatment for                            
                               communicable                             
                               diseases; *Foster                        
                               care and adoption                        
                               assistance; *Higher                      
                               education loans and                      
                               grants; *Title I                         
                               education for                            
                               disadvantaged                            
                               children.                                
Deeming.....................  Income of             Extends current law 
                               immigrant's sponsor   deeming requirement
                               deemed to immigrant   to Medicaid        
                               for all federal       program. (Thus,    
                               means-tested          deeming applies to 
                               programs until        cash benefits plus 
                               citizenship or 40     Medicaid.)         
                               quarters of work.                        
State Flexibility...........  State option to deny  Same, except for    
                               or restrict           Medicaid.          
                               benefits under                           
                               Medicaid, Title XX,                      
                               and welfare to                           
                               immigrants. Same                         
                               exceptions as food                       
                               stamp/SSI.                               
Non-Profit Organizations....  No provision........  Immigrant provisions
                                                     do not apply to any
                                                     program operated by
                                                     a non-profit       
                                                     organization.      
------------------------------------------------------------------------



                 MAJOR DIFFERENCES IN WELFARE PROPOSALS                 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Budget                             
                               reconciliation (S.     Bipartisan Reform 
                              1956, as approved by   Act (Biden-Specter,
                              Finance and reported    S. 1867) (Tanner- 
                                   by Budget)        Castle, H.R. 3266) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Work Activities Funding.....  No provision........  $3 billion work fund
                                                     available beginning
                                                     in FY 1999 for     
                                                     states that        
                                                     maintain 100% of   
                                                     state spending on  
                                                     work programs.     
Contingency Funds...........  Once the $2 billion   If the $2 billion   
                               contingency fund is   contingency fund is
                               exhausted, no more    exhausted as a     
                               contingency money     result of a        
                               is available to       national or        
                               states.               regional recession,
                                                     additional money   
                                                     would be added.    
Child Care Safety Standards.  Eliminates..........  Maintains           
Private Sector Work.........  No provision........  Individuals leaving 
                                                     welfare for work,  
                                                     and working at     
                                                     least 25 hours per 
                                                     week, would count  
                                                     toward the state   
                                                     participation      
                                                     requirement for six
                                                     months.            
Safety Net..................  States prohibited     If states have time 
                               from using federal    limit of less than 
                               funds to provide      5 years, in-kind/  
                               vouchers after five-  voucher benefits   
                               year time limit.      must be provided to
                                                     kids. State option 
                                                     of such benefits to
                                                     both kids and      
                                                     adults after 5     
                                                     years.             
Food Stamps.................  State option for a    Retains existing    
                               block grant.          entitlement.       
Individual Responsibility     No provision........  To be eligible for  
 Contract.                                           benefits,          
                                                     individuals must   
                                                     sign an individual 
                                                     responsibility     
                                                     contract.          
Transitional Medicaid.......  Provides Medicaid     Retains current law 
                               coverage for one      of one-year        
                               year for those who    transition Medicaid
                               leave welfare for     coverage for all   
                               work as long as       welfare recipients 
                               family income is      who leave welfare  
                               below the poverty     for work.          
                               line.                                    
Financial Penalty on States.  States that failed    No financial        
                               to meet the work      penalty. But, state
                               participation rate    maintenance-of-    
                               would lose 5% of      effort for block   
                               their block grant     grant funds would  
                               in the first year,    increase or        
                               10% in the second     decrease depending 
                               year, 15% in the      on whether state   
                               third year, etc.      met work           
                                                     requirements.      
Work Exemption for Children   Each family could     At a state option,  
 Under Age 1.                  only claim            families with child
                               exemption for an      under age 1 could  
                               aggregate 12 months.  always be exempt   
                                                     from work          
                                                     requirements.      
Immigrant Exemptions........  Exempts refugees,     Also exempts        
                               veterans, and         disabled children, 
                               military personnel    victims of domestic
                               from the              abuse, and all     
                               prohibitions on       children in the    
                               immigrant             case of food       
                               eligibility for       stamps.            
                               federal benefits.                        
Immigrant Eligibility for     Bars immigrants from  Always deems        
 Medicaid.                     being eligible for    sponsor's income to
                               Medicaid for five     determine          
                               years; deems          eligibility, but   
                               sponsor's income      not an outright ban
                               thereafter.           for the first five 
                                                     years.             
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note.--This table shows the major differences between the Budget        
  Reconciliation bill and the Biden Amendment--the Bipartisan Welfare   
  Reform Act. It is not a complete listing of all differences in the two
  proposals.                                                            

  Mr. SPECTER. I yield the floor.
  Mr. BIDEN. For the benefit of my colleagues who are waiting in line 
to introduce their amendments, we had 45 minutes on this amendment, and 
we will not take that amount of time, but will probably take 
considerably less than half of that.
  In offering this amendment with Senator Specter, the reason we 
offered it is I believe we have gotten off track on welfare reform. We 
need to return to bipartisanship on this issue and, quite frankly, on 
many others.
  This amendment is the text of the only bipartisan welfare reform bill 
that has been introduced in this Congress and the only bill that 
President Clinton has promised he would sign. It is not to suggest it 
is the only bill he will sign, but it is the only bill he has promised 
to sign, and the only bill I am aware of that has relatively wide 
editorial support from the leading papers in the country.
  My colleagues will probably know it as the Castle-Tanner welfare 
reform bill. I, frankly, like to call it the Biden-Specter bill because 
Senator Specter and I did introduce it on the Senate side. But, the 
heavy lifting on this bill and the drafting of the legislation was done 
by Congressmen Castle and Tanner. It is perhaps appropriate that 
everyone know it as the Castle-Tanner bill, and they did a first-rate 
job.
  Before talking about the substance of the proposal, I want to briefly 
review how we got to this point of offering the amendment. Last 
September, the Senate passed a bipartisan welfare reform bill by an 
overwhelming majority, as my colleague, Senator Specter, indicated. We, 
along with the vast majority of our colleagues, voted for it. Since 
then, however, we have been faced with gridlock, politics, and 
paralysis. Both sides of the aisle have been using welfare reform as a 
political football, and we have accomplished nothing thus far.
  Last April, Congressmen Castle and Tanner, and several other 
moderates from both parties in the House, decided to leave the 
bickering behind, sit down, and write a bipartisan welfare plan. This 
amendment is that bill. There is nothing shocking or hidden in this 
bill. It has all been out there before. Block grants to the States, a 
5-year time limit, work requirements, child care, and child-support 
enforcement. The genius of this particular amendment is that it is 
bipartisan and has been from day one.

[[Page S8130]]

  Let me mention just a couple of differences between this amendment 
and the underlying bill. Before I do, I want to compliment my senior 
colleague from Delaware, Senator Roth, for the changes that he has made 
in the bill in the Finance Committee. When I introduced the Biden-
Specter bill, or Castle-Tanner bill, in the Senate last month, the 
differences between the Finance Committee proposal and what we are 
proposing today were much larger than they are today. There is still, 
in my view, much room for improvement in the so-called leadership bill, 
and I believe we should still go forward with the bipartisan bill. 
However, I want to recognize Senator Roth's effort at accommodating 
some bipartisan changes.
  Some of the major differences that remain--one we settled just a 
couple hours ago, the child care health and safety standards, to ensure 
that kids are being cared for in a safe environment. We accepted that 
amendment. I guess we voted, actually, overwhelmingly, for the 
amendment to become part of the leadership bill.
  Second, the Biden-Specter bill provides States with additional funds 
to set up work programs, because getting welfare recipients into jobs 
is going to cost a little bit of money on the front end.
  Third, the Biden-Specter bill allows--not requires, but allows--
States to provide noncash benefits for those who reach the time limit, 
so that States have the flexibility to design a program that meets the 
needs of the children in their State. This provision is the same as an 
amendment which was independently introduced by the distinguished 
Senator from Louisiana, and just discussed.
  Fourth, the Biden-Specter bill would not allow food stamps to be 
converted into block grants, so that the ultimate safety net, ensuring 
that all Americans have food on the table, will not be taken away.
  Fifth, the Biden-Specter bill would retain for all families, not just 
those who are below the poverty line, the transitional Medicaid 
coverage, where those who go to work can keep their health insurance 
for 1 year. It is acknowledged that the vast majority of welfare 
recipients in that first year in jobs will not have jobs that, in fact, 
provide health insurance for their children.
  Welfare recipients are not stupid; they know most of the jobs will 
not have any health insurance for their kids. If we really want to move 
them off of welfare and on to work, and not just on to the streets, an 
extra year of health care, in my view, and in the view of the 
bipartisan group, is critical.
  Sixth, the Biden-Specter bill says that anyone who wants to receive 
welfare must sign an individual responsibility contract, so that they 
are forced to agree up front to the conditions placed on receiving the 
benefit, and so that they will have a plan from day one on how to get 
themselves off of welfare.
  Again, Mr. President, these are not all of the differences that exist 
in the bills, but they are among the most important.
  Now, I know that every Member of the Senate will be able to find 
something that he or she does not like in the Biden-Specter proposal 
and all other proposals. I can do that, too, and it is my own 
amendment. The point is this: If we really want welfare reform, and not 
a political issue, we must do it in a bipartisan way, with each of us 
compromising and doing it in a form the President can sign.
  This amendment fits that bill. It is the only bipartisan welfare 
reform bill to be introduced in Congress. It is a bill the President 
said he would sign, a bill that has gotten wide editorial endorsement, 
and a bill that makes compromises by definition of being bipartisan on 
both sides.
  I do not like the idea that we are block granting welfare and that it 
is no longer an entitlement, but in return for that, my Republican 
colleagues agreed they would come up with sufficient dollars for a 1-
year transition for health care and they would come up with money for 
child care, and so on.
  It is a genuine compromise that I think is a solid proposal. I 
proposed a concept of welfare to work in 1987, and I was pilloried by 
my colleagues on the Democratic side at the time for suggesting that 
there be mandatory a work requirement for anyone receiving welfare. We 
have all sort of come to the same general proposition.
  The issue is, are kids going to be left out there? Are women going to 
be able to go to work, or single fathers be able to go to work, knowing 
that there is no reasonable prospect for anyone to take care of that 
child, and not have day care? And are they going to make that judgment 
to do it, knowing once they do, they are going to lose their Medicaid--
which is translated as health care for their children--by going to a 
job where they will not get health care for their children?
  This is not just about money, although the Biden-Specter bill is 
estimated to achieve savings of $53.1 billion. But that is only one of 
the purposes, I thought, of this legislation, this change. We hear 
speech after speech after speech about changing the ethic that is 
involved in the welfare syndrome. We just heard our good friend from 
North Carolina talking about the generational nature of this problem 
and how to break the spiral, and so on. Part of this effort is to, in 
fact, not just take people off of welfare and put them on the streets, 
but put them to work and make them want to go to work and make it 
reasonable for them to go to work.
  I respectfully suggest it is not just about money. It is about 
changing attitudes.
  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 the sake of the people on welfare, I urge my 
colleagues to support this bipartisan Welfare Reform Act. And depending 
on what my friends on the other side have to say in opposition, I 
reserve the remainder of my time. I do not expect to use any more time 
if there is no reason to respond.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. President, let me thank Senators Specter and Biden for their 
important contribution to the welfare debate before us. The tremendous 
effort it takes to find common ground is always welcomed and 
appreciated.
  There are many similarities between the Specter-Biden legislation and 
the welfare reform legislation reported by the Finance Committee. We 
are very close, for example, on issues such as ending the individual 
entitlement to benefits, work participation rates, supplemental grants 
for States with high population growth, the family cap, and the 20-
percent hardship exemption.
  The Specter-Biden bill includes provisions from our welfare reform 
bill regarding funding for abstinence education, SSI reforms, and child 
support enforcement to mention a few more of the policy areas we share.
  But the substitute offered by Senators Specter and Biden also 
includes a number of provisions which I cannot support. Working with 
the Governors over these past months, I have learned a firm lesson that 
they are willing to accept the risks associated with a block grant. But 
in exchange, the states must have the requisite flexibility to redesign 
and manage the programs.
  I am concerned that the Specter-Biden provisions regarding 
Maintenance of Effort, transferability of funds mandatory individual 
responsibility plans, would break the fragile balance the Governors 
seek.
  The substitute also opens up the Federal checkbook for a $3 billion 
work program. Both bills provide for a $2 billion contingency fund. 
This is a $1 billion increase from last year. But the Specter-Biden 
substitute appropriates additional Federal funds subject to 
unemployment or Food Stamps triggers. This additional spending does not 
achieve the savings necessary. In other words, the Specter-Biden 
substitute breaks the budget. And for this reason alone was must oppose 
it.
  However, Mr. President, breaking the budget is not the only problem 
with this substitute.
  The Specter-Biden substitute severely weakens the goal of setting 
time limits.
  Vouchers are mandatory, subject to a reduction in the State grant for 
noncompliance.
  The Specter-Biden substitute also undermines the goal of curbing 
Federal benefits to noncitizens. Under this substitute, even illegal 
aliens could qualify for Medicaid, a liberalization of the

[[Page S8131]]

program beyond current law. Under the Specter-Biden plan, middle- and 
low-income American families would be put in a position of subsidizing 
individuals who are openly breaking the law. This is not fair.
  Under Specter-Biden, the limitations on Medicaid benefits for other 
noncitizens under the finance bill would be lifted as well. While I 
respect the good intentions of the sponsors, I simply believe these 
provisions to too far.
  Mr. President, I must therefore oppose the Specter-Biden substitute. 
Let me also hasten to add that there is no need to look any further for 
a bill which has bipartisan support.
  The finance bill is identical in many of the most critical aspects to 
H.R. 4 which originally passed the Senate by a vote of 87 to 12 last 
September.
  The finance bill was crafted with the help of Democratic and 
Republican Governors alike.
  It includes a number of Democratic amendments which were offered in 
committee. Over the past several weeks, we have been told in a variety 
of ways that Medicaid was the stumbling block to welfare reform. We 
have removed that stumbling block. This is no time to erect new 
barriers to welfare reform. This is no time to turn back from authentic 
welfare reform.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I will yield back my time if the Senator 
from Delaware is prepared to yield back his time.
  Mr. ROTH addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I yield the remainder of my time.
  Mr. President, since the pending amendment, if adopted, would have 
the effect of reducing outlays by $10 billion less than the legislation 
before us, I make a point of order against the amendment under section 
310(d)(2) of the Budget Act.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, pursuant to Section 904 of the 
Congressional Budget Act, I move to waive all applicable points of 
order under the act for the purposes of the Biden-Specter amendment.
  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. Under the previous order, the vote will be 
delayed until tomorrow.
  Mr. FRIST addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 4914

 (Purpose: Expressing the sense of Congress that the President should 
               ensure approval of State waiver requests)

  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for 
its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Tennessee [Mr. Frist], for himself, Mr. 
     Abraham, Mr. Santorum, Mrs. Hutchison, and Mr. Thompson, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 4914.

  Mr. FRIST. 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:

       At the appropriate place, add the following new section:

     SEC.   . SENSE OF CONGRESS

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) the Secretary of Health and Human Services has not 
     approved in a timely manner, State waiver requests for 
     programs carried out under part A of title IV of the Social 
     Security Act or other Federal law providing needs-based or 
     income-based benefits (referred to in this resolution as 
     ``welfare reform programs'');
       (2) valuable time is running out for these states which 
     need to obtain the waivers in order to implement the changes 
     as planned;
       (3) across the country there are 16 States, with 22 waiver 
     requests for welfare reform programs, awaiting approval of 
     the requests by the Secretary of Health and Human Services;
       (4) on July 21, 1995, in Burlington, Vermont, President 
     Clinton promised the Governors that the Secretary of Health 
     and Human Services would approve their waiver requests within 
     30 days; and
       (5) despite the President's promise, the average delay in 
     approving such a waiver request is currently 210 days and 
     some of the waiver requests have been pending since 1994.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that 
     the President should ensure that the Secretary of Health and 
     Human Services approved the following waiver requests for 
     Georgia--Jobs First Project, submitted 7/5/94; Georgia--Fraud 
     Detection Project, submitted 7/1/96; Indiana--Impacting 
     Families Welfare Reform Demonstration, submitted 12/14/95; 
     Kansas--Actively Creating Tomorrow for Families 
     Demonstration, submitted 7/26/94; Michigan--To Strengthen 
     Michigan Families, submitted 6/27/96; Minnesota--Work First 
     Program, submitted 4/4/96; Minnesota--AFDC Barrier Removal 
     Project, submitted 4/4/96; New York--Learnfare Program, 
     submitted 5/31/96; New York--Intentional Program Violation 
     Demonstration, submitted 5/31/96; Oklahoma--Welfare Self-
     Sufficiency Initiative, submitted 10/27/95; Pennsylvania--
     School Attendance Improvement Program, submitted 9/12/94; 
     Pennsylvania--Savings for Education Program, submitted 12/29/
     94; Tennessee--Families First, submitted 4/30/96; Utah--
     Single Parent Employment Demonstration, submitted 7/2/96; 
     Virginia--Virginia Independence Program, submitted 5/24/96; 
     Wisconsin--Work Not Welfare and Pay for Performance, 
     submitted 5/29/96; And Wyoming--New Opportunities and New 
     Responsibilities--Phase II, submitted 5/13/96.

  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be 45 
minutes of debate equally divided on the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request?
  Mr. FORD. Reserving the right to object. Would the Senator add that 
no amendments in the second degree be in order?
  Mr. FRIST. Yes, I have no objection to that. I ask unanimous consent 
that there be no second-degree amendments in order to this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. FRIST. This amendment, submitted on behalf of myself and 
colleagues, Senators Abraham, Santorum, Hutchison and Thompson, asks 
for a sense of the Congress that President Clinton should ensure 
approval of a waiver request for Tennessee's Family First program, as 
well as welfare programs in 12 other States.
  Across this country this very minute, States are desperately awaiting 
the Clinton administration's approval for local welfare state 
initiatives. The State of Tennessee, like 12 other States, has 
submitted a waiver request to Donna Shalala, Secretary of Health and 
Human Services, to gain Federal approval for portions of a State-based 
welfare plan. Tennessee submitted its waiver request on April 30, 
1996--78 days ago. This is not uncommon. Across this country, there are 
15 other States with 22 waiver requests currently pending.
  Some of these States include Georgia, the Jobs First program; also in 
Georgia, the Fraud Detection Project; in Kansas, Actively Creating 
Tomorrow for Families Demonstration; in Minnesota, the Work First 
program and the AFDC Barrier Removal Project; in Oklahoma, the Welfare 
Self-Sufficiency Initiative. Those are a few samples.
  Mr. President, on July 31, 1995, the President promised the Governors 
that the Secretary of Health and Human Services would approve their 
requests ``within 30 days.'' That is what he said--30 days. It has been 
78 days since Tennessee's request was placed.
  Mr. President, I remain committed to holding President Clinton to 
this promise, ensuring that the Secretary of Health and Human Services 
approve these much-needed waiver requests, such as that for Tennessee's 
Families First welfare program, as well as for Michigan's and 
Wisconsin's.
  I urge every one of my Senate colleagues to join me in this effort. 
Across this country States are fighting for the waivers that the 
President has promised to sign.
  Time is running. Time is ticking. Time is running out for the people 
of Tennessee. The State needs to obtain this Federal waiver in order to 
implement the changes by September 1, 1996 as planned. Tennessee needs 
action. The country needs action.
  Mr. President, I would particularly like to thank the distinguished 
Senators from Michigan and Pennsylvania for their support in this 
effort, and also Senator Hutchison of Texas for her hard work in 
putting this effort together.
  I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. FRIST. Yes, sir.
  Mr. ROTH. Does the fact that you are here asking that the President 
sign these waivers demonstrate the urgent need for welfare reform?

[[Page S8132]]

  Mr. FRIST. That is correct. And States are calling out for this 
reform at the State level, and at the national level. These are waivers 
that have been promised to these States to be considered within 30 
days. We need to fulfill that promise.
  Mr. ROTH. And those waivers would not be necessary under our reform 
legislation?
  Mr. FRIST. That is correct. The bureaucratic nightmare, the barriers 
that are placed with these States, would be removed by this piece of 
legislation.
  Mr. ROTH. I thank the Senator for his answers.
  Mr. FORD. Will the Senator yield for an additional question, Mr. 
President?
  Mr. FRIST. Yes.
  Mr. FORD. Is it not true that this President has issued 67 waivers to 
40 States, more than any President has issued?
  Mr. FRIST. That is correct; 16 States are waived now, all over 30 
days at this point; 22 waiver requests are pending at this very minute.
  I would like to yield 10 minutes to my colleague from Michigan.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan is recognized.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. President, I rise to join my colleagues from Tennessee and 
Pennsylvania and other States, all of whom are trying find themselves 
in the same position as we do in Michigan. States across America know 
best how to deal with the problems of the people who live in those 
States. Places like Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, 
Texas, and many other jurisdictions have attempted to address the 
problems of their most needy citizens in thoughtful ways designed to 
try to the best degree possible move people from dependency on 
government programs to the economic ladder.
  In Michigan we have been doing a variety of things over the past few 
years on a bipartisan basis; I would add to try to establish a set of 
programs that will work. These programs will work in Michigan. They 
might not work in Tennessee, or they might not work in New Hampshire. 
They might not work in Kentucky, or Pennsylvania. They are designed to 
work in Michigan. That is the way we believe welfare reform needs to be 
addressed, giving States the kind of flexibility to design programs 
best able to serve the constituencies in their jurisdictions.
  It is interesting. The legislation which recently passed in Michigan 
with respect to welfare reform passed the Michigan State senate by a 
vote of 30 to 7. It passed the State house of representatives by a 
margin of 85 to 22. I promise my fellow Senators that is not a 
reflection of the partisan makeup of those legislative chambers. A 30-
to-7 vote in the Michigan Senate and 85-to-22 vote in the Michigan 
House of Representatives reflects an overwhelming bipartisan decision 
to put in place a set of welfare reforms that will work for our State. 
That is what has happened.
  These reforms come on the heels of others that have been implemented 
in the last 2 years. The results of Michigan's welfare reforms to date 
have been very impressive. Michigan's AFDC caseload has dropped from 
221,000 cases in September 1992 to 176,000 cases in May 1996, a 
decrease of 45,000. The current AFDC caseload level is the lowest in 
nearly 25 years in Michigan. The caseload in our State have decreased 
for 26 straight months, and has fallen by more than 20 percent over the 
past 2 years. During fiscal year 1994 alone, nearly 30,000 individuals 
were placed into employment and since September 1992 over 90,000 AFDC 
cases have been closed as a result of earned income from employment.
  In addition, by January 1996 the number of cases with earned income 
had risen 31.1 percent compared to the 15.7 percent of cases with 
earned income in September 1992.
  Mr. President, this reflects a successful effort undertaken on a 
bipartisan basis in my State of Michigan designed to address the 
concerns and the problems of the neediest people in our State. We 
believe we have the best insight into solving Michigan's problems--a 
better insight than anyone in other States, and certainly a better 
insight than those in the bureaucracies in Washington.
  For that reason, Mr. President, I join in this amendment. We want to 
give Michigan the chance to go further, to continue the success that we 
have had, to build on that success to try to make sure that everybody 
in Michigan who in any sense desires the opportunity to move onto the 
economic ladder gets the chance to do so. So that is why I join in this 
amendment.
  The legislation which was passed in Michigan that became then the 
waiver sought from the Federal Government and that is part of this 
amendment here tonight is, I think, the right solution for our State. 
It is what the people of Michigan on a bipartisan basis have said is 
the right solution for our State. It frees us to give us the 
flexibility to move forward and solve people's problems rather than 
spending too much time solving problems created by bureaucracy.
  Just to put that in perspective, we did a study in Michigan. We 
talked to the people on the front lines in the social services 
department which we now call the Family independence department. We 
discovered, interestingly, that two-thirds of the time of the folks 
whose job it is to help people get out of dependency is spent not 
helping people get out of dependency but is spent handling paperwork 
and redtape, most of it emanating from Washington, and only one-third 
of this time is spent trying to actually assist the folks who they are 
trying to help.
  Our legislation will try to put the priorities where they ought to 
be. The proposal that we include in this amendment, this waiver that 
was sought, includes a number of innovations that will assist Michigan.

  It will require attendance for all adult AFDC, food stamp, and State 
general assistance applicants or recipients at a joint orientation 
meeting with the family independence agency and Michigan's Jobs 
Commission personnel as a condition of eligibility.
  It will require recipients to enter into a family independence 
contract.
  It will require compliance with work activity requirements within 60 
days.
  Failure to comply will result in the loss of the family independence 
and AFDC benefits, and food stamps for a minimum of 1 month, and until 
there is compliance with work requirements.
  It will require teen parents to live in an adult supervised setting 
and stay in school. Failure to comply will result in case closure.
  The proposal includes many other similar programs designed to place 
incentives into the structure for people who, in fact, want to get out 
of dependency and onto the economic ladder. But at the same time our 
waiver is designed to give people some of the tools they need to be on 
that ladder.
  It provides greater employment-related services, guaranteed access to 
child care, guaranteed transportation so people can get to the jobs we 
hope to create and make available to them, and guaranteed access to 
health care for anyone leaving welfare for work--in short, assistance 
and incentives for those seeking employment just as we also include 
increased responsibility for individuals receiving assistance.
  Third, our program will remove unnecessary and overly burdensome 
regulations; provides a vastly simplified application form reduced from 
the current 30 pages down to 6; provides for the most dramatic 
simplification of AFDC food stamp and medical assistance anywhere in 
the country, and it streamlines services by establishing a single point 
of contact with the welfare office for each welfare recipient 
regardless of the mix of benefits received.
  Finally, the program encompassed in this amendment will strengthen 
families and increase community involvement.
  It provides additional funding for prevention services to help keep 
children safe and strengthen families.
  And, it will allow faith-based organizations to work with communities 
to address the needs of welfare recipients.
  In short, it is a balanced approach tailor-made to assist those in 
Michigan who are needy, and those in Michigan who are currently 
dependent on Government support in the best way we can craft to get out 
of that dependency and onto the economic ladder.
  We recognize how to do this in Michigan for our citizens. We have 
developed a plan that has moved us a long way in the right direction.
  If we were given the opportunities created by the waiver we have 
sought, which we embody in this amendment, we think we can go the final 
steps it takes to give the people in our State opportunity regardless 
of where they

[[Page S8133]]

live, regardless of economic condition, and regardless of their current 
status. We will give them hope.
  That is what I believe this overall welfare reform bill before us is 
designed to do, to give States the flexibility, to give States the 
opportunity to design programs that will work for them, not programs 
that work in one State but programs that work individually State by 
State, not programs dreamed up in Washington but programs designed in 
State capitals and in major cities of this country for the people who 
live in those communities.
  For that reason, I strongly support this amendment. I believe that if 
Michigan, Tennessee, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and other States are 
given this flexibility, given the chance to have the programs they have 
designed put into place, it will create the kind of opportunity we want 
for every American citizen.
  For that reason, I strongly support the amendment. I thank the 
Senator from Tennessee for bringing it before us this evening.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. HARKIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, how much time does this side have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The side of the Senator from Kentucky has 
22\1/2\ minutes and the Senator from Tennessee has 10 minutes.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I have just had an opportunity to sit down 
and read this amendment. I have operated as a Governor and understand 
what Governors like to say and what Governors like to do. Governors 
want the money now at the higher level but when we start decreasing the 
amount of funds the State receives, it is going to be difficult for 
them to reduce their expenditures or reduce the number, and so we find 
that is going to be somewhat difficult for them to do.
  I have some problem with us micromanaging any program. Mr. President, 
I looked at these projects that are here. Some of them sound good, 
others not necessarily. Fraud Detection Project, that sounds 
interesting. Actively Creating Tomorrow for Families Demonstration. I 
do not know, are you supposed to look at these and just approve them 
without studying them some? AFDC Barrier Removal Project; Intentional 
Program Violation Demonstration, Single Parent Employment 
Demonstration, Work-Not-Welfare and Pay For Performance, New 
Opportunities and New Responsibilities Demonstration.
  Now, I am hopeful that we can get a welfare bill that the President 
will sign. We hear a lot about 80-something to a few votes for a bill 
that we passed. If that bill had gone to the President's desk, my 
judgment is that he would have signed it. I think we are close to 
getting a bill that will be signed. I am one who wants to vote for 
welfare reform. I hope we can listen to Senators like the Senator from 
Louisiana and others who are trying to protect children. I think we 
have gone much, much too far in trying to be harsh on parents and then 
in turn being harsh on children.
  So, Mr. President, in listening to the Governors, the other side of 
the aisle, the Republicans are not listening to the Governors except in 
certain cases where they want to listen to them. We have endorsements 
of the National Governors' Conference as it relates to vouchers and the 
amendment of the Senator from Louisiana. The Governors have endorsed 
that. But they do not pay any attention to that one. We are going to 
be against it. I think it is wrong. So now the Governors want all this. 
Are we supposed to flip over and say, yes? You did not do that when I 
was Governor. I had to come up here and cry a little bit, shed some 
crocodile tears, try to get something more for my State.

  So I hope we will not try to micromanage this particular operation. 
As I say, the President has issued 67 waivers to 40 States. But none of 
these waivers, in my opinion, in reading them, are all directly welfare 
connected. Maybe they are. But some of the programs as they are listed 
lead me--work first, I like that. I like Gov. McWherter's program in 
Tennessee. I thought Governor Ned McWherter did a good job. It took a 
lot of bumps; it took a lot of skin off his back, as we say 
politically, but I thought Governor McWherter did a good job in 
Tennessee.
  So since I am here standing in for others, I hope that we will be 
very careful with the vote as it relates to micromanaging welfare. If 
we are going to give it to the States, let us give it to the States and 
let us do it in a bill; let us do it legislatively; let us do it 
statutorily, and let us not start telling the President what to do and 
what not to do, because their President did not do nearly as well as 
this President. You have to look at the number of jobs that we have 
had. That reduces the amount of welfare in a State--more jobs, less 
welfare. And I can take credit for unemployment being at a low level in 
my State. We are doing great. We have so many people off welfare. We 
are saving this kind of money. All these programs are working. But if 
the economy is good, Mr. President, then all States are going to look 
good, and as of now the economy is good and all States are faring 
somewhat better.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. FRIST addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. FRIST. I understand we have 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. FRIST. I yield 8 minutes to the Senator from Pennsylvania.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania is recognized 
for 8 minutes.
  Mr. SANTORUM. I thank my friend from Tennessee. I will not take the 
entire 8 minutes. I rise in support of this amendment.
  I ask unanimous consent that Senator Bond from Missouri be added as a 
cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SANTORUM. In fact, Senator Bond has introduced legislation, 
frankly, that goes further than the sense of the Senate. Senator Bond's 
legislation would actually move the Senate to approve of the Wisconsin 
waiver and a bill similar to what passed in the House of 
Representatives, passed through the Senate and actually forced the 
President's hand on the Wisconsin waiver.
  That is the most publicized waiver, frankly, because the President 
said, and I will quote his words, in his Presidential radio address 
back on May 18:

       All in all, Wisconsin has the making of a solid, bold 
     welfare reform plan. We should get it done.

  ``Get it done,'' meaning approve the waiver.
       I pledge that my administration will work with Wisconsin to 
     make an effective transition to a new vision of welfare based 
     on work, that protects children and does right by working 
     people and their families.

  That is what the President said. He said he wanted to do it with the 
waiver. He said he was for the waiver. In fact, he went so far as to 
make it the real focus of his radio address to the American public. 
Unfortunately, his administration has not approved those waivers yet. 
He set an artificial deadline, he has for quite some time, of a 30-day 
turnaround on all waiver requests by the States. He, as the Senator 
from Tennessee mentioned, has not met that 30-day requirement recently. 
In fact, we have the Wisconsin plan and here we are in the middle of 
July and he has not approved what is now a 12-month-old waiver request.
  Unfortunately, we learn that while the President is still running 
around the country talking about how good the Wisconsin plan is, the 
President's people are saying that they are not going to approve the 
plan, which led Governor Thompson the other day down at the National 
Governors' Association to say, ``We are sort of shaking our heads, not 
knowing what's going on, who to believe.''
  Well, in the end, I always found that it is best policy to believe 
what you see, not what you hear from this administration. And what you 
see from this administration is not approving your waiver. That is 
pretty concrete evidence of whether you are going to get it approved or 
not. The fact that they are not approving it, in effect, the 
bureaucrats in the administration are saying the likelihood of your 
getting through the approval process is not good. And it is not a 
simple approval

[[Page S8134]]

process. It sounds like these waivers are no big deal; everybody gets 
them approved. Remember, these get approved; they get modified; they 
get altered a little bit; they have to sort of work with the Federal 
Government to make changes that they in the Federal Government believe 
is best for the State. In the case of Wisconsin, in order to put the 
plan in effect, the State requested waivers from 83 Federal provisions 
administered by HHS. So they needed 83 separate decisions by the 
Department of Health and Human Services to get those waivers. They 
needed five from the Department of Agriculture to get their overall 
waiver approved by the Federal Government. This is no small task. It is 
a task that, under our bill, the bill that is before the Senate right 
now, would be unnecessary.

  The Senator from Delaware, I think accurately and perceptively, 
questioned the Senator from Tennessee about whether this bill would 
make all of this rather expensive, time-consuming and inefficient 
process of waivers necessary in the future. If, in fact, we are going 
to use the States, as the States have been used recently, as incubators 
for changing the welfare system, we should give them more flexibility 
in dealing with this program.
  We should give them the opportunity to design programs that fit their 
needs, not judged by people in Washington who maybe have never set foot 
in that State, who do not know the particular problems in the 
communities, but by people who represent those communities, as Senator 
Abraham was talking about, the State legislators who live in those 
communities, who represent those people in a much smaller area, in a 
district in those States--those are the people who should make 
decisions about what the welfare system should look like; not people at 
Health and Human Services.
  So one of the reasons I wanted to sign on to this effort was to 
highlight the inconsistencies--not surprising to my mind--but the 
inconsistencies between what the President says and what the President 
has done on one of the most important issues before us, which is 
welfare reform. We have, obviously, the President's record overall on 
what he says and what he does on welfare, which is he runs television 
commercials all over the country saying he is for welfare reform and 
then every chance he has to sign welfare reform, he finds a reason to 
veto it. I hope this is not the case this time around. I am confident 
we will send him a bill that he certainly can sign. The question is 
whether he will sign it, but he certainly will talk a good game up 
until that point. But when the rubber hits the road, whether it is 
waivers or whether it is the actual bill, the President has fallen 
short in the area of welfare reform.
  Part of my reason for cosponsoring this legislation is that 
Pennsylvania has just recently passed welfare reform legislation. They 
are going to be requesting a couple of waivers from the Federal 
Government. They will be submitting them shortly. I am hopeful the 
President will go along with what Pennsylvania has wanted to do with 
Governor Ridge's plan to reform the welfare system and Medicaid system. 
To try to reduce the strain on the State budget, frankly, is one 
reason; but also to provide a better future for the people in 
Pennsylvania who are on welfare.
  So I congratulate the Senator from Tennessee for his efforts. I hope 
we can approve this amendment and send a very strong signal we want the 
administration to move more quickly and more efficiently when it comes 
to granting waivers.
  I reserve the remainder of our time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from Tennessee.


                    Amendment No. 4914, As Modified

  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I yield myself 1 minute. I ask unanimous 
consent to modify my amendment No. 4914. I send that modification to 
the desk. As part of that unanimous consent, I ask that Senator Bond be 
added as a cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request? Without 
objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment as modified is as follows:

       At the appropriate place, add the following new section:

     SEC.  . SENSE OF CONGRESS

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) the Secretary of Health and Human Services has not 
     approved in a timely manner, State waiver requests for 
     programs carried out under part A of title IV of the Social 
     Security Act or other Federal law providing needs-based or 
     income-based benefits (referred to in this resolution as 
     ``welfare reform programs'');
       (2) valuable time is running out for these States which 
     need to obtain the waivers in order to implement the changes 
     as planned;
       (3) across the country there are 16 States, with 22 waiver 
     requests for welfare reform programs, awaiting approval of 
     the requests by the Secretary of Health and Human Services;
       (4) on July 21, 1995, in Burlington, Vermont, President 
     Clinton promised the Governors that the Secretary of Health 
     and Human Services would approve their waiver requests within 
     30 days; and
       (5) despite the President's promise, the average delay in 
     approving such a waiver request is currently 210 days and 
     some of the waiver requests have been pending since 1994.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that 
     the President should ensure that the Secretary of Health and 
     Human Services approves the following waiver requests for 
     Georgia--Jobs First Project, submitted 7/5/94; Georgia--Fraud 
     Detection Project, submitted 7/1/96; Indiana--Impacting 
     Families Welfare Reform Demonstration, submitted 12/14/95; 
     Kansas--Actively Creating Tomorrow for Families 
     Demonstration, submitted 7/26/94; Michigan--To Strengthen 
     Michigan Families, submitted 6/27/96; Minnesota--Work First 
     Program, submitted 4/4/96; Minnesota--AFDC Barrier Removal 
     Project, submitted 4/4/96; New York--Learnfare Program, 
     submitted 5/31/96; New York--International Program, Violation 
     Demonstration, submitted 5/31/96; Oklahoma--Welfare Self-
     Sufficiency Initiative, submitted 10/27/95; Pennsylvania--
     School Attendance Improvement Program, submitted 9/12/94; 
     Pennsylvania--Savings for Education Program, submitted 12/29/
     94; Tennessee--Families First, submitted 4/30/96; Utah--
     Single Parent Employment Demonstration, submitted 7/2/96; 
     Virginia--Virginia Independence Program, submitted 5/24/96; 
     Wisconsin--Work Not Welfare and Pay for Performance, 
     submitted 5/29/96; And Wyoming--New Opportunities and New 
     Responsibilities--Phase II, submitted 5/13/96; California--
     Assistance Payment Demonstration Project, submitted 3/13/96; 
     California--Work Pays Demonstration Project, submitted 11/9/
     94; Hawaii--Pursuit of New Opportunities, submitted 5/7/96; 
     West Virginia--West Virginia Works, submitted 7/1/96.

  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I am about to yield back what time we have. 
Is the Senator yielding his time?
  Mr. FRIST. I, too, am ready to yield back.
  Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, we have an amendment that has been agreed 
to. I ask unanimous consent the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kerry], 
be given 60 seconds to offer his amendment and get it modified so it 
could be passed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. FORD. I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.


                    Amendment No. 4913, As Modified

  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I call up my amendment on child poverty 
which was submitted earlier tonight. I ask unanimous consent this 
amendment be modified in a manner that has been agreed to by both 
sides. I send the modification to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kerry] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 4913, as modified.

  Mr. KERRY. 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:

       Section 413 of the Social Security Act, as added by section 
     2103, is amended by adding at the end thereof the following 
     new subsection:
       ``(h) Child Poverty Rates.--
       ``(1) In general.--Not later than 90 days after the date of 
     the enactment of this part, and annually thereafter, the 
     chief executive officer of a State shall submit to the 
     Secretary a statement of the child poverty rate in the State 
     as of such date of enactment or the date of such subsequent 
     statements. Such subsequent statements shall include the 
     change in such rate from the previous statement, if any.
       ``(2) Increase in rate.--

[[Page S8135]]

       ``(A) In general.--With respect to a State that submits a 
     statement under paragraph (1) that indicates an increase of 5 
     percent or more in the child poverty rate of the State from 
     the previous statement as a result of the changes made by the 
     Act, the State shall, not later than 90 days after the date 
     of such statement, prepare and submit to the Secretary a 
     corrective action plan in accordance with paragraph (3).
       ``(3) Corrective action plan.--
       ``(A) In general.--A corrective action plan submitted under 
     paragraph (2) shall outline that manner in which the State 
     will reduce the child poverty rate within the State. The plan 
     shall include a description of the actions to be taken by the 
     State under such plan.
       ``(B) Consultation about modifications.--During the 60-day 
     period that begins with the date the Secretary receives the 
     corrective action plan of a State under subparagraph (A), the 
     Secretary may consult with the State on modifications to the 
     plan.
       ``(C) Acceptance of plan.--A corrective action plan 
     submitted by a State in accordance with subparagraph (A) is 
     deemed to be accepted by the Secretary if the Secretary does 
     not accept or reject the plan during 60-day period that 
     begins on the date the plan is submitted.
       ``(4) Compliance with plan.--
       ``(A) In general.--A State that submits a corrective action 
     plan under this subsection shall continue to implement such 
     plan until such time as the Secretary makes the determination 
     described in subparagraph (B).
       ``(B) Determination.--A determination described in this 
     subparagraph is a determination that the child poverty rate 
     for the State involved has fallen to, and not exceeded for a 
     period of 2 consecutive years, a rate that is not greater 
     than the rate contained in the most recent statement 
     submitted by the State under paragraph (1) which did not 
     trigger the application of paragraph (2).
       ``(C) Labor surplus area.--With respect to a State that 
     submits a corrective action plan under paragraph (2)(B), such 
     plan shall continue to be implemented until the area involved 
     is no longer designated as a Labor Surplus Area.
       ``(5) Methodology.--The Secretary shall promulgate 
     regulations establishing the methodology by which a State 
     shall determine the child poverty rate within such State. 
     Such methodology shall, with respect to a State, take into 
     account factors including the number of children who receive 
     free or reduced-price lunches, the number of food stamp 
     households, and the county by county estimates of children in 
     poverty as determined by the Census Bureau.

  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, the welfare bill before us today would 
allow States to experiment with various welfare policies. Many States 
may implement innovative welfare policies to move parents from welfare 
to work. But if we are sending Federal money to States, if we are going 
to take this risk and allow States to experiment, let's be sure that 
child poverty does not increase.
  This amendment, which I introducing with Senator Murray, says that if 
child poverty increases in a State after the date of enactment of this 
welfare bill, that State would be required to submit a corrective 
action plan.
  There is nothing more important to this debate than constantly 
reminding ourselves that our focus is--or ought to be--this Nation's 
children. That was the focus when under Franklin Roosevelt's leadership 
title IV-A of the Social Security Act was originally enacted. The 
objective here is to help impoverished children.
  Let me acknowledge right up front that this amendment will be subject 
to a point of order under the Byrd rule and will require 60 votes to 
pass. I want to say to my Republican colleagues that it is outrageous 
that we are debating welfare reform under budget reconciliation rules. 
We should not be considering such major changes affecting millions of 
children and families and cutting more than $60 billion from human 
service programs under budget rules that make almost any substantive 
amendment out of order. There is no reason to debate welfare reform 
under budget reconciliation except for the majority to make it 
significantly harder to make any changes to this bill, even changes 
supported by a majority of members. But despite this unreasonable 
hurdle erected by the majority party, we must attempt to remedy 
problems in the bill.
  What does this amendment do? This amendment says that if the most 
recent State child poverty rate exceeds the level for the previous year 
by 5 percent or more then the State would have to submit to the HHS 
Secretary within 90 days a corrective action plan describing the 
actions the State shall take to reduce child poverty rates.
  Mr. President, I want to be clear that this amendment in no way 
intrudes on a State's ability to design its own welfare program. State 
flexibility would not be decreased in any way. This amendment simply 
says that if a State's welfare system increases child poverty, that 
State must take corrective action.
  Mr. President, there are many very different views of welfare in this 
Chamber. But I believe all of us regardless of party can agree on two 
things at least: we can all agree that the child poverty rate in this 
country is too high. The fact is that 15.3 million U.S. children live 
in poverty. This means that more than one in five children--21.8 
percent--live in poverty. In Massachusetts, there are more than 176,000 
children who live in poverty. And despite the stereotypes, Mr. 
President, the majority of America's poor children are white--9.3 
million--and live in rural or suburban areas--8.4 million--rather than 
central cities--6.9 million.
  The other thing on which we can all agree, because it is a fact 
rather than an opinion, is that the child poverty rate in this country 
is dramatically higher than the rate in other major industrialized 
countries. According to an excellent, comprehensive recent report by an 
international research group called the Luxembourg Income Study, the 
child poverty rate in the United Kingdom is less than half our rate, 
9.9 percent, the rate in France is less than one-third of our rate, 6.5 
percent, and the rate in Denmark 3.3 percent is about one-sixth our 
rate.
  Mr. President, we know that poverty is bad for children, This should 
be obvious. Nobel Prize-winning economist Robert Solow and the 
Children's Defense Fund recently conducted the first-ever long-term 
impact of child poverty. They found that their lowest estimate was that 
the future cost to society of a single year of poverty for the 15 
million poor children is $36 billion in lost output per worker. When 
they included lost work hours, lower skills, and other labor market 
disadvantages related to poverty, they found that the future cost to 
society was $177 billion.
  With this amendment, I want to make sure that, at the very least, if 
a State's welfare plan increases child poverty--instead of increasing 
the number of parents moving from welfare to work and self-
sufficiency--that State will take immediate steps to refocus its 
program.
  Mr. President, I also want to say that I hope that our extremist 
colleagues on the House side do not ultimately prevail again in 
conference. This effort to reform welfare should not be scuttled by a 
conference report they call welfare reform but that children will only 
know as their ticket to empty stomachs and hopelessness.
  Mr. President, I want to thank Chairman Roth and his staff, Senator 
Moynihan and his staff, and Senator Exon and his staff for their 
assistance and their willingness to accept this amendment that I 
believe will benefit children across the Nation.
  Mr. President, as we know, the child poverty rate in the United 
States is dramatically higher than that in other industrial countries. 
It is in our obvious interest, in whatever we do with respect to 
welfare reform, that whatever we do here not increase that rate.
  This seeks, by agreement on both sides, to simply measure where we 
are today with respect to child poverty and, if there is an 
ascertainable difference as a consequence of the measures of this act 
that increases it, then the Secretary of Health and Human Services has 
the ability to ask that particular State to come up with a remedy. 
There is no forced remedy. There is no mandate. It is simply a 
requirement to try to deal with the obvious negative consequences or 
unintended consequence of anything we might do here.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  If there be no further debate, the question is on agreeing to the 
amendment.
  The amendment (No. 4913), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. KERRY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. KERRY. I thank my colleagues.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.

[[Page S8136]]

                           Amendment No. 4915

 (Purpose: To require each family receiving assistance under the State 
 program funded under part A of title IV of the Social Security Act to 
            enter into a personal responsibility agreement)

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I have a couple of amendments. I send the 
first one to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration. I send 
this amendment to the desk on behalf of myself and Senator Coats of 
Indiana.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Iowa [Mr. Harkin], for himself and Mr. 
     Coats, proposes an amendment numbered 4915.

  Mr. HARKIN. 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:

       Section 408 of the Social Security Act, as added by section 
     2103, is amended by adding at the end thereof the following 
     new subsection:
       ``(d) State Required To Enter Into a Personal 
     Responsibility Agreement With Each Family Receiving 
     Assistance.--
       ``(1) In general.--Each State to which a grant is made 
     under section 403 shall require each family receiving 
     assistance under the State program funded under this part to 
     enter into a personal responsibility agreement (as developed 
     by the State) with the State.
       ``(2) Personal responsibility agreement.--For purposes of 
     this subsection, the term `personal responsibility agreement' 
     means a binding contract between the State and each family 
     receiving assistance under the State program funded under 
     this part that--
       ``(A) contains a statement that public assistance is not 
     intended to be a way of life, but is intended as temporary 
     assistance to help the family achieve self-sufficiency and 
     personal independence;
       ``(B) outlines the steps each family and the State will 
     take to get the family off of welfare and to become self-
     sufficient, including an employment goal for the individual 
     and a plan for promptly moving the individual into paid 
     employment;
       ``(C) specifies a negotiated time-limited period of 
     eligibility for receipt of assistance that is consistent with 
     unique family circumstances and is based on a reasonable plan 
     to facilitate the transition of the family to self-
     sufficiency;
       ``(D) provides for the imposition of sanctions if the 
     individual refuses to sign the agreement or does not comply 
     with the terms of the agreement, which may include loss or 
     reduction of cash benefits;
       ``(E) provides that the contract shall be invalid if the 
     State agency fails to comply with the contract; and
       ``(F) provides that the individual agrees not to abuse 
     illegal drugs or other substances that would interfere with 
     the ability of the individual to become self-sufficient, or 
     provide for a referral for substance abuse treatment if 
     necessary to increase the employability of the individual.
       ``(3) Assessment.--The State agency shall provide, through 
     a case manager, an initial and thorough assessment of the 
     skills, prior work experience, and employability of each 
     parent for use in developing and negotiating a personal 
     responsibility contract.
       ``(4) Dispute resolution.--The State agency shall establish 
     a dispute resolution procedure for disputes related to 
     participation in the personal responsibility contract that 
     provides the opportunity for a hearing.

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, when individuals are hired for a job they 
are handed a job description, a job description which outlines their 
responsibilities so on day one they know what is expected in order to 
earn a paycheck. However, when individuals go into a welfare office to 
sign up for benefits, they fill out an application and then the 
Government sends them a check. There is no job description, nothing is 
expected on day one. The individual goes home and collects a check. I 
believe that is wrong. It saps an individual's self-esteem and makes a 
family dependent.
  We must fundamentally change the way we think about welfare. We 
should be guided by common sense and build a system based on a 
foundation of responsibility. If you want a check, you must earn it and 
you must follow the job description. We need to stop looking at welfare 
as a Government giveaway program. Instead, welfare should be a 
contract, demanding mutual responsibility between the Government and 
the individual receiving the benefits. The contract should outline the 
steps a recipient will take to become self-sufficient, and also a date 
certain by which benefits will end. Responsibility should begin on day 
one, and benefits should be conditioned on compliance with the terms of 
the contract. Essentially, the contract would outline the 
responsibilities for an individual, just like a job description 
outlines a worker's duties. It builds greater accountability in the 
welfare system and sends the clear message that welfare as usual is no 
more.
  A binding contract of this nature makes common sense, and it works. 
Here is how I know. The Family Investment Agreement, or contract, is 
the centerpiece of Iowa's innovative welfare reform program. The 
agreement or the contract is negotiated between individual recipients 
and their case workers. Failure to negotiate and sign a Family 
Investment Agreement or to refuse to follow its terms results in 
elimination of welfare benefits.
  I meet with welfare recipients and their case workers on a regular 
basis in Iowa. I always ask them what they think about the requirement 
for this contract. An overwhelming number credit the contract for 
creating a fundamental change of the welfare system in Iowa, change 
which has meant fewer families on welfare and an increase in the number 
of families working and earning income and a decrease in the amount of 
money spent on cash grants. The results have been truly impressive in 
Iowa.

  Caseworkers say the family investment agreement, or contract, has 
helped them guide families off welfare. Welfare recipients often say it 
is the first time that anyone ever asked them about their goals, and 
with the contract, they get a clear picture of exactly what is expected 
of them. That is an important first step toward making families self-
sufficient.
  The amendment I am offering with Senator Coats is simple. It builds 
on the successful reforms that are going on in our States; that welfare 
recipients negotiate and sign an agreement which outlines what will be 
done to move off welfare. A similar amendment was included in last 
year's bipartisan Senate bill. That bill we adopted 87 to 12. This 
would be a good improvement to the pending bill. Some changes were made 
in that amendment at the suggestion of Senator Coats, very good 
changes, I might add.
  So I urge my colleagues to support that amendment.
  Mr. President, I do not know if this amendment is going to be agreed 
to or not. There is some talk that it will be. We do not really know 
yet.
  I ask unanimous consent that if this amendment is not agreed to that 
it be put over until Tuesday so that Senator Coats can speak on it. He 
could not be here this evening. So I ask unanimous consent that it be 
put over, that the vote on it be put over until Tuesday, and I will ask 
for the yeas and nays, which, if it is accepted, we can vitiate the 
yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the unanimous consent 
request?
  Mr. HARKIN. Let me rephrase that request. I ask unanimous-consent 
that this amendment, if it is not accepted, be put over to a vote until 
Tuesday so that Senator Coats might speak on it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. HARKIN. I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I still hope the amendment will be 
accepted after it is looked at. I do want to thank Senator Coats for 
his help in crafting this amendment and making changes to it. Again, I 
still hope it will be accepted. As I said, something similar to it was 
adopted unanimously on the bill we put through last fall.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I have a second amendment. It will not 
take very long.


                           Amendment No. 4916

    (Purpose: To strike amendments to child nutrition requirements)

  Mr. HARKIN. I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Iowa [Mr. Harkin] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 4916.
       Strike section 1253.

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, this amendment would strike the provision

[[Page S8137]]

in the bill that eliminates the existing program of grants for 
initiating or expanding school breakfast or summer food programs. The 
provision in the bill has nothing to do with welfare reform. It is 
merely killing a good program to save only a relatively small amount of 
money in terms of the total amount of money involved in this bill.
  In fact, I believe this provision in the bill will actually hinder 
welfare reform, because it will mean more kids will be hungry during 
the school year and over the summer months. That is a circumstance that 
will make it harder for that family to get off welfare.
  Many children having the greatest need for school breakfast and 
summer food assistance do not get the opportunity they should have to 
receive the benefits of these valuable programs. Currently, about 12 
million low-income children take part in the School Lunch Program. Only 
about 5.5 million children participate in the School Breakfast Program, 
and the number of participants in the Summer Food Program is only about 
2 million.
  What these numbers mean is that a large proportion of low-income 
children who benefit from the School Lunch Program do not benefit from 
the School Breakfast Program and even fewer from the summer food 
program. Less than half of the low-income kids getting school lunches 
now receive breakfasts and less than 20 percent of low-income kids in 
the lunch program receive summer meals. There are many children who 
cannot take part in these very important programs because they simply 
are not available in their neighborhoods due to a lack of community 
resources.
  Startup and expansion funds have proven themselves as a means to get 
these programs going in neighborhoods. What this program does is 
provide modest amounts of assistance to allow schools and summer food 
sponsors to get programs started or expand them in low-income areas. 
The school may need, for example, some equipment or some other resource 
that will help them deliver meals to hungry kids. There is no other 
program that is in existence to help out on these equipment and 
infrastructure needs. This is the only one.
  The School Breakfast Startup and Expansion Program was begun by 
Congress to provide competitive grants for one-time expenses associated 
with starting a School Breakfast Program in individual schools. In 
1994, the startup and expansion program was modified and made permanent 
and made to cover both school breakfast and the summer food programs.
  The first grants under the new guidelines were announced in June of 
1995, just last year. Forty-eight States have applied for grants; 31 
States have received funding under this program. So it is needed, and 
it is helping to improve access of low-income kids to nutritious 
breakfasts and summer meals across the country.
  There has been a resounding consensus from State departments of 
education that the availability of these funds has played a major role 
in increasing the availability of school breakfast and summer food 
programs to low-income kids. These funds are for one-time startup 
costs. Funding does not go on and on and on, but it provides schools 
and sponsors with the seed funds necessary to start or to expand to new 
sites these proven nutrition programs for children.
  These startup and expansion funds have meant the difference between 
needy children going hungry in the morning--because their schools are 
too poor to afford the startup costs of a breakfast program--and 
children ready to learn after eating a school breakfast.
  This bill that we have before us cuts spending by over $50 billion. 
My amendment would only have a minuscule effect on the magnitude of 
those savings. Mr. President, I submit that the cost in human terms, 
the cost in diminished futures for our Nation's children is far too 
high to pay in order to achieve the relatively minor spending 
reductions associated with the provision that my amendment strikes. By 
striking this provision, my amendment will ensure we continue to make a 
modest, sound investment in the nutrition, health, education and future 
of our children.
  Finally, Mr. President, I believe that this amendment will actually 
save money in the long run, because kids who are well-nourished grow up 
healthy. They are able to learn and acquire the skills they need to 
live as productive members of society. That means less welfare 
dependency, less crime, less poor health and less cost to our society 
in dealing with the various ills that result from poor nutrition and 
stunted human development.
  Mr. SANTORUM addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania is recognized.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Harkin 
amendment. The underlying provision that the Harkin amendment attempts 
to amend actually has some commonality here, bipartisan support, I 
should say.
  The President, in his most recent welfare reform proposal, contained 
a provision to repeal the expansion grants, the grants that the Senator 
from Iowa wants to put back in.
  In addition, the Democratic substitute which we voted on earlier 
today also repealed expansion grants. And I think the reason was that 
these expansion grants, at least for the school breakfast program, have 
been around for 6 or 7 years. With 6 or 7 years, that is a fair amount 
of time to have those grants on the table to use to grow the program. 
If they have not grown by now, they are probably not going to grow with 
respect to the summer food program. It has not been widely used.
  The Senator from Iowa mentioned 31 States. But these are not State 
grants. They are grants to very small discreet schools. If you only 
have 31 in the entire country, that is hardly a significant expansion 
of the program. I think most everyone has recognized that we have sort 
of reached the end of the road with respect to expanding this program. 
And this money can be more efficiently spent elsewhere.
  I remind Senators that this provision saves a substantial amount of 
money. What it is is $112 million that we were required to come up with 
in our reconciliation portion of the agriculture budget. And there is 
no offset provided for in this legislation. So if in fact we put these 
grants back, we are going to have to find other places, food stamps, 
other kinds of programs that I think have more political support, and 
for good reason, than these expansion grants. So I would urge my 
colleagues not to support this amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. HARKIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Just a small followup. I do not always agree with the 
President of the United States. These start-up and expansion grants 
stand on their own merits, without regard to what is contained in the 
President's or any other welfare reform proposal.
  As the Senator from Pennsylvania says, this is kind of a modest 
program. But we did in 1994, as I said, make it permanent and modify it 
to include summer food start-up and expansion. We got the first of the 
new grants out last year. It is a modest program. It is not a big, 
overwhelming program. But it allows really the poorest schools to get 
the seed money.
  As I said, it is a one-time infusion of money. Let us say they have 
some sites they want to deliver meals to. They have a central kitchen 
and they want to delivery some meals to other sites. Maybe they do not 
have a vehicle to do it. Well, this program would help them get the 
vehicle that will be able to deliver those meals to other sites, let us 
say, around the area.
  So it is a one-time cost that will enable them to go ahead and have a 
breakfast program or a summer food program. It is needed. You say, 
well, it is a modest program. I suppose if it was big, they would argue 
it is too big. But it is a modest program and it is needed.
  Right now, I say to my friend from Pennsylvania, that in the ag 
function we have over $500 million in excess spending reductions beyond 
the levels required by the budget resolution. CBO estimates that 
eliminating this program will reduce spending over 6 years by $112 
million. So there is plenty of excess savings in the Agriculture 
Committee's portion of this bill to cover this amendment. I hope that 
we will correct this bill to allow these very important start-up and 
expansion grants for school breakfast and summer food programs to 
continue. Thank you very much.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Just one of the reasons we had more savings than the ag

[[Page S8138]]

bill is because we had to meet a specific target in the last year. And 
to meet that target, we had to cut a little bit more than we needed to 
in the first few years to meet the outyear number. That is why if you 
change the numbers, then we do not have the numbers in the outyears. I 
say that in response.

  I am willing to get the yeas and nays on this.
  Mr. HARKIN. 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.
  Mr. FORD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. FORD. May I ask the Senator from Iowa, did the Senator offer two 
amendments?
  Mr. HARKIN. Yes. I offered two amendments.
  Mr. FORD. Did we get the yeas and nays on the second one?
  Mr. HARKIN. I did get the yeas and nays, but we had a unanimous 
consent to hold off until Tuesday.
  Mr. SANTORUM. I say to the Senator from Iowa, in discussing the 
matter with the Senator from Delaware, we are prepared to accept the 
first Harkin amendment, the one that was pushed off until Tuesday and 
accept the amendment without the need for a vote, if that is acceptable 
to the Senator.
  Mr. HARKIN. That would be very acceptable.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to vitiate the 
yeas and nays on the first Harkin amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays have been ordered on the 
second Harkin amendment.


                           Amendment No. 4915

  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, we are now ready to accept the Harkin 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the Harkin 
amendment No. 4915.
  The amendment (No. 4915) was agreed to.
  Mr. FORD. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. SANTORUM. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, we have an amendment that is up from the 
Republican side. I understand that the Senator is not here. It is going 
to be offered by the acting floor manager. I do not know that we have 
anybody on our side. If the Senator wants to introduce it, then we 
would get the yeas and nays on it.


                           Amendment No. 4917

 (Purpose: To ensure that recipients or caretakers of minor recipients 
  of means-tested benefits programs are held responsible for ensuring 
    that their minor children are up to date on immunizations as a 
      condition for receiving welfare benefits from the taxpayers)

  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on 
behalf of the Senator from Missouri, Senator Ashcroft.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. Santorum] for Mr. 
     Ashcroft, proposes an amendment numbered 4917.

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

       At the appropriate place in chapter 9 of subtitle A, insert 
     the following:

     SEC.   . SANCTIONS FOR FAILING TO ENSURE THAT MINOR CHILDREN 
                   ARE IMMUNIZED.

       (a) TANF.--
       (1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, a State shall not be prohibited by the Federal 
     Government from sanctioning a recipient of assistance under a 
     State program funded under part A of title IV of the Social 
     Security Act for failing to provide verification that such 
     recipient's minor children have received appropriate 
     immunizations against contagious diseases as required by the 
     law of such State.
       (2) Exception.--In the event that a State requires 
     verification of immunizations, paragraph (1) shall not apply 
     to a caretaker described in such paragraph who relies solely 
     or partially upon spiritual means rather than medical 
     treatment, in accordance with the religious beliefs of such 
     caretaker.
       (b) Food Stamps.--
       (1) In general.--A caretaker recipient of assistance or 
     benefits under the food stamp program, as defined in section 
     3(h) of the Food Stamp Act of 1977, shall provide 
     verification that any dependent minor child residing in such 
     recipient's household has received appropriate immunizations 
     against contagious diseases as required by the law of the 
     State in which the recipient resides.
       (2) Exception.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply to a 
     caretaker described in such paragraph who relies solely or 
     partially upon spiritual means rather than medical treatment, 
     in accordance with the religious beliefs of such caretaker.
       (3) Individual penalties.--The failure of a caretaker 
     described in paragraph (1) to comply with the requirement of 
     such paragraph within the 6-month period beginning with the 
     month that includes the date that the caretaker first 
     receives benefits under the food stamp program shall result 
     in a 20 percent reduction in the monthly amount of benefits 
     paid under such program to such caretaker for each month 
     beginning after such period, until the caretaker complies 
     with the requirement of paragraph (1).
       (c) SSI.--
       (1) In general.--A caretaker of a minor child who receives, 
     on their own behalf or on behalf of such child, payments 
     under the supplemental security income program under title 
     XVI of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1681 et seq.) shall 
     provide verification that the child has received appropriate 
     immunizations against contagious diseases as required by the 
     law of the State in which the child resides.
       (2) Exception.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply to a 
     caretaker described in such paragraph who relies solely or 
     partially upon spiritual means rather than medical treatment, 
     in accordance with the religious beliefs of such caretaker.
       (3) Individual penalties.--The failure of a caretaker 
     described in paragraph (1) to comply with the requirement of 
     such paragraph within the 6-month period beginning with the 
     month that includes the date that the caretaker first 
     receives, on their own behalf or on behalf of such child, 
     payments under the supplemental security income program shall 
     result in a 20 percent reduction in the monthly amount of 
     each payment made under such program on behalf of the 
     caretaker or such child for each month beginning after such 
     period, until the caretaker complies with the requirement of 
     paragraph (1).

  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, in 1994, one out of every four 2-year-
olds had not received the proper vaccinations. This statistic worsens 
appreciably in urban areas. For example, a 1995 survey of State health 
department clinics in Houston found that only 14 percent of the 
children were up-to-date on their immunizations.
  Because these children are not being immunized, the Centers for 
Disease Control reported 1,537 needless and easily avoidable incidences 
of mumps in 1994.
  Such a deplorable lack of basic preventive health care is 
inexcusable, particularly since immunizations are free in America.
  The Vaccines for Children Program administered by the National 
Immunization Program of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 
provides free vaccines to children under 18 who are eligible for 
Medicaid, or are uninsured or underinsured.
  When a child in America is not immunized, it is entirely the fault of 
the parent. It is a blatantly irresponsible act not to immunize a 
child.
  We should not be paying welfare recipients to abdicate their 
responsibility. The welfare system should encourage people to take care 
of their own.
  Children are the future, and in order to break the cycle of 
dependence, children of welfare recipients need every break available.
  All schools require immunization records for a child to be enrolled. 
An unimmunized child can be denied admission to school. And a child 
that doesn't go to school will probably end up on welfare.
  What's wrong with requiring parents on welfare to have their children 
immunized? We shouldn't be paying parents to neglect their children.
  This amendment allows States to sanction welfare recipients of TANF, 
and other States programs who do not immunize their children.
  This amendment also requires States to sanction Food Stamps and SSI 
recipients who do not immunize their children.
  Again, immunizations are free to Medicaid recipients and the 
uninsured

[[Page S8139]]

in hospitals and clinics across the Nation, so there is simply no 
legitimate excuse for parents not to have their children 
immunized. Additionally, States think immunization requirements for 
government aid are a good idea.

  According to the American Public Welfare Association 12 States have 
received Federal waivers to implement AFDC requirements for 
immunization.
  For example: Delaware, immunization is required for pre-school 
children. Failure to comply results in $50 decrease per month in AFDC 
grant. Indiana, recipients must show proof within 12 months of AFDC 
application that children are immunized. Families in noncompliance are 
sanctioned $90 per month. Michigan sanctions AFDC families $25 per 
month if parents fail to immunize pre-school-age children according to 
State policy. Mississippi children under 6 must receive regular 
immunization and checkups or sanction of $25 per month applies. AFDC 
preschoolers in Texas must be immunized or the State may sanction the 
family $25 per child. And finally, in Virginia, AFDC recipients with 
children who have not been immunized receive fiscal sanctions of $50 
for the first child and $25 for each additional child.
  This amendment is the best means to ensure that all children 
everywhere are immunized against deadly, but easily controllable 
diseases such as mumps, tetanus, measles, polio, et cetera.
  It is a first step to encouraging responsibility in a system that 
breeds decadence and dependence--a step upward on the ladder of 
opportunity out of our current welfare system's net of ensnarement.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I yield back what time we might have on this 
side.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Likewise.
  Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the Ashcroft amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a 
sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.


                           Amendment No. 4918

  (Purpose: To revise this legislation if it increases the number of 
                 impoverished children in this Nation)

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Wellstone] for himself and 
     Mr. Simon, proposes amendment numbered 4918.

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further 
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:
       At the appropriate place insert the following:
       ``Impoverished Children Provision.--
       ``(A) Report by the secretary, accompanied by legislative 
     proposal.--The Secretary of Health and Human Services shall 
     develop data and, by January 30, 1999, shall report to 
     Congress with respect to whether the National child poverty 
     rate for Fiscal Year 1998 is higher than it would have been 
     had this Act not been implemented. If the Secretary 
     determines that this rate has increased and that such 
     increase is attributable to the implementation of provisions 
     of this Act, then such report shall contain the Secretary's 
     recommendations for legislation to halt this increase. The 
     Secretary's report shall be made public and shall be 
     accompanied by a legislative proposal in the form of a bill 
     reflecting said recommendations.
       ``(B) Congressional action.--
       ``(1) The bill described in (A) shall be introduced in each 
     House of Congress by the Majority Leader or his designee upon 
     submission and shall be referred to the committee or 
     committees with jurisdiction in each House.
       ``(2) Discharge.--If any committee to which is referred a 
     bill described in paragraph (1) has not reported such bill at 
     the end of 20 calendar days after referral, such committee 
     shall be discharged from further consideration of such bill, 
     and such bill shall be placed on the appropriate calendar of 
     the House involved.
       ``(3) Floor consideration.--Any bill described in paragraph 
     (1) placed on the calendar as a result of a committee's 
     report or the provisions of paragraph (2) shall become the 
     pending business of the House involved within 60 days after 
     it has been placed on the calendar of such House, unless such 
     House shall otherwise determine.''

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, this amendment is on behalf of myself 
and Senator Simon. This amendment is a very simple and straightforward 
amendment. And it is my fervent hope that this amendment will have 
strong bipartisan support.
  Mr. President, let me just assume--and I think it is probably a 
correct assumption--that there is not one Senator in this Chamber that 
wishes to impoverish any more children in America, that when people say 
that they think the passage of this bill will not hurt children, they 
mean it. I accept that as having been said in good faith.
  Mr. President, today the Washington Post, in an editorial, said that 
this welfare reform bill could be a profound mistake and called upon 
all of us to be cautious, that one out of every eight children in 
America is covered by the AFDC program, the welfare program.
  Mr. President, let me give you the context, and then let me go right 
to the amendment. The context is as follows. I think we are going to be 
very honest about this. As the old saying goes, people can be in honest 
disagreement about this bill. But the fact of the matter is, we do not 
know for certain. There are some ardent advocates for this welfare 
bill. And there are those who have spoken in strong opposition.
  One of those Senators who has been most vocal in his opposition is 
Senator Patrick Moynihan from New York, who has been a giant in the 
field, who has studied welfare longer than any of the rest of us, who 
is an acknowledged expert, and who has enormous intellectual and 
political and personal integrity.
  Senator Moynihan argues that this in fact would mean that there would 
be more impoverished children in America. That is his view. That is not 
the view of every Senator.
  Mr. President, what this amendment says is that Health and Human 
Services takes a look at what we have done over the next 2 years. I 
know that Senators do not want this to be the case. But if, in fact, as 
a result of some of the provisions in this legislation there are more 
impoverished children in America, that report comes back to us, and we 
fast track it. It comes back to the Congress, we fast track it, and it 
comes to the floor in 20 days, and we take action to correct the 
problem.

  Now, Senators, please understand what I am saying. I wish there was 
time to summarize this tomorrow. I am assuming everybody in this 
Chamber--and I believe it has been operating in good faith; we just 
have some honest disagreements. But I do not think any of us know for 
certain.
  What I am saying in this amendment is, at least have some safety net 
here or some fail-safe mechanism. At least be willing to evaluate what 
we have done. We cannot know what we do not want to know. We cannot be 
unwilling to study what we have done. We cannot be unwilling to have 
some sort of evaluation, have Health and Human Services study this, 
bring it back to us, and if, in fact, because of some of the provisions 
in this legislation, there are more impoverished children in America--
that is what the Office of Management and Budget said about the last 
bill we passed--then we would take a look at that study, and we, not 
Health and Human Services, we, as legislators, would take the kind of 
corrective action that would be necessary to make sure we do not 
continue to cause this poverty among children in America.
  Mr. President, I am really hopeful that there will be strong support 
for this. I think it is a most reasonable amendment. I think it would 
be reassuring to people in the country. Frankly, I think it is a way we 
can reassure ourselves. I offer this amendment, and I hope that it will 
be accepted.
  I withhold the balance of my time and ask for a response from the 
Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I do not see anything in this amendment 
that is necessary. We already get a variety of information from the 
Department of Health and Human Services, the Labor Department, and a 
whole lot of other agencies with respect to statistical information 
with respect to poverty rates and a whole variety of other factors 
dealing with children in poverty.
  That information is compiled regularly and is made available to the 
Congress. So to have the Secretary of

[[Page S8140]]

Health and Human Services redo that in some report as requested by the 
Senator from Minnesota seems to me to be unnecessary.
  If, in fact, the poverty statistics over the 2-year-period, as 
described in this legislation, show an increase in the poverty rate 
among children, I guarantee you that there will be Members, maybe from 
both sides of the aisle if it is dramatic, who will come here to the 
floor and will be looking to make some changes in the welfare program.
  I suggest we have seen increases in poverty with the current system 
on many occasions, almost continually over the past 30 years, and we 
have never done anything as dramatic as what the Senator from Minnesota 
is suggesting with this proposal. I think what we are seeing here is 
really nothing more than putting in some sort of structure in some very 
limited and constrained timing. Why not 2 years? Why not 5 years? Why 
not 1 year? It is hard to pull a number like 2 years out of the hat.
  This is a program that, once implemented, will be implemented 
differently across this country because of the flexibility given in 
this bill. There will be programs that I think will be dramatically 
successful which will have tremendous impact on the poor in this 
country. There are those, in all likelihood, that will have modest 
success. I think it is important to let that play out. It is important 
to give the Congress the flexibility to be able to deal with that in a 
rational, measured way, by debate, instead of forcing them into a 
rather tight timeframe that is being designed here by the Senator from 
Minnesota.

  For those reasons, I oppose the Wellstone amendment.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, the Senator from Pennsylvania evades 
the point. This amendment is not about collecting statistics about 
poverty in general. It is about this piece of legislation and doing 
something in the affirmative for children if, in fact, provisions in 
this piece of legislation should lead to an increase in poverty among 
children. Two years is hardly too tight a time line for children who 
might find themselves in more difficult economic circumstances because 
of what we have done.
  In all due respect, I find it absolutely amazing that Senators who 
make the argument that this is going to be a piece of legislation that 
will not hurt children would now be unwilling to support a study to see 
whether, in fact, provisions in this piece of legislation are going to 
impoverish more children. You cannot evade the point.
  I ask my colleague, what would be the harm in such a study? Gunnar 
Myrdal said, ``Ignorance is never random.'' Sometimes I guess we do not 
know what we do not want to know.
  Before I move on to my other amendment, is there any particular 
response as to why?
  Mr. FORD. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I am happy to yield to the Senator.
  Mr. FORD. We are starting something new, and it is down a path that 
we are not sure how it will turn out. I think that is the Senator's 
point.
  The States will be doing this and not the Federal Government, as 
such, because in this legislation we would be giving block grants. I 
think we ought to know how that is faring out there.
  I remember when the States were in charge of nursing homes. Because 
it was so bad, the Federal Government took it over and set higher 
standards so we could take care of our senior citizens better. Is it 
not the point that we do not know what will happen?
  Like the Senator from Pennsylvania said, some programs may be good, 
some may be mediocre, some may flunk. Do we not need to know and 
respond, particularly for children? Is that not the point the Senator 
is trying to make?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I say to my colleague from Kentucky, absolutely.
  I will give but one other example. It was President Richard Nixon, a 
Republican, who said we better have some national standards for food 
stamps, because we had all these reports in the mid and late 1960's. I 
am sure my colleague from Pennsylvania has read about those reports on 
children with extended bellies and children suffering from rickets and 
scurvy. We decided there better be some national standards.
  If we are going to do something quite new, and we have Senators of 
the stature of Senator Patrick Moynihan who say this will impoverish 
more children, and we have two studies from OMB and Health and Human 
Services saying the same thing, I do not wish to cast judgment on it, 
but I cannot for the life of me understand why my colleagues would not 
want to at least have Health and Human Services study it and bring back 
a report to us, and if, in fact, some of the provisions of this 
legislation have increased poverty among children, we take corrective 
action.

  My colleagues have said that will not happen, so why would you want 
to vote against this? Why would you not want to have a study? Why would 
you not want to have some measuring of statistics? Why would we not 
want to err on the side of caution when it comes to what we are doing, 
as it affects the poorest children in America? Why would we not want to 
err on the side of caution?
  The silence is deafening; is there a response?
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I am happy to respond to the Senator 
from Minnesota. The answer simply is, like every other welfare program 
that has been instituted in this country, there are volumes of studies 
as to its impact by a variety of organizations from the left to the 
right, including the Government. I do not think there will be any 
shortage of information as to the efficacy of this new direction in 
welfare. That is No. 1.
  No. 2, what your amendment provides for is not only reports, and I 
suggest duplicative reports, but congressional action, discharge for 
consideration, an expedited procedure, very expedited procedure for 
legislation, which is, again, I think, an overreaction and just not 
necessary.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Well, Mr. President, I will finish up with one other 
quick amendment with my time slot. First, I will respond by saying one 
more time that it just evades the point. It is not a question of 
academics or whether there will be studies. It is a question of whether 
or not we are willing, as an institution, as a body, to say we are 
doing something very different. We want to make sure that in this 
legislation we pass we have some provision here to take a look at what 
we have done, so that the results will come back to us, so that if in 
fact, God forbid, we have done something that impoverished more 
children, we will take quick action to correct the problem. I cannot, 
for the life of me, understand the opposition to such a proposal. I am 
really shocked. Excuse me for my indignation, but I am.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to lay this amendment aside 
and to offer my other amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Frist). Is there objection?
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I will 
not object, but I want to make some comments.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I am sorry. I yield for that purpose.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator withdraw the unanimous 
consent request for the moment?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Yes. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, every Senator here is concerned about the 
children of America, and we are particularly concerned about those 
children that are not having the kind of opportunity we all think they 
deserve. So I do not think the comments should be that we do not all 
seek the same benefits for the children in our country.
  Just let me point out that the legislation reported out by the 
Finance Committee already provides for research, evaluation, and 
national studies. In section 413(a), we specifically provide that the 
Secretary shall conduct research on the benefits, efforts, and costs of 
operating different State programs funded under this part, including 
time limits relating to eligibility. Not only do we provide for 
studies, but we provide $15 million for each of the fiscal years from 
1998 through 2001, with the purpose of paying the cost of conducting 
such research, for the cost of developing and evaluating innovative 
approaches for reducing welfare dependency and increasing the well-
being of minor children under section (b).
  So we already have in the legislation ample provisions for studies to 
be made to determine how effective our reform

[[Page S8141]]

programs are. We all want that information. That is the reason it is 
contained in this bill.
  However, we do object to the expedited procedure, whereby the 
Secretary of Health makes recommendations and they are put on an 
accelerated track to be considered by the Congress. I know of no 
instance where this kind of procedure has been used. Yes, we have had 
accelerated procedures in certain limited circumstances, such as trade 
bills. But the recommendations come from the President of the United 
States. I, for one, think that it is appropriate for the 
recommendations of these studies to go through the regular process of 
Congress.
  My distinguished friend and colleague from Minnesota talks about the 
timeframe. Just let me point out that the present program has been in 
effect for about 30 years, and we have studies and recommendations from 
the CBO that show that if we do not do something about reform, that 
another 3 million children will be on welfare in the next 9 years. So 
do not talk to me about the timeframe. Let us all agree that we do want 
the studies, and we do want the independent analyses as to how these 
programs are working. But let us use the Congress and its normal 
processes, including its committees, to determine what is appropriate, 
rather than to give this kind of authority to a nonelected Member of 
the Cabinet.

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I have just a quick response, and we 
will move on. First of all, I say to my friend from Delaware that to 
talk in general terms about studies and evaluations and not to connect 
it specifically to the issue that I raised in this amendment, as to 
whether or not we will in fact be willing to look at the very real and 
important questions as to whether this legislation or provisions in 
this legislation have impoverished more children, and then take 
corrective action, again, it misses the point. It is not a response to 
that very real concern.
  Second of all, this it is not an agency that takes the action. Health 
and Human Services reports back to this body, and we are the ones that 
correct the problem. We are the ones that correct the problem. So, 
again, I do not really believe that the comments of my colleague are 
responsive to what this amendment speaks to.
  Finally, on welfare--I cannot resist--and then we can move on. But 
this reference to the CBO study. With all due respect, when I hear my 
colleagues talk about welfare and how welfare caused poverty, it is 
tantamount to making the argument that Social Security caused people to 
grow old. You have the cause and effect mixed up. Every 30 seconds, a 
child is born into poverty in this country. We are getting close to one 
out of every four children. That is true. There are a whole host of 
reasons why we have this poverty. Welfare is a response to it. To argue 
that the welfare system causes the poverty is like saying the Social 
Security system causes people to be aged. You just have the cause and 
effect mixed up.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I yield back all our time on the 
amendment.
  The amendment is not germane to the provisions of the reconciliation 
bill pursuant to 305(b)(2) of the Budget Act. I raise a point of order 
against the pending amendment.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I move to waive the applicable 
section of that Act for the consideration of the pending amendment.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.


                           Amendment No. 4919

(Purpose: To ensure that States which receive block grants under Part A 
    of title IV of the Social Security Act establish standards and 
 procedures regarding individuals receiving assistance under such part 
   who have a history of domestic abuse, who have been victimized by 
  domestic abuse, and who have been battered or subjected to extreme 
                                cruelty)

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Wellstone], for himself and 
     Mrs. Murray, proposes an amendment numbered 4919.

  Mr. WELLSTONE. 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:
       At the end of section 402(a) of the Social Security Act, as 
     added by section 2103(a)(1), add the following:
       ``(7) Certification of standards and procedures to ensure 
     that the state will screen for and identify domestic 
     violence.--
       ``(A) In general.--A certification by the chief executive 
     officer of the State that the State has established and is 
     enforcing standards and procedures to--
       ``(i) screen and identify individuals receiving assistance 
     under this part with a history of domestic violence while 
     maintaining the confidentiality of such individuals;
       ``(ii) refer such individuals to counseling and supportive 
     services; and
       ``(iii) waive, pursuant to a determination of good cause, 
     other program requirements such as time limits (for so long 
     as necessary) for individuals receiving assistance, residency 
     requirements, child support cooperation requirements, and 
     family cap provisions, in cases where compliance with such 
     requirements would make it more difficult for individuals 
     receiving assistance under this part to escape domestic 
     violence or unfairly penalize such individuals who are or 
     have been victimized by such violence, or individuals who are 
     at risk of further domestic violence.
       ``(B) Domestic violence defined.--For purposes of this 
     paragraph, the term `domestic violence' has the same meaning 
     as the term `battered or subjected to extreme cruelty', as 
     defined in section 408(a)(8)(C)(iii).
       ``(8) Certification regarding eligibility of individual who 
     has been battered or subjected to extreme cruelty.--A 
     certification by the chief executive officer of the State 
     that the State has established and is enforcing standards and 
     procedures to ensure that in the case of an individual who 
     has been battered or subjected to extreme cruelty, as 
     determined under section 408(a)(8)(C)(iii), the State will 
     determine the eligibility of such individual for assistance 
     under this part based solely on such individual's income.

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I will try to be brief. This amendment 
speaks to an issue that we, as the Senate, have really, I think, taken 
some important steps and major strides forward in addressing, and that 
is domestic violence in our country, violence within families that 
effect women, children, and sometimes men--usually women and children.
  Mr. President, this amendment would ensure that States that receive 
the block grant under part A of title IV of the Social Security Act 
establish standards and procedures regarding individuals receiving 
assistance who have a history of domestic abuse, who have been 
victimized by domestic abuse and have been battered or subjected to 
extreme cruelty.
  There was a study done by the Taylor Institute in Chicago that 
documented that between 50 to 80 percent of women receiving AFDC are 
current or past victims of domestic abuse. In other words, for all too 
many of these women and children welfare, imperfections and all, is the 
only alternative to a very dangerous home.
  So what this amendment would say is that States would be required to 
screen and identify individuals receiving assistance with a history of 
domestic violence, refer such individuals to counseling and supportive 
services, and waive for good cause other program requirements for so 
long as necessary.
  This is what the States would essentially end up doing. It would all 
be done at the State level.
  Mr. President, we cannot have ``one size fit all,'' as I have heard 
many of my colleagues so say. It took Monica Seles 2 years to play 
tennis again. Can you imagine what it would be like as a result of her 
stabbing--to be beaten up over and over and over again; can you imagine 
what it would be like to be a small child and see that happen in your 
home over and over again?
  I want to make sure that these women and these children throughout 
our country, for whom the welfare system has been sometimes the only 
alternative to these very dangerous homes, receive the kind of special 
services and assistance that they need. In the absence of the passing 
of this amendment, all too many women and children could find 
themselves forced back into these very dangerous homes.
  So it is a reasonable amendment. It is one that speaks to the very 
real problem of violence within homes in

[[Page S8142]]

our country. It would be an extremely important, I think, modification 
of this welfare bill that would provide assistance that is really 
needed by many women, many children, and many families in our country.
  I hope that this amendment would be agreed to and would receive 
strong support, bipartisan support.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, there is no objection to this amendment 
on this side. We are willing to accept the amendment.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Pennsylvania.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment 
of the Senator from Minnesota.
  The amendment (No. 4919) was agreed to.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I have a unanimous consent agreement to 
propound to dispose of two amendments which have been agreed to on both 
sides of the aisle. They are Senator Faircloth's amendment to clarify 
that a welfare recipient may provide child care services to satisfy the 
bill's work requirements.
  The second one is Senator Coats' amendment allowing welfare 
recipients to establish individual development accounts.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order for me to 
offer these two amendments which I now send to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, has this 
amendment been cleared?
  Mr. ROTH. Yes. Both have been cleared.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I have been informed that the first 
amendment has not been cleared on this side.
  Mr. ROTH. I understand that, although they have been cleared, a 
question has been raised.
  So I withdraw my request until clarified.
  Mr. DeWINE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.


                     Amendment No. 4920, Withdrawn

    (Purpose: To amend the Social Security Act to clarify that the 
reasonable efforts requirement includes consideration of the health and 
                          safety of the child)

  Mr. DeWINE. I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Ohio [Mr. DeWine] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 4920.

  Mr. DeWINE. 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:
       At the end of chapter 7 of subtitle A of title II, add the 
     following:

     SECTION 2703. CLARIFICATION OF REASONABLE EFFORTS REQUIREMENT 
                   BEFORE PLACEMENT IN FOSTER CARE.

       (a) In General.--Section 471(a)(15) of the Social Security 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 671(a)(15)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(15) provides that, in each case--
       ``(A) reasonable efforts will be made--
       ``(i) prior to the placement of the child in foster care, 
     to prevent or eliminate the need for removing the child from 
     the child's home; and
       ``(ii) to make it possible for the child to return home; 
     and
       ``(B) in determining reasonable efforts, the best interests 
     of the child, including the child's health and safety, shall 
     be of primary concern;''.
       (b) Effective Date.--
       (1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the 
     amendment made by subsection (a) shall be effective on the 
     date of the enactment of this Act.
       (2) Exception.--In the case of a State plan for foster care 
     and adoption assistance under part E of title IV of the 
     Social Security Act which the Secretary of Health and Human 
     Services determines requires State legislation (other than 
     legislation appropriating funds) in order for the plan to 
     meet the additional requirement imposed by the amendment made 
     by subsection (a), such plan shall not be regarded as failing 
     to comply with the requirements of such title solely on the 
     basis of its failure to meet this additional requirement 
     before the first day of the first calendar quarter beginning 
     after the close of the first regular session of the State 
     legislature that begins after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act. For purposes of the previous sentence, in the case 
     of a State that has a 2-year legislative session, each year 
     of such session shall be deemed to be a separate regular 
     session of the State legislature.

  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I intend to talk for approximately 10 
minutes about this amendment, and then, for reasons which I am going to 
discuss in just a moment, withdraw the amendment. But I want to discuss 
it. I inform my colleagues that it will take approximately 10 minutes.
  Mr. President, my amendment deals with the issue of foster care. It 
is my understanding that because the Senate bill has no language in 
this bill on the issue of foster care that my amendment would be 
considered not to be germane. The House bill does deal with foster 
care. Therefore, if we had a House bill before us it obviously would be 
germane. Because of this, after a few brief remarks, I am going to 
withdraw this amendment.
  But I would like to discuss tonight what I consider to be a very 
important issue. It is the issue that my amendment addresses. It is the 
subject of a freestanding bill that I have just a few moments ago 
introduced. I believe that the idea contained in the bill, the idea 
contained in my amendment, must be acted upon; if not in this bill then 
in a subsequent bill. And I have previously discussed this issue at 
length on the Senate floor. I want to take just a few moments now to 
revisit the issue, and to talk to my colleagues about it.
  In 1980, Congress passed the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare 
Act, known as CWA. That 1980 act has done a great deal of good. It 
increased the resources available to struggling families. It increased 
the supervision of children in the foster care system, and it gave 
financial support to people to encourage them to adopt children with 
special needs.
  Mr. President, while the law has done a great deal of good, many 
experts are coming to believe that this law has actually had some bad 
unintended consequences. The bad unintended consequences were not 
because of the way the law was written and not because of the way the 
lawmakers intended in 1980 that it happen, but, frankly, because the 
law has been grossly misinterpreted.
  Under the 1980 act, for a State to be eligible for Federal matching 
funds for foster care expenditures, the State must have a plan for the 
provision of child welfare services. And that plan must be approved by 
the Secretary of HHS. This plan must provide, and I quote. Here is the 
pertinent language, referring now to foster care:

       In each case reasonable efforts will be made, (A), prior to 
     the placement of a child in foster care to prevent or 
     eliminate the need for removal of the child from his home; 
     and, (B), to make it possible for the child to return to his 
     home.

  In other words, Mr. President, the law very correctly says we should 
try family reunification. The law put money behind that. That is the 
right thing to do. But, Mr. President, this law has been 
misinterpreted. In other words, Mr. President, no matter what the 
particular circumstances of the household may be, the State must make 
reasonable efforts to keep it together and to put it back together, if 
it falls apart.
  What constitutes reasonable efforts? Here is where the rub comes. How 
far does the State have to go? This has not been defined by Congress 
nor has it been defined by HHS. This failure to define what constitutes 
reasonable efforts has had a very important and very damaging practical 
result. There is strong evidence to suggest that in the absence of a 
definition reasonable efforts have become in some cases extraordinary 
efforts, unreasonable efforts; efforts to keep families together at all 
costs. These are families, Mr. President, that many times are families 
in name only and parents that are parents in name only.
  In the last few months I have traveled extensively throughout the 
State of Ohio talking to social work professionals; talking to people 
who are in the field every day dealing with this issue.
  In these discussions, I have found that there is great disparity in 
how the law is being interpreted by judges and by social workers. In my 
home State of

[[Page S8143]]

Ohio we have 88 counties, and I would venture to say the law is being 
interpreted 88 different ways and in some counties with many juvenile 
judges it is interpreted differently within that same county by 
different judges.
  Let me give you an example. This is the easiest way that I can 
explain it. I posed this hypothetical, which it turns out in some 
cases, unfortunately, is not a hypothetical, but I made it up, I posed 
a hypothetical to representatives of children's services in both rural 
parts of Ohio and urban counties.
  Here is my hypothetical. The mother, Mary, is a 28-year-old, crack-
addicted individual who has seven children. Steve, the father, 29-year-
old father of the children, is an abusive alcoholic, and all seven of 
their children have been taken away, taken away permanently by the 
county, by the State over a period of time. In each child's case, 
courts have decided these people cannot have this child; they are 
abusive; it is dangerous for the child. Not only that, we are taking 
them away permanently. The mother gives birth now to an eighth child. 
This newborn tests positive for crack. Therefore, it is very obvious 
that the mother is still addicted to crack. The father is still an 
alcoholic. Those are the facts.
  Pretend for a moment that you work for the county children's services 
department. Here is the question, the question I posed to numerous 
people across Ohio. Does the law allow you to get the new baby out of 
the household, and if you do, should you file for permanent custody so 
that baby can be adopted? Can you file for permanent custody so that 
baby can be adopted?
  The answer, I believe, will surprise and shock you. In fact, I was 
surprised at the response I got when I asked a number of Ohio social 
work professionals that very question. The answer varied from county to 
county but I heard too much ``no'' in the answers I got. Some officials 
said they could apply for emergency custody of the baby, they would get 
emergency custody and take the child away on a temporary basis, but 
that they would have to make a continued effort--do you believe this? 
They would then have to make a continued effort to send the baby back 
to the family, back to the mother, back to the father.
  Other social workers said if they went to court to get custody of the 
baby, they probably would not be able to get even temporary custody of 
this little child. Most shocking of all, Mr. President, is the issue of 
adoption. I asked then with this hypothetical, with the seven children 
already having been taken away, with the eighth child now testing one 
day positive for crack, mother clearly still on crack, showing no signs 
she is going to get off, father continues to be an alcoholic, continues 
to be an abusive alcoholic, with all of those facts, how soon could I 
expect that this poor little baby would be eligible to be adopted?
  Most shocking of all is the answer I got. The lowest figure I got was 
2 years. That was the best I got; it would take 2 years for this child 
to be eligible to be adopted. In one urban county in the State of 
Ohio--and this is not unusual to Ohio--I was told it would take 5 years 
before that child was eligible to be adopted--5 years.
  One social worker, just one out of the ones I asked, told me that her 
department would move immediately for permanent custody of the baby, 
but she said their success would depend on the particular judge that is 
assigned to the case.

  Mr. President, should our Federal law really push the envelope this 
far? Should this Federal law really require extraordinary efforts? 
Should it require extraordinary efforts be made to keep that family 
together, efforts that any one of us clearly would not consider to be 
reasonable based on past history? I had one social worker look me in 
the eye and say, ``Senator, the problem is the way our courts interpret 
this law, we can't look at any history. We can't learn from the history 
of that family. We can't learn from the history of that abusive father 
or that abusive mother. We have to start over again each time.''
  It is clear that after 16 years of experience with the law, there is 
a great deal of confusion as to how the act applies. Again, I do not 
believe that is the fault of the authors. I think that is just the way 
it has been interpreted. I would not interpret the law that way, but 
the fact is after 16 years we know it is being interpreted that way and 
is going to be interpreted that way.
  My legislation is very simple, very short. My legislation would 
clarify once and for all the intent of Congress in the 1980 act. My 
legislation would amend that language in the following way. I am going 
to read in a moment what my language would add. I want to first state 
to the Senate that I would not change any of the language in the 
current law. I would add to it, but I would not change it. I would not 
change the requirement for reasonable efforts to be made to reunify a 
family. That is a positive thing. That is something that we should try 
whenever it is reasonable to do so. The people who make that decision 
are the people on the front lines, the social workers, the children's 
service agencies, the people who have to make life-and-death decisions. 
They are the ones who are going to have to make the decision. I just 
want to clarify the law and to get it back to where I think the framers 
of the law, people who wrote the law in this Congress in 1980, intended 
it to be. So I would add the following, after the current language:

       In determining reasonable efforts, the best interests of 
     the child, including the child's health and safety, shall be 
     a primary concern.

  Let me read it again:

       In determining reasonable efforts, the best interests of 
     the child, including the child's health and safety, shall be 
     a primary concern.

  I think that settles it; it clarifies it. Again, I think it does what 
the framers wanted.
  In conclusion, Mr. President, the 1980 act was a good bill. There are 
some families that need a little help if they are going to stay 
together, and it is right for us to help them. That is what the Child 
Welfare Act did. But by now it should be equally clear that the framers 
of the 1980 act did not intend for extraordinary, unreasonable efforts 
to be made to reunite children with their abusers.
  As Peter Digre, the Director of the Los Angeles County Department of 
Children and Family Services, testified at a recent House hearing, ``We 
cannot ignore the fact that at least 22 percent of the time infants who 
are reunited with their families are subjected to new episodes of 
abuse, neglect or endangerment.''
  That was not the intent of Congress in the 1980 law, but too often 
that law is being misinterpreted in a way that is trapping these 
children in abusive households.
  I believe we should leave no doubt about the will of the American 
people on this issue affecting the lives of America's children. The 
legislation I am proposing today would put the children first.
  Now, Mr. President, for the reasons that I have stated in the 
beginning, I reluctantly ask the Chair to withdraw the amendment.
  I ask unanimous consent to have the amendment withdrawn.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is withdrawn.
  The amendment (No. 4920) was withdrawn.


                           Amendment No. 4911

  Mr. DeWINE. I yield the floor.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent it be in order 
to ask unanimous consent to order the yeas and nays on amendment 4911.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. SANTORUM. I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I would make a series of notions to strike 
provisions in S. 1956.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Will the Senator from Florida agree to a time agreement 
at this point?
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, 40 minutes, equally divided.
  Mr. SANTORUM. I ask unanimous consent to have 40 minutes equally 
divided on the Graham motion without a second-degree amendment in 
order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. GRAHAM. I would modify that. It will require more than a single 
motion in order to strike the sections which I intend to strike from 
title II,

[[Page S8144]]

chapter C, of S. 1956. So could the reference to ``motions'' be placed 
in the plural?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, the purpose of the series of motions which 
I will make, which I hope will be considered as a single motion for 
purposes of our final vote, is to strike from this legislation those 
sections which relate to the eligibility of legal immigrants--legal 
immigrants--to receive various Federal needs-based benefits. I do this 
because to have this language in this welfare bill is both redundant 
and punitive in terms of those communities which have large numbers of 
legal immigrants and will have significant costs shifted to them as a 
result of this legislation.
  I am joined in this effort by Senators Simon, Murray and Feinstein, 
who also recognize it would be inappropriate, and a duplication, to 
consider matters which have already been resolved by this body.
  As we will all recall, it was only a few weeks ago, May 2, to be 
precise, that the Senate passed the Immigration Control and Financial 
Responsibility Act. This act, which had as its primary objective 
controlling illegal immigration into the United States, also contained 
provisions that restrict the rights of legal aliens to a variety of 
Federal needs-based programs.
  This legislation was the result of extensive hearings and markups in 
the Judiciary Committee. It was subjected to exhaustive floor debate 
which lasted well over a week in the Senate. The majority of the time 
spent on the immigration bill dealt with the public benefits for legal 
and illegal immigrants. The availability of Supplemental Social 
Security Income, Aid for Families with Dependent Children, Medicaid and 
Medicare for immigrants, was examined during several floor votes which 
resulted in a comprehensive Senate bill.
  I am going to say, I hope with not excessive arrogance, that this is 
a subject which I know something about. I was Governor of Florida in 
1980 when over 125,000 immigrants in various legal categories came to 
my State in a period of a few weeks. Since that time, it has been 
estimated that the total unreimbursed cost of that incident to the 
State of Florida was in excess of $1.5 billion. Those were costs 
associated with health care, social services, education, housing, job 
training--a variety of activities which were necessary in order to 
facilitate the assimilation of that large population into the 
population of the State of Florida.
  The State of Florida has tried for the better part of 15 years to get 
recognition of those costs which were incurred because of Federal 
immigration decisions, but which ended up being an unreimbursed, 
unfunded mandate on the State of Florida. This case finally ended up in 
the U.S. Supreme Court earlier this year. The decision of the U.S. 
Supreme Court: This is not a judicial issue. If the State of Florida, 
and other States which might be similarly affected, is to be dealt 
with, it has to be dealt with by a political judgment, not by a 
judicial remedy.

  What distresses me is after having spent weeks shaping the bill which 
was intended to provide that type of structured legal response by the 
Federal Government when such impositions are placed by Federal action 
on a particular community or State, we now, in a bill which is going to 
be subject to 20 hours of debate--here it is after 10:30 at night--we 
are about to substantially rewrite, discard the fundamental policy 
premise of our previous actions and almost quadruple the amount of the 
unfunded mandate we are going to impose on affected States. In addition 
to the inappropriateness of us rejecting our previous work, we are 
making some very significant policy decisions without the kind of 
attention that we afforded to our earlier action on immigration.
  What are some of those decisions we are about to make? In the 
previous bill, we used the concept of deeming. I wish the Senator from 
Wyoming were with us this evening, because he explained in great detail 
and on a repetitive basis what the theory of deeming is. It is that if 
a person sponsors a legal alien to come into this country, that that 
person should assume the financial obligations that will guarantee that 
their sponsored legal alien will not become a public charge.
  Therefore, in terms of evaluating whether that legal alien 
qualifies--for instance, for Medicaid--you would add the income of the 
sponsor to the income of the legal alien. And if the combination of 
those incomes exceeded the eligibility threshold, then the legal alien 
would no longer qualify for that particular needs-based service. That 
concept of deeming that we worked so carefully on in the immigration 
bill is largely replaced in this legislation by absolute prohibitions 
against legal aliens being able to access these Federal programs.
  Much of the legislation that we considered earlier and passed on May 
2 was based on a recommendation of the U.S. Immigration Commission, 
which was established by act of Congress in 1990, and which issued a 
series of reports in the mid-1990's. This report, issued in 1994, 
entitled ``U.S. Immigration Policy: Restoring Credibility,'' while it 
spoke well of the concept of deeming as a means of assigning 
responsibility for legal aliens, went on to say:

       However, circumstances may arise after an immigrant's entry 
     that create a pressing need for public health: unexpected 
     illnesses, injuries sustained because of serious accident, 
     loss of employment, death in the family. Under such 
     circumstances, legal immigrants should be eligible for public 
     benefits if they meet other eligibility criteria. We are not 
     prepared to remove the safety net from under individuals who 
     we hope will become full members of our polity.

  That is precisely what this legislation does. It removes the social 
net.
  This also will make a very significant difference in the dollar 
amount of unfunded costs shifted to the States. Under the bill we 
passed as immigration reform, the cost over 7 years was $5.6 billion.
  This bill will impose an unfunded mandate of $23 billion over the 
next 7 years on States. Mr. President, in deference to the limited time 
that we have and the lateness of the hour, I will not unduly burden the 
Senate with the reports which I have, but I ask unanimous consent to 
have printed in the Record a statement from the National Association of 
Public Hospitals and Health Systems which outlines what the costs are 
going to be just in the one sector of health care institutions which 
are going to be a principal target of these unfunded mandates.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

 Statement of the National Association of Public Hospitals and Health 
            Systems in Support of Senator Graham's Amendment

       The National Association of Public Hospitals and Health 
     Systems (NAPH) strongly supports Senator Graham's amendment, 
     cosponsored by Senator Simon, to strike Title IV from the 
     welfare reform legislation. NAPH is strongly opposed to the 
     legal immigrant provisions in the welfare reform bill because 
     barring legal immigrants from Medicaid eligibility for five 
     years and deeming legal immigrants out of Medicaid 
     eligibility until citizenship would jeopardize the health 
     care safety net in many urban areas.
       Public hospitals would still treat immigrants but receive 
     no reimbursement. Most low income legal immigrants cannot 
     afford health insurance. Because of the legislation, however, 
     all legal aliens will be ineligible for Medicaid.
       Public hospitals would have new burdens of uncompensated 
     care. The bar on Medicaid eligibility and Medicaid deeming 
     would lead to an increase in the number of uninsured patients 
     and exacerbate an already tremendous burden of uncompensated 
     care on public hospitals and other providers who treat large 
     numbers of low income patients. This is a cost shift from the 
     federal government to state and local entities and providers.
       Public hospitals would bear the costs of welfare reform. 
     The cost shift created by the welfare legislation would 
     disproportionately fall on public hospitals in states with 
     large numbers of legal immigrants, such as Florida, 
     California, Texas, New York, and Illinois. Public hospitals 
     in states with lower levels of immigration would also bear 
     the costs, because legal immigrants are part of almost every 
     community.
       There would be new public health risks. The loss of 
     Medicaid coverage means that the amount of preventive care 
     provided to legal immigrants would be drastically reduced, 
     thereby exposing entire communities to communicable diseases 
     while increasing the overall cost of providing necessary 
     care.

  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, there are two other aspects of the policy 
shifts in this legislation. The immigration bill contained the shift in 
eligibility, the constriction of eligibility based on deeming for legal 
aliens in order to generate funds that would then be used to finance 
the programs

[[Page S8145]]

that were authorized in the illegal immigration sections of that bill 
to better protect our borders. What we are about to do here is to take 
all the money that is in the immigration bill that is intended to be 
used for border enforcement and divert it for the purposes of this 
welfare reform bill.
  So all of the promises that we made, for instance, to the people 
along the Southwest border, that we are going to have more Border 
Patrol agents, fencing, and other steps to enforce our borders against 
illegal immigration are going to be ashen, because we, by this action, 
have taken all the money that we have provided to finance those 
enhancements to our borders. It is, in part, for that reason, I 
suspect, that Senator Feinstein, who has been such a leader in the 
efforts to protect our borders, is a cosponsor of this amendment.
  Finally, I suggest, Mr. President, that this is a very clear back-
door way to accomplish the same objective that this Senate on several 
occasions rejected when we were debating the immigration bill, and that 
is a sharp reduction on the rights of legal immigration into this 
country which we know is primarily the right to reunify families.
  Why is this a back-door constraint on legal immigration and 
particularly family reunification? The reason is because we are making 
it so financially onerous for sponsors. We are raising the specter of 
their own impoverishment as a result of bringing a loved one, a child, 
a spouse, a parent into this country that we are going to effectively, 
through coercion, accomplish the same thing that this Senate, by direct 
action, refused to do, which was to make it more difficult for legal 
aliens to reunite with their families.
  So, Mr. President, this amendment, this series of motions to strike 
will eliminate those sections of the legislation that relate to the 
eligibility of legal aliens to a variety of Federal benefits. I 
underscore that this is not to say that we are not going to restrain 
those benefits, but we would do so through the immigration bill that we 
have passed, a bill that had the considered judgment of this Senate as 
opposed to doing it through a welfare reform bill where this matter is 
getting virtually no consideration.
  We are going to do it through the concept of deeming rather than the 
concept of a total prohibition. We are going to do it at a reasonable 
level of $5.6 billion which I personally think is, in itself, 
excessive, but pales in comparison to the $23 billion of reduction that 
is contained in this welfare bill.


                           Amendment No. 4921

   (Purpose: To strike the provisions restricting welfare and public 
                          benefits for aliens)

  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk, and I ask 
unanimous consent that the time I have used thus far be counted against 
my time on the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Florida [Mr. Graham], for himself, Mrs. 
     Feinstein, Mr. Simon, Mrs. Murray and Mrs. Boxer, proposes an 
     amendment numbered 4941.

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

       Beginning on page 562 strike line 5 through the end of line 
     23 on page 567.
       Beginning on page 567 strike line 14 through the end of 
     page 582 line 2.
       Beginning on page 585 line 13 strike all through the end of 
     line 25 on page 587.

  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mr. SANTORUM addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I think this is an area where there is 
just a disagreement in philosophy. I respect the Senator from Florida, 
and there probably is not a Member in this Chamber who knows more about 
the difficulty in dealing with a large number of legal immigrants in 
this country than the former Governor of Florida. But I think there is 
just a philosophical difference here, or a difference of what we 
believe is fair and equitable in this country.
  What we are talking about is a particular class of legal immigrants. 
We are not talking about refugees, people who come to this country 
seeking refuge from persecution in their homeland. All refugees are 
excluded from the provisions of this bill. In other words, they are 
fully entitled to the array of social welfare benefits provided by the 
Federal Government.
  Asylees, for example, the two Cuban baseball players--they are 
probably not going to need any social welfare benefits given their 
talent level, but if they were not so talented and were here in this 
country claiming political asylum, they would continue to be eligible 
for a variety of welfare benefits.
  We are, in a sense, to my understanding, unique in that respect 
around the world. There are, to my knowledge, no other countries that 
do provide welfare benefits to legal immigrants and their noncitizens 
in their country. So, in a sense, we are keeping very much with the 
tradition of our country, with the Statue of Liberty when we suggest 
that those who are under persecution at home, that those who are in 
need of this country as a beacon of freedom are, in fact, provided for 
by this country. So I think that is something we should all agree on, 
be proud of and, obviously, continue, and we do that in this bill.
  What we do not continue in this bill, and I think wisely do not 
continue, is to continue to provide benefits to what are called 
sponsored immigrants. Sponsored immigrants are immigrants who come to 
this country, and almost all come to this country through a family 
unification provision, which is to unify a family, whether it is a 
spouse or a child or a mother or a father or a sister or a brother. 
They come to this country to unify a family, and when they do so, the 
citizen of this country, who is the sponsor, signs a document. The 
document says that I will take financial responsibility for this person 
who I want to bring to this country for a period of 5 years, and that 
all of my assets are deemed available and in the possession, so to 
speak, constructive possession of the person coming into this country 
for purposes of evaluating whether that person is eligible for welfare 
or other Government benefits. That is current law.
  But the problem with this whole agreement is it is not legally 
enforceable, and they are not enforced. In fact, one hand does not know 
what the other hand is doing. The welfare department has no idea what 
the immigration status is, and, in fact, these benefits are handed out 
without really much knowledge of the immigration status of the 
individual involved.
  What we are seeing--and the Senator from New York and the Senator 
from New Mexico discussed this earlier today--is a trend. I say it is 
even more than a trend, it is an avalanche, and the avalanche is 
elderly family reunification, elderly being the bringing over of mom or 
dad to this country.
  Mom or dad being 60 or 70 or 80 years of age, coming to this country, 
you know, the doting son signs the sponsor agreement. And lo and 
behold, mom, who is disabled, ends up on SSI. Or if you are elderly, 
because you qualify when you are over 65, you end up on SSI. The 
Federal Government and the taxpayers of this country become the 
retirement village supporters of the entire world.
  I do not think that is what the intent of these provisions was for. I 
think we have seen a real pattern of abuse here of a document that is 
not legally enforceable, which is the sponsorship agreement, and a 
tremendous number of people coming over here and using the SSI system 
as, in fact, the retirement system for many people all across the 
world. So what we have said is that we do not want to continue to have 
this incentive.
  We, as members of the Ways and Means Committee over in the other 
body, heard testimony on numerous occasions about how it was well 
known--and in fact it went throughout many refugee camps in Southeast 
Asia and other places; that was one of the items of testimony--about 
how this was this great system that America had, that you can get over 
here and you could array yourself in all these wonderful benefits.
  People should come to this country because they want the benefits of 
our society, not the benefits of our welfare system. I think that is 
where we really

[[Page S8146]]

have to draw the line here. So I think we have held up our 
responsibility to the fabric of our society, which is to invite those 
who are in need to come here, and we will in fact help you get started.
  But I think we have drawn the line saying, if you want to bring a 
member of your family over and you sign a document saying that you will 
take financial responsibility for them, live up to the document, 
provide for them. In fact, if you want--after 5 years, under current 
law, you are eligible for citizenship. If you apply for citizenship, 
you do what is necessary to prepare yourself for citizenship, and 
comply and apply and pass all your tests, you can, too, be eligible for 
the wide variety of welfare programs that we have in this country.
  But, I mean, we talk in terms of people coming here for welfare. The 
fact is, the vast majority of people do not come here for welfare. They 
come here because America is the land of opportunity, and unfortunately 
what we have seen is because of the abuse in this area, it has caused a 
lot of some of the anti-immigrant feelings that are seen in many areas 
of the country and by many people in this country.
  I think what we have a responsibility to do--I joined with Senator 
DeWine and Senator Abraham on this side of the aisle, I know Senator 
Graham and others on the other side of the aisle, in not restricting 
the caps on immigration. I am proimmigration. I am the son of an 
immigrant. I am not one of these people who says, ``I'm in. OK. Close 
the door.'' I believe immigration is important to the future of this 
country.
  But I believe if we have programs that are abused, if we have 
programs that in fact call into question the immigration policy in this 
country, that cast a broad shadow over immigration in general, we have 
a responsibility to the taxpayers, No. 1, but also to the sentiment of 
immigration in this country, No. 2, to clean up the mess, to put a 
better face on immigration, to show that we have our act together in 
providing immigration to those who truly are in need, but not to those 
who are abusing the system.
  If we clean that up, I think we improve the image of immigration and 
there is less pressure on lowering those caps and doing other things 
that I think could be harmful with respect to the area of immigration 
and, I think, save the taxpayers a whole bundle of money in the 
process.

  I think those are all very positive things that happen. That is one 
of the reasons that this provision that is in this bill is included in 
the Democrat substitute and has been included in, I think, all the 
House bills that have been considered.
  I think it has very strong bipartisan support. While I think the 
Senator from Florida is well-intentioned and certainly is, I think, 
sensitive to the needs of the many thousands of immigrants who are in 
the State of Florida, I think we have taken a judicious swipe at this 
issue and have cut appropriately. I hope we will support the underlying 
bill and be in opposition to the amendment of the Senator from Florida. 
I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Will the Senator from Pennsylvania yield for a question?
  Mr. SANTORUM. I will be happy to.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Did the Senator from Pennsylvania state that these 
provisions that are not bars to eligibility only apply to those persons 
who come into the country with a sponsor who has assumed the financial 
obligation?
  Mr. SANTORUM. I mean, I have not combed over the Finance Committee 
bill, but that has been my understanding all along.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Will the Senator please turn to section 2402, which is 
one of the sections that my motion would strike?
  Mr. SANTORUM. Can you tell me what page that is on?
  Mr. GRAHAM. Page 234 on my copy, but at a different page--
  Mr. SANTORUM. I have section 2402 before me.
  Mr. GRAHAM. It states that:

       Notwithstanding any other provision of law and except as 
     provided in paragraph (2), an alien who is a qualified alien 
     (as defined in section 2431) is not eligible for any 
     specified Federal program (as defined in paragraph (3)).

  So thus we then have to go to section 2431 to determine what the 
definition is of a ``qualified alien.'' Subparagraph (b) of that 
section says:

       For purposes of this chapter, the term ``qualified alien'' 
     means an alien who, at the time the alien applies for, 
     receives, or attempts to receive a Federal public benefit, 
     is--

  Among other things--

       (2) an alien who is granted asylum under section 208 . . . 
       (3) a refugee who is admitted to the United States under 
     section 207 . . .
       (4) an alien who is paroled into the United States under 
     section 212(d)(5) . . .

  None of these people have a sponsor. If I have misread the language 
of this section, I will appreciate being corrected. But that is a very 
fundamental issue as to who is intended to be covered.
  Mr. SANTORUM. What I think this provision says is they are eligible 
for a 5-year exemption under the law, and then they have to become 
citizens.
  Mr. GRAHAM. The Senator said the only people this applied to were 
those who had a sponsor who could assume responsibility. I understood 
the Senator to say specifically, for instance, they did not apply to 
refugees who were admitted because they are fleeing legitimate 
persecution.

  Mr. SANTORUM. Yes. The Senator is absolutely right. This is different 
than I understood the provision to be. The difference is--and the 
Senator is correct--that aliens, refugees, et cetera, are eligible for 
5 years until they become eligible for citizenship, and then we expect 
them to become citizens or they will not be eligible in the future.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I think this question precisely 
underscores why I have offered this series of strikes. We spent a week-
plus on this floor in April and May debating a comprehensive 
immigration bill. We came to a studied judgment as to how, for whom, 
for what time period benefits for legal aliens should be constrained. 
We came to a judgment that said over the next 7 years the restraint 
should have a dollar figure of $5.6 billion.
  Tonight we are debating a provision that purports to reduce the 
benefits of legal aliens by $23 billion, four times more than what we 
had purported to do just a few weeks ago. Yet there is not the 
opportunity for careful scrutiny and study. Therefore, fundamental 
misconceptions as to who this applies to are being presented on this 
legislation on which our colleagues are going to be asked to vote.
  I think the prudent thing to do is to adopt the motions to strike 
that I have offered and let these issues be resolved in the conference 
committee which is now in place to settle the immigration bill and not 
attempt to do these things at now 11 o'clock at night on a bill that 
has received not a scintilla of the kind of analysis insofar as it 
relates to the impact on legal aliens as did that immigration bill.
  That is the argument that I make in support of my motions to strike 
these provisions. This has very serious implications, not only to the 
individuals involved, but to the communities in which legal aliens 
elect to live.
  As an example, in a study by Los Angeles County of what this will 
mean in terms of health care in that community, there are estimates 
that they have 93,000 legal immigrants who would lose their SSI 
benefits, making them automatically eligible for county funded general 
assistance. That would cost Los Angeles County $236 million a year in 
additional costs. I do not think we ought to be imposing an unfunded 
mandate of $236 million on the citizens of Los Angeles County in the 
cavalier manner that I suggest we are about to do.

  We have a process. The conference committee focused on immigration 
with Senators and Members of the House who were selected because of 
their knowledge and background on that subject matter, several of whom 
have served on these important commissions on immigration. That is the 
form which these issues ought to be resolved, not in this welfare bill.
  Mr. DODD. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. GRAHAM. I am happy to yield to the Senator.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, it is awfully late here. Our colleague from 
Pennsylvania gets saddled with the responsibility of providing analysis 
for I do not know how many pages in the bill, and it is not easy, but I 
think our colleague from Florida, despite the late hour and the fact 
there are only a

[[Page S8147]]

handful of us here, is a classic example of offering insight that we 
probably were not aware of.
  I hope those who understand this bill would look carefully at the 
suggestions our colleague has made, because, as I understood it, this 
is the kind of thing which none of us intended to be the case. We are 
talking about a category of people who come here legally, who fall into 
circumstances that all of us have agreed should not be denied benefits. 
There is no debate about that. I think we have resolved that.
  I urge staff and others who might look at this, so that tomorrow when 
we are asked to vote on matters as we gather in the well, there will 
not be the benefit that those of us sitting here today will have had of 
the very careful analysis of the Senator from Florida. My hope is, and 
I say this so our friends from Pennsylvania and Delaware who are here, 
who have staff here to look at this, so tomorrow when our colleagues 
gather we will have an opportunity to pass judgment on this, and if it 
is as our colleague from Florida has suggested, we might adopt that 
amendment maybe by voice vote, go to conference, and try and resolve 
some of the matters.
  They may take an opposite point of view, but I urge that thought be 
given to that. Most of our colleagues, if they have any sense at all, 
are fast asleep by this hour. I see that our Presiding Officer is a 
surgeon. He may make recommendations for all of us here. We all know 
what it is like when it comes time to vote. We come in, there are 
papers at the desk, we vote aye or we vote no, we do not have a chance 
to benefit from the exchanges that have occurred here.
  I urge our staffs take a good look at this, and if the Senator from 
Florida is correct, I urge, in the spirit of bipartisanship, that we 
try and set that matter aside for conference so as not to unwittingly 
adopt some provisions that I think none of us would agree with.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, with all due respect to my friend and 
colleague from Connecticut, I am not too sure there is anything 
unwitting going on here. This was a provision that was in the Senate 
bill when it passed 87 to 12. It was in the conference report; it was 
in the original bill that was introduced. This provision has really 
been unchanged for quite some time and has been, as I said, not only 
included in the Republican bill, but the Senator from Connecticut 
himself stood up on the floor when the Senator from New Mexico and the 
Senator from New York said, ``What are you guys talking about? 
This provision on illegal immigrants, it is in our bill. You should not 
be talking about that.''

  I think there has been very broad support of this issue. It saves a 
significant amount of money. It is $18 billion. Obviously, the Senator 
from Florida does not have any offset there to put us within our 
reconciliation target, so this puts us well beyond, well under our 
reconciliation target, No. 1.
  No. 2, the Senator from Florida talks about the potential for an 
unfunded mandate. We have a CBO estimate here that there is no unfunded 
mandate here, including the provision in this bill that the bill does 
not provide an unfunded mandate. So we have no unfunded mandate with 
this provision included in the bill, No. 1.
  No. 2, we lose $18 billion of a $50-some-odd-billion savings in this 
bill with this provision.
  No. 3, it has been adopted on many occasions, included in both 
parties' bills, and we had a vote on it the last time we were here, and 
it was voted down.
  I think to suggest that someone is being hoodwinked here or that 
there is some substantial question as to whether this is a legitimate 
way to reform the system, I do not think is borne out by the history of 
these provisions. I think these provisions have been tested. These 
provisions have had broad bipartisan support. I am hopeful tomorrow 
that broad bipartisan support will continue.
  Mr. DODD. I will not dwell on this. I do not believe our colleague 
from Florida was on the floor when our colleague from New York, and the 
chairman, Senator Domenici, had a chart they raised and talked about 
legal aliens, the parents of citizens, who under the deeming process--
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I be able to proceed 
for 3 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DODD. As I understood it, those were the parents of citizens who 
would come in legally, and under the deeming process their children 
assumed, as my colleague from Pennsylvania properly described, the 
financial responsibility of those parents coming in. The exchange was 
that both the Democratic proposal and the underlying bill prohibit that 
kind of situation from persisting. I think we all agree on that.
  Mr. SANTORUM. I suggest to the Senator from Connecticut that with the 
amendment of the Senator from Florida, that would not be; it would 
strike the provisions that eliminate that, that that situation could 
continue.
  Mr. DODD. I understand that part of it. I think we would want to keep 
it. What I understood, this went beyond that, which I am not as 
knowledgeable as our colleague from Florida. In addition to that, you 
have refugees, asylees and others who would not necessarily fall into 
the category, or they did not have a sponsor and got here.
  That is what he is trying to carve out. That is why I suggest staff 
get together. Maybe I misunderstood.
  I yield to the Senator from Florida.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, to be clear, my argument is that this is a 
redundant and inappropriate piece of legislation to be considering the 
issue of the eligibility of legal aliens for Federal benefits. That is 
exactly what we did in the immigration bill.
  We spent days on the floor and weeks in the appropriate committee 
considering the nuances of that legislation, including its impact on 
the communities, which would now have to carry the cost that previously 
had been a partnership between the States, the communities, and the 
Federal Government.
  I am suggesting what we ought to do is let that process come to 
fruition. The House has passed an immigration bill. The Senate has 
passed the immigration bill. They are in conference. They have been in 
conference since mid-May. Let that forum decide what should be the 
benefits that the Federal Government would provide for legal aliens. Do 
not do it in this welfare bill.
  I think the very fact that we are proposing to reduce those benefits 
by $23 billion, when just a few weeks ago we thought the appropriate 
level of reduction was $5.6 billion, ought to raise in our minds 
whether we really know what we are doing here.
  The statement that this is not an unfunded mandate, how in the world 
is it not going to be an unfunded mandate when the Federal Government 
denies coverage to large groups of people and imposes that cost for the 
sick, the elderly, those who require special other assistance, is going 
to end up being a responsibility of States and local governments.
  If I could use one example, the U.S. Government has entered into an 
agreement with the Cuban Government which sets up a process by which 
20,000 Cubans each year will come into the United States. Most of them, 
when they come into the United States, come under the category of 
parolees. Currently, the Federal Government, which is the government 
that signed this agreement, is responsible for the financial cost of 
that group of new arrivals if they, for instance, become eligible for 
health care because they are indigent and they are in need of health 
care.
  This is going to say that, for the first year, that group of people 
will not be eligible for any Federal assistance. Who is going to pick 
up those costs? Eighty percent plus of those people end up in Dade 
County, FL. I can tell you who is going to pick up the cost. Jackson 
Memorial Hospital and the other health care providers in the community 
are going to be paying for the costs, and it will become--in the 
classic definition of an unfunded mandate--an unfunded mandate to 
render services to a group of people who the Federal Government has 
determined shall enter the community without any Federal financial 
participation in paying those costs.
  We dealt with that issue specifically in the immigration bill, and we 
did not reach that, I think, quite unjust result. This would reverse a 
decision that we have previously made.
  So my argument, Mr. President, is a simple one--not that we should 
not

[[Page S8148]]

face the issue and try to accomplish some of the objectives the Senator 
from Pennsylvania strives to do; but we ought to do it in the proper 
form with the proper consideration and with the proper level of respect 
to the communities that are going to be most affected by the ultimate 
decisions we will make. I believe striking these provisions out of this 
bill, which then turns to the more appropriate forum of the immigration 
conference committee as the means by which we would reach ultimate 
judgment, is the appropriate policy. I hope the Senate will concur when 
we vote on this issue tomorrow.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I would just like to point out that it is, 
of course, the Finance Committee that has jurisdiction over these 
programs. I point out that the provisions that are contained in the 
legislation before us were also contained in H.R. 4, as well as the 
Balanced Budget Act of last year. So this legislation has been acted 
upon in the Congress twice.
  I further point out that the matter was considered in committee, and 
on that committee we have a number of members of the Judiciary 
Committee. On the Republican side, these provisions were supported.
  So I do not think it can be said that this is a matter that just came 
up in the wee hours of this evening. It has been a matter carefully 
considered in committee, as well as on the Senate floor.
  I also point out that much of these provisions, although not entirely 
in the same form, were included as part of the Democratic substitute.
  So I think it is important that we bring this into the proper 
perspective. I want to point out that much of the savings that would 
come about through this legislation are through the changes that are 
being made in welfare programs for noncitizens. These people came into 
the United States on the basis that they would not become a public 
charge. S. 1956 requires noncitizens to live up to their end of the 
bargain by requiring them to work or depend on the support of their 
sponsors and not rely on the American taxpayers.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the motion 
to strike.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.


                           Amendment No. 4922

(Purpose: To correct provisions relating to quality standards for child 
                                 care)

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for 
its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Dodd], for himself, Ms. 
     Snowe, Mr. Kennedy, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Kohl, Mr. 
     Kerry, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Kerrey, Mr. Cohen, Mr. Reid, and Mr. 
     Leahy, proposes an amendment numbered 4922.

  Mr. DODD. 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:

       In the amendment made by section 2807, strike ``3'' and 
     insert ``4''.

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I offer this amendment on behalf of myself, 
Senator Snowe, and others.
  This deals with the child care section of the legislation. Let me 
just very briefly describe the amendment to my colleagues. The 
reconciliation bill reserves 3 percent of the child care funds to 
improve the quality and availability of child care. Using current law 
projections, Mr. President, this proposal would represent a reduction 
of approximately $400 million over 6 years for the quality and 
increased availability of child care, and buildings and accommodations 
for those children who will need it.
  This amendment increases the funds reserved for quality from 3 
percent to 4 percent, reducing the shortfall in funds to about $200 
million over 6 years, about half of what the shortfall would be without 
this amendment.
  I point out, Mr. President, that the House has adopted a similar 
provision of 4 percent, so we would be conforming with this legislation 
to what is already included in the House language.
  Earlier in the day, Mr. President, I made a case for the importance 
of health and safety standards for our child care settings, and I 
pointed out that in recent studies of child care facilities in this 
country, only 1 in 7 day care centers received a rating of good quality 
care, with even fewer programs--8 percent--providing good quality care 
for infants and toddlers. In the same study, 40 percent of rooms 
serving infants and toddlers provided less than minimum quality care in 
the country.
  I do not think I need to make the case here. I think we all agree and 
understand the implications of the legislation. There is unanimity here 
on the concept of moving adults from welfare to work. We all understand 
that many of these adults, of course, have children who are going to 
require child care of one kind or the other.
  As I pointed out earlier in the day, of the 13 million people in this 
entire country who receive AFDC, 8.8 million of the 13 million are 
under the age of 18; 78 percent of the 8.8 million are under the age of 
12; and 46 percent of the 8.8 million are under the age of 6. There are 
4.1 million adults who collect AFDC. So as we take the 2 million 
adults, of the 4 million that this bill requires we put to work over 
the next 7 years, at least anyway, 78 percent of that 8.8 million, you 
can argue actually a higher number will require some form of child care 
setting--a significant amount. We are told the numbers will get larger 
in the coming years.
  So we want to put adequate quality child care out there. We have made 
the case that for automobiles and pets we have standards. If you leave 
your pet someplace, certain standards have to be met. What we are 
trying to say here is, when it comes to our Nation's children, minimum 
standards should be met, and there should be some quality control.
  We leave it to the States, Mr. President, to decide in specificity 
what those quality standards ought to be. We do not try to mandate here 
specific requirements, except in a broader context. So we are not 
violating the notion that States meet those standards. I point out, by 
the way, that this is language that we adopted--my colleague from 
Delaware will recall--going back to 1990, under the Bush 
administration, when Senator Hatch and I authored the Child Care Block 
Grant Program that was supported by the Bush administration and adopted 
here. We included quality and health and safety standards.
  Earlier today, with the support of Senator Coats, Senator Kassebaum, 
Senator Snowe, and others, we adopted the health and safety standards 
in the bill. This amendment offered by Senator Snowe and I would raise 
from 3 percent to 4 percent an allocation for quality, and I hope that 
my colleagues will see fit to support this amendment. I think it 
improves the bill.
  With that, I would not necessarily ask for a rollcall vote because I 
understand that it may be acceptable to the majority. If that is the 
case, I will not ask, obviously, for a rollcall vote.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I say to the distinguished Senator from 
Connecticut that we are willing to agree to his amendment, and 
consequently a rollcall vote would not be necessary.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I deeply appreciate my colleagues' support 
for the amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment 
of the Senator from Connecticut.
  The amendment (No. 4922) was agreed to.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. ROTH. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, there is also an amendment. The Senator from 
North Carolina, Senator Faircloth, had an amendment he was going to 
propose, and it has to do with child care and the question of whether 
or not child care workers could be considered in the work sections of 
this bill. There was some question as to whether or not we would clear 
that.
  As I understand it, all the health and safety standards and quality 
would apply. If my colleague from Delaware would confirm that for me, 
we would be more than willing to accept that

[[Page S8149]]

amendment and move another amendment along.
  Mr. ROTH. Yes. I do confirm that.
  Mr. DODD. I would be more than happy to clear that amendment on our 
side. I do not know if the Senator has an amendment and he would like 
to offer it. If he does, we could remove one more amendment. I am sure 
Senator Domenici, who is sound asleep, would be grateful in the morning 
when he arrives to find out that we agreed to one more amendment.
  Mr. ROTH. Actually, I had three more amendments.
  Mr. DODD. Do not get carried away.
  Mr. ROTH. Do you want more?
  Mr. DODD. No.
  [Laughter.]
  Mr. ROTH. We had the two earlier agreements.


             Amendments Numbered 4923 through 4925, En Bloc

  Mr. ROBB. Let me start over.
  Mr. President, I have a unanimous-consent agreement to propound to 
dispose of three amendments which have been agreed to on both sides of 
the aisle. They include Senator Faircloth's amendment to clarify that a 
welfare recipient may provide child care services to satisfy the bill's 
work requirement; two, Senator Coats' amendment allowing welfare 
recipients to establish individual development accounts; and, third, 
Senator Abraham's amendment modifying the illegitimacy ratio.
  I ask unanimous consent that it be in order for me to offer these 
three amendments that I send to the desk, en bloc, that they be 
considered and agreed to, en bloc, and that the motions to table and 
the motions to reconsider be agreed to, en bloc, and that they appear 
in the Record as if considered individually.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, reserving the right to object--I shall not 
object--the Senator from Delaware is correct. These amendments have 
been cleared on this side. We are pleased to have them accepted.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendments by 
number.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Delaware [Mr. Roth] proposes amendments 
     numbered 4923 through 4925, en bloc.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendments are agreed to.
  The amendments (Nos. 4923, 4924, and 4925, en bloc) were agreed to, 
as follows:


                           amendment no. 4923

   (Purpose: To encourage individuals to provide child care services)

       On page 239, between lines 21 and 22, insert the following:
       ``(i) Encouragement To Provide Child Care Services.--An 
     individual participating in a State community service program 
     may be treated as being engaged in work under subsection (c) 
     if such individual provides child care services to other 
     individuals participating in the community service program in 
     the manner, and for the period of time each week, determined 
     appropriate by the State.
                                                                    ____



                           amendment no. 4924

 (Purpose: To provide for the establishment of individual development 
                               accounts)

       On page 221, between lines 20 and 21, insert the following 
     new subsection:
       ``(h) Use of Funds for Individual Development Accounts.--
       ``(1) In general.--A State operating a program funded under 
     this part may use amounts received under a grant under 
     section 403 to carry out a program to fund individual 
     development accounts (as defined in paragraph (2)) 
     established by individuals eligible for assistance under the 
     State program under this part.
       ``(2) Individual development accounts.--
       ``(A) Establishment.--Under a State program carried out 
     under paragraph (1), an individual development account may be 
     established by or on behalf of an individual eligible for 
     assistance under the State program operated under this part 
     for the purpose of enabling the individual to accumulate 
     funds for a qualified purpose described in subparagraph (B).
       ``(B) Qualified purpose.--A qualified purpose described in 
     this subparagraph is 1 or more of the following, as provided 
     by the qualified entity providing assistance to the 
     individual under this subsection:
       ``(i) Postsecondary educational expenses.--Postsecondary 
     educational expenses paid from an individual development 
     account directly to an eligible educational institution.
       ``(ii) First-home purchase.--Qualified acquisition costs 
     with respect to a qualified principal residence for a 
     qualified first-time homebuyer, if paid from an individual 
     development account directly to the persons to whom the 
     amounts are due.
       ``(iii) Business capitalization.--Amounts paid from an 
     individual development account directly to a business 
     capitalization account which is established in a federally 
     insured financial institution and is restricted to use solely 
     for qualified business capitalization expenses.
       ``(C) Contributions to be from earned income.--An 
     individual may only contribute to an individual development 
     account such amounts as are derived from earned income, as 
     defined in section 911(d)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986.
       ``(D) Withdrawal of funds.--The Secretary shall establish 
     such regulations as may be necessary to ensure that funds 
     held in an individual development account are not withdrawn 
     except for 1 or more of the qualified purposes described in 
     subparagraph (B).
       ``(3) Requirements.--
       ``(A) In general.--An individual development account 
     established under this subsection shall be a trust created or 
     organized in the United States and funded through periodic 
     contributions by the establishing individual and matched 
     by or through a qualified entity for a qualified purpose 
     (as described in paragraph (2)(B).
       ``(B) Qualified entity.--For purposes of this subsection, 
     the term `qualified entity' means either--
       ``(i) a not-for-profit organization described in section 
     501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and exempt 
     from taxation under section 501(a) of such Code; or
       ``(ii) a State or local government agency acting in 
     cooperation with an organization described in clause (i).
       ``(4) No reduction in benefits.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of Federal law (other than the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1986) that requires consideration of 1 or more 
     financial circumstances of an individual, for the purpose of 
     determining eligibility to receive, or the amount of, any 
     assistance or benefit authorized by such law to be provided 
     to or for the benefit of such individual, funds (including 
     interest accruing) in an individual development account under 
     this subsection shall be disregarded for such purpose with 
     respect to any period during which such individual maintains 
     or makes contributions into such an account.
       ``(5) Definitions.--For purposes of this subsection--
       ``(A) Eligible educational institution.--The term `eligible 
     educational institution' means the following:
       ``(i) An institution described in section 481(a)(1) or 
     1201(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
     1088(a)(1) or 1141(a)), as such sections are in effect on the 
     date of the enactment of this subsection.
       ``(ii) An area vocational education school (as defined in 
     subparagraph (C) or (D) of section 521(4) of the Carl D. 
     Perkins Vocational and Applied Technology Education Act (20 
     U.S.C. 2471(4))) which is in any State (as defined in section 
     521(33) of such Act), as such sections are in effect on the 
     date of the enactment of this subsection.
       ``(B) Post-secondary educational expenses.--The term `post-
     secondary educational expenses' means--
       ``(i) tuition and fees required for the enrollment or 
     attendance of a student at an eligible educational 
     institution, and
       ``(ii) fees, books, supplies, and equipment required for 
     courses of instruction at an eligible educational 
     institution.
       ``(C) Qualified acquisition costs.--The term `qualified 
     acquisition costs' means the costs of acquiring, 
     constructing, or reconstructing a residence. The term 
     includes any usual or reasonable settlement, financing, or 
     other closing costs.
       ``(D) Qualified business.--The term `qualified business' 
     means any business that does not contravene any law or public 
     policy (as determined by the Secretary).
       ``(E) Qualified business capitalization expenses.--The term 
     `qualified business capitalization expenses' means qualified 
     expenditures for the capitalization of a qualified business 
     pursuant to a qualified plan.
       ``(F) Qualified expenditures.--The term `qualified 
     expenditures' means expenditures included in a qualified 
     plan, including capital, plant, equipment, working capital, 
     and inventory expenses.
       ``(G) Qualified first-time homebuyer.--
       ``(i) In general.--The term `qualified first-time 
     homebuyer' means a taxpayer (and, if married, the taxpayer's 
     spouse) who has no present ownership interest in a principal 
     residence during the 3-year period ending on the date of 
     acquisition of the principal residence to which this 
     subsection applies.
       ``(ii) Date of acquisition.--The term `date of acquisition' 
     means the date on which a binding contract to acquire, 
     construct, or reconstruct the principal residence to which 
     this subparagraph applies is entered into.
       ``(H) Qualified plan.--The term `qualified plan' means a 
     business plan which--
       ``(i) is approved by a financial institution, or by a 
     nonprofit loan fund having demonstrated fiduciary integrity,
       ``(ii) includes a description of services or goods to be 
     sold, a marketing plan, and projected financial statements, 
     and
       ``(iii) may require the eligible individual to obtain the 
     assistance of an experienced entrepreneurial advisor.
       ``(I) Qualified principal residence.--The term `qualified 
     principal residence' means a principal residence (within the 
     meaning of section 1034 of the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986), the qualified acquisition costs of which do not exceed 
     100 percent of the average area purchase price applicable to 
     such residence (determined in accordance with paragraphs (2) 
     and (3) of section 143(e) of such Code).
                                                                    ____


[[Page S8150]]

                           amendment no. 4925

      (Purpose: To establish an illegitimacy reduction bonus fund)

       Beginning on page 202, line 20, strike ``a grant'' and all 
     that follows through line 13 on page 203, and insert the 
     following: ``an illegitimacy reduction bonus if--
       ``(i) the State demonstrates that the number of out-of-
     wedlock births that occurred in the State during the most 
     recent 2-year period for which such information is available 
     decreased as compared to the number of such births that 
     occurred during the previous 2-year period; and
       ``(ii) the rate of induced pregnancy terminations in the 
     State for the fiscal year is less than the rate of induced 
     pregnancy terminations in the State for fiscal year 1995.
       ``(B) Participation in illegitimacy bonus.--A State that 
     demonstrates a decrease under subparagraph (A)(i) shall be 
     eligible for a grant under paragraph (5).
       On page 203, line 19, strike ``(B)'' and insert ``(C)''.
       On page 204, line 7, strike ``(C)'' and insert ``(D)''.
       On page 204, lines 13 and 14, strike ``for fiscal year 
     1995'' and insert ``the preceding 2 fiscal years''.
       On page 214, between lines 10 and 11, insert the following:
       ``(5) Bonus to reward decrease in illegitimacy.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall make a grant 
     pursuant to this paragraph to each State determined eligible 
     under paragraph (2)(B) for each bonus year for which the 
     State demonstrates a net decrease in out-of-wedlock births.
       ``(B) Amount of grant.--
       ``(i) In general.--Subject to this subparagraph, the 
     Secretary shall determine the amount of the grant payable 
     under this paragraph to a low illegitimacy State for a bonus 
     year.
       ``(ii) Top five states.--With respect to States determined 
     eligible under paragraph (2)(B) for a fiscal year, the 
     Secretary shall determine which five of such States 
     demonstrated the greatest decrease in out-of-wedlock births 
     under such paragraph for the period involved. Each of such 
     five States shall receive a grant of equal amount under this 
     paragraph for such fiscal year but such amount shall not 
     exceed $20,000,000 for any single State.
       ``(iii) Less than five states.--With respect to a fiscal 
     year, if the Secretary determines that there are less than 
     five States eligible under paragraph (2)(B) for a fiscal 
     year, the grants under this paragraph shall be awarded to 
     each such State in an equal amount but such amount shall not 
     exceed $25,000,000 for any single State.
       ``(C) Bonus year.--The term `bonus year' means fiscal years 
     1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, and 2003.
       ``(D) Appropriation.--Out of any money in the Treasury of 
     the United States not otherwise appropriated, there are 
     appropriated for fiscal years 1999 through 2003, such sums as 
     are necessary for grants under this paragraph.

                          ____________________