[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 107 (Friday, July 19, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8329-S8335]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY, WORK OPPORTUNITY, AND MEDICAID RESTRUCTURING
ACT OF 1996
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senate will now resume consideration
of S. 1956, which the clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 1956) to provide for reconciliation pursuant to
section 202(a) of the concurrent resolution on the budget for
fiscal year 1997.
The Senate resumed consideration of the bill.
Pending:
Murray amendment No. 4903, to restore funds for the summer
food service program for children.
Faircloth amendment No. 4905, to prohibit recruitment
activities in SSI outreach programs, demonstration projects,
and other administrative activities.
Breaux amendment No. 4910, to ensure needy children receive
noncash assistance to provide for basic needs until the
Federal 5-year time limit applies.
A motion to waive the Congressional Budget Act with respect
to consideration of amendment No. 4910, listed above.
Faircloth amendment No. 4911, to address multigenerational
welfare dependency.
Biden-Specter amendment No. 4912, in the nature of a
substitute.
A motion to waive the Congressional Budget Act with respect
to consideration of amendment No. 4912, listed above.
First modified amendment No. 4914, expressing the sense of
the Congress that the President should ensure approval of
State waiver requests.
Harkin amendment No. 4916, to strike section 1253, relating
to child nutrition requirements.
Santorum (for Ashcroft) amendment No. 4917, to ensure that
recipients of 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.
Wellstone-Simon amendment No. 4918, to require a report to
Congress on the impact of increased numbers of impoverished
children and recommendations for legislation to correct the
increase.
A motion to waive the Congressional Budget Act with respect
to consideration of amendment No. 4918, listed above.
Graham amendment No. 4921, to strike the provisions
restricting welfare and public benefits for aliens.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Hutchison). The Senate will now proceed
to 10 rollcall votes with respect to amendments offered on July 18,
1996, with 2 minutes for explanation equally divided before each vote.
The Senator from New Mexico is recognized.
Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, this morning the Senate will resume
consideration of the reconciliation bill and begin a lengthy series of
rollcall votes. There may be from 8 to 10 votes consecutively, in order
this morning. Therefore, all Members should be prepared to remain in or
around the Senate Chamber to allow these votes to be completed in a
timely manner.
Following these votes, the Senate will continue to debate amendments
to reconciliation. However, any votes ordered on those amendments will
be ordered to begin at 9:30 on Tuesday.
I remind my colleagues, if they still intend to offer their
amendments, those that were listed, they must offer them today or
Monday.
[[Page S8330]]
Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that all votes ordered after
the first vote be reduced to 10 minutes in length, and that no second-
degree amendments be in order to any of those amendments in the voting
sequence that is scheduled for today.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 4903
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending question is on the Murray
amendment. Under the previous order, the question occurs on amendment
No. 4903, offered by the Senator from Washington [Mrs. Murray].
The yeas and nays have been ordered.
Mrs. MURRAY addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington is recognized.
Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, since last night when I offered this
amendment, I have been contacted by a number of Members from both sides
of the aisle who would like to work with me to perhaps come to an
agreement on this issue. I ask, therefore, unanimous consent to
withdraw the amendment at this time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered. The amendment is withdrawn.
The amendment (No. 4903) was withdrawn.
Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, before you call the next amendment, I
understand the next scheduled amendment, under the order, would have
been a Faircloth amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
Mr. DOMENICI. It is now my understanding that is being worked out and
the Senator seeks, and I understand it is all right with the minority,
that that amendment be set aside until Tuesday. Then we would proceed
to the Breaux amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DOMENICI. So I propose that as a unanimous-consent request.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, Senator Breaux was not aware he would
be up first, so I suggest the absence of a quorum for a couple of
minutes so he can be advised.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DOMENICI. Senator Breaux has arrived. I think under our
sequencing and the order, we have Senator Breaux's motion to waive the
point of order that is up now, and there are 2 minutes on each side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Equally divided.
Mr. DOMENICI. Two minutes equally divided.
Mr. EXON. May I clarify one point. As I understand it, the Breaux
amendment will be the first amendment that will be voted upon; is that
right? That will be a 15-minute vote? Have we ordered 10 minute votes
thereafter? Is that the order?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes. That is the order.
Mr. EXON. Thank you.
Mr. BREAUX addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana is recognized.
Mr. BREAUX. I thank the Chair.
Motion To Waive The Budget Act--Amendment No. 4910
Mr. BREAUX. Madam President, my colleagues, what we are trying to do
with welfare reform is very simple. I think we can all agree we should
be tough on work, we should be good for kids. Everybody knows we should
put work first, but in doing that we should not put children last.
I am afraid the Republican bill, without my amendment, does exactly
that simply because of this. The Republican plan says that after you
take the parent off of AFDC assistance, you forget about the children.
You absolutely forbid the State in their own wisdom to determine
whether they should give any assistance to the children who are
innocent victims of welfare at the sins of the parents. We should not
be punishing the children for what their parents have not done
correctly.
So let us be as tough as we can on work, make the parent go to work,
but when the parent is taken off welfare, for God's sake, can't we as a
nation at least allow the States to use their block grant money to
provide the things that a child needs in order to survive in this
country? That is the issue. Are we going to disregard the children? Or
are we going to help the children while we are so tough on the parents?
My amendment, I think, should pass.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. ROTH addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware has 1 minute.
Mr. ROTH. Madam President, I strongly oppose the Breaux amendment
which would seriously undermine the real 5-year time limit on welfare
assistance. One of the most important features of welfare reform is
that recipients must understand that public assistance is temporary,
not a way of life.
Opponents of the 5-year time limit would have the American people
believe this bill would abandon children. This is simply not true.
Families and children would still be eligible for food stamps,
Medicaid, housing assistance, WIC, and dozens of other means-tested
programs.
Let me reiterate that S. 1956, the bill before us, is identical to
H.R. 4 on this issue when it passed the Senate on a vote of 87 to 12
last September. The Senate rejected amendments to weaken the 5-year
time limit then, and it should do so again.
If States want to use vouchers to provide services beyond the time
limit, they could do so with State funds or with title XX funds of
social services block grants. The State can also exempt 20 percent of
the caseload from the limit for those truly hardship cases. I urge the
defeat of the amendment.
Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, this is a new mandate, extremely
costly, a huge new bureaucracy; and nothing in the bill prohibits the
States from using their own money to do this.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, the bill provides for a lifetime limit
of 5 years for welfare benefits. This means that there is an actual
drop-dead date so that families are held truly accountable for their
choices. Knowing that there is a concern for those who are unable to
work, the bill allows a 20-percent hardship exemption from the lifetime
limit.
Working Americans live in a system where if they don't show up for
work, they are not paid and are likely to lose their job. They want
welfare recipients to live with that same reality. Taxpaying Americans
don't understand why their hard work is subsidizing those who are not
working.
According to the mail I receive in my office, working Iowans believe
that welfare recipients ought to have to work also. And they believe
welfare recipients should not be able to receive benefits forever.
Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, the Personal Responsibility, Work
Opportunity, and Medicaid Restructuring Act of 1996 will dramatically
improve our welfare system. By requiring able-bodied welfare recipients
to work, it will encourage welfare families to move from dependency to
self-sufficiency. In addition, adult recipients who refuse to engage in
required work will have their benefits reduced, and individuals will be
able to receive federally funded benefits for more than 5 years, or
fewer at the option of the State. In recognition of the fact that not
all families will be able to enter the work force effectively, the
States are given a 20-percent hardship exemption to the 5-year limit on
benefits.
Today, my colleague, Senator Breaux, introduced an amendment which
would have provided vouchers of those families which were denied cash
assistance as a result of these limitations. Because this provision
would undermine the important goal of encouraging families to work and
move off welfare, and because the most troubled families will be
protected by the hardship exemption, I have decided to vote against the
amendment. This vote does, however, raise a number of issues which
should be addressed by the conference committee, including the impact
which ending cash benefits may have on foster care costs in the States,
and the impact of the benefits limitation on children.
[[Page S8331]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question occurs on agreeing to the motion
to waive the Budget Act in relation to the Breaux amendment No. 4910.
The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Georgia [Mr. Nunn] and the
Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Pryor] are necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 51, nays 47, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 205 Leg.]
YEAS--51
Akaka
Baucus
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Bradley
Breaux
Bryan
Bumpers
Byrd
Chafee
Conrad
Daschle
Dodd
Dorgan
Exon
Feingold
Feinstein
Ford
Glenn
Graham
Harkin
Heflin
Hollings
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnston
Kassebaum
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Mikulski
Moseley-Braun
Moynihan
Murray
Pell
Reid
Robb
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Simon
Snowe
Specter
Warner
Wellstone
Wyden
NAYS--47
Abraham
Ashcroft
Bennett
Bond
Brown
Burns
Campbell
Coats
Cochran
Cohen
Coverdell
Craig
D'Amato
DeWine
Domenici
Faircloth
Frahm
Frist
Gorton
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hatch
Hatfield
Helms
Hutchison
Inhofe
Kempthorne
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nickles
Pressler
Roth
Santorum
Shelby
Simpson
Smith
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
NOT VOTING--2
Nunn
Pryor
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 51, 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 and the amendment falls.
Amendment No. 4911
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question occurs
on the motion to table amendment No. 4911 offered by the Senator from
North Carolina, [Mr. Faircloth].
The Chair recognizes Senator Faircloth for 1 minute.
Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Madam President, the welfare bill before us requires
that minors must live at home with a parent as a condition of receiving
assistance.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If the Senator will withhold, the Senator
cannot be heard. The Senate will come to order.
The Senator from North Carolina.
Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Madam President, this amendment states that if that
parent is currently receiving welfare benefits and has been for the
last 3 years, then the minor may not receive cash benefits. If the
parent is currently receiving welfare, and the minor child is herself
alone living at home, then we are requiring that three generations of
welfare recipients live under one roof.
My amendment would ensure that when we require three generations of
welfare recipients to live under one roof, and there is a clear history
of welfare dependency in that household, then we will only send one
cash check.
My amendment is not intended to reduce benefits, and it does not
prohibit the State from providing assistance in any noncash form--food,
whatever. The amendment simply would limit the amount of cash that is
given to households with three generations of welfare where there is a
clear history of welfare dependency.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized for
1 minute.
Mrs. BOXER. Thank you, Madam President.
The underlying bill denies assistance to teenage moms who do not live
at home. Democrats agree with this. We have this in our bill. But what
the Faircloth amendment says is, you will be denied assistance as a
teenage mom if you live at home if the home you are living in has
received welfare.
I have to say this: This Faircloth amendment sets up two categories
of teenage moms, one category that gets aid when they live at home and
one category that does not.
I thought we were for family unity. I think that is the question
Members must ask themselves: Are we for family unity? If we are, we
should vote down the Faircloth amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment
of the Senator from North Carolina. On this question, the yeas and nays
have been ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Georgia [Mr. Nunn], and
the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Pryor], are necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Grams). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber who desire to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 21, nays 77, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 206 Leg.]
YEAS--21
Ashcroft
Byrd
Coverdell
Faircloth
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Helms
Hutchison
Inhofe
Kyl
Lott
Mack
McConnell
Murkowski
Nickles
Pressler
Shelby
Smith
Thompson
Thurmond
NAYS--77
Abraham
Akaka
Baucus
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Bradley
Breaux
Brown
Bryan
Bumpers
Burns
Campbell
Chafee
Coats
Cochran
Cohen
Conrad
Craig
D'Amato
Daschle
DeWine
Dodd
Domenici
Dorgan
Exon
Feingold
Feinstein
Ford
Frahm
Frist
Glenn
Gorton
Graham
Gregg
Harkin
Hatch
Hatfield
Heflin
Hollings
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnston
Kassebaum
Kempthorne
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lugar
McCain
Mikulski
Moseley-Braun
Moynihan
Murray
Pell
Reid
Robb
Rockefeller
Roth
Santorum
Sarbanes
Simon
Simpson
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Warner
Wellstone
Wyden
NOT VOTING--2
Nunn
Pryor
The amendment (No. 4911) was rejected.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. DOMENICI. May we have order, please, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Can we have order in the Chamber, please.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, Senators have asked how much longer will
we be voting. It looks to me, if we can stay close to the 10 minutes,
we will be out of here before noon.
Can I ask, how long did we take on the last vote?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Approximately 12 minutes.
Mr. DOMENICI. We have six amendments remaining, so if we can stay
near the 10 minutes, you can do your own arithmetic. It looks to me
like an hour and 30 minutes is what it would take. We never get it done
that efficiently, but that is sort of what you ought to be looking at.
Regular order.
Motion To Waive The Budget Act--Amendment No. 4912
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question now
occurs on agreeing to the motion to waive the Budget Act for the
consideration of amendment No. 4912 offered by the Senator from
Delaware, [Mr. Biden]. There are 2 minutes of debate equally divided.
Mr. MOYNIHAN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, may I point out that yesterday 46
Democrats voted for an amendment by our distinguished Democratic leader
which had a conditional entitlement. It maintained for a period of 5
years a right of a child to some public support if needed. This measure
would abolish that entitlement in title IV of the Social Security Act,
an entitlement which is provided for the aged, the unemployed, for the
disabled. We would only strip the Social Security Act of the provision
for children. I hope Democrats, who put that legislation in place 60
years ago, will not vote to repeal it today. It is not reform. It is
repeal.
Thank you, Mr. President.
[[Page S8332]]
Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. What bill are you referring to, I ask the Senator from
New York, this bill that is pending or the underlying bill?
Mr. MOYNIHAN. I spoke of Mr. Daschle's amendment yesterday, and I
spoke to Mr. Biden and Mr. Specter's amendment today.
Mr. DOMENICI. I see. All right.
Mr. BIDEN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
Mr. BIDEN. I believe I have 1 minute in support of this legislation.
I said yesterday the Biden-Specter bill is a question of, is it better
than the underlying bill? The underlying bill does the same thing the
Senator just suggested that this bill does. The differences are, we
save $53 billion. There is $3 billion in work funds for the States,
individual responsibility contracts, no food stamp block grants, as the
underlying bill has, and the State option for vouchers, among other
things.
I think this is a much preferable bill than the underlying bill, and
I would encourage my colleagues to vote for the Biden-Specter
amendment, which is better known, quite frankly, as the Castle-Tanner
bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has elapsed.
Mr. DOMENICI. Wait a minute, Mr. President. I do not believe that our
time has elapsed. Nobody authorized the Senator from New York to speak
in opposition. He spoke. I did not object. I was, but I saw he was on
the right track.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If that is the case, the Senator from New
Mexico has 1 minute.
Mr. DOMENICI. I yield to the distinguished Senator from Delaware [Mr.
Roth].
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I strongly oppose the Specter-Biden
substitute. While it does include some of the provisions of S. 1956
such as ending the individual entitlement, it stops far short of the
goals of welfare reform. The Specter-Biden substitute is $10 billion
short on savings and short on time limits. It has an open-ended
contingency fund. It does include, however, a liberalization on
Medicaid benefits in which Medicaid could be extended to illegal
aliens.
I would like to clarify that our legislation does include
transitional Medicaid benefits for 1 year for those families leaving
welfare. It also includes emergency Medicaid coverage for illegal
aliens which is current law.
Mr. President, I urge defeat of the Specter-Biden amendment. I yield
back the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time for debate has elapsed. The question
is on the motion to waive the Budget Act for consideration of amendment
No. 4912.
The yeas and nays have been ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Pryor] and
the Senator from Georgia [Mr. Nunn] are necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
who desire to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 37, nays 61, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 207 Leg.]
YEAS--37
Akaka
Baucus
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Breaux
Bryan
Bumpers
Conrad
Daschle
Dodd
Dorgan
Exon
Feingold
Feinstein
Ford
Glenn
Graham
Harkin
Heflin
Hollings
Inouye
Johnston
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Lautenberg
Levin
Lieberman
Mikulski
Murray
Pell
Reid
Robb
Rockefeller
Specter
Wyden
NAYS--61
Abraham
Ashcroft
Bennett
Bond
Bradley
Brown
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Chafee
Coats
Cochran
Cohen
Coverdell
Craig
D'Amato
DeWine
Domenici
Faircloth
Frahm
Frist
Gorton
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hatch
Hatfield
Helms
Hutchison
Inhofe
Jeffords
Kassebaum
Kempthorne
Kennedy
Kyl
Leahy
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Moseley-Braun
Moynihan
Murkowski
Nickles
Pressler
Roth
Santorum
Sarbanes
Shelby
Simon
Simpson
Smith
Snowe
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Warner
Wellstone
NOT VOTING--2
Nunn
Pryor
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, there are 37 ayes, 61 nays.
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, and the amendment falls.
Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. How much time did we use on that amendment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. We used over 13 minutes.
Mr. DOMENICI. Regular order, Mr. President.
Motion to Waive the Budget Act--Amendment No. 4914, As Modified
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question now
occurs on amendment No. 4914 offered by the Senator from Tennessee [Mr.
Frist]. There are 2 minutes for debate equally divided.
Mr. FRIST addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, this amendment, submitted on behalf of my
colleagues Senators Abraham, Bond, Santorum, Hutchison, and Thompson,
simply asks for a sense of the Senate that the President ensure
approval of the waiver requests of States such as Tennessee and 14
other States which have waiver requests before the Department of Health
and Human Services.
On October 31, 1995, the President assured the Governors on that day
that he would take care of these requests within 30 days. Mr.
President, it has been 79 days for Tennessee. Others with waiver
requests have been waiting as long as 2 years. Tennessee needs action.
Michigan needs action.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. DODD addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, the Senate is not in order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. May we please have order in the Chamber so we
can conclude these votes? Can we have order in the Chamber?
The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, it is with reluctance that I rise in
opposition to this amendment, because of my respect and affection for
the Senator from Tennessee. But, this amendment would allow for waivers
across the board in 16 States without any idea of what is in these
waivers.
I point out to my colleagues, that the administration has approved a
record 67 waivers in 40 States. We've reduced welfare by 1.3 million
people. The food stamp rolls are down. We are heading in the right
direction.
Today, however, we are debating a national welfare reform program.
That should be our focus. The sense-of-the-Senate resolution that would
approve waivers to 16 States without any idea what is in those waivers,
I think is wrong, with all due respect. We don't have any idea what
sort of impact these waivers will have on children, Mr. President.
Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by my
colleague from Tennessee. I am uneasy about this amendment because it
would express the sense of the Congress that 16 welfare waivers should
be approved, without us knowing what those waivers propose to do.
The President already has approved a record 67 welfare reform waivers
in 40 States. That's quite a record. Welfare caseloads are down by 1.3
million people, food stamp rolls are lower, and child support
collections are up. So a lot of progress has been made in recent years,
States are experimenting, and we're debating a national welfare reform
bill. I think we'd all like to see the passage of a bipartisan welfare
reform bill that puts people to work and protects children.
But this amendment asks us to give our approval to 16 different
welfare plans without the benefit of knowing exactly what they propose
to do. In my view, it should make us uneasy to approve 16 plans without
knowing what the impact would be on the children in those States.
[[Page S8333]]
Mr. President, my understanding is that in one of the State waivers,
the State asks to set a 5-year lifetime limit on welfare benefits that
would begin in 1987. That's a retroactive time limit. If this is true,
a mother who had been off assistance for the last 4 years, but lost her
job by no fault of her own, would be told she could have no assistance
at all. What would happen to her children? We don't know, because the
details of the plan do not accompany the amendment before us today.
I understand that another waiver would terminate food stamp benefits
if a mother does not comply with the work program. Now I know my
colleagues on the other side of the aisle have argued that kids won't
be hurt by welfare reform after the time limit, because food stamps are
still there. Not under this sort of waiver as far as I can tell.
So Mr. President, I urge caution on this amendment. I also raise a
point of order against the bill under the Byrd rule, section
313(b)(1)(A) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the Budget Act,
I move to waive the point of order against amendment No. 4914 to the
bill. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to
waive the Congressional Budget Act with respect to amendment No. 4914,
as modified. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call
the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Georgia [Mr. Nunn] and the
Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Pryor] are necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 55, nays 43, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 208 Leg.]
YEAS--55
Abraham
Ashcroft
Bennett
Bond
Brown
Burns
Chafee
Coats
Cochran
Cohen
Coverdell
Craig
D'Amato
DeWine
Domenici
Faircloth
Feinstein
Frahm
Frist
Gorton
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hatch
Hatfield
Heflin
Helms
Hutchison
Inhofe
Jeffords
Kassebaum
Kempthorne
Kohl
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nickles
Pressler
Roth
Santorum
Shelby
Simpson
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Warner
NAYS--43
Akaka
Baucus
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Bradley
Breaux
Bryan
Bumpers
Byrd
Campbell
Conrad
Daschle
Dodd
Dorgan
Exon
Feingold
Ford
Glenn
Graham
Harkin
Hollings
Inouye
Johnston
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Mikulski
Moseley-Braun
Moynihan
Murray
Pell
Reid
Robb
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Simon
Wellstone
Wyden
NOT VOTING--2
Nunn
Pryor
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this question, there are 55 yeas, the nays
are 43. Three-fifths of the Senators duly sworn not having voted in the
affirmative, the motion is rejected. The point of order is sustained,
and the amendment falls.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Harkin
amendment, which was next in line, be set aside and be reconsidered on
Tuesday. He is in the process of negotiating. We did that for a
Republican Senator.
The next order of business is Senator Ashcroft, if this request is
granted.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Motion to Waive the Budget Act--Amendment No. 4917
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question now
occurs on amendment No. 4917, offered by the Senators from Pennsylvania
and Missouri. There are 2 minutes for debate equally divided.
Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I rise with an amendment that would
allow States to require welfare recipients to bring up to date the
immunizations of their minor children. Immunizations in America are
free to individuals who are on welfare. Yet we have a number of
children who are, every year, afflicted with serious disabling diseases
which will persist into disabilities of their adulthood for lack of
immunizations.
This amendment would simply provide States the authority, as it
relates to programs which States share the cost of, and would require
immunizations where the Federal Government funds the entirety of the
welfare benefit. If you did not provide your children with the
immunizations that were appropriate, you would have a 20-percent
decrease until the children were properly immunized. This is in the
interest of children.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I do not disagree with the thrust of what my
colleague is saying, that parents should be responsible for immunizing
their children. But I am afraid that we are aiming at the parents, but
hurting the child. If the child is not fully immunized, to cut off that
child from necessary food, medicine, or other resources is, I think,
misguided.
We need to encourage and promote immunizations, but we do not want to
simultaneously deny a child--through the fault of the parent who does
not get the child fully immunized--the benefit of the necessary
nutritional and medical services they would otherwise get. That is the
effect of this amendment.
I respect my colleague's thrust, but do not penalize the child. The
child would be the one to suffer. In cases where a child is behind in
immunizations, that child could lose access to food and SSI for as long
as a year while they catch up on their immunization schedule.
Immunizations cannot be given all at once, I am told.
Mr. ASHCROFT. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. DODD. I am happy to yield to the Senator.
Mr. ASHCROFT. Is the Senator aware there is a 6-month grace period?
Mr. DODD. I respect that. My colleague knows, as well, that innocent
children should not be penalized because their parents may be
irresponsible. That is the net effect of this amendment.
Mr. ASHCROFT. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. DODD. I yield to the Senator.
Mr. ASHCROFT. Is the Senator aware this is just a 20-percent decrease
in the benefit for the 6-month interval?
Mr. DODD. If it is a 5-percent decrease, why should an innocent child
pay for the irresponsibility of a parent? That does not make sense. We
ought to encourage immunizations, promote and do what we can. The 6-
year-old or 2-year-old child whose parent is irresponsible should not
be denied nutrition and adequate medical benefits.
I suggest, as well, the pending amendment is not germane. I rise to
make a point of order that it violates section 305(b) of the
Congressional Budget Act.
Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I move the point of order be waived.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator request a rollcall?
Mr. ASHCROFT. I do request a rollcall vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to
waive the Budget Act on amendment 4917.
The yeas and nays have been ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Georgia [Mr. Nunn] and the
Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Pryor] are necessarily absent.
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 58, nays 40, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 209 Leg.]
YEAS--58
Abraham
Ashcroft
Baucus
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Brown
Burns
Chafee
Coats
Cochran
Cohen
Coverdell
Craig
D'Amato
DeWine
Domenici
Exon
Faircloth
Frahm
Frist
Gorton
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hatch
Hatfield
Helms
Hollings
Hutchison
Inhofe
Jeffords
Kassebaum
Kempthorne
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
[[Page S8334]]
Murkowski
Nickles
Pressler
Robb
Roth
Santorum
Shelby
Simpson
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Warner
NAYS--40
Akaka
Boxer
Bradley
Breaux
Bryan
Bumpers
Byrd
Campbell
Conrad
Daschle
Dodd
Dorgan
Feingold
Feinstein
Ford
Glenn
Graham
Harkin
Heflin
Inouye
Johnston
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Mikulski
Moseley-Braun
Moynihan
Murray
Pell
Reid
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Simon
Wellstone
Wyden
NOT VOTING--2
Nunn
Pryor
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kyl). On this vote, the yeas are 58, the
nays are 40. 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, and the amendment falls.
Motion to Waive the Budget Act--Amendment No. 4918
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question occurs
on the motion to waive the Budget Act for consideration of amendment
No. 4918 by the Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Wellstone].
The yeas and nays have been ordered.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, could I ask for order in the Chamber.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 2 minutes of debate equally divided.
The Senator from Minnesota would like to be heard.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I am not going to speak until I have
order in the Chamber. I would like for my colleagues to please listen.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Would the Senators take their conversations to
the cloakroom?
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. I am going to wait
until we have order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. I know there are Members anxious to leave. The
vote will not occur until the Senate comes to order.
The Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I would like to make a plea to my
colleagues. Please err on the side of caution when we are dealing with
the lives of poor children in America.
This amendment says that Health and Human Services studies this
legislation and if, God forbid, there are provisions in this
legislation that create more impoverished children, their report comes
back to us at the end of 2 years and we take action--quick action--to
modify these provisions so that we can correct the problem.
Democrats and Republicans: This is the right thing to do. We ought to
evaluate the action that we are taking in this legislation. And God
knows we ought to take the corrective action, if that is necessary, to
make sure that we are not creating more poverty among children. This is
the right thing to do. It is a fail-safe mechanism. It is a safety net
built into the legislation.
I hope--I hope--every Democrat and Republican will support this. We
must do this if we are to understand what this legislation means and be
able to take corrective action, if necessary, to help poor children in
America.
Please support this amendment.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I yield time to Senator Roth.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I oppose the Wellstone amendment. It is
wholly unnecessary and unprecedented.
In regard to studying welfare reform, this amendment is wholly
unnecessary. The legislation is filled with studies, evaluations and
rankings of successful and unsuccessful States.
We absolutely want to know what works in welfare reform. But what is
unacceptable and unprecedented is the rules given to the Secretary of
HHS in sending recommendations to the Congress which must then be
considered under expedited procedures in Congress.
Let me point out that there were about 11.7 million AFDC recipients
in 1990. In 1993 the caseload exceeded 14 million for the first time.
The caseload was over 14 million again in 1994. Last year HHS told the
Congress that, if we do nothing, there will still be more children in
poverty. That is under the current welfare system.
Again, we welcome the study. The legislation includes a study. But no
Congress should yield its authority to a Cabinet Secretary for this or
any other reason.
I urge defeat of the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to
waive the Budget Act for consideration of amendment No. 4918. The yeas
and nays have been ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Colorado [Mr. Campbell]
and the Senator from Wyoming [Mr. Thomas] are necessarily absent.
Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Georgia [Mr. Nunn] and the
Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Pryor] are necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
who desire to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 46, nays 50, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 210 Leg.]
YEAS--46
Akaka
Baucus
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Bradley
Breaux
Bryan
Bumpers
Conrad
Daschle
Dodd
Dorgan
Exon
Feingold
Feinstein
Ford
Glenn
Graham
Harkin
Heflin
Hollings
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnston
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Mikulski
Moseley-Braun
Moynihan
Murray
Pell
Reid
Robb
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Simon
Snowe
Wellstone
Wyden
NAYS--50
Abraham
Ashcroft
Bennett
Bond
Brown
Burns
Byrd
Chafee
Coats
Cochran
Cohen
Coverdell
Craig
D'Amato
DeWine
Domenici
Faircloth
Frahm
Frist
Gorton
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hatch
Hatfield
Helms
Hutchison
Inhofe
Kassebaum
Kempthorne
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nickles
Pressler
Roth
Santorum
Shelby
Simpson
Smith
Specter
Stevens
Thompson
Thurmond
Warner
NOT VOTING--4
Campbell
Nunn
Pryor
Thomas
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there are no other Senators wishing to
vote, the yeas are 46, the nays are 50. Three-fifths of Senators duly
chosen and sworn not having voted in the affirmative, the motion is
rejected. The point of order is sustained. The amendment falls.
The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, this next vote on the Graham amendment
will be the last vote ordered today, which means there will be no
additional rollcall votes. However, we are going to remain in session
to take up amendments. If Senators want to offer amendments, they have
to offer them either today or Monday. We are going to be here a few
hours to take amendments. We are putting a list together, to try to
make some sense of this afternoon. If we start on our side and go to
your side, we would ask the D'Amato amendment on work be in order. Then
you have one immediately following that?
Mr. EXON. I am certainly pleased to respond to my friend.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
Mr. EXON. At the present time we have three Democratic amendments in
this order: Following D'Amato would be Feinstein, then Conrad, and then
Graham. There may be some others. I would simply say to my colleagues
on this side, at the present time we have seven Republican amendments
and three Democratic amendments. This afternoon would be an excellent
time to offer your amendment. If you would come to us, any Democrat, we
could schedule you right after the Graham amendment.
Mr. DOMENICI. I have some others to put in order, but I will do it
after the vote.
Amendment No. 4921
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question occurs
on the motion to table amendment No. 4921 offered by the Senator from
Florida [Mr. Graham]. The yeas and nays have been ordered. Under the
previous order, there will be 2 minutes of discussion equally divided.
The Senate will come to order.
The Chair was in error. The vote is not on the motion to table. This
is an
[[Page S8335]]
up-or-down vote on amendment No. 4921, offered by the Senator from
Florida, who will be recognized as soon as the Senate comes to order.
The Senator from Florida is recognized.
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, the issue presented by this motion to
strike is a simple one. We have already spent weeks debating the issue
of the benefits for legal aliens--legal aliens. On May 2, we passed a
comprehensive immigration bill which outlined the restraints that we
felt were appropriate. We are now coming, today, to essentially trash
all of that work that we have done by developing an entirely new set of
principles as it relates to the eligibility of legal aliens, a new set
of principles that have gone unstudied and unexamined, but represent
some very significant policy shifts. It moves away from the principle
of restraining benefits by looking to the sponsor to pay for the
benefits of the legal alien, and it represents outright bars to legal
aliens, from political refugees and asylees, as well as those who came
in with a sponsor. It substantially increases the shift of
responsibility to local governments.
Mr. President, we have already dealt with this issue. We should let
the immigration conference come to closure and not impose a new set of
unexamined, duplicative, and I consider inappropriate policies. It
should now be rejected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired. Who
yields time?
Mr. DOMENICI. I yield the time we have to Senator Simpson.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming is recognized.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, this will cost $16 billion. Our Nation's
immigration law is very clear on one point. No one may immigrate to the
United States of America if he or she is likely at any time to become a
public charge. And the American public expects the newcomers will work
and receive any needed support from the relatives who brought them
here. Period. That is the law.
There is considerable evidence that this promise of self-sufficiency
is not being honored. That is why in the other bill we enforce the
affidavit of sponsorship. The welfare reform bill contains provisions
which ensure that immigrants are self-sufficient. The bill shifts the
welfare costs from the American taxpayers onto those who sponsor their
immigrant relatives to the country. The immigration bill is in
conference. It is not in peril. We have resolved 150 items of the
Senate issues, 120 House issues. We have three significant issues yet
to be resolved. But these provisions on immigrant welfare are
important. We cannot afford to have these reforms delayed, and the
Graham amendment would do just that. The simple premise: Sponsor brings
the immigrant, sponsor promises to pay, sponsor pays before the
taxpayer pays.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, since 1882 Federal law has provided that
probability of becoming a public charge is ground for immigrants'
exclusion from the United States. Additionally, becoming a public
charge which a noncitizen is currently a deportable offense.
According to the Census Bureau, there were 23 million foreign-born
persons in the United States in 1994, representing 9 percent of the
population. That is the highest level in the last 50 years.
Aliens over 65 are 5 times more likely to be on SSI than citizens
over 65, making the program a retirement plan for elderly noncitizens.
SSI applications by noncitizens grew 370 percent from 1982 to 1992
versus 39 percent for citizens.
Without reform, over 2 million noncitizens will continue collecting
guaranteed cash welfare, health care, and food benefits, costing
taxpayers more than $20 billion over 6 years.
In this legislation, sponsors, not taxpayers, are held responsible
for supporting noncitizens because sponsor agreements are made legally
binding documents. Deeming is expanded to apply to most Federal
programs. Both deeming and sponsorship continue until the alien becomes
a citizen, unless the noncitizen has worked for at least 10 years.
Most nonncitizens who arrive after the date of enactment would not be
eligible for most Federal welfare benefits during their first 5 years
in the United States.
Refugees and veterans and their families and emergency medical
services are excepted.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, most immigrants are hard working, and
committed to self-sufficiency. Unfortunately, others have become
dependent on a variety of Government benefits. The Personal
Responsibility, Work Opportunity, and Medicaid Restructuring Act of
1996 addresses this issue by limiting the eligibility of qualified
aliens for certain Federal benefits, including SSI and food stamps. In
addition, the legislation grants State authority to limit the
eligibility of qualified aliens to certain State public benefits.
My colleagues, Senator Graham, has offered an amendment which would
remove these provisions from the bill. While I cannot support this
amendment because it undermines the principle that individuals who
immigrate to this Nation should be self-sufficient, I believe that the
amendment is important because it draws attention to the plight of
those hard-working immigrants who may need assistance as a result of
events which are beyond their control. Therefore, I strongly recommend
that the conference committee consider the needs of those immigrants
who are committed to self-sufficiency but who are in need through no
fault of their own.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, this will cost the taxpayers $16
billion.
I move to table the amendment.
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.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to
table amendment No. 4921.
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 Colorado [Mr. Campbell]
and the Senator from Wyoming [Mr. Thomas] are necessarily absent.
Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Georgia [Mr. Nunn] and the
Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Pryor] are necessarily absent.
The result was announced--yeas 62, nays 34, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 211 Leg.]
YEAS--62
Abraham
Ashcroft
Baucus
Bennett
Bond
Brown
Burns
Byrd
Coats
Cochran
Cohen
Conrad
Coverdell
Craig
D'Amato
DeWine
Domenici
Dorgan
Exon
Faircloth
Frahm
Frist
Gorton
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Harkin
Hatch
Hatfield
Heflin
Helms
Hollings
Hutchison
Inhofe
Jeffords
Kassebaum
Kempthorne
Kyl
Leahy
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Mikulski
Murkowski
Nickles
Pressler
Robb
Rockefeller
Roth
Santorum
Shelby
Simpson
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thompson
Thurmond
Warner
NAYS--34
Akaka
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Bradley
Breaux
Bryan
Bumpers
Chafee
Daschle
Dodd
Feingold
Feinstein
Ford
Glenn
Graham
Inouye
Johnston
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Lautenberg
Levin
Lieberman
Moseley-Braun
Moynihan
Murray
Pell
Reid
Sarbanes
Simon
Wellstone
Wyden
NOT VOTING--4
Campbell
Nunn
Pryor
Thomas
Mr. BROWN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 60
seconds as in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
____________________