[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 108 (Monday, July 22, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8395-S8426]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




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

  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report the bill.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 1956) to provide for reconciliation pursuant to 
     section 202(a) of the concurrent resolution on the budget for 
     the fiscal year 1997.

  The Senate resumed consideration of the bill.

       Pending:
       Faircloth amendment No. 4905, to prohibit recruitment 
     activities in SSI outreach programs, demonstration projects, 
     and other administrative activities.
       Harkin amendment No. 4916, to strike section 1253, relating 
     to child nutrition requirements.
       D'Amato amendment No. 4927, to require welfare recipients 
     to participate in gainful community service.
       Exon (for Simon) amendment No. 4928, to increase the number 
     of adults and to extend the period of time in which 
     educational training activities may be counted as work.
       Feinstein-Boxer amendment No. 4929, to provide that the ban 
     on supplemental security income benefits apply to those 
     aliens entering the country on or after the enactment of this 
     bill.
       Chafee amendment No. 4931, to maintain current eligibility 
     standards for Medicaid and provide additional State 
     flexibility.
       Roth amendment No. 4932 (to amendment No. 4931), 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.
       Chafee amendment No. 4933 (to amendment No. 4931), to 
     maintain current eligibility standards for Medicaid and 
     provide additional State flexibility.
       Conrad amendment No. 4934, to eliminate the State food 
     assistance block grant.
       Santorum (for Gramm) amendment No. 4935, to deny welfare 
     benefits to individuals convicted of illegal drug possession, 
     use or distribution.
       Graham amendment No. 4936, to modify the formula for 
     determining a State family assistance grant to include the 
     number of children in poverty residing in a State.
       Helms amendment No. 4930, to strengthen food stamp work 
     requirements.
       Graham (for Simon) amendment No. 4938, to preserve 
     eligibility of immigrants for programs of student assistance 
     under the Public Health Service Act.
       Shelby amendment No. 4939, to provide a refundable credit 
     for adoption expenses and to exclude from gross income 
     employee and military adoption assistance benefits and 
     withdrawals from IRA's for certain adoption expenses.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, let me summarize where we are for 
Senators and staffers. We have used approximately 16 of the 20-hour 
statutory time. Amendments can be offered and debated today between 10 
a.m. and 2 p.m. The amendments have to be on the general list of 
amendments agreed to last Thursday.

[[Page S8396]]

  As of today, we will have disposed of over 23 amendments. We have had 
10 rollcall votes and 13 voice votes. As of Friday night, we have 15 
amendments pending for possible votes beginning tomorrow at 9:30, and 
we could add to that list today as many as another 19 amendments. I am 
not saying we will, but we could if all of those remaining on the 
agreed-on list that we agreed on Thursday night are offered today. So 
it is possible that beginning tomorrow we could have as many as 34 
rollcall votes but certainly at least 20, not counting final passage.
  It is my understanding that the distinguished Senator from Kentucky 
[Mr. Ford], is first. It is on that side.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The distinguished Democratic whip is 
recognized.


                           Amendment No. 4940

(Purpose: To allow States the option to provide non-cash assistance to 
children after the 5-year time limit, as provided in report No. 104-430 
 (the conference report to H.R. 4 as passed during the lst session of 
                          the 104th Congress))

  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for 
its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. Ford] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 4940.

  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 250, line 4, insert ``cash'' before ``assistance''.

  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, this is an amendment that I think could 
almost be accepted. Although we could not agree on the Breaux amendment 
of last week regarding noncash assistance for children, I hope we can 
agree on this one. One of the reasons welfare reform is so complicated 
is that it is usually hard to separate the adults on welfare from the 
children. Many want to get tougher on the adults, especially those who 
have been on welfare for a long period of time. But I do not hear 
anyone who says get tougher on children. This amendment separates those 
issues because it is about how we as a Nation are ultimately 
responsible for the welfare of our children.
  Under the Republican bill, after 5 years, States may not use any 
Federal block grant money to assist families whatsoever. This applies 
to cash and noncash benefits as well. The current bill goes much 
further than H.R. 4, which passed Congress last year and was vetoed by 
the President. In my view, this makes the bill much tougher on 
children. H.R. 4 prohibited cash assistance after 5 years. It did not 
prohibit noncash assistance like vouchers that could be used for 
clothing or medicine or other needs of our children.
  My amendment makes this bill identical to H.R. 4 by allowing States 
to use Federal block grant funds to provide noncash assistance after 
adults on welfare have reached their 5-year limit.
  If you favor State flexibility, you should support this amendment. 
Some supporters of this bill have said State flexibility is one of 
their top priorities, yet on this issue the bill is less flexible than 
H.R. 4. We say send this welfare reform back to the States, but yet we 
say: States, do it the way we tell you to do it. That is not 
flexibility for the States.
  The National Governors' Association supports this amendment. This 
amendment does not increase the cost of the bill, nor add to the 
deficit. It deals with how the Federal block grant funds allocated to 
each State may be used. And so, Mr. President, in a letter dated June 
26, 1996, the National Governors' Conference urged support for an 
amendment to apply the time limit in the bill only to cash assistance.
  I ask unanimous consent that a copy of this letter be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                               National Governors Association,

                                    Washington, DC, June 26, 1996.
     Senate Finance Committee,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Finance Committee Member: The nation's Governors 
     appreciate that S. 1795, as introduced, incorporated many of 
     the National Governors' Association's (NGA) recommendations 
     on welfare reform. NGA hopes that Congress will continue to 
     look to the Governors' bipartisan efforts on a welfare reform 
     policy and build on the lessons learned through a decade of 
     state experimentation in welfare reform.
       However, upon initial review of the Chairman's mark, NGA 
     believes that many of the changes contained in the mark are 
     contradictory to the NGA bipartisan agreement. The mark 
     includes unreasonable modifications to the work requirement, 
     and additional administrative burdens, restrictions and 
     penalties that are unacceptable. Governors believe these 
     changes in the Chairman's mark greatly restrict state 
     flexibility and will result in increased, unfunded costs for 
     states, while at the same time undermining states ability to 
     implement effective welfare reform programs. These changes 
     threaten the ability of Governors to provide any support for 
     the revised welfare package, and may, in fact, result in 
     Governors opposing the bill.
       As you mark up the welfare provisions of S. 1795, the 
     Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act of 1996, NGA 
     strongly urges you to consider the recommendations contained 
     in the welfare reform policy adopted unanimously by the 
     nation's Governors in February. Governors believe that these 
     changes are needed to create a welfare reform measure that 
     will foster independence and promote responsibility, provide 
     adequate support for families that are engaged in work, and 
     accord states the flexibility and resources they need to 
     transform welfare into a transitional program leading to 
     work.
       Below is a partial list of amendments that may be offered 
     during the committee markup and revisions included in the 
     Chairman's mark that are either opposed or supported by NGA. 
     This list is not meant to be exhaustive, and there may be 
     other amendments or revisions of interest or concern to 
     Governors that are not on this list. In the NGA welfare 
     reform policy, the Governors did not take a position on the 
     provisions related to benefits for immigrants, and NGA will 
     not be making recommendations on amendments in these areas. 
     As you mark up S. 1795, NGA urges you to consider the 
     following recommendations based on the policy statement of 
     the nation's Governors on welfare reform.


      THE GOVERNORS URGE YOU TO SUPPORT THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS:

       Support the amendment to permit states to count toward the 
     work participation rate calculation those individuals who 
     have left welfare for work for the first six months that they 
     are in the workforce (Breaux). The Governors believe states 
     should receive credit in the participation rate for 
     successfully moving people off of welfare and into 
     employment, thereby meeting one of the primary goals of 
     welfare reform. This will also provide states with an 
     incentive to expand their job retention efforts.
       Support the amendment that applies the time limit only to 
     cash assistance (Breaux). S. 1795 sets a sixty-month lifetime 
     limit on any federally funded assistance under the block 
     grant. This would prohibit states from using the block grant 
     for important work supports such as transportation or job 
     retention counseling after the five-year limit. Consistent 
     with the NGA welfare reform policy, NGA urges you to support 
     the Breaux amendment that would apply the time limit only to 
     cash assistance.
       Support the amendment to restore funding for the Social 
     Service Block Grant (Rockefeller). This amendment would limit 
     the cut in the Social Services Block Grant (SSBG) to 10 
     percent rather than 20 percent. States use a significant 
     portion of their SSBG funds for child care for low-income 
     families. Thus, the additional cut currently contained in S. 
     1795 negates much of the increase in child care funding 
     provided under the bill.
       Support technical improvements to the contingency fund 
     (Breaux). Access to additional matching funds is critical to 
     states during periods of economic recession. NGA supports two 
     amendments proposed by Senator Breaux. One clarifies the 
     language relating to maintenance of effort in the contingency 
     fund and another modifies the fund so states that access the 
     contingency fund during only part of the year are not 
     penalized with a less advantageous match rate.
       Support the amendment to extend the 75 percent enhanced 
     match rate through fiscal 1997 for statewide automated child 
     welfare information systems (SACWIS), (Chafee, Rockefeller). 
     Although not specifically addressed in the NGA policy, this 
     extension is important for many states that are trying to 
     meet systems requirements that will strengthen their child 
     welfare and child protection efforts.
       Governors urge you to oppose amendments or revisions to the 
     Chairman's mark that would limit state flexibility, create 
     unreasonable work requirements,impose new mandates, or 
     encroach on the ability of each state to direct resources and 
     design a welfare reform program to meet its unique needs.
       In the area of work, Governors strongly oppose any efforts 
     to increase penalties, increase work participation rates, 
     further restrict what activities count toward the work 
     participation rate or change the hours of work required. The 
     Governors' policy included specific recommendations in these 
     areas, many of which were subsequently incorporated into S. 
     1795, as introduced. The recommendations reflect a careful 
     balancing of the goals of welfare reform, the availability of 
     resources, and the recognition that economic and demographic 
     circumstances differ among states. Imposing any additional 
     limitations or modifications to the work requirements would 
     limit state flexibility.

[[Page S8397]]

the governors urge you to oppose the following amendments or revisions 
                          in the area of work

       Oppose the revision in the Chairman's mark to increase the 
     number of hours of work required per week to thirty-five 
     hours in future years. NGA's recommendation that the work 
     requirement be set at twenty-five hours was incorporated into 
     S. 1795. Many states will set higher hourly requirements, but 
     this flexibility will enable states to design programs that 
     are consistent with local labor market opportunities and the 
     availability of child care.
       Oppose the revision in the Chairman's mark to decrease to 
     four weeks the number of weeks that job search can count as 
     work. NGA supports the twelve weeks of job search contained 
     in S. 1795, as introduced. Job search has proven to be 
     effective when an individual first enters a program and also 
     after the completion of individual work components, such as 
     workfare or community service. A reduction to four weeks 
     would limit state flexibility to use this cost-effective 
     strategy to move recipients into work.
       Oppose the revision in the Chairman's mark to increase the 
     work participation rates. NGA opposes any increase in the 
     work participation rates above the original S. 1795 
     requirements. Many training and education activities that are 
     currently counted under JOBS will not count toward the new 
     work requirements. Consequently, states will face the 
     challenge of transforming their current JOBS program into a 
     program that emphasizes quick movement into the labor force. 
     An increase in the work rates will result in increased costs 
     to states for child care and work programs.
       Oppose the revision in the Chairman's mark to increase 
     penalties for failure to meet the work participation 
     requirements. The proposed amendment to increase the penalty 
     by 5 percent for each consecutive failure to meet the work 
     rate is unduly harsh, particularly given the stringent nature 
     of the work requirements. Ironically, the loss of block grant 
     funds due to penalties will make it even more difficult for a 
     state to meet the work requirements.
       Oppose the amendment requiring states to count exempt 
     families in the work participation rate calculation (Gramm). 
     This amendment would retain the state option to exempt 
     families with children below age one from the work 
     requirements but add the requirement that such families count 
     in the denominator for purposes of determining the work 
     participation rate. This penalizes states that grant the 
     exemption, effectively eliminating this option. The exemption 
     in S. 1795 is an acknowledgment that child care costs for 
     infants are very high and that there often is a shortage of 
     infant care.
       Oppose the amendment to increase work hours by ten hours a 
     week for families receiving subsidized child care (Gramm). 
     This amendment would greatly increase child care costs as 
     well as impose a higher work requirement on families with 
     younger children, because families with other children--
     particularly teenagers--are less likely to need subsidized 
     child care assistance.
       Oppose the revision in the Chairman's mark to exempt 
     families with children below age eleven. S. 1795, as 
     introduced, prohibits states from sanctioning families with 
     children below age six for failure to participate in work if 
     failure to participate was because of a lack of child care. 
     This revision would raise the age to eleven. NGA is concerned 
     that this revision effectively penalizes states because they 
     still would be required to count these individuals in the 
     denominator of the work participation rate.


the governors urge you to oppose the following amendments or revisions 
            in the chairman's mark in these additional areas

       Oppose the revision in the Chairman's mark to increase the 
     maintenance-of-effort requirement above the 75 percent in the 
     cash assistance block grant or further narrow the definition 
     of what counts toward maintenance-of-effort.
       Oppose the revisions in the Chairman's mark that increase 
     state plan requirements and include additional state 
     penalties.
       Oppose the amendment to limit hardship exemption to 15 
     percent (Gramm). NGA policy supports the current provision in 
     S. 1795, as introduced, that allows states to exempt up to 20 
     percent of their caseload from the five-year lifetime limit 
     on benefits.
       Oppose the amendment to mandate that states provide in-kind 
     vouchers to families after a state or federal time limit on 
     benefits is triggered (Breaux, Moseley-Braun). NGA believes 
     that states should have the option to provide non-cash forms 
     of assistance after the time limit, but they should not be 
     mandated to do so.
       Oppose the provision in the Chairman's mark to restrict the 
     transferability of funds out of the cash assistance block 
     grant to the child care block grant only. The Governors 
     believe that it is appropriate to allow a transfer of funds 
     into the foster care program or the Social Services Block 
     Grant.
       Oppose a family cap mandate in the Chairman's mark. NGA 
     supports a family cap as an option, rather than a mandate, to 
     prohibit benefits to additional children born or conceived 
     while the parent is on welfare.
       Governors urge you to consider the above recommendations.
           Sincerely,
                                             Raymond C. Scheppach.

  Mr. FORD. The administration supports this amendment, Mr. President. 
In a letter dated July 16, 1996, the acting OMB Director urges the 
adoption of voucher language that protects children.
  I ask unanimous consent that a copy of this letter be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

         Executive Office of the President, Office of Management 
           and Budget,
                                    Washington, DC, July 16, 1996.
     Hon. John R. Kasich,
     Chairman, Committee on the Budget, U.S. House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing to transmit the 
     Administration's views on the welfare provisions of H.R. 
     3734, the ``Welfare and Medicaid Reform Act of 1996.'' We 
     understand that the Rules Committee plans to separate the 
     welfare and Medicaid portions of the bill and consider only 
     the welfare provisions on the House floor.
       We are pleased that the Congress has decided to separate 
     welfare reform from a proposal to repeal Medicaid's guarantee 
     of health care for the elderly, poor, pregnant and people 
     with disabilities. We hope that removing this ``poison pill'' 
     from welfare reform is a breakthrough that indicates that the 
     Congressional leadership is serious about passing bipartisan 
     welfare reform this year.
       It is among the Administration's highest priorities to 
     achieve bipartisan welfare reform reflecting the principles 
     of work, family, and responsibility. For the past three and a 
     half years, the President has demonstrated his commitment to 
     enacting real welfare reform by working with Congress to 
     create legislation that moves people from welfare to work, 
     encourages responsibility, and protects children. The 
     Administration sent to Congress a stand-alone welfare bill 
     that requires welfare recipients to work, imposes strict time 
     limits on welfare, toughens child support enforcement, is 
     fair to children, and is consistent with the President's 
     commitment to balance the budget.
       The Administration is also pleased that the bill makes many 
     of the important improvements to H.R. 4 that we recommended--
     improvements that were also included in the bipartisan 
     National Governors' Association and Castle-Tanner proposals. 
     We urge the Committee to build upon these improvements. At 
     the same time, however, the Administration is deeply 
     concerned about certain provisions of H.R. 3734 that would 
     adversely affect benefits for food stamp households and legal 
     immigrants, as well as with the need for strong State 
     accountability and flexibility. And, the bill would still 
     raise taxes on millions of working families by cutting the 
     Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC).


                  improvements contained in H.R. 3734

       We appreciate the Committees' efforts to strengthen 
     provisions that are central to work-based reform, such as 
     child care, and to provide some additional protections for 
     children and families. In rejecting H.R. 4, the President 
     singled out a number of provisions that were tough on 
     children and did too little to move people from welfare to 
     work. H.R. 3734 includes important changes to these 
     provisions that move the legislation closer to the 
     President's vision of true welfare reform. We are 
     particularly pleased with the following improvements:
       Child Care. As the President has insisted throughout the 
     welfare reform debate, child care is essential to move people 
     from welfare to work. The bill reflects a better 
     understanding of the child care resources that States will 
     need to implement welfare reform, adding $4 billion for child 
     care above the level in H.R. 4. The bill also recognizes that 
     parents of school-age children need child care in order to 
     work and protect the health and safety of children in care.
       Food Stamps. The bill removes the annual spending cap on 
     Food Stamps that was included in H.R. 4, preserving the 
     program's ability to expand during periods of economic 
     recession and help families when they are most in need.
       Child Nutrition. The bill no longer includes the H.R. 4 
     provisions for a child nutrition block-grant demonstration, 
     which would have undermined the program's ability to respond 
     automatically to economic changes and maintain national 
     nutrition standards.
       Child Protection. We commend the Committee for preserving 
     the open-ended nature of Title IV-E foster care and adoption 
     assistance programs, current Medicaid coverage of eligible 
     children, and the national child data collection initiative.
       Supplemental Security Income (SSI). The bill removes the 
     proposed two-tiered benefit system for disabled children 
     receiving SSI that was included in H.R. 4, and retains full 
     cash benefits for all eligible children.
       Work Performance Bonus. We commend the Committee for giving 
     states an incentive to move people from welfare to work by 
     providing $1 billion in work performance bonuses by 2003. 
     This provision is an important element of the 
     Administration's bill, and will help change the culture of 
     the welfare office.
       Contingency Fund. The bill adopts the National Governors 
     Association (NGA) recommendation to double the size of the 
     Contingency Fund to $2 billion, and add a more responsive 
     trigger based on the Food Stamp caseload changes. Further 
     steps the Congress should take to strengthen this provision 
     are outlined below.

[[Page S8398]]

       Hardship Exemption. We commend the Committee for following 
     the NGA recommendation and the Senate-passed welfare reform 
     bill by allowing states to exempt up to 20% of hardship cases 
     that reach the five-year time limit.
       We remain pleased that Congress has decided to include 
     central elements of the President's approach--time limits, 
     work requirements, the toughest possible child support 
     enforcement, requiring minor mothers to live at home as a 
     condition of assistance--in this legislation.
       The Administration strongly supports several provisions 
     included in S. 1795, as reported by the Senate Finance 
     Committee. These provisions include: allowing transfers only 
     to the child care block grant, increasing the maintenance of 
     effort requirement with a tightened definition of what counts 
     toward this requirement, improving the fair and equitable 
     treatment and enforcement language, and eliminating the child 
     protection block grant. We urge the Congress to include these 
     provisions in H.R. 3734.


                      Key Concerns With H.R. 3734

       The Administration however remains deeply concerned that 
     the bill still lacks other important provisions that have 
     earned bipartisan endorsement.
       Size of the cuts. The welfare provisions incorporate most 
     of the cuts that were in the vetoed bill--$59 billion over 6 
     years (including the EITC and related savings in Medicaid) 
     over six years. These cuts far exceed those proposed by the 
     NGA or the Administration. Cuts in Food Stamps and benefits 
     to legal immigrants are particularly deep. The President's 
     budget demonstrates that cuts of this size are not necessary 
     to achieve real welfare reform, nor are they needed to 
     balance the budget.
       Food Stamps. The Administration strongly opposes the 
     inclusion of a Food Stamp block grant, which has the 
     potential to seriously undermine the Federal nature of the 
     program, jeopardizing the nutrition and health of millions of 
     children, working families, and the elderly, and eliminating 
     the program's ability to respond to economic changes. The 
     Administration is also concerned that the bill makes deep 
     cuts in the Food Stamp program, including a cut in benefits 
     to households with high shelter costs that disproportionately 
     affects families with children, and a four-month time limit 
     on childless adults who are willing to work, but are not 
     offered a work slot.
       Legal Immigrants. The bill retains the excessively harsh 
     and uncompromising immigration provisions of last year's 
     vetoed bill. While we support the strengthening of 
     requirements on the sponsors of legal immigrants applying for 
     SSI, Food Stamps, and AFDC, the bill bans SSI and Food Stamps 
     for virtually all legal immigrants, and imposes a five-year 
     ban on all other Federal programs, including non-emergency 
     Medicaid, for new legal immigrants. These bans would even 
     cover legal immigrants who become disabled after entering the 
     country, families with children, and current recipients. The 
     bill would deny benefits to 0.3 million immigrant children 
     and would affect many more children whose parents are denied 
     assistance. The proposal unfairly shifts costs to States with 
     high numbers of legal immigrants. In addition, the bill 
     requires virtually all Federal, State, and local benefits 
     programs to verify recipients' citizenship or alien status. 
     These mandates would create significant administrative 
     burdens for State, local, and non-profit service providers, 
     and barriers to participation for citizens.
       Medical Assistance Guarantee. Even after the proposed 
     removal of the Medicaid reconciliation provisions from H.R. 
     3734, the Administration opposes provisions that do not 
     guarantee continued Medicaid eligibility when States change 
     AFDC rules. Specifically, we are concerned that families who 
     reach the 5 year time limit or additional children born to 
     families that are already receiving assistance could lose 
     their Medicaid eligibility and would be unable to receive the 
     health care services that they need.
       Protection in Economic Downturn. Although the contingency 
     fund is twice the size of that contained in the vetoed bill, 
     it still does not allow for further expansions during poor 
     economic conditions and periods of increased need. We are 
     also concerned about provisions that reduce the match rate on 
     contingency funds for states that access the fund for periods 
     of less than one year.
       State Maintenance of Effort. Under H.R. 3437, States could 
     reduce the resources they provide to poor children. We are 
     deeply concerned that the bill provides the proposed cash 
     assistance block grant with transfer authority to the Social 
     Services Block Grant(SSBG). Transfers to SSBG could lead 
     States to substitute Federal dollars for State dollars in an 
     array of State social services activities, potentially 
     cutting the effective State maintenance of effort levels 
     required for the cash block grant.
       Resources for Work. Based on Congressional Budget Office 
     (CBO) estimates, H.R. 3734 would leave states with a $9 
     billion shortfall over six years in resources for work if 
     they maintained their current level of cash assistance. 
     Morever, the Economic and Educational Opportunity Committee 
     increased this shortfall and cut State flexibility by raising 
     the weekly number of hours that States must place recipients 
     in work activities and increasing the participation rates. 
     The Economic and Educational Opportunities amendments would 
     also create a shortfall in child care funding. As CBO has 
     noted, most states would probably accept block grant 
     penalties rather than meet the bill's participation rates and 
     truly refocus the system on work.
       Vouchers. The bill actually reduces State flexibility by 
     prohibiting States from using block grant funds to provide 
     vouchers to children whose parents reach the time limit. H.R. 
     4 contained no such prohibition, and the NGA opposes it. We 
     strongly urge the adoption of the voucher language that 
     protects children similar to that in the Administration's 
     bill and Castle-Tanner.
       Worker Displacement. We are deeply concerned that the bill 
     does not include adequate protections against worker 
     displacement. Workers are not protected from partial 
     displacement such as reduction in hours, wages, or benefits, 
     and the bill does not establish any avenue for displaced 
     employees to seek redress.
       Family Caps. The House bill reverts back to the opt-out 
     provision on family caps which would restrict State 
     flexibility in this area. The Administration, as well as NGA, 
     seeks complete State flexibility to set family cap policy.
       EITC. The Administration opposes the provisions in H.R. 
     3734 that increase the EITC phase-out rates thereby raising 
     taxes on more than four million low-income working families, 
     with seven million children. In addition, the budget 
     resolution instructs the revenue committees to cut up to 
     $18.5 billion more from the EITC. Thus, EITC cuts could total 
     over $2 billion, and such large increases on working families 
     are particularly ill-conceived when considered in the context 
     of real welfare reform--that is, encouraging work and making 
     work pay.
       We are also concerned that the bill repeals the Family 
     Preservation and Support program, which may mean less State 
     spending on abuse and neglect prevention activities.
       We strongly support the bipartisan welfare reform 
     initiatives from moderate Republicans and Democrats in both 
     Houses of Congress. The Castle-Tanner proposal addresses many 
     of our concerns, and it would strengthen State accountability 
     efforts, welfare to work measures, and protections for 
     children. It provides a foundation on which this Committee 
     should build in order to provide more State flexibility, 
     incentives for AFDC recipients to move from welfare to work; 
     more parental responsibility; and protections for children. 
     It is a good strong bill that would end welfare as we know 
     it. Castle-Tanner provides the much needed opportunity for a 
     real bipartisan compromise and should be the basis for a 
     quick agreement between the parties.
       The President stands ready to work with the Congress to 
     address the outstanding concerns so that we can enact a 
     strong bipartisan welfare reform bill to replace the current 
     system with one that demands responsibility, strengthens 
     families, protects children, and gives States broad 
     flexibility and the needed resources to get the job done.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Jacob J. Lew,
                                                  Acting Director.

  Mr. FORD. As I have stated, my amendment makes the bill identical to 
H.R. 4. If we are serious about passing a welfare reform bill 
acceptable to both the Congress and the administration, why should we 
allow this bill to be even tougher on children than H.R. 4 which the 
President vetoed?
  Mr. President, the American Public Welfare Association also supports 
this amendment. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of a June 26, 1996, 
letter from APWA be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                                   American Public


                                          Welfare Association,

                                    Washington, DC, June 26, 1996.
       Dear Senator: As the Senate Finance Committee considers 
     amendments to S. 1795, the Personal Responsibility and Work 
     Opportunity Act of 1996, the American Public Welfare 
     Association (APWA) urges your commitment to increased state 
     flexibility in the design and implementation of welfare 
     programs in light of the promising reform efforts underway in 
     states throughout the country. Listed below are amendments 
     that may be offered during the Committee's consideration of 
     S. 1795. In accordance with the policies adopted by the APWA, 
     we urge your support or opposition to the following 
     amendments:


                         amendments to support

       Calculation of Work Participation Rate (Breaux): An 
     amendment to count clients who leave welfare for work in the 
     work participation rate calculation. States would be 
     permitted to count their participation for the first 6 months 
     they are engaged in at least 25 hours of work per week in a 
     private sector job. APWA strongly supports this amendment to 
     credit states with successfully moving welfare clients off 
     welfare and into private sector employment.
       Child Welfare Information Systems (Chafee/Rockefeller): An 
     amendment to extend the enhanced match rate of 75% for 
     federal fiscal year 1997 for the statewide automated child 
     welfare information systems (SACWIS). APWA strongly supports 
     continued funding for SACWIS systems which are critical to 
     improving child welfare services.
       Title XX Reductions (Rockefeller): An amendment to reduce 
     the proposed 20 percent cut in the Social Services Block 
     Grant

[[Page S8399]]

     (Title XX) to 10 percent. APWA urges the adoption of this 
     amendment to reduce cuts in the Title XX Block Grant which 
     states use to provide critical supportive work and family 
     services.


                         amendments to support

       Contingency Fund (Breaux): An amendment to clarify the 
     calculation of state maintenance of effort in the contingency 
     fund. APWA strongly supports this clarification of qualified 
     state expenditures for the purpose of calculating state 
     maintenance of effort.
       Contingency Fund (Breaux): An amendment to modify the 
     contingency fund to provide that states which access 
     contingency fund during only part of the year are not 
     penalized. APWA strongly supports this amendment to ensure 
     that states do not have their federal match rate for 
     contingency funds reduced if these states only require funds 
     for part of the year.
       Child Welfare Services (Chafee): An amendment to retain 
     current law that makes alien children, who do not qualify for 
     AFDC, eligible for IV-E foster care and adoption assistance 
     if they meet the other eligibility requirements. APWA policy 
     supports current law for Title IV-E or its optional block 
     grant proposal for this program. Consistent with this policy, 
     APWA supports retaining this particular provision in current 
     law that has been omitted in the bill.
       Five Year Time Limit (Breaux): An amendment to provide 
     states with the flexibility to use Temporary Assistance to 
     Needy Family (TANF) block grant funds as in-kind assistance 
     to children of families which have reached the 5 year 
     lifetime time limit.


                          amendments to oppose

       Work Exemption (Conrad): An amendment to exempt single 
     parents with children under age 11 who cannot find child care 
     from the penalties for refusing to meet work requirements. 
     APWA opposes this amendment because it would exempt single 
     adults from work requirements, yet financially penalizes 
     states for failure to meet the bills work participation 
     rates.
       Increased Hours of Work (Pressler): An amendment to 
     increase hours of work required per week. APWA opposes this 
     amendment because it fails to provide additional funds for 
     the provision of child care services needed to meet increased 
     hours of work.


                          amendments to oppose

       Decreased Job Search (Pressler): An amendment to decrease 
     the number of weeks job search activities can count towards 
     the work participation rate. APWA supports job search as a 
     valid work activity that should count toward work 
     participation.
       Increase work participation rate (Pressler): An amendment 
     to increase work participation rates contained in the bill. 
     APWA opposes this amendment because it fails to provide 
     additional funds for placement, child care and other 
     supportive work services needed to meet increased work 
     participation rates.
       Work Participation Rate Penalties (Gramm): An amendment to 
     impose an additional 5 percent penalty on states for 
     consecutive failure to meet the work participation 
     requirements. APWA opposes this amendment to increase 
     penalties on states beyond those contained in the bill.
       Work Participation Rate (Gramm): An amendment to limit to 
     one year the exception to the work participation rate 
     calculation for families with children under 1 year of age.
       Exemption (Gramm): An amendment to allow states to exempt 
     families with children under 1 year of age from the work 
     requirement, but require that such exempt families count for 
     purposes of determining the work participation rate. APWA 
     opposes this amendment because it would exempt single adults 
     from work requirements, yet financially penalizes states for 
     failure to meet the bills work participation rates.
       Work Requirement (Gramm): An amendment to increase the work 
     requirement on families if they receive federally funded 
     child care assistance by: 1) 10 additional hours a week for a 
     single parents and b) 30 hours per week for the nonworking 
     spouse in a two-parent family. APWA opposes this amendment 
     because it fails to recognize the additional funds required 
     for placement, child care and other supportive work services 
     needed to meet increased work requirements.
       Paternity Establishment (Gramm): An amendment to strengthen 
     the requirements for paternity establishment as a condition 
     for receiving benefits, with a state option to exempt as much 
     as 25% of the population. APWA believes states should have 
     the option to impose this requirement, but it should not be a 
     mandate.
       Hardship Exemption (Gramm): An amendment to limit the 
     hardship exemption from the five year lifetime time limit to 
     15 percent from the 20 percent exemption in S. 1795. APWA 
     supports the hardship exemption of at least 20 percent of the 
     entire caseload.
       Thank you for your consideration of these APWA positions. 
     If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or 
     Elaine Ryan at (202) 682-0100.
           Sincerely,
                                            A. Sidney Johnson III,
                                               Executive Director.

  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, we can keep the restriction on cash 
assistance after 5 years, but let us not take a step backward and 
prohibit all forms of noncash assistance. This prohibition is aimed 
directly at our children, and I think it is misguided.
  If we want a welfare reform compromise, if we want to avoid being 
unnecessarily harsh on our children, if we want to maximize State 
flexibility, we should pass this amendment. It is supported by the 
National Governors' Association, and it makes the bill identical to 
H.R. 4, which passed the Congress last year. It does not add to the 
cost of the bill and it promotes State flexibility.
  During the conference last year, the Governors lobbied hard for this 
particular amendment. I know none of my colleagues take these decisions 
lightly, but I hope you will remember that each one of us will be 
forever wedded to these decisions. We are essentially providing a road 
map for the future, the futures of hundreds of thousands of children in 
this country. Make no mistake about it, 5 or 10 or 15 years from now, 
when these children have become young adults, you and I must take some 
responsibility for their successes or failures.
  Of course, they will have their setbacks, just like you and me. But 
let us assure that those setbacks are not set in motion by the 
decisions we make today. By passing this amendment, I believe one day 
each of us can look at our future parents, doctors, lawyers, farmers 
and teachers, taking pride in our role to assure they grew up with a 
safe place to sleep at night, clothes on their backs, and food in their 
stomachs.
  If we fail to pass this amendment, the children who become trapped in 
lives of mediocrity or fall through the cracks to obscurity will belong 
to us as well.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent a letter from my Governor in 
Kentucky, who is now part of the leadership of the National Governors' 
Association, supporting this amendment be printed in the Record at this 
point.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                         Commonwealth of Kentucky,


                                       Office of the Governor,

                                     Frankfort, KY, July 18, 1996.
     Hon. Wendell Ford,
     Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Ford: As the Senate begins its welfare debate 
     this week, I understand you plan to offer an amendment that 
     would allow states to use federal block grant funds to 
     provide non-cash assistance to the children of welfare 
     families, after a family has reached the proposed five-year 
     lifetime limit on benefits. I am writing to offer my full 
     support of that amendment.
       Welfare has always been a federal-state partnership and 
     responsibility. The federal government must continue to 
     assist states' efforts to support children of welfare 
     parents. To abandon these children after any amount of time 
     is a horrible breach of this partnership and adds up to 
     nothing but an over-burdensome unfunded mandate on the 
     states. As a nation, we have committed ourselves to 
     protecting the lives and well-being of the innocent. In this 
     case, we are talking about the most innocent of all--our 
     children.
       Any welfare reform legislation must include provisions to 
     move recipients to work. I support a tough and responsible 
     approach that makes welfare recipients work and urges them to 
     move off the program. However, any welfare reform must also 
     continue to provide a safety net for those recipients' 
     children. These children have no control over the direction 
     of their young lives.
       It is also conceivable that in a span of 20-30 years, a 
     hard working family trying to carry their own weight in our 
     society and provide for their families could fall on hard 
     times during downturns in the economy. It would be 
     particularly unfortunate to punish these families who are 
     attempting to contribute to society but who from time to time 
     need limited assistance.
       Therefore, I fully support your amendment to insure the 
     federal government does not shirk its responsibility to our 
     children and lay an inappropriate fiscal burden on the 
     states. You will find that other governors across the nation 
     will also support this action. The National Governors' 
     Association, in a June 26 letter to Congress, expressed its 
     support for the content included in this amendment. Congress 
     should defer to this bipartisan support from the nation's 
     governors. After all, it is we governors who will be charged 
     with implementing any national welfare reform program.
       Thank you and please contact me if I can be of any further 
     assistance on this matter.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Paul E. Patton.

  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, the Catholic Bishops' Conference supports 
this amendment. I ask unanimous consent a letter from the Catholic 
Bishops' Conference in support of my amendment be printed in the 
Record.

[[Page S8400]]

  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                     U.S. Catholic Conference,

                                    Washington, DC, July 17, 1996.
       Dear Senator: The Catholic Bishops' Conference has long 
     suggested genuine welfare reform that strengthens families, 
     encourages productive work, and protects vulnerable children. 
     We believe genuine welfare reform is an urgent national 
     priority, but we oppose abandonment of the federal 
     government's necessary role in helping families overcome 
     poverty and meet their children's basic needs. Simply cutting 
     resources and transferring responsibility is not genuine 
     reform.
       As Chairman of the Domestic Policy Committee of the United 
     States Catholic Conference, I share the goals of reducing 
     illegitimacy and dependency, promoting work and empowering 
     families. However, I am writing to you to express our concern 
     about provisions in S 1795, (Senate Budget Committee's 
     Reconciliation report S 1956), which would result in more 
     poverty, hunger and illness for poor children. As the Senate 
     considers this bill, we strongly urge you to support 
     amendments in five essential areas.


                             (1) family cap

       We urge the Senate to support efforts to remove the family 
     cap which denies increased assistance for additional children 
     born to mothers on welfare unless state law repeals it. See 
     the attached briefing sheet on why the ``opt out'' is 
     effectively a mandatory cap which the Senate rejected on a 
     bipartisan basis 66-34. We urge the Senate again to reject 
     this measure which will encourage abortions and hurt 
     children.
       We believe the so-called ``opt-out'' provision is, in 
     reality, a federally mandated family cap because it can only 
     be removed by the unprecedented and extreme requirement that 
     both houses of a state legislative pass and the Governor sign 
     a law repealing the federal mandate. The Bishops' 
     Conference's opposition to the family cap is based on the 
     belief that children should not be denied benefits because of 
     their mothers' age or dependence on welfare. These 
     provisions, whatever their intentions, are likely to 
     encourage abortion, especially in those states which pay for 
     abortions, but not for assistance to these children. These 
     states say to a young woman, we will pay for your abortion, 
     but we will not help you to raise your child in dignity.
       New Jersey is the state with the most experience with a 
     family cap. In May 1995, New Jersey welfare officials 
     announced that the abortion rate among poor women increased 
     3.6% in the eight months after New Jersey barred additional 
     payments to women on welfare who gave birth to additional 
     children. This increase is exactly what pro-life opponents of 
     the family cap predicted. A study conducted by Rutgers 
     University also has shown that the New Jersey law barring 
     additional payments to welfare mothers who have more children 
     has not affected birthrates significantly among those women. 
     The study refutes several earlier announcements that 
     birth rates among New Jersey welfare mothers had dropped 
     dramatically since the state implemented the policy in 
     1992. While state officials recently reported a drop in 
     the birth rate among welfare mothers, officials are wary 
     of linking this deline with imposition of the family cap.
       Although these results are prelimary, the abortion increase 
     coupled with the absence of an association between the family 
     cap and birth rates suggest that the policy of denying 
     children benefits doesn't do much to reduce illegitimate 
     births except by increasing abortions.
       On a related matter, we support efforts to assure that teen 
     parents are offered the education, training and supervision 
     necessary for them to become good parents and productive 
     adults. We also believe that teen parents should be 
     discouraged from setting up independent households and 
     endorsed this approach in our own statement on welfare 
     reform.


                        (2) National Safety Net

       We urge the Senate to permit states to provide vouchers or 
     cash payments for the needs of children after the time limits 
     have been reached. The Senate bill cuts off all assistance 
     after two consecutive years on welfare and five years in a 
     lifetime, regardless of the efforts of the family or the 
     needs of children.
       We support more creative and responsive federal-state-
     community partnership, but we cannot support destruction of 
     the social safety net which will make it more difficult for 
     poor children to grow into productive individuals. We cannot 
     support reform that destroys the structures, ends 
     entitlements, and eliminates resources that have provided an 
     essential safety net for vulnerable children or permits 
     states to reduce their commitment in these areas. Society has 
     a responsibility to help meet the needs of those who cannot 
     care for themselves especially young children. In the absence 
     of cash benefits, vouchers would provide essential support 
     for poor children.


                         (3) Food and Nutrition

       We urge the Senate to remove the optional state block grant 
     and reduce the cuts in food stamps. The Senate bill cuts more 
     than $25 billion in food assistance to poor children and 
     families, permits a state block grant of the federal food 
     stamp program, and cuts single adults (18-50) from food 
     stamps even if they have made every effort to find a job or a 
     training slot.
       We cannot support ``reform'' that eliminates resources that 
     have provided an essential safety net for vulnerable families 
     and children. Over half the cuts in this bill are in the Food 
     Stamp program. These cuts will likely create an even greater 
     burden on children and families when coupled with other 
     changes called for in this bill. The optional food stamp 
     block grant also troubles us. These fixed payments will make 
     it difficult for states to respond to increased need in times 
     of economic downturns.


                      (4) Earned Income Tax Credit

       We urge the Senate to reduce the cuts in the EITC. S 1795, 
     as passed by the Finance Committee, includes $5 billion in 
     EITC cuts, nearly 40% coming from the credit for low-income 
     working families without significant assets. These reductions 
     would affect nearly five million families with children.
       We support real welfare reform which leads to productive 
     work with wages and benefits that permit a family to live in 
     dignity. Real jobs at decent wages, and tax policies like an 
     effective Earned Income Tax Credit [EITC], can help keep 
     families off welfare.


                          (4) Legal Immigrants

       We urge the Senate to permit legal immigrants to receive 
     essential benefits and at the very least to receive health 
     care through Medicaid. The Senate bill denies assistance to 
     all legal immigrants in ``means-tested programs'' (i.e., 
     AFDC, Medicaid, Food Stamps). We urge the Senate to reject 
     this unfair provision and, at least, substitute the less 
     punitive restrictions contained in the recently passed 
     Immigration bill (i.e., permit Medicaid assistance, etc.).
       We cannot support punitive approaches that target 
     immigrants, including legal residents, and take away the 
     minimal benefits that they now receive. The provisions in the 
     Immigration and Reform Act of 1995 [H.R.2202] would at least 
     leave fewer families and children without essential health 
     care and cash supports, even though these provisions go 
     beyond what the bishops would support.
       In summary, we urge you to support genuine welfare reform, 
     not this legislation which simply reduces resources and 
     reallocates responsibilities without adequately protecting 
     children and helping families overcome poverty. Without 
     substantial changes, this legislation falls short of the 
     criteria for welfare reform articulated by the nation's Roman 
     Catholic bishops and we urge you to oppose it.
           Sincerely,

                                     Rev. William S. Skylstad,

                                                Bishop of Spokane,
                                 Chair, Domestic Policy Committee.

  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, the Catholic Conference of Kentucky has 
written a letter endorsing and supporting my amendment. I ask unanimous 
consent it be printed in the Record also.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                              Catholic Conference of Kentucky,

                                     Frankfort, KY, July 19, 1996.
     Senator Wendell Ford,
     Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Ford: As you are well aware from previous 
     correspondence with the Catholic Conference of Kentucky, the 
     Bishops have major concerns about the welfare reform 
     legislation which passed the House on Thursday. The United 
     States Catholic Conference Office of Government Liaison has 
     informed staff that the Senate is expected to take this up 
     immediately. On behalf of the Bishops, I'd like to touch upon 
     key issues with you.
       The Family Cap, which your voting record has been perfect 
     on, will prohibit states from using federal funds to provide 
     cash assistance to children born to current welfare 
     recipients. The ``opt-out'' provision is virtually a federal 
     mandatory cap. We ask you to continue to support removing 
     this prohibition on Kentucky's use of federal funds for 
     Kentucky's children.
       The Social Safety Net would no longer exist as this bill 
     ends the guarantee of basic assistance to poor children and 
     families. Please support any amendments which would allow 
     Kentucky to meet their needs through continued support either 
     as cash payments or vouchers when they reach the time limit.
       The Food Stamp program would experience massive spending 
     reductions. Please support any amendments to remove the 
     optional food stamp block grant and ease the harshness of the 
     provision which terminates food stamps to individuals, 18 to 
     50 years old, who cannot find work.
       Legal Immigrants would be denied benefits when, despite 
     their contributions through work and taxes, they fall on hard 
     times. Please support any amendments which would permit legal 
     immigrants to receive benefits and, at the very least, to 
     receive health care though Medicaid.
       We know that the debate will be heated and the rhetoric 
     will flow, but we know that Kentuckians can look to their 
     Senior Senator for balance. Thanks so much for your 
     consideration of these matters and for all that you do for us 
     in Washington, D.C. Please do not hesitate to call if you 
     have questions concerning any of this. See you at Fancy Farm!
           Sincerely,
                                                   Jane J. Chiles.

  Mr. FORD. So, Mr. President, I think this amendment moves us closer 
to compromise. I urge the adoption of my amendment. As I said earlier, 
this is

[[Page S8401]]

one that ought to be accepted. The distinguished former Governor of New 
Hampshire, on the floor of the Senate last week said, as it related to 
the Breaux amendment, he did not like the first half, but the second 
half of the amendment he liked very much, which is basically the 
amendment I offered here today.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The distinguished chairman of the Budget 
Committee is recognized.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, as I understand it, nothing we are doing 
here today precludes us from raising a point of order on this 
amendment?
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. DOMENICI. If one lies. We are not sure at this point. We are 
going to go see if it does.
  Mr. FORD. If I may say to my friend, Mr. President, the point of 
order would lie against the Breaux amendment. But in talking with the 
Parliamentarian and others, this particular amendment would not have a 
point of order against it. I hope the Senator would not do that.
  Mr. DOMENICI. We are not going to do that unless it lies. If it lies, 
we will do that.
  Mr. FORD. Fine. Let us find out.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Let me say, the arguments have been made more 
eloquently than I can make them. As I understand it, tomorrow, when 
this matter comes up for a vote, we will each have a minute to respond. 
I think I will not respond at this point other than to say clearly 
there are benefits beyond the cash assistance benefit that is being 
modified here. That program called AFDC, the cash assistance, we are 
trying to terminate that as a way of life after 5 years. That does not 
mean that other programs that assist people who are poor, including 
poor children, are terminated by this bill. So voucher-type programs in 
the housing area and others are still going to be available.
  The question is, Do you want to break the cycle of dependency in this 
basic AFDC Program at 5 years, or do you want to break that and then 
start up another one? That is the issue. Do you want to start up a 
whole new bureaucracy of vouchers and the like, or do you want to break 
that dependency and get on with changing the very culture of the 
welfare system.
  I think part of that is what this amendment addresses. We will have 
to decide as a Senate what we want to do about that.
  I yield back any time I have in opposition to the amendment at this 
point. I assume the Senator is going to yield his back shortly, I say 
to my colleague?
  Mr. FORD. Yes, I will.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The distinguished Democratic whip is 
recognized.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, flexibility by the Governors of the various 
States, I think, is very important. Regarding the Governors who will be 
responsible for this, their association has asked they be allowed to do 
this without being cut off.
  Last week they said this amendment would be unnecessary because 
States can already use title XX money, the social services block grant, 
to fund these vouchers. Social services block grant, title XX, is 
simply inadequate to meet those needs. Title XX has been funded at 
essentially the same level since 1991. There is a greater demand on 
these funds today than ever before.
  Title XX funds are used to provide--now listen to this--title XX 
funds are used to provide aid to the homebound elderly. What the 
opponents of this amendment are saying to States is: Choose between 
your homebound elderly and your poorest children, but do not expect any 
State flexibility to use your welfare block grant. That is what they 
are saying.
  I have never seen and heard people being against poor children as I 
have heard for the last several days. Everyone says to Governors, to 
whom we want to give flexibility and give this block grant to, that you 
cannot have flexibility with children. It just does not make sense. I 
have been a Governor. We have had hard times. My State is one of the 
States that has not asked for a waiver. Our welfare rolls are down 23 
percent. It is because of the economy, basically. We still have about 
14 or 15 counties that are in double-digit unemployment. They have 
problems.
  What if we have an economic downturn? We are going to need all the 
flexibility in the States we can have. But we come here and listen, day 
after day after day: ``There are other programs you can use. You can 
use title XX,'' the Republicans said last week. But that is aid to the 
homebound elderly. Are you going to force a Governor to make the 
decision between the homebound elderly and our poorest children? Do not 
expect any State flexibility to use your welfare block grant, Governor.
  Title XX block grants are also used for preventing or remedying 
neglect, abuse, exploitation of children unable to protect their own 
interests, like preventing or reducing inappropriate institutional care 
by providing community-based or home-based care, or other alternatives. 
That is title XX.
  Why not give the Governors and the States the flexibility they are 
asking for? All we are doing is just returning this bill to the same 
position as H.R. 4, in the last session, that most people on the other 
side voted for.
  Now we say, ``Oh, they've got other places.'' This bill allows States 
to exempt 20 percent of the welfare rolls, it does not count time spent 
on welfare as a minor--it allows all these things. But after 5 years, 
you are through. Period.
  If you are going to give them the welfare block grant, they ought to 
have an opportunity. It is just beyond me, after you work your heart 
out to try to eliminate poverty in your State and your counties and 
your cities and you know what needs to be done, that we say up here, 
for sound bites--sound bites--we are going to give it back to the 
States, but we are going to tell the States how to do it. That does not 
make sense to a former Governor. It does not make sense. If you are 
going to put the responsibility on my back, if you are going to put the 
responsibility on a Governor somewhere, give him the ability to make 
decisions and not strip him of that ability, do not keep him in a box 
where he cannot reach out and help children.
  That is all I am asking for, Mr. President, is the ability of a 
Governor to have flexibility to use the money that we send to him, and 
it will be shorter than it is this year. Do not kid yourself about 
title XX. It has not been increased in 5 years. It is the same amount 
of money, and we are growing--more people. The percentage of elderly is 
growing every year, but we are not sending any more money. It is the 
same amount. It has been level, it has been flat for 5 years, and they 
say, take it out of title XX, take it out of homebound elderly, and 
give it to the poorest of children? That is a heck of a choice to give 
to an individual who has the responsibility of leading his State.
  So, Mr. President, I hope that my colleagues will join with me in 
saying to those Governors out there, ``We're going to give you a very 
heavy load to carry, and that load is trying to work out welfare reform 
and make it work in your State.'' Let's not handcuff him or her. Let's 
give him or her the flexibility to do what is in the best interest, 
particularly for children.
  I yield the floor.
  I yield back the remainder of my time.
  Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The distinguished chairman of the Budget 
Committee.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I yield back the remainder of my time.
  I gather now, under previous arrangements, Senator Ashcroft is going 
to offer an amendment. Mr. President, is the Senator ready?
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Yes, I am.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The junior Senator from Missouri is 
recognized.
  Mr. FORD. Will the Senator yield for 10 seconds? I apologize for 
this.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. No problem at all.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Reid be 
added as a cosponsor of my amendment.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. FORD. I thank the Senator from Missouri.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The able Senator from Missouri is 
recognized.

[[Page S8402]]

                           Amendment No. 4941

(Purpose: To provide that a family may not receive TANF assistance for 
more than 24 consecutive months at a time unless an adult in the family 
 is working or a State exempts an adult in the family from working for 
reasons of hardship, and that a family may not receive TANF assistance 
 if the family includes an adult who fails to ensure that their minor 
dependent children attend school or such adult does not have, or is not 
   working toward attaining, a high school diploma or its equivalent)

  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk for 
consideration.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Missouri [Mr. Ashcroft] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 4941.

  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       Strike section 408(a)(8) of the Social Security Act, as 
     added by section 2103(a)(1), and insert the following:
       (8) No assistance for more than 5 years; for failure to 
     ensure minor dependent children are in school; or for failing 
     to have or work toward a high school diploma or its 
     equivalent.--
       (A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraphs (B) 
     and (C), a State to which a grant is made under section 403 
     shall not use any part of the grant to provide assistance--
       (i) to a family that includes an adult who has received 
     assistance under any State program funded under this part 
     attributable to funds provided by the Federal Government--
       (I) for 60 months (whether or not consecutive) after the 
     date the State program funded under this part commences; or
       (II) for more than 24 consecutive months after the date the 
     State program funded under this part commences unless such 
     adult is engaged in work as required by section 
     402(a)(1)(A)(ii) or exempted by the State by reason of 
     hardship pursuant to subparagraph (C); or,
       (ii) to a family that includes an adult who has received 
     assistance under any State program funded under this part 
     attributable to funds provided by the Federal Government or 
     under the food stamp program, as defined in section 3(h) of 
     the Food Stamp Act of 1977, unless such adult ensures that 
     the minor dependent children of such adult attend school as 
     required by the law of the State in which the minor children 
     reside; or,
       (iii) to a family that includes an adult who is older than 
     age 20 and younger than age 51 who has received assistance 
     under any State program funded under this part attributable 
     to funds provided by the Federal Government or under the food 
     stamp program, as defined in section 3(h) of the Food Stamp 
     Act of 1977, if such adult does not have, or is not working 
     toward attaining, a secondary school diploma or its 
     recognized equivalent unless such adult has been determined 
     in the judgment of medical, psychiatric, or other appropriate 
     professionals to lack the requisite capacity to complete 
     successfully a course of study that would lead to a secondary 
     school diploma or its recognized equivalent.
       (B) minor child exception.--In determining the number of 
     months for which an individual who is a parent or pregnant 
     has received assistance under the State program funded under 
     this part for purposes of subparagraph (A)(i), the State 
     shall disregard any month for which such assistance was 
     provided with respect to the individual and during which the 
     individual was--
       (i) a minor child; and
       (ii) not the head of a household or married to the head of 
     a household.
       (C) Hardship exception.--
       (i) In general.--The State may exempt a family from the 
     application of subparagraph (A) of this paragraph, or 
     subparagraph (B) of paragraph (1), by reason of hardship or 
     if the family includes an individual who has been battered or 
     subjected to extreme cruelty.
       (ii) Limitation.--The number of families with respect to 
     which an exemption made by a State under clause (i) is in 
     effect for a fiscal year shall not exceed 20 percent of the 
     average monthly number of families to which assistance is 
     provided under the State program funded under this part.
       (iii) Battered or subject to extreme cruelty defined.--For 
     purposes of clause (i), an individual has been battered or 
     subjected to extreme cruelty if the individual has been 
     subjected to--
       (I) physical acts that resulted in, or threatened to result 
     in, physical injury to the individual;
       (II) sexual abuse;
       (III) sexual activity involving a dependent child;
       (IV) being forced as the caretaker relative of a dependent 
     child to engage in nonconsensual acts or activities;
       (V) threats of, or attempts at, physical or sexual abuse;
       (VI) mental abuse; or
       (VII) neglect or deprivation of medical care.
       (D) Rule of interpretation.--Subparagraph (A)(i) of this 
     paragraph and subparagraph (B) of paragraph (1) shall not be 
     interpreted to require any State to provided assistance to 
     any individual for any period of time under the State program 
     funded under this part.

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I say to the Senator from Missouri, do 
we have a copy of the Senator's amendment?
  Mr. ASHCROFT. The Senator will be pleased to send a copy of the 
amendment to the Senator from New Mexico.
  The Senator from Missouri inquires, should we be operating under a 
time agreement here?
  Mr. DOMENICI. We do not have to. I know of no other Senator prepared 
to offer an amendment. Take as much time as you like. You are entitled 
to an hour.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. I am sure we will be able to accomplish what we need to 
accomplish in substantially less time.
  Mr. President, thank you for this opportunity to offer an amendment. 
I believe that it is important for us in this Congress, and in the bill 
which is before the Senate, to change the character of welfare. That is 
the challenge which is before us. We have to change a system which has 
provided people with a condition--a condition of dependence, a 
condition of relying on others, a condition which has been a trap--and 
we need to change welfare from being a condition to being a transition.
  The welfare situation should be a time when we prepare ourselves for 
the next step in our lives, when we prepare ourselves to be out of 
dependence and out of reliance on others, we prepare ourselves to be 
industrious, to be independent and reliant upon ourselves.
  Welfare cannot be something that is a lifestyle. It has to be 
something that is just for a while. It has to be something that moves 
us forward. I believe there are fundamental components of this bill 
which will do that, but we can enhance them substantially in their 
capacity to change the character of welfare, to change it from a way of 
life, to change it to a way of escape, to change it from a lifestyle, 
to change it to being a transition, to change it from a condition to 
being a transition.
  Mr. President, according to Senator Moynihan, the average welfare 
recipient spends 12.98 years on the rolls. That is a substantial and 
monumental waste of human resource. We have individuals who are 
reliant, who are dependent, whose level of contribution and 
productivity in our culture is very, very, very low, and that 12 years 
is a teaching time as well as a time of existence.
  Unfortunately, that 12 years becomes a time when young people are 
taught dependence instead of independence. They are taught reliance on 
Government instead of self-reliance.
  One of the things we should ask ourselves about everything we do in 
Government is: What does it teach? What does it reinforce? What basic 
principles and values are advanced by it? And a welfare system that 
provides for 12.98 years as the average time a welfare recipient spends 
on the rolls--what about those that are on there longer? This is not 
teaching something that is valuable to our culture. We need to be 
reinforcing, providing incentives for support for a system that does 
not institute a condition for life, making a career of welfare, but 
energizes a transition for life, leaving welfare and going to work.
  The 12.98 years is reflected in the fact that we have had soaring 
rates in the kind of social conditions that intensify the challenge and 
the condition of welfare--a 600-percent increase in illegitimacy over 
the last three decades. I think we can agree that the welfare system we 
now have is a miserable failure, but if we do not build into this 
system things to change the outcomes, we are going to end up with the 
same problems just being tougher and tougher to solve.
  Industrialist friends of mine tell me that whatever system you have, 
you can be assured that it is perfectly designed to give you what you 
are getting, and if you do not like what you are getting, you need to 
change the system.
  This welfare bill that we are debating today will shorten the time 
from 12.98 years down. It will limit most welfare recipients to a 5-
year lifetime limit on temporary assistance to needy families.
  The big challenge of the 12-year problem is, What kind of habits do 
you build in 12 years?

[[Page S8403]]

  I suspect that if you involve yourself in a routine for 12 years, it 
is very difficult ever to break that routine. Sociologists tell us, if 
you want to lose weight--that is one of the things I want to do--they 
say you have to change your habits for about 6 or 7 weeks in order to 
have a new habit of diet, a new way to consume food. We are talking 
about changing habits that people have hardened for 12.98 years on 
average.
  One of the problems I have is that we have said we are going to 
change this by shortening the time period to 5 years. Well, 5 years 
will build a habit which is so strong that it is almost impossible to 
break. I think we need to find a way to restructure the system so that 
everyone looks at that 5-year period as if it is an insurance policy 
and they do not want to take any more out of that bank of 5 years than 
they need to at the moment because there might come a time sometime 
later in life when they would have a desperate need for assistance. I 
believe that is what we need to do.
  So we need to help people understand that there is 5 years. That is a 
lifetime limit. You should only draw from that savings account or 
reserve for emergencies what you desperately need and not use that 5 
years as a way to create the habit of dependence which will be almost 
impossible for you to break.
  But this bill would allow for most individuals 5 years--5 years--
without work. Five years without work would build such a habit that I 
believe we would nearly disable the individuals, as we have with our 
current system.
  I was stunned when I read in one of my home State papers last year 
that there was an experiment under a waiver granted by the Federal 
Government where they invited 140 welfare recipients to show up at a 
Tyson Foods plant. Only half of them showed up for work. They were 
invited to come in to look for a job. Of the half that showed up, only 
39 accepted jobs. Of the 39 that accepted jobs, fewer than 30 were on 
the job a week after.
  See, what we have done is we have built habits. We have established a 
condition for welfare. We do not have welfare as a transition, as a 
place of movement; it has become a place of repose. I believe we need 
to change that. For us to say that, even under this bill, which is a 
significant reform, for us to say that we would allow people to have 5 
straight years without work, where your self-esteem or your skills, 
your motivation would atrophy, would wither--if you do not use a muscle 
for 5 weeks, it gets weak. If you do not do not use it for 5 months, it 
almost disappears. If you do not use it for 5 years, it is gone.
  We have here the most important muscle in human character--self-
esteem, skills, motivations. We are still providing in this bill that 
for as long as 5 years you can simply be there not working. The bill, 
as it stands, requires 15 percent of the unexempted population to work 
in the first year period, and 25 percent in the second year period--25 
percent. That is one out of four. So for three out of four, they could 
go right by the first 2-year period and not even be involved in work.
  I believe, though, as a result of this, that welfare recipients, 
other than that 25 percent who actually went to work, could just choose 
to coast along for the full 5 years of benefits with no additional 
incentive to get a job. I think that is where this bill needs 
correction. It needs dramatic correction.
  I propose to amend this welfare bill to allow welfare recipients, 
able-bodied welfare recipients without infant children, to collect only 
24 months of consecutive temporary assistance-to-needy-families 
benefits. At the end of those 2 years, if the recipient still refuses 
to work, I say, cut the benefit. What this really does is not result in 
cut benefits; this results in more people being willing to work.
  Instead of saying to an individual who gets on welfare, if you work 
the system, you can last for 5 years, create the habits of reliance, 
create the habits of repose, reject the habits of industry and work; 
this would basically say, you better get to work, learning to get a job 
right away, because after 2 years, in spite of the fact that there is a 
5-year lifetime limit, there is a 24-month consecutive receipt-of-
benefit limit for able-bodied adults without infant children.
  If a welfare recipient then decides not to work in the 2-year time 
span, the payment would cease. By doing this, we simply hope to inject 
a concept which is too novel which ought to be commonplace. That is the 
concept that work is beneficial and that it pays better and is better 
than welfare. Otherwise, we are simply going to be tempting people to 
stay on and approximate, or approach at least, as much as they can of 
the 12.98 years of time on welfare, which is now a debilitating and 
disabling influence in the American culture for too many Americans.
  Our intention is to leave the time period between any times you 
consume your 24 consecutive months total up to the States, so that 
recipients could not leave the welfare rolls and sign up again a week 
later. I think States could make these judgments about what kind of 
interval that would be needed between the 24-month periods. Our central 
point, our responsibility here, is to say that we want to provide as 
part of the structure of our reform the energy to change, legislation 
that changes welfare from being a lifestyle to being a transition. We 
want to start to energize a commitment on the part of recipients to 
make the changes in the way they live so that they avoid prolonged 
exposures to the welfare system and find themselves at an earlier time 
being capable of sustaining themselves.
  We want welfare recipients to look at this 5-year period as a 
lifetime cushion, not to be consumed in the first need or the second 
need, hopefully never to be consumed. Our objective should be that no 
one ever bumps the 5-year limit. Our objective should be that we 
energize people to go to work so quickly and so enthusiastically that 
they maintain their reserve to the day they die.
  Permitting able-bodied welfare recipients to remain on assistance for 
a straight 5-year-long block of time simply would reinforce, reteach, 
perpetuate, and underscore the current cycle of dependence. We need to 
stop this cycle of dependence, not just for individuals, but for what 
it teaches to our children. Welfare has become an intergenerational 
phenomenon, where people are on so long that their children grow up 
knowing only one lifestyle--it is welfare. By limiting the 
uninterrupted block of time that welfare recipients remain on the 
rolls, we will reduce the level of dependence on government assistance.
  Welfare can be habit forming, and has been habit forming. It can be 
addictive. It can be destructive, and it has been. We need to take the 
structural components of the welfare system, which are dehumanizing, 
demeaning and disabling, out of the system. We need to energize each 
individual to view welfare as transitional. We should do that by saying 
there can be no more than 24 consecutive months on welfare for any 
able-bodied individual without infant children, unless they will work.
  I just indicate that on Tuesday of this last week President Clinton 
ordered that in case we do not pass welfare reform in the next few 
months, the Department of Health and Human Services will give States 
the power to cut off benefits if an able-bodied adult refuses to work 
after 2 years. This is not a Draconian message. This is a message and 
this is a concept called for by the President of the United States.
  For us to deliver a welfare system back to the American people which 
reinforces, underlines, and strengthens the bad habit of long-term 
dependency would not only be an affront to the American people, but it 
would be our failure to respond to a President who has asked us to do 
much better. There is something much better that we should be doing, 
and something we can do. If we want to break the long-term aspects, the 
intergenerational aspects of welfare, we have to be a part of this 
teaching idea in a real way.
  When I was Governor of the State of Missouri and I had the great 
privilege of serving the people of my State, we came to Washington to 
ask for a waiver, a waiver from the regulations of the Federal 
Government. The waiver was simply this: We said, please give Missouri 
the right to say to welfare recipients, if you do not make sure your 
kids are in school, you will not get your full benefit. It was a way of 
saying welfare is not a place where you can throw responsibility to the 
wind. It was a way of saying, if you are a parent, you have to be 
responsible for at least some fundamental basic things, like getting

[[Page S8404]]

your kids to school, because we do not want your kids to stay at home 
and learn welfare, we want your kids to go to school and learn how to 
be productive. We were able to get that waiver. The program was called 
People Attaining Self-Sufficiency, PASS. PASS had some reference to 
school. We wanted kids to pass in school by having good attendance.

  I think there is another part of the structure of welfare reform that 
we should embrace as we send the bill to the President of the United 
States. We should not have to have States coming to Washington, waiting 
2 or 3 years, filling out enough paperwork to choke a horse in order to 
have the privilege of saying to people, ``We expect you to make sure 
your kids are in school or we are not going to make sure your check is 
in the mail.'' It is that simple. It is very fundamental. If you are on 
welfare, your kids should be in school, because it is especially 
important to break the intergenerational chain of dependence. Part of 
this measure is to make sure we say to the individuals, ``You have some 
responsibility.''
  Another important concept of this amendment is that it would allow 
States to require temporary assistance to needy families and food stamp 
recipients to either have a high school education or work toward 
attaining a high school education. It is my judgment that it is not 
very realistic to say to people, ``We are sending you to work, but you 
do not have to have the kind of fundamental and basic skills that come 
from education.'' I am not talking about worker training here, I am 
talking about education. I am talking about the fact that an educated 
person can read the manual and train himself or herself. I am talking 
about the fundamental responsibility of culture, not the responsibility 
of a business to train people to do its business. I am talking about 
the fundamental responsibility of a culture to train its citizens by 
way of education.
  Education is different, really, from training. Education is the basis 
upon which training builds. A person who cannot read or write will have 
a hard time, no matter how much training she gets. I believe if a 
person is going to be receiving this assistance that we need to say to 
them, ``You are going to have to invest in yourself to the extent of 
having a high school education or a general equivalency diploma. The 
truth of the matter is you have a responsibility, and you have to be 
prepared to meet that responsibility.''
  As a matter of fact, this is a far more important thing than it has 
ever been before, because once we put a time limit on these matters, we 
need to energize people to be ready in order to fend for themselves 
when the time limit has expired. I hope we will have a 2-year time 
length on consecutive months of benefits, 24 months, and I believe in a 
5-year lifetime benefit, as well. With that in mind we will have to 
make sure that people can fend for themselves at the expiration of that 
time.
  Mr. President, I reserve the balance of my time, but I am happy to 
yield back my time on the amendment when all time is ready to be 
yielded back.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I see the distinguished chairman of the 
Budget Committee on the floor; is he seeking recognition?
  Mr. DOMENICI. I wondered who on the Democratic side was going to 
oppose this amendment.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I was going to make a general statement. I 
will be introducing an amendment later. I was going to be making a 
short but general statement, if there is no objection to that.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, might I ask staff, perhaps they could 
confer with Senator Leahy.
  Is there somebody on your side that wants to respond to this 
amendment?
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I say to the distinguished Senator from New 
Mexico, I came to the floor because there was not anybody on the floor 
at this moment. I notice there that have been some quorum calls. I 
thought rather than hold up anything later on, as I would take probably 
less time than it would take now in discussing this, if I could just 
make a couple of comments about the nutrition aspects of the 
reconciliation bill.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I have no objection if the distinguished 
Senator from Missouri has no objection to temporarily setting this 
aside while the Senator from Vermont proceeds.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I wish to speak just briefly on matters 
involving nutrition aspects of the reconciliation bill. I will, later 
on, have amendments in that regard. It seems like this was a good time 
to speak.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, we need not set anything aside, but give 
him unanimous consent to proceed on a matter not related to this 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. McCain). The unanimous-consent request by 
the Senator from New Mexico is agreed to, and the Senator from Vermont 
is recognized to speak.
  Mr. LEAHY. I thank my distinguished friend from New Mexico, the 
distinguished Presiding Officer from Arizona, and the distinguished 
Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. President, my message today is very simple--my concern is that 
the nutrition cuts in the reconciliation bill are going to make 
children go hungry if they are allowed to stay as they are.
  At the beginning of this Congress, I attacked some of those people 
with the Contract With America crowd because they wanted to repeal the 
School Lunch Act, at that time in the name of balancing the budget. I 
also attacked them because they wanted to repeal the school breakfast 
program and then they wanted to repeal the summer food service program. 
I am not sure why they did that, but it was interesting to see how the 
American public reacted. They reacted with outrage.
  Now I am afraid that the same American public is being fooled, 
because these nutrition cuts are now being made in a reconciliation 
bill. The same nutrition cuts that could not be made frontally are 
going to be made indirectly in the reconciliation bill.
  It appears to me that the Contract With America crowd has totally 
abandoned its effort to balance the budget. Now they will settle for 
just taking food from children. The amendment to strike Medicaid 
without an offset means that senior citizens vote, but it shows they 
understand that children do not vote. If children could vote, there is 
no doubt in my mind these nutrition cuts would not be in this bill. In 
fact, if children could vote, the nutrition cuts that cut the school 
lunch, school breakfast, and summer reading programs would not even be 
attempted.
  Nationwide, the nutrition cuts will take the equivalent of 20 billion 
meals from low-income families over the next 6 years. Children do not 
have political PAC's. Children do not vote. But now we find out what 
happens, children are the ones that will be hurt by these cuts.
  If these cuts had something to do with balancing the budget, or were 
part of a larger effort to balance the budget, that would at least 
provide some justification. These programs that the Republican majority 
propose in child care food programs, these cuts hurt preschool-age 
children in day care homes in my home State of Vermont and in the rest 
of the Nation. Families with children will absorb at least 70 percent 
of the food stamp reductions. The impact on Vermont will be 
significant. The average food stamp benefit will drop to 65 cents per 
person per meal. Defy anybody to eat at 65 cents per meal. I think 
parents will have a very difficult time feeding hungry children on a 
65-cent budget. I remember my three children when they were going up 
could eat you out of house and home. They certainly could not be fed on 
65 cents a meal.
  Most of these food stamp cuts are done cleverly. There is $23 billion 
that comes from provisions that alter the mathematical factors and 
formula used in computer software, so nobody sees or figures it out. 
But the end result is there are lower benefits for children.
  Children will go hungry because new computer programs are used. These 
hungry children will not even know they have been reformed; neither 
will their parents. All they will know is they are going to be a lot, 
lot hungrier once the computers turn on.
  Over 95 percent of the cuts in nutrition programs are unrelated to 
welfare reform. Most cuts are simply implemented by computer software. 
I do not know how that represents reform--unless somebody feels that a 
computer can think and feed and knows hunger, and a computer can 
recognize hungry children.
  In fact, in a couple of years, hunger among Vermont children will 
dramatically increase under this bill. As it is

[[Page S8405]]

now written in the nutrition areas, it is antifamily, antichild, it is 
mean-spirited, and it is really beneath what a great country should 
stand for. It takes food from children, and it does virtually nothing 
to reform or improve nutrition programs. In fact, it is not even an 
attempt to balance the budget, so we can at least say we are doing that 
for the children in future years.
  A lot of talk was made last year about the Contract With America and 
about how the budget will be balanced with real cuts. I said at that 
time that I did not think the people who were ``talking that talk'' 
would ``walk the walk'' by making the real cuts. I was right.
  That net result of this Congress will be that the Agriculture 
Committee baseline is greatly reduced, and that other committees will 
get away without contributing a penny, let alone their fair share, 
toward balancing the budget. But what that means is, when it works its 
way down, it works its way down to children. Why? As I said before, 
children do not vote, children do not contribute to PAC's, children do 
not hire lobbyists, children do not get involved in campaigns. So 
children will go hungry. It is as simple as that. Everybody else gets 
protected.
  The distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee was on the floor 
here a minute ago. I remember when he came before the Agriculture 
Committee in 1990. He called the Food Stamp Program ``the backbone of 
our way of helping the needy in this country.'' I agreed with Senator 
Domenici when he said that. But now that backbone is being broken in 
this bill. In a couple of years, there will be a stream of news stories 
about hungry children standing in lines at soup kitchens, because over 
80 percent of food stamp benefits go to families with children.
  Let us not have a bill that punishes children because they cannot 
vote. Let us do what the distinguished Senator from New Mexico said in 
1990. Let us remember our children. Let us remember the Food Stamp 
Program, which, as he said so eloquently, ``is the backbone of our way 
of helping the needy in this country.''
  So, Mr. President, I will have amendments later on to improve this, 
unless improvements are made before that time. I yield the floor.
  Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico is recognized.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I understand that the Democratic side 
will have no one responding to the Senator from Missouri. If the 
Senator finishes, he can yield back the remainder of his time, and we 
will ask that they yield back any time they have, and the Senator's 
amendment will be final, unless the point of order lies, and the 
Senator will have time tomorrow to explain it.
  I appreciate the comments of the distinguished Senator from Vermont. 
I say, however, that statements I made with reference to food stamps 
should not mean that the Senator from New Mexico does not think that, 
from time to time, we must look at the program, because it is 
frequently abused and abused in many ways. We have lent ourselves to 
some of that abuse by the way we have written the law.
  I know we are setting about in this bill to reform food stamps and 
make sure that it is less fraudulently used. But I wanted to make sure 
that my entire thoughts about it, as I went before the committee in 
1990, are at least here in principle in the Record today.
  Mr. LEAHY. If the Senator will yield on that point, would the Senator 
from New Mexico agree with me that the Food Stamp Program, properly 
used, can be of extreme benefit to low-income children.
  Mr. DOMENICI. There is no question about it. We do not have a better 
program----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. I admonish both Senators to observe the rules 
of the Senate. You must address each other through the Chair.
  Mr. LEAHY. I believe I had, Mr. President. I believe I asked if the 
Senator would yield so I might ask him a question.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. But the Chair did not rule. Without objection, 
the Senator from Vermont is recognized to ask a question of the Senator 
from New Mexico.
  I think the Senator from Vermont knows the rules.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I repeat my question to the Senator from 
New Mexico. Would he not agree that the food stamp proposal, properly 
used, is extremely helpful in feeding low-income children in this 
country?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico is recognized.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I was going to respond to the question.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico is recognized.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Certainly, I agree. I do not know that we have found a 
better way, yet, even with all of its faults, to get nutrition into the 
hands of the poor. I repeat that, however, I think the Senator from 
Vermont knows that no matter how good it is, it is frequently abused. 
We sometimes ``right it'' in ways that make it subject to being abused 
more so. I only wanted to make that comment. I agree that we have not 
yet found a better way. Cash benefits do not seem to work as well 
because, indeed, they are not used for nutritional items. If we keep a 
tight grasp on making sure they are not fraudulently traded and they 
are used for nutrition, we do not have anything better yet that I am 
aware of.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, my point is that we have seen some great 
changes in the Food Stamp Program, some very significant improvements, 
over the years. We have seen other improvements that we wait to come 
forth, like the use of electronic benefit transfer.
  I have been very proud to work very closely with the now chairman of 
the Senate Agriculture Committee and, before that, the ranking member 
of the Senate Agriculture Committee, the senior Senator from Indiana, 
in making these improvements. They have saved a lot of money. I also 
point out that the Food Stamp Program is extremely important.
  During the last administration, 40,000 to 45,000 people were added 
every single week in the 4 years President Bush was President--40,000 
to 45,000 every single week for 4 years were added. That is, in over 
200 weeks they were added to the food stamp rolls.
  Let me just remind my friend from New Mexico and others about this. 
When we talk about whether this program is utilized in a Republican or 
Democratic administration, it is a program for everybody. During the 
Bush administration, every single week, because of the way the economy 
was, 40,000 people were added, at the taxpayers' expense, to the food 
stamp rolls.
  We have been fortunate with the efforts to balance the budget and 
improve the economy, and since President Clinton came in, 2 million 
people have been able to drop from the food stamp rolls, as compared to 
40,000 people a week being added in the 200 weeks during the past 
administration. Two million people have now been taken off in this 
administration. That is good news for the economy and good news for the 
taxpayers. But it also points out that in both Democratic and 
Republican administrations, we should be protecting the Food Stamp 
Program.
  Reform it? Yes. My point is, of course, that a computer program that 
simply cuts children off without reform is not reform. We should be 
willing to stand up as legislators and make the tough decisions on how 
to reform the Food Stamp Program, and not simply say to a computer 
program: Here, you do it. We cannot totally cut off children because 
they do not vote, they do not contribute, and they are not part of the 
political process. They will never complain.
  We will not touch anything in areas of senior citizens, or anybody 
else, because they do vote and they do complain. By golly, those 
children--tough. Go hungry.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hatfield). Who seeks recognition?
  Mr. ASHCROFT addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Thank you, Mr. President. I will make a few remarks 
about the amendment which I proposed.
  I want to reinforce again the concept that we need to change the 
character of welfare. We need to change welfare from being a condition 
in which people exist to being a transition from dependency--not only 
from dependency but long-term dependency--to independence, to work, to 
growth, and to opportunity. If we are going to do that,

[[Page S8406]]

we should not acquiesce to a 5-year limit which allows people to go 
onto welfare and just get on it and stay for 5 years without doing 
anything. We should require of individuals--or at least provide that 
States require of individuals--that a number of things be done.
  One, we should say no longer can you stay on welfare for more than 24 
months in any one stretch without going to work or preparing for work 
by taking work training and getting an education.
  Second, we should say never can you stay on welfare if you do not 
fulfill your responsibility to send your kids to school. If you are 
going to be on welfare, your kids ought to be in school. Children who 
are in school are less of a burden to individuals on welfare than 
children who are allowed to stay home or otherwise avoid their 
responsibility.
  Third, if we expect people eventually to become self-reliant in their 
own setting, we are going to have to ask those individuals to have 
fundamental educational qualifications as well. In my judgment, that is 
the reason we ought to allow States to require that individuals who are 
seeking to continue to receive welfare benefits either have or be in 
the process of attaining the kind of educational qualifications that 
would come with a high school diploma or a GED.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that all time be yielded back 
on the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ASHCROFT addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.


                Amendment No. 4942 to Amendment No. 4941

(Purpose: To provide that a family may not receive TANF assistance for 
more than 24 consecutive months at a time unless an adult in the family 
 is working or a State exempts an adult in the family from working for 
                          reasons of hardship)

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

       The Senator from Missouri (Mr. Ashcroft) proposes an 
     amendment numbered 4942 to amendment No. 4941.

  Mr. ASHCROFT. 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 by the 
     amendment, insert the following:
       ``(8) No assistance for more than 5 years.--
       (A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraphs (B) 
     and (C), a State to which a grant is made under section 403 
     shall not use any part of the grant to provide assistance to 
     a family that includes an adult who has received assistance 
     under any State program funded under this part attributable 
     to funds provided by the Federal Government for 60 months 
     (whether or not consecutive) after the date the State program 
     funded under this part commences. However, a State shall not 
     use any part of such grant to provide assistance to a family 
     that includes an adult who has received assistance under any 
     State program funded under this part attributable to funds 
     provided by the Federal Government for more than 24 
     consecutive months unless such an adult is--
       (i) engaged in work as required by Section 
     402(a)(1)(A)(ii); or,
       (ii) exempted by the State from such 24 consecutive month 
     limitation by reason of hardship, pursuant to subparagraph 
     (C).''.
       (B) Minor child exception.--In determining the number of 
     months for which an individual who is a parent or pregnant 
     has received assistance under the State program funded under 
     this part for purposes of subparagraph (A), the State shall 
     disregard any month for which such assistance was provided 
     with respect to the individual and during which the 
     individual was--
       (i) a minor child; and
       (ii) not the head of a household or married to the head of 
     a household.
       (C) Hardship exception.--
       (i) In general.--The State may exempt a family from the 
     application of subparagraph (A) of this paragraph, or 
     subparagraph (B) of paragraph (1), by reason of hardship or 
     if the family includes an individual who has been battered or 
     subjected to extreme cruelty.
       (ii) Limitation.--The number of families with respect to 
     which an exemption made by a State under clause (i) is in 
     effect for a fiscal year shall not exceed 20 percent of the 
     average monthly number of families to which assistance is 
     provided under the State program funded under this part.
       (iii) Battered or subject to extreme cruelty defined.--For 
     purposes of clause (i), an individual has been battered or 
     subjected to extreme cruelty if the individual has been 
     subjected to--
       (I) physical acts that resulted in, or threatened to result 
     in, physical injury to the individual;
       (II) sexual abuse;
       (III) sexual activity involving a dependent child;
       (IV) being forced as the caretaker relative of a dependent 
     child to engage in nonconsensual acts or activities;
       (V) threats of, or attempts at, physical or sexual abuse;
       (VI) mental abuse; or
       (VII) neglect or deprivation of medical care.
       (D) Rule of interpretation.--Subparagraph (A) of this 
     paragraph and subparagraph (B) of paragraph (1) shall not be 
     interpreted to require any State to provided assistance to 
     any individual for any period of time under the State program 
     funded under this part.

  Mr. ASHCROFT. I ask unanimous consent that all time be yielded back 
on the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                Amendment No. 4943 to Amendment No. 4941

    (Purpose: To provide that a state may sanction a family's TANF 
  assistance if the family includes an adult who fails to ensure that 
             their minor dependent children attend school)

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

       The Senator from Missouri (Mr. Ashcroft) proposes an 
     amendment numbered 4943 to amendment No. 4941.

  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I object. I do not know what the amendment is.
  Mr. President, I no longer have an objection, if he would renew his 
request. I understand what he is doing now. I did not understand. I do 
now.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       In the language proposed to be inserted by the amendment, 
     strike all after the first word and insert the following:
       Sanction Welfare Recipients for Failing To Ensure That 
     Minor Dependent Children Attend School.--
       (A) In general.--A State to which a grant is made under 
     section 403 shall not be prohibited from sanctioning a family 
     that includes an adult who has received assistance under any 
     State program funded under this part attributable to funds 
     provided by the Federal Government or under the food stamp 
     program, as defined in section 3(h) of the Food Stamp Act of 
     1977, if such adult fails to ensure that the minor dependent 
     children of such adult attend school as required by the law 
     of the State in which the minor children reside.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, without the Senator losing his right to 
the floor, might I ask unanimous consent to have the privilege of the 
floor to ask a question of the Senator?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Is it the purpose of the amendment--it is perfectly 
legitimate and proper--to make sure that there is no second-degree 
amendment offered to the Senator's amendment?
  Mr. ASHCROFT. That is correct.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I believe I have authority from the other side. If the 
Senator wants to propose a unanimous consent request that there be no 
second-degree amendment, it would be granted. Does the Senator prefer 
not to do that?
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Yes. I would prefer to have the amendment.


                Amendment No. 4944 to Amendment No. 4941

    (Purpose: To provide that a state may sanction a family's TANF 
assistance if the family includes an adult who does not have, or is not 
working toward attaining, a secondary school diploma or its recognized 
                              equivalent)

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

       The Senator from Missouri (Mr. Ashcroft) proposes an 
     amendment numbered 4944 to amendment No. 4941.

  Mr. ASHCROFT. 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:


[[Page S8407]]


       In the language proposed to be stricken by the amendment, 
     strike all after the first word and insert the following:
       Requirement for high school diploma or equivalent.--
       (A) In general.--A State to which a grant is made under 
     section 403 shall not be prohibited from sanctioning a family 
     that includes an adult who is older than age 20 and younger 
     than age 51 and who has received assistance under any State 
     program funded under this part attributable to funds provided 
     by the Federal Government or under the food stamp program, as 
     defined in section 3(h) of the Food Stamp Act of 1977, if 
     such adult does not have, or is not working toward attaining, 
     a secondary school diploma or its recognized equivalent 
     unless such adult has been determined in the judgment of 
     medical, psychiatric, or other appropriate professionals to 
     lack the requisite capacity to complete successfully a course 
     of study that would lead to a secondary school diploma or its 
     recognized equivalent.

  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, there are three basic thrusts that are 
undertaken in these amendments. They are the conversion of a system 
from being a system of conditioning people to be dependent to 
transitioning people to be at work.
  The first thrust is that we would have a 24-consecutive-month limit 
on welfare for those who refuse to work or get training at the end of 
the 24 months. It seems to me that is something that the President of 
the United States called for last week and which we ought to have.
  The second component of this strategy is to say that those who are on 
welfare should have their children in school. It is not something that 
is unknown or mysterious. The fact of the matter is that high school 
dropouts average $12,809 a year, a poverty-level standard of living for 
a family of three. For an individual who has a high school degree, the 
average is $18,737, a 46-percent higher income than the average for 
dropouts.
  Half of those arrested for drug violations in 1995 did not have a 
high school diploma. And the preponderance of all crimes, 40 percent of 
all crimes, were committed by those who did not finish high school. It 
is time for us to ask those who are involved in the welfare system by 
way of receiving benefits under temporary assistance to needy families 
to make sure that their children are in school.
  A high school degree is a key to escaping from the welfare trap. 
Statistics show that it keeps kids out of jail. Every parent has a 
principal and primary responsibility to make sure their children 
receive the kinds of fundamentals that will allow them to fend for 
themselves. Every child can attend school in America. Every child can 
earn a high school diploma. It costs nothing but commitment and 
responsibility. Too often this opportunity is ignored--even trashed. 
Teens drop out of school, grade school, or skip classes. This is a 
tragic waste of a precious resource, one on which our culture must 
rely.
  All of our Government institutions should do everything possible to 
ensure that children go to school and earn a degree. Government should 
certainly not be paying parents to let their kids play hooky and skip 
school. If you are on welfare, your kids should be in school. Parents 
should not be coconspirators in perpetuating their children in a 
lifetime on and off of welfare, in and out of minimum-wage jobs, and 
irresponsibility. Children must go to school in order to break the 
cycle of dependency, to change welfare from being a long-term condition 
into being a transition.
  The amendment that I propose allows States--I repeat, allows States--
to sanction welfare recipients of the temporary assistance to needy 
families that do not ensure that their children are attending school. 
It also allows States to sanction food stamp recipients who do not send 
their children to school. Children who graduate from a welfare system 
should be armed with a degree rather than with a habit of dependence. 
It is the key to self-reliance and success.
  We have watched, as the Nation has watched, the Olympics. We need our 
full team on the field whenever we play. Even ``The Dream Team'' would 
have a tough time if they did not have the entire capacity of the team 
available as a resource. And yet we allow our citizens sometimes to ask 
for our help and to persist in receiving it without equipping 
themselves, without making a commitment to themselves. The last 
component of my amendments is really a way of saying if you are going 
to be on welfare, you have to have or be working toward a high school 
diploma so you can work for yourself and help yourself.

  It is no mystery. States may require that temporary assistance to 
needy families and food stamp recipients work toward attaining a high 
school diploma or its equivalent as a condition of receiving welfare 
assistance. This requirement would not apply if an individual was 
determined in the judgment of medical, psychiatric, or other 
appropriate professionals to lack the requisite capacity to attain a 
high school diploma or GED.
  During the debate this year in the Senate, Senator Simon once said, 
``We can have all the job training in the world, but if we do not face 
the problem of basic education, we are not going to do what we ought to 
do for this country.''
  I cannot agree more with that statement. It does not pay us to 
provide job training upon job training upon job training when welfare 
recipients have not achieved proficiency in the fundamental underlying 
skills of mathematics, English, and reading which provide people with 
the tools to benefit from job training and to assimilate changes in the 
job market. We do not have jobs and crafts that do not change. They all 
have new processes and new procedures. As technology marches on, it is 
important to make sure that individuals cannot only get the right kind 
of job training but they possess the fundamental characteristic of 
being educated in order to be able to take advantage of job training 
when it comes along.
  A person over 18 without a high school diploma averages $12,800 in 
earnings; with a high school diploma, $18,700 in earnings. A $6,000 
difference is the difference between dependence and independence, the 
difference between self-reliance and reliance on Government. The U.S. 
Sentencing Commission determined that 40 percent of the individuals who 
commit crimes are individuals without high school diplomas. The 
Commission also found that these individuals are responsible for 50 
percent of all drug violations. If people are going to receive welfare 
benefits, they should at least be working toward the fundamental 
equipping, enabling, freeing achievement of having a high school 
education.
  Mr. President, I would be pleased together with the opponents of this 
amendment on the other side of the aisle to yield back the remainder of 
the time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has yielded back the remainder----
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I need somebody from the other side of 
the aisle to yield back their time or we cannot proceed with any other 
amendments.
  Mr. CONRAD. We are willing to yield back the time on this side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has been yielded back.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, pursuant to the previous understanding, 
I believe the distinguished Senator is entitled to offer his amendment 
at this point.


                           Amendment No. 4945

(Purpose: To expand State flexibility in order to encourage food stamp 
          recipients to look for work and to prevent hardship)

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

       The Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Conrad], for himself and 
     Mr. Leahy, proposes an amendment numbered 4945.

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

       On page 6, strike lines 14 through 16 and insert the 
     following:
       Section 5(d)(7) of the Food Stamp Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 
     2014(d)(7)) is amended by striking ``21 years of age or 
     younger'' and inserting ``19 years of age or younger (17 
     years of age or younger in fiscal year 2002)''.
       On page 21, line 3, strike ``$5,100'' and insert 
     ``$4,650''.
       On page 49, line 3, strike ``10'' and insert ``20''.
       On page 49, line 12, strike ``1 month'' and insert ``2 
     months''.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.

[[Page S8408]]

  Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Chair.
  I am joined in this amendment by my colleague from Vermont, Senator 
Leahy, the ranking member of the Senate Agriculture Committee. This 
amendment addresses a serious problem with the food stamp provisions of 
the welfare bill that is before us now.
  As I describe our amendment, I would like to bring my colleagues' 
attention to the chart beside me and the number 600,000 because that is 
the impact of the food stamp provisions before us; 600,000 Americans 
will lose eligibility each month under the provision that is in the 
bill before us.
  The 600,000 estimated by the Congressional Budget Office is to be the 
number of people who would be terminated from the Food Stamp Program in 
any given month because they are unable to find a job within the 4-
month time limit provided for in this legislation. Our amendment 
insists on work, and that is as it should be. But it promotes State 
flexibility by giving States an option to assist people who would 
otherwise be at risk of going hungry. Our amendment achieves these 
goals in two ways. First, the amendment would expand the State option 
to exercise a hardship exemption. The amendment increases the hardship 
exemption from 10 percent to 20 percent of the eligible population and 
makes it consistent with the AFDC block grant.
  Simply stated, we are allowing States, instead of being able to 
declare 10 percent of their eligible population hardship cases not 
bound by the 4-month limit, to increase that at State option to 20 
percent.
  Second, the amendment allows States to count job search as work for 2 
months instead of the 1 month provided in the bill before us. I want to 
be clear to my colleagues that the cost of this amendment is fully 
offset over the 6-year budget period. The Agriculture Committee will 
still be in full compliance with its budget reconciliation target.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. CONRAD. I would be happy to yield to my colleague if we do not 
have an interruption.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I want to use my time.
  Mr. President, in behalf of the distinguished chairman of the 
Agriculture Committee, I understand the amendment offered by Senator 
Conrad allows States to exempt up to 20 percent of the able-bodied 18 
to 50-year-olds from the work requirement and allow up to 2 months of 
job search per year to count as work.
  Mr. CONRAD. That is correct.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I believe the Food Stamp Program should have a strong 
work requirement as the Senator has indicated. I am now speaking in 
behalf of the chairman of the Agriculture Committee. Senator Lugar 
understands the Senator's concern about the individuals who are willing 
to work may be unable to find a job due to circumstances beyond their 
control. Senator Lugar continues on that in behalf of the Agriculture 
Committee, he finds the offsets acceptable and the amendment 
acceptable.
  So at this point I want the Senator to know I am going to yield back 
all the time we have in opposition and indicate for the Record we are 
willing to accept the amendment.
  Mr. CONRAD. I appreciate that from the able manager of the bill. I 
will just proceed briefly to outline the rationale for the amendment 
and then yield back our time as well.
  Mr. President, everybody here agrees that work is important and that 
food stamp benefits should be temporary. But the work requirement 
provision in the pending welfare bill would have the unintended effect 
of preventing people who want to find work from securing a job. How can 
my colleagues seriously argue that people can be expected to find a 
job, to sit through an interview when they have not eaten? It does not 
work. I understand and support the work ethic in America, but I also 
believe our society has achieved a level of decency where we will not 
deny food assistance to people who have been unable to find a job in 
just 4 months.
  The reason I felt it was important to offer this amendment is I have 
dealt with people who are in this exact circumstance. I remember very 
well a young fellow who worked construction in my State--very frankly, 
not the smartest guy in the world, and he had a hard time finding work, 
but he was able to work construction. He was a strong kid and he was 
able to work in that way. But the construction season in my state is 
not very long. You are lucky if you can be in construction 6 months out 
of the year in North Dakota some years.
  This young fellow would work during the construction season, which 
usually starts in April in North Dakota, but come winter, November, the 
construction season ended. He was not able to find additional work. And 
I tell you, he came from a family that had next to nothing. He had next 
to nothing, lived in a very modest basement apartment, and that fellow 
needed some help during the winter to eat. That is just the reality of 
the circumstance.
  Under this legislation, after 4 months, that guy would not get any 
help. Is that really what we want to do in America? Is that really what 
we want to do? We want to say to somebody, if you cannot find a job in 
4 months, you do not get any food assistance? Is that what we have come 
to in this country? I find that hard to believe.

  I really must say to my colleagues, if that is where we are, then 
something is radically wrong in this country. America is better than 
that. We are a wealthy nation, with a rich and abundant food supply. We 
should not knowingly adopt a national policy which promotes hunger. 
Certainly we should promote work, but not cut people off from food if 
they have not been able to find a job in 4 months. This amendment gives 
States the option to provide food for people who are unable to find a 
job within 4 months, at least 20 percent they can exempt as hardship 
cases, and they can count 2 months of looking for work as part of work.
  As I already mentioned and as the chart serves to remind us, in 
addition to the number of people cut off the Food Stamp Program because 
of the tightened eligibility requirements and work registration 
requirements, the Congressional Budget Office has estimated the welfare 
bill before us will cut 600,000 people off of food stamps each month 
because they cannot find a job within the 4-month time limit. These 
600,000 people will then be at risk of going hungry, more worried about 
finding their next meal than finding a job.
  I cannot believe that is what we are about here in the U.S. Senate. 
According to a study done in 1993, 83 percent of the people who would 
be affected by this draconian provision are below 50 percent of the 
poverty line. We are talking about folks who do not have anything. Now 
we are going to say to them, ``If you do not get a job within 4 months, 
you do not get to eat''? I cannot believe we are going to do that.
  I am all for strong work requirements. I introduced my own welfare 
reform bill that had the toughest work requirements of any bill before 
us. But this is not a work provision. This is a hunger provision. We 
are talking about food for people who cannot find a job. I think it is 
entirely reasonable to give States the option to continue food stamp 
coverage for an additional month of intensive job search, to help make 
sure that poor people complete the transition from welfare to work.
  The Senate-passed welfare reform bill that was supported by 87 
Senators contained 6 months of food stamp eligibility for people in 
this category. Bipartisan efforts to reform the welfare system, 
including the Chafee-Breaux approach and the Specter-Biden proposal, 
also contained a 6-month food stamp time limit. These are far more 
humane and realistic provisions.
  Mr. President, for those who think the majority of people affected by 
this provision are just scamming the system and are not interested in 
working, let me put this in perspective by translating it into dollar 
terms. Under the Food Stamp Program, the maximum level of benefits for 
a single person is $119 a month. That is about $4 a day. The 
Congressional Budget Office estimates that every one of the 600,000 who 
cannot find a job would accept job training or a work slot if one was 
available through the Food Stamp Employment Training Program. These 
600,000 people are, consequently, receiving less than $4 a day in food 
stamps.
  I ask my colleagues to think seriously about what this means, less 
than $4 a day in food stamps. Does it not make sense if there were 
actually minimum wage jobs available for $4.25 an

[[Page S8409]]

hour that individuals would work at these jobs? Why would anyone trade 
a $4.25-an-hour job for $4 a day in food stamps? I do not think the 
vast majority of people would make that kind of trade. Clearly, we are 
talking about circumstances in which those jobs are not available. 
People cannot find those jobs. This is not a case of they are better 
off taking welfare than taking a job for $4 in food assistance. You 
would be much better off, clearly, with $4 an hour in a job.
  Before I close, I want to spend just a minute talking about the 
hardship exemption. Again, I share the view of those who believe we 
must set limits and push people from welfare to work. But I think it is 
important to recognize there are people who just do not have the skills 
to find a job, or else have some personal hardship that means they will 
not be employed after 4 months on food stamps. Every one of us know 
people who, frankly, are marginal in the employment arena. They cannot 
find work. They are not educated, they are not trained, they may have 
one or more disabilities.
  It is important, I think, also, to consider the devastating effects 
of natural disasters or economic downturn on a particular area, which 
may make it difficult for people to find employment in 4 months. If you 
have a natural disaster like a hurricane, tornado, earthquake, or a 
series of disasters as we have seen in California, all of a sudden an 
area may not have much in the way of employment. People may not be able 
to find a job.
  I think it is also important for us to understand this issue affects 
urban areas and could cause increased tensions in some of America's 
biggest cities. A recent study showed that for every McDonald's opening 
in New York City, there were 14 applicants. They wanted to work, wanted 
to have a job. For whatever reason, they were not able to find a job. 
That circumstance has improved because the national economy has 
improved, but we all know the economy is subjected to cycles. Sometimes 
it is good and strong and sometimes it is not so good, not so strong.
  What are we going to say to people who cannot find a job after 4 
months? We are going to deny them food stamps? What are we telling 
them? Telling them to go to the garbage can to find something to eat?
  I have people right now going through my neighborhood who are looking 
in garbage cans trying to find something to eat, and my neighborhood in 
this town is eight blocks from where we are right now, eight blocks due 
east of the Capitol of the United States. I have people every day going 
through my neighborhood, going through garbage cans. If we want more of 
it, I suppose we just stick with what is in the underlying bill.
  I might say it is not just urban areas, but rural areas as well. 
There are parts of my State which have very low populations, small 
communities, and jobs are scarce in some of these areas. An individual 
who has worked hard for 20 years in a small business in a rural area, 
and maybe that business fails, now this person may be willing to work 
all night and all day if given the chance, but the harsh reality is he 
or she may not be able to find a job. The truth of the matter is, it 
may take more than 4 months for a new business to come to that 
community.
  We need to give States the option to offer food assistance to hard-
working people who experience extreme hardship. It is wrong to force 
States to cut these people off from food assistance. Instead, we should 
give States the flexibility to continue to provide food stamps to a 
limited number, up to 20 percent of individuals who face some special 
hardship, Mr. President, 20 percent of the eligible population, instead 
of 10 percent that is in the underlying bill.
  Mr. President, it may not be politically popular to care about adults 
who are hungry and cannot find a job, but I want my colleagues to think 
about what it would be like to be without food. We are not talking here 
about the luxuries. We are talking about food. It strikes me it is bad 
policy, and bad for the country, to knowingly create a class of 
desperate people across the country, struggling for the most basic 
human necessity, food.
  Fundamentally, it does not make sense to deny food to people who are 
working hard to find a job and cannot find one. These people are less, 
not more likely to find a job if they are spending their time trying to 
find their next meal instead of trying to find their next job.
  I ask my colleagues to join me in giving States additional 
flexibility to continue to provide food assistance to people who are 
unable to find work within the 4 months provided for in this 
legislation.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 4945) was agreed to.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move 
to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I have two amendments by Senator 
Lieberman which we are going to accept.


                           Amendment No. 4946

 (Purpose: To add provisions to reduce the incidence of statutory rape)

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Lieberman, I send 
an amendment to the desk. This amendment has been agreed to on both 
sides. I ask unanimous consent that 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 clerk 
will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Domenici], for Mr. 
     Lieberman, proposes an amendment numbered 4946.

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

       Section 2101 is amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraphs (7) through (9) as 
     paragraphs (8) through (10), respectively;
       (2) in paragraph (10), as so redesignated, by inserting ``, 
     and protection of teenage girls from pregnancy as well as 
     predatory sexual behavior'' after ``birth''; and
       (3) by inserting after paragraph (6), the following:
       (7) An effective strategy to combat teenage pregnancy must 
     address the issue of male responsibility, including statutory 
     rape culpability and prevention. The increase of teenage 
     pregnancies among the youngest girls is particularly severe 
     and is linked to predatory sexual practices by men who are 
     significantly older.
       (A) It is estimated that in the late 1980's the rate for 
     girls age 14 and under giving birth increased 26 percent.
       (B) Data indicates that at least half of the children born 
     to teenage mothers are fathered by adult men. Available data 
     suggests that almost 70 percent of births to teenage girls 
     are fathered by men over age 20.
       (C) Surveys of teen mothers have revealed that a majority 
     of such mothers have histories of sexual and physical abuse, 
     primarily with older adult men.
       Section 402(a)(1)(A) of the Social Security Act, as added 
     by section 2103(a)(1), is amended--
       (1) by redesignating clauses (vi) and (vii) as clauses 
     (vii) and (viii), respectively; and
       (2) by inserting after clause (v), the following:
       ``(vi) Conduct a program, designed to reach State and local 
     law enforcement officials, the education system, and relevant 
     counseling services, that provides education and training on 
     the problem of statutory rape so that teenage pregnancy 
     prevention programs may be expanded in scope to include men.
       Section 2908 is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(a) Sense of the Senate.--'' before 
     ``It''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       (b) Justice Department Program on Statutory Rape.--
       (1) Establishment.--Not later than January 1, 1997, the 
     Attorney General shall establish and implement a program 
     that--
       (A) studies the linkage between statutory rape and teenage 
     pregnancy, particularly by predatory older men committing 
     repeat offenses; and
       (B) educates State and local criminal law enforcement 
     officials on the prevention and prosecution of statutory 
     rape, focusing in

[[Page S8410]]

     particular on the commission of statutory rape by predatory 
     older men committing repeat offenses, and any links to 
     teenage pregnancy.
       (c) ``Violence Against Women Initiative.--The Attorney 
     General shall ensure that the Department of Justice's 
     Violence Against Women initiative addresses the issue of 
     statutory rape, particularly the commission of statutory rape 
     by predatory older men committing repeat offenses.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 4946) was agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, that was an amendment to minimize the 
incidence of statutory rape that is occurring in the United States.


                           Amendment No. 4947

(Purpose: To require States which receive grants under title XX of the 
 Social Security Act to dedicate 1 percent of such grants to programs 
                        and services for minors)

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I have a second amendment on behalf of 
Senator Lieberman. I make the same unanimous-consent request. I ask 
unanimous consent that this amendment be agreed to and that the motion 
to reconsider be laid upon the table.
  I send the amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Domenici], for Mr. 
     Lieberman, proposes an amendment numbered 4947.

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

       Section 2903 is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(a) In General.)--'' before ``Section''; 
     and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       (b) Dedication of Block Grant Share.--Section 2001 of the 
     Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1397) is amended--
       (1) in the matter of preceding paragraph (1), by inserting 
     ``(a)'' before ``For''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(b) For any fiscal year in which a State receives an 
     allotment under section 2003, such State shall dedicate an 
     amount equal to 1 percent of such allotment to fund programs 
     and services that teach minors to--
       ``(1) avoid out-of-wedlock pregnancies; and''.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 4947) was agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, the subject matter of this amendment is 
a 1 percent setaside from the social services block grant which has 
been agreed to on our side by the respective chairman of the committee.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DORGAN. If I might ask the manager of the bill, Senator Byrd and 
I would like to introduce a piece of legislation. Inasmuch as I see no 
other Member seeking recognition to offer an amendment to the pending 
business, I ask unanimous consent to proceed as if in morning business 
with the understanding that if additional amendments become available, 
we----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Reserving the right to object, could you give us an 
estimate as to how much time you might use?
  Mr. DORGAN. I ask for 30 minutes and would expect not to use the 
entire 30 minutes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I will not object so long as the Senator 
would add that the time used, even though it is as in morning business, 
would be charged against the time remaining on the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I thank the Chair.
  (The remarks of Mr. Dorgan and Mr. Byrd pertaining to the 
introduction of S. 1978 are located in today's Record under 
``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. BUMPERS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Mack). The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, the Senator from Florida, Senator Graham, 
offered an amendment on behalf of himself and the Senator from Arkansas 
Friday afternoon. Unhappily, I was not here and did not get a chance to 
speak on it. I would like to seize the opportunity now to just make a 
few remarks.
  Before doing that, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to 
yield to the Senator from North Dakota to allow him to lay down an 
amendment without debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 4948

 (Purpose: To strike provisions relating to the Indian child care set 
                                 aside)

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk sponsored 
by myself and cosponsored by Senator McCain and Senator Inouye.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Dorgan], for himself, 
     Mr. McCain, and Mr. Inouye, proposes an amendment numbered 
     4948.

  Mr. DORGAN. 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 2813(1), strike subparagraph (B).

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I intend to discuss this amendment briefly 
at some point following the presentation by the Senator from Arkansas, 
and I very much appreciate his indulgence.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a moment?
  Mr. BUMPERS. Yes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. This is child support regarding Indians?
  We passed it on voice vote on Thursday.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Will the Senator repeat that. I am sorry; I did not hear 
him.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I just addressed the amendment sent to the desk.
  Mr. DORGAN. It is a different amendment. It deals with the 3 percent 
set aside, and I do not believe it has been passed.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Could we have the amendment?
  I thank the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.


                           Amendment No. 4936

  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, the amendment being offered by Senator 
Graham of Florida and me is the same one we offered last year. It might 
have a few minor changes in it, but essentially it simply says that the 
block grant formula in this welfare bill should be changed to take into 
consideration the number of poor children in each State.
  I am not very crazy about this bill to begin with, but I cannot 
possibly vote for a bill that discriminates against the State of 
Arkansas to the extent this one does. It is not just Arkansas, it is 
particularly Southern States, but a lot of other States get caught up 
in it, too.
  Under the formula, the District of Columbia will get $4,222 for each 
welfare recipient and the State of Arkansas will get $390. Why is a 
child in the District of Columbia worth 11 times as much as a poor 
child in Arkansas? That is a legitimate question, is it not?
  I will tell you the answer. The answer is, through the years, the 
Federal Government has matched the States to some percentage or 
another. It is not the same in every State. For example, in my State, 
because we are a relatively poor State, we get a big match, I think 73 
to 75 percent. So for every dollar we put up, we get about $3 from the 
Federal Government. The District of Columbia does not do quite as well. 
But the reason the District of Columbia gets such a staggering amount 
of money per child is because they have used a tremendous amount of 
their resources to put into the AFDC Program.
  That is perfectly laudable and I am not criticizing the District of 
Columbia. But I will tell you something, and it gives me no joy to say 
it publicly, I come from a State which has one of the lowest per capita 
incomes in the Nation. We are a poor State. We have been ever since the 
War Between the States. We have tried everything in the world and 
continue to strive to do everything we can to improve the plight of our 
people. We tried to improve our

[[Page S8411]]

economy so there would be more jobs and better paying jobs, and in the 
past several years we have met with some success. But we are not New 
York, California, or New Jersey in per capita income.
  The reason this bill is fundamentally flawed and unfair is because it 
says to you, the State of Arkansas, this is what you have received for 
the last 3 years, 1991 through 1994, and that is what you are going to 
continue to receive. In short, if you were poor, no matter how hard you 
tried to do better under the AFDC program, if you were poor and simply 
could not do it, it is tough.
  What does this bill do? It says we are locking you in on the basis of 
what you got during that 3-year period. I do not care if you had 
floods, tornadoes, if you had a wave of immigrants move into your 
State, which brings a lot of poverty to States like Florida, you are 
still going to get what you got for 3 years, on average. There is a 
little 2\1/2\ percent ``gimmie'' in the bill, but not enough to amount 
to anything.
  One of the things that really is a travesty in this bill is the 
treatment of AFDC administrative costs. I hate to say these things 
because I am not jumping on other States. I am simply trying to defend 
my own. But look what has happened in New York and New Jersey. The 
nationwide average, in 1994, of administrative costs for administering 
the program we have now was $53.42. During that same period of time, 
the average cost of administering the program in New York was $106.68 
and in New Jersey $105.26. What do we do under this bill? We lock that 
administrative cost in and say we will continue to compensate you, no 
matter how inefficient you may have been.
  I am sorry the Senator from West Virginia left the floor. The average 
administrative cost for administering the AFDC Program in West Virginia 
is $13.34, and that is what they are going to get through the year 2000 
if this bill passes, while New York will be receiving eight times as 
much. We are going to give them that, lock them in, no matter how 
inefficient they may be in administering the program.
  One of the interesting things about this bill was pointed out in the 
New York Times this morning. Let us take my State as an example, and 
let us assume push comes to shove and we are running out of money, we 
are suddenly not going to be able to continue. The Federal Government 
says, ``That's tough, we gave you the block grant, you have to live 
with it. We do not care how many poor children you have, we are going 
to give you what you got as an average between 1991 and 1994, and you 
will live with it. Do not come back up here with your hand out.''
  Do you know what they allow the States to do? Kick people off 
welfare. Each State can make it's work requirements as stringent as 
they want to make them. What does the Federal Government do in such a 
case? We do not say, ``If you kick those people off welfare we are 
going to quit giving you the money for that family.'' We continue to 
give them the money for the family. So there is an incentive to the 
States, if they have any difficulty at all with the program, to kick 
people off, knowing they are going to continue to get the same amount 
of money.
  I do not want to take too much time. I know there is not a lot of 
time between now and 2 o'clock when we go to the agricultural 
appropriations bill. But one of the most troubling things about this 
bill, completely aside from this grossly unfair funding formula, is 
that I have heard people in the U.S. Senate and in Congress say things 
that are so punitive in nature. It is as though we are passing this 
bill to punish people for being poor. You can call that bleeding heart 
liberalism--call it whatever you want to call it. I am not for keeping 
people on the welfare cycle. I am for reforming welfare, to make jobs a 
lot more attractive to those people. I am for reforming welfare so 
women can have day care for their children and get job training and 
find a job, preferably one that provides health care so we do not have 
to pay for Medicaid for them.
  But in the debate, just to use my own State as an example, there is 
sort of the suggestion that the youngsters, the babies that are born in 
College Station, AR, which is an unspeakably poor area, have the same 
opportunities as the children born in Pleasant Valley, our most 
affluent suburb. And everybody who does not happen to make it as well 
as the people in Pleasant Valley, somehow or another we seem to think 
they are lowdown.
  I said on the floor before and I will say it again, my brother went 
to Harvard Law School, courtesy of the taxpayers of the United States 
on the GI bill. We have a little difficult time sometimes discussing 
these issues, but I remind him that it was more than Harvard Law School 
that made him successful.
  I would not be a U.S. Senator if I had not been able to go to a good 
law school, like Northwestern, also compliments of the U.S. Government, 
who paid for all of it, except what Betty made working.
  So I remind my brother about the largess of the Federal Government, 
which I have been trying to pay back all of my life, by thanking the 
taxpayers, being a good public servant, and doing my dead-level best to 
make this a better country for my children and grandchildren to grow up 
in. But I also remind my brother that we were also fortunate because we 
chose our parents well. These AFDC children did not choose their 
parents well. Somehow there is a certain vindictiveness, a punitive 
aspect to this bill toward those children, a lot of whom are going to 
suffer under the terms of this bill, and suffer a lot, because they had 
the temerity not to choose their parents well.
  So, I do not have any trouble voting against this bill, especially 
because it discriminates against my State in a totally unacceptable 
way. I know my State. I was Governor of my State. I know where the 
money comes from, and I know where it goes. We have areas along the 
Mississippi River, which we call the delta, and if we are going to pass 
a bill to alleviate the tax burden on people in the District of 
Columbia because their people are moving out because of crime or the 
tax rate or something else, I want to include the delta.
  I can tell you, you will not find an inner city in America with more 
deplorable poverty than you will find in the delta of Mississippi and 
Arkansas. So I want them to have the same break.
  As I say, if we were not struggling to do the best we can, I would 
not object. But we do not have the money that New York, New Jersey, 
California, and other States have to put into this program. It is not 
just Arkansas. Mr. President, your home State of Florida, as you know 
all too well without me saying it, will lose $1 billion under this 
bill.
  The two Senators from Texas voted against the Graham-Bumpers proposal 
last year--and I assume they will do it again--and it cost the State of 
Texas $3 billion. And on it goes. It is a grossly unfair formula. It is 
indefensible.
  In this morning's New York Times, my position is vindicated at least 
by one columnist, David Ellwood, who is professor of public policy at 
Harvard School of Government. He says, and this is just a portion of 
it:

       States would get block grants to use for welfare and work 
     programs. But the grants for child care, job training, 
     workfare, and cash assistance combined would amount to less 
     than $15 per poor child per week in * * * Mississippi and 
     Arkansas.

  Mr. President, $15 a week for all of those things.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. BUMPERS. I will be happy to yield.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Does that not mean that is what they are getting now?
  Mr. BUMPERS. I beg your pardon?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Does that not mean that is what they are getting now?
  Mr. BUMPERS. It means that is what they have gotten as an average for 
1991 and 1994.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Are you suggesting it is appreciably better than 1994?
  Mr. BUMPERS. Well, I am sure it is somewhat better.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Will the formula become more satisfactory if it was 
brought to 1995? I do not think we got the evidence. My point is, 
however we go--I do not know which way the Senate is going to go--the 
truth of the matter is, those poor children you are speaking of in 
those two States are not getting very much now. That is the reason they 
are not going to get very much under this bill.
  Mr. BUMPERS. They are not going to get very much, but why do you want

[[Page S8412]]

to lock in an inequity? You say it has always been unequal but want to 
lock it in?
  Mr. DOMENICI. I did not say that. I wanted to make sure the Record 
reflected when you expressed yourself--and I have great respect for 
you. You are representing a cause and an approach that ought to be 
looked at carefully. But when you say they are only going to get $15 on 
average, it has to be made clear they are not getting much more than 
$15 now.
  Mr. BUMPERS. That's true, they are not getting much more than that. I 
can tell you the number of poor children in my State is higher by far 
than the national average.
  What I am saying is that if you want to address the problems of poor 
people, go where the poor people are, not where the people are more 
affluent. That is the reason I object; I object to these staggering 
sums going to the other States.
  In 1994, Arkansas had a terrible Medicaid shortage of funds. We could 
not come up with our matching share to the extent that was necessary to 
provide health care for all of our poor children. Do you know what the 
State legislature did under the Governor's leadership? They passed one 
of the most unpopular taxes you can pass in any State. It was a nickel 
a bottle on soft drinks, and the money it raised kept us from kicking 
people out of nursing homes, and it kept us from having poor children 
on the streets who need health care and are not able to get it.
  That is the reason I am complaining today. It was a monumental effort 
on the part of Arkansas to come up with our share of the money so we 
could take care of our children.
  So here we have a formula that says in the future you are going to 
get $390 a year per poor child. And there are 38 additional States that 
will be hurt by this bill. You would think it would be adopted with 
flying colors.
  If I may continue with the article from Mr. Ellwood of the New York 
Times:

       Governor Thompson says he can make reform succeed with 
     block grants. But the legislation provides more than three 
     times as much money per poor child in wealthier States like 
     Wisconsin, California, and New York as it does for many 
     States with much higher levels of poverty. Even if they 
     wanted to, there is no way poor States could carry out plans 
     like Governor Thompson's.

  Here is a man who spent his entire life studying this problem. He 
closes this article by saying:

       Welfare politics has turned ugly.
       Rhetoric has replaced reality: saying a bill is about work 
     or that cuts are in the best interests of children does not 
     make it so. Apparently the legislation is being driven by 
     election-year fears. But Members of Congress and President 
     Clinton need to stand up for our children. This bill should 
     not be passed. If legislation like this is adopted, I hope 
     the President vetoes it in the name of real welfare reform.

  Mr. President, I spoke about election-year issues the other day in 
the Energy Committee, on which I sit, when we were dealing with the 
Boundary Water Canoe Wilderness Area, about 1,100 lakes along the 
Minnesota-Canadian border. I went out there in 1978 for Wendy Anderson, 
who was serving in the Senate from the State of Minnesota at the time 
and with whom I served as Governor. The Boundary Water Canoe Wilderness 
Area came up the year Wendy was running for re-election. It was a big 
political issue. Wendy lost his seat, not for that reason only. But he 
lost plenty of votes because of the Boundary Water Canoe Wilderness 
Area dispute.
  Now we have another big Boundary Water Canoe Wilderness Area dispute 
in Minnesota. I am not taking sides on that necessarily, but there are 
a lot of ads being run in Minnesota right now. I said in the 
committee--and I mean it--I will do everything I can to keep a bill of 
this kind from passing this year, because it is entirely too important 
for the U.S. Congress to be dealing with in an election year.
  That is exactly the way I feel about this welfare bill. It ought to 
be passed next year, not now in an election year where everybody is 
trying to grow hair on their chest to prove they are tougher on welfare 
than everyone else. But we are not going to wait. As a consequence, we 
are getting ready to pass a bad bill.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the article by David T. 
Ellwood in the New York Times be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                      Welfare Reform in Name Only

                         (By David T. Ellwood)

       Bondurant, Wy.--I have spent much of my professional life 
     seeking to reform welfare. I have worked with Republican and 
     Democratic governors. And until I returned to academia a year 
     ago, I was fortunate to be a co-chairman of President 
     Clinton's welfare reform effort. I deeply believe that the 
     well-being of the nation's children depends on real reform. 
     We must turn away from the failed system focused on 
     determining eligibility and check writing and create a new 
     one based on work and responsibility.
       But the Republican bills in the House and Senate are far 
     more about budget-cutting than work. Bathed in the rhetoric 
     of reform, they are more dangerous than most people realize. 
     No bill that is likely to push more than a million additional 
     children into poverty--many in working families--is real 
     reform.
       Proponents claim the bills are about work, and the 
     legislation does obligate states to require large numbers of 
     recipients to work. Fair enough. Serious work requirements 
     are crucial to meaningful change. But it's one thing to write 
     work into legislation, and it's another to get recipients 
     jobs.
       Gov. Tommy Thompson of Wisconsin, a Republican, has 
     emphasized that reform often involves spending more, not 
     less, money on things like job training and child care. 
     Instead, the Congressional bills would make major cuts--
     reducing food stamps for the working poor, aid to disabled 
     children and to legal immigrants who are not yet citizens. 
     When the dust settles, there would not be much money for 
     welfare reform at all.
       States would get block grants to use for welfare and work 
     programs. But the grants for child care, job training, 
     workfare and cash assistance combined would amount to less 
     than $15 per poor child per week in poor Southern states like 
     Mississippi and Arkansas. Moving people from welfare to work 
     is hard. On $15 a week--whom are we kidding?
       Governor Thompson says he can make reform succeed with 
     block grants. But the legislation provides more than three 
     times as much money per poor child in wealthier states like 
     Wisconsin, California and New York as it does for many states 
     with much higher levels of poverty. Even if they wanted to, 
     there is no way poor states could carry out plans like 
     Governor Thompson's.
       States cannot and will not do the impossible. The 
     legislation gives them an out. They may set time limits of 
     any length and simply cut families off welfare regardless of 
     their circumstances--and still get their full Federal block 
     grants.
       It won't matter if the people want to work. It won't matter 
     if they would happily take workfare jobs so they could 
     provide something for their families. It won't matter if 
     there are no private jobs available.
       States may want to offer workfare jobs, but limited Federal 
     grants may preclude that. People who are willing to work but 
     are unable to find a job should not be abandoned. If they 
     are, what happens to their children?
       What is dangerous about the Republican legislation is not 
     that it gives states the lead or reduces Federal rules. 
     States really are the source of most creative work on true 
     reform. Witness the approximately 40 states for which some 
     Federal regulations have been waived.
       It is worrisome that this legislation places new and often 
     mean-spirited demands on states while changing the social and 
     financial rules of the game in a way that strongly encourages 
     cutting support rather than getting people jobs.
       What is particularly distressing about the pre-election 
     rush to enact legislation is that significant reform is 
     finally starting at the state level, with active support from 
     the Clinton Administration. Some remarkably exciting ideas 
     (as well as some alarming ones) are being tried. There is no 
     evidence that a lack of Federal legislation has seriously 
     slowed this momentum.
       Indeed, President Clinton has talked about issuing an 
     executive order requiring states to put people to work after 
     two years--without new legislation and without any danger of 
     sizable rises in child poverty or major benefit cuts. Passing 
     the legislation now in Congress seems far more likely to slow 
     reform than speed it--and it could result not in greater 
     independence of poor families but in a spiral of ever-
     increasing desperation.
       Welfare politics has turned ugly. Rhetoric has replaced 
     reality: saying a bill is about work or that cuts are in the 
     best interests of children does not make it so. Apparently 
     the legislation is being driven by election-year fears. But 
     members of Congress and President Clinton need to stand up 
     for our children. These bills should not be passed. And if 
     legislation like this is adopted, I hope the President vetoes 
     it in the name of real welfare reform.

  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I am certain that we will have some 
arguments in opposition to the amendment for doing the formula 
differently than Senator Bumpers has addressed. I am

[[Page S8413]]

trying to see if one of those who is from the committee that wrote the 
bill would come down and do that. If not, I will address the issue.
  But I say, the part of your argument--I say this to Senator Bumpers--
that says we ought to put this matter off, I do not think so. I think 
you ought to get your chance here to present your case. I think we 
ought to proceed.
  Part of the argument you make indicates that we have waited far too 
long to do something to reform this system and reforming the system in 
the context I am speaking of right now. I am not necessarily speaking 
about the workfare approach. It is way past due for that.
  But essentially we have sat by for years since AFDC, a cash program, 
came into being decades ago. We have let it develop to the extent it 
has characteristics of the type you are speaking to. Obviously, poor 
States were given the option to have very poor programs. But if we 
would have told them, ``You ought to have richer programs,'' they would 
have said, ``We can't afford any richer program.''
  A State like New York, which you speak of, has very, very high taxes. 
They have had a very, very liberal approach to taxing their people. 
Thus, they can put up a lot of money for welfare. Since it is a high-
pay State, they decided to have a very hefty welfare program. As a 
matter of fact, they have plenty of poor people in spite of all that.
  I did not interrupt when you said we ought to put the money where the 
poor people are, but I would venture to say that there are far more 
poor people in the State of New York than there are in three or four of 
the States you spoke of combined, certainly more than Arkansas, 
Mississippi, States of that size.
  Just because New York has a very high wage scale does not mean there 
are not a lot of poor people there. But the problem is, we are 
confronted with a welfare program that grew in an environment where we 
asked States to match. We gave them options as to how much they wanted 
to put into welfare. We even gave them options of how much they would 
pay the beneficiaries and how much per child in a welfare home. We have 
just left it there for years and did not do anything about it.
  Now we have States with hardly a program in terms of real dollars and 
States like New York, which has spent a lot of money on the program. 
Sooner or later we have to decide, in reform, what do we do about that? 
Perhaps you suggest that you have a better idea on what we do to make 
that a situation in the future that is not as bad as you see it in the 
past. But this is not an easy one. Nor is it an easy one in Medicare. 
You addressed Medicare for a fleeting moment about----
  Mr. BUMPERS. Medicaid.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Excuse me. Medicaid. About your State being unable to 
pay. One of the things we are forgetting here in the United States and 
in this land when we debate Medicaid reform is that States cannot 
afford the Medicaid Program we are telling them to have.
  Your State fell short of money a few years ago. Mine is short this 
year. There is $21 million they do not have to pay for the program in 
Medicaid. We only match it with 25 cents on the dollar. I do not know 
what yours is, but I would imagine, considering the profile of poverty, 
the demographics of poverty, you are probably at a 25-percent match, 
meaning that the Feds pay most of it, but it is so expensive to provide 
the service under the current system the States cannot even pay for it.
  If we think here the evolution of a formula in transition was 
difficult for welfare, it is much more difficult on Medicaid because of 
the very same facts, plus the program is much, much more encompassing 
in terms of how many billions of dollars it spent. Welfare is a small 
program in terms of the dollars spent on Medicaid, even in your State 
and my State.
  So it is not going to be easy to come up with a formula because we 
have let them grow up side by side with States like New York and States 
like Arkansas and States like Mississippi or New Mexico. I take that 
back. New Mexico's welfare program is in the middle of the ranks. Its 
Medicaid is about in the middle of the Nation.
  So I would have asked that Harvard professor who wrote that article 
you quoted from--it sounded brilliant--I would ask--maybe he has done 
it--but where is his welfare program? He says we ought to have welfare 
reform. We need one. It is easy to say, throw one out. We need one. We 
have to make some decisions and get on with trying it. I yield the 
floor at this point.
  Mr. BUMPERS. I wonder if the Senator would yield for a moment? Would 
the Senator yield for a unanimous consent request?
  Mr. DOMENICI. I would be pleased to.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Let me make one other observation, because I know the 
Senator has labored in the vineyard a long time on welfare. It is one 
of those issues for which the time never seems right. I said we ought 
to do it next year. We tried to do it last year, which was not an 
election year. It did not work out.
  But I think the Senator, for whom I have the utmost respect--and when 
I talk about Members of Congress that seem to lack some compassion, I 
am certainly not talking about my friend from New Mexico. I know he has 
labored long and hard for this. It is a complex issue. The deeper I got 
into it on this amendment, the more complex it became.
  But I will say this--and I think the Senator would agree with me--you 
cannot make a program like this work, not the way it ought to work, 
when, for example, a child in Massachusetts or New York or someplace 
else is worth 10 times as much as a child in Arkansas or Mississippi. 
We are not ever going to get our act together when we have that much 
disparity. I am not saying there does not have to be effort, because 
effort is important.
  Some of these States have made monumental efforts. But effort is a 
comparative thing. We have made efforts, too. Compared to some others 
maybe it was not as great. When the Senator talks about how many poor 
children there are in New York, I know the Senator is correct when he 
says there are probably more poor children in New York than there are 
in Mississippi, Alabama, and Arkansas put together.
  But we are talking about poor children as a percentage of the 
population. We are talking about how many poor children you have 
compared to all the children in the State or all the people in the 
State. When you get to that point, New York is not in the running with 
Arkansas. I want to say to the Senator from New Mexico, I appreciate 
his comments. As I say, I have the utmost respect for his efforts to 
get this bill passed and all the effort he has made in the past. I just 
happen to disagree with him. I yield the floor.
  Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I wonder if we could do this, I say to Senator Bumpers. 
The time is 1 o'clock. We are going to be finished and run out of time 
at 2 o'clock. I want to offer an opportunity for a couple of Senators 
who would be very adversely affected by the Senator's amendment to 
speak, not as long as the Senator did, but for some period of time. I 
am going to make one observation and then ask consent.
  I say to Senators, they should know, for instance, under this 
amendment the State of Arkansas will have 151 percent increase; the 
State of Louisiana will have 170 percent; New Mexico would have an 
increase of 3 percent; California would have a reduction of $1.2 
billion, a 31 percent reduction, New York a reduction of 49 percent; 
Massachusetts, 50 percent; and on and on. I think some of those 
Senators might want to come down and make their case as to why the 
formula should be based on what they have been putting into the program 
during the immediate past decade or so.
  Having said that, I ask unanimous consent we set aside the Bumpers 
amendment, but from the Republican side we reserve up to 10 minutes of 
the hour that we might have in rebuttal, and that Senator Bumpers be 
allowed, if that occurs, an additional 5 minutes, if we use 10.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Either Senator Graham or myself.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, let me make one other observation: 
According the charts Senator Graham has compiled, I do not know where 
the Senator got the figure that we will get such a

[[Page S8414]]

big increase. The truth is we will get $282 million less per capita 
over the next 6 years simply because we are using the 1991 and 1994 
formula.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I will be happy to make available the formula of the 
Congressional Research Service, July 18, 1996. This formula has a chart 
for the increase in every State, and we just took your increase and put 
the percentage on it. That is where we got that number. We will be 
happy to make the chart available.
  Mr. President, let me make one last point, then we will move to the 
next amendment. I use this time off the bill.
  Mr. President, whatever the distinguished Senator from Arkansas has 
said relative to what we have been paying as part of the welfare 
program of the United States for children and this huge disparity of 10 
to 1, the point I want to make is that is not the feature of this bill. 
That is what has transpired over time. It is the reality today. Maybe 
Senator Bumpers and others would say that is why welfare has failed. I 
did not hear that before. I thought it was some other characteristic, 
but that is the truth.
  Now we are confronted with, if you are going to change the basic 
quality of welfare and what is expected, what do you do about that 
financial disparity that existed over time, which is extreme. This bill 
tends to perpetuate that for 5 years in the form of a block grants, but 
there is a lot of flexibility added.
  I do not want to speak to that amendment any more because we reserved 
time. I yield the floor.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, just prior to Senator Bumpers making his 
statement, I offered an amendment. This is not the amendment that was 
agreed to last week. This is a different amendment. We have provided 
the amendment, I believe, or at least discussed it with both sides.
  I wanted to take just 2 or 3 minutes to discuss that amendment, and I 
also wanted to introduce a second amendment which I believe is going to 
be agreed to. I am offering the second amendment on behalf of Senator 
Daschle, myself, Senator Domenici and Senator McCain. It is an 
amendment that has been worked out by both sides to exempt certain 
individuals living in areas of low labor market participation from the 
5-year limitation on assistance.
  If I might, in a capsule, point out that the welfare reform bill 
provides a 20-percent exemption that is available to the States. What 
we could have and likely would have are circumstances where there are 
areas in which virtually no jobs are available and you have very high 
unemployment. That situation would soak up the exemption almost 
immediately. This amendment addresses and corrects that and provides 
some more flexibility to the States.


                           Amendment No. 4949

 (Purpose: To exempt certain individuals living in areas of low labor 
     market participation from the 5-year limitation on assistance)

  Mr. DORGAN. I offer this amendment, and I send it to the desk.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be in order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Jeffords). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The clerk will report the amendment.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Dorgan], for Mr. 
     Daschle, for himself, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Domenici, and Mr. 
     McCain, proposes an amendment No. 4949.

  Mr. DORGAN. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be 
dispensed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:
       On page 250, line 2, strike ``and (C)'' and insert ``, (C), 
     and (D)''.
       On page 252, between lines 9 and 10, insert the following:
       ``(D) Exception for extremely low labor market 
     participation.--
       ``(i) In general.--In determining the number of months for 
     which an adult received assistance under the State program 
     funded under this part, the State may disregard any and all 
     months in which the individual resided in an area of 
     extremely low labor market participation (as defined under 
     clause (ii).
       ``(ii) Extremely low labor market participation area.--For 
     purposes of clause (i), an adult is considered to be living 
     in an area of extremely low labor market participation if 
     such adult resides on a reservation of an Indian Tribe--
       ``(I) with a population of at least 1,000 individuals; and
       ``(II) with at least 50% of the adult population not 
     employed, as determined by the Secretary using the best 
     available data from a Federal agency.
       On page 252, line 10, strike ``(D)'' and insert ``(E)''.

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I am a cosponsor, and I indicate so that 
everybody would understand this does not say this is mandated. This 
says that the Governors, in putting together their plan for their 
State, can, if they find an area--and this is pretty much going to be 
Indian areas, I believe, because of the enormous unemployment number; 
it is 50 percent--it will be available as a flexible tool in terms of 
putting together packages.
  Mr. DORGAN. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. DOMENICI. We accept the amendment on our side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 4949) was agreed to.
  Mr. DORGAN. I move to table the amendment.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I move to reconsider the vote.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 4948

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, if I might just for a couple of minutes 
address the previous amendment that I offered that deals with the 
tribal child care set-aside. I hope we perhaps might be able to see 
this amendment accepted before we go to votes tomorrow.
  The amendment I have offered on behalf of myself, Senator McCain, and 
Senator Inouye, restores the current set-aside for Indian child care 
funding. The current set-aside is 3 percent of the child care 
development block grant, which is now available to Indian tribes for 
child care. The welfare reform bill cuts that 3 percent down to 1 
percent.
  The funds the Indian tribes are now able to access with the child 
care development block grant have been very important. They have 
allowed the tribes to successfully run a wide range of child care 
programs. In 1994, that set-aside helped more than 500 tribes provide 
child care.
  Last year, when the welfare reform bills passed both the House and 
the Senate, they retained the 3-percent set-aside for tribal child care 
programs. The conference bill inexplicably reduced that tribal 
allocation from 3 percent to 1 percent, the same level that is now 
contained in this reconciliation bill.
  The reduction in the tribal set-aside occurs at the very same time 
that State child care funds would increase substantially. The question 
I ask is, if an increase in child care is critical to State efforts to 
move people from welfare to work, and I believe it is, then why is it 
not also critical for real welfare reform in Indian country and for 
Indian tribes to provide child care?
  I want to make a point that Indian children under age 6 are more than 
twice as likely as the average child in America to live in 
circumstances of poverty. Indian children under 6 who live on 
reservations are three times more likely to live in circumstances of 
poverty than non-Indian children.
  I toured, not so long ago, a child care center on a facility in North 
Dakota that is jointly run by four tribes, United Tribes Technical 
College. It is a wonderful place where American Indians come to receive 
educational and vocational training. They study, they graduate, they go 
out and get work. That center is run by a wonderful man named David 
Gipp, who does an extraordinarily good job. They have a child care 
center at U-Tech. I have toured that child care center a couple of 
times.
  U-Tech reminds you of the need and the importance of child care in 
this building-block process to move people from welfare to work. You 
have to be able to get the job skills. Often, to get job skills, if you 
have children, you have to try to find child care. All of us know that 
it is not just in Indian country, but across this country, 
increasingly, that poverty is a problem often faced by young women with 
children in single-parent households.
  Now, when they try to get skills and then get a job, the question is, 
What

[[Page S8415]]

kind of child care can they access to take care of their children? To 
them, just like in every other household, the most important thing in 
their lives are their children. They want to make sure the children 
have an opportunity. If they go to work, when they go to work, they 
want to have an opportunity to place their children in child care in a 
place where they have some confidence and trust. That is why this 
amendment is so important.
  It breaks your heart to take a look at what is happening in some 
areas of the country with very high unemployment, especially Indian 
reservations, with people who want an opportunity to work. They want a 
job. On many of these reservations--and we have a couple in North 
Dakota--there virtually are no jobs. If you look at the map and try to 
figure out, where do we carve out a reservation and say these are 
Indian reservations, do you think they carved out the fertile Red River 
Valley? No. They carved out reservations where there are no great 
opportunities and where there has not been a substantial amount of 
economic activity, not very many jobs, not very many companies moving 
in to provide opportunities.
  As we attempt to decide how to reform the welfare system--and we 
should, because it does not work very well--we need to understand that 
the two linchpins that can help people move from welfare to work are 
child care and health care. The absence of one or both means that you 
cannot succeed in moving someone from welfare to work. The presence of 
both means that you can say to people that we expect something from you 
in response to what we are going to offer for you. Part of that is job 
training and employment, but also attendant to it is adequate and 
proper child care. I do hope that, between now and tomorrow, we might 
find an opportunity to see whether this amendment might be accepted.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the amendment 
offered by my colleague, Senator Dorgan. The amendment ensures that 
Indian tribes will continue to receive 3 percent of funding provided 
under the child care development block grant program, as it stands 
under current law.
  I am pleased that the proposed budget reconciliation measure under 
consideration includes provisions which I and other Senators sponsored 
to address the unique needs and requirements of Indian country to 
directly administer welfare programs.
  Mr. President, welfare assistance programs are intended to protect 
poor people and children. As reported, the bill does not go far enough 
to ensure that Indian tribes, particularly Indian children, who are the 
most vulnerable of our population and among the poorest of the poor, 
will be protected. Indian children under the age of 6 are more than 
twice as likely as the average non-Indian child to live in poverty. 
Indian children under the age of 6 residing on Indian reservations are 
three times more likely than non-Indian children to live in poverty.
  The need in Indian country is enormous and far outweighs the limited 
Federal dollars allocated to Indian tribal governments. Because the 
need for assistance to Indian children is so compelling, I have been 
quite concerned that the reported bill reduced the tribal allocation 
from 3 percent to 1 percent. Such a cut would have harmed tribal 
efforts to bring more Indian people into the work force and resulted in 
diminishment of existing tribal child care programs.
  Mr. President, I believe we should maintain the 3-percent-funding 
allocation under present law to ensure that Indian children receive an 
equal and fair opportunity to a brighter future as is provided to all 
other American children. This commitment also honors the unique trust 
relationship that the United States has with Indian tribal governments.
  I am pleased that we have reached agreement to adopt this amendment 
and thank Senator Domenici, chairman of the Budget Committee, and 
Senator Roth, chairman of the Finance Committee, for accepting it. I 
also want to thank Senator Dorgan for once again demonstrating his 
commitment to improve the lives of Indian children. I urge my 
colleagues to work diligently at conference with the House to ensure 
that the welfare bill we send to the President maintains this 
provision.


                           Amendment No. 4934

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I want to make one additional comment, not 
on this amendment, but on the one offered by Senator Conrad. That 
amendment is the issue of the optional food stamp block grant.
  My understanding of the amendment is that the block grant option that 
exists in the bill is a problem, and the amendment would repeal the 
block grant. The amendment's supporters believe--and I firmly believe--
that if we decide that it is a function of national will, a national 
objective to decide that those who do not have enough to eat, then we 
are going to try to help get them some food.
  If that is a national issue, it is not an issue between one county 
and another county, or one State and another State, or one city and 
another city. It is an issue of national determination that we do not 
want people in this country to be hungry. We do not want kids to go 
without meals. We want to develop a national standard that makes sure 
this country, as good and generous and as strong as this country is, 
can feed those people among us who have suffered some difficulties, who 
were unfortunate enough to be born into circumstances of poverty, who 
have had some other disadvantages, and who find themselves down and 
out, down on their luck, and also hungry.
  We know what to do about hunger. This is not some mysterious disease 
for which there is no cure. We know what causes hunger and how to 
resolve it.
  Part of this bill deals with the issues of resolving hunger and 
helping people get prepared for the workplace. Another part says you 
cannot prepare 8-year-olds for a job. We ought not to prepare 10-year-
olds for a job. If we have kids living in poverty, or grownups living 
in poverty, we want to make sure that we have a system to say that we 
will help them get back on their feet. While we are helping them get 
back on their feet, we do not want them to be hungry--kids, adults, 
anybody in this country. That is why we have had a Food Stamp Program. 
Is it perfect? No. Has it worked well? Sure. We ought not, in any way, 
decide that we should retreat from that. That is why I so strongly 
support the amendment offered by Senator Conrad and Senator Jeffords.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.


                           Amendment No. 4948

  Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, on the amendment which is pending, with 
reference to the 1 versus 3 percent set-aside, we have cleared this 
with the committee of jurisdiction. What will happen when we adopt this 
amendment is that we will return the percentage to its current law. 
This is a ceiling, not a mandated level. For those reasons, the 
committee indicates that we will accept it on our side.
  Therefore, I yield back any time on the amendment and indicate that 
we are willing to accept the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 4948) was agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. DORGAN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Senator for offering the amendment.
  Mr. DORGAN. I thank the Senator from New Mexico for his help.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 4950

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

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

       The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. Ford], for Mrs. Murray, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 4950.


[[Page S8416]]


  Mr. FORD. 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 1206.

  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, Senator Murray is unavoidably detained. I am 
proposing her amendment.
  This is an amendment she discussed last week and withdrew with the 
opportunity to be able to submit it today. It strikes section 1206. The 
bill reduces the rate of the Summer Food Service Program.
  The Food Research Action Council's surveys and past experience leads 
them to conclude that the cut could result in:
  A 30- to 35-percent drop in the number of sponsors;
  A 20-percent cut in the number of children participating;
  Many larger sponsors dropping their smaller sites;
  A significant decline in meat quality as sponsors cut food costs.
  I ask unanimous consent that ``the need for the Murray amendment 
striking provisions relating to the Summer Food Program'' be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

       The need for the Murray amendment striking provisions 
     relating to the summer food program:
       The Senate bill makes an eleven percent cut to the 
     reimbursement rate for lunches provided in the summer food 
     program. The reduction (a 23/20 cent cut on each lunch, from 
     $2.16/$2.12 to $1.93) is substantial. Many programs around 
     the country serve 50 or fewer children. Over half of current 
     sponsors already lose money under current rates. Their 
     margins to absorb cuts are extremely narrow. Estimates vary 
     by state, but the Food Research Action Council's surveys and 
     past experience lead them to conclude that the cut could 
     result in: a 30-35 percent drop in the number of sponsors 
     (especially in rural districts); a 20 percent cut in the 
     number of children participating; many larger sponsors 
     dropping their smaller sites; weaker supervision and 
     monitoring and a decline in program integrity; a significant 
     decline in meal quality as sponsors cut food costs; and very 
     few new sponsors. It is already difficult to recruit new 
     sponsors, even though only one in six eligible children 
     receive meals. The recruitment of new sponsors by advocacy 
     groups would likely stop, and with it, future growth.
       The effect of the amendment:
       Strikes section 1206 of the bill, which reduces the rates 
     for the Summer Food Program.

  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum. We 
are not going to respond yet. We are just beginning to understand the 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 4951

              (Purpose: To provide additional amendments)

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I offer in behalf of Senator Roth 
technical amendments to the bill. These have been requested by the 
Finance Committee and been approved and recommended for adoption by the 
majority and the minority of the Finance Committee. I send the 
technical amendments to the desk and ask for their immediate 
consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows.

       The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Domenici], for Mr. Roth, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 4951.

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

       On page 193, line 8, strike ``is'' and insert ``has been''.
       On page 238, line 4, insert ``any temporary layoffs and'' 
     after ``including''.
       On page 238, line 6, strike ``overtime'' and insert 
     ``nonovertime''.
       On page 238, strike line 7 through 13, and insert the 
     following:
       ``wages, or employment benefits; and''.

  Mr. EXON. No objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 4951) was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 4952

  (Purpose: To strike additional penalties for consecutive failure to 
                  satisfy minimum participation rates)

  Mr. GRAHAM addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida is recognized.
  Mr. GRAHAM. I rise for purposes of offering an amendment. I send an 
amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows.

       The Senator from Florida [Mr. Graham] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 4952:
       Strike section 409(a)(3)(C) of the Social Security Act, as 
     added by section 2103(a)(1).

  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, as read, the purpose of this motion to 
strike is to strike section 409(a)(3)(C) which was added to this bill 
during its consideration before the Senate Finance Committee. The 
provision which I would offer to strike provides:

       Notwithstanding the limitation described in Subparagraph 
     (A), the Secretary shall reduce the grant payable to the 
     State . . . for a fiscal year, in addition to the reduction 
     imposed under subsection (A), by an amount equal to 5 percent 
     of the State family assistance grant, if the Secretary 
     determines that the State failed to comply with section 
     407(a) for 2 or more consecutive preceding fiscal years.

  That language was added in the Senate Finance Committee to language 
that had been in the bill in its previous form, in its current 
reconciliation version, as well as in other versions of welfare reform. 
That previous version states that the Secretary can sanction a State 
which fails to meet its work requirements by an amount up to 5 percent 
of the State's family assistance grant.
  The amendment that was offered, first, removes the discretion from 
the Secretary; second, instead of saying up to 5 percent, it makes it 
an absolute 5 percent in addition to whatever sanction has been levied 
in the previous fiscal year against a State which failed to meet its 
work requirement.
  Why am I offering this amendment? I am offering it, first, because 
the language of the amendment is very obscure. In its claimed reading, 
it seems to say that there will be an additional amount, equal to 5 
percent of the State's family assistance grant, as a sanction if the 
State had failed for 2 consecutive years to meet its work requirements. 
That, apparently, is not the way it is being interpreted by others, 
including one of the groups which is strongly opposed to this 
provision, which is the National Conference of State Legislatures. They 
are interpreting this to be a cumulative sanction. That it would be, if 
you failed to meet your work requirements for 2 consecutive years and 
had been subject to a penalty because of failure to do so, you would be 
subject to an additional mandatory 5-percent cut in the third year; an 
additional 5-percent cut, or a cumulative 15 percent in the next year; 
an additional 5 percent in the year after that, up to a maximum of a 
25-percent reduction in your grant.
  So one of my concerns with this very important provision that was 
added--frankly, as a member of the Finance Committee, I can stipulate, 
without any consideration by the committee--is, just what does it mean? 
It could be very draconian in its impact. It could be only very 
serious.
  So that is one issue. A second issue is the fact that the States, 
through the organizations that we have looked to, to do much of the 
policy work for a bill which purports to grant increased authority to 
States, are opposed to this provision.
  I ask unanimous consent to have a series of letters from State-based 
organizations printed at the conclusion of my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. GRAHAM. I would like to use, illustrative of the letters I 
received, this letter dated today, July 22, from the National 
Conference of State Legislatures. This letter states, in part:

       State legislators want welfare reform to succeed. In order 
     to succeed, we need adequate implementation time to craft 
     comprehensive welfare reform that best fits the needs in our 
     individual states. In S. 1956, both the work participation 
     rate requirements and penalties begin the first year of the 
     block grant. Therefore, we strongly support Senator Bob 
     Graham's amendment to

[[Page S8417]]

     strike the language imposing a cumulative penalty of five 
     percent of the block grant per year on states that fail to 
     meet the mandated work requirements. Imposing harsh and 
     excessive penalties will only make it more difficult for 
     states to succeed. State legislators are committed to welfare 
     reform and have proved it through passage of numerous laws 
     reforming their welfare systems. We have asked the federal 
     government for flexibility to change the current system and 
     hope for legislation to empower the states.
       The Congress has challenged us to go even further, yet the 
     current bill leaves no room for adjustment, even if a state 
     experiences a recession, high unemployment or natural 
     disaster. Despite our best effort, there may be states who 
     cannot meet the work requirements. To add compounding 
     financial penalties will severely restrict state efforts even 
     further--just at the moment when they could use assistance 
     from their federal partner.

  Mr. President, the letter from the National Conference of State 
Legislatures points out a fundamental difference between the sanction 
that we had previously proposed, and which stays in this bill, and that 
which was added in the Finance Committee. The previous sanction made it 
in the discretion of the Secretary of HHS as to whether to levy such a 
penalty, and at what level to do it up to 5 percent. So the Secretary 
could take into consideration--maybe the reason the State of Vermont 
failed to meet its work requirement was because they had an unexpected 
natural disaster in Vermont, as we did in Florida with Hurricane 
Andrew, or maybe they had an unusual economic recession and more people 
were unable to find work, and therefore they could not meet the work 
requirements for those persons who are coming off welfare. The 
cumulative language gives no such discretion to the Secretary to take 
those kinds of real-world conditions into account.
  A third reason for offering this amendment is the reason that was the 
basis of discussion earlier today by my colleague, Senator Bumpers, and 
myself on Friday. That is, we start this process from a very 
inequitable allocation of funds among the 50 States. The reason it is 
so inequitable is because we are basically using the status quo which 
was based on a State's financial ability and political willingness to 
put up substantial amounts of money for welfare and then draw down an 
equivalent amount of Federal matching funds. That formula has resulted 
in disparities of in the range of 4 and 5 to 1 between high-benefit 
States and low-benefit States in the amount of funds that they have per 
poor person.
  For instance, in the State of Arkansas, for every person in their 
State who has an income below the poverty level, they would get $397 of 
Federal support. In the State of New York, under this legislation, in 
the year 2000 they would get $1,961 for every person below 100 percent 
of poverty level. When you compound that large inequity in the amount 
of Federal funds per State with a common requirement that all States 
have to meet in terms of getting a proportion of their welfare 
population off welfare and into work, you have enormous differences in 
the impact of this legislation.
  Mr. President, I am going to truncate my remarks because I know there 
are some amendments that have to be offered before 2 o'clock. But let 
me, just for my colleagues, point out that the State of Arkansas, in 
the year 2000, has estimated it will have to spend 49 percent of the 
funds which today go to provide economic support to pay for everything 
from school supplies to clothing to diapers to utilities, 49 percent of 
those funds will have to go to meet the work requirements, that is, to 
pay for the job training, to pay for the child care, to pay for the 
other support services such as job placement. That is in the State of 
Arkansas.
  In my State, which is a middle State in terms of benefits, 36 percent 
of our funds would have to go to meet those requirements, whereas in 
New York State, only 14 percent of their combined State-Federal funds 
would be required in order to pay for exactly the same work assistance 
that Arkansas and Florida would have to provide, thus leaving a very 
inequitable amount left over for the fundamental economic support that 
this program for 60 years has been providing to indigent families in 
America.
  So, for those three reasons--lack of clarity as to what this 
amendment is supposed to mean; second, the strong opposition of the 
States because of its lack of flexibility; and, third, the inequitable 
application of this cumulative sanction amendment--I offer this 
amendment. At the appropriate time, I will urge its support.

                               Exhibit 1

                                            National Conference of


                                           State Legislatures,

                                    Washington, DC, July 22, 1996.
       Dear Senator: The National Conference of State Legislatures 
     (NCSL) is committed to continuing our work with the Congress 
     to enact comprehensive, bipartisan welfare reform legislation 
     this year. As you consider amendments to S. 1956, state 
     legislators offer the following positions for your 
     consideration. We strongly believe that the final welfare 
     reform bill must: (1) provide maximum flexibility to state 
     and local governments; (2) preserve existing state authority 
     and avoid preemption; (3) fund federally-mandated activities; 
     (4) avoid cost-shifts to states; and (5) ensure that states 
     have adequate implementation time for programs fully- or 
     partially-devolved to the states.
       State legislators want welfare reform to succeed. In order 
     to succeed, we need adequate implementation time to craft 
     comprehensive welfare reform that best fits the needs in our 
     individual states. In S. 1956, both the work participation 
     rate requirements and penalties begin in the first year of 
     the block grant. Therefore, we strongly support Senator Bob 
     Graham's amendment to strike the language imposing a 
     cumulative penalty of five percent of the block grant per 
     year on states that fail to meet the mandated work 
     requirements. Imposing harsh and excessive penalties will 
     only make it more difficult for states to succeed. State 
     legislators are committed to welfare reform and have proved 
     it through passage of numerous laws reforming their welfare 
     systems. We have asked the federal government for flexibility 
     to change the current system and hope for legislation to 
     empower the states.
       The Congress has challenged us to go even further, yet the 
     current bill leaves no room for adjustment, even if a state 
     experiences a recession, high employment or natural disaster. 
     Despite our best effort, there may be states who cannot meet 
     the work requirements. To add compounding financial penalties 
     will severely restrict state efforts even further--just at 
     the moment when they could use assistance from their federal 
     partner. Senator Graham's amendment also allows the Secretary 
     to reduce state penalties after assessing the individual 
     experience of that state. We have always opposed cookie-
     cutter welfare reform. The current bill does not allow for 
     the diversity of state experience in reforming the system and 
     the timing of state legislative sessions to enact the laws 
     necessary to change the system.
       The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that there is 
     a $13 billion shortfall in the cash assistance block grant to 
     meet the work requirements. NCSL has always supported deficit 
     reduction and we understand the limitation on available funds 
     for work. However, the current bill as drafted penalizes us 
     as we charter unknown waters to create a new system to 
     retrain state workers, create employment slots, verify work 
     slots and, of course, be successful at moving recipients to 
     work. A distinction is not made for states who have made a 
     good faith effort but fail to meet the requirements for 
     reasons beyond their control. We are very concerned that this 
     will hamper state creativity, innovation and excellence. 
     State legislators urge you to support Senator Graham's 
     amendment.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Carl Tubbesing,
     Deputy Executive Director.
                                                                    ____



                              National Government Association,

                                    Washington, DC, June 26, 1996.
     Senate Finance Committee,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC
       Dear Finance Committee Member: The nation's Governors 
     appreciate that S. 1795, as introduced, incorporated many of 
     the National Governors' Association's (NGA) recommendations 
     on welfare reform. NGA hopes that Congress will continue to 
     look to the Governor's bipartisan efforts on a welfare reform 
     policy and build on the lessons learned through a decade of 
     state experimentation in welfare reform.
       However, upon initial review of the Chairman's mark, NGA 
     believes that many of the changes contained in the mark are 
     contradictory to the NGA bipartisan agreement. The mark 
     includes unreasonable modifications to the work requirement, 
     and additional administrative burdens, restrictions and 
     penalties that are unacceptable. Governors believe these 
     changes in the Chairman's mark greatly restrict state 
     flexibility and will result in increased, unfunded costs for 
     states, while at the same time undermining states ability to 
     implement effective welfare reform programs. These changes 
     threaten the ability of Governors to provide any support for 
     the revised welfare package, and may, in fact, result in 
     Governors opposing the bill.
       As you mark up the welfare provisions of S. 1795, the 
     Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act of 1996, NGA 
     strongly urges you to consider the recommendations contained 
     in the welfare reform policy adopted unanimously by the 
     nation's Governors in February. Governors believe that these 
     changes are needed to create a welfare

[[Page S8418]]

     reform measure that will foster independence and promote 
     responsibility, provide adequate support for families that 
     are engaged in work, and accord states the flexibility and 
     resources they need to transform welfare into a transitional 
     program leading to work.
       Below is a partial list of amendments that may be offered 
     during the committee markup and revisions included in the 
     Chairman's mark that are either opposed or supported by NGA. 
     This list is not meant to be exhaustive, and there may be 
     other amendments or revisions of interest or concern to 
     Governors that are not on this list. In the NGA welfare 
     reform policy, the Governors did not take a position on the 
     provisions related to benefits for immigrants, and NGA will 
     not be making recommendations on amendments in these areas. 
     As you markup S. 1795, NGA urges you to consider the 
     following recommendations based on the policy statement of 
     the nation's Governors on welfare reform.
       The Governors urge to support the following amendments:
       Support the amendment to permit states to count toward the 
     work participation rate calculation those individuals who 
     have left welfare for work for the first six months that they 
     are in the workforce (Breaux). The Governors believe states 
     should receive credit in the participation rate for 
     successfully moving people off of welfare and into 
     employment, thereby meeting one of the primary goals of 
     welfare reform. This will also provide states with an 
     incentive to expand their job retention efforts.
       Support the amendment that applies the time limit only to 
     cash assistance (Breaux). S. 1795 sets a sixty-month lifetime 
     limit on any federally funded assistance under the block 
     grant. This would prohibit states from using the block grant 
     for important work supports such as transportation or job 
     retention counseling after the five-year limit. Consistent 
     with the NGA welfare reform policy, NGA urges you to support 
     the Breaux amendment that would apply the time limit only to 
     cash assistance.
       Support the amendment to restore funding for the Social 
     Services Block Grant (Rockefeller). This amendment would 
     limit the cut in the Social Services Block Grant (SSBG) to 10 
     percent rather than 20 percent. States use a significant 
     portion of their SSBG funds for child care for low-income 
     families. Thus, the additional cut currently contained in S. 
     1795 negates much of the increase in child care funding 
     provided under the bill.
       Support technical improvements to the contingency fund 
     (Breaux). Access to additional matching funds is critical to 
     states during periods of economic recession. NGA supports two 
     amendments proposed by Senator Breaux. One clarifies the 
     language relating to maintenance of effort in the contingency 
     fund and another modifies the fund so states that access the 
     contingency fund during only part of the year are not 
     penalized with a less advantageous match rate.
       Support the amendment to extend the 75 percent enhanced 
     match rate through fiscal 1997 for statewide automated child 
     welfare information systems (SACWIS), (Chafee, Rockefeller). 
     Although not specifically addressed in the NGA policy, this 
     extension is important for many states that are trying to 
     meet systems requirements that will strengthen their child 
     welfare and child protection efforts.
       Governors urge you to oppose amendments or revisions to the 
     Chairman's mark that would limit state flexibility, create 
     unreasonable work requirements, impose new mandates, or 
     encroach on the ability of each state to direct resources and 
     design a welfare reform program to meet its unique needs.
       In the area of work, Governors strongly oppose any efforts 
     to increase penalties, increase work participation rates, 
     further restrict what activities count toward the work 
     participation rate, or change the hours of work required. The 
     Governor's policy included specific recommendations in these 
     areas, many of which were subsequently incorporated into S. 
     1795, as introduced. The recommendations reflect a careful 
     balancing of the goals of welfare reform, the availability of 
     resources, and the recognition that economic and demographic 
     circumstances differ among states. Imposing any additional 
     limitations or modifications to the work requirement would 
     limit state flexibility.
       The Governors urge you to oppose the following amendments 
     or revisions in the area of work:
       Oppose the revision in the Chairman's mark to increase the 
     number of hours of work required per week to thirty-five 
     hours in future years. NGA's recommendation that the work 
     requirement be set at twenty-five hours was incorporated into 
     S. 1795. Many states will set higher hourly requirements, but 
     this flexibility will enable states to design programs that 
     are consistent with local labor market opportunities and the 
     availability of child care.
       Oppose the revision in the Chairman's mark to decrease to 
     four weeks the number of weeks that job search can count as 
     work. NGA supports the twelve weeks of job search contained 
     in S. 1795, as introduced. Job search has proven to be 
     effective when an individual first enters a program and also 
     after the completion of individual work components, such as 
     workfare or community service. A reduction to four weeks 
     would limit state flexibility to use this cost-effective 
     strategy to move recipients into work.
       Oppose the revision in the Chairman's mark to increase the 
     work participation rates. NGA opposes any increase in the 
     work participation rates above the original S. 1795 
     requirements. Many training and education activities that are 
     currently counted under JOBS will not count toward the new 
     work requirements. Consequently, states will face the 
     challenge of transforming their current JOBS program into a 
     program that emphasizes quick movement into the labor force. 
     An increase in the work rates will result in increased costs 
     to states for child care and work programs.
       Oppose the revision in the Chairman's mark to increase 
     penalties for failure to meet the work participation 
     requirements. The proposed amendment to increase the penalty 
     by 5 percent for each consecutive failure to meet the work 
     rate is unduly harsh, particularly given the stringent nature 
     of the work requirements. Ironically, the loss of block grant 
     funds due to penalties will make it even more difficult for a 
     state to meet the work requirements.
       Oppose the amendment requiring states to count exempt 
     families in the work participation rate calculation (Gramm). 
     This amendment would retain the state option to exempt 
     families with children below age one from the work 
     requirements but add the requirement that such families count 
     in the denominator for purposes of determining the work 
     participation rate. This penalizes states that grant the 
     exemption, effectively eliminating this option. The exemption 
     in S. 1795 is an acknowledgment that child care costs for 
     infants are very high and that there often is a shortage of 
     infant care.
       Oppose the amendment to increase work hours by ten hours a 
     week for families receiving subsidized child care (Gramm). 
     This amendment would greatly increase child care costs as 
     well as impose a higher work requirement on families with 
     younger children, because families with other children--
     particularly teenagers--are less likely to need subsidized 
     child care assistance.
       Oppose the revision in the Chairman's mark to exempt 
     families with children below age eleven. S. 1795, as 
     introduced, prohibits states from sanctioning families with 
     children below age six for failure to participate in work if 
     failure to participate was because of a lack of child care. 
     This revision would raise the age to eleven. NGA is concerned 
     that this revision effectively penalizes states because they 
     still would be required to count these individuals in the 
     denominator of the work participation rate.
       The Governors urge you to oppose the following amendments 
     or revisions in the chairman's mark in these additional 
     areas:
       Oppose the revision in the Chairman's mark to increase the 
     maintenance-of-effort requirement above the 75 percent in the 
     cash assistance block grant or further narrow the definition 
     of what counts toward maintenance-of-effort.
       Oppose the revisions in the Chairman's mark that increase 
     state plan requirements and include additional state 
     penalties.
       Oppose the amendment to limit hardship exemption to 15 
     percent (Gramm). NGA policy supports the current provision in 
     S. 1795, as introduced, that allows states to exempt up to 20 
     percent of their caseload from the five-year lifetime limit 
     on benefits.
       Oppose the amendment to mandate that states provide in-kind 
     vouchers to families after a state or federal time limit on 
     benefits is triggered (Breaux, Mosely-Braun). NGA believes 
     that states should have the option to provide non-cash forms 
     of assistance after the time limit, but they should not be 
     mandated to do so.
       Oppose the provision in the Chairman's mark to restrict the 
     transferability of funds out of the cash assistance block 
     grant to the child care block grant only. The governors 
     believe that it is appropriate to allow a transfer of funds 
     into the foster care program or the Social Services Block 
     Grant.
       Oppose a family cap mandate in the Chairman's mark. NGA 
     supports a family cap as an option, rather than a mandate, to 
     prohibit benefits to additional children born or conceived 
     while the parent is on welfare.
       Governors urge you to consider the above recommendations.
           Sincerely,
                                             Raymond C. Scheppach,
     Executive Director.
                                                                    ____



                             National Association of Counties,

                                    Washington, DC, July 12, 1996.
       Dear Member of Congress: You may be voting soon on the 
     Welfare and Medicaid reform bill (H.R. 3507/S. 1795). The 
     National Association of Counties (NACo) is encouraged that 
     there were improvements to the welfare section of the bill, 
     including: increased funds for child care; maintaining 
     current law for foster care adoption assistance maintenance 
     and administration payments; and no funding cap for food 
     stamps nor a block grant for child nutrition. However, there 
     are not enough improvements to warrant our support. In some 
     respects, particularly the work requirements, the bill has 
     become even more burdensome. NACo particularly opposes the 
     following welfare provisions:
       1. The bill ends the entitlement of Aid to Families with 
     Dependent Children, thereby dismantling the safety net for 
     children and their families.
       2. The eligibility restriction for legal immigrants goes 
     too far. The most objectionable provisions include denying 
     Supplemental Security Income and Food Stamps, particularly to 
     older immigrants. In fact, by changing the implementation 
     date for these provisions, the bill has become more onerous. 
     NACo is also very concerned about the effect of the deeming 
     requirements particularly with regard to Medicaid and 
     children in need of protective services.

[[Page S8419]]

       3. The participation requirements have become even more 
     unrealistic. NACo particularly opposes the increased work 
     participation rates and increased penalties, the changes in 
     the hours of work required, and the new restrictions on the 
     activities that may count toward the participation rates.
       As the level of government closest to the people, local 
     elected officials understand the importance of reforming the 
     welfare system. While NACo is glad that the bill does contain 
     language that requires some consultation with local officials 
     we prefer the stronger language that is contained in the 
     bipartisan welfare reform bill (H.R. 3266).
       NACo also continues to oppose the Medicaid provisions. By 
     capping the fiscal responsibility of the federal government 
     and reducing the state match for the majority of the states, 
     the bill could potentially shift billions of dollars to 
     counties with responsibility for the uninsured. Allowing the 
     states to determine the amount, duration and scope of 
     services even for the remaining populations which would still 
     be guaranteed coverage, will mean that counties will be 
     ultimately responsible for services not covered adequately by 
     the states. While we support the increased use of managed 
     care and additional state and local flexibility in operating 
     the Medicaid program, we do not support the repeal of 
     Medicare as envisioned in the current legislation.
       As it is currently written, the Medicaid and Welfare Reform 
     bill could potentially shift costs and liabilities, create 
     new unfunded mandates upon local governments, and penalize 
     low income families. Such a bill, in combination with federal 
     cuts and increased demands for services, will leave local 
     governments with two options: cut other essential services, 
     such as law enforcement, or raise revenues. NACo therefore 
     urges you to vote against H.R. 3507/S. 1795.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Douglas R. Bovin,
                                                        President.

  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority manager is recognized.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I take 1 minute from our side to 
indicate our objection to the amendment. In the bill on page 273, there 
is a section that reads: ``Reasonable Cause for Exception.--'' And it 
applies to the areas the Senator from Florida is referring to.
  It says:

       The Secretary may not impose a penalty on a State under 
     subsection (a) with respect to a requirement if the Secretary 
     determines that the State has reasonable cause for failing to 
     comply with the requirement.

  Then it has two exceptions to this, and neither of the two are 
matters covered by the concern of the Senator. So I believe there is 
flexibility, and for those State legislators and staff up here who 
looked at it, I suggest they read that provision.
  In addition, there is a whole process following that provision for 
how a State would determine that they had reasonable cause.
  Having said that, I am going to yield back any time I have on the 
amendment.


         ELECTRONIC BENEFIT TRANSFER SYSTEMS AND WELFARE REFORM

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, a number of consumer groups have 
expressed concern about a provision in the pending welfare reform bill 
that exempts users of electronic benefit transfer systems [EBT's] users 
from the protections of the Electronic Benefit Transfer Act.
  EBT's are a useful reform to modernize the distribution of welfare 
benefits. They are comparable to automated teller machines. They offer 
a convenient way for welfare recipients to use a card to withdraw their 
cash benefits from a bank machine or pay for food at a grocery store. 
Although a few States may now have in place such a program, it is 
likely to become much more common in the years ahead. Massachusetts is 
in the process of implementing such a system for its 80,000 welfare 
recipients.
  If the final welfare reform bill includes the exemption from consumer 
protections, EBT users will not have the same basic safeguards against 
benefit losses caused by computer error, merchant fraud, or theft that 
other credit card holders now have. Clearly, it is unfair to deny 
reasonable safeguards to welfare beneficiaries.
  I understand that a realistic compromise is being developed to 
protect EBT users from benefit losses while ensuring that States are 
not exposed to unmanageable costs. I am hopeful that any welfare reform 
bill enacted into law will contain such protections, and I urge all 
Senators to support them.


                   teen pregnancy and statutory rape

  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate has made 
progress in two areas critical to reforming welfare--teen pregnancy and 
statutory rape. Both sides of the aisle have worked together to bring 
about this progress, and I am left hopeful that we can infuse future 
negotiations on other welfare issues with this bipartisan spirit of 
cooperation.
  Mindful of the American public's demand for legislative progress this 
year, I joined other colleagues in sponsoring initiatives that would 
not only benefit children, but also reduce welfare spending. Budget 
specialists and community leaders emphasized the necessity of dealing 
with two underlying welfare problems--teen pregnancy and statutory 
rape. In examining these problems, we answered two necessary questions: 
First, who is on welfare? and Second, how did they get there?
  Teenage out-of-wedlock pregnancy is a primary cause of long-term 
welfare dependency. Currently, 53 percent of AFDC funds go to 
households begun by teenage births. Senator Conrad and I proposed an 
amendment to last year's Senate bill which requires teen mothers to 
live at home or in adult-supervised settings, establishes national 
goals regarding education strategies and reduction of pregnancy rates, 
and rewards States who meet these goals with a cash bonus.
  The Senate included these provisions in the bill in front of us and 
strengthened the Federal role in combating this problem. However, teen 
pregnancy prevention is a battle that must be fought at the local 
level, as troubled teens demand direct individual attention and 
investment. By accepting my amendment which compels States to devote 1 
percent of their Social Security block grant--$23.8 million--to 
prevention services, the Senate has spurred them to assume this 
responsibility. We are succeeding in aiding President Clinton as he 
endeavors, in his own words, ``to get all the leaders of all sectors of 
our society involved in this fight.''
  The Federal Government, too, recently assumed more responsibility in 
accepting my amendment which targets the crime of statutory rape, a 
direct and indirect cause of teen pregnancy. The great majority of 
babies born to teen mothers are fathered by adult men, and the partners 
of the youngest mothers under the age of 14 are on average 10 to 15 
years older than them. This Senate is sending sexual predators an 
unequivocally stern message--that we choose abstinence for children, 
and that we will not tolerate those who take advantage of a child's 
inability to form and articulate a decision about her body. Previously, 
we concurred that it is the Sense of the Senate that States should 
aggressively enforce statutory rape laws. Now, we are taking additional 
steps. The amendment requires the Justice Department to pay strict 
attention to this crime. They are to research the link between 
statutory rape and teen pregnancy, as well as those predatory men who 
commit these crimes repeatedly. They will also educate State and local 
law enforcement officials to effectively prevent and prosecute 
statutory rape.
  Again, we include the States in this fight. This amendment compels 
the States to create and expand criminal law enforcement, public 
education, and counseling initiatives and to restructure teen pregnancy 
prevention programs to include men. Finally, States must certify to the 
Federal Government that they are engaged in such activities to stop 
statutory rape.
  By focusing on the problems of teen pregnancy and statutory rape 
through these amendments, we are economizing our future welfare 
expenditures and improving the lives of poor children. The reality of 
mothers sacrificing educational opportunities to give birth to 
fatherless babies and live in poverty is not a choice. It is partly a 
result of the greater problems these amendments address.
  I appreciate, and the American public will appreciate our bipartisan 
unity in demanding responsibility from fathers. They must own up to 
their paternity, pay child support, and set a good example for their 
children by working in private sector or community service jobs. A 
certain group of men must refrain from sexually preying upon young 
girls and dispossessing them of their fundamental right to make sexual, 
educational, and career choices.

[[Page S8420]]

  Problems remain in this bill. I appeal to my colleagues to work 
together so that we can present not just a few amendments, not just one 
improvement, but an entire bill to the American citizenry that truly 
reforms the current system.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I know Senator Exon needs some time.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I thank the chairman for his consideration. 
I will say, there are several matters that I must, as manager of the 
bill on this side, have very limited and short debate on, things I need 
to enter. I might be able to do that between now and 2 o'clock, but if 
not, in order to protect the interests of those I represent, I ask 
unanimous consent that the 2 o'clock hour be extended by 10 minutes, to 
10 minutes past 2, if necessary, to accommodate the Senator from 
Nebraska to carry out the duties that I must address.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Reserving the right to object, I do not know what it is 
you want to do. Do you want to offer amendments on behalf of Senators?
  Mr. EXON. Yes, these are things I have to do as a manager of the bill 
on this side, including points of order requests.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Let me make one further request. Are any of those 
amendments for Senators who did not come today to offer their 
amendments? How many are those?
  Mr. EXON. There are three amendments that were on the list that the 
Senators have not come to formally offer today, and I intend to perform 
that duty for them.
  Mr. DOMENICI. So long as we clearly understand, this does not flow to 
Senators who come in here at 5 minutes after, this applies to you.
  Mr. EXON. I amend the request, if I might. I ask unanimous consent 
that, if necessary to discharge the duties assigned to the Democratic 
leader of the Budget Committee, that the additional 10 minutes be 
assigned to this Senator and this Senator only.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I have no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. EXON. I thank my friend for his usual good cooperation. There are 
two amendments I will offer. They have been cleared on both sides. I 
think we can dispose of them quickly.


                           Amendment No. 4953

  (Purpose: To allow States to choose the most appropriate agency to 
   assist abused and neglected children, by enabling them to choose 
 proprietary as well as non-profit or government agencies to care for 
  children in foster care, as provided in report number 104-430 (the 
  conference report to H.R. 4 as passed during the 1st session of the 
104th Congress), and S. 1795, as introduced in the Senate during the 2d 
    session of the 104th Congress, and before the Finance Committee 
                 Chairman's modifications to such bill)

  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, on behalf of the Senator from Louisiana [Mr. 
Breaux], 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 Nebraska [Mr. Exon], for Mr. Breaux, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 4953.

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

       At the end of section 2109(a), add the following:
       (17) Section 472(c)(2) (42 U.S.C. 672(c)(2)) is amended by 
     striking ``nonprofit''.

  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment 
be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid on the table.
  Mr. DOMENICI. We have no objection. We accept that amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 4953) was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 4954

 (Purpose: To provide for community steering committees demonstration 
                               projects)

  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, in similar fashion, on behalf of the Senator 
from Nebraska [Senator Kerrey] 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 Nebraska [Mr. Exon], for Mr. Kerrey, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 4954.

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

       At the end of chapter 1 of subtitle A of title II, add the 
     following:

     SEC.   . COMMUNITY STEERING COMMITTEES DEMONSTRATION 
                   PROJECTS.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of Health and Human Services 
     (in this section referred to as the ``Secretary'') shall 
     enter into agreements with not more than 5 States that submit 
     an application under this section, in such form and such 
     manner as the Secretary may specify, for the purpose of 
     conducting a demonstration project described in subsection 
     (b).
       (b) Description of Project.--
       (1) Community steering committees.--
       (A) Establishment.--A demonstration project conducted under 
     this section shall establish within a State in each 
     participating county a Community Steering Committee that 
     shall be designed to help recipients of temporary assistance 
     to needy families under a State program under part A of title 
     IV of the Social Security Act who are parents move into the 
     non-subsidized workforce and to develop a holistic approach 
     to the development needs of such recipient's family.
       (B) Membership.--A Community Steering Committee shall 
     consist of local educators, business representatives, and 
     social service providers.
       (C) Goals and duties.--
       (i) Goals.--The goals of a Community Steering Committee 
     are--
       (I) to ensure that recipients of temporary assistance to 
     needy families who are parents obtain and retain unsubsidized 
     employment; and
       (II) to reduce the incidence of intergenerational receipt 
     of welfare assistance by addressing the needs of children of 
     recipients of temporary assistance to needy families.
       (ii) Duties.--A Community Steering Committee shall--
       (I) identify and create unsubsidized employment positions 
     for recipients of temporary assistance to needy families;
       (II) propose and implement solutions to barriers to 
     unsubsidized employment of recipients of temporary assistance 
     to needy families;
       (III) assess the needs of children of recipients of 
     temporary assistance to needy families; and
       (IV) provide services that are designed to ensure that 
     children of recipients of temporary assistance to needy 
     families enter school ready to learn and that, once enrolled, 
     such children stay in school.
       (iii) Primary responsibility.--A primary responsibility of 
     a Community Steering Committee shall be to work on an ongoing 
     basis with parents who are recipients of temporary assistance 
     to needy families and who have obtained nonsubsidized 
     employment in order to ensure that such recipients retain 
     their employment. Activities to carry out this responsibility 
     may include--
       (I) counseling;
       (II) emergency day care;
       (III) sick day care;
       (IV) transportation;
       (V) provision of clothing;
       (VI) housing assistance; or
       (VII) any other assistance that may be necessary on an 
     emergency and temporary basis to ensure that such parents can 
     manage the responsibility of being employed and the demands 
     of having a family.
       (iv) Follow-up services for children.--A Community Steering 
     Committee may provide special follow-up services for children 
     of recipients of temporary assistance to needy families that 
     are designed to ensure that the children reach their fullest 
     potential and do not, as they mature, receive welfare 
     assistance as the head of their own household.
       (c) Report.--Not later than October 1, 2001, the Secretary 
     shall submit a report to the Congress on the results of the 
     demonstration projects conducted under this section.

  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment 
be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, let me just mention that amendment we 
had agreed to over the weekend. We worked on that with Senator Kerrey. 
We have no objection. We had already agreed to it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 4954) was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 4935

  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, under the previous order, all points of 
order must be raised today before the 2 o'clock deadline, or under the 
extended time that we have agreed to.
  Pursuant to that order, I now address amendment No. 4935, offered by 
the Senator from Texas, Senator Gramm. Mr. President, the amendment is 
not

[[Page S8421]]

germane, and I raise a point of order that the Gramm amendment violates 
section 305(b) of the Congressional Budget Act.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I move to waive the point of order and 
ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.


                           Amendment No. 4901

  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, also pursuant to the previous order, I now 
address amendment No. 4901, offered by the Senator from North Carolina, 
Senator Faircloth.
  The amendment is not germane, and I raise a point of order that the 
Faircloth amendment violates section 305 of the Congressional Budget 
Act.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Pursuant to the appropriate provisions of the Budget 
Act, I move to waive the point of order against the amendment, and I 
ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.


                           Amendment No. 4955

  (Purpose: To permit assistance to be provided to needy or disabled 
  legal immigrant children when sponsors cannot provide reimbursement)

  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, on behalf of the Senator from Massachusetts, 
Senator Kennedy, 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 Nebraska [Mr. Exon], for Mr. Kennedy, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 4955.

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

       On page 572, strike out line 10 and all that follows 
     through page 577, line 10, and insert the following:
       (E) Exception for children.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply 
     to the following:
       (i) SSI.--An alien who has not attained the age of 18 years 
     and who is eligible by reasons of disability for supplemental 
     security income under title XVI of the Social Security Act.
       (ii) Food stamps.--An alien who has not attained the age of 
     18 years, only for purposes of eligibility for the food stamp 
     program as defined in section 3(h) of the Food Stamp Act of 
     1977 (7 U.S.C. 2012(h)).
       (3) Specified federal program defined.--For purposes of 
     this chapter, the term ``specified Federal program'' means 
     any of the following:
       (A) SSI.--The supplemental security income program under 
     title XVI of the Social Security Act, including supplementary 
     payments pursuant to an agreement for Federal administration 
     under section 1616(a) of the Social Security Act and payments 
     pursuant to an agreement entered into under section 212(b) of 
     Public Law 93-66.
       (B) Food stamps.--The food stamp program as defined in 
     section 3(h) of the Food Stamp Act of 1977.
       (b) Limited Eligibility for Designated Federal Programs.--
       (1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law 
     and except as provided in section 2403 and paragraph (2), a 
     State is authorized to determine the eligibility of an alien 
     who is a qualified alien (as defined in section 2431) for any 
     designated Federal program (as defined in paragraph (3)), 
     except that States shall not ban from such programs qualified 
     aliens who have not attained the age of 18 years.
       (2) Exceptions.--Qualified aliens under this paragraph 
     shall be eligible for any designated Federal program.
       (A) Time-limited exception for refugees and asylees.--
       (i) An alien who is admitted to the United States as a 
     refugee under section 207 of the Immigration and Nationality 
     Act until 5 years after the date of an alien's entry into the 
     United States.
       (ii) An alien who is granted asylum under section 208 of 
     such Act until 5 years after the date of such grant of 
     asylum.
       (iii) An alien whose deportation is being withheld under 
     section 243(h) of such Act until 5 years after such 
     withholding.
       (B) Certain permanent resident aliens.--An alien who--
       (i) is lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent 
     residence under the Immigration and Nationality Act; and
       (ii)(I) has worked 40 qualifying quarters of coverage as 
     defined under title II of the Social Security Act or can be 
     credited with such qualifying quarters as provided under 
     section 2435, and (II) did not receive any Federal means-
     tested public benefit (as defined in section 2403(c)) during 
     any such quarter.
       (C) Veteran and active duty exception.--An alien who is 
     lawfully residing in any State and is--
       (i) a veteran (as defined in section 101 of title 38, 
     United States Code) with a discharge characterized as an 
     honorable discharge and not on account of alienage,
       (ii) on active duty (other than active duty for training) 
     in the Armed Forces of the United States, or
       (iii) the spouse or unmarried dependent child of an 
     individual described in clause (i) or (ii).
       (D) Transition for those currently receiving benefits.--An 
     alien who on the date of the enactment of this Act is 
     lawfully residing in any State and is receiving benefits 
     under such program on the date of the enactment of this Act 
     shall continue to be eligible to receive such benefits until 
     January 1, 1997.
       (3) Designated federal program defined.--For purposes of 
     this chapter, the term ``designated Federal program'' means 
     any of the following:
       (A) Temporary assistance for needy families.--The program 
     of block grants to States for temporary assistance for needy 
     families under part A of title IV of the Social Security Act.
       (B) Social services block grant.--The program of block 
     grants to States for social services under title XX of the 
     Social Security Act.
       (C) Medicaid.--The program of medical assistance under 
     title XV and XIX of the Social Security Act.

     SEC. 2403. FIVE-YEAR LIMITED ELIGIBILITY OF QUALIFIED ALIENS 
                   FOR FEDERAL MEANS-TESTED PUBLIC BENEFIT.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law 
     and except as provided in subsection (b), an alien who is a 
     qualified alien (as defined in section 2431) and who enters 
     the United States on or after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act is not eligible for any Federal means-tested public 
     benefit (as defined in subsection (c)) for a period of five 
     years beginning on the date of the alien's entry into the 
     United States with a status within the meaning of the term 
     ``qualified alien''.
       (b) Exceptions.--The limitation under subsection (a) shall 
     not apply to the following aliens:
       (1) Exception for refugees and asylees.--
       (A) An alien who is admitted to the United States as a 
     refugee under section 207 of the Immigration and Nationality 
     Act.
       (B) An alien who is granted asylum under section 208 of 
     such Act.
       (C) An alien whose deportation is being withheld under 
     section 243(h) of such Act.
       (2) Veteran and active duty exception.--An alien who is 
     lawfully residing in any State and is--
       (A) a veteran (as defined in section 101 of title 38, 
     United States Code) with a discharge characterized as an 
     honorable discharge and not on account of alienage,
       (B) on active duty (other than active duty for training) in 
     the Armed Forces of the United States, or
       (C) the spouse or unmarried dependent child of an 
     individual described in subparagraph (A) or (B).
       (3) Exception for children.--An alien who has not attained 
     the age of 18 years.

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I am deeply concerned that for the first 
time in history, Congress will ban legal immigrants from most 
assistance programs. Banning legal immigrants from these programs will 
also deny their children the assistance they need to become healthy, 
productive members of society. The amendment I am offering will exempt 
children from these bans.
  The Republican bill permanently bans legal immigrants from SSI and 
food stamps. It bans them for 5 years from Medicaid, AFDC and other 
programs. It also gives States the option of going even farther, and 
permanently banning them from Medicaid, AFDC, and social service block 
grants.
  Several preliminary points are important to understand about this 
issue.
  First, this bill is a ban. Banning is not the same as deeming. In 
deeming, we look to the sponsor for payment before the Government pays. 
Under banning, the sponsor is not involved. The ban covers legal 
immigrants, with or without sponsors.
  Second, we are not talking about illegal immigrants. This bill bans 
legal immigrants from safety net programs. These are individuals and 
families who come here legally, play by the rules, and pay their taxes. 
They are future citizens trying to make it in this country. Yet this 
bill would repay them by banning them from assistance if they fall on 
hard times.
  Third, the ban's application to children makes no sense. Many 
children will be affected and harmed, but many others will not. It 
depends entirely on where they were born. Children born in the United 
States are U.S. citizens and will be eligible for assistance, even if 
their parents are legal immigrants. But children born overseas will be 
caught by the ban. So children in the same

[[Page S8422]]

family will be treated differently, depending on where they were born. 
This is unfair.
  Fourth, the children involved often live in the families of U.S. 
citizens. A typical case involves a citizen who has married and brought 
his new spouse and the spouse's child to America. Surely, they deserve 
help.
  AFDC, SSI, food stamps and Medicaid are programs which are especially 
critical to children's health and development. Banning legal immigrant 
children from these programs puts their well-being at stake, and it 
puts the public at risk, too.
  Legal immigrants can get sick like everyone else. Their families can 
fall on hard times. They can become disabled. Banning them from basic 
assistance programs means that when their sponsors can't provide 
support, immigrants won't get the help they need. Their medical 
conditions will go untreated and their disabilities will worsen.
  These children are future citizens. Like all other children in 
America, they need and deserve to be assured of good health and good 
nutrition. If the Federal Government abandons them, communities will 
suffer.
  When immigrant children get sick, they infect other children. By 
banning them from Medicaid, we are also banning them from school-based 
care under the Early and Periodic Screening, Detection, and Treatment 
Program, which provides basic health care to school-age children. It is 
part of Medicaid in most states.
  Under this bill, legal immigrant children will be banned from going 
to the school nurse when they feel sick in school. If they try to see 
the nurse, the nurse cannot treat them because they are immigrants. 
They have no private insurance and they are banned from Medicaid. If 
the illness gets worse, their parents may take them to the local 
emergency room--a very expensive alternative and not likely to be 
pursued unless the illness seems severe.
  Suppose a child has tuberculosis. In the time it took for the illness 
to worsen enough to be covered by emergency Medicaid, many classmates 
have been exposed--all because no early help was available.
  In addition to Medicaid, the Republican bill bans legal immigrant 
children from SSI, which provided assistance to the blind and disabled. 
Nine thousand legal immigrant children are blind or disabled. They have 
some of the most complex and life-threatening needs of all. As a 
practical matter, such cases often involve tragic accidents, where 
expensive long-term care is needed to deal with debilitating 
conditions. If SSI is not available, children literally will die.
  The Republican bill also bans legal immigrant children from food 
stamps, which could sentence them to a lifetime of health problems due 
to poor nutrition. Parents will have to turn to soup kitchens and food 
pantries just to feed their children. Yet, soup kitchens are already 
stretched beyond their capacity. Almost all soup kitchens limit the 
number of times a person can come to the kitchen for food. Some 
kitchens allow one visit a month. Others allow only three to six visits 
a year. If we cut off food stamps, many legal immigrant children will 
have nowhere to turn for food.
  Nutrition is vital to the development of a child. Immigrant children 
are no exception. Without access to food stamps, some immigrant 
children will suffer a lifetime of anemia, stunted growth, and even 
permanent brain damage.
  Finally, it makes no sense to ban legal immigrants from AFDC 
payments. AFDC allows mothers to place their children in child care, so 
that the parent can work or go to school. Without AFDC, parents will 
have to stay home to take care of their children. This bill is not 
welfare reform for legal immigrants. It will push families further into 
poverty, with no chance of escape.
  For all of these reasons, I urge the Senate to adopt this amendment, 
and reject this harsh and extreme attack on immigrant children.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I yield back time on the amendment.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Pursuant to section 310(d)(2), I raise a point of order 
against the pending Kennedy amendment on behalf of the Finance 
Committee.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I move to waive the point of order and ask 
for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second
  The yeas and nays were ordered.


                           Amendment No. 4956

 (Purpose: To allow a 2-year implementation period under the Medicaid 
program for implementation of the attribution of sponsor's income, the 
                   5-year ban, and other provisions)

  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, on behalf of the Senator from Massachusetts, 
Senator Kennedy, I send another 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 Nebraska [Mr. Exon], for Mr. Kennedy, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 4956.

  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under 
``Amendments Submitted.'')
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the changes in Medicaid for legal 
immigrants in this legislation will have a major impact on health care 
institutions and on the public health.
  Virtually all of the Nation's hospitals have called on Congress to 
delay implementation of these changes for at least 2 years because of 
their far-reaching consequences. Those who have urged such a transition 
include:
  The American Association of Eye and Ear Hospitals,
  The American Hospital Association,
  The Association of American Medical Colleges,
  The American Osteopathic Healthcare Association,
  The Federation of American Health Systems, InterHealth,
  The National Association of Children's Hospitals,
  The National Association of Community Health Centers,
  The National Association of Psychiatric Health Systems,
  The National Association of Public Hospitals,
  Premier, Inc.; and
  The Catholic Health Association of the United States.
  My amendment responds to their concern by postponing the 
implementation of the Medicaid changes on immigrants for 2 years, in 
order to enable State and local governments and hospitals and clinics 
to make the major adjustments required under this bill.
  Even with this transition, these changes will hurt the health care 
system and harm the public health. It is bad public health policy to 
deny Medicaid to legal immigrants. Last April, the National Conference 
of State Legislatures, the National Association of Counties, and the 
National League of Cities wrote to Congress stating:

       Without this program eligibility, many legal immigrants 
     will not have access to health care. Legal immigrants will be 
     forced to turn to State indigent health care programs, public 
     hospitals, and emergency rooms for assistance or avoid 
     treatment altogether. This will in turn endanger the public 
     health and increase the cost of providing health care to 
     everyone.

  But if these changes are to take place, then we should at least give 
health providers the time they need to adjust.
  Although the bill continues emergency Medicaid for legal immigrants, 
they would be banned from regular Medicaid for 5 years. After that, 
they can qualify for Medicaid only if their sponsor's income and 
resources are too low to assist them. But States can decide to ban 
legal immigrants permanently from Medicaid.
  Hospitals fear that if Medicaid is restricted, the loss of funds will 
require them to reduce services for everyone--citizens and non-citizens 
alike. Especially vulnerable are the most costly services, such as 
trauma care, burn treatment, and neonatal intensive care.
  This crisis in funding will particularly affect hospitals that serve 
communities with large numbers of immigrants. In the case of public 
hospitals, most patients have Medicaid coverage. Today, at Cambridge 
City Hospital in Massachusetts, 48 percent of the patients are 
immigrants. That means the hospital could lose half of its Medicaid 
funding under this bill.

[[Page S8423]]

  For Los Angeles County Hospital, the figure is 60 percent. For 
Jackson Memorial Hospital in Miami, 40 percent. For San Francisco 
General Hospital, 30 percent. For Harris County Hospital in Houston, 30 
percent.
  The sudden loss of Medicaid income when the immigrant population is 
denied coverage may well jeopardize the quality of health care in the 
entire community those hospitals serve.
  In addition, those without health coverage through insurance or 
Medicaid are less likely to receive preventive medical care and timely 
immunization. The result is unnecessarily higher risks of disease in 
the community as a whole. The care system will try to prevent this 
result, but it is a gamble that Congress should not impose.
  At a minimum, the health care system needs time to adjust. Under this 
bill, the Medicaid changes go into effect immediately for future 
immigrants. States may choose to deny Medicaid starting on January 1, 
1997. That's unfair and unrealistic. Hospitals and State and local 
governments need time to adjust. Community health centers need to find 
ways to expand, as Medicaid resources dry up for hospital care. State 
legislatures will need to adopt new laws and adjust spending to 
compensate for the loss of Medicaid.
  These complicated changes cannot occur overnight, especially in 
California, Texas, Florida, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, 
Pennsylvania, Illinois, and other States with large immigrant 
populations..
  These changes should not go into effect at all. But if they do, I 
urge my colleagues at least to hear the pleas and heed the plight of 
the hospitals. They need more time and they deserve it.
  I urge the adoption of this amendment.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I yield back time on the amendment.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, pursuant to appropriate sections of the 
Budget Act, I raise a point of order against the pending Kennedy 
amendment on behalf of the Finance Committee.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, at this point, I move to waive all points of 
order against the pending amendment. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.


                           Amendment No. 4957

 (Purpose: To modify remittance requirement from 5 to 7 days for child 
                     support enforcement payments)

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, since the hour of 2 is arriving and we 
have agreed to extra time just for Senator Exon, I send an amendment to 
the desk in behalf of Senator Nickles. It was on the list. It modifies 
the requirement for remittance, making it 7 days instead of 5 for child 
support payments. I send that amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Domenici], for Mr. 
     Nickles, proposes an amendment numbered 4957.

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

       On page 438, line 15, strike ``5'' and insert ``7''.

  Mr. EXON. We have no objection to this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 4957) was agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. EXON. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, in 1986, the Congress enacted the so-called 
``Byrd rule,'' named for our esteemed colleague, Senator Byrd, now 
incorporated into the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 as section 313. 
Although it may seem arcane to those not immediately involved in the 
budget process, the Byrd rule has become a very important tool to curb 
provisions in the reconciliation bill that are extraneous to the 
purpose of deficit reduction. It helped close Pandora's box of 
reconciliation abuse, of which Senator Byrd so eloquently warned more 
than 10 years ago.
  The Byrd rule provides six definitions of what constitute extraneous 
matter, but the term generally applies to provisions unrelated to the 
reconciliation deficit reduction goals.
  For example, a provision in reconciliation could be challenged by a 
Senator if it produces no changes in revenue or spending or if such 
changes are merely incidental. Sixty votes are necessary to waive a 
point of order raised under the Byrd rule. Last year's reconciliation 
bill contained numerous Byrd rule violations. This year's bill is also 
brimming with violations. I will shortly present a full list to the 
Chair and raise a point of order, but I want to highlight two of them.
  First, there is a provision that deletes a requirement that the 
Secretary of Agriculture promulgate rules so that school lunch 
contracts comply with the applicable meat inspection laws.
  Second, there is a provision that strikes the requirement that 
positive efforts shall be made by service institutions to use small 
business and minority-owned businesses as sources of supplies and 
services for these school lunch programs.
  Mr. President, once again, these are simply other add-ons that we 
should look to. Once again, this is not an all-inclusive list, but it 
gives the Senate a flavor of the violations that I will shortly raise.
  With that, Mr. President, I send a list of provisions to the desk 
that I have referenced, and pursuant to section 313(d) of the 
Congressional Budget Act, I raise a point of order that these 
provisions violate section 313(b)(1) of that act.
  The list follows:

                                        EXTRANEOUS PROVISIONS IN S. 1956                                        
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Section                         Subject                 Violation                Rationale        
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 1206(h)...................  Positive efforts..........  .....................  .........................
                                                                                                                
                      Title I--Committee on Agriculture--Agriculture and Related Provisions                     
                               Subtitle A--Food Stamps and Commodity Distribution                               
                                          Chapter 1--Food Stamp Program                                         
                                                                                                                
Section 1126......................  Caretaker exemption.......  313(b)(1)(A).........  No budgetary impact.     
Sec. 1148.........................  Expedited service.........  313(b)(1)(A).........  No budgetary impact.     
Sec. 1159.........................  Waiver authority..........  313(b)(1)(A).........  No budgetary impact.     
                                      Subtitle B--Child Nutrition programs                                      
                                  Chapter 1--Amendments to the School Lunch Act                                 
                                                                                                                
Sec. 1202(b)......................  Annual announcement of      313(b)(1)(A).........  No budgetary impact.     
                                     child nutrition income                                                     
                                     eligibility limits.                                                        
Sec. 1205(g)......................  Vermont food works........  313(b)(1)(A).........  No budgetary impact.     
Sec. 1207(b)......................  Meat inspection...........  .....................  .........................
Sec. 1209(c)......................  Eliminating projects......  313(b)(1)(A).........  No budgetary impact      
                                                                                                                
                                      Subtitle B--Child Nutrition programs                                      
                            Chapter 2--Amendments to the Child Nutrition Act of 1966                            
                                                                                                                
Sec. 1259(d)(1)...................  Delete requirement for WIC  313(b)(1)(A).........  No budgetary impact.     
                                     particpants to be                                                          
                                     provided drug abuse                                                        
                                     education.                                                                 
Sec. 1259(e)(2) line 13 strike      Announcing annual WIC       313(b)(1)(A).........  No budgetary impact.     
 ``(2)'' and ``(8)''.                income.                                                                    
Sec. 1259(g)(1)(C)................  Deletes USDA's authority    313(b)(1)(A).........  No budgetary impact.     
                                     to use a portion of WIC                                                    
                                     carryover funds for                                                        
                                     innovative demonstration                                                   
                                     projects to find more                                                      
                                     innovative ways of                                                         
                                     promoting breastfeeding                                                    
                                     among WIC participants..                                                   
                                                                                                                

[[Page S8424]]

                                                                                                                
                                         Title II--Committee on Finance                                         
                                           Subtitle A--Welfare Reform                                           
                                                                                                                
In Chapter 1:                                                                                                   
    ``Sec. 403(b)(9)''............  Budget Scoring--directs     313(b)(1)(C).........  Not in Finance's         
                                     CBO not to include                                 jurisdiction.           
                                     program in the baseline                                                    
                                     after 2001.                                                                
    ``Sec. 405(e).................  Collection of State         313(b)(1)(A).........  No budgetary impact.     
                                     overpayments to families                                                   
                                     from Federal tax refunds.                                                  
    ``Sec. 408(a)(2)''............  No additional cash          313(b)(1)(A).........  No budgetary impact.     
                                     assistance for children                                                    
                                     born to families                                                           
                                     receiving assistance.                                                      
    ``Sec. 409(a)(7)(C)''.........  Applicable percentage       313(b)(1)(A).........  No budgetary impact.     
                                     reduced for high                                                           
                                     performance States.                                                        
    Sec. 2104.....................  Services provided by        313(b)(1)(A).........  No budgetary impact.     
                                     charitable, or private                                                     
                                     organizations.                                                             
    Sec. 2113.....................  Disclosure of receipt of    313(b)(1)(A).........  No budgetary impact.     
                                     Federal funds.                                                             
In Chapter 2:                                                                                                   
    Sec. 2225.....................  Repeal of maintenance of    313(b)(1)(D).........  Budget impact is merely  
                                     effort requirement--                               incidental to policy    
                                     applicable to optional                             change.                 
                                     State programs for                                                         
                                     supplementation of SSI                                                     
                                     benefits.                                                                  
In Chapter 4:                                                                                                   
    Sec. 2403(c)(1)...............  Federal means-tested        313(b)(1)(C).........  Aspects are not in       
                                     public benefits.                                   Finance Committee's     
                                                                                        jurisdiction.           
    Sec. 2412(c)..................  State public benefits       313(b)(1)(A).........  No budgetary impact.     
                                     defined.                                                                   
In Sec. 2423:                                                                                                   
    ``Sec. 213A(f)(2).............  Federal means-tested        313(b)(1)(C).........  Aspects are not in       
                                     public benefits.                                   Finance Committee's     
                                                                                        jurisdiction.           
Sec. 2424.........................  Consignature of alien       313(b)(1)(C).........  The Higher Education Act 
                                     student loans.                                     is in the jurisdiction  
                                                                                        of the Labor Committee, 
                                                                                        not the Finance         
                                                                                        Committee.              
Sec. 2424.........................  Cosignature of alien        313(b)(1)(C).........  The Higher Education Act 
                                     student loans.                                     is in the jurisdiction  
                                                                                        of the Labor Committee, 
                                                                                        not the Finance         
                                                                                        Committee.              
Chapter 5.........................  Reductions in Federal       313(b)(1)(A).........  No budgetary impact.     
                                     Government.                313(b)(1)(C).........  Not in Finance's         
                                                                                        jurisdiction.           
In Chapter 8:                                                                                                   
    Sec. 2815.....................  Repeals...................  313(b)(1)(A).........  No budgetary impact.     
                                                                313(b)(1)(C).........   Discretionary programs. 
                                                                                       Not in Finance's         
                                                                                        jurisdiction.           
In Chapter 9:                                                                                                   
    Sec. 2909.....................  Abstinence education......  313(b)(1)(A).........  No budgetary impact.     
                                                                                        Affects discretionary   
                                                                                        programs.               
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bennett). The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, might I inquire of the distinguished 
Senator, before I lodge my waiver with this, have we finished the work 
that you had alluded to that you had to do?
  Mr. EXON. We have one other matter. It is simply something to offer 
into the Record, a letter from the President on the matter that I think 
you will have no objection to. Other than that, I have nothing further, 
after the motion that I have just made.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I assume when we dispose of that, and you get your 
insertion, we are finished and have complied with the order about 
completing the work on this bill?
  Mr. EXON. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, since I have not had time nor has our 
staff had time to review the list of subject matters for Byrd rule 
points of order--and I want to state in a very specific way that I 
totally agree with the statements of the Senator from Nebraska as to 
why we have a Byrd rule. It is not totally perfect, but it is much 
better than having this law and this reconciliation without that kind 
of limitation. Nonetheless, we have not had a chance to review them. So 
what I would like to do--and I am going to do this now; I want to 
explain it to Senator Exon--I am going to move to waive each one and 
then we will reserve until tomorrow and consult with all of you on 
which ones we may indeed seek a vote, if any.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, the request from the Senator is entirely in 
order. I had anticipated that they would have some time to look at the 
list because we have just completed it ourselves and sent it to the 
desk. Therefore, I have no objection to the request just made and would 
agree to it.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I move to waive the Budget Act with 
respect to each individual point of order that has just been sent to 
the desk and lodged by the minority.
  I might inform the Senate that, without votes on the points of order 
if we elect to seek waiver, there are 22 stacked votes now in the event 
we vote on everything that we have heretofore cleared. The starting 
time, according to the previous order, unless changed, will be 9:30 
a.m. tomorrow morning.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. EXON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter 
stating the administration's position on the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

         Executive Office of the President, Office of Management 
           and Budget,
                                    Washington, DC, July 18, 1996.
     Hon. J. James Exon,
     Committee on the Budget, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Exon: I am writing to transmit the 
     Administration's views on S. 1956, the ``Personal 
     Responsibility, Work Opportunity, and Medicaid Restructuring 
     Act of 1996.''
       We understand that the Senate Republican leadership plans 
     to move to strike the Medicaid provisions of this 
     reconciliation legislation--leaving a welfare-only bill for 
     Senate floor consideration.
       We are pleased with this decision to separate welfare 
     reform from provisions to repeal Medicaid's guarantee of 
     health care for the elderly, the poor, pregnant women, and 
     people with disabilities. We hope that removing this ``poison 
     pill'' from welfare reform is a breakthrough that shows that 
     the Republican leadership seriously wants to pass bipartisan 
     welfare reform this year.
       Enacting bipartisan welfare reform reflecting the 
     principles of work, family, and responsibility is among the 
     Administration's highest priorities. For the past three-and-
     a-half years, the President has demonstrated his commitment 
     to enacting real welfare reform by working with Congress to 
     enact legislation that moves people from welfare to work, 
     encourages responsibility, and protects children. The 
     Administration sent Congress a stand-alone welfare bill that 
     requires welfare recipients to work, imposes strict time 
     limits on welfare, toughens child support enforcement, is 
     fair to children, and is consistent with the President's 
     commitment to balance the budget.
       The Administration is pleased that the bill makes many of 
     the important improvements to H.R. 4 that we recommended--
     improvements also included in the bipartisan National 
     Governors' Association (NGA) and Breaux-Chafee proposals. The 
     Senate bill improves upon the bill that the House is now 
     considering. We urge the Senate to build on these 
     improvements, and to continue the bipartisan spirit displayed 
     in last year's debate on welfare reform. At the same time, 
     however, the Administration is deeply concerned about certain 
     provisions of S. 1956 that would adversely affect benefits 
     for Food Stamp households and legal immigrants, as well as 
     the need for strong State accountability and flexibility. 
     And, the bill would still raise taxes on millions of workers 
     by cutting the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC).


                   improvements contained in s. 1956

       We appreciate the Finance and Agriculture Committees' 
     efforts to strengthen provisions central to work-based 
     reform, such as child care, and to provide additional 
     protections for children and families. In rejecting H.R. 4, 
     the President singled out a number of provisions that were 
     tough on children and did too little to move people from 
     welfare to work. S. 1956 includes important changes to these 
     provisions that move the legislation closer to the 
     President's vision of true welfare reform. We are 
     particularly pleased with the following improvements:
       Child Care. As the President has insisted throughout the 
     welfare reform debate, child care is essential to move people 
     from welfare to work. The bill reflects a better 
     understanding of the child care resources that States will 
     need to implement welfare reform, adding $4 billion for child 
     care above the level in H.R. 4. The bill also recognizes that 
     parents of school-age children need child care in order to 
     work.
       Food Stamps. The bill removes the annual spending cap on 
     Food Stamps, preserving the program's ability to expand 
     during periods of economic recession and help families when 
     they are most in need. We are concerned, however, with other 
     Food Stamp proposals, as discussed below.
       Maintenance of Effort. The Administration strongly supports 
     the Finance Committee's changes to State maintenance of 
     effort

[[Page S8425]]

     (MOE) and transfer provisions and believes these are critical 
     elements of bipartisan welfare reform. The Committee removed 
     the objectionable transfer authority to the Title XX Social 
     Services Block Grant and other programs and would allow 
     transfers to child care only. In addition, the Committee 
     restored the 80 percent MOE level in last year's Senate bill 
     and tightened the definition of what counts toward this 
     requirement.
       Work Performance Bonus. We commend the Committee for giving 
     States an incentive to move people from welfare to work by 
     providing $1 billion in work program performance bonuses by 
     2003. This provision was an important element of last year's 
     Senate bill and the Administration's bill, and will help 
     change the culture of the welfare office.
       Contingency Fund. The bill adopts the NGA recommendation to 
     double the Contingency Fund to $2 billion, and add a more 
     responsive trigger based on the Food Stamp caseload. Below, 
     the Administration recommends further steps that Congress 
     should take to strengthen this provision.
       Equal Protection. The Committee includes provisions that 
     would require States to establish objective criteria for 
     delivery of benefits and to ensure equitable treatment. We 
     are pleased that the Committee also incorporates appropriate 
     State accountability measures.
       Hardship Exemption. We commend the Finance Committee for 
     following the NGA recommendation and restoring last year's 
     Senate provisions allowing States to exempt up to 20 percent 
     of hardship cases that reach the five-year limit.
       Transitional Medicaid. We are pleased that the Finance 
     Committee has taken steps to ensure the continuation of 
     Medicaid coverage for some of those who are transitioning 
     from welfare to work. We are concerned, however, that States 
     could deny this transitional Medicaid to many who would lose 
     cash benefits for various reasons. In addition, we still have 
     concerned with Medicaid coverage for those on cash 
     assistance, as noted below.
       Worker Displacement. We are pleased that the bill 
     incorporates provisions against worker displacement, 
     including protections from partial displacement as well as 
     avenues for displaced employees to seek redress.
       Child Nutrition. The bill now includes many provisions 
     proposed by the Administration, and no longer includes H.R. 
     4's provisions for a child nutrition block-grant 
     demonstration. In addition, the bill exempts the child 
     nutrition program from burdensome administrative provisions 
     related to its alien provisions. We believe that the Senate 
     could further improve the bill by including the 
     Administration's proposed 8 percent commodity floor.
       Child Protection. We commend the Finance Committee for 
     preserving the Title IV-E foster care and adoption assistance 
     programs (including related Medicaid coverage), and other 
     family support and child abuse prevention efforts.
       Supplemental Security Income (SSI). The bill removes the 
     proposed two-tiered benefit system for disabled children 
     receiving SSI, and retains full cash benefits for all 
     eligible children.
       We remain pleased that Congress has decided to include 
     central elements of the President's approach--time limits, 
     work requirements, the toughest possible child support 
     enforcement, and the requirement that minor mothers live at 
     home as a condition of assistance--in this legislation.


                       key concerns with s. 1956

       The Administration, however, remains deeply concerned that 
     S. 1956 still lacks other important provisions that have 
     earned bipartisan endorsement.
       Size of the cuts. The welfare provisions incorporate most 
     of the cuts in the vetoed bill--about $60 billion over six 
     years (including the EITC and related savings in Medicaid). 
     These cuts far exceed those proposed by the NGA or the 
     Administration. Cuts in Food Stamps and benefits to legal 
     immigrants are particularly deep. The President's Budget 
     demonstrates that cuts of this size are not necessary to 
     achieve real welfare reform, nor are they needed to balance 
     the budget.
       Food Stamps. The Administration strongly opposed the 
     inclusion of a Food Stamp grant option, which could seriously 
     undermine the Federal nature of the program, jeopardizing the 
     nutrition and health of millions of children, working 
     families, and the elderly, and eliminating the program's 
     ability to respond to economic changes. The Administration 
     also is concerned that the bill makes deep cuts in the Food 
     Stamp program, including a cut in benefits to households with 
     high shelter costs that disproportionately affects families 
     with children, and a four-month time limit on childless 
     adults who are willing to work but are not offered a work 
     slot.
       Legal Immigrants. The bill retains the excessively harsh 
     and uncompromising immigration provisions of last year's 
     vetoed bill. While we support the strengthening of 
     requirements on the sponsors of legal immigrants applying for 
     SSI, Food Stamps, and Aid to Families with Dependent Children 
     (AFDC), the bill bans SSI and Food Stamps for virtually all 
     legal immigrants, and imposes a five-year ban on most other 
     Federal programs, including non-emergency Medicaid, for new 
     legal immigrants. These bans would even cover legal 
     immigrants who become disabled after entering the country, 
     families with children, and current recipients. The bill 
     would deny benefits to 300,000 immigrant children and would 
     affect many more children whose parents are denied 
     assistance. The proposal unfairly shifts costs to States with 
     high numbers of legal immigrants. In addition, the bill 
     requires most Federal, State, and local benefits programs to 
     verify recipients' citizenship or alien status. These 
     mandates would create extremely difficult and costly 
     administrative burdens for State, local, and non-profit 
     service providers, as well as barriers to participation for 
     citizens. Also, the Administration urges that Senate not go 
     in the harsh direction that the House Rules Committee did 
     yesterday in reporting a provision that would broaden the ban 
     on current immigrants from receiving Medicaid coverage.
       Medical Assistance Guarantee. The Administration opposes 
     provisions that do not guarantee continued Medicaid 
     eligibility when States change AFDC rules. We are concerned 
     that families who lose cash assistance for various reasons, 
     such as reaching the five-year limit or having additional 
     children while they are receiving assistance, could lose 
     their Medicaid eligibility and be unable to receive the 
     health care services that they need. In addition, State 
     flexibility to change these AFDC rules could adversely affect 
     Medicaid eligibility determinations, including eligibility 
     for poverty-related pregnant women and children.
       Protection in Economic Downturn. Although the Contingency 
     Fund is twice what it was in the vetoed bill, it still does 
     not allow for further expansions during poor economic 
     conditions and periods of increased need. We are also 
     concerned about provisions that reduce the match rate on 
     contingency funds for States that access the fund for 
     periods of under a year.
       Resources for Work. S. 1956 would not provide the resources 
     States need to move recipients into work. The bill increases 
     the work mandates on States above the levels in H.R. 4 while 
     providing no additional resources for States to meet these 
     more stringent rates. Based on CBO estimates, the Senate bill 
     would provide $12 billion less over six years than is 
     required to meet the bill's work requirements and maintain 
     the current level of cash assistance to poor families. CBO 
     notes that ``most States would be unlikely to satisfy this 
     requirement.'' Moreover, the Senate bill would lead to a $2.4 
     billion shortfall in child care resources (assuming States 
     maintain their current level of cash assistance benefits, 
     continue current law Transitional and At-Risk child care 
     levels, and do not transfer amounts from the cash block grant 
     to child care).
       Vouchers. The bill actually reduces State flexibility by 
     prohibiting States from using block grant funds to provide 
     vouchers to children whose parents reach the time limit. H.R. 
     4 contained no such prohibition, and the NGA opposes it. We 
     strongly urge the adoption of voucher language, similar to 
     that in the Administration's bill and Breaux-Chafee, that 
     protects children.
       Child Care Health and Safety Protections. The bill repeals 
     current child care health and safety protections and cuts 
     set-aside funds to the States to improve the safety and 
     quality care. We strongly urge the Senate to restore these 
     basic health and safety protections, which were enacted with 
     strong bipartisan support in 1990 and maintained in last 
     year's Senate bill and are essential to the safety and well-
     being of millions of young children.
       Family Caps. The Senate bill reverts back to the opt-out 
     provision on family caps which would restrict State 
     flexibility in this area. The Administration, as well as the 
     NGA, seeks complete State flexibility to set family cap 
     policy.
       EITC. The Administration opposes the provision in S. 1956 
     that raises taxes on over four million low-income adult 
     workers by ending inflation adjustments for working 
     households without dependent children, and thereby 
     substantially cutting the real value of their tax credit over 
     time. Raising taxes on these workers is wrong. In addition, 
     the budget resolution instructs the revenue committees to cut 
     up to $18.5 billion more from the EITC. Thus, EITC cuts could 
     total over $20 billion. Such large tax increases on working 
     families are particularly ill-conceived when considered in 
     the context of real welfare reform--that is, encouraging work 
     and making work pay.
       We strongly support the bipartisan welfare reform 
     initiatives of moderate Republicans and Democrats in both the 
     House and Senate. The Breaux-Chafee proposal addresses many 
     of our concerns, and it would strengthen State accountability 
     efforts, welfare to work measures, and protections for 
     children. It provides a foundation on which the Senate should 
     build in order to provide more State flexibility; incentives 
     for AFDC recipients to move from welfare to work; more 
     parental responsibility; and protections for children. It is 
     a good, strong proposal that would end welfare as we know it. 
     Breaux-Chafee provides the much needed opportunity for a real 
     bipartisan compromise, and it should be the basis for a quick 
     agreement between the parties.
       The President stands ready to work with Congress to address 
     the outstanding concerns so we can enact a strong, bipartisan 
     welfare reform bill to replace the current system with one 
     that demands responsibility, strengthens families, protects 
     children, and gives States broad flexibility and the needed 
     resources to get the job done.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Jacob J. Lew,
                                                  Acting Director.

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry. Is it correct, 
pursuant to the regular order, we would

[[Page S8426]]

now proceed with the agriculture appropriations bill?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the 
absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, what is the business now before the 
Senate?

                          ____________________