Congressional Record, Volume 142 Issue 107 (Friday, July 19, 1996)

[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 107 (Friday, July 19, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8336-S8369]
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. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. Thank you very much, Mr. President.
Pursuant to the order, we have not decided how long we will be here,
but I think it will work out because of Senators agreeing to take their
amendments up today. We will not be here late. Here is what I know to
this point. I say to the Senator, we are going to try to go back and
forth. Senator D'Amato's amendment has been agreed to as being the next
in order. I ask Senator D'Amato if he will agree to a time limit?
Mr. D'AMATO. Fifteen minutes, twenty minutes.
Mr. DOMENICI. How about 15 minutes on a side for Senator D'Amato?
Mr. EXON. I have no instructions on this side.
We will agree to the 15 minutes.
Mr. DOMENICI. Thirty minutes equally divided on Senator D'Amato's
amendment. Senator Feinstein has an immigration amendment. Let me make
a unanimous consent request on her behalf. Senator Feinstein had an
amendment called ``work requirement'' on our previous consolidated
finite list of amendments. She has asked if she could substitute, for
that work requirement, an immigration amendment that has to do with
prospective application of the alien law in this bill.
So I ask unanimous consent that it be in order that she substitute
that measure for the one that she had previously listed as reserved.
That means she will not take up the previously reserved one. It will be
gone.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DOMENICI. Would the Senator agree to a half-hour equally divided?
Mr. EXON. I talked to Senator Feinstein about this. She wants to
reserve the full 1 hour. Hopefully, we can cut that down, but she has
others who want to speak. So at least we have agreed to have a half-
hour equally divided on D'Amato. We would have to insist on 2 hours
equally divided. Maybe that can be cut down on the Feinstein-Boxer
amendment.

Mr. DOMENICI. Well, then, just a moment. Does the Senator have an
early departure time?
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. The cosponsor of the amendment, Senator Boxer, does.
Mr. DOMENICI. I say to the Senator, we have a number of Senators who
would like to go in a short period of time and not take very long. I am
wondering if we might try to get a couple of those in at 30 minutes,
and then come back to the Senator for the full time.
Mrs. BOXER. Will the Senator yield? I say to my senior Senator, I
think we should agree to an hour equally divided. I only need 10
minutes, giving the Senator 20 minutes. I think that Senator Domenici
has been very gracious to us. I am willing to cut mine back even
further to 5 or 6 minutes, if you needed more time than that.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, if I might address the Chairman, I
will do my level best and will agree to the half hour, with the proviso
that if there is something I need to respond to, I have an opportunity
to do so.
Mr. DOMENICI. We will see if we can do it that way.
Mr. President, an hour equally divided on the Feinstein amendment.
Senator Chafee, you are next. How much would you desire?
Mr. CHAFEE. Half hour equally divided.
Mr. DOMENICI. Any objection to a half hour equally divided?
Mr. EXON. No objection here.
Mr. DOMENICI. Following that is a food stamp block grant amendment by
Senator Conrad.
Mr. EXON. We have no instructions on that at the present time. I told
him he would be later. I cannot agree to that at this time. We will
check with Senator Conrad in a few moments and let you know.
Mr. DOMENICI. I will move ahead. I have one on behalf of Senator
Gramm. It will take exactly 1 minute on my side. Could you agree to a
limited time on that amendment?
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I heard some reference to the Conrad
amendment, which I want to speak about for 2 minutes at some point. I
will do it at any time.
Mr. EXON. I think we can agree to a shortened time on Gramm, but I
will check on that.
Mr. DOMENICI. I think we will waste more time this way than if we
just proceed. Let me stop with the Chafee amendment as a request on
time limits, and just indicate the order, thereafter, without time
agreements.
Mr. EXON. Right.
Mr. DOMENICI. Following Chafee, we agreed that Senator Conrad's
amendment would be the next order of business on food stamps. Following
that would be a Gramm amendment--I am supposed to offer that--on drugs.
If I am not here, Senator Santorum will do that. Following that will be
Graham-Bumpers on funding formula. That would be the sixth amendment,
if they are looking at when they would come up today. Following that is
a Democratic amendment.
Mr. EXON. We do not have anything after Graham-Bumpers at this
juncture. It does not mean we may not have more, but we cannot make
agreement on something we do not have on the list.
Mr. DOMENICI. After the Graham-Bumpers funding formula, we would put
in the order, Helms on food stamps, to be followed by a Democratic
amendment, if they come up with one, to be followed by a Shelby
amendment, to be followed by a Democratic amendment, if they come up
with one, to be followed by an Ashcroft amendment. That is all we have
on our side.
I ask that be the order for this afternoon.
Mr. EXON. Have you placed Shelby above Pressler in your list?
Mr. DOMENICI. We are working to clear Pressler.
Mr. EXON. OK. Is it proper to say Pressler, then Shelby?
Mr. DOMENICI. Correct. Then you have one and we have Ashcroft.
If there are no Democratic amendments, the Republican amendments will
be taken in that order.
Mr. EXON. I will get back with you on Senators Graham and Conrad.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair considers that a proposed order, and
there is no unanimous consent request propounded yet.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
announced as agreed upon be the order of business for the Senate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Chair.

Amendment No. 4927

(Purpose: To require welfare recipients to participate in gainful
community service)

Mr. D'AMATO. 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 New York [Mr. D'Amato], for himself, Mr.
Levin, Mr. Santorum, Mr. Gramm, Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. Pressler,
Mr. Faircloth, Mr. Craig, Mr. Stevens, Mr. Burns, Mr. Smith,
Mr. Coverdell, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Ashcroft, Mr. Brown, Mr.
Thompson, Mr. McConnell, Mr. Bond, Mr. Grams, Mr. Shelby, Mr.
Jeffords, Mr. Mack, Mr. Murkowski, Mr. Bennett, Mr. Lott, and
Mr. Nickles, proposes an amendment numbered 4927.

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent reading of the
amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Section 402(a)(1)(B) of the Social Security Act, as added
by section 2103(a)(1), is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(iii) Not later than one year after the date of enactment
of this Act, unless the State opts out of this provision by
notifying

[[Page S8337]]

the Secretary, a State shall, consistent with the exception
provided in section 407(e)(2), require a parent or caretaker
receiving assistance under the program who, after receiving
such assistance for two months is not exempt from work
requirements and is not engaged in work, as determined under
section 407(c), to participate in community service
employment, with minimum hours per week and tasks to be
determined by the State.''
Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I offer this amendment on behalf of
myself and 24 other colleagues, 24 Senators, who join with me in saying
we should really end welfare as we know it. That is something that
President Clinton has spoken about and has been a concern of the
American people, a bona fide concern. It is a concern of even welfare
recipients themselves, who tell us time and time again in a unifying
voice, ``Reform this system, change this system; the system entraps us;
it does not give us hope; it does not give us opportunities.''
What this amendment does, it goes right to the core of one of the
great problems. That is, seeing to it that able-bodied recipients who
have, in some cases, become trapped in the welfare syndrome be given an
opportunity for work experience, to become self-sustaining, so they can
feel part of this great country, that they can experience pride in
work, so that even those, Mr. President, who do not have a job, under
this amendment will have the opportunity to participate and to feel
they are earning their way in their community.
What this amendment does, it says a State can require able-bodied
recipients to take community service in lieu of a job, where there is
no job, where they are not involved in a job-training program. Why
should we have to wait 2 years, have a recipient on welfare for 2
years, before we say to them, ``You should report to a community
service project, work at a hospital, work in the park, work helping to
clean the highways''? We are talking about able-bodied recipients.
Let me make clear this in no way will impinge upon that single parent
who is the custodian of a child. Understand that. Indeed, there is a
specific exemption which indicates that if there is a custodial parent
caring for a child under the age of 11, that adult can demonstrate an
inability to obtain needed child care, then they are relieved of this
burden.
Let me also point out that many, many middle-class Americans, working
middle-class families, have single-parent moms who are working. They
begin to see, by the way, ``Am I a second-class citizen? I go to work.
I support one, two, three children.'' We have millions of Americans
today, moms and dads, who leave the house every day, they have
children. They go to work.
What we are saying here is really very, very modest. We are saying,
``Look, you are on welfare. You are receiving benefits. At the end of 2
months, you take community service. You can participate.'' If there is
no job available in the private sector, let that person help his or her
community. Everybody gains self-respect, dignity. I am tired of hearing
we want to change the welfare system as we know it and then not do much
about it.
Yesterday I spoke about a great American who had more empathy for
poor people, immigrants, for people who needed help and opportunity and
training, and who did more in establishing hope and opportunities. I
speak to my parents, and my dad tells me during the Depression days,
what the WPA, the Works Progress Administration, what it meant and how
it gave people an opportunity for dignity. Young people had a job and
could report to work and help build the highways and schools, et
cetera. It was a form of community service. It really was. It gave
people that self-fulfillment.
When Franklin Delano Roosevelt, one of the great architects of trying
to give people the ability to lift themselves out of poverty, certainly
a figure that working poor people looked to for hope during the most
terrible times, when he gave us an admonition and warned of the evils
of entrapping people in a welfare system, his words should take on
meaning. Forget about someone running for office today, a Democrat or
Republican, someone in the Congress or someone who wants to get here.
Look at someone who said, ``If people stay on welfare for a prolonged
period of time, it administers a narcotic to their spirit.'' That is
President Roosevelt. ``If people stay on welfare for a prolonged period
of time,'' he said, ``it administers a narcotic to their spirit.''
He went on to say that ``this dependence on welfare''--listen to
this--``this dependence on welfare undermines their humanity, makes
them wards of the State, and takes away their chance at America.'' How
prophetic. How prophetic, because here we are 50 years later, and what
have we seen? We have seen the decline of the human spirit--the decline
of it. Now we have a system where people figure out how they can beat
the system, bring people here, put them on the welfare rolls, and how
they feel good about beating the system. By the way, if a State does
not want to do this, it can opt out. By gosh, it is about time we said,
hey, after 2 months on welfare, if you are able-bodied and if you do
not have a job, you are not in job training, you report for community
service. If you do not want to do that, you are off the rolls. If you
do not want to help yourself and be part of this process of earning
one's way and contributing either to your benefit or to the benefit of
a community that is helping you because you do not have a job, why,
then, that community has no longer a responsibility and obligation.
Indeed, we are doing something that President Roosevelt warned us
about. We are entrapping those people; we are destroying their dignity,
destroying the human spirit, destroying their opportunity of
understanding the greatness of a free capital system where people work
and are rewarded on the basis of their ability.

This amendment was adopted unanimously last year. It was offered by
Senator Dole. I proudly offer it on behalf of Senator Dole again, in
the spirit of overcoming adversity and giving people hope and
opportunity and ending that dependency that acts as a narcotic and
seduces the best in people. That is what it has done for far too long.
So I hope that we can pass this unanimously. Again, I say Senator
Dole offered this last year. I am proud to offer it on behalf of my 24
colleagues. I daresay that this should pass unanimously this time. I
yield the floor.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be added as
an original cosponsor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, yesterday, I was on the floor when the
Senator gave his speech with reference to the whole problem of welfare.
I commend him for it. Today, I commend him for his remarks and for the
amendment he has offered. I believe there is a great deal of concern
out there about whether there will be enough private sector jobs. I
think what we are saying is, you know, it is not just the private
sector job we are looking for, we are looking for a change in the
behavioral pattern of people on welfare.
This is a very good test. If, after a couple of months on welfare,
the State finds or the locality finds community service-type jobs, the
point of it is that you have to get up, go to work, sign in, do what
you are supposed to do, which is part of getting you ready, it seems to
me, if you have had less of an opportunistic life and have not had a
chance. I see it as part of the new weave that may very well yield a
different kind of tapestry in terms of a life for people who are on
welfare. I hope it passes and is retained in conference.
Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I yield back any remaining time on my
amendment.
Mr. EXON. We yield back our time.
Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gorton). Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The vote on the D'Amato amendment will occur
on Tuesday, with 1 minute for debate before the vote.

Amendment No. 4928

(Purpose: To increase the number of adults and to extend the period of
time in which educational training activities may be counted as work)

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, this has been cleared with the chairman of
the committee.
Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its
immediate consideration.

[[Page S8338]]

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

The Senator from Nebraska [Mr. Exon], for Mr. Simon, for
himself, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Kerrey, Mr. Specter, and Mr.
Jeffords, proposes an amendment numbered 4928.

Mr. EXON. 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:

Beginning on page 233, strike line 15, and all that follows
through line 13 on page 235, and insert the following:
``(4) Limitation on education activities counted as work.--
For purposes of determining monthly participation rates under
paragraphs (1)(B)(i) and (2)(B)(i) of subsection (b), not
more than 30 percent of adults in all families and in 2-
parent families determined to be engaged in work in the State
for a month may meet the work activity requirement through
participation in vocational educational training.
``(5) Single parent with child under age 6 deemed to be
meeting work participation requirements if parent is engaged
in work for 20 hours per week.--For purposes of determining
monthly participation rates under subsection (b)(1)(B)(i), a
recipient in a 1-parent family who is the parent of a child
who has not attained 6 years of age is deemed to be engaged
in work for a month if the recipient is engaged in work for
an average of at least 20 hours per week during the month.
``(6) Teen head of household who maintains satisfactory
school attendance deemed to be meeting work participation
requirements.--For purposes of determining monthly
participation rates under subsection (b)(1)(B)(i), a
recipient who is a single head of household and has not
attained 20 years of age is deemed to be engaged in work for
a month in a fiscal year if the recipient--
``(A) maintains satisfactory attendance at secondary school
or the equivalent during the month; or
``(B) participates in education directly related to
employment for at least the minimum average number of hours
per week specified in the table set forth in paragraph (1).
``(d) Work Activities Defined.--As used in this section,
the term `work activities' means--
``(1) unsubsidized employment;
``(2) subsidized private sector employment;
``(3) subsidized public sector employment;
``(4) work experience (including work associated with the
refurbishing of publicly assisted housing) if sufficient
private sector employment is not available;
``(5) on-the-job training;
``(6) job search and job readiness assistance;
``(7) community service programs;
``(8) educational training (not to exceed 24 months with
respect to any individual;

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I would like to thank the chairman of
the committee for the opportunity to offer this amendment. This
amendment is on behalf of Senators Boxer, Graham, and myself.

Amendment No. 4929

(Purpose: This amendment provides that the ban on SSI apply to those
entering the country on or after the enactment of this bill and exists
until citizenship)

Mr. FEINSTEIN. 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 California [Mrs. Feinstein], for herself,
Mrs. Boxer, and Mr. Graham, proposes an amendment numbered
4929.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that 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.'')
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, Senator Graham offered an amendment
which deals with the receiving of benefits by people who are newcomers
to this country but here in a legal status as legal aliens. This
amendment relates to that amendment. It provides that the ban on public
benefits for newcomers to this country become effective September 1 of
this year and last until they become citizens of this country, which
can take place in 5 years. In essence, what we would do is take the
provision of the bill which effectively prevents and throws off of any
benefit program people in this country legally and we would make that
prospective.
I do this as a Californian. This bill and this amendment has an
enormous impact on California, and I want to say why.
Presently, in California, are 52.4 percent of all of the legal
immigrants in the country on SSI. Fifty-two percent of all the legal
immigrants in the country on SSI, aged, blind and disabled, are in the
State of California.
This bill is where a good deal of the savings are gathered, whether
the savings are $16 or $18 billion, clearly, 52 percent of those
savings comes from California. I am here with my colleague, Senator
Boxer, to tell you that 1 million people--bigger than the population of
many States--on the date this bill becomes effective will be thrown OFF
of AFDC, will be thrown off of SSI immediately. This includes in my
city, San Francisco, very elderly and very senior Russian immigrants.
I remember watching a woman walk down Grant Avenue, she happened to
be Chinese. She was so hunched over, she could barely walk. She is on
SSI. She is a legal immigrant to this country. She would be summarily
thrown off of SSI.
I happen to agree with something Albert Schweitzer once said: How you
treat the least among us is a test of our civilization. Yet, I
understand the need to make the changes. The costs have become so great
and people are hesitant to pay these costs through their taxes.
Therefore, what do you do?
Do you throw people off into the streets without no source of
support, or do you send a message to the world and say: henceforth,
when you come to this country as a newcomer, know that for the time you
are not a citizen, you will not be able receive any of these benefits;
know that before you come; know that your children will not be eligible
for AFDC; the grandmothers will not be eligible for SSI or health
benefits--know that before you come, the term on which you are coming
to this country.

I think that is a fair judgment to make, to send that message. But, I
think it is an unfair judgment, and possibly a very difficult judgment.
It is easy to come up to this Chamber and come up to the desk and cast
that aye vote. It is not going to be so easy when you see that crippled
woman, whether she be Hispanic, or whether she be Chinese, Russian,
African, or any other newcomer, white too, unable to survive, unable to
participate in a program like Self-help for the Elderly or Unlock in My
City, which deals with Chinese elderly newcomers to a great extent. I
think that is a real dilemma in this bill.
Let me talk about what it does in California. It is estimated by the
State and by the Department of Health and Human Services that the loss
for California is anywhere from $7 billion over the period of this bill
to $9 billion. The 20 highest-loss metropolitan areas are: No. 1, Los
Angeles and Long Beach; then San Jose, Stockton, Anaheim, Santa Ana,
Fresno, Modesto, San Francisco, San Diego, Sacramento, Oxnard, Ventura,
Santa Barbara, and Lompoc. Those are the areas that are impacted with
the largest numbers.

LOS ANGELES COUNTY

This measure is an unfunded mandate, essentially, on Los Angeles
County. Its numbers and costs are a huge transfer of funds. Los Angeles
County does not have the right to say ``OK, we have canceled SSI and
your AFDC, so go home.'' People will still be there. If they can't walk
down the street, if they are senile, if they are blind, if they are
totally disabled, they will have no recourse but to fund them.
Let's take a look at how many people are involved in Los Angeles
County, and what this transfer of cost is in the largest county in the
United States.
This will immediately, in this county alone throw off of SSI 93,000
people who are aged, who are blind and who are disabled. The transfer
to the county is $236 million this year and every year. It will throw
off of AFDC 190,313 families. On the Medicaid provisions alone, the
cost to the county is $100 million. So, the cost to Los Angeles County
per year in just basic, preliminary estimates in terms of what would
end up being a transfer is $336 million a year. I am told from some
this could create a situation of bankruptcy for the county.
Is this really what we want to do? Some say welfare reform is a
battle for the soul. Some say it is a battle for the heart. I really
think it is a battle for the future. I understand the need to save
costs, but I also understand that truly how we treat the least among us
is the ultimate test of this Nation.

I would submit to you that, yes, if this amendment passes, we will
reduce the savings of the bill. I would also

[[Page S8339]]

submit to you that unless we do this, in the largest State in the
Union, in 2 or 3 years, we are going to see an absolute picture of
devastation.
Forty percent of the Federal funding losses over the 6 years come
from California. The bill, the way it stands, is estimated to cost $7
billion to $9 billion, nearly a million people are effected in the
State of California, and in Los Angeles County alone, the estimate is
400,000 to 500,000 people impacted unless this amendment passes.
My statement to this body is, in essence, ``you could establish your
principle, your public policy, which is, after all, what this body is
all about, without actually harming and hurting people now who are
deserving, whose total ability to live and exist in this country
depends on their ability to receive SSI, or their ability to receive
AFDC, or their ability to receive the medical care that they are
covered to get under the law today. In essence, we change the law
midstream on the most vulnerable people and are in this country
legally.
I have a real problem with that. I would think anybody looking at
this bill would have a real problem with that, at least I would hope
they would. Come to Chinatown in San Francisco, for example, and stand
on a corner for an hour and watch the elderly go by. Take 52 percent of
all of them that you see and know that they are SSI, and know that
tomorrow or September 1, they won't be. That is what this bill does. It
has a very profound implication for California.
That is why Senator Boxer and I stand here today, and why Senator
Graham has tried to move the amendment he did and now supports our
amendment. I would submit to you that the big States, the growth
States, are going to have the biggest impact.
I would submit to you that they will be: California, on a tier all by
itself; certainly Florida; certainly Texas; certainly New York;
certainly Illinois; and certainly to an extent New Jersey. These are
the big States that will be affected by this bill.
I know the votes are here to defeat the amendment.
The ultimate test of a civilization is how we treat the least among
us. It is one thing to change the rules ahead, so everybody knows what
rules we as a country play by, and both Senator Boxer and I are willing
to do that. It is another thing to say, when you have no other means of
subsistence, ``we are going to change the rules on you today.''
I yield 10 minutes of my time to Senator Boxer.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California, Mrs. Boxer.
Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Chair.
I thank the senior Senator from California [Mrs. Feinstein] for her
work and the staff work on this excellent amendment. Both Senators from
California have been, shall we say, very upset about the impact of this
bill on our great, wonderful, and beautiful State. We have been talking
for several days about what approach we can take to keep with the
principle of welfare reform but to make sure we do not change these
rules in the middle of the game so that innocent children, innocent
families, even refugees who come here without a sponsor but to escape
persecution, are not thrown out on the street.
I was discussing this with a friend of mine who said, ``Well, they
will be taken care of. Someone is going to take care of them.'' I said
that I used to be a county supervisor, and I know that we have the
general assistance program, and we are required to take care of those
who are completely destitute. Where are the counties going to get the
funds to do this? This friend of mine said, ``Well, maybe they will
just change the law, and they won't have to do it anymore.''
My friends, we need welfare reform. The system does not work. It is
broken. The senior Senator and I want to fix it. We want to put work
first. We also want to make sure that the most vulnerable, as she has
stated, are protected. It is perhaps easy to sit in this beautiful
Chamber, in all the luxury of this beautiful Chamber, far away from the
problem, and vote to say we are cutting off legal immigrants. It is
easy to say it. I understand that. It is politically popular to say it.
I remind my friends that we are talking about people who are here
legally, who waited their turn to come here. We are talking about
refugees, people who sought asylum. And we are changing the rules. This
bill will harm them even if they are blind, even if they are helpless,
even if they are children. I think what Senator Feinstein has crafted
in her amendment goes a long way to resolving this issue. The amendment
would say to those who are here legally, you came knowing the rules and
we will keep you under those rules. However, let the word go out across
the world that times are changing. America is changing the rules, and
if you come here after September of this year, you will no longer have
those same benefits. The senior Senator from California and I believe
this is eminently fair. It does no damage to the thrust of the
underlying bill.
As Senator Feinstein has pointed out, our State of California is
going to get hit with a tremendous unfunded mandate. With well over $50
billion of savings in this bill, we know that over a third of those
savings come from legal immigrant cutbacks--40 percent of which will
come from our great State of California. That simply is not fair. We
are talking about a loss of $7 to $9 billion to California alone.
This is an Earth-shattering bill we are considering. This is a bill
that will bring much needed change to the welfare system. It is putting
work first. It is changing in many ways the social contract in this
country. It is putting responsibility on the shoulders of many people
in this country.
I think it is a very important bill, and I very much want to support
it, but I have to say, how can we be proud to vote for a bill that
would take a blind, elderly woman with no other means of support and
throw her out on the street? How can we be proud of a bill that takes
children and puts them out on the street?
Today, there are an estimated 4 million legal immigrant children in
this country. Some of them will be harmed if the Feinstein-Boxer
amendment is not adopted. Out of those 4 million legal immigrant
children, about 1.5 million live in the State of California. How can we
stand here and say that we care about children and yet in the same
breath vote for a bill that could cause harm to scores of legal
immigrant children? It is hard for me to comprehend that.

Senator Feinstein and I have heard from our counties and cities all
over the State. She has listed for you in descending order the cities
and counties that would be affected the most. I had an opportunity to
speak with one of Los Angeles' County supervisors, Zev Yeroslavsky. He
provided me with information which shows what would happen to Los
Angeles. This bill could be cataclysmic for that city. Again, it is
easy to say let the counties worry about it. But I thought this body
decided we would not put unfunded mandates on local governments. And
yet that is what we are doing.
I have to say this. Last night, the Senator from Florida and the
Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. Santorum], got into a debate about just
what happens to legal immigrants in this country. The Senator from
Pennsylvania made an eloquent statement that this bill does not
adversely impact refugees. He said we are true to the American
principle of give us your tired and your poor. If you escape from your
country and you come here, we take you in. I was very moved by that
eloquence, and then learned, as Senator Graham pointed out, in a copy
of the most recent bill, refugees would also be cut off 5 years after
they entered.
The Feinstein amendment would say we are going to make these changes,
but we are going to make them prospectively, from September of this
year forward.
I cannot imagine that we would knowingly hurt the most vulnerable in
our society--who are here legally--by immediately changing the rules.
By immediately telling the aged, blind, and disabled, with the most
severely disabling diseases and conditions, that they are thrown out.
And to tell the counties that this is your problem.
I just remember those days when I was a county supervisor, and a
little child came before me with her family and looked into my eyes and
the eyes of my colleagues. We, two Democrats and three Republicans on
that board, would never turn people away.
That would be a violation of every ethic--be it religious, moral,
ethical,

[[Page S8340]]

or governmental. Yet, without the Feinstein-Boxer amendment, which is
also supported by Senator Graham, that is exactly what we will do. We
will force an unfunded mandate on the local governments. We will hurt
the most vulnerable in our society. We are changing the rules in the
middle of the game.
If we support this amendment, which I think is a fine amendment, it
does no harm at all to the premise of this bill. It just means that we
phase-in some of the more restrictive aspects of this bill.
I urge my colleagues--indeed, I implore my colleagues--think about
what you are doing. Because if this goes forward and we see the most
vulnerable people on the streets of our cities and our counties and we
see our counties without the means to handle it, we will be very sorry,
indeed, that we went forward. The Feinstein-Boxer-Graham amendment
gives us the opportunity to phase-in all of this.
Again, I thank my colleague. I urge support for the amendment, and I
yield back the time to my colleague.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The senior Senator from California.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, how much time is remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The senior Senator from California has 7
minutes exactly.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Just one thought for this body. Take the most
conservative cost for California, $7 billion; 7-year bill, $1 billion a
year, most of it coming from Los Angeles County, let us say $500
million a year. California is a proposition 13 State. This all has to
come from general assistance. General assistance is locally funded. Los
Angeles cannot raise its property tax rate under proposition 13.
How does the county fund it? The county cannot fund it. This will
force, if the county is to fund it--this will force the reduction of
other county programs. It could be the sheriff, it could be the jail.
There is no way around it. The dollars are too big.
The distinguished chairman of the committee indicated that the
savings, by taking all legal immigrants off of all benefits, is $18
billion. What we are telling you is we know 52 percent of this comes
from California. Therefore, if California is a prop 13 State and it
presses the local jurisdictions and they are funded by property taxes
and they cannot raise their property taxes and they cannot say ``legal
immigrants, leave the country and go home,'' it is a real catch-22 for
the local government.
If I might, just quickly, ask unanimous consent to have printed in
the Record a letter dated July 17 from the Democratic floor leader of
the California Assembly and President pro tempore of the California
Senate; and a memorandum from the California State Association of
Counties.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record as follows:

California Legislature,

State Capitol,

Sacramento, CA, July 17, 1996.
Hon. Dianne Feinstein,
U.S. Senator, Hart Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Feinstein: We write to convey major concerns
raised by the most recent proposed welfare reform legislation
currently being considered by Congress.

services for aged and disabled legal immigrants

Denying federal benefits to legal immigrants
disproportionately harms California communities. Over 230,000
non-citizen legal immigrants currently receive SSI in
California, excluding refugees. This aid is provided to the
aged, blind and disabled, who could not support themselves by
going to work if their SSI benefits ended. Under HR 3507, SSI
and Food Stamps would be denied to non-citizens already
legally residing in California as well as to new legal
entrants unlike the immigration reform legislation currently
under consideration in Congress, which permits continued
benefits for existing legal residents.
The proposed bar on SSI and Food Stamps for all legal
immigrants, and the denial of other federal means-tested
programs to new legal entrants for their first five years in
the country would have a devastating effect on California's
counties, which are obligated to be the providers of last
resort. It is estimated that these proposed changes would
result in costs of $9 billion to California's counties over a
seven-year period. At a minimum, the very elderly, those too
disabled to become citizens and those who become disabled
after they arrive in this country should be exempted from the
prohibition on SSI--if for no other reason than to lessen to
counties the indefensible cost of shifting care from the
federal government to local taxpayers for a needy population
admitted under U.S. immigration laws.

protection for children

While we agree that welfare dependence should not be
encouraged as a way of life, it is essential in setting time
limits on aid that adequate protections be provided for
children once parents hit these time limits. Some provision
must be made for vouchers or some other mechanism by which
the essential survival needs of children such as food can be
met. The Administration has suggested this sort of approach
as a means of ensuring adequate protection for children whose
parents hit time limits on aid.
California's child poverty rate was 27 percent for 1992
through 1994, substantially above the national rate of 21
percent. HR 4, which was vetoed by the President, would have
caused an additional 1.5 million children to become poor.
Though estimates have not been produced for HR 3507, it is
likely that it also would result in a significant additional
number of children falling below the poverty level.

adequate funding for child care

Funds provided for child care are essential to meet the
needs of parents entering the work force while on aid and
leaving aid as their earnings increase. For California to
meet required participation rates, about 400,000 parents
would have to enter the work force and an additional 100,000
would have to increase their hours of work. Even if only 15
percent of these parents need a paid, formal child care
arrangement, California will need nearly $300 million per
year in new child care funds.
Thank you for your consideration of these concerns. If your
staff have any questions about these issues, they can contact
Tim Gage, at (916) 324-0341.
Sincerely,
Bill Lockyer,
President pro tempore, California Senate.
Richard Katz,
Democratic Floor Leader, California Assembly.
____

California State Association

of Counties,

Sacramento, CA, July 15, 1996.
To: California Congressional Delegation.
From: Mike Nevin, CSAC President.
Re Welfare reform legislation.
I am writing once again to bring to your attention a very
important issue involving the impact of the welfare reform
bill on local government. As I understand it, the Congress
plans to submit a new welfare reform bill to the President
that does not contain Medicaid reform. However, the bill will
still contain measures which pose serious and substantial
cost shifts to local government including drastic health care
costs.
The measures, H.R. 3507 and S. 1795, propose to eliminate
SSI and food stamps to legal immigrants including those
already legally residing in California. In addition, it would
eliminate future immigrants from eligibility for 50 to 80
federal programs for five years and disqualifies those same
immigrants from these programs until citizenship. The fiscal
effect of these provisions would be to drain $23 billion of
federal money nationwide from major welfare programs over
seven years. California, which is home to the largest number
of noncitizen legal immigrants in the country would lose at
least $9 billion over seven years.
Once legal immigrants are no longer eligible for federal
social service programs, California's 58 counties will still
be responsible for providing social services and medical care
to them. A recent study issued by the University of
California at Los Angeles indicates that an estimated 830,000
immigrants would converge onto county health programs if
changes are made at the federal level to exclude them from
health coverage. The counties in California are legally and
fiscally responsible under state law to provide a ``safety
net'' to indigent persons in the form of cash aid and health
care. Currently, local governments are bursting at the seams
from the impact of these programs.
Changes of this magnitude at the federal level could cause
many counties to meet the same fate as Orange County did two
years ago when it declared bankruptcy. Counties are already
struggling financially as year after year they have been
forced to absorb reductions in payments because of local,
state and federal budget difficulties. We cannot now absorb
these costs as well. We strongly urge you to consider your
vote on these very important pieces of legislation and the
long-range impact they will have on local government once the
publicity is over. We would request that you do not support
these measures should they contain these faulty policies
which would merely shift the cost and responsibility to the
counties.
There are additional concerns that we have with the
proposal and Margaret Pena of my staff is available to
discuss them with you. She can be reached at (916) 327-7523.
Thank you for your consideration.
____

New California Coalition,

San Francisco, CA, July 17, 1996.
To: Kathleen Reich, Office of Senator Feinstein.
From: Tanya Broder.
Re Welfare bills pending before the House and Senate floor--
the California impact of the immigrant provisions.
Attached, as you requested are:
1. A letter from the California State Association of
Counties on this issue.

[[Page S8341]]

2. A one-pager prepared by the National Immigration Law
Center on the current welfare bills.
3. A 2-pager on the California impact. I put this together,
based largely on materials prepared by NILC. It is being
refined--let me know if anything is unclear.
Please do not hesitate to call me at 243-8215, extension
319, if you have any questions or need additional
information. Please inform us of the Senator's position on
any or all of these issues as soon as you can. Thank you for
your interest.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, how much of my time is remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 4 minutes and 46 seconds.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished Senator from
Florida.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida is recognized.
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, this is certainly an issue of dollars. It
is certainly an issue of impact on local institutions required to
provide services. But it is also fundamentally an issue of fairness,
fairness in many dimensions. Let me just mention two.
One of those is the fact that very few of these local communities
requested the circumstance in which they find themselves. Immigrants,
legal and illegal, come into this country for a variety of reasons but
virtually none of them come in because they receive an invitation from
a particular community. It is Federal policy that determines who can
come legally. It is Federal willingness to allocate resources that will
determine whether we can enforce the immigration laws that we have
enacted or will we be faced with floodtides of illegal immigration.
Unfortunately, my State, as does California, peculiarly has to deal
with this issue. We have had hundreds of thousands of immigrants in all
categories, from refugees to parolees to asylees to special categories
of entrants, come into our State, as well as those who have come
through the normal immigration process. All those decisions are made by
those of us who are privileged to be Federal officials.
The consequences of those decisions almost always fall at a local
level: At a hospital attempting to cope with overwhelming numbers of
persons seeking medical assistance; at an educational institution, a
school that is overcrowded because of the large surge of immigrant
children--the social institutions. My State was so overwhelmed that we
went to Federal court with a request, under litigation, that we be
compensated for the expenses the State had paid on behalf of those
persons who came to the United States as a result of Federal action.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on that case just a few weeks ago.
Unfortunately for the State of Florida, the ruling was: You may have a
good case. You may have a strong moral basis for your litigation. But
it is not a justiciable case before the Federal courts. You have to
find your relief through the political processes, not through the
judicial processes. That is what we are about today. Fundamental
fairness in terms of the Federal Government assuming its appropriate
responsibility for the financial cost of the immigration decisions that
it has made.
There is a second issue of fairness and that is as it relates to the
individual affected. These people who came here under the current
immigration law did so under a set of standards and expectations that
did not include that they were going to have their benefits
peremptorily terminated. If this is a good idea to have in effect
today, we should have done it 10 or 20 years ago.
I think it is fundamentally unfair to have these people in the
country under the rules that have applied--we are dealing, here, with
legal aliens, people who pay the same taxes we do and are subject to
the same responsibilities; but now, at the last moment, we are going to
say you are not going to get the same benefits. I think that is unfair.
The amendment that has been offered by the Senators from California
would relieve us from that unfairness. I hope it will be adopted.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 4 minutes of the Senator has expired. The
Senator from California has 26 seconds remaining.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I yield to the other side and request I be allowed to
reserve the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, this is a debate that is virtually
identical to the debate we engaged in last night at a rather late hour
with the Senator from Florida on his amendment. His amendment removes
all the provisions dealing with legal immigrants from the bill, for
current participants in the welfare system and future participants in
the welfare system. What the Feinstein amendment does is simply makes
the provisions in the bill prospective but grandfathers in everybody
who is in the system. The Graham amendment, to my understanding, was
going to reduce the savings in the budget by somewhere from $16 to $18
billion. My understanding is the Feinstein amendment reduces the
savings in the reconciliation bill from $10 to $12 billion. It is still
a dramatic revenue loss. As was in the case of the Graham bill, in the
Feinstein bill there are no offsets. This is just a reduction in
savings, going to pay for legal immigrants to continue to receive
welfare benefits.

Let me, for the benefit of those who were not up at 11:30 last night
listening to this debate, go through how the underlying bill works and,
in fact, a little bit of the history of the underlying provisions in
this act, the underlying bill. What is in this legislation before us
are provisions that were passed in H.R. 4 last year and passed both the
House and Senate. They were in the Senate bill that passed the Senate
last year 87 to 12. They are in the Democratic substitute, which I
believe--I might be wrong--the Members who are debating this amendment
and advocating this amendment voted for. The Daschle substitute has
this identical provision in the bill, the same provision as the
Republican bill.
What the Senators from California and Florida are attempting to do is
to remove what has passed the Congress once, what has passed this
Senate twice, what has been included in both Democratic and Republican
bills.
I suggest this has been a fairly well-tested provision. It is clear
the vast majority of the Members of this Senate believe that we have
been too generous with legal immigrants coming into this country, and I
will explain why they feel that way.
In fact, the Graham amendment today was tabled; in other words,
defeated, on a motion of 62 to 34. So this is not, frankly, even a
partisan issue, as you see. It has very strong bipartisan support.
Let me explain what the underlying bill does, what the Feinstein
amendment is attempting to change. What we do in this bill is recognize
that there are various classes of immigrants.
For purposes of simplification, we will talk about three major
classes of immigrants. One is what are called refugees. These are
people who come to this country who are seeking refuge from political
persecution or other kinds of persecution in a foreign country, and
they come to our shores seeking help and refuge in the United States.
What we say to those people, as the Senator from California referred
to earlier, just like the Statue of Liberty says, we are open and we
allow those people in, and we do even more. The Statue of Liberty did
not say, ``Give us your poor, your hungry,'' and all the other things
it says, ``and the Government will feed them.'' It says, come on in
here and have a chance at American life, come on in and have a chance
at the opportunity of America. Nowhere that I see on the Statue of
Liberty does it say anything about the Government having welfare
programs for everybody for as long as they are in this country. I do
not think that is on there. I can check, but I am pretty sure it is not
on there. What is on there is an opportunity that America presents to
the people in this country, and we continue that, certainly.
Second, we, in this bill, provide for welfare benefits for refugees
for 5 years. They are eligible for every benefit that a citizen of this
country is eligible for.
Now, why 5 years? Because after 5 years, they are eligible for
citizenship, and if they apply for citizenship and go through the
program to get their citizenship and are successful, they are citizens
and are eligible for every right with respect to social services as any
other American. So that is why we limit it to 5 years.

[[Page S8342]]

Some would say, ``What you're doing here is sort of coercing people
to become citizens.'' I think that is, frankly, not true. I do not
think most refugees come here because they are looking for welfare
benefits. I think most people come here because they are looking for
the things that are on the Statue of Liberty; they are looking for the
opportunity that is America. In fact, the vast majority of those people
do not end up on welfare, for the long term, anyway. So what we do is
we say, ``Look, we have an expectation in this country that people are
not coming here for social services,'' and all we are doing is
patterning a law to reflect that expectation.
What I just described with respect to refugees also applies to
asylees. Asylees are people like the two players from the Cuban
baseball team last week, or the week before, who were in this country
and escaped from their hotel and claimed political asylum and were
granted that asylum. Those two players are probably not going to be
needing any welfare benefits, given their talent level.
But there are people who do claim asylum here and end up on welfare,
and they are treated the same as refugees: 5 years until they are
eligible for citizenship, and then the expectation is you can either
decide to be a citizen of this country and avail yourselves of all the
benefits and responsibilities of citizenship, or you take the option
you are not going to be a citizen and no longer be eligible for these
programs. That is a decision you make. It is not a decision we are
forcing on anybody. You make that decision. I think that is a
reasonable time. It is 5 years. It is a very generous offer. So that is
the one side of the immigrant calculation.
The other side is what is called ``sponsored immigrants.'' Those are
the majority of immigrants who come to this country. They are people
who come here under what is called a sponsorship agreement wherein
most--I would not say all--but in the vast majority of cases, these are
family members under the family reunification provisions of the
immigration law. They are mothers and fathers of people who live in
this country; they are sisters and brothers or children of the people
who live in this country. They come into this country under this
sponsorship agreement.

What does the sponsorship agreement say? If you are the sponsor, if
you are the citizen of the country who is bringing in your mother, then
you sign a piece of paper that says, ``I will take responsibility for
providing for the needs of the person I want to bring to this country.
I will provide for them. My income, my assets will be deemed available
to them for purposes of determining whether they are eligible for
benefits.'' That is under current law.
What does the immigrant who comes to this country sign? They sign a
piece of paper that says, ``I am willing and capable, able to work, and
I will not be a public charge.'' They sign a legal document saying they
will not be a public charge. You say, ``That should take care of it.
That is pretty solid. They are contracts.'' One would think they are
legally binding when they sign them. The fact is, they are not legally
binding.
Mrs. BOXER. Will the Senator yield on that point for a question?
Mr. SANTORUM. Yes, I will yield.
Mrs. BOXER. I want to make sure the Senator realizes that Senator
Feinstein and I, in this amendment, do not change any of the things my
friend is talking about. We do not touch anything in the underlying
bill.
All the Senator does, and I back her 100 percent, as does the Senator
from Florida, is to say that since we are changing the rules that have
been in effect for a long time, let's make them apply to people who are
coming as of September of this year rather than change the rules for
the folks who are here now. But everything the Senator says, Senator
Feinstein's amendment does as much for future immigrants. I want to
make sure the Senator was clear on that point.
Mr. SANTORUM. For the Senator to suggest the Feinstein amendment does
not touch it is not accurate. You say it does not apply to anybody
here, so you would remove all the provisions of this act with respect
to people in this country.
Mrs. BOXER. It is prospective. Our amendment makes it prospective,
but it says to the folks here, ``We are not going to change your rules
in the middle of the game.'' All the things my friend is explaining,
none of those are touched by the Feinstein-Boxer amendment.
Mr. SANTORUM. They are not touched prospectively. Again, all these
provisions I am explaining do apply and will apply to people who are in
this country. So, for example, if you have a sponsored immigrant who is
in this country receiving welfare benefits, maybe has been receiving
them for 20 years, we suggest after 20 years, if you are not a citizen,
if you are here receiving welfare benefits, which in many cases--and I
was getting to the point with respect to sponsored immigrants, because
what has been happening is that we have seen a chronic trend, and the
Senator from New Mexico was on the floor yesterday with a chart that
illustrates this, what happens with a lot of the sponsored immigrants--
and these people are in this country now--is that son and daughter are
bringing over mom and dad, and mom and dad come into this country, they
sign these documents, they have signed them already, but they are not
legally enforceable, No. 1.
No. 2, the welfare departments in the States do not know what the
Immigration and Naturalization Service is doing. They do not talk to
each other. There is no communication. So mom comes into the country.
She is 70 years old. She goes down to the SSI office, and guess what?
She is on SSI. By the way, when she qualifies for SSI, she qualifies
for Medicaid. When she qualifies for SSI, she qualifies for food
stamps, and she qualifies for a whole variety of other programs, all
paid for by the taxpayer.
So what we have become in this country, not prospectively, but now,
is a retirement home for millions of people all over the world to come
here and have you, the taxpayer, pay for their retirement.
Now, I do not think that is right. What the amendment of the Senator
from California says is, ``Well, they are here, let them stay, and
we'll continue to pay for them.'' If it is wrong, it is wrong. And
whether it is prospective or not, it is wrong.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. SANTORUM. I will be happy to yield.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much for yielding.
Let me make this point. Under present law, affidavits of support are
not legally enforceable. In the immigration bill, that is one of the
things that is achieved. It is a binding contract, an affidavit, so
that in the future these contracts will be legally enforceable. I
support that. I agree with you on this point. But the point that we are
trying to make is that at present they are not. Therefore, there has
been a kind of a change.
The other point that I want to make to you is that this is not the
same as the Daschle bill. This bill is not the same as the Daschle bill
on this point. The Daschle bill has certain exemptions. The disabled
are exempted. Refugees are exempted. Battered women and children are
exempted. Veterans are exempted. That is a point I really appreciate
the opportunity to make.
Mr. SANTORUM. With respect to this list, I know in this bill--and I
have not read every page of all of this--my belief is veterans are
exempted, also. I say to the Senator from California, having worked on
this issue for quite some time, I think you may have a legitimate point
with respect to a refugee who is 90 years old who is in this country
and has been here for a long time as to whether we want to knock them
off this system. I suggest to the Senator that, while I will not be a
conferee, I would be sympathetic and would communicate my sympathy with
respect to some very difficult, isolated cases for the very old or the
severely disabled who may be on these programs today. But yours goes
well beyond that.
I mean, I think we can look at the hard cases, but I think what your
bill does is basically let people who signed a document--it is true
that it is not a legally binding document, but I can guarantee you when
they set that in front of them, and it is fairly legal looking, when
they signed that--I mean, I do not know about you, but when I sign a
document, put my name

[[Page S8343]]

on something saying I am going to do something, I want to live up to
that end of the bargain.
We want them to live up to their end of the bargain. What your bill
does is let them off the hook. We do not want to let them off the hook.
We want people who come to this country who say they are not going be a
public charge and people who bring their relatives into this country
who say they are going to take care of them to live up to the deal.
What your bill does is say there is no deal, you do whatever you
want, and we will pay the charge. I do not think that is what we want
to say in this country. I do not think that is what we want to do.
While I understand what your concern is--and the Senator from
California is a thoughtful person, and I find myself in agreement with
her many times. I think the point you have made with the impact on
California, I cannot argue the fact that the impact on California will
be disproportionate with respect to this particular provision.
The fact of immigration has, as you know, its pluses and its minuses.
You can make the decision, not me, as to whether it is a plus or a
minus in California. But what I say is the Congressional Budget Office
has said--and I will read from their report that they sent to the
Senator from Delaware with respect to unfunded mandates.
Both Senators from California talked extensively about the impact of
unfunded mandates as a result of this legislation. Unfunded mandates
was a bill that we passed last year that said that we are tired of the
Government, the Federal Government, passing bills, imposing mandates on
State and local Governments without coming up with the money for these
State and local governments to fulfill the mandate, requiring them to
do something but not paying them the money to do it.
According to the Congressional Budget Office, this bill does not have
unfunded mandates. I will read the section. ``On balance''--obviously
in every bill there are pluses and minuses. I accept that:

On balance, spending by State and local governments on
federally mandated activities could be reduced by billions of
dollars over the next 5 years as a result of the enactment of
this bill.

I, again, have some sympathy for the Senator from California because
you have a disproportionate impact with respect to legal immigrants.
You may be one of those States that is on the minus side while another
State is on the plus side. But on balance, in this country, this is not
an unfunded mandate. That is the way I think we have to look at things.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. SANTORUM. I will be happy to.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Just on that one point, if I may. I appreciate what
the Senator is saying. But when you continue to read the report that
you were reading from the Congressional Budget Office, it does say:

While the new mandates imposed by the bill would result in
additional costs to some States, the repeal of existing
mandates and the additional flexibility provided are likely
to reduce spending by more than the additional costs.

That cannot be true for California. In a way, it is a play with words
because the numbers are so big in California in terms of 52 percent of
the impact of this section of the bill with SSI falling on California.
Fifty-two percent of all of the SSI users are in California. That is
who you are talking about. Those are the elderly. Those are the blind.
Those are the disabled. By this bill, boom, they are off. That is the
issue that both of us are trying to bring respectfully to your
attention.
What I do not understand is--and I understand the savings. See, the
reason this section of the bill has the large amount of savings that it
does is because of California, because $7 to $9 billion of it is
California. The minute you transfer it and it goes to the county--
because California alone is a proposition 13 State and cannot raise its
property tax to accommodate the general assistance added burden--you
could force some counties--and LA could be one under this; you just
have to know this because the numbers are so huge in Los Angeles. It is
a very precipitous situation.
Mr. SANTORUM. I suggest a couple things to the Senator from
California. No. 1, this is a policy that I think needs to be changed,
and, No. 2, the fact of the matter is that there are a lot of people on
these programs who can and should be working, as a result of their
coming into this country and signing this document, should be working
under the law.
What your bill does is take those people off the hook. You can say,
well, there is going to be a tremendous impact to these counties. Yeah,
well, that may be true. But I guess the point I am making is, we should
stand up for what people sign their names on, which is that they were
going to not be a public charge and the people who are going to take
care of them--I go back to the sponsorship agreement.
Mrs. BOXER. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. SANTORUM. Let me finish my point. I go back to the sponsorship
agreement. What you are ignoring here is, you say, well, it is going to
fall on the counties. Under what I described, under the system I
described of SSI, for example, who should the burden fall on? Clearly,
it should fall on the sponsor--not the county.
Sponsors, when they bring people into this country--there is a
certain economic criteria to be able to bring someone in with a
sponsor. These people have in fact taken a walk. They have said, well,
you know, let the Government pick up this cost. I do not want to pick
up mom's cost. I want to buy my other Mercedes. Well, let us not buy
another Mercedes. Let us pay for mom.
What you are suggesting is that all these people who have three cars
in their garage are going to let mom starve or put them on LA County's
welfare rolls, which may not exist as you so eloquently state. I am
saying that a lot of these people who sponsor people into this country
are going to have to start footing the bill. That is what we are
pushing here. You make the assumption that everybody who is on SSI is
going to fall on to the county or the State. I do not make that
assumption. I make the assumption that people who sign legal documents
saying they were going to take care of people are going to now have to
belly up. They are going to have to pay the bill.

Mrs. BOXER. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. SANTORUM. Yes.
Mrs. BOXER. We do not disagree with you. I want to make it clear. I
want to make it clear. The senior Senator from California and I do not
disagree with you. We believe that the sponsors who can, should and
must pay for people they sponsor to come to the country.
But I want to make a point to my friend. It is worthy to note that
approximately 400,000 legal immigrants receive AFDC in California. Out
of those, 62 percent are refugees. They do not have a sponsor. This
goes back to your debate with the Senator from Florida last night. We
also have a situation where many of those on SSI, who are sponsored,
something may have happened to their families or their sponsors in the
interim.
So, my friend is talking about a principle that we agree with. But
yet in the underlying bill there is no recognition of the fact that a
lot of these legal immigrants do not have a sponsor to fall back on. A
lot of these elderly do not have a sponsor to fall back on.
I think before we pass this sweeping reform, what Senator Feinstein
and my amendment does is say, we are willing to say as of September,
even though we have some reservations and we know it is tough and we
know it will hurt our State, we are willing to go along with it. But
please, we say to you, Senator from Pennsylvania, taking a lead in this
bill, consider what we are telling you. Rather than just have an
argument, maybe there is some room here where we can work together so
when we bring this bill out, we will not hurt a lot of kids and a lot
of very sick, elderly, and blind people.
Thank you for your generosity.
Mr. SANTORUM. Reclaiming my time to make a couple of points. All the
refugees you talk about have a 5-year exemption from the ineligibility
for benefits. Anyone that is in this country is eligible for benefits
up to the first 5 years they are in this country.
Mrs. BOXER. They are cut off after 5 years.
Mr. SANTORUM. After the fifth year they are no longer eligible. As
the Senator from California knows they are eligible, after a 5-year
period, to apply

[[Page S8344]]

for citizenship. Once they apply for citizenship and are accepted, they
would again be eligible if, in fact, they need be.
As the Senator from California knows, the hurdle for getting their
citizenship in this country is not extraordinary. So if people are, in
fact, in such desperate condition as the Senator suggests, I think the
answer would be, in fact, to get these people into citizenship
programs. I suggest that is a positive thing.
As we all know, those who are noncitizens who do not know the
language or cannot, in many cases, successfully interact into the
economic mainstream of our country, obviously have a much more
difficult time succeeding. So, in fact, forcing or encouraging
citizenship would be a positive thing for many of the people that we
are talking about here. I think that has to be looked at.
No. 2, we are talking about a 1-year transition. In some cases we
will have people who have exhausted their 5 years who now say wait, I
will not be eligible for benefits, and I will be brought in for some
sort of redetermination here. It will be basically a year process. I
suggest during that year process, if they still are concerned or they
still are, in fact, disabled or believe they would not be able to work,
they can begin to go through the process during that transition year to
get their citizenship. I think we provide plenty of avenues for the
truly disabled refugees and asylees to be able to stay on these
benefits if, in fact, they are truly disabled. It takes some initiative
on their part, but my goodness, should we not expect some initiative on
the people's part, to create some link between themselves and this
country in order to receive benefits?
I remind the Senators from California, I believe, and I can be
corrected, but I believe we are the only country in the world who
actually provides welfare benefits for their immigrants as soon as they
come into this country. We are, in a sense, already very generous. I am
not saying we should not be generous to those who are in need. But, at
some point, like we are saying to moms who are having children and are
on AFDC, there is a contract here. If we are going to limit moms with
children on AFDC to 5 years, I think we have every right to limit
refugees in this country who come here for 5 years. What we are saying
to the refugees, unlike what we are saying to the moms, you get your
citizenship in the fifth year, you can get back on the rolls. We do not
let moms back on the rolls.
We are being painted as being cruel and knocking all these people
off, when in fact what we are being is somewhat principled. I believe
it will actually work to the benefit of the refugees who will seek
citizenship, which will make them more likely to be successful in their
economic life in America.

I think there are a lot of positive things we can say. This is not,
as I am sure will be noted in some publications, any kind of immigrant-
bashing--nothing like that. We think people who are sponsored
immigrants should live up to their contract, and people who are
refugees, and immigrants, and asylees should have a period of time in
which we will help them, and then at some point they have to help
themselves, just like a lot of other people who are going to be dealing
with the welfare system with AFDC.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kyl). The Senator from Pennsylvania has a
minute and a half remaining, and the Senator from California has 1
minute remaining.
Mr. SANTORUM. I yield back the balance of my time.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I say, and I think I speak on behalf of my colleague,
Senator Boxer, as well, we are not disputing that the time has come to
make some changes. We are not even disputing that perhaps there are
some who are on SSI or AFDC that can find other ways of support. What
we are disputing is that this language is so ironclad that it throws
the baby out with the bath water.
I was mayor of San Francisco for 9 years, a member of the board of
supervisors for 9, for a total of 18 years. I know these communities. I
can tell you that there are several hundred thousand people who do not
have another source of support. In Los Angeles, I know, I have seen it
with my own eyes. This bill does not allow for any fine tuning.
I think both Senator Boxer and I would be happy to sit down with the
other side and try to work out a process of evaluation whereby you
could fine tune this bill so people who truly are blind, who truly can
barely walk down a street, who truly have no access to three meals a
day can have a source of subsistence in this country.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is expired.
Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, pursuant to section 310(d)(2), I raise a
point of order against the pending amendment because it reduces outlay
savings for the Finance Committee below the level provided in the
reconciliation instructions, and the amendment would not make
compensating outlay reductions or revenue increases.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Pursuant to Section 904 of the Congressional Budget
Act of 1974, I move to waive the applicable sections of that act. 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 Senator from
Rhode Island is recognized.
Mr. CHAFEE. I understand I am recognized for 15 minutes.

Amendment No. 4931

(Purpose: To maintain current eligibility standards for Medicaid and
provide additional State flexibility)

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, yesterday we voted not to reform the
Medicaid Program. This is a welfare bill we are on, not a Medicaid
bill. We put off any Medicaid reforms, if you would, until another day.
Because of the link between welfare eligibility and Medicaid
eligibility, this bill will repeal the guarantee--the word I am using
is ``guarantee''--it will repeal the guarantee of Medicaid coverage for
1.5 million children age 13 through 18, and 4 million mothers.
Mr. President, once again, this is not a Medicaid bill, yet we repeal
existing Medicaid guarantees.
Under our amendment, the amendment I am presenting, and I send to the
desk now on behalf of myself, Senators Breaux, Cohen, Graham, Jeffords,
Kerrey of Nebraska, Hatfield, Murray, Snowe, Lieberman, Reid, and
Rockefeller.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. Chafee], for himself,
Mr. Breaux, Mr. Cohen, Mr. Graham, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Kerrey,
Mr. Hatfield, Mrs. Murray, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Lieberman, Mr.
Reid, and Mr. Rockefeller, proposes an amendment numbered
4931.

Mr. CHAFEE. I ask unanimous consent reading of the amendment be
dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Beginning with page 256, line 20, strike all through page
259, line 4, and insert the following:
``(12) Assuring medicaid coverage for low-income
families.--
``(A) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
this Act, subject to the succeeding provisions of this
paragraph, with respect to a State any reference in title XIX
(or other provision of law in relation to the operation of
such title) to a provision of this part, or a State plan
under this part (or a provision of such a plan), including
standards and methodologies for determining income and
resources under this part or such plan, shall be considered a
reference to such a provision or plan as in effect as of July
1, 1996, with respect to the State.
``(B) Constructions.--
``(i) In applying section 1925(a)(1), the reference to
`section 402(a)(8)(B)(ii)(II)' is deemed a reference to a
corresponding earning disregard rule (if any) established
under a State program funded under this part (as in effect on
or after October 1, 1996).
``(ii) The provisions of former section 406(h) (as in
effect on July 1, 1996) shall apply, in relation to title
XIX, with respect to individuals who receive assistance under
a State program funded under this part (as in effect on or
after October 1, 1996) and are eligible for medical
assistance under title XIX or who are described in
subparagraph (C)(i) in the same manner as they apply as of
July 1, 1996, with respect to individuals who become
ineligible for aid to families with dependent children as a
result (wholly or partly) of the collection or increased
collection of child or spousal support under part D of this
title.
``(iii) With respect to the reference in section 1902(a)(5)
to a State plan approved under this part, a State may treat
such reference as a reference either to a State program
funded under this part (as in effect on or after October 1,
1996) or to the State plan under title XIX.

[[Page S8345]]

``(C) Eligibility criteria.--
``(i) In general.--For purposes of title XIX, subject to
clause (ii), in determining eligibility for medical
assistance under such title, an individual shall be treated
as receiving aid or assistance under a State plan approved
under this part (and shall be treated as meeting the income
and resource standards under this part) only if the
individual meets--
``(I) the income and resource standards for determining
eligibility under such plan; and
``(II) the eligibility requirements of such plan under
subsections (a) through (c) of former section 406 and former
section 407(a), as in effect as of July 1, 1996. Subject to
clause (ii)(II), the income and resource methodologies under
such plan as of such date shall be used in the determination
of whether any individual meets income and resource standards
under such plan.
``(ii) State Option.--For purposes of applying this
paragraph, a State may--
``(I) lower its income standards applicable with respect to
this part, but not below the income standards applicable
under its State plan under this part on May 1, 1988; and
``(II) use income and resource standards or methodologies
that are less restrictive than the standards or methodologies
used under the State plan under this part as of July 1, 1996.
``(iii) Additional state option with respect of tanf
recipients.--For purposes of applying this paragraph to title
XIX, a State may, subject to clause (iv), treat all
individual (or reasonable categories of individuals)
receiving assistance under the State program funded under
this part (as in effect on or after October 1, 1996) as
individuals who are receiving aid or assistance under a State
plan approved under this part (and thereby eligible for
medical assistance under title XIX).
``(IV) Transitional coverage.--For purposes of section
1925, an individual who is receiving assistance under the
State program funded under this part (as in effect on or
after October 1, 1996) and is eligible for medical assistance
under title XIX shall be treated as an individual receiving
aid or assistance pursuant to a State plan approved under
this part (as in effect as of July 1, 1996) (and thereby
eligible for continuation of medical assistance under such
section 1925).
``(D) Waivers.--In the case of a waiver of a provision of
this part in effect with respect to a State as of July 1,
1996, if the waiver affects eligibility of individuals for
medical assistance under title XIX, such waiver may (but need
not) continue to be applied, at the option of the State, in
relation to such title after the date the waiver would
otherwise expire. If a State elects not to continue to apply
such a waiver, then, after the date of the expiration of the
waiver, subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) shall be applied as
if any provisions so waived had not been waived.
``(E) State option to use 1 application form.--Nothing in
this paragraph, this part, or title XIX, shall be construed
as preventing a State from providing for the same application
form for assistance under a State program funded under this
part (on or after October 1, 1996) and for medical assistance
under title XIX.
``(F) Requirement for receipt of funds.--A State to which a
grant is made under section 302 shall take such action as may
be necessary to ensure that the provisions of this paragraph
are carried out provided that the State is otherwise
participating in title XIX of this Act.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, under our amendment, we make sure that no
low-income mothers and children who are eligible for Medicaid under
current law, under the existing law, will lose their health care
coverage under Medicaid if the State lowers its eligibility standards
for cash assistance or AFDC.
Now, this is not some open-ended lifetime entitlement to Medicaid
coverage. I am sure that will be raised, and we are ready for that one.
All this amendment does is apply current law income and resource
standards and methodologies in determining eligibility for Medicaid. If
a family's income increases, if there is no longer a dependent child in
the home, these folks will lose Medicaid eligibility under our
amendment, just as they would under current law.
Exactly who are we talking about, Mr. President? First, the
individuals we are talking about, their incomes, on an average, are
about 38 percent of the poverty level. Some will argue that we do not
need this amendment because children under 100 percent of poverty are
already covered. In other words, we are worried about these children.
Some will say, oh, do not worry about them because if they are at 100
percent of poverty or less, they are covered. But that is not true, Mr.
President. By 2002, they will all be covered up to the age of 18, but
not until then. Thus, children between the ages of 13 and 18 will not
be guaranteed coverage. Their mothers, unless they are pregnant, will
lose the guarantees as well.
Mr. President, I refer everyone to this chart. Under the bill that we
have, pregnant women continue to be covered. Children under 13 are
covered. That is under 100 percent of poverty or less. The aged, blind,
and disabled are covered. Who loses out? Who is losing out on the
guarantees? It is nonpregnant women and children 13 to 18 that are
going to fall through the cracks.
So, Mr. President, some will argue that we are backtracking from
previous welfare reform measures by removing this guarantee. I want to
remind my colleagues that both the House and the Senate-passed versions
of H.R. 4, which passed here 87 to 12, had the very provision in it
that I am talking about, which I am seeking to obtain. You might say,
well, if the House version had it and the Senate version had it, then,
obviously, when we came to conference, it was there. But it was dropped
in conference, in some type of maneuver. Even though it was in both
bills that were passed, it was dropped from the freestanding welfare
reform bill that passed.
I also point out, Mr. President, that the welfare reform bill that
passed yesterday in the House of Representatives has this same language
that I am talking about here and trying to put into our legislation.
Mr. President, if we really want this welfare reform proposal to
achieve the results of moving women off of welfare and into work, we
should not, in one fell swoop, remove their cash assistance and their
medical coverage. This is a prescription, I believe, for failure of
welfare reform.
Mr. President, I will conclude my section of the remarks before
turning it over to the Senator from Louisiana by saying this. In the
Finance Committee, we had all kinds of hearings in connection with
welfare reform, and two points came clearly through; that, if you want
to get individuals off of welfare--and we are particularly talking, in
most of these cases, about women--they need support. One of the two
things they need in the form of support is child care, adequate child
care and the availability of that; second is Medicaid coverage for
themselves and for their children.
So, Mr. President, I earnestly hope that this amendment will be
adopted. I think it is one that the managers will accept.
I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Louisiana.
Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator for
yielding me some time and for his continued outstanding work in trying
to make sure that whatever we do in this body is fair. All of us want
to be tough on work. We have said that many times. We also should be
fair to children and to pregnant women. We should be fair to those who
are the neediest among us.
This legislation makes fundamental changes in the Medicaid Program,
and that is not supposed to be what we are doing. Our Republican
colleagues have offered an amendment which has taken Medicaid out of
the equation. We are working on a welfare bill. But without the Chafee-
Breaux amendment and a number of our colleagues, this legislation will
still adversely affect those people who are on Medicaid and health care
assistance. The question is, why? Very simple. Because under the
current law, people who are eligible for AFDC assistance are also
eligible for Medicaid. Therefore, under this legislation, the States
could be changing all of the eligibility requirements for AFDC and, in
doing so, kick off, potentially, 4 million people who are on Medicaid
because of their eligibility for AFDC. It sounds complicated, but it is
not really. We made a decision in the Congress and the people who run
the Medicaid Program that the standards for AFDC would be the standards
for Medicaid eligibility. That was a decision that should not now be
changed without a careful consideration of whether that is good policy
or not.
Nobody is debating Medicaid eligibility on this floor. But when you
change the welfare program, you, in fact, will be changing the Medicaid
eligibility for millions of Americans. As Senator Chafee shows, we are
talking about pregnant women, children under 13, people who are the
least able to take care of themselves in our country. I think that is
just not what we are all about in this country.
It is interesting to note that both the House and the Senate bills
that were passed last year contained a provision just like the Chafee
amendment. We have already adopted this before. By a vote of 87 to 12,
the legislation that

[[Page S8346]]

contains the Chafee-Breaux amendment was passed by this Senate body.
That language in the House bill and in the Senate bill said very
clearly that we would continue Medicaid coverage, health care coverage,
for poor children and their parents who would have qualified for AFDC
assistance under the rules in effect at that time.
Now we have essentially the same bill before the Senate, but it does
not have that provision in it anymore. I do not know where it was
dropped or how it got dropped. This is almost a technical amendment
because we have already adopted this amendment. When the welfare reform
bills were previously before the House and the Senate, there was no
disagreement in the House and no disagreement in the Senate that the
people who are Medicaid-eligible because of AFDC eligibility would
continue to have that eligibility. That is what the policy should be.
If we want to come back later on and change Medicaid eligibility, let
us do it that way. Let us have a fair debate about whether we are going
to take the aged, the blind, the disabled, pregnant women, or children,
the people least advantaged among us, and kick them off of not only
welfare but off of Medicaid, too. At least allow us to have some
discussion about it.
With that, Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of the time that
was yielded to me from Senator Chafee.
Mr. ROTH addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
Mr. ROTH. I will soon offer a second-degree amendment to the Chafee-
Breaux amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment would not be in order until the
time has expired.
Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I wonder if the Chair would be good enough
to point that out again on a second-degree amendment? It cannot be
offered until all time has expired?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, let me discuss the purpose of my amendment.
The purpose of my amendment to the Chafee-Breaux amendment is to ensure
Medicaid coverage to all individuals currently receiving Medicaid
benefits because of their eligibility through the current AFDC Program.
By this approach we would ensure that no child or adult currently
receiving Medicaid benefits would lose coverage because of welfare
reform.
Let me first explain that under our bill as currently written we
believe that no child would lose Medicaid coverage because of welfare
reform. The Congressional Budget Office has not scored any Medicaid
babies because of the change in AFDC. But how can that be?
The overwhelming reason for this is because Medicaid eligibility is
no longer tied exclusively to AFDC eligibility. Medicaid eligibility
was expanded in the late 1980's and is now tied to the national poverty
level as well as to AFDC eligibility. This is an important point.
Medicaid eligibility is higher than State AFDC eligibility. We believe
that children currently receiving Medicaid would not be affected by the
change to the AFDC Program. The minimum Federal standard is that
pregnant women, infants, and children, and children under the age of 6,
under 133 percent of the Federal poverty level, must be covered by
Medicaid. Children age 6 to 13 must be covered if under 100 percent of
the poverty level.
Moreover, the General Accounting Office recently reported that 40
States have already expanded Medicaid coverage to pregnant women,
infants, or children beyond these Federal mandates. One State has
chosen to go as high as 300 percent of the Federal poverty level.
Thirty-two States extend coverage to pregnant women and children up to
150 percent of the poverty level. Some States have extended coverage to
children up to 19 years of age.
So the overwhelming evidence points to the conclusion that States are
expanding Medicaid eligibility, not reducing it.
For 3 years President Clinton has been saying that the key to getting
people off welfare is giving child care and Medicaid coverage.
Governors already know this, and that is what they are doing. But to be
on the cautious side, the bill, as amended, in committee provides for a
1-year transition period for anyone who may lose Medicaid eligibility
as States change AFDC into the block grants, if there is still some
concern that this is not enough. That is the reason that at the
appropriate moment I will offer my amendment to grandfather in those
individuals currently receiving Medicaid benefits so long as they are
still under the poverty level.
Let me point out, Mr. President, that there is no difference between
the Chafee-Breaux amendment and my amendment in the second degree in
regard to individuals currently receiving Medicaid. As I have already
indicated, those individuals will continue to receive Medicaid, an
approach which I think is, indeed, fair and equitable. The difference
is that the Chafee-Breaux amendment applies to categories rather than
people. That means that someone 5 or 10 years from now may not qualify
for Medicaid under a State's new welfare program. Nevertheless, they
could claim eligibility under the old program.
It seems to me that this creates serious issues of inequity. I think
it also is very burdensome to the State as it would require them to
maintain these eligibility standards without end. I know that the
Governors are deeply concerned about the Chafee-Breaux approach. They
think it is unduly administratively burdensome to have to maintain two
sets of systems. It is in contrast with the purpose of this legislation
which is to create flexibility as we move forward with welfare reform,
Medicaid, and other reforms. What we hope to do is to develop the kind
of flexibility that will enable the States to develop approaches to
these problems that brings some positive result. But it is hard to see
how requiring a State to continue indefinitely an old program as the
Chafee-Breaux amendment does. It is, indeed, hard to grasp.
So I hope that my good friends and colleagues, Senator Chafee and
Senator Breaux, would look at the amendment which I intend to offer as
soon as all time has expired. As I said, it seems to me that this is,
indeed, a fair and equitable approach. We are protecting those who are
currently receiving Medicaid under AFDC. They will continue
indefinitely to be eligible so long as they meet the requirements of
AFDC. But I find it hard to see the equity, the fairness, the reason
for, or the principle behind that we should continue in effect old
programs that are going to be modified.
The basic purpose of welfare reform is to provide flexibility to the
States. We think that the Chafee-Breaux amendment is a step in the
opposite direction.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I yield the Senator from West Virginia 2
minutes.
Mr. President, I have how much time?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Five minutes.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I hope Members on both sides of the
aisle will vote for this amendment offered by my colleagues from Rhode
Island and Louisiana, Senators Chafee and Breaux. It is the kind of
amendment that deserves strong support from this body.
There is absolutely no reason for welfare reform to cause innocent
children to lose health insurance. We can and we should enact a bill
that is very tough and very clear about requiring adults to work or
prepare for work if they want to get public assistance. But we do need
to pass the Chafee-Breaux amendment to make sure that children who are
eligible for Medicaid do not lose their health coverage as we change
the welfare system. We need to pass this amendment to make sure that
losing health care is not the price of leaving welfare and getting a
job.
Mr. President, with this amendment, we are not proposing a new
benefit or new spending. We are just trying to protect the way that
poor children now can see a doctor when they're sick, get their
vaccinations and their checkups, and receive basic medical care. Up to
1.5 million children and 4 million parents are at serious risk of
losing their Medicaid coverage unless this amendment prevails.
Mr. President, I truly believe the American people, including West
Virginians, want us to adopt this amendment. The public has made it
very clear that they expect Congress to make distinctions between
responsible

[[Page S8347]]

reform and reckless change. Americans want all children to have a
chance in this country, and they know that health care is where that
chance starts and lasts. You have to be healthy to learn, to grow, and
to become productive.
As our constituents demand changes in welfare, they are not asking us
to abandon children or take health care away from those who need it. In
fact, they get pretty upset when they see Congress doing something that
will hurt children or health care.
It is counterintuitive, counterproductive, and just plain wrong to
push the parents of poor children into the workplace, and then pull
health care out from under them. The mothers who succeed in leaving
welfare for work are rarely going to start with jobs that offer health
insurance for themselves or their families. According to one study, 78
percent of women who worked their way off welfare ended up in jobs that
did not offer health insurance. Two-thirds of these women were still
not able to get insurance after 18 months.
It is cruel to ask a mother to make the choice between working and
holding onto health insurance.
This amendment is the critical way we can make sure parents have
every reason to get a job and get off welfare--because Medicaid will be
a source of coverage for a limited amount of time, for the transition
from welfare to work.
Congress is going to make bold changes in the welfare system. But
please, let's not take the country backward in this life-and-death
issue of health care for children and their parents as they leave
welfare for work. It's our responsibility to deal with this part of the
health care system, because unfortunately, the private sector just
isn't there. Medicaid has to be there for them, or these families and
children join the uninsured and have a much more difficult time getting
out of the rut they're trying to escape.
Ask any doctor, hospital, or community--when families don't have
health insurance, they end up using the emergency room as their source
of health care. That's costly, inefficient, and burdens the health care
system.
Mr. President, as we act on welfare reform, I hope we realize it is
not just about saving money. We want to promote personal
responsibility, the work ethic, and stronger families. The Chafee-
Breaux amendment is a very specific way all of us in this body can make
sure that poor families are not punished in the cruelest way, by losing
their health insurance. All we want to do is to make sure basic health
care is still there for these children and families while we get much
tougher about the parents getting work and getting off welfare for
good. I urge all of my colleagues to support this amendment, which will
make it even more possible for low-income parents to join the work
force.
Congress decided more than 10 years ago that the Federal Government
had an important role in setting minimum standards of health coverage
for pregnant women and children. Congress voted for--and two Republican
Presidents signed--legislation in 1986, in 1987, in 1988, in 1989, and
in 1990 that no matter where they lived, children were guaranteed a
decent standard of health coverage.
Texas currently sets its overall eligibility for Medicaid at 18
percent of poverty except for pregnant women and young children
because, frankly, Congress forced it and many other States to set
higher standards for pregnant women and children. While many of my
colleagues do not want to, in any way, impinge on a State's
flexibility, there is a time and place for decent minimal standards.
Mr. President, this is the time, and this is the place. This is for
some of our country's neediest children.
Mr. President, let us not go back in time, and repeal extremely
important health care protections for pregnant women and children.
Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I would like to save 2 minutes for the
Senator from Florida, who is expected. So I will save that time for
him.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
Who yields time?
The time runs equally if neither side seeks recognition.
Mr. CHAFEE addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 2 minutes and 20 seconds.
Mr. CHAFEE. I will use up the remainder of my time.
Mr. President, the second-degree amendment, as I understand it, by
the Senator from Delaware says that all those individuals who are
currently eligible for Medicaid would be eligible in the future even
though the eligibility standards might be lowered, and thus if a new
person came along, they would not be eligible for Medicaid because the
cash assistance payments standard would have been lowered.
Mr. President, to me that is a very impractical proposal because what
you have to do is get a list of everybody who is currently, I presume,
on Medicaid, who meets the eligibility standards, and then I presume
that is the permanent list.
If somebody comes along who is at the same level, so you have two
women side by side, one who qualifies because of the existing standards
and another comes along in the future who does not quite get there by
whatever date this bill passes and the AFDC standards or the cash
assistance standards have then been dropped, this other woman does not
qualify, she and her children. She has dependent children. You might
say, ``Oh, no, do not worry about those children; they are taken care
of under the 100 percent poverty.''
No, they are not. That is very clear--100 percent of poverty only
covers those under 13. Next year it will be 14 and 15. But a woman who
has a 15-year old child comes along, with the same financial situation
as her neighbor, who came in time to qualify and gets it, and the
second one does not, that is not very fair.
So I hope, Mr. President, when we come to vote on this second-degree
amendment, as I understand it and as it has been explained, it will be
rejected, and then we can get to the Chafee-Breaux amendment as
originally proposed and take care of these individuals who are being
knocked off--nonpregnant women and children 13 through 18.
How much time do I have, Mr. President?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, how much time do I have?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 3 minutes and 59 seconds.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I yield the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has been yielded or used.

Amendment No. 4932 to amendment No. 4931

(Purpose: To maintain the eligibility for medicaid for any individual
who is receiving medicaid based on their receipt of AFDC, foster care
or adoption assistance, and to provide transitional medicaid for
families moving from welfare to work)

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I now call up my amendment in the second
degree.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Delaware [Mr. Roth] proposes an amendment
numbered 4932 to amendment No. 4931.

Mr. ROTH. 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 lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted, insert the
following:
``(12) Continuation of medicaid for certain low-income
individuals.--
``(A) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
this Act, a State to which a grant is made under section 403
shall take such action as may be necessary to ensure that--
``(i) any individual who, as of the date of the enactment
of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act of
1996, is receiving medical assistance under title XIX as a
result of such individual's receipt of aid or assistance
under a State plan approved under this part (as in effect on
July 1, 1996), or under a State plan approved under part E
(as so in effect)--
``(I) shall be eligible for medical assistance under the
State's plan approved under title XIX, so long as such
individual continues to meet the eligibility requirements
applicable to such individual under the State's plan approved
under this part (as in effect on July 1, 1996); and
``(II) with respect to such individual, any reference in--
``(aa) title XIX;

[[Page S8348]]

``(bb) any other provision of law in relation to the
operation of such title;
(cc) the State plan under such title of the State in which
such individual resides; or
``(dd) any other provision of State law in relation to the
operation of such State plan under such title, to a provision
of this part, or a State plan under this part (or a provision
of such a plan), including standards and methodologies for
determining income and resources under this part or such
plan, shall be considered a reference to such a provision or
plan as in effect as of July 1, 1996; and
``(ii) except as provided in subparagraph (B), if any
family becomes ineligible to receive assistance under the
State program funded under this part as a result of--
``(I) increased earnings from employment;
``(II) the collection or increased collection of child or
spousal support; or
``(III) a combination of the matters described in
subclauses (I) and (II), and such family received such
assistance in at least 3 of the 6 months immediately
preceding the month in which such ineligibility begins, the
family shall be eligible for medical assistance under the
State's plan approved under title XIX during the immediately
succeeding 12-month period for so long as family income (as
defined by the State), excluding any refund of Federal income
taxes made by reason of section 32 of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986 (relating to earned income tax credit) and any
payment made by an employer under section 3507 of such Code
(relating to advance payment of earned income credit), is
less than the poverty line, and that the family will be
appropriately notified of such eligibility.
``(B) Exception.--No medical assistance may be provided
under subparagraph (A) to any family that contains an
individual who has had all or part of any assistance provided
under this part (as in effect on July 1, 1996, or as in
effect, with respect to a State, on and after the effective
date of chapter 1 of subtitle A of title II of the Personal
Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act of 1996) terminated
as a result of the application of--
``(i) a preceding paragraph of this subsection;
``(ii) section 407(e)(1); or
``(iii) in the case of a family that includes an individual
described in clause (i) of subparagraph (A), a sanction
imposed under the State plan under this part (as in effect on
July 1, 1996).

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I have, of course, already discussed the
purpose of my amendment. As I said, the purpose of my amendment is to
ensure Medicaid coverage to all individuals currently receiving
Medicaid benefits because of their eligibility through the current AFDC
program. As I said, this would ensure no child or adult currently
receiving Medicaid benefits would lose coverage because of welfare
reform. I believe this is fair. I think it is equitable. I think it
just makes common sense.
Yes, there are going to be changes in the future. That is the reason
we are providing for welfare reform. Hopefully, at a later stage we
will have Medicaid reform. I personally thought it was a mistake to
separate the two reforms because they are interrelated. But it makes no
sense to me, when we are trying to provide greater flexibility to the
Governors, to require that two sets or systems of eligibility be
maintained if a State changes the welfare program under TANF.
As far as the administrative burdens are concerned, I would say to my
good friend from Rhode Island, that his plan, too, will require the
maintenance of two books. The difference is that in time ours will
become less important.
But I hope the sponsors of the basic amendment will review and look
at my proposal, as I believe it is an approach that does provide for
equity in that it guarantees all those who are currently receiving
Medicaid benefits under AFDC would continue to do so.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, do I understand we have 15 minutes on the
new amendment? Is that the proposal? I guess there was never any time
agreement, was there?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. For the second-degree amendment there is 1
hour equally divided, controlled half an hour on each side.
Mr. CHAFEE. I will just take a couple of minutes.
Mr. President, it seems to me we have to make up our minds around
here. Are we dealing with Medicaid reform or are we not? The ground
rules were--what we did in the Finance Committee, we dealt with
welfare, we dealt with Medicaid. Then we came to the floor and we
dropped off the Medicaid provisions.
Now what we are trying to do, it seems to me, in a back-door way, is
make very severe changes in Medicaid without us considering it a
Medicaid bill. If we are dealing with Medicaid we get into all kind of
different things. We get into the Boland amendment and matters we dealt
with in the Finance Committee. But that is not the approach.
Yes, it was very clear, we are severing the two: Welfare is here,
Medicaid is here; we are dropping Medicaid off and sticking with
welfare. Yet in one fell swoop here, because of the eligibility
standards of AFDC, or cash assistance, Medicaid goes along with it. And
you have to be very, very careful then. When you have dropped the major
Medicaid portions of the bill, what are you going to do about this
group that loses their Medicaid coverage, the ones I am talking about?
It does not do any good to say that is all right, we will take care of
those on the list now. What about in the future? Are we going to let a
State just drop right down on its cash assistance way below the levels
they are not permitted to go now--which is May 1, 1988--and then go
right down? OK, that is welfare reform. We say if they are 38 percent
of poverty on May 1, 1988, if they want to go down to 15 percent of
poverty, all right. That is welfare reform. But they should not, the
individuals should not lose their Medicaid coverage in those changes.
That is the problem with the second-degree amendment that was presented
here.

We will have a chance to visit more on this, I presume. I do not know
what the arrangement is for Tuesday. I suppose we will go right into
the votes. Maybe a minute or 2 minutes equally divided and an
explanation of some type, as we have done here today. I might say, as
you know all, the amendments we voted on today and were debated last
evening, all were under an arrangement of no second-degree amendments.
Today is different, apparently. So the chairman of the Finance
Committee came forward with a second-degree amendment.
Mr. President, I would like, on my time, to ask the chairman of the
Finance Committee if I am correct in believing that you could end up
with a situation where you have two similar individuals, let us say
women on welfare currently. Let us just look ahead a year from now.
Under this proposal, you could find one individual currently receiving
Medicaid coverage and another individual in exactly the same position--
exactly, children the same age, earned income exactly the same, welfare
benefits exactly the same. One would be entitled to Medicaid coverage
and one would not be, because that second woman is not on the rolls
currently? Am I correct in that? I ask the distinguished chairman of
the Finance Committee.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I say to the Senator from Rhode Island, that
is correct. What we have provided here is a transition rule, trying to
ease the change by providing that all women and children who are
currently receiving Medicaid benefits because of AFDC programs will
continue to do so. But, to answer him directly, yes, that is true for a
year from now and it will be true 5 years from now. It would be true 10
years from now.
Mr. CHAFEE. I wonder if I am also correct in suggesting that, under
the proposal of the Senator from Delaware, under his second-degree
amendment, you could have a situation where the woman is on the rolls
now and therefore she is Medicaid eligible. Then suppose she goes off
as a result of earnings. Can that individual come back on if her
earnings fall below the earnings limitation? Yes, fall below, so she
would be eligible once again for cash assistance? Would she get
Medicaid?
Mr. ROTH. Once people go off the rolls, their eligibility in the
future would depend upon the new program. So they would not go back on
the basis of AFDC.
Mr. CHAFEE. So it seems to me that an individual who is locked in
under the present system, as suggested by the second-degree amendment,
that individual would make a great mistake to get off Medicaid,
because, let's say, the eligibility was dropped and they would not
currently qualify. So the key thing is to stay on Medicaid, do not get
off.
Mr. SANTORUM. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. CHAFEE. Sure.
Mr. SANTORUM. I do not think that would be correct. If the person is
no longer eligible for AFDC, what you are

[[Page S8349]]

suggesting is they should keep working in a low-wage job just for the
purposes of keeping Medicaid and not try to get a promotion where you
can get benefits and other kinds of things. I am not sure that would be
a logical economic move for somebody.
Mr. CHAFEE. I am sorry, did I miss a question?
Mr. SANTORUM. I said, what you are suggesting is that someone who is
no longer on AFDC but is Medicaid eligible because of this
grandfathering is not going to have an incentive to take a better job,
potentially with benefits, potentially with opportunities for greater
advancement, because if they come into a situation where they lose that
job, they would not be able to get back on Medicaid. I am looking at
someone making an economically rational decision. To me that would not
be an economically rational decision.
I think the grandfathering does take care of that situation, and if
that mother does have a problem and falls back on AFDC, she is then
eligible for Medicaid again. I do not think I see the problem that the
Senator from Rhode Island has put forward.
Mr. CHAFEE. That is not the testimony that we had before the Finance
Committee. The testimony we had was very clear that the Medicaid
situation is a big factor, not just for the adult, but for the children
likewise. It affects people's behavior.
Mr. SANTORUM. These are people who are not on AFDC anymore. These are
people who are working, because if they were on AFDC, they would be
included under the new program.
Mr. CHAFEE. What we are talking about here are two different
standards. Let's say under current law, somebody is eligible for AFDC.
Automatically that individual gets Medicaid. In the welfare reform bill
that we have before us, we are saying to the States, ``You're not bound
by that May 1988 level. You can go below that, if you want.''
OK, that is fine, we all agree with that. That is what we voted on.
But let's say the May 1988 levels were in the State 50 percent of the
poverty level, and the State decides, ``We're going to get tougher on
welfare eligibility. We're going to make it so you can't get it if you
are above 38 percent of the poverty level.''
Under the Roth proposal, he is saying, ``That is right, you drop it
down, but if you are currently receiving Medicaid at the 50 percent
level, that is all right, forget the 38 percent, you are taken care
of.''
What I am saying is that that person who now is covered is going to
be very, very reluctant to get off Medicaid and take a job, because
that person cannot get back on, according to the information I received
from the manager of the bill.
Mr. ROTH. Inherent in what the Senator from Rhode Island is saying is
that the Governors, in developing new programs, are inherently going to
shortchange those on welfare. The fact is, and as you know, in the
Finance Committee, it was clearly shown that much of the spending in
welfare, Medicaid and other programs is beyond what is required by the
Federal Government. In fact, I think in the case of Medicaid, they were
spending more than 50 percent on a voluntary basis.

So I think it is wrong to assume necessarily that the programs that
are going to be developed under TANF are going to be less desirable.
Let me say, a family could increase earnings and drop off AFDC but
still be eligible for Medicaid if less than 100 percent of poverty. So
there are alternatives.
I yield the floor.
Mr. CHAFEE. I am ready to yield my time back, if the manager of the
bill is ready to yield his back.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back.
Under the previous order, the Senator from North Dakota, Mr. Conrad,
will be recognized to offer his amendment.
Mr. CHAFEE addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. CHAFEE. I did not say I yielded my time back, I said ``ready to
yield my time back.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair misunderstood.
Mr. CHAFEE. So I still have time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 26 minutes; the other side has
18 minutes.

Amendment No. 4933 to Amendment No. 4931

(Purpose: To maintain current eligibility standards for medicaid and
provide additional State flexibility)

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I do now yield back my time, and send a
perfecting amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

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

Strike all after the first word and insert the following:
Medicaid coverage for low-income families.--
``(A) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
this Act, subject to the succeeding provisions of this
paragraph, with respect to a State any reference in title XIX
(or other provision of law in relation to the operation of
such title) to a provision of this part, or a State plan
under this part (or a provision of such a plan), including
standards and methodologies for determining income and
resources under this part or such plan, shall be considered a
reference to such a provision or plan as in effect as of July
1, 1996, with respect to the State.
``(B) Constructions.--
``(i) In applying section 1925(a)(1), the reference to
`section 402(a)(8)(B)(ii)(II)' is deemed a reference to a
corresponding earning disregard rule (if any) established
under a State program funded under this part (as in effect on
or after October 1, 1996).
``(ii) The provisions of former section 406(h) (as in
effect on July 1, 1996) shall apply, in relation to title
XIX, with respect to individuals who receive assistance under
a State program funded under this part (as in effect on or
after October 1, 1996) and are eligible for medical
assistance under title XIX or who are described in
subparagraph (C)(i) in the same manner as they apply as of
July 1, 1996, with respect to individuals who become
ineligible for aid to families with dependent children as a
result (wholly or partly) of the collection or increased
collection of child or spousal support under part D of this
title.
``(iii) With respect to the reference in section 1902(a)(5)
to a State plan approved under this part, a State may treat
such reference as a reference either to a State program
funded under this part (as in effect on or after October 1,
1996) or to the State plan under title XIX.
``(C) Eligibility criteria.--
``(i) In general.--For purposes of title XIX, subject to
clause (ii), in determining eligibility for medical
assistance under such title, an individual shall be treated
as receiving aid or assistance under a State plan approved
under this part (and shall be treated as meeting the income
and resource standards under this part) only if the
individual meets--
``(I) the income and resource standards for determining
eligibility under such plan; and
``(II) the eligibility requirements of such plan under
subsections (a) through (c) of former section 406 and former
section 407(a),

as in effect as of July 1, 1996. Subject to clause (ii)(II),
the income and resource methodologies under such plan as of
such date shall be used in the determination of whether any
individual meets income and resource standards under such
plan.
``(ii) State option.--For purposes of applying this
paragraph, a State may--
``(I) lower its income standards applicable with respect to
this part, but not below the income standards applicable
under its State plan under this part on May 1, 1988; and
``(ii) use income and resource standards or methodologies
that are less restrictive than the standards or methodologies
used under the State plan under this part as of July 1, 1996.
``(iv) Transitional coverage.--For purposes of section
1925, an individual who is receiving assistance under the
State program funded under this part (as in effect on or
after October 1, 1996) and is eligible for medical assistance
under title XIX shall be treated as an individual receiving
aid or assistance pursuant to a State plan approved under
this part (as in effect as of July 1, 1996) (and thereby
eligible for continuation of medical assistance under such
section 1925).
``(D) Waivers.--In the case of a waiver of a provision of
this part in effect with respect to a State as of July 1,
1996, if the waiver affects eligibility of individuals for
medical assistance under title XIX, such waiver may (but need
not) continue to be applied, at the option of the State, in
relation to such title after the date the waiver would
otherwise expire. If a State elects not to continue to apply
such a waiver, then, after the date of the expiration of the
waiver, subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) shall be applied as
if any provisions so waived had not been waived.

[[Page S8350]]

``(E) State option to use 1 application form.--Nothing in
this paragraph, this part, or title XIX, shall be construed
as preventing a State from providing for the same application
form for assistance under a State program funded under this
part (on or after October 1, 1996) and for medical assistance
under title XIX.
``(F) Requirement for receipt of funds.--A State to which a
grant is made under section 403 shall take such action as may
be necessary to ensure that the provisions of this paragraph
are carried out provided that the state is otherwise
participating in title XIX of this Act.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there is 1 hour for
debate equally divided. Who yields time?
Mr. CHAFEE addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island is recognized.
Mr. CHAFEE. If I could just have 30 seconds to explain the perfecting
amendment. What that does is make sure that that population that I was
previously discussing, who now or in the future qualify under the
present eligibility rules, will continue to be eligible for Medicaid.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. SANTORUM. We yield back the remainder of our time.
Mr. CHAFEE. I yield back my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator yields back the remainder of his
time.
Mr. CONRAD addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota is recognized.

Amendment No. 4934

(Purpose: To strike the State food assistance block grant)

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I call up my amendment that is at the
desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Conrad], for himself,
Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Kerrey, Mr. Leahy, Mrs. Murray, and Mr.
Reid, proposes amendment numbered 4934.

Mr. CONRAD. 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 8, line 24, strike ``for fiscal year 1996'' and
insert ``for the period beginning October 1, 1995, and ending
November 30, 1996''.
On page 9, strike lines 1 through 5 and insert the
following:
``(ii) for the period beginning December 1, 1996, and
ending September 30, 2001, $120, $206, $170, $242, and $106,
respectively;
``(iii) for the period beginning October 1, 2001, and
ending August 31, 2002, $113, $193, $159, $227, and $100,
respectively; and
``(iv) for the period beginning September 1, 2002, and
ending September 30, 2002, $120, $206, $170, $242, and $106,
respectively.
Beginning on page 94, strike line 14 and all that follows
through page 111, line 6.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I am proud to be joined by my colleague,
Senator Jeffords, the distinguished occupant of the Chair, Senators
Kerrey, Leahy, Murray, and Reid in offering an amendment to preserve
our Nation's Food Stamp Program by eliminating the food stamp block
grant.
This is one of the most important issues in the pending welfare
reform legislation. Members in this Chamber and people around the
country often talk of the need for a real bipartisan effort to reform
our welfare system. Our amendment is a true bipartisan undertaking.
I am hopeful that my colleagues will consider the amendment and the
benefits it will provide for our Nation's children and elderly, our
cities and our rural areas. Block granting the Food Stamp Program is a
mistake for this country. I am confident that if my colleagues give
careful consideration to the Food Stamp Program, how it works, who it
serves, and how it was developed, that they will vote for our
amendment.
I want to make clear to my colleagues and others who are watching
what this amendment is about. It is about providing food to hungry
people. That is what is at issue. This amendment is about making
certain that hungry people are fed. That is the most basic test of the
fundamental decency of any society. Are hungry people fed? This
amendment provides the answer. It says that in America hungry people
will not go without food.
Mr. President, I want to make clear at the outset that the cost of
our amendment is fully offset over the 6-year budget period. This
amendment reduces the standard deduction in order to provide the
revenue necessary to pay for the amendment. With our amendment, the
Agriculture Committee will still be in full compliance with its budget
reconciliation target.
Mr. President, the Food Stamp Program is the anchor for our Nation's
nutritional safety net. The program developed from a decision by
Congress that no child, indeed no person, in our wealthy country with
its abundant food supply should go hungry.
My colleagues will remember that former Senator Dole, the apparent
Republican Presidential nominee, was a leader in this effort. So, too,
was former Senator George McGovern, a former Democratic Presidential
nominee. In fact, we ought to wish former Senator McGovern a happy
birthday because this is Senator McGovern's birthday today.
So we had a fully bipartisan effort that formed the Food Stamp
Program. It remains a valid goal for our country and for those of us in
this Chamber who share with our colleagues in the House of
Representatives and the President of the United States the
responsibility for making these decisions.
My colleagues should know that fully 51 percent of food stamp
recipients are children, 7 percent are elderly, and 9 percent are
disabled.
To further illustrate, I have brought with me this chart indicating
the distribution of food stamp benefits to households. And 82 percent
of food stamp households are households with children. This chart shows
that. Now, 82 percent of the food stamp eligible households in this
country are households with children. Only 18 percent are without
children.
Mr. President, I want to make clear, we are defending the basic
notion of a Food Stamp Program. That does not mean that we are not
supportive of changes to reform the Food Stamp Program, to improve its
implementation and to save money, because this bill has substantial
savings out of the Food Stamp Program, over $20 billion.

We are not affecting those savings. But we are saying, do not block
grant the Food Stamp Program. Do not do that. That is a mistake for
this country. And it will fundamentally undermine the Food Stamp
Program and the nutritional safety net that it provides.
Mr. President, currently every child who needs food is eligible for
food stamps. Under a block grant, a State would have no obligation to
provide benefits to children--none, no obligation to provide for
children. There are no standards whatsoever regarding who should
receive benefits or how much in benefits they should receive under the
bill we have before us.
Mr. President, block granting the Food Stamp Program would tear a
hole in the safety net that makes certain 14 million children do not go
to bed hungry at night or do not go to school with hunger pains. This
is what preserving our Nation's Food Stamp Program is about. And these
are the people we place at risk by block granting the Food Stamp
Program and eliminating the food safety net.
The Food Stamp Program, as my colleagues know well, is a carefully
crafted program that has a tremendously impressive history of
responding to economic fluctuations in our country and changes in child
and adult poverty levels. The Food Stamp Program has been successful in
fighting hunger because it automatically covers more people when
economic downturns or natural disasters push more Americans below the
poverty line.
Block granting the Food Stamp Program would eliminate this automatic
response to increases in poverty that the current program provides. I
have brought two charts which illustrate the Food Stamp Program's
responsiveness to fluctuations in poverty.
The first is a chart that shows from 1979 to 1993 how the Food Stamp
Program responded directly to changes in the overall poverty rate. My
colleagues can see the red line shows the poverty population in this
country. The blue line shows food stamp participation. As poverty rates
have changed, as the incidence of poverty has changed, one can see that
the food stamp participation rate has moved in tandem with it. In other
words, responding directly to increases in poverty.

[[Page S8351]]

The second chart is perhaps more compelling to those who think the
Federal Government should protect kids but are less sympathetic to
their parents. This chart illustrates how the Food Stamp Program
responds to changes in the child poverty rate. Again, the red line
shows increases in the child poverty rate from 1979 through 1993.
Again, the food stamp participation rate tracks closely with it. Make
no mistake, the Food Stamp Program is the most important part of our
arsenal to fight the battle against poverty in America.
This responsiveness, the responsiveness of the Food Stamp Program to
economic fluctuations, led the National Governors' Association and the
drafters of this welfare bill to improve the AFDC block grant
contingency fund trigger by basing it on an increase in food stamp
participation.
Mr. President, it does not make sense to turn around and block grant
the program and eliminate the program's ability to respond to dramatic
changes caused by economic downturns or natural disasters. It makes no
sense to take away that automatic stabilizer that is a central feature
of the Food Stamp Program.
Again, this does not mean we cannot make changes in the Food Stamp
Program. We can. We should. We should achieve additional savings, and
we will. This amendment does not affect those changes and those
savings.
A block grant with limited funding cannot respond to changes in
poverty levels, nor can it respond to a severe economic downturn or to
a natural disaster. The need for a State to help its children, elderly,
and working families, would come precisely at a time when the State's
economy is least able to support increased food assistance
expenditures.
Let me just share with my colleagues the example from the State of
Florida, because I think it is most instructive. I want to make clear
this is not a question of Governors or States being mean-spirited or
wanting to limit food stamps in a time of need. We are not questioning
here the good faith of our Nation's Governors. We are not questioning
the good faith of our Nation's State legislators. This is a question of
economic reality. There simply is no way for any State to accurately
plan in advance for dramatic increases in food aid required by severe
economic downturns or natural disasters.
Governor Chiles of Florida gave testimony at the Senate agriculture
hearing on nutrition in May of last year that illustrated this point.
He included a chart with his testimony which outlined Florida's food
stamp participation benefits from October 1987 to January 1995. I have
brought the chart of Governor Chiles because I think it can help
Members understand why block granting the Food Stamp Program could have
unintended consequences we would all regret.
The way the food stamp block grant is structured in the bill before
the Senate, a State is required to decide several months before the
beginning of the next fiscal year if it wants to exercise the block
grant option. A State would then be bound to its decision for the
remainder of the fiscal year. Therein lies the problem, Mr. President.
We will look at the chart from Florida that Governor Chiles
presented. From October 1987 to October 1989, we can see the demand for
food stamps in Florida was level. No block grant demands were
increasing. They were basically stable. So a Governor could have felt
confident that his or her State would have been better off with the
block grant and would not put anyone at risk of going hungry if they
were basing that on the experience of 1987 to 1989.
However, from October 1989 to mid-1992, there was a national
recession, and Florida's food stamp caseload exploded. One can see how
the food stamp caseload just went up on almost a straight line in the
State of Florida. No block grant could have responded to the increase
in families that needed food stamps in Florida during this time. No
State would be able to predict or prepare for this dramatic growth in
demand for food assistance.
That was not the end of the story in Florida because we will recall
the testimony of Governor Chiles. Then the big one hit, a natural
disaster. The natural disaster was Hurricane Andrew, and its
devastating blow was felt all across Florida. The sharp increase in
demand for food aid help in September 1992 shows the impact of
Hurricane Andrew. A block grant could not have responded to the
immediate and massive need for food created by this natural disaster.

Mr. President, this is a central point with respect to this
amendment. If we adopt a circumstance in which a State must commit to a
flat amount of funding, a flat block grant amount for food stamps, and
then that State is hit by either an economic downturn, impossible to
predict, or a natural disaster, again, impossible to predict, and the
demand for food aid skyrockets as it did in Florida, the need for food
for that State's children and for other people could not and would not
be met.
Mr. President, Florida is not alone. Natural disasters hit nearly
every State in the last year, from a drought in Texas to flooding in
Missouri, to earthquakes in California. We all know the litany of
natural disasters over the last several years. Are we really going to
abandon the children in those States to a flat amount of funding for
food stamps with no ability to adjust for an economic downturn or a
natural disaster? I think not. I think America is better than that. The
National Food Stamp Program should respond to the needs of families
that temporarily need food during these times of crisis.
As a matter of fact, using almost exactly the same formula as is in
the current welfare proposal, the U.S. Department of Agriculture
estimated if a block grant proposal had been enacted in 1990, in 1994
every State would have fallen short of the funding needed to provide
food aid for their children. Choose any State and children would have
suffered.
Mr. President, the case for this amendment does not end there. The
obligation that is in the bill before the Senate could destroy the Food
Stamp Program. I believe we have a strong national interest in ensuring
that children and other vulnerable members of our society do not go
hungry. Others may argue this is a State option, that the decision to
take the risk that children go hungry should be left to each State.
It is not that simple, Mr. President. The block grant option contains
within it the potential to destroy the National Food Stamp Program.
That is because if States opt for the block grant, their
representatives no longer have a stake in the Federal program. They
could vote for deep cuts in the Food Stamp Program without any adverse
impact on their States or districts.
Mr. President, I believe the underlying bill has in it the seeds of
the destruction of the Food Stamp Program. Too many of us have labored
for too long on a bipartisan basis to make certain that if people are
hungry in this country, they have a chance of being fed, to allow that
to happen.
I also want to emphasize there is a different rationale for block
granting the AFDC Program than the Food Stamp Program. We have heard
many calls for block granting the AFDC Program. That has a certain
logic to it. Many States have indicated their desire to block grant the
AFDC Program in order to make better use of the significant number of
State dollars that are spent on the AFDC Program. States may also want
block grants for AFDC, in the hope of eventually achieving savings at
the State level. These arguments do not apply to the Food Stamp Program
because it is a Federal program. Food stamp benefits are fully funded
by the Federal Government. There is no State match. There is no State
maintenance of effort requirement.

Mr. President, I also want to address the issue of State flexibility.
I firmly believe that real welfare reform requires greatly increased
State flexibility. I introduced an entire welfare reform package of my
own, which provided for a dramatic increase in tax flexibility. That
made sense. I have already explained why a block grant approach to food
stamps is bad policy and completely undermines the benefits and
integrity of the Food Stamp Program.
I know, however, that there are those in this Chamber who support the
block grants solely on the basis of supporting anything that increases
State flexibility. I will address this issue because it is important.
Without the block grant, the welfare bill before us makes the

[[Page S8352]]

biggest steps to expand State flexibility in operating the Food Stamp
Program that the program has experienced in two decades. States will
have broad, new authority to simplify food stamp rules and develop
their own policies to promote work and responsibility. That is as it
should be.
States will have broad, new flexibility to streamline food stamp
benefits to coordinate with their application of benefits under the
AFDC block grant. They have the option to convert food stamp benefits
to wage subsidies, and the option to determine if they want to provide
benefits to people who are delinquent in child support payments. States
also have almost complete flexibility to structure programs to promote
employment and self-sufficiency and to impose strict work requirements.
Federal rules impeding implementation of State electronic benefit
transfer systems would be eliminated under the current bill, as would a
large number of provisions which micromanage food stamp administration.
We do not change any of that, Mr. President. That dramatically
increased State flexibility is completely preserved under the amendment
we are offering. I understand and support the need for State
flexibility. But, as I have already pointed out, this is a Federal
program, part of a national commitment to ensure that children and
vulnerable Americans do not go hungry. And it works. We here in the
Senate have a responsibility to ensure that Federal tax dollars applied
to the Food Stamp Program succeed in fulfilling this commitment. We
should not use the doctrine of State flexibility to put millions of
American children and seniors at risk of going to bed hungry at night.
We are a better nation than that. We are a better people than that. We
are a better Senate than that.
I hope my colleagues will join me in saying that, in America, the
hungry will be fed.
Mr. SANTORUM addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania is recognized.
Mr. SANTORUM. I thank the Chair. First, let me say, Mr. President,
that we have had votes on block grants here in the Senate in the past.
We had one on the bill last year. In fact, when it came out of the
Agriculture Committee, there was no block grant. The block grant was
offered here on the floor of the Senate and was passed in the Senate.
It was included in the welfare reform bill that was passed here in the
Senate. It was included in the bill that passed originally, as I said
before, in the Senate, which passed 87 to 12. The Senator from
North Dakota voted for that, as well as other provisions in the bill.
The block grant included in the Senate bill--

Mr. CONRAD. If the Senator will yield, I would like to correct the
Record. The Senator from North Dakota did not vote for the block grant.
The Senator from North Dakota voted against the block grant. But when a
Senator is presented with the question of supporting the overall bill,
that is a different question.
Mr. SANTORUM. It was included in the Senate bill, which passed 87 to
12 here, in the reconciliation bill, and in the welfare bill that was
vetoed by the President. In fact, the block grant provision that is in
this bill actually has a lot higher hurdles for States to jump over to
get a block grant, because in the bill that originally came through
here, there was a requirement in the original Senate bill that 85
percent of the money be spent on food.
In this bill, 94 percent of the money has to be spent on food stamp
aid. So States have a higher requirement. In this bill, you can get a
block grant only if you have EBT, electronic benefits transfer, a
computerized way of providing food stamps. In the other bill, there was
no such electronic benefits transfer.
In this bill, you have to meet one of these criteria to get in. An
error rate of under 6 percent. The national error rate is between 9 and
10 percent. So you have to have a pretty good error rate to be able to
qualify for a block grant. There are only a few States who qualify--
Massachusetts, Alabama, Kentucky, Arkansas, Louisiana, South Dakota,
and the Virgin Islands. Maryland, Texas, and South Carolina qualify for
electronic benefits transfer. If you have an error rate above 6
percent, you have to use State dollars to, in fact, pay down the error
rate to make up the difference--obviously, an expense of the States.
So we have a much higher standard here of qualifying, and the
standard is set for the purpose of making sure that the States that do
take a block grant either have a technologically advanced program like
electronic benefits transfer, where you get the debit card instead of
the stamps, which you then use to purchase your food, or you have a
good system which has a low error rate. I think when you consider the
fact that only 7 jurisdictions out of the 50-some that we have
receiving these programs have such a low error rate, I think we have
set the standard pretty high here. So this is not an easy thing that
lots of States are going to jump into. Most States will not qualify for
these block grants. So we believe we have set an appropriate standard.
The Senator from South Dakota talked about the Florida rate and how
it was going along at a nice rate, and then jumped up, and they got
caught and they were stuck. Well, as the Senator from North Dakota
knows, they are not stuck. Under this bill, as under the previous block
grant proposals, the Governor and legislature of Florida can opt in,
but they can also opt out. It is a one-time thing. You stay in, or when
you go out, you are out forever. If they do not want to swim in the
pond and do not like the water temperature, they can get out. They
would have to sit on the beach and watch. They had their chance to
swim. We think that is fair and that gives an adequate chance for
States who run into difficult situations.
This is certainly a safety valve for a State that might find itself
in some sort of cataclysmic situation. The other things we allow States
to do, which is positive, is to take the money that they have had--I
cannot see the exact years on the chart, but say they had 3 or 4 good
years, where it was perking along at a low rate, and because we have
given them a block grant, they do not have to comply with all the bells
and whistles that we require in Washington; they can run their own
program. As most Governors told me, they can run it a heck of a lot
more efficiently than we make them run it out of Washington. So let us
assume--and I do not think it is unreasonable to assume this--if the
food stamp rate stays the same and we are giving increases in funding,
then they would be able to save money. We allow them to keep up to 10
percent of the total amount that they--I will rephrase that. If they do
not spend all of the money that has been allocated to them in the block
grant, and they spend, let us say 95 percent of it, well, the 5 percent
they do not spend they can put in a fund and carry it over. They can
carry over up to 10 percent every year, and up to 30 percent of an
annual allocation, which means they can have a rainy day fund here to
take care of situations where you have that little spike because of a
hurricane or something like that. That is what prudent State planners
should do when it comes to these kinds of programs. We provide for that
in this bill.

So we think that there are adequate safeguards there for these kinds
of spikes in benefits. The Senator also said there is no maintenance of
effort provision. Under the current Food Stamp Program, 50 percent of
the administrative costs are paid for by the Federal Government, and 50
percent are paid for by the State government.
They said we do not require them to maintain their effort; in other
words, require them to pick up 50 percent of the cost. That is true and
it is not true. Specifically, do we require them to pick up the effort?
No. But what we say, as I referred to earlier, is that now 94 percent
of the money they get must go for food stamps; 6 percent is
administrative. What is the average administrative cost for the Food
Stamp Program today? Coincidentally, 12 percent. What does that mean?
That means that 6 percent now is going to be federally funded. That is
the 6 percent you can use for administrative costs, and, if they want
to continue their spending at a rate of 12 percent for administrative
costs, who is going to pick up the other 6 percent? The State with
State funds. No, we do not specifically say you have to maintain
effort. But we give you only half of the money you would normally use
to administer the program. So, if they can do a better job

[[Page S8353]]

administering the program, if they get from 12 percent down to 10
percent, we say you can keep the savings, and you can use State dollars
for the savings.
I do not think that is a bad thing. I think if they can reduce their
administrative costs they should get the benefit of reducing those
costs.
So we have set up a system that says we want to give you the
opportunity, if you think you can run this program better than we can,
if you think you can feed more people, if you think you can do it more
efficiently, we are going to give you the opportunity. When you do
that, you have to submit a plan to HHS. They have to get approval. You
have to say in that plan how you are going to serve a specific
population. As you know, when we submit plans here, as we had this
discussion earlier today about getting waivers approved by the
Department of Health and Human Services, that is not an easy thing to
do sometimes.
So we put hurdles in place to make sure that these plans are adequate
to serve the needs of hungry people in the respective States, and we
require them to maintain a quality control program, and, frankly, you
know that just makes sense. So we have adequate controls in there to
make sure this is a good plan for the people of the State. We give them
the option to do it. If they have a bad year, or some doom on the
horizon, they can get out. So we give them the flexibility to get out.
We give them the opportunity to save money on administrative costs by
putting in a better system, and we set standards so they have to either
be technologically advanced like an EBT system--that is a much more
efficient system to get into this program in the first place--or they
have to have lower error rates, which means they have to have a well-
run program to get in here.
So, I believe we have come up with a plan here that provides adequate
safeguards for the hungry in those respective States, gives States an
incentive to be innovative, to be efficient, to provide actually more
and better food services to the people in their State, and in the end
provide the safety valve for States that might find themselves in the
situation which Florida found themselves in with an escape hatch, a
one-time escape hatch in the bill.
So, I think what this bill has done is it has taken what was--
frankly, no offense to the author--a relatively crude Food Stamp Block
Program that was offered here on the floor and has been refined through
conference because some of these cases are made in the conference bill,
and additionally refined by the Agriculture Committee, which the
Senator from North Dakota and I both sit on. As you know, excellent
work comes out of that committee. We have refined it, and now we are at
the point where I suggest we have a fairly solid, responsible program
that is going to be limited in impact because of the limitation of
States and their ability to get in here and have adequate safeguards to
make sure that not only people who are in this program are fed, but
that States that run into problems can get out.

I reserve the remainder of my time.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, our colleague from Pennsylvania has not
only misplaced me by putting me in South Dakota--I represent North
Dakota----
Mr. SANTORUM. I apologize. I am sorry.
Mr. CONRAD. But also misplacing his argument as well. The simple
reality is Florida did not get advance notice of Hurricane Andrew.
Nobody called up the Governor and said, when he would have had to make
the decision under this bill to opt in and take the block grant that,
``Hey, Governor, 9 months from now you are going to be hit by a
hurricane.'' You know, if the Governor would have looked back to the
pattern back in 1987 to 1989, any Governor might have concluded it is a
safe bet to go with a block grant.
The problem is people do not have advance notice of an economic
downturn. That is what happened here. They do not have advance notice
of an actual disaster. That is what happened here. All the opt in and
opt out would not have done them a bit of good in Florida. When these
hungry people showed up, these were not people who have been on the
welfare rolls for 10 years, these were not people who did not work.
These are people who were hit by a natural disaster and needed food.
The State of Florida would not have been able to provide it under a
block grant.
Is that what we want to do in this country? I think not.
Mr. SANTORUM. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. CONRAD. Let me conclude.
We want a plan and a program that is going to assure us, as the Food
Stamp Program does now, that if people are hungry, if they have been
hit by a sharp economic downturn and a natural disaster, that they are
going to have a chance to be fed.
Let me just say, with respect to the notion of opt in and opt out,
that you have a one-time opt out here; one time. Does that mean Florida
is never going to be hit by another natural disaster? Does that mean
that Florida is never going to be hit again by an economic downturn?
Mr. President, this is not well-crafted. This is not well thought
through. It goes right to the heart of the Food Stamp Program. More
importantly, it goes right to the heart of the question in America: Are
we going to make sure that hungry people are fed?
I am happy to yield.
Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, in response to the last assertion that
Florida would not be hit by another natural disaster if Florida opts
out of a block grant, in the Federal entitlement program they are
covered under the existing Food Stamp Program.
I do not understand why the opt out is such a bad idea. The fact is
that what you want to accomplish is to put them back into the main
program.
Mr. CONRAD. If I may say to my colleague, the opt out is not just a
bad idea. What is a bad idea is the opt in because once you have opted
in you are stuck for that year. You are stuck. Florida would have been
stuck. They would not have been able to feed these people who are
hungry. The problem is the opt in.

That is what this amendment seeks to say. It says, ``Look, we are not
going to have a program that endangers children. We are not going to
have a program that endangers people who are vulnerable.''
Mr. President, it seems to me that this is a circumstance in which we
should all understand that half of the States are eligible immediately,
I am told under this bill, to go under the Block Grant Program; 40
would be eligible within 2 years. This is not some narrow, finely
crafted amendment. This is a wholesale assault on the Food Stamp
Program. That is what this is.
I do not think that is what this Senate ought to be doing. I do not
think that is what this Congress ought to be doing.
Further, there is no guarantee under this legislation that protects
children who are now eligible. There is no individual guarantee to
children in this legislation. And most serious of all, there is
absolutely no protection for a State that is hit by a natural disaster
or a sharp economic downturn. That is the reality of the underlying
legislation.
I do not think we want to take that risk with America's kids. I do
not think we want to take that risk with the States that may face
something they are wholly unprepared for.
What is going to happen in California? What if California opted in
and decided in July of a year that the next year they were going to be
block granted? They are going to take a set amount of money for food
stamps. And then California has the big one, has a huge earthquake, and
millions of people are displaced and hungry, and they show up at
Federal centers looking for food assistance. Are we really going to
have a system that says that we are sorry, California is out of money;
you just are going to have to go hungry, and maybe you can go over to
Nevada and find some food over there?
This is not well thought through, this provision of block granting
food stamps. We ought to make this change, the change that is contained
in this amendment.
I say to my friend that he has established a new standard. The
standard here is it is good because it passed the Senate sometime in
the past, or that it is acceptable because it passed the Senate
sometime in the past. That is a new standard. I do not think that is
the standard we want to apply in judging whether or not legislation is
well-crafted.
I am afraid all too often things that have passed this Chamber,
perhaps even things that passed the other

[[Page S8354]]

Chamber, are things that need a lot more work. And that is why we have
offered this amendment on a bipartisan basis.
Mr. SANTORUM addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania is recognized.
Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, from the numbers that I have, I have
four States that would be eligible for block grant under the EBT
provision, seven States would be under the error rate of under 6
percent. That is out of 53 jurisdictions that are eligible for the
program. So I have 11 jurisdictions of 53 that would be eligible today,
not 40.
Now, I will say that all 53 jurisdictions are eligible, if the States
are willing to pay down the error rate. That would be unlikely, we
suspect, for any jurisdiction that would want to put up money, State
money in advance to get a Federal block grant. So what we are looking
at here is 11 States today.
Now, the Senator from North Dakota may be anticipating a lot more
States going on with electronic benefits transfer, and I know that is
being worked on in several States, but as we speak right now we are
looking at 11 jurisdictions. So this is not opening the floodgates by
any stretch of the imagination.
What the Senator also has talked about is the State of Florida being
stuck if, in fact, they get hit with a bad economy and on top of that,
in the case of Florida, a natural disaster.
I suggest that if the Senator from North Dakota looks at his chart,
he will see several--I cannot tell the months or years, but an extended
period of time where the rate did not go up, the number of people on
food stamps did not go up. As I said before, under our program, States
would be able to save a portion of the money, up to 10 percent of the
annual block grant, and let it go into next year. So they could build
up a rainy day fund or a reserve fund for bad times.
Now, if you look at the Florida example, and let us say Florida is
one of those States that is a little skittish and wanted to get out,
before Hurricane Andrew there looked to be a substantial period of time
where benefits were increasing fairly dramatically prior to the
hurricane. So they certainly would have had ample notice of a rising
food stamp roll and been able to get out, if they were concerned, well
before the hurricane.
That is just using Florida's example. They would have been able to
get out during the period of economic downturn, but I think what is
more important is that they are able to plan for this by taking the
good times--and we have, as in most capitalist economies, economic
business cycles. During the good times, they can save some money, and
during the bad times, they can draw down that surplus.
The Senator from North Dakota also indicated that they would not be
able to pay these people benefits; they would run out of money. Well,
the Senator knows that hurricane, I think, occurred sometime in the
summer, which is only halfway through the year.

At that point, they still have half the block grant left. They could
move that funding forward and fill that need and then come in at the
end, I would suspect, with State dollars to make sure they get to the
end of the year. The State can always put up their own money to fill
the need and, in fact, having created a plan which creates an
entitlement for food stamps, they would be required to come up with
their own money. Then they have to make the decision, as I said before,
whether they want to continue a program that puts them at some sort of
risk. My feeling is that is a decision for the States to make.
But to suggest that the State will have no money to pay people food
stamps is just not accurate. They will have the money. It will be their
own money, not the block grant. But that is the choice they make. The
Governors and State legislators are not stupid. They know there are
good times and there are bad times, there are natural disasters, and on
balance they are going to make a decision that they can run a program
so much better than we let them run it today that, given all these
exigencies, and they know they exist, they are going to run a better
program and save money in the process.
That is a decision we leave up to them to make. We trust the
Governors in the State. We trust State legislators to be able to sit
down and rationally come up with a decision, that they want to take
responsibility for this because they can do it better and serve the
needs of their people better. I want to give people the option to do
it, but there are sufficient safeguards that they have a good program
to start, which is why these hurdles are in place, and that they have a
good plan and that they implement it, which is why we require HHS
approval. And if they screw up, frankly, they have a chance to get out.
So we make them have a good plan to start. We require them to submit
a good plan to continue, and if they end up having a lousy plan, they
can get out. That, to me, is as well thought out as you can possibly
get and is as flexible as you can possibly get for an opportunity for
States to take control of this very important program that feeds
millions of people.
I reserve the remainder of my time.
Mr. CONRAD addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota is recognized.
Mr. CONRAD. The problem with the argument of the Senator from
Pennsylvania is that it is wholly focused on what is in the interest of
the State government. What he forgets about is who we are trying to
serve here. We are talking about hungry people. He is worried about
what happens to the structure of the State government. I am worried
about what happens to the people who are hungry in that State if the
State officials make this mistake.
Let us go back to the example of Florida. From 1987 to 1989, their
caseload was flat. Then they had economic downturn and the caseload
started to explode. They did not have advance warning of an economic
downturn. More clearly, they did not have warning of what happened here
where we see the spike in demand for food aid for people caused by a
natural disaster. They would have had to make the decision to go to the
block grant under this proposal back here in July of the previous year.
Now, unless they were prophetic, they might have thought if they had
a pattern like they saw back in 1987 to 1989, it was safe to take a
block grant. But then if they would have had a natural disaster like
Andrew, what would have happened to the people who were hungry that
lined up for help? The Senator says, well, the State could have put in
their money. That is at the very time the State is having to put their
money into every other part of this disaster.

You go find out about the budget of the State of Florida during this
period. They were under enormous stress because of the combination of
economic downturn and natural disaster. That is the very time this
underlying bill would say: State, come up with some more money.
That is a dream. That is not connected to reality. That is a wish.
That is a hope. People cannot eat wishes and hopes. People need food
when they are hungry. This, to me, is one of those circumstances where
we have before us a proposal that does not meet the needs of the
people. I am not so worried about the State government. I am worried
about the people who in my State or any other State would be denied
food because of an economic downturn or a natural disaster that was
unforeseen, unpredicted, and the State bet the farm that nothing bad
was going to happen.
How much time remains?
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Santorum). Twenty-nine minutes.
Mr. CONRAD. I yield whatever time the Senator from Vermont desires.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont is recognized.
Mr. JEFFORDS. I thank the Senator.
Mr. President, I rise to urge my colleagues to join Senator Conrad,
myself, and our cosponsors in supporting the amendment to remove the
optional block grant from the welfare bill.
I have three major objections to block granting the Food Stamp
Program. First, I am very concerned about the opportunity for fraud if
we turn the Food Stamp Program over to the States. Second, I am fearful
that a food stamp block grant could put our most vulnerable populations
at risk. Finally, I believe the bill as crafted proposes a solid
program that will afford the States a great deal of flexibility without
irretrievably compromising our national nutritional safety net. I think
the program proposed in the bill should be given an opportunity to
prove itself.

[[Page S8355]]

Under current food stamp law, the USDA operates a sophisticated
computer system that identifies suspicious food stamp redemption
patterns. Federal undercover agents visit the suspicious stores and
gather evidence of illegal activity. If food stamps are converted to a
block grant, much of this responsibility will shift to the States. Few
States will be able to match the antifraud capabilities and resources
of this Federal operation. Although I understand the States' desire for
greater flexibility, we know that at this time only a handful have
developed an electronic system that could provide the assurances of
fraud prevention that we have at the Federal level. In this time of
quickly diminishing Federal resources, I am reluctant to sacrifice the
efficiencies and success of the program that the Department of
Agriculture has developed.
Next, let me share my concern that the optional food stamp block
grant would end the assurance of a nutritional safety net under the
Nation's poor--particularly its children. Poor families and elderly
individuals would be left at serious risk during economic downturns in
States opting for the block grant. The block grant fails to provide any
adjustment during a recession for increases in unemployment and
poverty. States also would receive no additional funds in the event
that food prices rise unexpectedly. States would be forced to curtail
eligibility and benefits during these times. Unemployed workers who
need food stamps temporarily could end up on a waiting list--depriving
their families of critical food assistance. After unemployment
compensation, the Food Stamp Program is the Nation's principle
countercyclical tool to respond to recessions.
Block granting the Food Stamp Program puts children at risk.
Preserving national standards for food stamps takes on even greater
importance if the AFDC Program is converted to a block grant since no
poor child is assured of receiving cash assistance under an AFDC block
grant. Maintaining the National Food Stamp Program at least guarantees
that a food assistance safety net of last resort is in place for poor
children. Given this very great risk, I frankly am not sure why a State
would choose a block grant, nonetheless it is possible a State would,
and I fear its poorest citizens could end up suffering the
consequences.
Finally, I believe there is no reason for a State to choose a block
grant--the welfare bill as drafted gives the States unprecedented
flexibility to run their own food stamp programs without a block grant.
Under this reform bill:
States get flexibility to set their own food stamp benefit rules for
families that receive AFDC. If they choose, States could drop many of
the rules that now apply to families, and then substitute their own
rules--without securing a waiver. States also may integrate food stamp
and cash assistance benefit eligibility as they see fit. States have
asked for a long time for this flexibility, and the bill as drafted
gives it to them.
States can convert food stamp benefits to wage subsidies provided to
employers. In other words, States may require food stamp recipients in
wage subsidy projects to work for wages rather than food stamps. Again,
this is something many States have asked for, and the bill as drafted
gives it to them.
States have the flexibility to disqualify custodial parents who do
not cooperate with efforts to establish paternity or child support
orders. States may also disqualify absent parents who fail to make
their child support payments.
States are freed from federally imposed administrative requirements.
The bill lifts an array of Federal requirements regarding food stamp
application forms, the application process, and how States should
coordinate with other assistance programs would be removed. States can
make their own decisions on how to administer their food stamp
programs. This is flexibility the States asked for, and the bill gives
it to them.
I have listed four ways that this bill provides much greater
flexibility to the States than they have ever had in the Food Stamp
Program--and there are many more provisions in the bill that give the
States the flexibility they have asked for with regard to the Food
Stamp Program.
For the reasons described above, I urge my colleagues to join me in
supporting this amendment to remove the optional block grant from the
bill.
Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I am proud to be an original cosponsor of
this amendment to strike the optional food stamp block grant. This bill
provides States ample flexibility to develop their food assistance
programs without a block grant structure. We should not place minimum
national eligibility and benefit floors for this important food
assistance safety net at risk in an effort to provide States with even
more flexibility.
Maintaining the national standards for food stamps is particularly
important under this bill. Children and their families may lose cash
assistance under the welfare block grant--even if parents are unable to
find work. The National Food Stamp Program ensures that a basic food
assistance safety net is still available to these families and prevents
children from being at risk for unmet nutritional needs. If we are
going to cut funding for cash assistance and block-grant the welfare
program, we need to be very conscious of the changes we make to other
safety-net programs that also serve poor Americans.
Block grants will place both States and food stamp beneficiaries at
risk. These block grants would not adjust for increases in unemployment
or poverty, or unexpected increases in food prices. States would need
to stretch their block grant dollars by providing fewer benefits to
each enrollee under these circumstances--or they may be forced to cut
eligibility.
States do not need an optional food stamp block grant. This bill
provides States with substantial new flexibility to design their food
stamp programs. For example:
States could largely develop their own food stamp benefit rules and
they may integrate the food stamp eligibility process with welfare.
Federal requirements for employment and training programs related to
food stamp eligibility would be repealed--States could design these
programs as they choose.
States could convert food stamp benefits to wage subsidies.
Federal rules that make electronic benefit systems difficult to
implement would be repealed, while Federal requirements for food stamp
applications, coordination with other safety-net programs, and other
administrative rules would also be deleted.
These are significant changes to the current Food Stamp Program.
States will be better able to design and administer their programs
using innovative approaches to promoting work and self-sufficiency for
food stamp beneficiaries. We should not also establish a food stamp
block grant, thereby eliminating the national floor for eligibility and
benefits, thereby threatening low-income children and their families.
I encourage my colleagues to join me in voting for this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Santorum). The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, just a couple of quick additional points
so we can, hopefully, persuade the occupant of the chair of the wisdom
of this amendment. I think he is perhaps right on the brink, now, of
coming over to our side. If we can just provide him some additional
information, he will come to our side on this argument.
The Senator from Pennsylvania was indicating that just a handful of
States would be eligible. That strikes me as an indication of the
weakness of their argument. If the argument is this underlying bill is
not so bad because only a handful of States can qualify, that does not
speak very well of the position in the legislation. The fact is, not a
handful of States qualify; every State can qualify. Every State can
qualify. Every State could be in a position of not meeting the needs of
hungry people at the time of economic recession or natural disaster.
The facts I have suggest that about half the States now could take
block grant with no cost. Others could come in by paying a small cost.
But within 2 or 3 years, nearly 40 States would be in a position to be
in the block grant at no cost. In addition to that, with respect to
what happens to participation rates during a recession, I have a chart
that shows what has happened in various States during an economic
downturn, during the period of 1989 to 1992, when the country was in a
recession.

[[Page S8356]]

Nevada's participation rate went up over 90 percent; Florida's rate
went up over 100 percent; Delaware's rate went up over 70 percent;
Vermont's rate went up nearly 60 percent. These are not things that a
State does a very good job of forecasting. They even do less well at
forecasting natural disasters.
In my own State of North Dakota, we had a natural disaster back in
1988 and 1989. It was a drought. Nobody forecasted the drought was
coming. Out of the blue we have a drought. All of a sudden our
participation rates jumped, and not just in food stamps, but other
programs as well. Food stamps are different because we are talking
about hungry people. We are talking about preventing people who cannot
get food from having some alternative that is humane.
The Florida example is just as clear as it can be. You have to opt in
the year before. If they had opted in, they would have been stuck with
the level of funding provided for in this block grant. If you look at
it, in 1994, Florida, their actual money, because of the flexibility of
the National Food Stamp Program--they got $1.4 billion. Under the block
grant they would have gotten $440 million. That is a $1 billion hole
that would have had to be filled in somewhere.
The Senator from Pennsylvania suggests they just take it out of other
State money. What other State money? Every State I know budgets their
money right up to the full ability of the State revenue sources to
cover those expenditures. They may have a bit of a rainy day fund, but
it is not enough to cover a natural disaster when the State is faced
with expenditures for all manner of other requirements. They have to
deal with roads. They have to deal with bridges. They have to deal with
all kinds of other extraordinary expenses at the time of a natural
disaster. The last thing we should have people worrying about is
whether, in the midst of a natural disaster, hungry people are going to
get fed. That is what this amendment addresses. I hope my colleagues
will support it.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Jeffords). The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, the Senator from North Dakota keeps
mentioning how, under this program, we are not worried about people who
are in need of food. The very fact is, States must submit a plan to be
approved by HHS to satisfy the Department of Health and Human Services
of that very fact, whether we are going to meet the needs. In fact, we
require them to specify how they are going to serve everybody, and
specific populations.
To suggest we have not set up adequate safeguards to make sure,
through these block grants, people will be adequately served is not
reflective of what is actually in the legislation.
Second, you mentioned----
Mr. CONRAD. Will the Senator yield on that point?
Mr. SANTORUM. Sure.
Mr. CONRAD. I ask my colleague, what in the State plan enables it to
deal with a natural disaster like Hurricane Andrew? The State plan has
the States setting out what they are going to do with the resources
that they have under the block grant. When they are hit with a natural
disaster and the need skyrockets, they are not given any more money.
What good does the plan do that does not anticipate this disaster?
Obviously, they would not be taking the option of going to the block
grant if they were anticipating it, so clearly it would not be in their
plan.
Mr. SANTORUM. To answer your question, as the Senator from North
Dakota knows, the State of Florida during the time of Hurricane Andrew
was eligible for disaster assistance, and that covers a variety of
things. Having just gone through that in Pennsylvania, a substantial
amount of disaster assistance was funneled through the Department of
Agriculture, and, in fact, there are programs available for people to
meet some of the needs that are there during the time of disaster.
Mr. CONRAD. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. SANTORUM. We are not attempting nor would I recommend we block
grant emergency assistance. So you keep pointing back to one State in
one instance and draw a bad case for that. It would be--I am not
arguing there would not be a severe strain. But I suggest the Governor
of Florida and the State Legislature of Florida knows that occasionally
they are hit by hurricanes. It is not like these hurricanes are just,
``Gee, wow, in Florida we had a hurricane. We never see that.'' They
see them all the time and they know they can be disastrous, and that
should go into their calculation whether they want to go into this in
the first place.
We are assuming, and I think it is a good assumption, that the
Governor and the State legislature are not going to take on this
enormous responsibility without having thought through what the
different consequences would be, given natural disasters or given
economic downturn, and a whole lot of other things.
We believe that there still will be States out there that, because of
the enormous burden that the Federal Government forces upon them with
this program that drives up costs for them and makes their program
inefficient, can take the money and take the risk and still do a better
job, and they are willing to assume that risk.
They do so with eyes open wide. If their eyes were not open, they
certainly are open now as a result of our discussion. That if they do
not have the money, if they have an economic downturn or disaster, they
have to come up with their own State money.
I will announce to State Governors now, if you take a block grant
under this proposal and run out of money at the end of the year, it is
your responsibility. Now everybody has been warned, and they are going
to have to make a decision based on what they think is the best thing
to do.
I think what this whole welfare reform bill is about is trying to get
away from the paternalism of the Federal Government and the
inefficiency of the Federal Government in trying to micromanage
programs out of Washington, DC, for Fargo, ND, and other places. What
we are trying to do here is assure, to the extent we can, that States
that get involved have good programs. We make sure they have low error
rates or high technology to run an efficient system.
We ensure that when they take the program, after they now run a good
program, that when they opt for a block grant, which is to cut the ties
to the Federal program, in fact, take it and let them run it
themselves, that they have to submit a plan, which adequately covers
all the people we are concerned about, and is approved by HHS. Again, a
prudent step to making sure they are not taking the money and spending
it on a fleet of Volvos for all the Cabinet Secretaries; that, in fact
they are spending it on helping the poor who need food.
We have adequate safeguards in here to make sure that the poor who
are in need of food assistance get it; that the States run a good
operation. We have those safeguards in place.
One other thing. The Senator from North Dakota voted for in committee
and supported in committee an amendment that was put forward by the
Senator from Vermont, the ranking member, Senator Leahy, as a further,
frankly, disincentive for these States to take a block grant.
Under the old formula, States could either take the 1994 allocation
for food stamps or the average of 1992, 1993, and 1994. Senator Leahy,
and others on your side of the aisle, were saying, ``Gee, well, with
the reductions in food stamp benefits under our bill, that may be a
very attractive thing for them to take--take that high figure, since
our numbers are going to be coming down.''
So what you added in committee was a provision that said that in no
case could either the 1992, 1993, 1994 average or 1994 allocation be
higher than the 1997 levels after the reforms have been put in place.
So you make it even less tantalizing to go ahead and take a block
grant.
All I suggest is, we spent a lot of time on this amendment. It has
been a good debate and discussion. I hope those who were listening are
still listening after an hour of this debate. I think it has been
informative. I think what we have seen here is we set very high
hurdles; we have not made this to be the most attractive block grant
proposal out there. What we have said to States is, ``If you think you
can do it better, given these high hurdles to get into this program, we
are going to give you the opportunity to do it.''

[[Page S8357]]

I think that is only fair to give States the opportunity to run a
better program that helps the people in their State.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Craig). The Senator has 17 minutes 5
seconds remaining.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, the argument of the Senator from
Pennsylvania with respect to a natural disaster reveals the weakness of
his argument. The Senator from Pennsylvania suggests, if you have a
natural disaster and you are stuck with this block grant program that
provides only a set amount of money, it cannot be adjusted for the
magnitude of the disaster, that, well, you have economic assistance.
Economic assistance is not for food assistance, that is why we have
the Food Stamp Program. Economic assistance is to meet the other
disaster needs that a State meets in a circumstance of unforeseen
natural disaster. Economic assistance programs are not designed to
replace the Food Stamp Program.
Mr. President, if that is what he is suggesting is out there for
people to be counting on, if they face a natural disaster, those people
are going to be in a world of hurt.
I might also say, the notion that Governors are put on notice because
we in the Senate have a debate at 3 o'clock in the afternoon on Friday
is probably not a very reliable thing for any of us to depend upon. I
doubt if any Governor is watching this debate or paying very close
attention to what goes on in the Senate Chamber.
Mr. SANTORUM. I will be happy to send each Governor a copy of this
debate so they will be fully informed as to what they are getting into.
Mr. CONRAD. I welcome that. No question, they will be riveted by the
comments of the two of us this afternoon.
Let me just end on this note. The harsh reality is, if a State opts
into this block grant--and we go back to the example of Florida, but we
do not need Florida's example, we could take dozens of examples of what
has happened to States in times of economic downturn or natural
disaster--what we would find, without exception, is that these things
are unpredictable; that if a State had opted into the block grant,
taken a flat amount of money to provide for the food needs of its
people and then have something unforeseen occur, whether it was an
economic downturn, a drought, a hurricane, an earthquake, they only
have that set amount of money, no matter what the need is.
What happens to those people? What would have happened to hungry
people in Florida if there was not the automatic adjustment provided by
the Federal Food Stamp Program? I can tell you what would have
happened. The State of Florida would have been presented with an
impossible choice: meet the other disaster needs of the State in that
circumstance or divert money to food which would have otherwise been
provided for with the Federal Food Stamp Program.
What a hellacious choice to present the State officials of Florida or
the State officials of Pennsylvania. They have had natural disasters.
They just had one. Or the State of North Dakota, or the State of
California. We saw California beset by one disaster after another. We
saw them have landslides, fires, earthquakes all in 1 year. Their
caseload skyrocketed. But if they would have had a set amount of money
for food stamps, some people who had legitimate needs would not have
been served.

Mr. President, America is better than that. America is better than
that. This Senate is better than that. When there is a disaster, we
have a spirit of neighborliness in this country and we go to help out.
When there was a disaster in Pennsylvania, the Federal Government
helped out. When there was a disaster in my State, the people of
America rallied, through their Federal Government, and helped us, and
it made a difference in people's lives.
This bill, as it is written, is just a mistake. We should not leave a
circumstance in which people who are hungry do not have the opportunity
to be fed.
This amendment, which is a bipartisan amendment, addresses that need.
I hope my colleagues will support it.
Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of our time.
Mr. CONRAD. I yield back the balance of our time.

Amendment No. 4935

(Purpose: To deny welfare benefits to individuals convicted of illegal
drug possession, use or distribution)

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on
behalf of Senator Gramm of Texas.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. Santorum] for Mr. Gramm
proposes an amendment numbered 4935.

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:

On page 364, between lines 14 and 15, insert the following
new section:

SEC. . DENIAL OF BENEFITS FOR CERTAIN DRUG RELATED
CONVICTIONS.

(a) In General.--An individual convicted (under Federal or
State law) of any crime relating to the illegal possession,
use, or distribution of a drug shall not be eligible for any
Federal means-tested public benefit, as defined in Section
2403(c)(1) of this Act.
(b) Family Members Exempt.--The prohibition contained under
subsection (a) shall not apply to the family members or
dependants of the convicted individual in a manner that would
make such family members or dependents ineligible for welfare
benefits that they would otherwise be eligible for. Any
benefits provided to family members or dependents of a person
described in subsection (a) shall be reduced by the amount
which would have otherwise been made available to the
convicted individual.
(c) Period of Prohibition.--The prohibition under
subsection (a) shall apply--
(1) with respect to an individual convicted of a
misdemeanor, during the 5-year period beginning on the date
of the conviction or the 5-year period beginning on January
1, 1997, whichever is later; and
(2) with respect to an individual convicted of a felony,
for the duration of the life of that individual.
(d) Exceptions.--Subsection (a) shall not apply with
respect to the following Federal benefits:
(1) Emergency medical services under title XV or XIX of the
Social Security Act.
(2) Short-term, non-cash, in-kind emergency disaster
relief.
(3)(A) Public health assistance for immunizations.
(B) Public health assistance for testing and treatment of
communicable diseases if the Secretary of Health and Human
Services determines that it is necessary to prevent the
spread of such disease.
(e) Effective Date.--The denial of Federal benefits set
forth in this section shall take effect for convictions
occurring after the date of enactment.
(f) Regulations.--Not later than December 31, 1996, the
Attorney General shall promulgate regulations detailing the
means by which Federal and State agencies, courts, and law
enforcement agencies will exchange and share the data and
information necessary to implement and enforce the
withholding of Federal benefits.

Mr. SANTORUM. This amendment, to my understanding, is an amendment
that says that if you are convicted of a Federal drug crime, that if it
is a misdemeanor crime you are ineligible for a means-tested benefit
for 5 years, if it is a felony you are ineligible permanently. I ask
for the yeas and nays on the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There appears to
be.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. GRAHAM addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.

Amendment No. 4903

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Exon, I ask unanimous
consent that the amendment offered and withdrawn by the Senator from
Washington, Senator Murray, remain on the list of amendments that are
in order to offer today or Monday.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. GRAHAM. Thank you, Mr. President.
Mr. President, I am going to be offering an amendment prior to that.
I also ask unanimous consent that the amendment which I am going to
offer be subject to modification prior to the time of the vote on
Tuesday.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. GRAHAM. Thank you, Mr. President.

Amendment No. 4936

(Purpose: To modify the formula for determining a State family
assistance grant to include the number of children in poverty residing
in a State)

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

[[Page S8358]]

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

The Senator from Florida [Mr. Graham], for himself and Mr.
Bumpers, proposes an amendment numbered 4936.

Mr. GRAHAM. 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 196, strike line 16 and insert the following:
Defined.--Except as provided in subparagraph (C), as used
in this part, the term
On page 198, between lines 9 and 10, insert the following:
``(C) Rules for fiscal years 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, and
2001.--
``(i) In general.--Notwithstanding subparagraph (A), in the
case of fiscal years 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001, the
State family assistance grant for a State for a fiscal year
shall be an amount equal to the sum of--
``(I) the applicable percentage for such fiscal year of the
State family assistance grant for such fiscal year, as
determined under subparagraph (B), and
``(II) an amount equal to the State child poverty
allocation determined under clause (iii) for such fiscal
year.
``(ii) Applicable percentage.--For purposes of this
subparagraph, the applicable percentage for a fiscal year is
as follows:

The applicable
``If the fiscal year is: percentage is
1997.................................................................80
1998.................................................................60
1999.................................................................40
2000.................................................................20
2001.................................................................0.

``(iii) State child poverty allocation.--For purposes of
this subparagraph, the State child poverty allocation for a
State for a fiscal year is an amount equal to the poverty
percentage of the greater of--
``(I) the product of the aggregate amount appropriated for
fiscal year 1996 under subparagraph (G) and the child poverty
ratio for such State for such fiscal year, as determined
under clause (iv); and
``(II) the minimum amount determined under clause (v).

For purposes of this clause, the poverty percentage for any
fiscal year is a percentage equal to 100 percent minus the
applicable percentage for such fiscal year under clause (ii).
``(iv) Child poverty ratio.--For purposes of clause (iii),
the term `child poverty ratio' means, with respect to a State
and a fiscal year--
``(I) the average number of minor children in families
residing in the State with incomes below the poverty line, as
determined by the Director of the Bureau of the Census, for
the 3 preceding fiscal years; divided by
``(II) the average number of minor children in families
residing in all States with incomes below the poverty line,
as so determined, for such 3 preceding fiscal years.
``(v) Minimum amount.--For purposes of clause (iii), the
minimum amount is the lesser of--
``(I) $100,000,000; or
``(II) an amount equal to 150 percent of the total amount
required to be paid to the State under former section 403 for
fiscal year 1995 (as such section was in effect on June 1,
1996).
``(vi) Reduction if amounts not available.--If the
aggregate amount by which State family assistance grants for
all States increases for a fiscal year under this paragraph
exceeds the aggregate amount appropriated for such fiscal
year under subparagraph (G), the amount of the State family
assistance grant to a State shall be reduced by an amount
equal to the product of the aggregate amount of such excess
and the child poverty ratio for such State.
``(vii) 3-preceding fiscal years.--For purposes of clause
(iv), the term `3-preceding fiscal years' means the 3 most
recent fiscal years preceding the current fiscal year for
which data are available.
``(D) Publication of allocations.--Not later than January
15 of each calendar year, the Secretary shall publish in the
Federal Register the amount of the family assistance grant to
which each State is entitled under this paragraph for the
fiscal year that begins on October 1 of such calendar year.
On page 198, line 10, strike ``(C)'' and insert ``(E)''.
On page 200, line 11, strike ``(D)'' and insert ``(F)''.
On page 200, line 17, strike ``(C)'' and insert ``(E)''.
On page 200, line 23, strike ``(C)'' and insert ``(E)''.
On page 201, line 5, strike ``(C)'' and insert ``(E)''.
On page 201, line 20, strike ``(C)'' and insert ``(E)''.
On page 201, line 25, strike ``(C)'' and insert ``(E)''.
On page 202, line 5, strike ``(C)'' and insert ``(E)''.
On page 202, line 9, strike ``(E)'' and insert ``(G)''.
Beginning with page 205, line 4, strike all through page
211, line 3.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, if there is one phrase that has
characterized the debate on welfare reform, it is the phrase that ``we
are going to end welfare as we have known it.'' What we have known
welfare as has a number of dimensions. We have focused a great deal of
attention, for instance, on the issue of what will it take to cause
welfare to be seen as a temporary program, not as a permanent
lifestyle.
There is another dimension to welfare as we have known it. And that
is how the Federal Government has participated financially with the
States in financing the cost of welfare. And I speak specifically to
the cash payments under the Aid to Families with Dependent Children.
The current law is essentially a matching formula in which the States
indicate what they are prepared to commit to this program and then the
Federal Government matches that amount. There are nuances to that
statement but that is fundamentally the status quo.
This bill, with a minor modification, intends to retain that aspect
of welfare as we have known it. That is, we would continue to maintain
the State by State Federal allocations as they have developed under the
current system. And those State by State allocations, as you would
imagine, are extremely divergent.
As an example, to use the State of the Presiding Officer, Idaho, in
1996, per child in poverty--that is of all the children in Idaho who
live at or below the poverty level--if you divide the number of dollars
that are coming from the Federal Government to the State of Idaho by
that number of children, the result is $495. That is what Idaho
receives per poor child.
Just to move across the line into your adjoining State of Washington,
the State of Washington, with the same mathematical formula, in 1996
will receive $1,948 or approximately four to five times, per child in
poverty, what Idaho receives.
That result is now going to be cast into the stone of block grants.
That is the basis upon which Idaho will be receiving its money between
now and the year 2001 so that essentially those same discrepancies will
be maintained.
What has not been retained, however, Mr. President, is what is the
purpose of the allocation of funds. Under the current system, the
purpose of the allocation of funds from the Federal Government to the
States and into the eligible families is essentially economic support.
It pays for the rent, the lights, the food, the school supplies, the
diapers, all the things that a family needs.
What we are now about to do is shift to a different goal. And that
different goal is to, yes, continue to provide some economic support,
but with a heavy emphasis on funding those activities which will
facilitate people getting off of welfare and into work.
What are those kinds of activities that are now going to be funded?
Well, they include job training. They include child care. They include
some of the support services such as transportation for people to get
to the job training or to get to the job. Those types of expenditures,
within a range, tend to be fairly consistent from State to State.
It does not cost a great deal less or more to provide that set of
services in Moscow, ID, as in Spokane, WA. Yet Washington is going to
have four to five times as many dollars per child in poverty to pay for
those services as is Idaho. Therefore, Idaho is going to have a much
more difficult time financially in terms of being able to pay for those
kinds of transitional services and have anything left over to cover the
economic needs of families who are in poverty than will States that
commence this process at a much higher level.
That, Mr. President, is the preface for the amendment that is offered
today by Senator Bumpers and myself entitled ``Children's Fair Share.''
And our premise is that we ought to, over time, have as a national goal
to treat each child in poverty in America as being of equal worth, and
equal dignity and equal importance to their opportunities for the
future of our Nation.

Our approach is a simple one. Rather than take the status quo, which
is predicated on the old welfare system and the old objectives, we
should focus on a needs-based formula. As a result, over time, States
would receive funding based on the number of poor children in their
State.
Why are Senator Bumpers and I offering this amendment? Any formula

[[Page S8359]]

allocation should be guided by some underlying principles and policy
justifications. One fundamental principle is fairness--fairness to
America's children, fairness to the States, fairness to the Nation. If
we are going to block grant welfare, we must be very careful that we
are block granting with fairness.
The General Accounting Office issued a report in February 1995
entitled, ``Block Grants: Characteristics, Experience, and Lessons
Learned.'' What are the lessons that have been learned from our
previous history with block grants that we should take into account as
we start on the block grant for welfare?
The General Accounting Office report stated, ``Because initial
funding allocations used in current block grants were based on prior
categorical grants, they were not necessarily equitable.'' That, Mr.
President, describes the circumstance that we face this afternoon with
this legislation--inequitable allocations of block grant funds because
they were based on prior categorical grants.
Senator Bumpers and I propose a funding formula that would clearly
meet the following principles. First, block grant funding should
reflect need or the number of persons in the individual States that
would need assistance. Think about that principle, that one that seems
rational.
Second, a State's access to Federal funding should increase if the
number of people in need of assistance increases; conversely, a State's
access to Federal funding should decrease if the number of people in
need of that assistance decrease. Does that sound logical and
reasonable?
Third, States should not be permanently disadvantaged because of the
old categorical policies. In this case, the policies and circumstances
surrounding welfare as we have known it, which we are attempting to
discard.
Fourth, if requirements and penalties are to be imposed upon the
States, as envisaged by this bill, then fairness dictates that all
States have an equitable and reasonable chance of reaching those goals.
Mr. President, I suggest these principles sound rather simple. In
sharp contrast, the legislation which is before the Senate fails to
meet these tests of fairness. In fact, the formula used in this bill
would perpetuate inequities into the future. Those inequities would, in
fact, grow.
Let me give an example. I cited the example of two neighboring
States, Idaho and Washington. Let me cite two neighboring
jurisdictions, the District of Columbia and the State of Virginia.
Today, the District of Columbia per child in poverty receives $1,611;
in the State of Virginia, $728. That is what the situation is today.
Now, what is the proposal of the underlying bill for the year 2001?
Are we going to bring these together? Are we going to move toward
eliminating the $680 difference between the District of Columbia and
the State of Virginia? Unfortunately, it is just the opposite, Mr.
President. In the year 2001, under the plan that is before the Senate,
the District of Columbia will receive $1,752 per child in poverty; the
State of Virginia will receive $748. Rather than closing toward
fairness, we will see a widening in which, in the year 2001, the
District of Columbia will have approximately $1,000 more per child in
poverty than does the State of Virginia. I find it hard to think of a
policy rationale that would justify such a result.

Mr. President, ironically, in the name of reform, in the name of
change, we are locking in past inequities, repackaging them as block
grants and failing to take into account future populations or economic
changes among the States, failing to take into account the very
obligations we are about to give to the States to perform and the
necessity that if all States are going to achieve those objectives and
if all States are going to be held to both sanctions and rewards for
their success or failure in achieving those objectives, that all States
should commence this new adventure of welfare reform from an
essentially equitable position.
By allocating future spending on the basis of 1995 allocations, this
bill fails to distribute money based on any measure of need. It fails
to take into account population growth or economic changes. It would
permanently disadvantage States well into the future based upon choices
and circumstances of 1995. It would unfairly impose penalties on
States.
The formula in this welfare bill would result in extreme disparities
between States in Federal funding for poor children. I have given four
examples to date. I might say all of these examples and all of the
statistics I am using are the product of a report done by the
Congressional Research Service dated July 18, 1996.
In this report, it points out that under the underlying bill the
State of our leader, the State of Mississippi, would receive $355 per
child in poverty, while the State of New York would receive $1,998, or
almost six times more than the poor child in Mississippi. In fact, if
we combine the amount per poor child in the States of Alabama,
Arkansas, Louisiana, South Carolina, and Texas, the total of funds per
poor child in those five States would not equal what a poor child, for
instance, in the State of Massachusetts would receive. To put it
another way, the Federal Government effectively values some poor
children five times more than it does children in the State of Alabama,
Arkansas, Louisiana, South Carolina, and Texas.
That is not the end of it, Mr. President, because under this bill,
States that fail to meet the work requirements, States that are not
able to put the money into effective job training, job search, job
placement, child care, transportation, the other activities that have
been found as necessary in order to get people from welfare to work,
they are going to be subject to a penalty.
Now, in a previous version of this bill, that penalty was 5 percent
of the State's grant. So if the State was going to receive $1 million,
it would be penalized 5 percent if it failed to meet the work
requirement. This bill, Mr. President, if we believe it, makes that 5
percent cumulative, so that in the first year, you are penalized a
percent; if you fail in the second year, you get penalized 10 percent;
in the third year, you get penalized 15 percent, and so forth, up until
you are penalized one quarter, or 25 percent of your State grant.
That is not the only penalty in this bill, Mr. President. The
language goes so far as to say a State can be penalized up to 25
percent per quarter in terms of the allocation of grant funds.
Mr. President, today is a historic day. It is the opening of the
centennial Olympics in Atlanta. Much of the world's focus for the next
few days will be on Atlanta and on the Olympic events. I would liken
this funding formula dilemma to a variation of one of the most
celebrated contests in the Olympics. Let us say you have Dennis
Mitchell and Gail Devers lined up at the start of the 100-meter dash.
Then you have a less talented runner lined up 30 yards behind these two
Olympic superstars. Then you have Senator Bumpers--who, unfortunately
could not join us this afternoon, but will make some remarks on
Monday--and I, who have been assigned a position 200 yards behind these
superstars. The gun goes off. Now, we are all going to be judged on
whether we can reach the finish line in the 100-meter dash in under 11
seconds. If you do, you get the acclaim of the crowd and you may even
get a medal. If not, you are subject to penalty.
Well, not surprisingly, Dennis and Gail reach that goal easily. The
runner that started 30 meters further behind makes it in about 13 or 14
seconds, failing to meet the goal despite a valiant attempt. Now,
Senator Bumpers and I, I hate to admit, we do not even come close to
making the goal. Even Michael Johnson, the world-record holder, can
only run the 200-meter dash in 19.66 seconds. However, even he would be
penalized in this scenario. That would be a travesty of the Olympic
spirit. That would be a sad race to observe.
But, Mr. President, it gets worse. Since Senator Bumpers and I lost
the race, and the runner at 130 yards also failed to meet the standard,
we would have to move further back for the next race. Since they had
reached the goal, Dennis and Gail would move 10 meters closer for the
next race.
That is essentially the structure of this bill. Those who start out
in an advantaged position are placed in the prospect that they will get
rewards because they have achieved the goals. Those who start--as
Senator Bumpers

[[Page S8360]]

and I are going to have to do--200 yards behind the regular starting
line and therefore have relatively little expectation of reaching the
goal, we are going to be further penalized, now having to be 300 yards
behind the starting line.
That, Mr. President, is an absurd result. However, it is exactly the
situation that our States must deal with if this bill passes with its
combination of funding formulas, incentives, and penalties.
Mr. President, as we change welfare as we know it, we should recommit
ourselves to the value that we place upon all of America's children. We
should want to see that all of those children have the same opportunity
to succeed and that they start from the same place in life's starting
line. There is no justification for poor children to be treated with
less or more value by the Federal Government depending upon in which
State they happen to live.
Mr. President, I urge the adoption of the Graham-Bumpers amendment.
Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment. I
will respond as to why. The Senator from Florida repeatedly talked
about how those States that are currently disadvantaged that are way
behind from the start are going to get put further behind, as if the
States who were far behind were there--as I heard this term a lot on
the floor--through ``no fault of their own.'' I hear that all the time.
They are disadvantaged for no fault of their own. The fact is that the
reason they are so far behind is directly a result of the decisions
that those States made with respect to how much money they want to put
forward in State dollars to help the poor in their States.

If you look at the chart of the Senator from Florida, the majority of
the States that are advantaged, according to him, by the current system
are States like New York, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Ohio, California New
Jersey--those States who have invested significant State dollars in
AFDC, Medicaid, and a lot of other programs that are aimed at helping
the poor. They are high-benefit States; they are States that are
willing to spend tax dollars to meet a Federal match, to help the poor
in their State. Therefore, they have a higher per capita spending rate
on the poor than States like Florida, Texas, Arkansas, and the others.
So when it comes to them redoing the formulas in a block grant, we
look at what States are spending now and what the Federal Government
puts in now. What the Federal Government puts in now is based on what
the State puts in. It is a match. So the Federal share, yes, in
Pennsylvania is higher than it would be if you start all over and say
we are going to pay so much for everybody. But, by doing what, you
would take Pennsylvania and a program in Pennsylvania that has been
established for a long time and has been supported by the State and
just cut the legs out from under it to give it to a State who has not
been providing those services in the past. How is that fair?
If you want to talk about fair, you have a State actually spending
dollars, putting forth an effort and putting together a program they
believe better meets the needs and is willing to spend money to help
the poor, and you are going to create a block grant and take money away
from them because they were being better neighbors--I will use that
term. I do not think that is fair. The whole premise of the Hutchison
formula--Senator Hutchison was the one who worked tirelessly, and I
mean tirelessly, because there have been a lot of contentious issues I
have dealt with in the area of welfare reform over the past 2 years. I
do not want to use too strong of a term, but nothing approaches the
animosity that is raised on an issue than when you are talking about
dollars for the States back home. That is really where people draw the
line.
So to be able to come up, as we have done, with a compromise formula
that says we want to make sure no one is hurt, that no State is cut,
that they are held harmless in the allocation they get from the Federal
Government, and we set a separate growth fund for States that are
hydro-States to give them money, a separate pot of money, $800 million,
almost $1 billion, to use for growth. Florida gets over $100 million of
the $800 million in that fund. We try to take care of both. For those
who have been doing a good job, spending resources, taking care of the
poor in their States, hold them harmless and, at the same time, provide
for growth for the other States that, frankly, have not been meeting
the national average when it comes to providing services for the poor.
We think that is a fair balance. If we had all the money in the
world, we would give everything to everybody. But we do not. We do not
have enough money to provide the same level for everybody that the
State of New York, for example, provides for their beneficiaries. So we
have to make, as the Senator from Florida, and I am sure everybody
listening, realizes, you have to compromise. This was the compromise we
came up with. Is it perfect? Absolutely not. Is it fair from an
objective standpoint? I think the Senator from Florida can make the
argument that, no, it is not fair. Is it fair given where we had to
start? I make the argument that, yes, given the situation we found
ourselves in, it is. If we were going to redo this and go back to 1965,
instead of developing an AFDC Program, or whatever current revision of
the AFDC Program was created, and start all over, would we have done it
differently? Absolutely. But we are not there. We are here. We have a
history of States that have invested. We have a history of programs.
And to go in and just decimate those programs because of this block
grant, I think would be tragic to a lot of people and a lot of States,
and certainly it would be an enormous hardship on, frankly, the States
that are having some of the very worst budgetary times and a lot of
economic problems like in the Northeast, in the upper Midwest, and in
the case of California and the west coast.

So we think what we have done here is a balance given where we had to
start. It is not--and I agree with the Senator from Florida--from an
objective position, as if we were starting from day one a fair
solution. I will not argue that. But what I will argue is that given
where we had to start, which is a long history of providing services to
the poor, this is the best and the fairest we could come up with given
those set of circumstances and the hand we were dealt.
So, I do not fault at all the Senator from Florida for standing up,
as he has done not only on this bill but last year on several
amendments, and articulately advocating for his State and for other
States that do not get as much money as they think they deserve. He
certainly has a right to do that, and he is certainly justified in
doing that. I think what we have done here is to accommodate him and
his State as best we can given the circumstances, in providing funds
for them to be able to get some more resources.
I will anticipate the comment, which is that it is not enough. I
cannot even argue that it is not enough. But what I am saying is you
would find that the States like Pennsylvania and New York, which are
not going to see any growth at all in their allocation, would tell me
that is not enough. Nobody has enough. This is a situation where
everyone is getting squeezed, and we are hoping that even though they
are getting a smaller allocation, that they will be able to take this
block grant and be able to redesign this program. That is what this is
all about--giving them the flexibility. Yes, less money in a sense, but
more flexibility to be able to design a program that more efficiently
provides for the poor in their States, that more efficiently
transitions people off welfare into productive lives than the current
system does, which will save money if they do so in a proper fashion.
So, we think there is a good balance between enough money and
certainly maximum flexibility to be able to accomplish the purpose
without any additional money, or any change in the funding formulas
here.
I reserve the remainder of my time.
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, let me just make a few points.
The Senator from Pennsylvania has made a very good argument, if we
were going to leave the welfare program as we have known it for the
last three-plus decades. The whole premise of us being here today until
this job is done is that we want to change that welfare system as we
have known it.
So, to say that we are going to change the whole chassis drivetrain

[[Page S8361]]

and other aspects of this vehicle, but keep the engine of how we
distribute the money to pay to make the vehicle mobile, exactly the
same as we had in the past, is, I think, an intellectual disconnect. If
we are going to change the program, we have to look at what is going to
be required on a nationwide basis and on a State-by-State basis in
order to accomplish the objectives of the new--not the old--welfare
system.
The fact is that the change that is going to be most fundamental to
the States is that they are now going to take on the requirement
subject to both carrots and sticks in sanctions to move people from
welfare to work. We have had some experience with this, Mr. President.
Two of the longest term pilot programs in welfare reform are in the
cities of Gainesville and Pensacola, FL. They have been working for
several years to try to determine, not in theory, but in practice, with
real people.
What does it take to get folks off welfare? What does it take to get
them that first job and then get them in the position that they can
hold the job in the future? The fact is it takes, for many of those
people, a significant investment. We have to invest in job training for
people who do not have any job skills. You have to invest in job
placement for people who have never gone out to get a job before. You
have to invest in child care so that there is somebody there to look
after the kids while the mother is in training and in the first months
of employment.
Those all have significant costs. Those costs are within ranges
fairly consistent from State to State across the country. Yet, we are
going to start some States with four, or five, or six times more money
than others with poor children in order to be able to pay for those
common transitional expenses.
I am afraid that we are about to build into the architecture of
welfare reform failure for many States, and then after we have built in
failure, we are going to impose heavy sanctions on those States that
fail, which will make it even less likely that they will be able to
achieve success.
I fear that the result of all of that is going to be that we will
waste several years in accomplishing the objectives that we all see,
which is to move people from dependence to independence and self-
sufficiency and pride that comes with the ability to support oneself,
that we are going to lose that opportunity over the next period as we
start this process with a fundamentally, structurally failed
architecture.
Mr. President, if I thought that we were starting this from a suspect
place but that was just a necessary political accommodation in order to
get off the blocks, and then we would soon be moving towards a greater
level of equity, I could accept that as a pragmatic means of moving
from the old to the new.
Are we going to be making that transition? Let us just look at two of
the States that I cited: the State of Mississippi and the State of New
York. How long under the Hutchison amendment will it take for the State
of Mississippi to reach the State of New York in its funds available
for poor children? Will the Senator from Pennsylvania think that maybe
when we celebrate the 300th anniversary of the country in the year
2076, would we have done it by then? Sadly not. Will we have done it
when we celebrate the 400th anniversary of the country in the year
2176? Mr. President, sadly not.
It will, in fact, not be until the year 2202, exactly 206 years from
today, 2202, before Mississippi will finally close the gap and be the
equivalent of New York. That means that it will be some six to seven
generations before that gap is closed.
My colleague and friend from Pennsylvania is a patient man. He is
prepared to wait until the year 2202 to achieve equity. I am more
impatient. I do not believe that my life expectancy is going to extend
to that year. I would like to see some more reasonable date at which we
will begin to achieve parity among the States so we can then expect the
States to be subject to a parity of sanctions and incentives in terms
of whether they have, in fact, achieved the goal of moving people from
welfare to work.

We have suggested a 5-year transitional plan to achieve that result.
The Senator from Pennsylvania was very gracious in recognizing that
this is a legitimate concern, and I recognize that it is not easy to
do. You have people who have been operating under the old system with
certain sets of expectations. But, frankly, we are asking lots of
people to change their whole pattern. We are asking people who have
been essentially waiting to receive a check once a month now to get up
every day and go to work. That is a change. We are asking communities
that have previously closed the door to employment opportunities for
many of these people to open the door and create the chance for them to
become self-sufficient.
I think that we ought to, as politicians, challenge ourselves, be
willing to make some of the same kinds of adjustments in this new
system. And certainly one of those adjustments ought to be fundamental
fairness in the way we treat American children wherever those children
happen to live in this great Nation.
That is the purpose of the Graham-Bumpers amendment. Mr. President,
as I indicated earlier, by unanimous consent I have reserved the right
to modify this amendment up to the time of the vote on Tuesday. We
would be receptive to further ideas as to how to better achieve this
objective.
I also indicated that my friend and cosponsor, Senator Bumpers, will
utilize some time on Monday to speak further on this matter. I hope
that over the next few days my colleagues will study this issue of
fundamental fairness--the fact that some 35 States would be benefited
as we move, over time, toward fairness--and ask themselves, is it not
time as we change welfare as we have known it to also change a pattern
of expenditure of Federal funds which has seriously disadvantaged many
of the poorest children in America?
Thank you, Mr. President.
Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, if I could just make one quick comment,
and that is I think the Senator's example of Mississippi and New York
actually illustrates the point as to why the formula in the underlying
bill is a fairer formula. To suggest the cost of living to provide for
a poor child in Mississippi is the same as it is to provide for a child
in Manhattan I think is obvious. It is not the same. The cost of living
in a lot of areas in this country is substantially lower than it is
elsewhere. California is one of the States that would be harmed by the
Senator's amendment. There is a much higher cost of living in the
States that are highlighted than in the other States.
So there is a disparity, and one of the reasons that States like
Pennsylvania, California, and New York have to spend more money is
because the Federal grants are set at a flat level, which may be very
adequate for Mississippi but certainly not for New York City or San
Francisco or Philadelphia and a lot of other places. So the States have
had to make up that difference and, in fact, drawn more Federal dollars
as a result. There is in a sense, it sounds, an inequity, that a child
in Mississippi should be given the same as a child in New York when in
a sense the child in Mississippi, to maintain the standard of living,
needs less money than a child in New York, where the cost of living is
higher.
So that is part of what makes these discussions on formulas so
incredibly complex and difficult, and very difficult to resolve. But I
think we have done the best we possibly can.
Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time. If the Senator
from Florida is finished, if he will yield back his time, we will then
move on to the next amendment.
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.
I would like to, however, submit for the Record a list of the
penalties and rewards contained in this bill as a means of underscoring
the discrepancy in the likelihood of States being subject to sanction
or receiving incentives based on the amount of funds that they will
receive under this bill per child in poverty.
I ask unanimous consent that ``Use of Rewards and Penalties for the
Welfare Work Requirements'' be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

[[Page S8362]]

Use of Rewards and Penalties for the Welfare Work Requirements

penalties

Failure to Satisfy Minimum Participation Rates
Failure to Comply with Paternity Establishment and Child
Support Enforcement Requirements
Failure to Timely Repay a Federal Loan Fund for State
Welfare Programs
Failure of Any State to Maintain Certain Level of Historic
Effort
Substantial Noncompliance of State Child Support
Enforcement Program Requirements
Failure of State Receiving Amounts from Contingency Fund to
Maintain 100% of Historic Effort
Failure to Comply with Provisions of IV-A Or the State Plan
Required Replacement of Grant Fund Reductions Caused by
Penalties

rewards

Reduction of Required State Spending from 80% to 72% for
States that Achieve Program Goals
Grant to Reward States that Reduce Out-of-Wedlock Births
Bonus to Reward High Performance States

Amendment No. 4937

(Purpose: To Change retention rates under the food stamp program)

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

The Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. Santorum], for Mr.
Pressler, for himself and Mr. Daschle, proposes an amendment
numbered 4937.

The amendment is as follows:

Beginning on page 70, strike line 21 and all that follows
through page 71, line 3, and insert the following:
``(c) Retention Rate.--The provision of the first sentence
of section 16(a) of the Food Stamp Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C.
2025(a)) is amended by striking ``25 percent during the
period beginning October 1, 1990'' and all that follows
through ``section 13(b)(2) of this Act'' and inserting ``35
percent of the value of all funds or allotments recovered or
collected pursuant to subsections (b)(1) and (c) of section
13 and 20 percent of the value of all funds or allotments
recovered or collected pursuant to section 13(b)(2) of this
Act''.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I want to take a few minutes to explain
the pending amendment. Eliminating food stamp fraud and abuse is of
paramount importance, both in my State of South Dakota and across the
Nation. Clearly, if there are steps that can be taken to curb the
fraudulent use of food stamps, then we, as lawmakers, have a
responsibility to take them. This amendment is one such step, and I
believe it is fundamentally sound policy.
This amendment provides States incentives to police the fraudulent
use of food stamps. By granting States the authority to retain 35
percent of a food stamp overissuance in instances of intentional fraud
and 20 percent in the event of nonintentional overissuance, they are
encouraged to pursue perpetrators to the fullest extent of the law. A
recent study by the South Dakota Department of Social Services
demonstrated unequivocally that a two-tiered system, such as the one
proposed by this amendment, is far more effective at encouraging States
to pursue food stamp fraud than the flat retention rate system proposed
in the underlying reconciliation bill.
Moreover, this amendment has been scored by the Congressional Budget
Office as having no significant cost. I urge my colleagues on both
sides of the aisle to support the amendment.
Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, this amendment has been agreed to by
both sides, and I ask unanimous consent it be agreed to and that the
motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment (No. 4937) was agreed to.

Amendment No. 4930

(Purpose: To strengthen food stamp work requirements)

Mr. HELMS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
Mr. HELMS. I thank the Chair.
I call up amendment No. 4930 which is at the desk, and I ask that it
be stated.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows.

The Senator from North Carolina [Mr. Helms], for himself,
Mr. Faircloth, Mr. Gramm, Mr. Nickles, Mr. Shelby, and Mr.
Smith, proposes an amendment numbered 4930.

Mr. HELMS. 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:

Strike section 1134 and insert the following:

SEC. 1134. WORK REQUIREMENT.

Section 6 of the Food Stamp Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 2015), as
amended by section 1133, is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(o) Work Requirement--
``(1) Definition of work program.--In this subsection, the
term `work program' means--
``(A) a program under the Job Training Partnership Act (29
U.S.C. 1501 et seq.);
``(B) a program under section 236 of the Trade Act of 1974
(19 U.S.C. 2296); or
``(C) a program of employment or training operated or
supervised by a State or political subdivision of a State
that meets standards approved by the Governor of the State,
including a program under subsection (d)(4), other than a job
search program or a job search training program.
``(2) Work requirement.--Subject to paragraph (3), no
individual shall be eligible to participate in the food stamp
program as a member of any household if the individual did
not--
``(A) work 20 hours or more per week, averaged monthly;
``(B) participate in and comply with the requirements of a
work program for at least 20 hours or more per week, as
determined by the State agency; or
``(C) participate in and comply with the requirements of a
program under section 20 or a comparable program established
by a State or political subdivision of a State.
``(3) Exemptions.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply to an
individual if the individual is--
``(A) a parent residing with a dependent child under 18
years of age;
``(B) mentally or physically unfit;
``(C) under 18 years of age;
``(D) 50 years of age or older; or
``(E) a pregnant woman.''.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, as we so frequently say around this place,
I will be brief. The pending amendment, offered by Senator Faircloth
and me, and cosponsored by the distinguished Senator from Texas, [Mr.
Gramm], the distinguished Senator from Oklahoma, [Mr. Nickles], the
distinguished Senator from Alabama, [Mr. Shelby], and the distinguished
Senator from New Hampshire, [Mr. Smith], is very simple. It requires
able-bodied food stamp recipients to go to work for at least 20 hours a
week--if they expect to continue to receive food stamps free of
charge--at the expense, I might emphasize, of those taxpayers who work
40 hours a week or more to pay the bill.
I must be candid--other food stamp proposals do not go nearly far
enough, in my judgment, in making workfare a reality. I do not believe
it is fair to working Americans, many of whom have to work two jobs or
more in order to feed and clothe their families, to have to pay taxes
to support those who are not motivated to get off their rear ends and
join the work force of America.
Who knows, Mr. President, if they tried it, they might like it. If
they are obliged to go to work a little bit for their free food stamps,
they might just be surprised to discover that it is rewarding to work
regularly and permanently like most other Americans have to do.
Excluded from the requirements of this amendment--let me emphasize
this--excluded are young people under 18, although some young people
under 18 are busy many nights shooting each other, parents of
youngsters under 18, physically disabled people, pregnant women, and
people over 50 years of age.
Credible evidence indicates there are at least 12 million able-bodied
people in this country presently receiving food stamps, many without
doing one lick of work to get them. My fellow sponsors of this
amendment and I are simply proposing that these people must start
working for at least 20 hours a week to qualify for free food stamps.
That will leave the other 20 hours for them to get busy and find full-
time jobs so that they can be supported by themselves instead of the
Federal taxpayers.
I am convinced that there are many kinds of honest work for food
stamp recipients to do. The pending amendment allows recipients to sign
up for job training programs at the Federal level as well as for
employment and training programs at the State level.
The pending amendment puts accountability into the Federal Food Stamp
Program by putting an end to

[[Page S8363]]

giving food stamp benefits to able-bodied people who just refuse to
work. If they are not willing to work, then the working taxpayers
should not be forced to finance deliberate idleness.
Mr. President, in a moment I shall move to table my own amendment
because I have been informed that an effort is being contemplated to
try to avoid an up-or-down vote on it. I want to go on record regarding
the significance of what this amendment proposes, and I want all other
Senators to go on record likewise.
So I will move to table this amendment (No. 4930) and ask for the
yeas and nays. And, of course, I will vote against tabling, as will the
other Senators who are cosponsoring this amendment, and I do hope that
there will be enough Senators who will vote against tabling to make it
a viable amendment.
I am quite confident that some attention will be given to how
Senators will vote on this tabling motion. So let me reiterate, just to
make it perfectly clear, that Senators favoring the requirement that
able-bodied food stamp recipients must go to work for at least 20 hours
a week in order to be eligible for free food stamps, those Senators
should vote against tabling this amendment as I will vote against
tabling. Senators not favoring this work requirement for those
receiving free food stamps should, of course, vote aye, in favor of
tabling the amendment sponsored by the Senator from North Carolina.

Therefore, Mr. President, I move to table amendment No. 4930. 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. HELMS. Mr. President, I yield the floor and yield such time as I
may have.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, our colleague, Senator Leahy of Vermont,
was unable to be here this afternoon. He has asked me to make a
statement on his behalf in reference to the amendment that has just
been offered by the Senator from North Carolina.
Speaking on Senator Leahy's behalf:

I oppose the Helms amendment. It would deny food stamps to
millions of unemployed workers, including factory workers who
have worked for 10 or 20 years and then are laid off when a
plant closes. The Helms amendment would replace the tough
work requirements already in the bill with a flat prohibition
on the provision of food stamps to unemployed workers between
the ages of 18 and 50 who are not disabled and do not have
children under the age of 18. The Senate defeated a version
of Senator Helms' amendment last year by a vote of 66 to 32.
Under the Helms amendment, no unemployed worker without a
minor child in the household, no such worker could receive
food stamps unless he or she was working at least 20 hours
per week in a workfare slot. If the worker was furloughed or
laid off, he or she generally would be immediately removed
from the Food Stamp Program.
The amendment does not provide funding to create workfare
positions to which these individuals could be referred. The
amendment simply denies food stamps to laid-off workers who
are looking for a new job but have not yet found one.

Mr. President, I offer that statement in behalf of our colleague,
Senator Leahy.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The record will so note.

Amendment No. 4936

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the
amendment which I offered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to it being in order?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.

Amendment No. 4938

(Purpose: To preserve eligibility of immigrants for programs of student
assistance under the Public Health Service Act)

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I may offer an
amendment on behalf of the Senator from Illinois, Senator Simon.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk for Mr.
Simon and ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Florida [Mr. Graham], for Mr. Simon,
proposes an amendment numbered 4938.

Mr. GRAHAM. 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 Section 2403(c)(2)(H), after ``1965'' and before the
period at the end, add ``, and Titles III, VII, and VIII of
the Public Health Service Act''.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent all time on this
amendment be yielded back.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask the amendment be laid aside.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. GRAHAM. I thank the Chair.
Mr. CRAIG addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, my colleague, Senator Shelby, from Alabama,
will be coming over shortly to lay down an amendment in relation to
adoption tax credit. In cosponsoring this amendment with him to the
welfare reform bill that would provide a refundable tax credit for the
adoption expenses, I am excited about this legislation and feel that
this is an important time to move it.
It has not even been a year since our last joint effort to pass the
amendment to H.R. 4. That amendment was overwhelmingly supported, and I
hope my colleagues will respond to our efforts today in an equally
positive manner. This amendment provides tax credit support to families
as they struggle with the bureaucratic process involving adoption. Many
people who are aware that I have become an adoptive parent recognize
the roadblocks that all of us face when we choose this course in the
process of building a family.
I have had that experience. I do not want others to have the kind of
difficulty that many families do in this process. That is why I have
worked with others to assure that we make all-out efforts to build an
adoption tax credit so that adoptive families, or those who use
adoption to build families, can find it as rewarding and no more
difficult than those who are successful in building a family in a
natural way.
This amendment changes the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 by providing
a refundable tax credit for adoption expenses. It also excludes
employees and military adoption assistance benefits and withdrawals
from IRA's used for adoption expenses from gross income.
What does an adoption tax credit have to do with welfare reform?
Frankly, not much, Mr. President, if we are discussing our current
welfare system, but a great deal, I think, if we are discussing a
dramatically reformed system. Then we want innovation and creativity.
The current welfare system has created a dependence on Federal programs
while the envisioned system encourages independence. Welfare spending
has been growing at an alarming pace, but so has the number of children
living in poverty, and so has the number of children who need families.
Providing a future for these children by uniting them with loving
families who can provide not only their financial welfare but also
their emotional welfare has to be a goal of this Congress. As we move
toward a system that promotes greater strength in the American family,
we ought to encourage efforts like this by using the adoption tax
credit.
Too often we read stories about the tragic experiences couples have
endured in order to adopt a child. It is my hope that our work here
will lead to more happy stories and fewer heartbreaking reports.
Adoption is a too often overlooked option to get the best of all
worlds: uniting a child with a loving, nurturing family. I think we
need to keep focused on that single fact by continuing our efforts to
improve this process.
I am pleased to be here again, with my colleague from Alabama,
Senator Shelby to offer this important amendment today. We need to give
adoptive families a fairer shake. I urge my colleagues to support
improving access to adoption, by voting for the Shelby amendment.
I certainly hope this Senate will respond as willingly as they did on
H.R.

[[Page S8364]]

4 in the inclusion of this amendment in our welfare reform package.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Ashcroft). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, it was my intent to send an amendment to
the desk which would strengthen and accelerate the work requirement
that is contained in this bill. My amendment, in the form of the Levin-
Dole amendment, was added to the Senate-passed welfare reform bill last
September. I offered it, Senator Dole at that time cosponsored it, and
it was adopted.
The reason that I offered the amendment then and support this
approach now is that I believe work requirements should be clear and
should be strong and should be applied promptly.
The amendment would add a requirement that welfare recipients either
be in job training, be in school, or be working in private-sector jobs
within 3 months of the receipt of benefits. That was the heart of the
Levin-Dole amendment.
If private sector jobs cannot be found, then those recipients would
be required to perform community service employment. Community service
employment is the backup in the Levin-Dole amendment, in the approach
which is essential, and it would be required that somebody engage in
that community service within months.
This requirement would be phased in to allow States the chance to
adjust administratively, and States would be permitted the option to
opt out of the requirement by notification to the Secretary of Health
and Human Services.
The bill before us requires welfare recipients to work within 2 years
of the receipt of benefits--2 years. The question is, why wait 2 years?
Why should an able-bodied person receiving welfare benefits not be
required to work for 2 years? That was a flaw in the bill last time,
which was corrected with the Levin-Dole amendment; it is a flaw in this
bill, which would have been corrected in the Daschle substitute; and is
now, hopefully, going to be corrected in a manner that I am going to
describe.
But the heart of my approach, which we have fought for now for 2
years, is that able-bodied welfare recipients who are not in private
sector jobs, who are not in job training, who are not in school, work
within months and not be allowed to go without working for 2
years. There is no reason to wait 2 years when we are talking about
able-bodied people receiving welfare benefits. There is no reason why
those folks should not be working within months.

Last night, I shared with the Democratic and Republican staffs my
amendment, which would do the same thing as the Levin-Dole amendment
did last year. We were informed this morning that the Democratic staff
had been able to clear this amendment on this side. We were awaiting
clearance on the Republican side.
Earlier today, Senator D'Amato offered an amendment on this subject.
We have now had a chance to review the D'Amato amendment. The D'Amato
amendment, with one or two very technical changes, is the Levin-Dole
amendment. So we are happy to cosponsor the D'Amato amendment. It is
indeed the same amendment.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be listed as a
cosponsor of the D'Amato amendment immediately following Senator
D'Amato's name.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, when the D'Amato amendment was offered,
since the Democratic staff had not had an opportunity to review the
amendment to see if it was the same amendment, to see whether or not it
could be cleared on this side, it was not cleared on this side at that
time. As I said, we have subsequently had the opportunity to read this
amendment. It is the same amendment. I am happy to cosponsor it.
I see no particular reason, unless somebody wishes there to be a
rollcall, why this ought to be necessarily held up for a rollcall. It
makes no particular difference to me because I think it will pass
overwhelmingly if it is put to a rollcall.
But I do want to inform the Chair and our colleagues that, as far as
I know, this amendment has been cleared on our side because, in fact,
my amendment had been cleared on this side. So I will yield the floor
and simply state that, should the floor managers wish to have a voice
vote on this amendment at this time, as far as I know on this side that
would be fine.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the so-called Levin-Dole
amendment and the two amendments that I have referred to in my remarks
be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Levin-Dole Amendment No. 2486, as Modified

On page 12, between lines 22 and 28, insert the following:
(G) Community services.--Not later than 2 years after the
date of the enactment of this Act, consistent with the
exception provided in section 401(d), require participation
by, and offer to, unless the State opts out of this provision
by notifying the Secretary, a parent or caretaker receiving
assistance under the program, after receiving such assistance
for 3 months--
(i) is not exempt from work requirements; and
(ii) is not engaged in work as determined under section
401(c)

in community service employment, with minimum hours per week
and tasks to be determined by the State.
____

Amendment To Require TANF Recipients To Participate in Community
Service Employment

Section 402(a)(1)(B) of the Social Security Act, as added
by section 2103(a)(1), is amended by adding at the end of the
following:
``(iii) Not later than 2 years after the date of the
enactment of this Act, unless the State opts out of this
provision by notifying the Secretary, a State shall,
consistent with the exception provided in section 407(e)(2),
require a parent or caretaker receiving assistance under the
program who, after receiving such assistance for 3 months and
is not exempt from work requirements and is not engaged in
work, as determined under section 407(c), to participate in
community service employment, with minimum hours per week and
tasks to be determined by the State.
____

Amendment No. 4927

Section 402(a)(1)(B) of the Social Security Act, as added
by section 2103(a)(1), is amended by adding the end the
following:
``(iii) Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment
of this Act, unless the State opts out of this provision by
notifying the Secretary, a State shall, consistent with the
exception provided in section 407(e)(2), require a parent or
caretaker receiving assistance under the program who, after
receiving such assistance for 2 months is not exempt from
work requirements and is not engaged in work, as determined
under section 407(c), to participate in community service
employment, with minimum hours per week and tasks to be
determined by the State.''

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. SHELBY addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
Mr. LEVIN. I wonder if the Senator would yield?
Mr. SHELBY. Certainly.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. I wonder if I could make inquiry of the manager of the
bill on the other side whether or not it is their wish to continue to
list this, now the D'Amato-Levin amendment, for a rollcall on Tuesday
or whether they would like to have this voice voted now since it has
been cleared on this side.
Mr. ROTH. I say to my distinguished friend from Michigan that, as he
knows, the yeas and nays have been ordered. There are people on this
side who want a recorded vote.
Mr. LEVIN. I thank my friend. And I thank my friend from Alabama.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.

Amendment No. 4939

(Purpose: To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide a
refundable credit for adoption expenses and to exclude from gross
income employee and military adoption assistance benefits and
withdrawals from IRAs for certain adoption expenses)

Mr. SHELBY. 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 Alabama [Mr. Shelby], for himself, Mr.
Craig, Mr. Grams, Mr.

[[Page S8365]]

Coats, and Mr. Helms, proposes an amendment numbered 4939.

Mr. SHELBY. 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:

SEC. . REFUNDABLE CREDIT FOR ADOPTION EXPENSES.

(a) In General.--Subpart C of part IV of subchapter A of
chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to
refundable credits) is amended by redesignating section 35 as
section 36 and by inserting after section 34 the following
new section:

``SEC. 35. ADOPTION EXPENSES.

``(a) Allowance of Credit.--In the case of an individual,
there shall be allowed as a credit against the tax imposed by
this subtitle for the taxable year the amount of the
qualified adoption expenses paid or incurred by the taxpayer
during such taxable year.
``(b) Limitations.--
``(1) Dollar limitation.--The aggregate amount of qualified
adoption expenses which may be taken into account under
subsection (a) with respect to the adoption of a child shall
not exceed $5,000.
``(2) Income limitation.--The amount allowable as a credit
under subsection (a) for any taxable year shall be reduced
(but not below zero) by an amount which bears the same ratio
to the amount so allowable (determined without regard to this
paragraph but with regard to paragraph (1)) as--
``(A) the amount (if any) by which the taxpayer's adjusted
gross income exceeds $60,000, bears to
``(B) $40,000.
``(3) Denial of double benefit.--
``(A) In general.--No credit shall be allowed under
subsection (a) for any expense for which a deduction or
credit is allowable under any other provision of this
chapter.
``(B) Grants.--No credit shall be allowed under subsection
(a) for any expenses to the extend that funds for such
expense are received under any Federal, State, or local
program.
``(c) Qualified Adoption Expenses.--For purposes of this
section, the term `qualified adoption expenses' means
reasonable and necessary adoption fees, court costs, attorney
fees, and other expenses which are directly related to the
legal and finalized adoption of a child by the taxpayer and
which are not incurred in violation of State of Federal law
or in carrying out any surrogate parenting arrangement. The
term `qualified adoption expenses' shall not include any
expenses in connection with the adoption by an individual of
a child who is the child of such individual's spouse.
``(d) Married Couples Must File Joint Returns.--Rules
similar to the rules of paragraphs (2), (3), and (4) of
section 21(e) shall apply for purposes of this section.''
(b) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Paragraph (2) of section 1324(b) of title 31, United
States Code, is amended by inserting before the period ``, or
from section 35 of such Code''.
(2) The table of sections for subpart C of part IV of
subchapter A of chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 is amended by striking the last item and inserting the
following:

``Sec. 35. Adoption expenses.
``Sec. 36. Overpayments of tax.''.

SEC. . EXCLUSION OF ADOPTION ASSISTANCE.

(a) In General.--Part III of subchapter B of chapter 1 of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to items
specifically excluded from gross income) is amended by
redesignating section 137 as section 138 and by inserting
after section 136 the following new section:

``SEC. 137. ADOPTION ASSISTANCE.

``(a) In General.--Gross income of an employee does not
include employee adoption assistance benefits, or military
adoption assistance benefits, received by the employee with
respect to the employee's adoption of a child.
``(b) Definitions.--For purposes of this section--
``(1) Employee adoption assistance benefits.--The term
`employee adoption assistance benefits' means payment by an
employer of qualified adoption expenses with respect to an
employee's adoption of a child, or reimbursement by the
employer of such qualified adoption expenses paid or incurred
by the employee in the taxable year.
``(2) Employer and employee.--The terms `employer' and
`employee' have the respective meanings given such term by
section 127(c).
``(3) Military adoption assistance benefits.--The term
`military adoption assistance benefits' means benefits
provided under section 1052 of title 10, United States Code,
or section 514 of title 14, United States Code.
``(4) Qualified adoption expenses.--The term `qualified
adoption expenses' means reasonable and necessary adoption
fees, court costs, attorney fees, and other expenses which
are directly related to the legal and finalized adoption of a
child by the taxpayer and which are not incurred in violation
of State or Federal law or in carrying out any surrogate
parenting arrangement. The term `qualified adoption expenses'
shall not include any expenses in connection with the
adoption by an individual of a child who is the child of such
individual's spouse.
``(c) Coordination With Other Provisions.--The Secretary
shall issue regulations to coordinate the application of this
section with the application of any other provision of this
title which allows a credit or deduction with respect to
qualified adoption expenses.''
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for part III
of subchapter B of chapter 1 of such Code is amended by
striking the item relating to section 137 and inserting the
following new items:

``Sec. 137. Adoption assistance.
``Sec. 138. Cross references to other Acts.''

SEC. . WITHDRAWAL FROM IRA FOR ADOPTION EXPENSES.

(a) In General.--Subsection (d) of section 408 of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to tax treatment of
distributions) is amended by adding at the end the following
new paragraph:
``(8) Qualified adoption expenses.--
``(A) In general.--Any amount which is paid or distributed
out of an individual retirement plan of the taxpayer, and
which would (but for this paragraph) be includible in gross
income, shall be excluded from gross income to the extent
that--
``(i) such amount exceeds the sum of--
``(I) the amount excludable under section 137, and
``(II) any amount allowable as a credit under this title
with respect to qualified adoption expenses; and
``(ii) such amount does not exceed the qualified adoption
expenses paid or incurred by the taxpayer during the taxable
year.
``(B) Qualified adoption expenses.--For purposes of this
paragraph, the term `qualified adoption expenses' has the
meaning given such term by section 137.''
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
1996.

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise today to offer an amendment on
behalf of myself, Senators Craig, Grams, Coats, and Helms. The
amendment will help provide, Mr. President, homes for thousands of
children who are waiting to be adopted in this country. This amendment
is the same amendment which was agreed to by a vote of 93 to 5 right
here in the Senate during its consideration of welfare reform this past
fall.
Mr. President, this strong bipartisan vote shows that the Senate is
committed--committed--to making adoption more affordable for working
families in America.
Mr. President, regardless of what kind of welfare reform we pass in
this Chamber, the grim reality is that the out-of-wedlock birthrate in
this country is projected to reach 50 percent very soon after the turn
of the century, which is only a few years away.
Mr. President, we are not far from having one out of every two
children born in this country born into a home where there is no
father. That is a profound change in our culture which will have
enormous consequences for American society as we have known it. One of
these consequences, no doubt, will be an increase in the number of
children neglected and, yes, abandoned. It is therefore more important
than ever--more important than ever--for us to help find ways to
provide for these children.
Mr. President, study after study shows and common sense tells us that
a child is much better off being adopted by a stable, two-parent family
than being shipped around from foster homes to State agencies, and back
again. There are currently hundreds of thousands of children in America
waiting to be adopted. But the current financial burden prevents many
parents from doing so.
Many people do not realize how expensive it is to adopt a child.
There are many fees and costs involved with adopting a child, including
maternity home care, normal prenatal and hospital care for the mother
and the child, preadoption foster care for an infant, ``home study''
fees and, yes, legal fees. These costs range anywhere from about
$13,000 to $36,000 according to the National Council for Adoption.
Mr. President, I know of many families in my State, and perhaps your
State, that would love to adopt a child into their family but simply do
not have $13,000, much less $36,000 to do so. As a result of this
enormous cost, children are denied homes, and parents are denied
children.
Mr. President, the amendment I am offering today will help make
adoption financially possible for many children and families. It
provides a $5,000 fully

[[Page S8366]]

refundable tax credit for adoption expenses. It also provides that when
an employer pays for adoption expenses incurred by an employee, the
employee does not have to count that assistance as income for taxable
purposes.
Finally, Mr. President, this amendment provides that withdrawals from
an IRA can be made penalty free and excluded from income if used for
qualified adoption expenses. These measures are a first step in tearing
down the massive financial barriers to adoption in this country.
Mr. President, I believe the question before us today is not if the
number of abandoned children is going to increase over the next few
years; no one disputes that. We know the answer to that. The real
question for us to answer is, what are we going to do about it? This
amendment would be a big first start in America. I yield the floor.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. ROTH addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I agree with my good friend, Senator Shelby,
that we need tax incentives to promote adoptions. Adoption is good for
the child, is good for the family, and it is good for society. It was
for this reason that the Finance Committee unanimously passed out of
committee an adoption tax credit bill.
The Shelby amendment, unlike the Finance Committee adoption tax
credit bill, provides a refundable tax credit. The Finance Committee
decided against a refundable credit in its legislation because of the
very, very serious history of problems we have had with fraud in
refundable credits.
I also point out that unlike the Shelby amendment, the Finance
Committee bill, which, as I said, passed out of the committee
unanimously, provides not only a $5,000 credit for non-special-needs
adoptions, but also a $6,000 credit for special-needs adoptions. I
think this is a very important provision of this legislation that
addresses a very, very special need.
Going back to the Shelby amendment, I must point out also that it is
not paid for. If the Shelby amendment were to pass, we would be
required to find additional savings in the welfare bill of $1.515
billion over the next 6 years. The Finance Committee bill, on the other
hand, is fully offset.
Let me also say that I have been assured by the majority leader that
he will schedule the adoption tax credit legislation which passed out
of the Finance Committee for floor consideration before the end of the
year.
Although I strongly support giving tax incentives for the promotion
of adoptions, Senator Shelby's amendment is not germane to the welfare
legislation. Therefore, it is my intent when the time on this amendment
has expired to make a point of order.
Mr. SHELBY. The Senator from Delaware talked about refundables. Why
do we have in our bill a refundable tax credit? Basically, because many
low-income people in America want to adopt a child and would not have
the $5,000 tax liability, and thus would not benefit as much from the
Finance Committee proposal. The adoption community supports our
version. I hope the Senate will continue to support it.
I yield back the remaining time, if the Senator from Delaware will
yield back his time.
Mr. ROTH. I make the additional comment that under our legislation,
the tax credit can be carried over for 5 years. I believe, therefore,
we have addressed the problem about which Senator Shelby is concerned.
I yield back the balance of my time. It is my understanding the
Senator has yielded back his time.
Mr. SHELBY. I yield back my time.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I make a point of order against the Shelby
amendment under sections 305 and 310 of the Budget Act on the grounds
that the amendment is not germane.
Since the amendment, if adopted, would reduce revenue by $1.515
billion over the next 6 years, I also make a point of order against the
amendment under section 310(d)(2) of the Budget Act.
Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I move to waive any provisions of the
Budget Act which might impinge upon 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. LEVIN. Mr. President, the Frist amendment is a sense of the
Senate amendment which would state the view of Congress that the
President should ensure that the Secretary of the Department of Health
and Human Services approve some 22 welfare waiver requests submitted
from 16 States.
I cannot support such a sweeping blanket amendment.
My own State of Michigan has a waiver application pending which was
submitted late in June which contains some 75 individual waivers. This
request has much merit. The proposal contains work requirements which
seem to be similar to legislation which I succeeded in adding to the
Senate-passed welfare reform bill last year and which I will offer to
this bill. However, we have not been given any opportunity to evaluate
the various waiver requests of the other 15 States embodied in this
amendment. We just do not know the details of welfare waiver
submissions from Utah or Georgia or Kansas or Wyoming or other States
included in the amendment.
The President and the Department of Health and Human Services have
approved more than 60 waivers, more than any previous President. I
support this kind of flexibility. I hope that before this session of
Congress ends, we will have, in law, comprehensive bi-partisan welfare
reform which makes such waivers unnecessary.
I want to comment on several other amendments to the pending
legislation.
I cannot support two Ashcroft amendments which would mandate that
States take specific actions with respect to drug testing and with
respect to recipients who have not immunized their children. The
underlying bill permits States to test welfare recipients for use of
illegal drugs and to sanction recipients who test positive. The bill
also does not preclude States from sanctioning recipients who are
negligent in failing to properly immunize their children. Requiring
States to take these actions is not consistent with the intent of this
legislation which is to provide greater flexibility to the States to
better design their specific welfare measures in ways that better suit
needs and circumstances in their States and localities.
I support the Graham amendment to strike certain provisions relative
to legal, I repeat, legal, immigrants. The underlying bill goes too far
because it would deny food stamps to severely disabled legal immigrants
who have worked, and then become disabled, and because it would take
food stamps away from legal immigrants, who waited their turn and came
here under the rules, retroactively. I will support a Feinstein
amendment which would make the prohibition against legal immigrants
receiving food stamp assistance prospective. That is more fair. That
will serve as a warning to future immigrants that they cannot expect to
receive these benefits, but it does not yank the rug out from under
legal immigrants who have played by the rules.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, the country's primary welfare program--
aid to families with dependent children [AFDC]--is a failure, both for
those participating in it and for those paying for it. What started as
a well-intentioned program in the 1930's to help widows today has
become an enormous program that takes basic American values--work,
reward for work, family, and personal responsibility--and turns them on
their head.
The incentives in the current welfare system contradict our shared
values and motivates harmful behavior by welfare recipients. Today's
welfare program financially rewards parents who don't work, don't
marry, and have children out-of-wedlock.
The program is failing to move welfare recipients off dependency and
into the work force. It is a factor in the breakdown of two-parent
families and the buildup of teen pregnancy. AFDC started as a program
to assist families in poverty but now is seen as a program that
perpetuates poverty.
Mr. President, there is bipartisan agreement that our welfare system
must be changed so welfare incentives reward our society's shared
values of work, marriage, and personal responsibility. Both parties
have included work requirements as integral parts of their welfare
proposals. I believe that

[[Page S8367]]

Democrats and Republicans alike wish to use our Nation's welfare
programs to combat social ills--particularly the growth in out-of-
wedlock pregnancies among teenagers. I am convinced that members of
both parties are concerned with the impact of any type of welfare
reform on children--who comprise 9 of the 14 million recipients of
Federal AFDC dollars.
The first priority for welfare reform is to put welfare recipients to
work. The public demands that we stop giving cash to adults on welfare,
and start giving them jobs, and they're right. Virtually all welfare
experts, both liberal and conservative, agree that work and its rewards
are the solution to the welfare crisis.
We have considerable experience with work programs. The Job
Opportunities Basic Skills Program, which has come to be known as JOBS,
was passed in 1988 under the leadership of Senator Moynihan.
Evaluations of the JOBS Program that have been conducted have shown
that the programs have had some success; they have begun to make a
difference.
Our experience with that program has taught us several important
lessons. First, programs that emphasize placing welfare recipients in
jobs as quickly as possible are the most successful and cost-effective.
Inevitably, setting placement as a priority creates a degree of
conflict with other program goals such as assisting in training and
education. Yet, long delays in job placement can occur while welfare
recipients are routed through a succession of training programs.
Second, assessing recipients' individual needs and addressing those
needs is critical to placing them successfully. Do they have
appropriate child care? Do they need supplementary education or
training? Do they have the skills and ability necessary for the
proposed job? Little purpose is served in placing a welfare recipient
in a job if their child care needs can not be addressed, transportation
to and from the job is unworkable, or special skills are needed.
Third, successful programs form strong links with local employers and
work hard to maintain those links with the local employers, who are the
source of the jobs. The work requirements in the bill before us will
apply to over 1.5 million adults. By comparison, approximately 4
million individuals currently work at or below the minimum wage.
Finding jobs for an additional 1.5 million adults, without simply
displacing current workers, is going to be a massive challenge.

I am pleased that the current legislation includes funds for a
performance bonus to States that move people into real jobs and off of
welfare. In the current welfare system, income maintenance is the
focus--processing applications and mailing checks to people. The
welfare proposals that I voted against last fall, equated reform with
savings rather than returning recipients to work. We must change that
focus, and put a premium on getting people into the work force, where
their lives can be sounder on a sounder foundation. States that embrace
the ``work first'' philosophy and turn their welfare systems into
effective employment offices ought to be rewarded. Otherwise, a welfare
maintenance system will be perpetuated.
The performance bonus requires the Secretary of Health and Human
Services (HHS) to develop and publish a formula that allocates the
bonus fund to States based on the number of welfare recipients who
become ineligible for cash assistance because of employment in an
unsubsidized job. The incentive payments provided by this amendment
will be distributed based on the State's success in getting long-term
recipients off welfare and into lasting jobs and on the unemployment
conditions of a State.
I am also pleased to introduce amendments to reduce teen pregnancy
and help young mothers and their children avoid the cycle of long-term
welfare dependency. As part of last year's welfare debate, I joined
with Senator Conrad to introduce an amendment that proposed numerous
provisions to prevent teen pregnancy. Most of the provisions in that
amendment are included in the bill before us, and I appreciate that
very much. The legislation requires teen mothers to live at home or in
safe, adult-supervised living arrangements--so-called second chance
homes. It establishes national goals regarding education strategies and
reduction of pregnancy rates. It includes a sense of the Senate
provision attacking pregnancies that result from statutory rape.
However, there is more that can be done. The birth rate for single
teenage parents has tripled since 1960, signaling that the battle
against teenage pregnancy is ever more critical. The power to change
any community must involve an internal structure at the grassroots
level. The battle against teenage pregnancy must begin at the local
level, because changing the attitudes and behavior of teens requires an
intimate, hands-on involvement.
My amendment requires States to dedicate 3 percent of their share of
the title XX social service block grant--an amount equal to $71.4
million--to programs and services that stress to minors the difficulty
of being a teenage parent. By teaching minors to delay parenthood,
these programs will infuse our children with a clear understanding of
the consequences of teenage childbearing.
I will also offer an amendment to reduce the incidence of statutory
rape in the Nation which many studies link to teenage pregnancies in
the Nation.
Shockingly, the majority of the men who father the families of
teenage mothers are adults. The National Center for Health and
Statistics reported in 1991 that almost 70 percent of births to teenage
girls were fathered by men age 20 or older. Moreover, the younger the
mother, the greater the age gap between her and the father. There are
men who are impregnating girls age 14 and younger, and they are on
average 10 to 15 years older, according to a 1990 study by
the California Vital Statistics Section. Similar studies bear out this
result.

These adult men are impregnating an increasing number of girls age
11-14. Despite a slight drop in the overall teen birth rate in the last
few years, the birth rate for girls age 14 and under increased 26
percent in the late 1980's. These girls are not just young mothers--
they are children. And sexual predators are taking advantage of their
inability to form and articulate a decision about their bodies. In
order to choose abstinence for young girls and to make this choice
clear to adult men, the Federal Government must focus some resources on
predatory adult men in order to both stop and hopefully dissuade them
from their illegal behavior.
Kathleen Sylvester of the Progressive Policy Institute says that the
most recent research indicates that in those States where awareness of
this problem has been raised, prosecutors have organized themselves to
be aggressive and obtained adequate sentences for convicted offenders.
California, Connecticut, and New York have all established special
units in their district attorneys' offices to target sexual predators
and counsel their victims. Florida is getting tough as well. Pending
legislation would charge a man over the age of 18 who has intercourse
with a girl under the age of 15 with second-degree statutory rape, a
felony. To spur the other States to follow their example and stop these
criminals, the Federal Government must send them unequivocal proof that
we are serious in this intent.
To this end, I applaud the inclusion in the present bill that it is
the sense of the Senate that States should aggressively enforce
statutory rape laws. I propose an amendment which would add three
additional steps for us to take. First, it appropriates $6 million to
the Attorney General of the United States to fight statutory rape,
particularly by predatory older men who commit repeat offenses. The
appropriation will enable the Justice Department to pay strict
attention to the crime of statutory rape, as part of its violence
against women initiative. The money should be used to research both the
linkage between statutory rape and teen pregnancy, as well as those
predatory older men who are repeat offenders. It should also provide
for the education of State and local law enforcement officials on the
prevention and prosecution of statutory rape.
Second, my amendment requires the States to work to reduce the
incidence of statutory rape. Activities would include the expansion of
criminal law enforcement, public education, and counseling services, as
well as the restructuring of teen pregnancy prevention

[[Page S8368]]

programs to include men. Third, it requires States to certify to the
Federal Government that they are engaged in such activities to stop
statutory rape.
A 1992 sampling of 500 teen mothers revealed that two-thirds had
histories of sexual abuse with adult men averaging age 27. Another
study conducted in Washington State studied 535 teen mothers and
discovered that 62 percent of them experienced rape or molestation
before their first pregnancy, and the mean age of the offenders was 27.
Clearly, the reality of mothers sacrificing educational opportunities
to give birth to fatherless babies and live in poverty is not a choice
but a symptom and a result of a greater problem. Large numbers of older
men are crossing legal and social boundaries to engage in sexual
activity with girls below the age of consent, and thereby emotionally
rob them of their power to say ``no'' in later years.
This bill makes strides in demanding the responsibility of fathers.
It stipulates and enforces their duty to own up to their paternity, to
pay child support, and to set a good example for their children by
working in private sector or community service jobs. It should further
impress upon a certain group of men their duty to refrain from sexually
preying on young girls and dispossessing them of their fundamental
right to make sexual, educational, and career choices.
Although the American public supports tough welfare measures, they
are reluctant to cut people off and leave defenseless children without
some means of basic support. Welfare reform, therefore, must balance
cutbacks with programs that create training and employment
opportunities. The reform movement must include a component that
provides those on public assistance with the necessary skills and
training required to genuinely compete in the work force. Welfare
reform demands accountability not just from the poor, but from
government as well.
The Senate bill is better than the House bill in many ways. Welfare
must change to focus on work and on personal responsibility--but it
need not be unfair to children. The Senate bill contains more funding
for child care, it maintains existing child protection programs such as
adoption assistance, foster care, and child abuse and neglect. It does
not require, but gives States the option to employ a family cap and to
deny payments to minor, single mothers, and it does not allow States to
penalize mothers who can't work because they can't find or afford child
care.
There are still serious problems with the Senate bill most of which
have to do with the prospects for children who parents are not acting
responsibly.
Under the proposed bill, States can opt out of the Federal Food Stamp
Program and receive a State block grant. This provision will put many
poor children and elderly at risk. Under a flat block grant, States
will be unable to meet the needs of poor families during periods of
recession or high unemployment. The Food Research and Action Center
estimates that S. 1795 will reduce food and nutrition assistance to 14
million children and 2 million elderly persons due to the overall cuts
in the Federal Food Stamp Program.
The bill repeals the Mickey Leland Child Hunger Relief Act which
removed the cap on the food stamp shelter deduction for low income
families. Food stamp shelter deduction provides families who are not
receiving housing aid additional food stamp benefits. The Senate
Finance-passed bill will reduce cash assistance for families who
qualify for this deduction--forcing them to choose between providing
food for their children or paying the rent.
The new legislation will also have a very unfair and potentially very
harmful impact on nearly a million legal immigrants. The bill bans
legal immigrants, many of whom have been here over 10 years, from the
Supplemental Security Income [SSI] assistance program, Medicaid and
food stamps. Recipients of SSI, most of who are poor elderly or
disabled immigrants will remain impoverished. The rapid phase-in-period
will leave many who are currently receiving assistance without any
basic means of support.
The bill also does little to maintain a contingency fund and serious
maintenance of effort requirements for the States. And it fails to
provide sufficient bonuses to States that are successful in moving
welfare recipients into unsubsidized jobs.
This bill is far from perfect, but it can bring some measure of
consistency back to our values and the incentives in our welfare
system. It can lead a national effort to cut down on the number of
people on the welfare rolls and add to the number in to jobs. It can
attack the intertwined problems of teenage pregnancy and welfare
dependency.
There is a tragic link between welfare and a host of other problems
facing our society today, including crime, illegitimacy, drug abuse,
poverty, and illiteracy. This legislation attempts to severe that link.
In effect, we're trying to destroy the welfare cycle and return welfare
to its original purpose--a temporary form of assistance for the very
poor as they seek to work their way out of hard times.
If the promise of the legislation is realized, millions of American
families will move off welfare into real jobs, and we will see a
resulting decrease in poverty, crime, illegitimacy, and an increase in
economic development and family stability.
I hope that my amendments will be adopted so that we can obtain
improvements in the conference committee with the House of
Representatives.

ASSETS FOR INDEPENDENCE AMENDMENT

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, many of the congressional efforts at
reforming the welfare system have focused on the elimination of the
Federal bureaucracy, the devolution of Federal authority, and the
transfer of funds to the State bureaucracy. In some respects, these
reforms may be effective and efficient. In other areas, the devolution
will prove too limited in that authority and funds remain remote from
the people and communities who would most benefit from change and who
are most capable of effecting that change.
Devolution to the States almost certainly will not change one
critical flaw in traditional welfare programs--a focus on income
maintenance and spending instead of a focus on asset-building and
saving. The current welfare system in fact punishes the accumulation of
assets by terminating eligibility for assistance when minimal asset
levels are achieved.
There is then a need to help low-income individuals and families,
whether working or on welfare, to develop and reaffirm strong habits
for saving money and to invest that money in assets rather than
spending it on consumer goods or other items that may not help lift the
individual or family from poverty. There is particularly a need to
focus on the building of assets whose high return on investment propels
them into economic independence and personal and familial stability.
In addition, there is a recognized need to help revitalize low-income
communities by reducing welfare rolls and increasing tax receipts,
employment, and business activity with local enterprises and builders.
Mr. President, the assets for independence amendment approved by the
Senate yesterday would allow States to use part of their block grant
moneys to establish an individual development account [IDA] savings
accounts to help welfare recipients and low-income families build the
family's assets and strengthen its ability to remain independent from
Government income-maintenance programs.
In some respects, IDA's are like IRA's for the working poor.
Investments using assets from IDA savings accounts are strictly limited
to three purposes: purchase of home, post-secondary education, or
business capitalization. These purposes are connected with extremely
high returns on investment and can propel both the communities and the
families benefiting from the home, education, or small business into a
new economic and personal prosperity.
Just how might an IDA work? The individual or family deposits
whatever they can save--typically $5 to $20 a month--in the account.
The sponsoring organization matches that deposit with funds provided by
local churches and service organizations, corporations, foundations,
and State or local governments. With Federal block granted welfare
funds, a State match of these deposits can also be deposited in the
account.
Just what are some of those benefits? Most fundamentally,
participants will develop and reaffirm strong habits for

[[Page S8369]]

saving money. To assist this, sponsor organizations will provide
participating individuals and families intensive financial counseling
and counseling to develop investment plans for education, home
ownership, and entrepreneurship.
In addition, participating welfare and low-income families build
assets whose high return on investment propels them into independence
and stability. The community will also benefit from the significant
return on an investment in IDA's: We can expect welfare rolls to be
reduced; tax receipts to increase; employment to increase; and local
enterprises and builders can expect increased business activity.
Neighborhoods will be rejuvenated as new microenterprises and increased
home renovation and building drive increased employment and community
development.
In fact, it is estimated that an investment of $100 million in asset
building through these individual accounts would generate 7,050 new
businesses, 68,799 new job years, $730 million in additional earnings,
12,000 new or rehabilitated homes, $287 million in savings and matching
contributions and earnings on those accounts, $188 million in increased
assets for low-income families, 6,600 families removed from welfare
rolls, 12,000 youth graduates from vocational education and college
programs, 20,000 adults obtaining high school, vocational, and college
degrees.

Source: Corporation for Enterprise Development, ``The Return of the
Dream: An Analysis of the Probable Economic Return on a National
Investment in Individual Development Accounts,'' May 1995.
IDA's are planned or now available on a small scale across the
country, including Indiana, Illinois, Virginia, Oregon, and Iowa. The
assets for independence amendment has been developed after a review of
numerous, similar, successful programs, and most notably one run by the
Eastside Community Investments community development corporation in
Indianapolis, IN. The amendment incorporates a number of protections
developed with their assistance and based on their experience. For
example, accounts will be held in a trust. In addition, sponsor
organizations must cosign any withdrawal of funds; withdrawals are
strictly limited to home purchase, education, and microenterprise.
I challenge this Congress to consider the $5.4 trillion we have spent
on welfare programs in the past 30 years. Have these programs that
focus on income maintenance been successful? Do we honestly believe
that we can give money to low-income citizens and have them spend their
way out of poverty? Or is it time to consider a new approach, not just
an approach that focuses on a Federal bureaucracy or even a substituted
State bureaucracy, but an approach that empowers families and
communities directly to build assets with high returns on investment--
returns whose economic and personal growth approaches the exponential?
The assets for independence amendment does just this. It does not
concentrate on Government programs but focuses on community efforts to
put high-return assets in the hands of families. I am very pleased that
we have included it in this vital legislation.

Coats-Wyden Kinship Care Amendment

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Coats-Wyden
kinship care amendment, which was agreed to by the Senate last night. I
would like to thank my colleague, Senator Coats, for his assistance
with this important amendment.
Grandparents caring for grandchildren represent an underappreciated
natural resource in our Nation. They hold tremendous potential for
curing one of our society's most pressing maladies: The care of
children who have no parents, or whose parents simply aren't up to the
task of providing children a stable, secure, and nurturing living
environment.
There is such a great reservoir of love and experience available to
us, and more especially to the tens of thousands of American children
who desperately need basic care giving. We provide public assistance to
strangers for this kind of care, but the folks available to provide
foster care homes are in short supply.
It is time that States and the Federal Government begin to promote
policies that open doors to relatives who are ready, willing and able
to care for these children. Some States have already been moving in
this direction for over a decade. Over the past 10 years the number of
children involved in extended family arrangements has increased by 40
percent. Currently, more than 3 million children are being raised by
their grandparents. In other words, 5 percent of all families in this
country are headed by grandparents.
However, in many places States still lack a system that includes
relatives in the decisionmaking process when children are removed from
the home. I have heard case after case of relatives who never heard
from the child protection agency when a grandchild or other related
child was removed from the home. Once the child was taken, extended
family members had no contact and no way of finding out what then
happened to the children. Sometimes brothers and sisters have been
separated and a grandparent has spent years in court trying to reunite
their family.
I have repeatedly heard the frustration of grandparents whose
grandchildren, as far as they knew, disappeared in the night, and once
the children entered the State child protection system they literally
disappeared from their families' lives.
The amendment that we proposed, similar to one that was adopted by
the House last spring, and to language that has been in almost every
welfare bill since then, would give relatives preference over stranger
caregivers when the State determines where to place a child who has
been removed from the home. It's time we start developing policies that
make it easier, instead of more difficult, for families to come
together to raise their children.
As we rethink our child protection system, we need to rededicate
ourselves to looking to families, including extended families, for
solutions. When a child is separated from their parents, it is usually
a painful and traumatic experience. Living with people that a child
knows and trusts gives children a better chance in the world and gives
families a better chance to rebuild themselves.
Again, I thank my colleague from across the aisle, Senator Coats, for
his help with this amendment.
Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

____________________