[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 109 (Tuesday, July 23, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8501-S8532]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                                 RECESS

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate stands in 
recess until 2 p.m. this afternoon.
  Thereupon, the Senate, at 12:35 p.m., recessed until 2:01 p.m.; 
whereupon, the Senate reassembled when called to order by the Presiding 
Officer (Mr. Smith).


                           Amendment No. 4936

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question now 
occurs on amendment No. 4936 offered by the Senator from Florida [Mr. 
Graham]. The yeas and nays have been ordered. However, the vote will be 
preceded by 2 minutes of debate evenly divided in the usual manner.
  Mr. GRAHAM addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida is recognized.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, this amendment speaks to fundamental 
fairness by providing that a poor child will be treated the same by 
their Federal Government wherever they happen to live and that each 
State will receive the same amount of money based on the number of poor 
children within that State. That is not only fairness; it also, in my 
opinion, is fundamentally required if this bill is to achieve its 
objective of providing States a reasonable amount of resources in which 
to provide for the transition from welfare to work.
  I yield the remainder of my time to my colleague, Senator Bumpers.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, the Senator from Florida is actually the 
architect of this amendment, and he has done an outstanding job. 
Thirty-eight States are going to be penalized under this bill because 
what we are using is the 1991 and 1994 figures. If your State made a 
monumental effort during those years, you may be rewarded under this 
bill. If you did not because you could not, you would be punished for 
the next 6 years. West Virginia has a $13.34 per case administrative 
cost, New York has $106. So because West Virginia has been provident, 
they are going to get punished. Because New York has been improvident, 
they get rewarded. That is not equitable.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  The Senator from Texas.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I am going to ask our Members to come 
together and do what is right for America and welfare reform. Right now 
we have a fair funding formula. A nongrowth State never loses from its 
1994 base or its 1995 base, whichever base it chooses. The growth 
States are able to grow because that is essential, and we know it is 
fair. There are no losers in the underlying bill. The Graham-Bumpers 
amendment creates winners and losers. It says to California, Michigan, 
Minnesota, and New York, ``You are going to have to go below and 
actually cut the welfare in your State below the 1994 and 1995 
limits.'' Mr. President, that is wrong. We came together and we made a 
very, very fair proposal, and it was accepted because there are no 
losers.
  Now, Mr. President, we must keep that fairness. If we really want 
welfare reform, we must have fairness for all States. That is what the 
underlying bill is.
  Please vote against the Graham-Bumpers amendment.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, the Personal Responsibility, Work 
Opportunity, and Medicaid Restructuring Act of 1996 (S. 1956) replaces 
the current AFDC Program with a new temporary assistance for needy 
families [TANF] block grant. The TANF block grant will distribute 
Federal funds to the States according to a formula which is based on 
recent Federal expenditures under the programs which are to be 
consolidated into the TANF, with supplemental funds based on population 
growth and low Federal expenditures per poor person in the States. By 
emphasizing historical funding for welfare benefits, this formula 
recognizes that the cost of living differs from State to State, and 
that certain States have historically supported generous welfare 
benefits through the expenditure of their own funds.
  My colleagues, Senators Graham and Bumpers, have offered an amendment 
to S. 1956 which would significantly change the formula for the TANF 
block grants. Because the Graham-Bumpers formula would dramatically 
decrease TANF allotments in certain States and would arbitrarily and 
unfairly force the elimination or reduction of existing welfare 
benefits, I am unable to support this amendment. This vote does, 
however, raise the important issue of the disparities in TANF block 
grant allotments which the formula will create. While I recognize that 
differences in the cost of living and other factors necessitate some 
disparity in allotments, I encourage the conference committee to 
explore appropriate alternatives which address these disparities, 
further assisting States which have low Federal expenditures per poor 
person under the formula and which experience population growth.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now occurs on agreeing to 
amendment No. 4936 offered by the Senator from Florida [Mr. Graham]. On 
this question, the yeas and nays have been ordered, and the clerk will 
call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Grams] 
is necessarily absent.
  I also announce that the Senator from Kansas [Mrs. Kassebaum] is 
absent due to a death in the family.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Illinois [Ms. Moseley-
Braun] is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 37, nays 60, as follows:
  


                      [Rollcall Vote No. 222 Leg.]

  


                                YEAS--37

  

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Coats
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Faircloth
     Ford
     Frahm
     Graham
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kerrey
     Leahy
     Lugar
     Mack
     McConnell
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pressler
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Simon
     Warner
  


                                NAYS--60

  

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Brown
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Frist
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kempthorne
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Lautenberg
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     McCain
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray

[[Page S8502]]


     Nickles
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Wellstone
     Wyden
  


                             NOT VOTING--3

  

     Grams
     Kassebaum
     Moseley-Braun
  

  The amendment (No. 4963) was rejected.


                           Amendment No. 4940

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now 
consider amendment No. 4940, offered by the Senator from Kentucky, [Mr. 
Ford]. Under that same previous order, 2 minutes of debate will be 
evenly divided in the usual manner.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, may we have order?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will come to order.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, this amendment gives States the option of 
providing noncash assistance to children once their adult parents have 
reached the 5-year limit. It does not affect the ban on cash assistance 
after 5 years. It would allow States to use their block grants to 
provide clothing, school supplies, medicine, and other things for the 
poorest children.
  This amendment makes this bill identical to H.R. 4, the welfare bill 
passed last December. It provides State flexibility. It adds no new 
costs.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, the Senate is not in order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct. The Senator will 
suspend. The Senate will be in order.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, this bill adds no new costs or no new 
bureaucracy. It is supported by the National Governors' Association. I 
remind my colleagues on the other side, there are 31 Republican 
Governors. It is supported by the U.S. Catholic Conference, the 
National Conference of State Legislatures, the American Public Welfare 
Association.
  To say we can use funds from title XX, title XX is money for 
homebound elderly. It has not been increased since 1991. This makes the 
Governors make a choice between homebound elderly and the poorest of 
our children. It is just bad policy.
  Mr. President, let us give the Governors the flexibility they have 
asked for, they worked hard for. We give them responsibility. Let us 
not tell them how to operate.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  The Senator from Delaware is recognized.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I strongly oppose the Ford amendment as it 
would seriously undermine the real 5-year time limit on welfare 
assistance. One of the most important features of welfare reform is 
that recipients must understand that public assistance is temporary, 
not a way of life. Let us be straight about this. These benefits would 
go to the entire family under the Ford amendment. If you are going to 
give vouchers for housing, the whole family benefits. If you are giving 
any type of assistance, it benefits the whole family. There is no 
distinction between the child and the rest of the family.
  Under the bill, even after the 5-year time limit, families and 
children would still be eligible for food stamps, Medicaid, housing 
assistance, WIC, and dozens more means-tested programs.
  Over 5 years, a typical welfare family receives more than $50,000 in 
tax-free benefits. Five years is enough time to finish a high school 
degree or learn a skill through vocational training. It is enough for a 
welfare family to change course.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired. All time 
for debate on the amendment has expired.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment. 
The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Kansas [Mrs. Kassebaum] 
is absent due to a death in the family.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 48, nays 51, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 223 Leg.]

                                YEAS--48

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Glenn
     Graham
     Harkin
     Heflin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Johnston
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Specter
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--51

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brown
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Faircloth
     Ford
     Frahm
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Pressler
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Kassebaum
       
  The amendment (No. 4940) was rejected.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I ask for 
the yeas and nays.
  Mr. LOTT. I move to table the motion to reconsider, and I ask for the 
yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
lay on the table the motion to reconsider the Ford amendment No. 4940.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Kansas [Mrs. Kassebaum] 
is absent due to a death in the family.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 50, nays 49, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 224 Leg.]

                                YEAS--50

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brown
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Faircloth
     Frahm
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Pressler
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--49

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Graham
     Harkin
     Heflin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Johnston
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Specter
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Kassebaum
       
  The motion to lay on the table the motion to reconsider was agreed 
to.
  Mr. EXON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, in an effort to try to save time I would 
like to suggest that we consider--since we have four Ashcroft 
amendments, I wish that we would, if the Senator from Missouri would 
agree--that we could voice vote through the next two amendments and 
then have the real contest on the third of the Ashcroft amendments. I 
think that would save some time. I would like to ask if the Senator 
from Missouri would consider such a move in order to move things along.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I am happy to have the time reduced to 4 
minutes on the amendment. But I think it is important that we have the 
votes.

[[Page S8503]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order so the Chair can 
hear the comments of the Senator. Senators will please take their 
conversations out of Senate and to the cloakroom.
  Mr. DOMENICI. We cannot reduce it 4 minutes. We tried it before. The 
closest they can come is somewhere between 7 and 8. The Senator is 
entitled to his votes. They have asked him to reduce them in number. If 
he does not care to, let us proceed with his amendments. He is 
absolutely entitled to do that.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. I would be happy to reduce the time. But I would prefer 
to have the votes, and I would object to the unanimous-consent request.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I withdraw my kind offer.
  [Laughter.]


                Amendment No. 4944 to Amendment No. 4941

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now 
consider amendment No. 4944 offered by the Senator from Missouri [Mr. 
Ashcroft], to his amendment No. 4941. The debate will be limited to 2 
minutes equally divided.
  The Senator from Missouri is recognized.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, this amendment highlights the value 
which is at the very heart of our culture and our nature--the 
importance of education and learning. This amendment really says that 
if you are on welfare----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator suspend? The Senate will be 
in order so the Senate may hear the Senator from Missouri on his 
amendment.
  The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, it is the thrust of this amendment that 
if you are on welfare and you have not completed your high school 
diploma the best way to get a job and keep a job is to achieve a level 
of education that our society expects of all adults, and that is a high 
school education.
  So this amendment would allow States to require individuals to get a 
high school education or its equivalent. This amendment is permissive, 
and it states that if you are a 20- to 50-year-old welfare recipient 
who does not have a high school diploma, you must begin working toward 
attaining a high school diploma or a GED as a condition of receiving 
benefits. An exception is made for people who are not capable.
  Job training will not equip welfare recipients to work if they have 
not achieved the basic and fundamental proficiency in education skills. 
How can we expect to train someone to work as a cashier if they cannot 
add, subtract, multiply, or divide?
  The facts are indisputable. A person over 18 without a high school 
diploma averages $12,800 in earnings; with a high school diploma, 
averages $18,700 in earnings. Mr. President, $6,000 is the difference 
between dependence and independence; between welfare and work.
  This is permissive to the States.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, there is no opposition to this amendment 
that I know of. I recommend that all Senators vote in favor of the 
amendment.

  I would simply point out that the amendment does nothing more than 
what the States can already do.
  I will vote for this amendment, and the one that follows. I will 
strongly oppose the third amendment by the Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, in that event I would be pleased to 
accept a voice vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment 
of the Senator from Missouri.
  The amendment (No. 4944) was agreed to.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 4943 to Amendment No. 4941

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is now on amendment No. 4943 to 
amendment No. 4941 offered by the Senator from Missouri.
  The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Thank you, Mr. President.
  As I mentioned earlier, education is the key to breaking the 
intergenerational cycle of welfare dependency. This amendment would 
allow States to require that parents on welfare be responsible for 
ensuring that their minor children are in school.
  It would be this simple. If you are on welfare, your children should 
be in school. If we care about breaking the vicious intergenerational 
cycle of welfare we should care about making sure that individuals who 
are on welfare accept the responsibility of sending their children to 
school. We must look to the long-term in reforming welfare. We must 
look at what we can do to save the future of our children. Every child 
in America can attend school. Every child can earn a high school 
diploma. It costs nothing but commitment. Too often education is 
ignored and trashed because it is devalued by our welfare culture. Teen 
dropout rates soar. They skip classes. We should not pay parents to 
encourage lifestyles of dependency on and off welfare and in and out of 
minimum-wage jobs. States should be able to give children on welfare a 
fighting chance.
  Mr. EXON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I know of no one on this side of the aisle 
or on the other side of the aisle that opposes this amendment by the 
Senator from Missouri. I would simply state what I said on the last 
amendment. If the Senator insists on a rollcall vote, I recommend that 
all Senators vote in favor of the amendment as, like the preceding 
amendment, it does nothing more than what the States can already do. I 
hope that we could move things along, and I would point out that I will 
strongly oppose the next amendment offered by the Senator from 
Missouri.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment 
of the Senator from Missouri.
  The amendment (No. 4943) was agreed to.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 4942 to Amendment No. 4941

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question occurs 
on amendment No. 4942 offered by the Senator from Missouri [Mr. 
Ashcroft], to his amendment No. 4941.
  The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, we need to change welfare from a 
condition in which people live to a transition from which people go; a 
transition from dependency to independence.
  Under this bill we allow most people to spend 5 straight years on the 
welfare rolls. Without really going to work in 5 years, think what can 
happen in terms of building habits, self-esteem, skills, and 
motivation. If you do not use a muscle for 5 weeks, it gets weak. If 
you do not use it for 5 months, it atrophies. If you do not use it for 
5 years, it disappears. It is forever useless.

  This amendment says that 2 years in a row--24 months--is long along 
enough for able-bodied recipients without infants or children to be 
able to receive welfare without starting down a path of work. We need 
to change the character of welfare from the condition of welfare to a 
transition toward independence and work. Mr. President, 5 straight 
years on welfare only reinforces a dependent lifestyle that we are 
trying to change.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. 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.
  Mrs. MURRAY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. President, the amendment offered by the Senator from Missouri 
provides that a family may not receive welfare assistance for more than 
24 months consecutively, unless the adult is working, or the State has 
an exemption of the adult for hardship. I would support this amendment 
if the Senator would require States to offer work to parents. There may 
be many parents who are willing to work and who want

[[Page S8504]]

to work but cannot find a job, or perhaps they cannot find child care 
for their children so that they can be at work.
  The underlying bill says that a mother should not be penalized if she 
has a child under 11, or if she cannot afford to find child care. This 
amendment would be inconsistent with the underlying bill. It aims right 
at the mother. But it hits the child.
  I urge my colleagues to defeat this amendment. It goes too far.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment. 
The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Kansas [Mrs. Kassebaum] 
is absent due to a death in the family.
  The result was announced--yeas 37, nays 62, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 225 Leg.]

                                YEAS--37

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Bond
     Brown
     Burns
     Coats
     Cochran
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Faircloth
     Frahm
     Frist
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Pressler
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Smith
     Thompson
     Thurmond

                                NAYS--62

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Heflin
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mack
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Simpson
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Kassebaum
       
  The amendment (No. 4942) was rejected.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.


                     Amendment No. 4941, As Amended

  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, because the substitute has failed, what 
remains is--and I believe the Senator from Missouri agrees--what 
remains is the underlying amendment, as amended by the amendments that 
we adopted by voice vote.
  Consequently, I suggest we now simply adopt the underlying amendment 
as amended by voice vote as well.
  Mr. ASHCROFT addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri is recognized.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, that is consistent with my understanding 
of where we are. I am pleased to agree with the ranking member.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment, 
as amended.
  The amendment (No. 4941), as amended, was agreed to.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. FORD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 4950

  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, Senator Murray is now scheduled for 
recognition, I believe. Is that correct? The Senator from Washington 
should be recognized, I suggest.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now occurs on amendment No. 4950. 
The Senator from Washington is recognized for up to 1 minute.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, the amendment before us strikes the 
provision in the bill that cuts the reimbursement rate on the Summer 
Food Program dramatically. The bill proposes to cut 23 cents from every 
school lunch provided in this critical summer program. This will have a 
dramatic effect, especially in our rural areas.
  I think we have had the debate on this floor. Everyone understands 
the need to have good, strong nutrition for our children in order for 
them to learn. The Summer Food Program is especially critical. Children 
are not bears. They do not hibernate. They need to eat in the summer as 
much as they do in the school year.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment and put back in 
effect the important Summer Food Program. I understand the majority is 
willing, perhaps, to accept this on a voice vote. If that is the case, 
I am more than happy to oblige.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, the Senate is not in order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will come to order so we may 
proceed.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, the Senate may not have heard the closing 
remarks by the Senator from Washington. I believe she suggested the 
amendment has been cleared on both sides and she will accept a voice 
vote.
  Mr. SANTORUM. That is our understanding. The amendment has been 
cleared on this side. We are willing to accept the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 4950) was agreed to.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. SANTORUM. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 4952

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now occurs on amendment No. 4952, 
offered by the Senator from Florida [Mr. Graham].
  The Senator from Florida is recognized.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, the amendment I offer strikes an amendment 
which was adopted in the Senate Finance Committee. The current bill as 
it was submitted to the committee contains a sanction against the 
States in the hands of the Secretary of HHS.
  The Secretary, at the Secretary's discretion, can levy up to a 5-
percent withholding of a State's welfare funds if the State fails to 
meet the work requirements. The amendment offered in the committee 
provides that if a State fails to meet that standard for 2 straight 
years, then it shall be penalized, without discretion in the hands of 
the Secretary, by a mandatory 5 percent. And although there is some 
confusion, it is assumed that this is a cumulative 5 percent, up to a 
total of 25 percent of the State's welfare payments.

  This is strongly opposed by the State and local organizations, from 
the National Governors' Association, the National Conference of State 
Legislators, the National Association of Counties, all of whom feel it 
denies to the Secretary the necessary discretion.
  This also will severely penalize those low-benefit States which are 
the most likely to be unable to meet the work requirements.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, if there is a hallmark of this bill, it is 
work. If there is one thing that every Democrat and every Republican 
boasts about in this bill, it is that it requires able-bodied men and 
women to work.
  Last year's bill simply had a one-time penalty for not meeting the 
work requirements. Members of the Finance Committee were concerned that 
a State, or the District of Columbia, would simply take the 5-percent 
penalty each year rather than make a good-faith effort to meet the work 
requirements in this bill--even with the ability to exempt 20 percent 
of welfare recipients. Without this compounding provision, we have no 
real ability to produce a good-faith effort on the part of the States.
  We have had meetings between the House and the Senate on this issue. 
We met with the Governors. We worked out what we believe is a 
compromise. I hope my colleagues will stay with this provision. If you 
want a work requirement, you have to enforce it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I move to table the Graham amendment and 
ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.

[[Page S8505]]

  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
lay on the table amendment No. 4952. The yeas and nays have been 
ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Kansas [Mrs. Kassebaum] 
is absent due to a death in the family.
  The result was announced--yeas 56, nays 43, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 226 Leg.]

                                YEAS--56

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Bradley
     Brown
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Ford
     Frahm
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kempthorne
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Pressler
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--43

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feinstein
     Glenn
     Graham
     Harkin
     Heflin
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Kassebaum
       
  The motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 4952) was agreed 
to.


           Motion to Waive the Budget Act--Amendment No. 4955

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
4955 offered by the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy].
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized 
for up to 1 minute.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, this amendment is about children. It is 
about the children of legal immigrants. It is also about deeming. What 
we are saying is, under this program, legal immigrant children are not 
going to be excluded from the range of benefits. We are saying you are 
deemed to the person that is going to sponsor you. If that person that 
sponsors you runs into hard times, we will not deny the children the 
benefits they would otherwise receive. That is half the legal 
immigrants' children.
  The other half have no sponsor--no sponsor--have no one to deem to 
because they are the children of those who come here under the work 
permit. We should not exclude those individuals. They will become 
Americans, one; and two, more frequently than not, they are with 
divided households where brothers and sisters would be eligible. The 
cost will be $1 billion in 6 years, affecting 450,000 children that at 
one time or another might take advantage of the system.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware has 1 minute.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I oppose the Kennedy amendment. It would 
seriously erode fundamental welfare reform as it relates to 
noncitizens. The amendment does not just apply to children who are 
already here. The exemption applies to those who will come to the 
United States in the future, as well.
  The bill provides for a 5-year ban on Federal means-tested benefits, 
including cash, medical assistance, housing, food assistance, and 
social services. The Kennedy amendment creates a new exception to all 
these benefits to aliens under age 18. It is the taxpayer, not the 
families and sponsors of the children, who will assume the 
responsibility for their needs. This is the wrong signal to send to 
those who would come here for opportunity, not a handout, and for the 
families here who pay for those benefits.
  The Kennedy amendment would result in a loss of substantial savings 
in the bill. I urge my colleagues to vote against the Kennedy amendment 
and uphold the budget point of order against it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the motion to waive the 
Budget Act.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Kansas [Mrs. Kassebaum] 
is absent due to a death in the family.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 51, nays 48, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 227 Leg.]

                                YEAS--51

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hatfield
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Specter
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--48

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brown
     Burns
     Byrd
     Coats
     Cochran
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Faircloth
     Frahm
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Pressler
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Kassebaum
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 51, and the nays 
are 48. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn, not having 
voted in the affirmative, the motion is rejected, and the amendment 
falls.
  Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the motion was rejected.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.


           Motion to Waive the Budget Act--Amendment No. 4956

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I believe that it is in order now for the 
consideration of my other amendment. Am I correct that the time 
allocated is 1 minute and 1 minute in opposition? Is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, this amendment is a very simple and 
fundamental amendment, but it is one that is desperately important to 
county hospitals and to rural hospitals around the country.
  The effect of this amendment would be to defer the Medicaid 
prohibitions of the welfare provisions for legal immigrants for 2 years 
so that the local hospitals are able to accommodate the provisions of 
this legislation. Under the provisions of the legislation, all 
immigrants would be prohibited from the day that they enter the United 
States, and all of those who are in this country, any State could knock 
them out in January of next year.
  Probably the most important health facilities that we have in this 
country in many respects are not the teaching hospitals but the county 
hospitals that provide emergency assistance. If we put this enormous 
burden--and it estimated to be $287 million over the period of the next 
2 years; that is the cost of it--it is going to have an impact on 
Americans because the county hospitals are going to deteriorate in 
quality; they are going to be inundated with additional kinds of cases 
that they are not going to be compensated for; and they are not going 
to be able to treat Americans fairly or equitably.
  All we are asking for is a 2-year period.
  This is endorsed by the American Hospital Association, the National 
Association of Public Health Hospitals, the National Associations of 
Children's Hospitals, community health centers, and the Catholic Health 
Association.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.

[[Page S8506]]

  Mr. ROTH addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thompson). The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, the Kennedy amendment would delay Medicaid 
restrictions on noncitizens for 2 years. In effect, the Kennedy 
amendment says we need welfare reform but not quite yet. That is not 
good enough for those who bear the cost of these programs.
  Let us not lose sight of this debate. These welfare programs were not 
designed to serve noncitizens. The restrictions that we have placed on 
noncitizens have broad bipartisan support. This is no time to turn our 
backs on reform. The Kennedy amendment would result in a loss of 
substantial savings in the bill.
  So I, therefore, urge my colleagues to vote against the Kennedy 
amendment and uphold the budget point of order against it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the motion to waive the 
Budget Act. The yeas and nays have been ordered, and the clerk will 
call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Kansas [Mrs. Kassebaum] 
is absent due to a death in the family.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
who desire to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 35, nays 64, as follows:
  


                      [Rollcall Vote No. 228 Leg.]

  


                                YEAS--35

  

     Akaka
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Chafee
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Exon
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Glenn
     Graham
     Hatfield
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Pell
     Robb
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Specter
     Wellstone
     Wyden
  


                                NAYS--64

  

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Bond
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Brown
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Faircloth
     Ford
     Frahm
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kempthorne
     Kerrey
     Kyl
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Pressler
     Pryor
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner
  


                             NOT VOTING--1

  

       
     Kassebaum
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 35, the nays are 
64. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected and the amendment falls.
  The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I believe this finishes the amendments 
that were on our list as of Thursday night. Those who wanted votes have 
had their votes. Those have been disposed of.
  Yesterday, Senator Exon raised an omnibus Byrd rule point of order 
against a number of provisions contained in the bill. In order to 
preserve our rights, I moved to waive the Budget Act with respect to 
each point of order individually.
  At this time, I now withdraw my motions to waive with respect to all 
but the following three provisions: No. 1, section 408(a)(2), which is 
known as the family cap; No. 2, section 2104, which deals with services 
provided by charitable organizations; and, No. 3, section 2909, which 
deals with abstinence education.
  It is our intention to have a separate vote on each of these three. 
Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order for me to 
request the yeas and nays on the three at this point.
  I ask for the yeas and nays.
  Mr. EXON. Reserving right to object, I would simply say to my friend 
and colleague from New Mexico, I appreciate the fact he has expedited 
things a great deal by, I think, eliminating 22 of the 25 points of 
order that we raised.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Correct.
  Mr. EXON. I simply remind all that, for any or all of these three to 
be agreed to, it would require 60 votes. Is that correct?
  Mr. DOMENICI. That is correct.
  Mr. EXON. In view of that, and in view of the fact that time is 
running on, and I think we all recognize we are going to be on this 
bill--with closing statements from the managers and the two leaders and 
then final passage--it looks to me like we are going to run up toward 6 
o'clock if we do not expedite things.
  I am just wondering--I make the suggestion to expedite things--rather 
than have three separate votes, could we package these three into one 
vote? I remind all, the chance of these motions being agreed to, with 
the 60-vote point of order, is not very likely. But if there is strong 
feeling in the Senate on these, then the 60 votes would be there.
  Will the Senator consider packaging the three into one vote?
  Mr. DOMENICI. First, I thank Senator Exon for all the cooperation he 
has exhibited and the efforts he made to expedite matters. But we have, 
on our own, taken 22 of your 25 points of order and said they are well 
taken. So, in that respect, we have already eliminated an awful lot of 
votes that could have taken place.
  Frankly, this is done without anybody whimpering about them on this 
side of the aisle. They have all agreed with my analysis and said that 
is good, save the three.
  Conferring with the chairmen of the Finance Committee and the 
Agriculture Committee, I arrived at that conclusion; 22 are gone. We 
would like just three votes on those three waivers. I would like to do 
them quickly. We will only ask for 2 minutes on a side to debate the 
issues, since none of them have been before the Senate as a substantive 
matter. That is the best I can do. I hope the Senator will agree with 
that, I ask Senator Exon.
  Mr. EXON. What you are saying is three is the minimum?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Three is the minimum, but obviously we sure got rid of 
plenty of them.
  Mr. EXON. I withdraw my objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be 4 
minutes equally divided on each of these points of order--two for those 
in opposition and two for those who support it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


           Motion to Waive the Budget Act--Section 408(a)(2)

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, the first of our waivers will be the 
family cap. I have already moved to waive it in the previous motion, 
and I now yield the time to argue in favor of the waiver to Senator 
Gramm of Texas.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, first of all, only a tortured view of the 
Byrd rule would say that our language on the family cap does not save 
money. But what I want to focus on here is that this is not a 
controversial provision of the bill but is an integral part of the 
overall welfare reform measure.
  As I am sure colleagues on both sides of the aisle will remember, we 
have had serious debate over this issue. We have gone back and forth. 
There have been differences. There are some people who believe--I am 
one of those people--that we should have a family cap and that we ought 
not to give people more and more money in return for having more and 
more children while on welfare. There are other people who believe that 
we should have no family cap and that the current incentives built into 
the system should continue.
  What we have in this bill is a crafted compromise that was adopted in 
committee with broad support. We allow States, at their option, through 
their action, to opt out of the family cap if they choose. This is a 
broad-based compromise. It has been supported on a bipartisan basis, 
and for that reason, I feel very strongly that to preserve common sense 
in this bill in a way that is coherent and can work, we need to 
preserve this compromise language.
  So I ask Members on both sides of the aisle to vote to waive the Byrd 
rule and keep this provision in place. This provision simply says the 
family cap exists unless the State opts out. If States decides that 
they want to continue to give additional cash payments

[[Page S8507]]

to those who have more and more children while on welfare, the States 
can do that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's 2 minutes has expired.
  Mr. GRAMM. This is compromise language. I hope on a bipartisan basis 
that we will preserve this compromise.
  Mr. EXON addressed the Chair.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I yield our time to the Senator from 
Louisiana.
  Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I will say, in response to the Senator 
from Texas, that there is bipartisan agreement, and the bipartisan 
agreement is that this is a bad idea: The National Governors' 
Association, the NGA, headed by Gov. Tommy Thompson, who I think is a 
leading Republican, opposes this measure. The NGA, in their letter to 
all Members of the Congress, say very clearly:
  The NGA supports a family cap as an option rather than as a mandate 
to prohibit benefits to additional children born or conceived while the 
parent is on welfare.

  What this amendment does is to require that the States affirmatively 
pass legislation to get out from under this mandate that people in 
Washington are sending down to the States. That is why the bipartisan 
NGA strongly opposes the provisions in the bill as it is written.
  They would like the option to do that if they want to, but they 
certainly do not want Washington to mandate that they cannot have 
assistance to children of a family who are born while they are on 
welfare, simply because they do not want to penalize the children.
  Be as tough as we want to be on the mothers and the parents, but not 
on the children. In addition to that, the Catholic Bishops' Conference, 
which has been very active, along with a number of other groups, feels 
very strongly this legislation should not have the mandate the bill 
currently has. They say very clearly that this provision would result 
in more poverty, hunger and illness for poor children. This is 
something that gets me. They say, ``We urge the Senate to reject this 
measure which would encourage abortions and hurt children.''
  I am not sure everybody comes down on these, but I think when you 
have the Catholic Bishops' Conference saying, if a mother is faced with 
that choice, abortion becomes a real option, they think they should not 
be encouraged and, therefore, they do not support Washington mandating 
that States have to take a certain action. Let them have the option.
  If we strike this provision, the State has the option to deny 
additional benefits to additional children if they want to, but we 
should not be dictating to the States on a block grant welfare program 
how they have to handle this situation.
  I strongly urge that we not move to waive the Byrd rule.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion to waive the Budget Act. 
The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Kansas [Mrs. Kassebaum] 
is absent due to a death in the family.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. DeWine). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 42, nays 57, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 229 Leg.]

                                YEAS--42

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brown
     Burns
     Coats
     Cochran
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Faircloth
     Frahm
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Pressler
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--57

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lugar
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Snowe
     Specter
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Kassebaum
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this question, the yeas are 42, the nays 
are 57. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having 
voted in the affirmative, the motion is rejected, and the point of 
order is sustained.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LOTT. I move to lay it on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that immediately 
following the third reading of H.R. 3734, the following Senators be 
recognized for up to 5 minutes each for closing remarks: Senator 
Moynihan, Senator Roth, Senator Exon, Senator Domenici; I further ask 
that following the conclusion of these remarks, the floor managers be 
recognized, Senator Daschle to be followed by Senator Lott, for closing 
remarks utilizing their leader time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LOTT. I further ask immediately following passage of H.R. 3734, 
the Senate request----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If the majority leader will suspend.
  Mr. EXON. My apologies. We thought things were cleared. They are not. 
We will have to object, pending a few moments. Could the Senator hold 
off for 5 minutes for a chance to work this out?
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I am willing to do that, but I thought we 
had an agreement whereby we could get an understanding of how much 
time--after all the days and hours that have gone into this bill--and 
we could have closing statements.
  That is fine, to have final statements as to the position of the 
various Senators on what is in this legislation; it was with the 
understanding that we would also go ahead and get the agreement and go 
to conference.
  Mr. EXON. We also thought that we had an agreement, but I am sure you 
have had exceptions on your side, as we have, and in the best of times 
they do not always work out.
  I do not think it is a lengthy delay. I simply say we will try and 
give the Senator an answer in 5 minutes.
  Mr. LOTT. Can we proceed with the next vote?
  I yield the floor.


              Motion to Waive the Budget Act--Section 2104

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thompson). The question is on the motion 
to waive the point of order, section 2104. The yeas and nays have been 
ordered.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. In moving to waive the Budget Act, the point of order 
regarding the charitable organizations, I yield 30 seconds to my 
colleague from Indiana.
  Mr. COATS. I thank the Senator. I urge my colleagues to support the 
Ashcroft provision, which allows for delivery of social services 
through religious charities. I urge this for two compelling reasons.
  First, it is much more cost effective than the current Federal 
bureaucratic system. Utilization of facilities that are already there, 
that are neighborhood based and utilizating volunteers makes delivery 
of those services far more efficient than the Government can do.
  Second, they get better results. Survey after survey, in hearing 
after hearing that we have conducted in the Children and Families 
Subcommittee on Labor and Human Resources has proven the effectiveness 
in doing this. I urge my colleagues to support the Ashcroft amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, there is a real reason to employ the 
services of nongovernmental charitable organizations in delivering the 
needs of individuals who require the welfare state. Despite our good 
intentions, our welfare program and delivery system have been a 
miserable failure. Yet, America's faith-based charities and 
nongovernmental organizations, from the Salvation Army to the Boys and 
Girls Clubs of the United States have been very successful in moving 
people from welfare dependency to the independence of work and the 
dignity of self-reliance.

[[Page S8508]]

  The legislation that we are considering is a provision that was in 
the Senate welfare bill that passed last year. It passed the Senate by 
an 87 to 12 margin. President Clinton's veto of that bill last year was 
not related to this measure. I spoke to the President about it 
personally. In his State of the Union Address, just a few weeks later, 
he indicated the need to enlist the help of charitable and religious 
organizations to provide social services to our poor and needy 
citizens.
  Based upon the record of this Senate, which voted 87-12 in favor of 
such a concept last year after a thorough debate and consideration, 
based upon the support of the Executive, based upon the record of 
welfare as a failure and the need to employ and tap the resource of 
nongovernmental, charitable, religious, and other organizations, I urge 
the Senate to pass this motion to waive the Budget Act.
  Mr. EXON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I speak in opposition to the amendment. I 
simply point out to all that, in my opinion, this is a direct violation 
of the church-and-state relationship.
  I yield the remainder of my time to my colleague from Illinois.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois is recognized.
  Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I think we have to look at this very 
carefully. It provides that States can contract for welfare delivery 
with charitable, religious, or private organizations. I have no 
objection to charitable or private organizations, but we have been very 
careful in this church-and-state area.
  My father happened to be a Lutheran minister. I believe in the 
effectiveness of religion not only in our personal lives, but in giving 
stability to our Nation. We have been careful. For example, we permit 
religious schools to have some school lunch money. We permit some title 
I funds. We permit, under certain circumstances, assistance for 
disabled people that can be provided to religious organizations. But, 
under this, what we do is we not only say that religious organizations 
do not need to alter their form of internal governance--I have no 
objection to that--or remove icons, Scripture, or other symbols--I 
personally have no objection to that, though I know some who do--we 
permit churches and religious organizations to propagate people before 
they can get assistance. I think that clearly crosses the line in 
church/state relations. I think a hungry person should not have to be 
subjected to a religious lecture from a Lutheran, a Catholic, a Jew, or 
a Muslim before they get assistance. What if someone objects? If 
someone objects----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Mr. SIMON. I will close by saying, within a reasonable period, you 
appeal to the State, and the State eventually makes a decision. I think 
we should not waive this.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Kansas [Mrs. Kassebaum] 
is absent due to a death in the family.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Abraham). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 67, nays 32, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 230 Leg.]

                                YEAS--67

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Brown
     Burns
     Campbell
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Faircloth
     Frahm
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Johnston
     Kempthorne
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Pressler
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner
     Wellstone

                                NAYS--32

     Akaka
     Boxer
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Chafee
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Jeffords
     Kennedy
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Moseley-Braun
     Murray
     Pell
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Simon
     Specter
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Kassebaum
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote the yeas are 67, the nays are 32. 
Three-fifths of the Senate duly chosen and sworn having voted in the 
affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. EXON. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I opposed the motion to waive the Byrd rule 
point of order against the language of section 2104 which would provide 
a specific authorization for States to contract with charitable, 
private, or religious organizations to provide services under this act. 
States, without this provision, are able to enter into such contracts 
provided that they are consistent with the establishment clause of the 
Constitution and the State constitution and statutes of the State 
involved. Therefore, I believe this provision is unnecessary.
  I also voted against the language because it could inadvertently 
actually create a headache for religious organizations that currently 
deliver social services under Federal contract. Religious organizations 
currently contract to deliver social services for the Federal 
Government. They do so separate from their religious activities, 
keeping separate accounts, for instance.
  Under the bill's language, neither the Federal Government nor a State 
may refuse to contract with an organization based on the religious 
character of the organization, but if a recipient of those benefits 
objects to the religious character of an organization from which that 
individual would receive assistance, the State must provide that 
individual with assistance from an alternative provider that is 
``accessible'' to the individual. So if a religious organization is 
currently delivering services in a way that is consistent with the 
Constitution but an individual objects to that institution having the 
contract, that individual could precipitate an expensive bureaucratic 
second track for the delivery of services for that one individual. 
While this may not be the intent of the bill's language, it could 
easily lead to that.
  It is ultimately the Constitution which determines under what 
conditions religious organizations can be contracted with by the 
Federal or State governments for the delivery of publicly funded social 
services. The statute cannot amend the Constitution. Indeed, this 
bill's language purports to require, in section 2104c, that programs be 
implemented consistent with the establishment clause of the U.S. 
Constitution. What the bill's language therefore unwittingly does is 
confuse rather than expand.


              Motion to Waive the Budget Act--Section 2909

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is now on agreeing to the motion 
to waive section 2909. There are 4 minutes equally divided. The Senate 
will come to order.
  The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I believe the regular order would be 
Senator Faircloth, and he has 2 minutes. Is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Regular order, please, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina is recognized.
  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Mr. President, in 1994, when President Clinton sent 
his first welfare reform bill to Congress, he said that preventing 
teenage pregnancy and out-of-wedlock births was a critical part of 
welfare reform. I hope we all could agree with the President on that 
point and also agree to waive the point of order against the funding 
for abstinence education programs.
  Abstinence education programs across the country have shown very 
promising results in reducing teenage pregnancies and reducing the 
teenage pregnancy rate, and it deserves to be expanded with Federal 
assistance. This provision does not take funds from existing programs 
and will be a critical

[[Page S8509]]

help in meeting the bill's goal of reducing out-of-wedlock births.
  Mr. President, our colleagues on the other side have asked us 
repeatedly to consider the children. Abstinence education is an 
effective means to help children avoid the trap of teenage pregnancy. I 
urge my colleagues to vote to waive the Budget Act on this provision.
  Mr. EXON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. EXON. I yield our time to the Senator from Washington.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington is recognized.
  The Senate will come to order, please.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, the bill before us takes $75 million from the Maternal 
and Child Health Block Grant Program to fund the abstinence program. I 
am sure that everyone here can agree abstinence is important. However, 
I strongly urge my colleagues not to allow us to rob the Maternal and 
Child Health Block Grant Program to fund this abstinence program.
  The maternal and child health block grant provides critical dollars 
for prenatal care, newborn screening, and care for children with 
disabilities. It provides for vital resources like parent education, 
health screenings and immunization, children preventive dental visits, 
and sudden infant death syndrome counseling.
  I am sure my colleagues will agree we should not reduce these vital 
resources by 13 percent. I have a chart here showing how much that will 
reduce each State's allocation if you are interested.

  Let me read quickly to you from the Association of State and 
Territorial Health Officials, who say:

       State health officers object to the new set-aside on the 
     grounds that states, not the federal government, are better 
     able to decide what programs are necessary and effective for 
     their communities. State health officials share the laudable 
     goals of reducing unintended pregnancies and exposure to 
     sexually transmitted diseases. In fact, abstinence education 
     is an integral component of most maternal and child health 
     programs. Ironically, due to the new administrative costs 
     states will incur and the reduction of overall block grant 
     funds, this set-aside will actually do harm to states' 
     overall abstinence promotion efforts.

  Mr. President, if we agree that abstinence----
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, the Senate is not in order. I can hardly 
hear the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will please come to order.
  The Senator from Washington is recognized.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, if we agree abstinence programs are vital, fine; let 
us pay for them. But let us not steal from the critical maternal and 
child health programs that are so important to so many parents across 
this country. I urge my colleagues to vote no on the motion to waive 
the Budget Act.
  Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, Senator Faircloth has yielded me his 
remaining 30 seconds.
  Mr. President and fellow Senators, Senator Faircloth is suggesting 
something here that I believe we ought to try. What he is saying is we 
have tried so many things with reference to teenage pregnancy, why not 
try a program that says to our young people: We would like to give you 
the advantages of abstinence.
  Now, you do not have to believe in that; you do not have to be an 
advocate of it, but you ought to give it a try.
  We have tried all kinds of things under the rubric of Planned 
Parenthood and yet anybody that tries to suggest and receive funding 
for a program that does this cannot be funded. I believe it ought to be 
funded, and I think we ought to waive the Budget Act. I commend the 
Senator for this suggestion.
  I yield the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is now on agreeing to waive the 
Budget Act.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I am sorry; I should have gotten your 
attention sooner. On behalf of the majority leader, we are now prepared 
to enter into an agreement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will please come to order.


                      Unanimous-Consent Agreement

  Mr. DOMENICI. I ask unanimous consent that immediately following the 
third reading of H.R. 3734, the following Senators be recognized for up 
to 5 minutes for closing remarks: Senators Moynihan, Roth, Exon, and 
Domenici. Further, I ask that following the conclusion of the remarks 
of the four managers, Senator Daschle be recognized to be followed by 
Senator Lott for closing remarks utilizing leaders' time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I ask unanimous consent that immediately following the 
passage of H.R. 3734, the Senate insist on its amendments, request a 
conference with the House on the disagreeing votes thereon, and the 
Chair be authorized to appoint conferees on the part of the Senate, all 
without further action or debate.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


          Vote on Motion to Waive the Budget Act--Section 2909

  The question is on agreeing to the motion to waive the Budget Act. 
The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Kansas [Mrs. Kassebaum] 
is absent due to a death in the family.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii [Mr. Inouye] is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
who desire to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 52, nays 46, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 231 Leg.]

                                YEAS--52

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bond
     Brown
     Burns
     Campbell
     Coats
     Cochran
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Exon
     Faircloth
     Frahm
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Pressler
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--46

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Chafee
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Pell
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Snowe
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Inouye
     Kassebaum
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 52, the nays 46. 
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted in 
the affirmative, the motion is rejected, and the point of order is 
sustained.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the motion was rejected.
  Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                            Points of Order

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair informs the Senate that there are 22 
points of order remaining. The Chair sustains all but the 15th point of 
order raised against section 409(a)(7)(C).
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, yet again during the 104th Congress we 
find ourselves debating welfare reform on the floor of the Senate. It 
is regrettable that we even have to take the time to debate this issue. 
We have already twice passed solid welfare reform plans which would 
give States the necessary flexibility to truly provide for the unique 
needs of the less fortunate in their States. Unfortunately, the 
President's vetoes of the two previous welfare reform proposals has 
left us with no real reform and has left States floundering.
  Just over 10 months ago, I stood here on the Senate floor and said 
that welfare reform was long overdue. It still is. We all know the 
welfare system in

[[Page S8510]]

this Nation is seriously flawed. Maintaining the status quo is not only 
not an option, I believe it is morally wrong. We must break the cycle 
of poverty which our current system has perpetuated. As Franklin Delano 
Roosevelt once said, ``The lessons of history show conclusively that 
continued dependence upon relief induces a spiritual and moral 
disintegration fundamentally destructive to the national fiber. To dole 
out relief in this way is to administer a narcotic, a subtle destroyer 
of the human spirit.'' If we are to restore that spirit, we must give 
those on welfare a fighting chance--a chance I believe they want--to 
once again become contributing members of our society.
  After debating this issue for months, I believe it is safe to say 
that a majority of Members of Congress recognize that the only true way 
to reform the welfare system is to turn it over to the States. True 
reform, innovative reform, will come from the States, and we should 
give them the opportunity to prove that they are capable of making the 
changes the system needs. Turning these programs over to the States 
will provide them with the opportunity to shape poverty-assistance 
programs to meet local needs. It will provide States and local 
officials with the change to use their own creativity and their own 
intimate knowledge of the people's needs to address their problems. And 
we do not make them go through a series of bureaucratic hoops in order 
to get a waiver to do so.
  Mr. President, my home State of Idaho is currently in the process of 
applying for just such a waiver. In order to get to this point, the 
Governor appointed a Welfare Reform Advisory Council which met with 
people in communities around the State to solicit suggestions on how 
the current system could be reformed. From those meetings came 44 
specific proposals for making welfare work. These recommendations fall 
into four categories: Making welfare a two-way agreement and limiting 
availability; mandatory work requirements and improvements to the child 
care system which will allow recipients with young children to work; 
new eligibility standards which focus on maintaining the integrity of 
the family structure; and improving child support enforcement.
  The people of Idaho have spoken on the directions in which they wish 
to go with welfare reform. Unfortunately, the requirement to attain 
waivers is preventing these reforms from being enacted. To make matters 
worse, not only is the system not being reformed, but limited, vital 
resources are being used to apply for the waivers instead of for 
helping the needy. The current process is slow, time consuming, and 
inefficient. This is why block grants are so necessary. The people of 
Idaho want a system which helps the truly needy, and they have worked 
diligently to plan just such a system. Instead, they are given 
additional bureaucracy. It is time we let the States, like Idaho, 
implement reforms, rather than just write about them.

  Idaho's concerns are not unique. Many of the States see the same 
problems with the current welfare system. At the same time, the best 
manner in which to address these concerns varies considerably across 
the Nation. A cookie-cutter, one-size-fits-all approach simple does not 
fit in a diverse nation. That is why we must finally let go of Federal 
control.
  I believe the welfare reform debate is about one word--freedom. It is 
the freedom of State and local governments to decide how best to 
provide assistance to the needy. It is the freedom of the various 
levels of government to create innovative ways to meet the unique needs 
of the downtrodden in their city, county or State. It is the freedom to 
follow local customs and values rather than Federal mandates. I have 
said for some time that when the Government tries to establish a one-
size-fits-all, cookie-cutter approach to address a perceived need, it 
ignores the unique circumstances which are so important in developing 
the best way to address that need.
  I do not want anyone in this country who is struggling to make 
something of themselves, regardless of the State in which they reside, 
to be hampered in their efforts because of rules and regulations which 
ignore the fact that this Nation is not uniform--that people in all 
areas of the country have unique circumstances which simply cannot be 
addressed in one prescriptive Federal package. What I hope to do, what 
I believe this legislation does, is give current and future welfare 
recipients the freedom to break out of poverty.
  Mr. President, this bill is also about freedom for those who are 
already on welfare, or who are at risk of entering the welfare rolls. 
Under the current system, generations have grown up without knowing the 
satisfaction of work and personal improvement. The value of family has 
been ignored, aiding the increasing rate of illegitimacy. And possibly 
worst of all, children have been raised without hope in a system that 
does more to continue poverty than to break the welfare cycle. For far 
too many, the system offers no incentives and no promise of a better 
future.
  For more than 30 years, we have tried to dictate to the States how 
best to take care of their needy. After 30 years, it is time to accept 
that the experiment is a failure. And thus, it is time we let the 
States take control and develop their own solutions to the problem of 
poverty in this Nation.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, three times in the last year we have stood 
on this floor to debate welfare reform. The first time, the bill passed 
the Senate by a large bipartisan majority, 87 to 12.
  Yet, the President has vetoed it. He has since vetoed welfare reform 
legislation twice more.
  Today, we are standing here again. We have yet again passed 
legislation to reform a failed and broken welfare system, a system 
which has dragged the most vulnerable of our population into a pit of 
dependency.
  We must stop this cycle. We must give these families the hope and 
help they deserve. This legislation would do just that.
  This legislation reforms the old system into a new one. This 
legislation will take a system of degrading, esteem depleting handouts 
and transform it into a transitional system of support that helps 
families gain work experience, training, and self-sufficiency. This 
bill creates a system that gives beneficiaries a leg up and not a shove 
down.
  In watching the Olympic long-distance cycling event a few nights ago, 
my heart went out to those athletes who had trained so hard, but who 
had hit ``the wall,'' that point in an endurance contest when the goal 
seems overwhelming and when it seems impossible to take another step or 
pedal another foot.
  Mr. President, many of our welfare recipients under our current 
system have faced the wall. Our current system is one that simply 
encourages dependence; an individual's self-esteem is shattered; when a 
better life seems beyond reach; and it becomes easier to quit and 
accept the help of others.
  This legislation will help American families climb over the wall of 
poverty. It will build self-confidence and hope for the future on a 
foundation of work and accomplishment.
  Yet, Mr. President, welfare recipients are not the only ones who have 
hit the proverbial wall with our welfare system. The taxpayers have hit 
it too. Frankly, while they are a compassionate people, while they want 
to help those who are less fortunate, they also want to see personal 
responsibility and individual effort restored as a quid pro quo to 
receiving help.

  Americans have become frustrated that the increasing billions of 
dollars we spend on the war on poverty is not reducing poverty. It is 
not building strong families. It is just not working.
  Mr. President, the legislation before us today would create a 
transitional system. One that stresses temporary assistance and not a 
permanent handout. It requires that beneficiaries go to work and get 
the training and educational skills they need to get and keep a job. No 
longer will beneficiaries be able to get something for nothing. This 
system will give them the help they need to get into a job and move 
into self-sufficiency.
  Mr. President, this bill gives the States the flexibility they need 
to design the best systems they can to address their unique mix of 
economic climate, beneficiary characteristics, and resources available. 
The Federal Government cannot be responsive to local conditions but the 
States can.
  This bill moves the decisionmaking and system design authority to the 
States where it belongs. It doesn't simply leave Federal funds on the 
stump

[[Page S8511]]

as some have suggested. States are required to submit their plans and 
live up to them. They must serve their needy populations and provide 
them the resources necessary to move them into jobs and self-
sufficiency.
  This legislation is the fourth time the Senate has passed welfare 
reform legislation. This is yet another chance for the President to 
honor his pledge to ``reform welfare as we know it.'' It is another 
chance for all of us to throw over a system that provides no real hope, 
no real help, no real progress. American low-income families deserve 
more and so do the American taxpayers.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the present welfare system does not serve 
the Nation well. It does not serve families and children well. It does 
not serve the American taxpayer well.
  This bill contains several provisions which I hope can be moderated 
in the conference between the House and the Senate and in discussion 
with the President.
  Meaningful reform should protect children and establish the principle 
that able-bodied people work. It should tighten child support 
enforcement laws and be more effective in getting absent fathers to 
support their children. The bill before us represents a constructive 
effort. It is an improvement over the bill the President vetoed last 
year because it provides more support for child care, requires a 
greater maintenance of effort from the States, and does not block grant 
food stamp assistance. And, the Senate has improved the bill which the 
Finance Committee reported by passing amendments which maintain current 
standards for Medicaid and which eliminate excessive limits on food 
stamp assistance.
  The funding levels in this bill are aimed at assuring that adequate 
child care resources will be available for children as single parents 
make the transition into work. Those levels are significantly improved. 
This strengthens the work requirement because it better assures that 
States can effectively move people into job training, private sector 
employment, and community service jobs.
  I am particularly pleased that the Senate approved my amendment, 
offered with Senator D'Amato, which greatly strengthens the work 
requirement in the bill. The original legislation required recipients 
to work within 2 years of receipt of benefits. My amendment adds a 
provision which requires that unless an able-bodied person is in a 
private sector job, school or job training, the State must offer, and 
the recipient must accept community service employment within 2 months 
of receipt of benefits.
  I would prefer a bill which did not end the Federal safety net for 
children, a bill like the Daschle work first legislation which failed 
in the Senate narrowly and which I cosponsored. I would prefer a bill 
which permitted noncash voucher assistance targetted to the children of 
families where the adult parent is no longer eligible for assistance. I 
would prefer a bill which protects legal immigrants who have become 
disabled.
  So the decision is a difficult and a close one. On balance, however, 
I believe that it is so critical that we reform the broken welfare 
system which currently serves the American taxpayer and America's 
children poorly, that it is necessary to move this legislation forward 
to the next stage.
  I believe that it is particularly important that partisanship not 
dominate the conference between the House and Senate. I am hopeful that 
the congressional leadership work with the President to forge a final 
bipartisan welfare reform bill behind which we can all close ranks.
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I rise today to oppose what is called 
welfare reform but is really radical change and a surrender of the 
Nation's responsibility to our children. This measure ends our 60-year 
national guarantee of aid to the poor and the disadvantaged. Make no 
mistake, the poor and the disadvantaged to whom we refer are our 
children. Today one in five children live in poverty and I am not 
convinced that this bill will improve our problem and I fear that it 
will only make it worse.
  I want our welfare system reformed and I voted for an alternative 
Democratic welfare reform plan, the Work First Act of 1996, which was 
based upon last year's Democratic welfare proposal. Work First promotes 
work while protecting children. It requires parents to take 
responsibility to find a job, guarantees child-care assistance and 
requires both parents to contribute to the support of their children. 
When this alternative failed, I supported many of the amendments to 
improve the bill and guarantee assistance to poor children.
  I am concerned that there are already far too many poor children in 
this country. I believe that this bill will cause many more children to 
live in poverty. It is estimated that 130,185 children in Ohio will be 
denied aid in 2005 because of a mandated 5-year time limit; 52,422 
babies in Ohio will be denied cash aid in 2000 because they were born 
to families already on welfare; 79,594 children in Ohio will be denied 
benefits in 2000 should assistance levels be frozen at 1994 levels. In 
total, at least 262,000 children in Ohio would be denied benefits when 
these welfare provisions are fully implemented.
  Last year's Senate-passed bill would have pushed an additional 1.2 
million children into poverty. In Ohio alone, 43,500 children will be 
pushed into poverty by the bill now before us. Mr. President, I cannot 
support legislation that would cause this kind of unacceptable harm.
  I have been concerned from the start that simply washing our hands of 
the Federal responsibility for welfare and turning it over to States is 
no guarantee of success. This is very risky policy and we will no 
longer have a mechanism for guaranteeing a national safety net for our 
poorest families.
  Perhaps if we were more concerned with moving people from welfare to 
work rather than just moving people off welfare we would be making a 
real start. However, I am not convinced that merely putting a time 
limit on benefits will lead to employment. I am not convinced that this 
legislation ends welfare as we know it, it just ends welfare.
  In the end Mr. President, the changes we contemplate today will take 
away from those least able to afford it and will have a devastating 
impact on children's health, education, nutrition, and safety. 
Providing adequate assistance for our children will save money in the 
long run and be cost effective. I oppose this bill.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, the people of Minnesota and of the 
Nation have made it clear that they want a welfare system that helps 
people make a successful transition from welfare dependency to work. I 
support that goal. That is why I voted for a workfare proposal with a 
tough, 5-year time limit on welfare benefits. That workfare proposal 
would move recipients quickly into jobs, requiring all able-bodied 
recipients to work and turning welfare offices into employment offices. 
It would provide adequate resources for child care, recognizing that 
families can't realistically transition to the workplace unless their 
kids are being looked after. The bill was called work first because it 
provided the tools needed to get welfare recipients into jobs and to 
keep them in the workplace.
  Unfortunately, work first, the workfare proposal I voted for, did not 
prevail in the Senate. Instead, we in the Senate are faced with a bill 
that would punish innocent children. By sending an underfunded block 
grant to States, this bill would obliterate the already frayed safety 
net for children. Last year during this debate, the Office of 
Management and Budget estimated that 1.2 to 1.5 million children would 
be pushed into poverty by such a welfare reform proposal. About the 
same number would suffer under this year's plan. The deep cuts in food 
stamps in this bill would mean that many thousands of children would go 
hungry. I will not sit back and vote for consigning 1 million children 
to poverty. I will not be party to actions that mean that there will be 
more hungry and homeless children in the most prosperous Nation on 
Earth.
  Unfortunately, the majority in the Senate did not agree to crucial 
improvements to the legislation. When I asked that we look at the 
effect of this legislation on poor children and revisit this 
legislation after 2 years if we find out that it is pushing more 
children into poverty, my colleagues turned me down. That was a clear 
signal to me that the suffering of children is not being taken as 
seriously as it should be

[[Page S8512]]

by this Congress. When several Democratic Senators tried to allow 
States to use their grants to provide vouchers for children's 
necessities like disperse and clothes after their parents reached the 
time limits for aid, we were turned down by the majority. When several 
Democratic Senators tried to place more humane limits on the aid legal 
immigrants could receive, we were again turned down by the majority. 
And although we were successful in ensuring that food stamps are not 
block granted, I continue to have serious concerns about a bill that 
cuts $28 billion from food stamps, which provide the most basic 
necessities.
  In addition, I am very concerned that this bill will drop or deny SSI 
benefits to over 300,000 children during the next 6 years. This was 
also a concern I had with the work first bill I supported earlier. 
While I admit that there are some problems in the SSI Program, we can 
certainly address the problems through more targeted reforms and 
regulatory changes.
  I have voted for workfare. Indeed, I voted for an amendment to 
strengthen the work requirements in this bill by requiring able-bodies 
welfare recipients to participate in community service jobs within 2 
months of receiving aid. I support moving families from welfare to 
work. I believe we can accomplish that in a just and humane way. I do 
not believe, however, that the bill we have before us today is just and 
humane, and I will not vote to punish innocent children.
  Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I rise today to state my opposition to 
final passage of the Republican welfare reform legislation. I will vote 
against this legislation simply because although it portends welfare 
reform, it is about neither welfare nor reform.
  Let me be clear--I am certainly not against reforming our welfare 
system. Indeed, I have voted for welfare reform in the past because I 
agree that the current system is clearly broke and in dire need of 
repair. But if we are going to have reform it should be meaningful and 
not reform for reform's sake.
  For me, meaningful welfare reform means concentrating on preparing 
individuals to enter the work force. And by preparing individuals to 
enter the work force we must prepare them for all the challenges that 
lie ahead. It is important to note that the No. 1 reason people enroll 
for AFDC benefits is divorce or separation.
  No doubt, the American taxpayers who pay for this system and those 
who are recipients of welfare programs want and deserve a better 
system. However, reform without the thought of consequence will do more 
harm than good.
  Already 20 percent of our Nations children live in poverty, and 
undoubtedly this bill will add to that total--by the millions. And 
while AFDC caseload has decreased in Nebraska, child poverty continues 
to rise. Last year 3 percent of children in Nebraska were on AFDC, yet 
11 percent of children lived in poverty.
  My friend, colleague and noted expert Senator Moynihan took to the 
floor last week to report that more than one million children will be 
thrown off the welfare roles should this legislation become law. He 
said, ``It is as if we are going to live only for this moment, and let 
the future be lost,'' Mr. President, surely what is before us is not 
true welfare reform. It is merely a way to cut the deficit on the backs 
of the neediest under the guise of welfare reform.
  Indeed, this legislation does have its work provisions. I offered an 
amendment accepted by both the Republican and Democratic leadership 
that would allow states to contract--on a demonstration basis--with 
community steering committees [CSC's] to develop innovative approaches 
to help welfare recipients move in to the workforce. The CSC's, created 
by the amendment, would be locally based and include educators, 
business representatives, social service providers and community 
leaders. The main charge of the CSC's would be to identify and develop 
job opportunities for welfare recipients, help recipients prepare for 
work through job training, and to help identify existing education and 
training resources within the community. As well, CSC's would focus on 
the needs of the entire family rather than just on the needs of adult 
recipients.
  This is the type of work provision that works--and I support--because 
it encourages individuals on welfare to move into the work force. It 
provides much needed resources so that once these individuals get into 
the work force, it works to ensure they stay in the work force. But 
this measure alone is not enough.
  To keep a job, individuals--especially parents--need other things. We 
need to make certain that every person who is moving into the ranks of 
the employed has high-quality, affordable child care; otherwise, they 
are not going to be able to be successful in the workplace. We need a 
system that gives individuals the opportunity to earn reasonable wage, 
and to have access to health care, education and training. These are 
the elements of a system that works and this is the kind of system we 
should be working toward.
  As a nation we need to focus our efforts on job creation, education 
and personal savings, as well as on meaningful reform to our 
entitlement programs. These elements, more than anything else, will 
help to ensure a brighter future for all working Americans.
  Mr. President, the legislation before us today endeavors to move 
welfare mothers into the work force, but it removes valuable resources 
that would help the individuals achieve the goal of employment because 
it lessens their access to child care and health insurance.
  There is a tremendous differential between the relative cost of child 
care for somebody who is in the ranks of the poor and people who are 
not poor. Above poverty, American families spend about 9 percent of 
their income for child care. Below poverty, it is almost 25 percent of 
their income. As well, as of 1993, 38 percent of working households 
under the poverty line are uninsured. While health care reform 
legislation that passed the Senate unanimously languishes, this 
legislation, regrettably, makes health care pressures even harder to 
bare.
  My Democratic colleagues offered an amendment that would have 
converted funding formulas to help States--like Nebraska--with larger 
proportions of children on poverty. This provision would have provided 
aid to States and individuals truly in need. The Senate voted this 
measure down, showing the true failings of this legislation--it denies 
aid to those who are truly in need.
  Other amendments designed to help children, but which failed, 
included an amendment that would have ensured health care and food 
stamps for children of legal immigrants, and an amendment that would 
have provided vouchers for children whose families have hit the 5-year 
term limit so that they may care for the children. But these important 
measures--which would have made the reform legislation more humane--
failed on party-line votes.
  Mr. President, the people of the state of Nebraska--indeed most 
Americans--are strongly in favor of welfare rules that give work a 
greater priority than benefits. But much of this legislation is being 
driven solely by the need to reduce the deficit and it has an 
ideological bent to it that says it has to be one way or the other. The 
impetus of this reform is not driven by a desire to say that the system 
is going to work better--it is sadly about matters of political 
expediency.
  By pushing mothers and an alarming amount of children off the welfare 
roles and further onto the fringe of society, this legislation will do 
more harm than good. From a taxpayer standpoint, a beneficiary 
standpoint, and a provider standpoint, we need a welfare system that 
operates in a more efficient, effective and hopefully humanitarian 
fashion. Unfortunately, this legislation does not offer the necessary 
reforms to bring us that system.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, since President Johnson declared his War on 
Poverty, the Federal Government, under federally designed programs, has 
spent more than $5 trillion on welfare programs. But, during this time, 
the poverty rate has increased from 14.7 to 15.3 percent.
  After trillions of dollars spent on welfare over the past 30 years, 
we are still dealing with a system that hurts children, rather than 
helps them. The current system discourages work, penalizes marriage, 
and destroys personal responsibility and, oftentimes, self-worth.

[[Page S8513]]

  According to the Public Agenda Foundation, 64 percent of welfare 
recipients agree that ``welfare encourages teenagers to have children 
out of wedlock,'' and 62 percent agree that it ``undermines the work 
ethic.''
  And, there are serious negative consequences when a child is born 
out-of-wedlock. Children born out-of-wedlock have a substantially 
higher risk of being born at a very low or moderately low birth weight. 
Children born out of wedlock are more likely to experience low verbal 
cognitive attainment, as well as more child abuse, and neglect. 
Children born out of wedlock are more likely to have lower cognitive 
scores, lower educational aspirations, and a greater likelihood of 
becoming teenage parents themselves. Children born out of wedlock are 
three times more likely to be on welfare when they grow up.
  Who would not be full of despair and without hope for the future when 
presented with such a scenario?
  S. 1956 seeks to change this by allowing States to design programs 
that counter these trends, and to change general welfare policy so that 
it promotes work and marriage.


                           State Block Grants

  S. 1956 replaces the current AFDC and related child care programs 
with a general block grant and a child care block grant.
  Limited success in reforming welfare has occurred when States and 
localities have been given the opportunity to go their own way. In 
Wisconsin, for example--and we all know that Wisconsin is waiting for 
approval of a waiver to continue to reform its welfare system--a 
successful program there diverts individuals from ever getting on 
welfare. Under a local initiative in the city of Riverside, CA, 
individuals on welfare are staying in jobs permanently. In both 
Wisconsin and Riverside, welfare rolls have been reduced.
  Arizona is a good example of why reform is still needed. Arizona 
applied in July 1994 to implement a new State welfare program, EMPOWER, 
based on work, responsibility, and accountability. It took the U.S. 
Department of Health and Human Services bureaucracy a full year to 
approve the waiver.
  A shift to block grants to States make sense. By allowing States to 
design their own programs, decisions will be more localized, and the 
costs of the Federal bureaucracy will be reduced.


                        NonWork and Illegitimacy

  It must be emphasized over and over that there are two fundamental 
driving forces behind welfare dependency that must be addressed in any 
welfare reform bill: nonwork and nonmarriage.
  Nonwork and illegitimacy are key underlying causes of our welfare 
crisis and, even with the effective elimination of the Federal welfare 
bureaucracy, they will remain as its legacy if we choose not to address 
them. People will never get out of the dependency cycle if federal 
funds reinforce destructive behavior.


                                NonWork

  Let us deal with the facts: To escape poverty and get off welfare, 
able-bodied individuals must enter and stay in the workforce. As Teddy 
Roosevelt said, ``The first requisite of a good citizen in this 
Republic of ours is that he shall be able and willing to pull his own 
weight.''
  Another fact: The JOBS program that passed as a part of the Family 
Support Act of 1988 moves a far too small number of welfare recipients 
into employment. Less than 10 percent of welfare recipients now 
participate in the JOBS program.
  In order to receive all of their block grant funding, under S. 1956, 
States will be required to move toward what should be their primary 
goal: self-sufficiency among all their citizens.
  S. 1956 requires that 50 percent of a caseload be engaged in work by 
the year 2002. There are work components of this bill that could be 
strengthened but it provides a good beginning toward these goals. In 
addition, under S. 1956 welfare recipients must be engaged in work no 
later than 2 years after receiving their first welfare payment. States 
must also lower welfare benefits on a pro rata basis for individuals 
who fail to show up for required work.


                              Illegitimacy

  Our Nation's illegitimacy rate has increased from 10.7 percent in 
1970 to nearly 30 percent in 1991. Eighty-nine percent of children 
receiving AFDC benefits now live in homes in which no father is 
present.
  It must be reemphasized what role the breakdown of the family has 
played in our societal and cultural decline. This is not really even a 
debatable point. The facts support a devastating reality. According to 
a 1995 U.S. Census Bureau report, the one-parent family is six times 
more likely to live in poverty than the two-parent family.
  S. 1956 provides measures to combat illegitimacy, including providing 
an incentive fund for states to reduce illegitimacy rates.
  In addition, Federal funds under the block grants, unless a State 
opts out, may not be used to provide additional assistance for mothers 
having additional children while on welfare. If the rules of welfare 
are stated clearly to a mother in the beginning, and if allowances are 
made for noncash essentials like diapers and other items, then such an 
approach is fair. If such a rule reduces out-of-wedlock births, it may 
turn out to be more fair than most other aspects of welfare.
  Mr. President, the Congress has passed welfare reform two other 
times, and twice the President has vetoed the legislation. There is an 
urgency to the task at hand. Children's lives are being compromised--it 
is time to work toward a system that is recognized for the number of 
children that never need to be on welfare, rather than the number of 
children who are brought into the failed welfare state. The Senate 
should pass S. 1956.
  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, in 1962, President Kennedy, in his budget 
message to Congress, noted:

       The goals of our public welfare program must be positive 
     and constructive. It must contribute to the attack on 
     dependency, juvenile delinquency, family breakdown, 
     illegitimacy, ill health, and disability. It must replace the 
     incidence of these problems, prevent their occurrence and 
     recurrence, and strengthen and protect the vulnerable in a 
     highly competitive world.

  This statement presents the strong, initial common ground that we 
share: that Government has a legitimate role in supporting our most 
helpless and desperate families with dependent children.
  Certainly, our second ground of agreement is that an appropriate 
welfare policy should do nothing to harm the family being supported. 
Families are the foundation of our Nation's values. They teach us the 
principles of economics, the value of relationships, and the importance 
of moral truths. They define our view of work, responsibility, and 
authority. They teach us the meaning of trust, the value of honesty, 
and are the wellspring of every individual's strength against 
alienation, failure, and despair.
  During countless eras when no other organized unit of society even 
functioned, the family was the institution that made survival of the 
cultural, political, economic, and social order possible.
  We should agree on what a welfare policy should protect--the family--
and what it should protect against--dependence on the State. We should 
also agree that this Nation's current welfare policy has diverged 
greatly from President Kennedy's vision.
  The Government has attempted to end poverty by establishing an 
engorged bureaucracy and writing checks, all told pouring over $5 
trillion into the war on poverty. At the same time, individual 
dependence on the Government has increased, individual dignity has 
declined, and the family has been dealt a near fatal blow.
  Today, there are more people living in poverty than ever before--and 
the only thing the Government welfare state has succeeded at doing is 
spawning generations of people who will be born, live, and die without 
ever having held a steady job, owned a home, or known the strength of a 
two parent family.
  Individual dependence on the State has increased with every 
Government intervention. Indeed, the population receiving welfare 
payments receives checks for extraordinarily long periods of time. 
Under current law, 25 percent of women can expect to receive those 
payments for more than 8 years. The typical recipient receives payments 
for almost 4 years. Forty percent of recipients return to the welfare 
rolls at least once.
  Government intervention has distorted the economic incentive system 
that, at least in part, motivates a person to give of his labor. 
Government

[[Page S8514]]

intervention eliminates the need to work to support oneself and one's 
family by providing money regardless of whether one works. Dependence 
on such a system is all but inevitable.
  Given time, a cash payment that is not tied to a requirement to work 
will undermine the second motivation to work; namely, the desire to 
produce some benefit, whether tangible or intangible, for oneself or 
for society. Who can doubt that a person experiencing such a 
disconnection for any protracted period of time will eventually suffer 
a loss of individual dignity as the welfare system undermines the moral 
and personal responsibility of the recipient?

  Today however, we are turning to the issue of solutions. Whatever the 
proposed solution, we must gauge its effectiveness and desirability in 
terms of the three common grounds discussed throughout this debate. 
Does our policy foster dependence on the Government or promote 
independent action by the individual? Does it promote the dignity of 
the human person or undermine it? Does it destroy the family or build 
it up?
  I am convinced that we will only achieve successful welfare reform 
when we begin to emphasize personal responsibility. Unfortunately, for 
far too long welfare programs supported by the Federal Government have 
failed to acknowledge and promote personal responsibility, and many 
other core American values.
  I would argue that the key goal of welfare reform must be to promote 
self-sufficiency. A beginning step toward self-sufficiency is to change 
people's expectations about welfare. A recent GAO study noted that a 
key challenge for States is to learn how to break the entitlement 
mentality--the view that public assistance is a guaranteed benefit. 
States had to start helping individuals understand that a job was in 
their best interests.
  One successful approach to encourage greater responsibility which is 
being experimented with by several States is the use of personal 
responsibility agreements. I am proud to say that Indiana has been at 
the forefront of helping individuals and families achieve long-term 
stability and self-sufficiency through the use of personal 
responsibility agreements. With personal responsibility agreements, 
Indiana's welfare reform plan moves families away from dependence and 
toward work. More than 39,000 individuals and families in Indiana have 
signed personal responsibility agreements as of April 1996.
  Indiana's agreements require that families who receive AFDC 
understand that welfare is temporary assistance, and not a way of life. 
They must develop a self-sufficiency plan and go to work as quickly as 
possible, recognizing sanctions will be imposed for quitting a job, 
refusing to accept a job or dropping out of the job program. Families 
must also take responsibility for their children's timely immunizations 
and regular school attendance. Furthermore, their AFDC benefits will be 
limited to the number of children in the family within the first 10 
months of qualifying for AFDC. Teenage recipients must live with 
parents or other adults. And finally, families are limited to a 2-year 
period of AFDC assistance a job placement track.
  The amendment proposed by Senator Harkin and myself last Thursday 
makes it clear that States must develop these personal responsibility 
agreements, such as those required of families in both Indiana and 
Iowa. This amendment is necessary because under current law States who 
wish to enter into this agreement with their residents, must first 
apply to Washington for a waiver of current welfare laws. This 
requirement to get permission from Washington for such common sense 
reforms not only steals valuable time from a State's reform efforts, 
but also represents a completely unnecessary Government intrusion. This 
amendment frees States from the extended negotiations that are now 
necessary to receive a Federal waiver, and enables States to move 
forward from failed, dependence-ridden, welfare programs to programs 
which promote independence, self-sufficiency, and long-term economic 
stability.

  Senator Harkin has been a real leader in the area of personal 
responsibility agreements, having recognized early their success in the 
State of Iowa. He introduced a very similar amendment to H.R. 4 last 
year which was ultimately dropped in conference. This year, personal 
responsibility agreements are found in both the House welfare reform 
package, H.R. 3507, and in the President's welfare bill. The amendment 
adopted here last Thursday requires States to adopt this common sense 
reform measure which ensures that everyone who receives assistance 
understands from day one that the assistance is a temporary measure 
intended to help the family achieve self-sufficiency and independence 
through employment.
  Personal responsibility agreements help raise people's expectations 
while at the same time, giving them a clear goal and positive vision 
for their future.
  The time has come for us to reform our Nation's welfare system. A 
year ago we passed legislation that is nearly identical to the bill 
before us today. We have adjusted the bill in many ways in an effort to 
find the magic formula that would satisfy the opponents of real reform. 
We have produced a solid package that is best described as a good first 
step. And we are told that President Clinton may--just may--actually 
sign this bill.
  This welfare bill makes several important changes to the existing 
system. It ends the Federal entitlement and places strict time limits 
and work requirements on welfare recipients. Most importantly, this 
bill turns the task of redesigning public welfare systems over to the 
States. We will no longer be treated to the spectacle of Governors 
coming to the Department of Health and Human Services to ask permission 
for common-sense welfare reform measures.
  The lesson for this protracted political exercise is that President 
Clinton has abdicated leadership on welfare. In 1992, he promised to 
end welfare as we know it. In 1995 and 1996 he fought to preserve the 
status quo at every turn. Now, when pollsters and consultants tell him 
that signing a welfare reform bill might help his reelection campaign, 
the President has begun to edge his way toward the Rose Garden for a 
signing ceremony--a ceremony that should have been held a year ago.
  Welfare reform is simply too important for this kind of gamesmanship. 
If President Clinton had signed this bill a year ago, we could have 
begun the difficult task of changing a culture of dependence and 
despair into a culture of self-sufficiency and hope. A year later our 
path has gotten longer and steeper and rockier. For tens of thousands 
the habit of dependence has grown stronger while hope and will to 
change have grown fainter. The burden of this failure falls not on 
Congress--we have done our job not once, not twice, but three times. 
The burden of failure falls squarely on the shoulders of the President. 
The very least he can do now is sign this bill.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I want to say that I believe the chairman 
and ranking member of the Subcommittee have done an excellent job in 
putting together this bill under very difficult budgetary 
circumstances. They have done an exceptional job of protecting core 
programs that are of utmost importance to the Nation's farmers, 
consumers, and communities.
  There is one provision in this bill that I think is of great 
importance and deserves special mention, and that is the language with 
regard to cost containment for the WIC program.
  I think it's fair to say that every Member of the Senate supports the 
WIC program. The long-term benefits accruing to society from ensuring 
adequate pre-natal and neo-natal nutrition have been well documented 
and uncontested.
  A large portion of the cost of the WIC program is associated with the 
purchase of infant formula for WIC recipients. Fortunately, in recent 
years competition between formula manufacturers bidding for WIC 
contracts has led to significant savings in the program, with companies 
offering rebates on infant formula in order to win WIC contracts. 
Unfortunately, the competition that led to these rebates has been 
greatly diminished by the recent withdrawal by one of the competitors, 
Wyeth Laboratories, from the WIC infant formula market. Fortunately, 
another formula manufacturer, Carnation, has recently entered the WIC 
formula market, which could help ensure competition and therefore help 
contain

[[Page S8515]]

the costs of the program. However, in many States, the price of 
Carnation formula is significantly cheaper than other brands of infant 
formula, which makes it difficult for Carnation to offer rebates as 
high as their competitors. However, Carnation may still be able to 
offer the lowest bid, if measured on a lowest net price basis.
  Unfortunately, some States are awarding WIC formula contracts simply 
on the basis of which company offers the highest rebate, as opposed to 
the lowest net price bid. The detriments of this simplistic approach 
are two-fold. First, by focusing on highest rebate instead of lowest 
net price, States are spending more for infant formula than they 
should. Second, by biasing the WIC formula bid process toward the 
companies offering the highest rebate, States are effectively excluding 
additional competitors, such as Carnation, from the WIC formula market, 
and thus jeopardizing future cost containment efforts.
  To address this problem, the Senate Agriculture appropriations bill 
includes language that requires States to award infant formula 
contracts to the bidder offering the lowest net price, unless the State 
can adequately demonstrate that the retail price of different brands of 
infant formula within the State are essentially the same.
  I commend the managers of the bill for including this common-sense 
language, which I believe will help secure the long-term viability of 
the WIC program. It is my hope that this provision will be maintained 
in conference.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise in support of S. 
1956, the Senate's latest attempt to reform the Nation's welfare 
system. On two occasions in the last year, the Congress has sent 
welfare reform legislation to the White House, and on both occasions, 
our efforts have only been met with the veto pen. I sincerely hope 
that, as the saying goes, the third time will be the charm.
  S. 1956 is in many respects identical to H.R. 4, the welfare reform 
bill approved in the Senate with my support by a vote of 87 to 12 on 
September 19, 1995. Again we are proposing to block grant the AFDC [Aid 
to Families with Dependent Children] program, giving over the 
responsibility of day-to-day administration to the Nation's Governors, 
while requiring strict work requirements for able-bodied AFDC 
recipients, 5 year maximum eligibility, limitations on non-citizens, 
and home residency and school attendance requirements for unmarried 
teenage mothers.
  I am proud to report that these actions are in keeping with the 
important steps the Commonwealth of Virginia has already taken to 
reform our own State welfare system. What we in Virginia have 
accomplished under Governor George Allen through a laborious process of 
gaining Federal waiver authority, the Senate is now poised to approve 
for the entire Nation.
  In Virginia we call our welfare reform plan the Virginia Independence 
Program, and we have successfully been in the implementation stage 
since July 1, 1995. Our goals are simple and to the point: To 
strengthen disadvantaged families, encourage personal responsibility, 
and to achieve self-sufficiency.
  On a quarterly basis, and as resources become available in different 
State locales, we are requiring all able-bodied AFDC recipients to work 
in exchange for their benefits. Increased income of up to 100 percent 
of the poverty level is allowed while working toward self-sufficiency. 
Those unable to find jobs immediately will participate in intensive 
community work experience and job training programs.
  To ease the transition from dependence to self-sufficiency, we are 
also making available an additional 12 months of medical and child care 
assistance. We understand that these benefits must be provided if 
single parents, in particular, are going to be able to fully 
participate in job training and new work opportunities.
  Mr. President, let me sum up by saying that the Federal Government 
has been fighting President Lyndon Johnson's War on Poverty for 30 
years. Aggregate Government spending on welfare programs during this 
period has surpassed $5.4 trillion in constant 1993 dollars. Despite 
this enormous spending our national poverty rate remains at about the 
same level as 1965.

  Mr. President, the welfare system we have today is badly broken and 
we must fix it.
  I'd like to add a personal note to this debate. Yesterday, I had the 
good fortune to visit a true laboratory of welfare reform in Norfolk, 
VA. This laboratory is entitled the ``Norfolk Education and Employment 
Training Center'', otherwise known as NEET.
  Mr. President, my visit with Norfolk city officials and the NEET 
employees and students truly strengthened my belief that States and 
local communities--not the Federal bureaucrats in Washington--are best 
equipped to help individuals break out of welfare.
  The city of Norfolk has done a superb job overseeing the NEET 
Program. There is real cooperation between the city and the contracting 
private entity that is running the job training center. There was a 
genuine pride in the faces of the city workers, NEET employees, and the 
NEET graduates and students.
  I commend the city employees who work with the NEET Center, and in 
particular, Ms. Suzanne Puryear, the director of the Norfolk Department 
of Human Services. I would also like to commend Ms. Sylvia Powell and 
the other fine employees at the NEET Center. There is outstanding 
talent in these two operations, and I believe the business community in 
Norfolk recognizes this.
  Without getting into all of the details, I would like to note that 
individuals referred to the center are given opportunities to develop a 
number of job skills, including computer work, and if necessary, the 
students are assisted with studying for and earning a GED. They are 
also provided help with job interview preparation as well as actual job 
search and post-employment support.
  Mr. President, there is tremendous talent among the NEET students and 
graduates. Arlene Wright came to NEET as a welfare recipient. Today, 
after some 7 months of training and a loan from NEET, Ms. Wright is the 
proud owner and director of the Tender Kinder Care day care center.
  I also spoke with some of the students. One of the most poignant 
comments came from Ray Rogers. In her words, Mr. President, Ms. Rogers 
said that NEET is the kind of program that ``helps you pick yourself 
up. You learn that you can take the things that you know and apply them 
to a job.''
  Pick yourself up. These are very powerful words. It is time that more 
Americans are helped to pick themselves up and not just be another 
statistic waiting for another Government check. If we provide 
opportunity and instruction at the State and local level, there will be 
more Ms. Wrights and Ms. Rogers and Nicole Steversons and others whom I 
met yesterday in Norfolk.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I intend to vote in favor of the pending 
welfare reform bill.
  Last September, I voted for the Senate-passed welfare reform bill.
  I did so then with substantial reservations about many of the 
provisions in that bill. I do so today with many of the same kinds of 
reservations.
  I am voting for this measure for two principal reasons.
  First, I believe that the current welfare system is badly broken, and 
we must find an alternative to the status quo. No one likes the current 
system, least of all the families trapped in an endless cycle of 
dependency, poverty, and despair. The current system is plagued by 
perverse incentives that discourage work. Reforming such a complex 
system requires taking some risks, and this bill, any welfare reform 
measure, entails some risks. However, some assumption of risk is 
necessary to change the status quo.
  Second, I am concerned that continuation of a system dominated by 
detailed prescriptions from Federal officials in Washington may stifle 
the innovative approaches from State and local governments that can 
help change the status quo.
  The basic premise behind this bill, and much of the reform movement 
today, is that the current system has failed and that we ought to allow 
the States the opportunity to try to do a better job and give them the 
flexibility to try new approaches to these seemingly intractable 
problems. This approach places a great deal of faith in the good will 
of State governments to implement programs designed to help, not 
punish, needy citizens.

[[Page S8516]]

  Under the framework provided by this legislation, States like 
Wisconsin would have the opportunity to implement programs like the 
Wisconsin W-2 program without the necessity of securing numerous 
waivers from the requirements of current law. Indeed, passage of this 
measure will render moot much of the need for the current voluminous 
waiver application filed by the State of Wisconsin earlier this year 
which has caused much controversy. Although some aspects of the W-2 
program, particularly those dealing with Medicaid services, may still 
require review by HHS, the block grant authority provided for under 
this legislation is designed to allow the broad flexibility and State 
control needed to implement State initiated welfare reform programs.
  As a former State legislator myself, I have a good deal of respect 
for the desire of State and local officials to reform this system and 
help break the cycle of poverty for low-income families. I believe that 
there need to be certain underlying protections that are national in 
scope. For example, I believe civil rights protections must be uniform 
throughout our Nation to assure that the guarantees of our Federal 
Constitution are extended to all citizens, regardless of their place of 
residence. I also believe that where Federal funds are being expended, 
the Federal Government has an obligation to impose certain requirements 
that should be universal. But States should have sufficient flexibility 
to design how services are actually provided to allow them the 
opportunity to try out new ideas and approaches.

  For these reasons, I voted last September for the Senate-passed 
welfare reform bill; at that time, however, I indicated that if the 
bill returned from conference with punitive, inequitable provisions, I 
would withdraw my support. Unfortunately, the conference returned a 
bill which incorporated provisions that were simply unacceptable. The 
bipartisan welfare reform measure that the Senate had crafted was 
discarded in favor of a measure based upon the House-passed bill, which 
was punitive in nature rather than focused upon helping families move 
from welfare to the workforce. I therefore voted against that measure.
  I am pleased to say that the Senate, over the course of this debate, 
has crafted a measure which will make fundamental changes in the 
Federal role in the welfare area and at the same time has rejected 
various provisions which would be harmful to those most in need. The 
Senate has addressed several important issues and corrected some of the 
flaws in the legislation.
  First, in the area of child care, the Senate bill provides more 
resources for child care services than contained in the bill we passed 
last fall. Specifically, the bill increases funding for child care 
services by almost $6 billion to $13.8 billion from $8 billion 
contained in last year's bill. The Senate also adopted Senator Dodd's 
amendment by a vote of 96 to 0 which reinstated critical health and 
safety standards for licensed child care facilities.
  Second, by adopting the Chafee-Breaux amendment relating to Medicaid 
coverage for needy children, the Senate provided a critical safety net. 
As we endeavor to reform cash grant programs, it is important that 
access to medical care is not inadvertently sacrificed. The Chafee-
Breaux amendment reestablished these protections. Had Chafee-Breaux not 
been adopted, I would not have been able to accept this bill.
  Third, the Senate bill retains a State maintenance of effort 
requirement at 80 percent of the 1994 contribution. That is the 
provision the Senate adopted last fall which was unfortunately diluted 
in the conference version. Restoration of this provision was also key 
for me. Without such a maintenance of effort requirement, Federal 
dollars would simply replace State contributions and States like 
Wisconsin which make substantial contributions to investing in welfare 
programs would have simply seen their dollars shifted to States which 
fail to make these kinds of commitments from their State treasuries.
  I am also pleased that the Senate struck the language providing for 
imposition of a family cap which would prohibit States from providing 
assistance for children born while a family is on welfare. This is 
another example of where the conference report that the President 
vetoed contained language that had been rejected by the Senate. 
Moreover, the bill that was presented to the Senate last week contained 
this unfortunate language. However, this family cap language was struck 
by a Byrd point of order.

  The Senate also wisely adopted the Conrad amendment that struck 
provisions that would have allowed block granting of foods stamps. Food 
stamps have been the mainstay of many families who have been thrown 
into dire circumstances because of a sudden job loss, an unexpected 
illness that has sidelined the family breadwinner, or other family 
misfortunes. Although the bill provides strong work incentives to make 
sure that individuals receiving these benefits are working toward self-
sufficiency, it no longer allows this safety net program to be 
withdrawn entirely from needy families.
  Mr. President, although the Senate rejected many onerous amendments 
and provisions, there remain provisions in the bill that I don't 
support.
  This is not a reform bill that I would have drafted if I had been the 
author.
  I believe the immigration provisions are too harsh and fail to 
provide the kind of balanced response that we strived to achieve in the 
immigration reform legislation now pending in conference. While I 
support the concept of deeming, the kind of absolute ban on assistance 
for many legal immigrants which is contained in this bill is not 
carefully tailored to preserve scarce resources while still providing 
humane, essential services to those individuals who have come to this 
country legally.
  I am concerned that the Senate narrowly rejected the Ford amendment 
which would have allowed States to provide noncash vouchers to provide 
services for children when their families reached the 5-year time limit 
of eligibility for cash assistance. I have repeatedly voted to support 
allowing vouchers in such circumstances. I think it is a reasonable 
response to make sure that young children are not denied basic support 
when their parents fail to make the transition into the work force 
within the designated time period. I recognize that the bill allows a 
State to exempt 20 percent of their caseloads from the time-limit 
provisions, but I do not believe that this is adequate protection for 
the children involved.
  I also fear that the level of cuts in food stamp funds may be too 
deep, and will hurt needy families. These cuts may need to be 
revisited, either in conference or in other legislation.
  I remain uncertain about ultimate wisdom of terminating our 60-year 
Federal commitment of a guaranteed Federal safety net for young 
children. The Senator from New York [Mr. Moynihan] has been an eloquent 
leader in articulating the dangers of eliminating this entitlement 
protection for needy children and replacing it with a patchwork quilt 
of State programs. Clearly, there will be States that will fail to use 
this opportunity to enact real welfare reform measures and instead, 
pursue punitive measures designed to stigmatize those who seek welfare 
assistance in times of need. Children in these States will be harmed by 
not having the Federal safety net that exists today in the AFDC 
program. On the other hand, if a number of the States use this 
opportunity to help devise effective ways to help families move out of 
welfare and into the work force, many children will benefit from the 
higher incomes and better opportunities they will have.

  We are faced with a difficult choice, Mr. President. On the one hand, 
children are hurt by the current system; yet, many may be hurt by the 
loss of this Federal safety net. The bill does contain assessment 
provisions that will allow Congress to make changes, if necessary, if 
eliminating the entitlement under Federal law causes undue hardships. I 
think those of us who vote for this experiment need to watch carefully 
how it is implemented and be prepared to take action if the results 
fall short of what we hope will occur.
  Mr. President, as I said at the outset, I am voting for this bill 
because we cannot continue the current system. I am hopeful that the 
States will seize this opportunity to develop approaches that will help 
welfare recipients and their families become economically self-
sufficient, rather than punishing those who fall through the system. I

[[Page S8517]]

believe that the problems of welfare policy are so complex and 
difficult that it is a mistake to believe that there is only one 
approach that will work. This bill is intended to encourage State 
experimentation with approaches that will work.
  In the final analysis, Mr. President, this vote challenges us to 
decide whether or not we want to perpetuate the status quo. In my view, 
the status quo is unacceptable. Therefore, I will support this 
legislation and the effort to bring about fundamental welfare reforms.


                     South Dakota's Workfare Works

  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, as the Senate once again nears final 
action on a workfare bill, I am reminded of an old commonsense saying, 
``Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and 
you feed him for a lifetime''. This sums up the clear, fundamental 
difference between today's failed liberal welfare system and the 
commonsense reform bill before us. The current welfare system has 
failed. We all know it. Instead of assisting needy Americans, the 
current system holds Americans down, perpetuates a cycle of dependency, 
increases moral decay, and cripples self-respect. Welfare was meant to 
be a safety net, not a way of life. The bill before us would change the 
system and the lives of many Americans for the better. This bill would 
restore the values of personal responsibility and self-sufficiency by 
making work, not Government benefits, the centerpiece of welfare. I am 
proud to be a part of the team that has brought this historic 
legislation to the floor.
  Why does the current system not work? Generations of able-bodied 
families have stayed on the dole rather than work. The rationale is 
simple: Welfare recipients today can sit at home and make more each 
week than individuals working full time on the minimum wage. This 
disincentive to work is an insult to hardworking Americans. In essence, 
we have a Government program that challenges the American work ethic. 
South Dakotans demonstrate that a hard work ethic provides for 
themselves and their families. Many work long hours, seek overtime, or 
have two, even three jobs to make ends meet. Imagine how they must feel 
when their tax dollars are used to support Americans who need not work. 
I can tell you how they feel--upset. If we work for our wages, welfare 
recipients should work for benefits. That is why we need workfare.
  I am pleased Chairman Roth included my workfare amendments during the 
Finance Committee's markup consideration of welfare reform. These 
amendments would ensure that welfare recipients put in a full work 
week, just as other Americans do, in order to receive benefits. These 
entitlements would increase the number of welfare recipients who must 
work and avoid a liberal loophole to avoid real work.
  Workfare is not a new idea. Fifteen years ago, South Dakotans wanted 
to address their own special needs and develop real solutions for their 
welfare system. South Dakota wanted workfare, not welfare. The problem 
is, Federal law makes it difficult to experiment with workfare, 
especially since the current administration has sought to protect the 
current, failed system. For example, in August 1993, South Dakota 
sought a Federal waiver to operate a workfare program. That waiver took 
nearly a year to approve. Today, South Dakota has a system that 
requires recipients to sign a social contract and imposes a tough 2-
year time limit on benefits. This approach has worked. South Dakota has 
successfully decreased its welfare caseload by 17 percent since January 
1993 and saved more than $5.6 million. South Dakota's experience is 
proof that workfare works.
  Just as important are the success stories behind the statistics--the 
South Dakotans who have moved from welfare to work. Let me share two 
such stories about two very special ladies with unique circumstances: 
Marilou Manguson of Rapid City and Belinda Mayer of Sioux Falls. They 
deserve our praise. Marilou and her 10-year-old son were receiving AFDC 
and food stamps. When she applied for welfare, she was informed she 
would have to get a job. For 4 months, Marilou attended computer and 
accounting courses, and prepared every day for interviews with the 
South Dakota Job Service Job Club. Two weeks later she found a full 
time job with a government sales agency. In contrast, 20 years ago, 
when Marilou was on welfare, she says all one needed to do is show up 
to get a check. Marilou now knows the old system didn't help her. She 
said, ``You can't just sit at home and do nothing. You have to get out 
and do something for yourself.'' She's absolutely right. Today, Marilou 
is not receiving any welfare assistance.

  When Belinda Mayer's ex-husband quit paying child support, she was 
left to care for a child, but was only earning $6 per hour. Belinda 
applied for welfare benefits so she could obtain a 2-year accounting 
degree from Western Dakota Technical Institute [WDTI] and, hopefully, 
find a better job. She continued to receive benefits while she went to 
school and was able to obtain child support. This May, Belinda 
graduated and found a job right away as a commercial service specialist 
with Norwest Bank in Sioux Falls. For Belinda, welfare reform is a very 
important issue. As she says, help should be there, ``but it should not 
become a crutch'' for people. Both of these women can look forward to a 
very stable, solid future for themselves and their families. I am very 
proud of their hard work and applaud their efforts.
  Their success is South Dakota's success. South Dakota has reached out 
to enable those in times of difficulty to regain control of their 
lives.
  These examples demonstrate that workfare is achieving success at the 
local level. South Dakota was fortunate to get its waiver approved to 
run a workfare program. Other States are still waiting for waiver 
approval. This waiver process reflects a basic problem: a one-size-
fits-all system run by Federal bureaucrats. Welfare cannot be solved 
one waiver at a time. Federal bureaucrats have worked to preserve the 
current, failed system by being slow to approve State waivers. That 
must change. States should be given the flexibility to seek solutions 
and alternatives to welfare problems. I have more faith in South 
Dakotans' dedication to welfare reform than I do in Washington 
bureaucrats.
  Clearly, we need greater State flexibility also because there is not 
a grand, ``one-size'' solution to ending welfare dependency. Welfare 
reform programs in Oglala, Fort Thompson, or Rapid City, SD may not 
necessarily work in Los Angeles or New Orleans. South Dakota's welfare 
problems are unique, and even differ greatly from our nearest 
neighbors. My State has three of the five poorest counties in the 
country. We have some of the lowest wages in the country. We also have 
the highest percentage of welfare recipients who are Native Americans. 
In some reservation areas, unemployment runs higher than 80 percent. 
Long distances between towns and a lack of public transportation and 
quality child care are further barriers to gainful employment.
  To promote greater State flexibility, the bill before us would 
provide welfare assistance in the form of block grants to the States. 
Block grants would give States the freedom to craft solutions that best 
serve local needs. It has been proven time and again that Washington 
bureaucrats cannot understand unique local needs from thousands of 
miles away. The distance, both literally and figuratively, that 
separates Washington from our cities and towns prevents the most 
appropriate solutions from being tailored to our problems.

  Workfare is not just about restoring responsibility at the individual 
and State level, it is about protecting children in need. The workfare 
bill before us would ensure that children have quality food and 
shelter. This bill would increase our investment in child care by $4.5 
billion and increase child protection and neglect funds by $200 million 
over current law. What this bill eliminates is cumbersome bureaucracy 
and needless regulations.
  The bill also would strengthen child support enforcement and give 
States new tools to crack down on deadbeat parents. These reforms 
represent the toughest child support laws ever passed by Congress. One 
woman in South Dakota has informed me that her ex-husband owes her 
thousands of dollars in overdue child support. For her and many other 
parents in the same difficult situation, this bill would help. The 
current system fosters illegitimacy and discourages marriage and

[[Page S8518]]

parental responsibility. Real welfare reform should promote the basic 
family unit, and crack down on those who deliberately walk away from 
meeting the needs of their children. The disincentives to a sound 
family structure also must be changed. More and more children are 
growing up without the moral guidance and financial support of parents, 
especially fathers. This is a tragedy of our time.
  We also no longer can tolerate the blatant abuses of the system. Last 
year, I was shocked to learn the extent to which prisoners are able to 
continue to receiving welfare benefits. The workfare bill we passed 
last year included my amendment to crack down on prisoner welfare 
fraud. I am pleased this provision is in the current bill. It would put 
an end to cash payments to alcohol and drug addicts, which only 
subsidizes their habits.
  Several years ago, President Clinton promised America he would change 
welfare as we know it. Two years ago, Congress made the same promise. 
Last year Congress delivered on that promise and passed workfare. 
Unfortunately, President Clinton vetoed that workfare bill. I hope the 
President will do the right thing this time and support our workfare 
legislation.
  Again, I am proud to be part of this effort to enact workfare 
legislation. The workfare bill before us would end welfare dependency 
by requiring work and placing a time limit on benefits. We can change 
the welfare system and encourage people to become self-sufficient and 
productive members of society, once again. We can provide more 
protection for children. I hope my colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle will show the same support for workfare that we demonstrated last 
year. Americans deserve more than a handout for today, they deserve the 
hope and happiness that come through personal financial independence 
and the self-realization of work.
  Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the legislation 
before us to reform our failed welfare system. I commend the majority 
leader for getting this legislation to the floor--I know it has taken a 
concentrated effort to bring us to this point.
  Since the beginning of the 104th Congress, we have been debating the 
state of this Nation's welfare system. Everyone understands that the 
system is broken. It encourages illegitimacy. It fails to recognize the 
importance of marriage and family. It offers no hope or opportunity for 
those Americans who are trapped within its layers of bureaucracy.
  Of course, it was not supposed to be this way.
  After signing the 1964 Welfare Act, President Lyndon Johnson 
proclaimed, ``We are not content to accept the endless growth of relief 
rolls or welfare rolls,'' and he promised the American people that 
``the days of the dole in our country are numbered.'' The New York 
Times predicted the legislation would lead to the restoration of 
individual dignity and the longrun reduction of the need for Government 
help.
  In 1964, America's taxpayers invested $947 million to support welfare 
recipients--an investment which President Johnson declared would 
eventually, quote, ``result in savings to the country and especially to 
the local taxpayers'' through reductions in welfare caseloads, health 
care costs, and the crime rate. Yet, 30 years later, none of those 
predictions have materialized, and the failure of the welfare system 
continues to devastate millions of Americans every day--both the 
families who receive welfare benefits and the taxpayers who subsidize 
them.
  Despite a $5.4 trillion investment in welfare programs since 1964, at 
an average annual cost that had risen to $3,357 per taxpaying household 
by 1993:
  One in three children in the United States today is born out of 
wedlock.
  One child in seven is being raised on welfare through the Aid to 
Families with Dependant Children Program.
  And our crime rate has increased 280 percent.
  Mr. President, those are the kinds of devastating statistics which 
until the 104th Congress were ignored by the bureaucratic establishment 
in Washington. Those are the statistics this legislation will finally 
address. By rewriting Federal policies and working in close partnership 
with the States, we can create a welfare system which will effectively 
respond to the needs of those who depend upon it, at the same time it 
protects the taxpayers.
  Our legislation sets in place the framework for meeting those needs 
by offering opportunity, self-respect, and most importantly, the 
ability for those who are down on their luck to take control of their 
own lives.
  And yes, we are asking something of them in return.
  The most significant change in our welfare system is that we will 
require able-bodied individuals to work in exchange for the assistance 
they receive from the American taxpayers.
  Mr. President, my colleagues and I have come to the floor repeatedly 
this session to suggest that our present welfare system promotes 
dependency by discouraging recipients from working. In fact, the 
Government routinely makes it so easy for a welfare recipient to skip 
the work and continue collecting a Federal check that there's 
absolutely no incentive to ever get out of the house and find work. And 
if someone actually takes the initiative to get a job, they risk 
forfeiting their welfare benefits entirely.

  Last year, during Senate consideration of the ``Work Opportunity 
Act,'' Senator Shelby and I joined forces to ensure that welfare 
recipients receive benefits only after they work. After all, American 
taxpayers are putting in at least 40 hours on the job each week, and 
are sometimes forced to take an additional job or work overtime hours 
just to make ends meet. I believe welfare recipients should be held to 
the same standards, the same work ethic, to which the taxpayers are 
held. Those beliefs are reflected in this legislation.
  Under our pay-for-performance provisions, welfare recipients will be 
required to work in exchange for their benefits. If an adult is not 
employed within 2 years, the benefits will stop. Is that enough of a 
push to make a difference? Yes, according to the Congressional Budget 
Office. It released a report this month which estimates these tough 
work requirements will put 1.7 million people who are currently on 
welfare into the work force. That is almost four times the number of 
welfare recipients who are working today.
  To ease their transition into the job market and help single parents 
find accessible and affordable child care, we fold seven major Federal 
child-care programs into a child care and development grant, with total 
funding of $22 billion over 7 years.
  In addition, Mr. President, our bill recognizes that locally elected 
officials--our State legislators and Governors--are more capable than 
their unelected counterparts in far-off Washington to administer 
effective programs on the State and local level. And so this welfare 
reform legislation will give States like Minnesota the flexibility to 
make their own rules and develop their own innovative programs, and in 
doing so assist those who need our help most.
  But despite all the good this legislation will accomplish, I must 
temper my enthusiasm with my disappointment that the only way to move 
this bill forward was to strip away its Medicaid reform provisions. Mr. 
President, the administration cannot hope to resolve the problems with 
the Medicaid system by turning its back and pretending these problems 
do not exist. At some point, they will be forced to deal with a system 
that is too unwieldy and unable to fully serve the needy. By demanding, 
by threat of veto, that we tackle Medicaid another day, the 
administration has ensured that political gamesmanship has won out over 
political will.
  The sensible Medicaid reforms outlined in the original reconciliation 
package would strengthen the system by increasing Medicaid spending 
from $96.1 billion in 1996 to $137.6 billion in 2002. That is an 
average annual rate of growth of 6.2 percent. States would be given 
additional flexibility in delivering care, while Federal protections 
would be maintained to ensure that those who need Medicaid's assistance 
will not be denied.
  Unfortunately, those reforms will now have to wait. But I can assure 
you that they will be revisited--if not by this Congress and this 
administration, then certainly by the next.
  Mr. President, the legislation before us today to overhaul our failed 
welfare programs is a positive step away from a system which has held 
nearly three

[[Page S8519]]

generations hostage with little hope of escape. Only through its 
enactment can we offer these Americans a way out, and a way up.
  As Americans, we need to look within ourselves rather than continuing 
to look to Washington for solutions. Does anybody really believe the 
Federal Government embodies compassion, that it has a heart? Of course 
not--those are qualities found only outside Washington, in America's 
communities.

  Mr. President, there is no one I can think of who better exemplifies 
heart and compassion than Corla Wilson-Hawkins, and I was fortunate to 
have had the opportunity to meet her. She was one of 21 recipients of 
the 1995 National Caring Awards for her outstanding volunteer service 
to her community.
  Corla is known as Mama Hawk because, more than anything else, she has 
become a second mother to hundreds of schoolchildren in her West Side 
Chicago community, children who, without her guidance, might go without 
meals, or homes, or a loving hug.
  Mama Hawk gives them all that and more, and she and the many caring 
Americans like her represent the good we can accomplish when ordinary 
folks look inward, not to the Government--and follow their hearts, not 
the trail of tax dollars to Washington.
  Mama Hawk tells a story that illustrates how the present welfare 
system has permeated our culture and become as ingrained as the very 
problems it was originally created to solve.
  These are her words:

       When I first started teaching, I asked my kids, what did 
     they want to be when they grew up? What kind of job they 
     wanted. Most of them said they wanted to be on public aid. I 
     was a little stunned. I said, ``Public aid--I did not realize 
     that was a form of employment.'' They said, ``Well, our mom's 
     on public aid. They make a lot of money and, if you have a 
     baby, they get a raise.''

  Mr. President, that is the perception--maybe even the reality--we are 
fighting to change through the Personal Responsibility and Work 
Opportunity Act of 1996. While there is more to accomplish, this bill 
is a good first step toward fulfilling a promise to truly end welfare 
as we know it.
 Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Senator Roth, the budget reconciliation bill 
(S. 1795) includes a proposal that is in the jurisdiction of the Senate 
Committee on Labor and Human Resources. As you know, last year during 
debate on the welfare bill, the Child Care and Development Block Grant 
Amendments Act of 1995 (S. 850), which was approved unanimously by the 
Labor Committee on May 26, 1995, was incorporated into H.R. 4. And H.R. 
4 was then included in last year's budget reconciliation bill. During 
the conference on last year's budget reconciliation bill, conferees 
from the Labor Committee and the Finance Committee reached agreement on 
a unified system for all Federal child care assistance, including child 
care assistance for low-income working families as well as for welfare 
families and for families at risk of becoming dependent on welfare. 
This consolidation and unified system for child care is a major 
improvement over current law.
  I would also like to bring to your attention a proposal contained in 
the House reconciliation bill that falls within the jurisdiction of the 
Labor Committee. The House bill incorporates the Child Abuse Prevention 
and Treatment Act Amendments of 1995 (S. 919), which was unanimously 
approved by the Labor Committee on July 18, 1995. Although this 
proposal was not included in S. 1795, it will be considered during the 
budget reconciliation conference.
  Because of the unique procedures that apply to budget reconciliation 
bills, the Labor Committee was not given the opportunity to mark up the 
child care proposal in S. 1795 and the child abuse authorizations in 
the House bill. I am concerned that members of the Finance Committee 
will be negotiating changes in these Labor Committee programs during 
the budget reconciliation conference without any input from the 
committee of jurisdiction.
  Senator ROTH. Let me assure the distinguished chairman of the Senate 
Committee on Labor and Human Resources that I recognize that the child 
care and development block grant is within the jurisdiction of the 
Labor Committee, with the Finance Committee retaining jurisdiction over 
the entitlement funds for child care that flow through this program. As 
you know, the Finance Committee's entitlement funds must be used to 
provide child care services to families receiving assistance under the 
new TANF block grant, families transitioning from welfare to work, and 
families at risk of becoming dependent upon welfare. I also recognize 
that the Labor Committee has jurisdiction over the Child Abuse 
Prevention and Treatment Act.

  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. I thank the distinguished Chairman of the Finance 
Committee. Mr. President, I request that a copy of a letter sent to 
Chairman Roth by myself, Senator Kennedy, Senator Coats, and Senator 
Dodd and a copy of S. 850, the Child Care and Development Block Grant 
Amendments Act of 1995, as approved by the Senate Committee on Labor 
and Human Resources, be made a part of the Record. The text of S. 919, 
the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act Amendments, as approved by 
the Senate appears in the Congressional Record of Friday, July 19, 
1996.
  The material follows:

                                         U.S. Senate, Committee on


                                    Labor and Human Resources,

                                    Washington, DC, June 24, 1996.
     Hon. William V. Roth, Jr.,
     Chairman, Committee on Finance, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Bill: It is our understanding that the Committee on 
     Finance intends to mark-up reconciliation language based on 
     S. 1795, the ``Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity 
     Act of 1996.'' We presume that the Committee on Finance 
     intends to include provisions in Title VIII on child care and 
     provisions in Title VII on child abuse and neglect that were 
     part of last year's conference agreement on welfare reform. 
     Because this language will be reported by the Finance 
     Committee to the Senate Committee on the Budget as part of 
     budget reconciliation, it will have special status during 
     floor consideration of the legislation. One of the conditions 
     of that special status is that extraneous provisions are not 
     in order. Section 313(b)(1)(C) of the Congressional Budget 
     and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, as amended by the ``Byrd 
     Rule,'' creates a point of order against extraneous 
     provisions that are ``. . . not in the jurisdiction of the 
     Committee with jurisdiction over said title or provision.''
       We are making recommendations to the Committee on Finance 
     in an effort to facilitate the reconciliation process. 
     However, we strongly believe that it must be made clear that 
     the budget procedures in no way alter existing jurisdiction 
     over child care and child abuse/neglect. In order to make 
     this clear, we expect to engage in a colloquy when the 
     reconciliation bill comes to the floor, rather than using the 
     Byrd rule to preserve the committee's jurisdiction.
       Titles VII and VIII of S. 1795 include extraneous 
     provisions in the form of changes in authorizations under the 
     jurisdiction of the Senate Committee on Labor and Human 
     Resources. Last year, during the development and 
     consideration of the welfare provisions in the Balanced 
     Budget Act of 1996 and the welfare reform bill, members of 
     the Labor Committee were active participants. The child care 
     and child abuse and neglect provisions in the Senate-passed 
     welfare reform bill were, in fact, Labor Committee-passed 
     bills and were included in the conference negotiations for 
     both the Balanced Budget Act of 1996 and the welfare reform 
     legislation. Both of these Labor Committee bills were passed 
     with strong bipartisan support. To meet the requirements of 
     the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act, the 
     Labor Committee's child abuse and neglect provisions were 
     dropped from the conference report for the Balanced Budget 
     Act of 1996, but were included in the welfare reform 
     legislation.
       Members of the Senate Committee on Labor and Human 
     Resources were conferees on the Balanced Budget Act of 1996, 
     due to the inclusion of the child care provisions and House 
     inclusion of the child abuse and neglect provisions. If this 
     bill were going through the normal legislative process for 
     changes in authorization bills, the Committee on Labor and 
     Human Resources would be entitled to make modifications to 
     the provisions under its jurisdiction. However, because the 
     Finance Committee has included changes in Labor Committee 
     programs in the Medicaid-welfare reconciliation bill, the 
     Committee on Labor and Human Resources will be precluded from 
     the opportunity to make changes in the bill.
       Under these circumstances, we recognize that the only way 
     that revisions can be made to programs under the jurisdiction 
     of the Labor Committee is to have these changes made during 
     Finance Committee consideration of the Medicaid-welfare 
     reconciliation bill. In anticipation of the mark-up of the 
     legislation by the Finance Committee, we would like to 
     recommend several modifications to the Labor Committee 
     provisions in the bill.
       In ``Title VIII--Child Care:''
       1. Maintain the health and safety standards in current law;
       2. Increase the set-aside for activities to improve the 
     quality of child care from 3 percent to 4 percent;

[[Page S8520]]

       3. Increase the age from under six (6) to under eleven (11) 
     when a single custodial parent could not be sanctioned for 
     failing to meet the work requirements if adequate, affordable 
     child care is not available; and
       4. Require the states to maintain 100 percent of 1995 child 
     care funding to be eligible for additional child care funds.
       All of the recommended modifications to Title VIII were 
     passed by the House Committee on Economic and Educational 
     Opportunities.
       In ``Title VII--Child Protection Block Grant Programs and 
     Foster Care, Adoption Assistance and Independent Living 
     Programs'' of the Finance Committee bill, a number of 
     authorizations that are in the jurisdiction of the Committee 
     on Labor and Human Resources are rewritten to be consolidated 
     into block grants. These changes have never been formally 
     considered, or debated by the full Labor Committee. In 
     addition, the Medicaid-welfare reconciliation bill even 
     strikes several important provisions that were included in 
     the last year's reconciliation conference report and reported 
     out by the relevant House committees in this year's 
     reconciliation bill. Specifically, those provisions concern 
     the prompt expungement of child abuse records on 
     unsubstantiated or false cases; the appointment of guardian 
     ad litems; and the inclusion of material in support of the 
     state's certification concerning the reporting of medical 
     neglect of disabled infants.
       We look forward to working with the members of the Finance 
     Committee on this legislation and being formally included in 
     the conference negotiations on provisions under the 
     jurisdiction of the Committee on Labor and Human Resources.
           Sincerely,
     Nancy Landon Kassebaum,
       Chairman, Committee on Labor and Human Resources.
     Dan Coats,
       Chairman, Subcommittee on Children and Families.
     Edward M. Kennedy,
       Ranking Member, Committee on Labor and Human Resources.
     Christopher Dodd,
       Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Children and Families.
                                                                    ____


                                 S. 850

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Child Care and Development 
     Block Grant Amendments Act of 1995''.

     SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS TO THE CHILD CARE AND DEVELOPMENT BLOCK 
                   GRANT ACT OF 1990.

       (a) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 658B of the 
     Child Care and Development Block Grant Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 
     9858) is amended to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 658B. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       ``There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this 
     subchapter $1,000,000,000 for fiscal year 1996, and such sums 
     as may be necessary for each of the fiscal years 1997 through 
     2000.''.
       (b) Lead Agency.--Section 658D(b) of the Child Care and 
     Development Block Grant Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 9858b(b)) is 
     amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1)--
       (A) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``State'' and 
     inserting ``governmental or nongovernmental''; and
       (B) in subparagraph (C), by inserting ``with sufficient 
     time and Statewide distribution of the notice of such 
     hearing,'' after ``hearing in the State''; and
       (2) in paragraph (2), by striking the second sentence.
       (c) Application and Plan.--Section 658E of the Child Care 
     and Development Block Grant Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 9858c) is 
     amended--
       (1) in subsection (b), by striking ``implemented--'' and 
     all that follows through ``plans.'' and inserting 
     ``implemented during a 2-year period.'';
       (2) in subsection (c)--
       (A) in paragraph (2)--
       (i) in subparagraph (A)--

       (I) in clause (iii) by striking the semicolon and inserting 
     a period; and
       (II) by striking ``except'' and all that follows through 
     ``1992.''; and

       (ii) in subparagraph (E)--

       (I) by striking clause (ii) and inserting the following new 
     clause:

       ``(ii) the State will implement mechanisms to ensure that 
     appropriate payment mechanisms exist so that proper payments 
     under this subchapter will be made to providers within the 
     State and to permit the State to furnish information to such 
     providers.''; and

       (II) by adding at the end thereof the following new 
     sentence: ``In lieu of any licensing and regulatory 
     requirements applicable under State and local law, the 
     Secretary, in consultation with Indian tribes and tribal 
     organizations, shall develop minimum child care standards 
     (that appropriately reflect tribal needs and available 
     resources) that shall be applicable to Indian tribes and 
     tribal organization receiving assistance under this 
     subchapter.''; and

       (iii) by striking subparagraphs (H) and (I); and
       (B) in paragraph (3)--
       (i) in subparagraph (C)--

       (I) in the subparagraph heading, by striking ``and to 
     increase'' and all that follows through ``care services'';
       (II) by striking ``25 percent'' and inserting ``15 
     percent''; and
       (III) by striking ``and to provide before-'' and all that 
     follows through ``658H)''; and

       (ii) by adding at the end thereof the following new 
     subparagraph:
       ``(D) Limitation on administrative costs.--Not more than 5 
     percent of the aggregate amount of payments received under 
     this subchapter by a State in each fiscal year may be 
     expended for administrative costs incurred by such State to 
     carry out all its functions and duties under this 
     subchapter.''.
       (d) Sliding Fee Scale.--
       (1) In general.--Section 658E(c)(5) of the Child Care and 
     Development Block Grant Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 9858c(c)(5)) 
     is amended by inserting before the period the following: 
     ``and that ensures a representative distribution of funding 
     among the working poor and recipients of Federal welfare 
     assistance''.
       (2) Eligibility.--Section 658P(4)(B) of the Child Care and 
     Development Block Grant Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 9858n(4)(B)) 
     is amended by striking ``75 percent'' and inserting ``100 
     percent''.
       (e) Quality.--Section 658G of the Child Care and 
     Development Block Grant Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 9858e) is 
     amended--
       (1) in the matter preceding paragraph (1)--
       (A) by striking ``A State'' and inserting ``(a) In 
     General.--A State'';
       (B) by striking ``not less than 20 percent of''; and
       (C) by striking ``one or more of the following'' and 
     inserting ``carrying out the resource and referral activities 
     described in subsection (b), and for one or more of the 
     activities described in subsection (c).'';
       (2) in paragraph (1), by inserting before the period the 
     following: ``, including providing comprehensive consumer 
     education to parents and the public, referrals that honor 
     parental choice, and activities designed to improve the 
     quality and availability of child care'';
       (3) by striking ``(1) Resource and Referral Programs.--
     Operating'' and inserting the following:
       ``(b) Resource and Referral Programs.--The activities 
     described in this subsection are operating'';
       (4) by redesignating paragraphs (2) through (5) as 
     paragraphs (1) through (4), respectively;
       (5) by inserting before paragraph (1) (as so redesignated) 
     the following:
       ``(c) Other Activities.--The activities described in this 
     section are the following:''; and
       (6) by adding at the end thereof the following:
       ``(5) Before- and after-school activities.--Increasing the 
     availability of before- and after-school care.
       ``(6) Infant care.--Increasing the availability of child 
     care for infants under the age of 18 months.
       ``(7) Nontraditional work hours.--Increasing the 
     availability of child care between the hours of 5:00 p.m. and 
     8:00 a.m.
       ``(d) Nondiscrimination.--With respect to child care 
     providers that comply with applicable State law but which are 
     otherwise not required to be licensed by the State, the 
     State, in carrying out this section, may not discriminate 
     against such a provider if such provider desires to 
     participate in resource and referral activities carried out 
     under subsection (b).''.
       (f) Repeal.--Section 658H of the Child Care and Development 
     Block Grant Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 9858f) is repealed.
       (g) Enforcement.--Section 658I(b)(2) of the Child Care and 
     Development Block Grant Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 9858g(b)(2)) 
     is amended--
       (1) in the matter following clause (ii) of subparagraph 
     (A), by striking ``finding and that'' and all that follows 
     through the period and inserting ``finding and may impose 
     additional program requirements on the State, including a 
     requirement that the State reimburse the Secretary for any 
     funds that were improperly expended for purposes prohibited 
     or not authorized by this subchapter, that the Secretary 
     deduct from the administrative portion of the State allotment 
     for the following fiscal year an amount that is less than or 
     equal to any improperly expended funds, or a combination of 
     such options.''; and
       (2) by striking subparagraphs (B) and (C).
       (h) Reports.--Section 658K of the Child Care and 
     Development Block Grant Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 9858i) is 
     amended--
       (1) in the section heading, by striking ``ANNUAL REPORT'' 
     and inserting ``REPORTS''; and
       (2) in subsection (a)--
       (A) in the subsection heading, by striking ``Annual 
     Report'' and inserting ``Reports'';
       (B) by striking ``December 31, 1992, and annually 
     thereafter'' and inserting ``December 31, 1996, and every 2 
     years thereafter'';
       (C) in paragraph (2)--
       (i) in subparagraph (A), by inserting before the semicolon 
     ``and the types of child care programs under which such 
     assistance is provided'';
       (ii) by striking subparagraph (B); and
       (iii) by redesignating subparagraphs (C) and (D) as 
     subparagraphs (B) and (C), respectively;
       (D) by striking paragraph (4);

[[Page S8521]]

       (E) by redesignating paragraphs (5) and (6) as paragraphs 
     (4) and (5), respectively;
       (F) in paragraph (4), as so redesignated, by striking 
     ``and'' at the end thereof;
       (G) in paragraph (5), as so redesignated, by adding ``and'' 
     at the end thereof; and
       (H) by inserting after paragraph (5), as so redesignated, 
     the following new paragraph:
       ``(6) describing the extent and manner to which the 
     resource and referral activities are being carried out by the 
     State;''.
       (i) Report by Secretary.--Section 658L of the Child Care 
     and Development Block Grant Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 9858j) is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``1993'' and inserting ``1997'';
       (2) by striking ``annually'' and inserting ``bi-annually''; 
     and
       (3) by striking ``Education and Labor'' and inserting 
     ``Economic and Educational Opportunities''.
       (j) Allotments.--Section 658O of the Child Care and 
     Development Block Grant Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 9858m) is 
     amended--
       (1) in subsection (c), by adding at the end thereof the 
     following new paragraph:
       ``(6) Construction or Renovation of Facilities.--
       ``(A) Request for use of funds.--An Indian tribe or tribal 
     organization may submit to the Secretary a request to use 
     amounts provided under this subsection for construction or 
     renovation purposes.
       ``(B) Determination.--With respect to a request submitted 
     under subparagraph (A), and except as provided in 
     subparagraph (C), upon a determination by the Secretary that 
     adequate facilities are not otherwise available to an Indian 
     tribe or tribal organization to enable such tribe or 
     organization to carry out child care programs in accordance 
     with this subchapter, and that the lack of such facilities 
     will inhibit the operation of such programs in the future, 
     the Secretary may permit the tribe or organization to use 
     assistance provided under this subsection to make payments 
     for the construction or renovation of facilities that will be 
     used to carry out such programs.
       ``(C) Limitation.--The Secretary may not permit an Indian 
     tribe or tribal organization to use amounts provided under 
     this subsection for construction or renovation if such use 
     will result in a decrease in the level of child care services 
     provided by the tribe or organization as compared to the 
     level of such services provided by the tribe or organization 
     in the fiscal year preceding the year for which the 
     determination under subparagraph (A) is being made.
       ``(D) Uniform procedures.--The Secretary shall develop and 
     implement uniform procedures for the solicitation and 
     consideration of requests under this paragraph.''; and
       (2) in subsection (e)--
       (A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``Any'' and inserting 
     ``Except as provided in paragraph (4), any''; and
       (B) by adding at the end thereof the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(4) Indian tribes or tribal organizations.--Any portion 
     of a grant or contract made to an Indian tribe or tribal 
     organization under subsection (c) that the Secretary 
     determines is not being used in a manner consistent with the 
     provision of this subchapter in the period for with the grant 
     or contract is made available, shall be reallocated by the 
     Secretary to other tribes or organization that have submitted 
     applications under subsection (c) in proportion to the 
     original allocations to such tribes or organization.''.
       (k) Definitions.--Section 658P of the Child Care and 
     Development Block Grant Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 9858n) is 
     amended--
       (1) in paragraph (2), in the first sentence by inserting 
     ``or as a deposit for child care services if such a deposit 
     is required of other children being cared for by the 
     provider'' after ``child care services''; and
       (2) in paragraph (5)(B)--
       (A) by inserting ``great grandchild, sibling (if the 
     provider lives in a separate residence),'' after 
     ``grandchild,'';
       (B) by striking ``is registered and''; and
       (C) by striking ``State'' and inserting ``applicable''.
       (l) Application of Subchapter.--The Child Care and 
     Development Block Grant Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 9858 et seq.) 
     is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new 
     section:

     ``SEC. 658T. APPLICATION TO OTHER PROGRAMS.

       ``Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a State that 
     uses funding for child care services under any Federal 
     program shall ensure that activities carried out using such 
     funds meet the requirements, standards, and criteria of this 
     subchapter and the regulations promulgated under this 
     subchapter. Such sums shall be administered through a uniform 
     State plan. To the maximum extent practicable, amounts 
     provided to a State under such programs shall be transferred 
     to the lead agency and integrated into the program 
     established under this subchapter by the State.''.

     SEC. 3. SENSE OF THE SENATE.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
       (1) the availability and accessibility of quality child 
     care will be critical to any welfare reform effort;
       (2) as parents move from welfare into the workforce or into 
     job preparation and education, child care must be affordable 
     and safe;
       (3) whether parents are pursuing job training, 
     transitioning off welfare, or are already in the work force 
     and attempting to remain employed, no parent can be expected 
     to leave his or her child in a dangerous situation;
       (4) affordable and accessible child care is a prerequisite 
     for job training and for entering the workforce; and
       (5) studies have shown that the lack of quality child care 
     is the most frequently cited barrier to employment and self-
     sufficiency.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that the Federal Government has a responsibility to provide 
     funding and leadership with respect to child care.

     SEC. 4. REPEALS AND TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.

       (a) State Dependent Care Development Grants Act.--The State 
     Dependent Care Development Grants Act (42 U.S.C. 9871 et 
     seq.) is repealed.
       (b) Child Development Associate Scholarship Assistance Act 
     of 1985.--The Child Development Associate Scholarship 
     Assistance Act of 1985 (42 U.S.C. 10901 et seq.) is repealed.
       (c) Additional Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Recommended legislation.--After consultation with the 
     appropriate committees of the Congress and the Director of 
     the Office of Management and Budget, the Secretary of Health 
     and Human Services shall prepare and submit to the Congress a 
     legislative proposal in the form of an implementing bill 
     containing technical and conforming amendments to reflect the 
     amendments and repeals made by this Act.
       (2) Submission to congress.--Not later than 6 months after 
     the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Health 
     and Human Services shall submit the implementing bill 
     referred to under paragraph (1).

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask the chairman if it is his 
understanding that this bill should not undermine or contradict the 
violence against women act?
  Mr. ROTH. Yes, that is my understanding.


            reconciliation, the deficit and senate procedure

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, on the Democrat side of the aisle, the 
charge has been made that we are abusing reconciliation in a way that 
has never been done before. Reconciliation is a process that is 
designed to allow expedited consideration of the budget. The budget has 
become an extremely controversial issue and efforts to include 
extraneous matter in reconciliation has led to abuse in the past by 
both Republicans and Democrats.
  We adopted in the Byrd rule in 1985 to prohibit the inclusion of 
extraneous matter in reconciliation. Making determinations on whether 
something is extraneous falls on the shoulders of the Parliamentarians. 
This is a small office, comprising just three Parliamentarians, that 
must make judgments on very controversial and complicated issues in a 
very short period of time. I think they do their best to apply a very 
ambiguous standard against very complicated and lengthy reconciliation 
legislation.
  With Republicans in control of the Senate and the House, we have 
heard from Democrats that reconciliation is being abused. Just for the 
record, let me read a couple of statements made by Senators Chafee and 
Danforth during consideration of the 1993 omnibus reconciliation bill, 
a reconciliation bill that was considered when the Democrats were in 
control of the Senate.
  The conference report on the 1993 reconciliation bill comprised 
President Clinton's controversial budget package. This legislation 
included provisions that had nothing to do with deficit reduction 
regarding bovine growth hormones and a national vaccination program. 
Senator Danforth raised a point of order and the Chair ruled against 
him. Senator Danforth then appealed the ruling of the Chair.
  During the debate on the appeal, Senator Chafee effectively stated 
that the Chair's ruling made a ``complete joke out of the Byrd rule'' 
and Senator Danforth implied that the Byrd rule was being applied on a 
``whimsical basis'' and that ``anything goes'' under the standard that 
was being used for the Byrd rule's enforcement in 1993.
   Mr. President, during consideration of the budget resolution, the 
distinguished minority leader raised a point of order against the 
budget resolution because it ``creates a budget reconciliation bill 
devoted solely to worsening the deficit''. The Presiding Officer did 
not sustain that point of order and the Senate upheld the Chair's 
ruling on an appeal. I do not want the Senate to be left with the 
impression that the budget act allows Congress to use reconciliation to 
generate an unlimited number of bills that would increase the deficit 
under reconciliation procedures. Such a use of reconciliation would be 
clearly abusive.
  We had no intention of using reconciliation to increase the deficit. 
In

[[Page S8522]]

fact, the budget resolution we adopted and the reconciliation 
instructions it includes will not only reduce the deficit, it will 
balance the budget. Even if an effort was made to use reconciliation 
solely to increase the deficit, the budget rules would have prohibited 
it.
  The budget act grants special status in the Senate to reconciliation 
legislation and any effort to abuse this process represents an abuse of 
the Senate. While I do not think we have abused reconciliation, I was 
troubled by the minority leader's point of order and I want to review 
with the Senate what has occurred since the minority leader made his 
point of order and inquiries of the Chair. I think this is particularly 
important as we proceed with reconciliation legislation.

  The minority leader's chief concern was that reconciliation should 
not be used to increase the deficit. The Senate-reported budget 
resolution included three sets of reconciliation instructions to 
generate three individual reconciliation bills. The first bill would 
reduce outlays by $124.8 billion and the second by $214.8 billion. The 
two bills combined would reduce the deficit by $339.6 billion. If, and 
only if, these two bills were enacted, then a third reconciliation 
instruction would be triggered to reduce revenues by not more than 
$116.1 billion. In addition, under the Senate's pay-as-you-go point of 
order legislation cannot cause an increase in the deficit unless it is 
offset by previously enacted legislation. Even undue the Senate-
reported resolution, reconciliation could not increase the deficit. In 
fact, reconciliation had to result in an overall reduction in the 
deficit.
  Mr. President, the minority leader's concern focused on the third 
instruction in the resolution that called for a reconciliation bill 
that would reduce revenues by not more than $116.1 billion and would 
reduce outlays by $11.5 billion. The minority leader was correct that 
third reconciliation bill viewed alone would increase the deficit; 
however, we would never have gotten to that third bill without first 
having done the first two bills.
  In conference, we modified the reconciliation instructions to permit 
a reduction in revenues in the first instruction. Since the outlay 
reductions in this first instruction exceeded the revenue reduction, 
this first bill could not increase the deficit. Therefore, 
reconciliation could not be used in this first bill to increase the 
deficit. The resolution also provides a revenue reduction instruction 
for the third reconciliation bill if the revenue reductions are not 
included in the first bill.
  As the minority leader pointed out during consideration of the budget 
resolution, under one of the Byrd rule points of order--section 
313(b)(1)(E) of the Budget Act--a provision of a reconciliation bill is 
subject to the Byrd rule if it would cause an increase in the deficit 
in a year after the period covered by the reconciliation instructions 
and it is not offset by other provisions in the bill. In addition, the 
pay-as-you-go point of order prohibits consideration of legislation 
that would increase the deficit unless it was offset by the enactment 
of other legislation that reduced the deficit. The Parliamentarian made 
it clear to us that the budget resolution could not and the fiscal year 
1997 budget resolution does not include provisions to exempt 
reconciliation from any Senate rule, the Byrd rule, budget act rules, 
or even the pay-as-you-go rule.
  While this first instruction called for a reduction in revenues, both 
the House of Representatives and the Senate have chosen not to include 
revenue reductions in their first reconciliation bills. While the 
Senate did agree to an amendment that would cause a reduction in 
revenues from an adoption tax credit, this amendment was only adopted 
after the Senate voted 78 to 21 to waive a budget act point of order 
against this amendment.
  This first reconciliation bill will reduce spending and the deficit 
by over $50 billion. We have spend almost a week on this legislation 
and considered over 50 amendments. In addition, the minority has 
exercised its rights under the Byrd rule and the presiding officer has 
sustained points of order against 23 provisions in the bill.
  Mr. President, the resolution calls for two more reconciliation 
bills. I do not know if we will complete action on these two subsequent 
reconciliation bills. If we do, these subsequent bills must comply with 
the Byrd rule, budget act guidelines, and the pay-as-you-go point of 
order. Therefore, our resolution never allowed and Senate rules would 
not have permitted using reconciliation to increase the deficit.


                        Abandoning Our Children

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, this is a historic and unfortunate 
time for the U.S. Senate. This body is on the verge of ending a 60 year 
guarantee that poor children in this country would not starve.
  For 60 years, we could rest easier at night knowing children across 
the country had a minimal safety net. The bill before us will take away 
this peace of mind and throw up to 1.5 million children into poverty.
  Mr. President, I agree that the welfare system is in need of repair. 
I believe that it needs to help promote work and self sufficiency. I 
think it should also protect children. Unfortunately, the Republican 
welfare bill does none of this.
  First, the Republican bill does not promote work. The bill calls for 
work requirements for welfare recipients, but it does not provide the 
resources to put people to work. In fact, the CBO said that ``Most 
states would be unlikely to satisfy this [work] requirement for several 
reasons.''
  One major reason is that this bill cuts funding for work programs by 
combining all welfare programs into a capped block grant.
  Second, the Republican bill hurts children. It would make deep cuts 
in the Food Stamp Program which millions of children rely on for their 
nutritional needs. It would also end the guarantee that children will 
always have a safety net.
  Under the Republican bill, a State could adopt a 60-day time limit 
and after that the children would be cut off from the safety net 
entirely. The State would not even be required to provide a child with 
a voucher for food, clothing, or medical care.
  When you take all of these policies together, this bill will throw 
approximately 1.5 million children into poverty.
  And this is a conservative estimate. It could be much higher.
  Mr. President, my conscience will not let me vote for a bill that 
would plunge children into poverty. I cannot vote to leave our children 
unprotected. I was 1 of only 11 Democrats to vote against the original 
Senate welfare bill that would have put 1.2 million children into 
poverty.
  I voted against the conference report on this bill that would have 
doomed 1.5 million children to the same fate. And I will vote against 
this bill for the same reason. We must not abandon our children.
  Mr. President, I hold a different vision of what the safety net in 
this country should be. I am afraid that this bill will leave children 
hungry and homeless.
  I am afraid that the streets of our Nation's cities might some day 
look like the streets of the cities of Brazil. If you walk around 
Brazilian cities, you will see hungry children begging for money, 
begging for food, and even engaging in prostitution. I am not talking 
about 18 year olds, I am talking about 9 year olds.
  Tragically, this is what happens to societies that abandon their 
children.
  When we don't protect our children, they will resort to anything to 
survive.
  I don't want to see this happen in our country.
  I want to see this country invest in its children. I think we should 
invest more in child care, health and nutrition so that our children 
can become independent, productive citizens. I want to give them the 
opportunity to live the American dream like I had to good fortune to 
do.
  If we don't, we will create a permanent underclass in this country. 
We will have millions of children with no protection. We will doom them 
to poverty and failure.
  Mr. President, as a member of the Budget Committee, I also want to 
comment on the priorities that are reflected in this reconciliation 
bill. Despite the fact that this bill is only limited to safety net 
programs, it is still considered a reconciliation bill. This bill 
receives the same protections as a budget balancing bill but there is 
no balanced budget in it.
  This reconciliation bill seeks to cut the deficit only by attacking 
safety net

[[Page S8523]]

programs for poor children. There are no cuts in corporate loopholes or 
tax breaks. Despite the fact that tax expenditures cost the Federal 
Treasury over $400 billion per year, there are no such savings in this 
bill.
  There are no grazing fee increases or mining royalty increases. There 
are no savings in the military budget or in NASA's budget.
  The only cuts in this bill come from women and children. This 
reconciliation bill gives new meaning to putting women and children 
first.
  Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill. I urge 
all Senators to stand for the 1.5 million children and reject this 
bill.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I believe our welfare system 
desperately needs reform, and most Americans agree. It is obvious that 
there is a strong consensus that parents seeking public assistance must 
be required to work or prepare for work. I wish it were more obvious 
that innocent children should be protected, and I have worked hard to 
make this case over the years as welfare reform has been debated.
  As Governor of West Virginia in 1982, I started one of the first 
workfare programs of the country because I believe in work, and I am 
proud that West Virginia continues to use this community work program 
today. I have met parents who are proud to do community service and who 
have used their experience to gain skills that ultimately got them a 
paying job. This is what we should do. Moving from welfare dependency 
to work is hard, but it is the best path for families and their future.
  While the debate about welfare reform is full of slogans and 
simplistic claims, it is far from easy to achieve the fundamental goals 
of promoting work and protecting children. The details of welfare 
reform do count, and that's why the Congress has consumed so much time 
and energy on this topic.
  I regret that the Senate found itself acting on welfare reform under 
the rules of budget reconciliation legislation, which has strictly 
limited our debate to just 20 hours and has drastically constrained our 
ability to consider amendments to modify the proposal. Using 
reconciliation procedures, the majority has taken advantage of a 
special way to prevent its notion of welfare reform from being subject 
to true debate and alterations.
  Last year, when the Senate worked on a bipartisan welfare reform 
bill, we spent 8 days debating welfare reform and held 43 rollcall 
votes. In an important signal of bipartisanship, an additional 62 
amendments were accepted. While Democrats did not prevail with all of 
our amendments, we did have the chance to present our ideas and 
arguments for a genuine test of the Senate's will. It is unfortunate 
that the Republican leadership was not willing to take up welfare 
reform this year in the same fair, open process.
  But even under the rules and constraints of reconciliation, some 
bipartisan progress has been made on the Senate floor. We have restored 
the Federal health and safety standards for child care by a rollcall 
vote of 96 to 0. We agreed to another amendment to invest more money to 
enhance the quality and availability of child care. Child care is the 
key to helping parents work, and parents need to have confidence in the 
care that their child is receiving.

  I was also proud to cosponsor the Chafee-Breaux amendment to ensure 
continued Medicaid coverage to poor women and their children. Welfare 
reform should not be about reducing health care to needy families, and 
thanks to the bipartisan vote of 97 to 2, we know that health care 
coverage will be available for families with parents who are making the 
struggle to go from welfare to work--now and into the future.
  We eliminated the optional food stamps block grant which had the 
potential to unravel this country's commitment to ensuring decent 
nutrition for all poor children, needy families, and dependent senior 
citizens, no matter what State they reside in. An optional block grant 
of food stamps could have weakened the country's nutrition programs. 
One of my greatest fears is that States that choose the block grant 
would be forced to reduce benefits in times of recession or other times 
of need, like national disasters. With our agricultural resources, 
America should not go backward and become a nation where some of its 
people and children go hungry.
  And, I cosponsored the Breaux voucher amendment which assured basic 
support for innocent children for at least 5 years, and then gave 
States the option to provide non-cash assistance to children after a 
family reached the 5 year time limit. This amendment got 51 votes, but 
the rules of reconciliation demanded 60--so it fell.
  An alternative amendment was offered by Senator Ford, but it also 
failed by a a single vote. Because both of the voucher amendments 
failed, States are prohibited from using block grant funding to provide 
vouchers for children, and this is disturbing. Previous welfare bills 
from last year offered greater flexibility to States on vouchers.
  But some of the amendments that passed are important bipartisan 
efforts to improve the bill. There is more we should do to protect 
innocent children, and I can only hope that our colleagues will 
understand this in conference or in the near future.
  But time has run out under the rules of reconciliation, and we now 
are faced with a final vote on this legislation.
  In my view, this welfare reform bill poses a huge experiment--and 
something that must be watched and evaluated carefully.
  Proponents express full confidence that this new, bold welfare reform 
bill will change the system and put parents to work, quickly allowing 
children to benefit as their parents move from dependency to self-
sufficiency.

  Opponents of the legislation charge that millions of children may be 
cast into poverty, and potentially end up on streets.
  Because people end up on welfare for such different reasons and in 
different circumstances, it is not clear what the results will be. This 
legislation charts a new course for welfare, but it is untested.
  I hope that proponents are right, and that this legislation has the 
right incentives. My hope is that the new pressure of a time limit will 
effectively and efficiently move parents into work, and families will 
benefit.
  To help ensure this, I fought hard throughout this Congress to secure 
the proper funding for child care, which is essential for single 
parents to go to work. Thanks to the effort of many dedicated Members, 
this legislation invests $13 billion in child care--more money than we 
are now spending, and this is a major accomplishment.
  The legislation we are now considering has a larger contingency fund 
than the previously passed Senate bill to offer help to States in times 
of economic downturns and recessions, which is especially needed for 
States like West Virginia that are vulnerable to economic ups and 
downs.
  Under the new block grant, States will have enormous flexibility--and 
strict requirements--to move families from welfare to work.
  Will the combination of more child care money and the incentive of 
time limits be the right mix? Will our economy continue to grow, and 
unemployment rates stay low so welfare recipients truly have a real 
chance to compete and get jobs?
  We will never know the answers, unless we try.
  Because the American people want and expect welfare reform, I will 
vote to try this new approach--and hope that Congress does its part to 
push for the desired results.
  But I also believe that this effort must be watched carefully and 
closely to ensure that the innocent children, who represent two-thirds 
of the people who depend on welfare, are not hurt.
  This is why I fought so hard with others last year to secure $15 
million for research and evaluation. Every Member who votes for this 
legislation has an obligation to work with their State to ensure that 
this new system works, and to monitor the national progress as well.

  Throughout this debate, I have tried to focus my attention on the 
needs of children. As usual in today's political environment, areas of 
bipartisan agreement do not attract attention, but they are still 
important.
  In key areas for children, progress has been made. The Senate bill 
retains current law on foster care and programs to protect abused and 
neglected

[[Page S8524]]

children. Such children are the most vulnerable group in our country, 
and I was active in a bipartisan group dedicated to retaining the 
foster care entitlement and prevention programs for abused and 
neglected children.
  The child support enforcement provisions in the legislation are 
another example of positive, bipartisan efforts. And because it was 
bipartisan, little attention has been given to these accomplishments. 
But these provisions include bold action to crack down on deadbeat 
parents who shirk their obiligation to pay child support. Currently, 
over $20 billion is uncollected in child support payments and 
arrearages. Strengthening child support enforcement will truly help 
children of all income levels, and this is meaningful action to 
underscore the importance of families, and support children.
  There has been a sincere effort to improve this bill, and the 
positive changes are the result of untold hours of hard work and 
dedication.
  The key point is that the current system does not have public support 
or confidence, and this is not healthy for the country. The cynicism 
and frustration we see among Americans toward Government stems partly 
from their anger about welfare. Even families dependent on our existing 
system admit that they are frustrated and that the system can trap 
families into a cycle of dependency. We need to make the leap with real 
changes, tougher rules, and more common sense. We have an opportunity 
to help families and build more support for the protections that should 
stay in place, if the job is done right. A great deal has been promised 
by the architects of this bill and others such as many Governors, and I 
hope we will see the hard work, skill, and compassion required to bring 
about the right kind of results.
  Today, I cast my vote for change.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today I am forced to vote against a 
welfare reform measure that I believe is bad for children and bad for 
the State of California, costing my State billions of dollars.
  This is a difficult vote for me because I stand in favor of welfare 
reform. I want to get people off welfare and put them to work. I voted 
in favor of the Senate welfare reform bill last year because I support 
this principle.
  I also continue to support giving States additional flexibility to 
run their welfare programs, cracking down on deadbeat parents and 
reducing teen pregnancy.


                          Costs to California

  In California today, we have approximately 4 million legal immigrants 
residing in our State--40 percent of the Nation's legal immigrants. 
Thus, the proposed cuts in benefits to legal immigrants will have a 
dramatic and disproportionate impact on California, which Senator 
Feinstein and I have quantified as best we can.
  This bill saves nearly $60 billion over 6 years. Where do these 
savings come from? More than one-third of the savings will come from 
restricting benefits to legal immigrants. Of this amount, California 
will have to shoulder 40 percent of the losses. This is simply unfair 
to California.
  It has been estimated that California's loss of Federal funds under 
this bill could be up to $9 billion over 6 years due to the 
restrictions on benefits to legal immigrants.
  This will mean a massive cost shift to California's 58 counties. For 
example, over half of the immigrants on Supplemental Security Income 
[SSI] and Aid to Families with Dependent Children [AFDC] live in 
California. According to the California State Senate Office of 
Research, over 230,000 aged, blind and disabled legal immigrants could 
lose their SSI benefits almost immediately. The Congressional Budget 
Office estimates that 1 million poor legal immigrants would be denied 
Food Stamps under the bill, with many of them living in California.
  If legal immigrants are made ineligible for Federal and State 
programs, California's counties will be responsible for providing 
social services and medical care to them. Under California law, 
counties are legally and fiscally responsible to provide a safety net 
to indigent persons.
  The safety net is already overburdened in many counties. Some of the 
counties most heavily impacted by legal immigrants have already faced 
issues of bankruptcy. This welfare bill will only further threaten the 
financial viability of these counties.

  The largest county in the Nation, Los Angeles County, will be 
severely impacted by these provisions. Los Angeles County estimates 
that under this bill, 93,000 legal immigrants would lose their SSI 
benefits in their county alone. If these legal immigrants applied for 
county general assistance, it would cost Los Angeles County $236 
million.
  California counties further fear damage to their health system if the 
State exercises its option to deny all Medicaid coverage, including 
emergency care, to most legal immigrants.
  That is why I cosponsored an amendment with my distinguished 
colleague from California, Senator Feinstein, to mitigate some of the 
impact of the legal immigrant provisions on California. The Feinstein-
Boxer amendment would have applied legal immigrant provisions of the 
bill prospectively. This would allow us to make changes for immigrants 
who have yet to enter the country, but keep the rules of the game 
unchanged for those legal immigrants already present.
  I think it is important to note who some of these legal immigrants 
are. Many of them are children. Many of them are disabled and unable to 
work. Many of them are refugees, with no sponsor to fall back on if 
they are cut off from the assistance they desperately need. According 
to the California State Senate Office of Research, approximately 60 
percent of legal immigrants receiving AFDC in California are refugees.
  The Feinstein-Boxer amendment would have decreased the outflow of 
Federal dollars from California, while maintaining what I believe is a 
fair approach for legal immigrants already in our country. 
Unfortunately, our amendment failed.


                         Vouchers for Children

  A second reason why I cannot support this bill is the prohibition on 
providing vouchers for noncash items to children if their family's time 
limit for assistance has expired. Vouchers could be used to pay for 
items such as school supplies, diapers, food, clothing and other 
necessary items for children. An amendment to require States to give 
vouchers to children whose families exceed time limits shorter than 5 
years did not pass in the Senate. An amendment to give States the 
option to do this failed as well with only two Republicans voting in 
favor.
  I believe the bill's language goes too far to penalize children for 
their parents' inability to find work. What kind of country are we when 
we deny such necessities to innocent children?


                              Food Stamps

  In addition, the bill would make major cuts in funding to the 
existing Food Stamp Program. Reductions in the bill for food stamps 
amount to approximately $27.5 billion over 6 years--nearly half of the 
bill's savings. By the year 2002, food stamp spending would be reduced 
by nearly 20 percent. The poorest households would be affected since 
nearly half of the cuts in food stamps would come from households with 
incomes below half of the poverty line.


                               Conclusion

  The drafters of this latest welfare reform bill wisely improved 
certain provisions of the bill to increase child care funding, retain 
the Federal guarantee to school lunch programs--although funding for 
school lunch has been unwisely cut, and maintain child protective 
services for abused and neglected children.
  In addition, key amendments to maintain Medicaid coverage for current 
welfare recipients, strike the optional food stamp block grant, and 
ensure Federal health and safety standards for child care successfully 
passed the Senate.
  I wholeheartedly support all of these improvements to the underlying 
legislation.
  However, for the reasons I have stated above, I cannot support this 
welfare reform bill that shifts major costs to the State of California 
and shreds the safety net for poor children. I hope that in conference 
my concerns will be addressed. One State should not be unfairly 
penalized as California is, and no child should suffer as a result of 
our work.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I will vote for the welfare reform bill 
before

[[Page S8525]]

us today because I believe the welfare system in this country is broken 
and needs to be fixed.
  The welfare system serves no one well--not recipients and not 
taxpayers. We need to preserve a safety net for those who truly need 
help, but that safety net should be one that encourages work, 
facilitates self-reliance, and doesn't punish innocent kids.
  The legislation before us is not perfect, and I have concerns about 
many aspects of the bill.
  Despite my reservations, this bill permits us to move the welfare 
reform process forward. This bill requires recipients to work after 
receiving welfare for 2 years, and set a 5-year limit on total 
assistance. It permits recipients to use some of their time on 
assistance to get the education and training they need to find and keep 
a job. It provides child care for welfare recipients who want to work. 
It places a priority on preventing teen pregnancies. And it requires 
absent fathers to help pay for the costs of raising their children.
  And we have made some important improvements since this bill was 
introduced. We increased the requirement that States continue to make 
their own contributions to maintaining a strong safety net. We 
strengthened provisions to guarantee that the Food Stamp Program will 
provide assistance when people need it most. And we restored money for 
the summer food program for kids.
  I will support this legislation despite my reservations, and advance 
the bill to conference with the hope that it will be further improved 
in conference. If the final bill does not maintain a strong safety net 
for children, I will not support it.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I was ready to vote for a welfare reform 
bill today. I believe we need welfare reform. I have fought for a tough 
welfare reform bill, and I have voted for welfare reform.
  It is deeply disappointing to me that I must vote against final 
passage of this bill.
  I voted for the bill which the Senate passed last year. I hoped at 
that time that the conference on that bill would make even further 
improvements in the bill, and that we would be able to send a good bill 
to the President for his signature.
  I was disappointed when the conferees last year took an acceptable 
bill and turned it into an unacceptable and punitive one. Welfare 
reform was within our grasp last year. But we let it slip away by 
placing political considerations ahead of sound policy decisions. I 
hope we will not make the same mistake this year.
  I have not only voted for welfare reform, but I am one of the 
coauthors of the work first bill, which would have ended welfare as we 
know it. Along with my coauthors, the Democratic leader, Senator 
Daschle and Senator Breaux, I am proud that we crafted a plan that is 
tough on work but not tough on children.
  Our plan called for a time-limited and conditional entitlement. It 
would have required all able-bodied adults to go to work. Our plan 
provided people with the tools to move from welfare to work; tools like 
job training, job search assistance, and most importantly, child care.
  We recognized that the No. 1 barrier to work is the lack of 
affordable child care. So our bill provided sufficient funds to ensure 
that child care would be available to families as parents moved into 
the work force.
  The work first bill also protected children. We made sure that our 
reform was targeted at adults not at children. We included provisions 
to ensure that no child would go hungry or go without needed health 
care because a parent had failed to find and keep a job.
  So let me be clear. I support welfare reform. Throughout this 
Congress, I have fought for welfare reform. I have coauthored not one, 
but two, major welfare initiatives. And I had hoped to be able to vote 
for a welfare reform bill today.
  Unfortunately, I cannot vote for this bill. This bill does not 
provide adequate protection for children. What will happen to children 
once their parents reach the time limit for benefits? Without vouchers 
to ensure that the basic subsistence needs of children are met, we know 
that children will suffer if their parents have not found jobs. We 
simply cannot punish children for the shortcomings of their parents.
  Although we adopted a good amendment today to prevent the Food Stamp 
Program from becoming a block grant, this bill still contains deep cuts 
in food stamps. Families who depend on the Food Stamp Program to meet 
their basic nutritional needs will suffer from the cuts in this bill. 
Even families with full-time workers sometimes need food stamps because 
their full-time jobs don't provide enough money to feed their families. 
This bill will hurt them too.
  This bill does not provide enough money for child care. In fact, it 
is likely that States will be unable to meet the work requirements of 
the bill because of the inadequate level of child care funding. Parents 
who are ready to work and who want to work will not be able to work if 
there is not child care which is both affordable and available.
  These holes in the safety net for children are of deep concern to me. 
If protecting children is a priority for this Congress, how can we take 
a chance on a bill which is sure to hurt innocent children. We cannot.
  Mr. President, I have not given up on welfare reform. While I cannot 
vote ``yes'' for this bill today, I hope that the conference on the 
bill will continue to build on the progress we have made on this issue. 
Unlike last year's conference, which took an adequate bill and made it 
unacceptable, I hope that this year's conference will make a good, 
strong bill out of this unacceptable bill.
  I urge the conferees on the bill to continue to work with the White 
House and with the best minds from both parties to reach agreement on a 
plan we can all support, and that the President will sign. We can do 
it. We can have a plan that saves lives, saves tax dollars, creates 
opportunities for work, and protects children.
  I hope the conferees will negotiate in good faith to achieve a plan 
that is tough on work and protects kids. I would be proud to vote for 
that plan.


                            protect children

  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, there is nothing more important to this 
debate today than constantly reminding ourselves that our focus ought 
to be this Nation's children and their well-being. That was the focus 
when, under Franklin Roosevelt's leadership over 60 years ago, title 
IV-A of the Social Security Act was originally enacted. As we proceed 
in this debate about children--and it is a debate about children 
because over two-thirds of current welfare recipients indeed are 
children--their interests should be uppermost in our minds.
  There is no disagreement that I can find in this Chamber, and very, 
very little across the Nation, that our welfare system needs reform. 
Despite what on the part of many who have been involved in legislating, 
implementing, and administering the existing welfare program is good 
faith and intentions, that welfare system has been buffeted by the 
forces of society and culture; for far too many it offers little real 
help or incentives for movement toward self-sufficiency. Instead, for 
far too many, it has become at best an indifferent means of providing a 
bare subsistence income.
  In many ways, our world and our Nation are very different places than 
when the original Federal welfare program was established in the 
thirties. The objective, Mr. President, ought to be the same. But the 
means must be adjusted. The objective is to prevent human misery, to 
give Americans, especially children, a helping hand when they otherwise 
face destitution and poverty. A handout may once have functioned with 
considerable effectiveness to help those in poverty toward that 
objective. Now we understand the importance of child care, training, 
work search assistance, health care, and other ingredients if families 
are to move toward self-sufficiency.
  We know that 15.3 million children in this Nation live in poverty. 
This means that 21.8 percent of our children--over one in five 
children--are impoverished. In Massachusetts, there are more than 
176,000 in this category. Despite the stereotypes, Mr. President, the 
majority of America's poor children are white--9.3 million--and live in 
rural or suburban areas--8.4 million--rather than in central cities 
where 6.9 million of them reside.
  The other point on which we can agree, because it is a fact rather 
than an opinion, is that the child poverty

[[Page S8526]]

rate in this Nation is currently dramatically higher than the rate in 
other major industrialized nations. According to an excellent, 
comprehensive recent report by an international research group called 
the Luxembourg Income Study, the child poverty rate in the United 
Kingdom is less than half our rate--9.9 percent, the rate in France is 
less than one-third our rate--6.5 percent, and the rate in Denmark--3.3 
percent--is about one-sixth our rate.
  We know that poverty is bad for children. This for many would qualify 
as a truism, but perhaps others require to be shown. Nobel Prize-
winning economist Robert Solow and the Children's Defense Fund recently 
conducted the first-ever study of the long-term impact of child 
poverty. They found that their lowest estimate was that the future cost 
to society of a single year of poverty for the 15 million poor children 
in the United States is $36 billion in lost output per worker. When 
they included lost work hours, lower skills, and other labor market 
disadvantages related to poverty, they found that the future cost to 
society was $177 billion.
  Mr. President, the way in which the Republicans who control both the 
Senate and the House of Representatives repeatedly have attempted to 
reform welfare is not what I believe this Nation wants or believes is 
the proper way, the best way, or the moral way to address poverty and 
millions of families that are not self-sufficient in our late 20th 
century society. A number of the components of Republican co-called 
welfare reform proposals, even charitably, can best be described as 
punitive, or budget driven. I simply recoiled as I reviewed proposals, 
for example, to eliminate the access of children to health care. I 
shook my head in disbelief as I read provisions that would deny food 
stamps--and very probably a minimally nutritious diet--to children 
whose parents in some cases have made unacceptable choices, no matter 
how misguided and unacceptable they are.
  But we are faced here, in the institution that has been elected by 
the people of the United States to make the Nation's major policy 
decisions and to design its major government interactions with those 
people, with the necessity to work together to produce change. Either 
we struggle successfully to reach some kind of middle ground which a 
majority can accept, or we do nothing at all.
  Surely, in welfare as in all other areas, there are those who so fear 
change--for any of a host of reasons--that they prefer the status quo. 
I do not believe the status quo best serves this Nation and its people. 
I do not believe the status quo best serves this Nation's future. And I 
do not believe the status quo best serves those who are the 
unfortunate, the impoverished, the destitute, the left out in our 
Nation.
  Democrats have labored mightily to turn a punitive bill into one that 
will work, one that would be desirable for the country. I was 
personally involved in that effort. Last week, I offered an amendment 
that the Senate approved by voice vote which makes what I believe to be 
an important change. In keeping with my belief that we must keep our 
eye on the ball as we legislate--and that objective in this case is to 
reduce poverty and increase the self-sufficiency of America's poor 
families--my amendment provides that if a State's child poverty rate 
increase by 5 percent, then the State must file a corrective action 
plan with the Secretary of Health and Human Services. If States can--
as they and the Republican authors of this bill fervently maintain they 
can--achieve economies of scale never realized when the program was 
overseen by the Federal Government, and successfully refocus the 
program on moving the family heads in welfare families and other 
impoverished families toward self-sufficiency, then child poverty 
should decrease. More children, and more families, will be better off 
if this new approach works. But if that is not the outcome--if child 
poverty increases, then my amendment will require States to confront 
that reality and to adjust in an attempt to meet the program's 
objectives. I and many others will be watching extremely closely to see 
how the program works, and to see how this adjustment mechanism I 
authored functions.

  And if neither the program nor the adjustment mechanism functions 
acceptably, I will be the first to fight to devise a new approach. 
Ultimately, if we are sending Federal money to the States to combat 
poverty, we must demand that poverty recede.
  When I came to the Senate floor this morning, I was gravely concerned 
that the democratic process, as it often will, had produced an 
unacceptable product. Despite the addition of my amendment and some 
amendments by others, this bill still tore huge holes in the safety 
net.
  Today, repair stitches were made in two of the most distressing of 
these holes. The Senate voted to maintain the current eligibility 
standards for Medicaid, ensuring that those who now qualify for medical 
assistance, including those who do so by virtue of their eligibility 
for the welfare program the legislation would abolish, will continue to 
qualify for medical assistance. The repair made by the Chafee-Breaux 
amendment was of great importance.
  The Senate also voted to preserve the Food Stamp Program as a Federal 
assistance program that will be available to all Americans on the basis 
of the same income and assets limits that now apply. That means the 
Food Stamp Program will continue to operate as a safety net on a 
national basis, ensuring that, at the very least, Americans can eat--
and that the assistance will fluctuate as it must based on economic 
conditions across the Nation. The Department of Agriculture had 
estimated that, if the block grant originally proposed in this 
legislation had been in place during the last national recession, 8.3 
million fewer children would have been served by the program. Under 
this bill, not only would they not have had food stamps, many of them 
would have had no welfare either. Where would they have been, Mr. 
President? Fortunately, we stitched up this hole today.
  When I cast my vote for final passage, I will be very mindful of 
these critical changes today. I also will be mindful of the fact that 
this bill was in several ways better than the welfare reform 
legislation that the Senate passed last fall. This bill includes nearly 
$4 billion more for day care for the children of parents required to 
find and hold jobs. It includes a $2 billion contingency fund to help 
States as they try to help what inevitably will be a growing number of 
impoverished people when recessions hit, as they unquestionably will.

  I also will be acutely mindful, Mr. President, of the limits to which 
I am willing to go with this experiment called for by President Clinton 
during the 1992 Presidential campaign and endorsed by the Republican 
Party in the 1994 congressional elections. Ideally, this bill will be 
improved and strengthened in conference committee. That is certainly 
possible if the President, who has been very quiet when asked how he 
believes this bill must be augmented, will clearly enunciate what he 
believes to be essential ingredients if he is to sign welfare reform 
legislation into law. I maintain hope that we can provide vouchers that 
will continue to provide basic human necessities for children whose 
parents hit the lifetime assistance limit imposed by this bill. I also 
hope that the cutoff of legal immigrants will be rethought and at the 
very least made less severe. The President can and I hope will lead the 
way in both these matters and others.
  At the very least, Mr. President, there must not be reversion or 
erosion in this legislation. We must not see retrenchment with regard 
to those few hard-won improvements that make this bill a marginally 
acceptable risk. It is time for an experiment that we hope will improve 
the lives and opportunities of millions of families and their children. 
It is not time to take frightful risks with those lives, based on a 
groundless faith that harsh discipline will remedy all social ills. I 
must serve notice that if the legislation that returns for final Senate 
approval increases those risks, I will oppose it.
  If this bill becomes law, Mr. President, no one should prepare to 
relax. We have much, much more to do and this is only the opening 
chapter. As this new picture unfolds, I will be watching intently--and 
I will not be alone--to be certain that our efforts and resources have 
a positive effect on children and families, and that they have real 
opportunities to realize their potential as human beings. That is the

[[Page S8527]]

objective we seek, and it is on reaching that objective that we must 
insist.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I had truly hoped that I could support 
legislation that could deliver meaningful and historic reform of our 
Nation's welfare system, but this bill forces California to bear far 
more than our fair share of the burden.
  Last year I voted for the Senate bill and against the conference bill 
because California's concerns were not met. This year, I would hope 
that some of these items could be fixed in conference committee, so 
that we are able to vote for a bill at the end of this process.
  Nearly one-third of the net reductions contained in this bill fall on 
just one State: California. California is being asked to shoulder $17 
billion in cuts--one-third of the entire savings. The question is, what 
is the State able and willing to provide to fill in the gap? An 
examination of Governor Wilson's budget indicates that dollars budgeted 
for food stamps, AFDC, and benefits for legal immigrants drop from an 
estimated $1.9 billion in the current fiscal year to just over $1.5 
billion in 1997--therefore, counties cannot expect a large bailout from 
the State.
  Consequently, for those who deserve special help, whether they be 
aged, blind, developmentally disabled or mentally ill, an increased 
burden will most certainly fall on the counties.


                       no safety net for children

  S. 1795 ends the Federal guarantee of cash assistance for poor 
children and families, and provides no safety net for children whose 
parents reached the 5-year time limit on benefits. There are 
approximately 2.7 million AFDC recipients in California, of which 68 
percent are children. Under the time limit, 3.3 million children 
nationwide and 514,000 children in California would lose all assistance 
after 5 years.
  The Children's Defense Fund estimates that under this bill, 1.2 
million more children would fall into poverty. California's child 
poverty rate was 27 percent for 1992-94, substantially above the 
national average of 21 percent. Under this bill, even more children in 
California would be living in poverty.


                    food stamps drastically reduced

  California will lose $4.2 billion in cuts to the Food Stamp Program, 
reducing benefits for 1.2 million households. Nearly 2 million children 
in California receive food stamp benefits. Children of legal immigrants 
would be eliminated from food stamp benefits immediately.


                     child care funding inadequate

  Currently in California, paid child care is not available to 80 
percent of eligible AFDC children. The Senate welfare reform bill 
awards child care block grants to States based on their current 
utilization of Federal child care funds. But California's current 
utilization rate is low, so California would be institutionally 
disadvantaged under this bill.


                    no health coverage for children

  The Senate bill ends the Federal guarantee of health insurance or 
Medicaid for women on AFDC and their children. In California, 290,000 
children and 750,000 parents would lose coverage, according to the 
Children's Defense Fund. California has the third highest uninsured 
rate in the Nation at 22 percent of the population.


                 denial of benefits to legal immigrants

  The Senate welfare reform bill would deny SSI and flood stamps to 
most legal immigrants, including those already residing in California. 
In 1994, 15.4 percent, or 390,000, of AFDC recipients in California 
were noncitizens.
  Fifty-two percent of all legal immigrants in the United States who 
are on SSI and AFDC reside in California. Los Angeles County estimates 
that 234,000 aged, blind, and disabled legal immigrants would lose SSI 
benefits, 150,000 people would lose AFDC, and 93,000 SSI recipients 
would lose benefits under this bill. The county estimates that the loss 
of SSI funds could result in a cost shift to the county of more than 
$236 million annually. Loss of Medicaid coverage for legal immigrants 
would shift an additional $100 million per year.
  With this in mind, I cannot support this bill, because I believe it 
unfairly disadvantages California. It would be my hope that as the 
conference process continues, this can be taken into consideration and 
the bill that emerges can be fair across the board and not single out 
any one State for one-third of the burden of the cuts.
  It is especially important that individual counties in California 
take a close look at the impact this legislation will have on their 
jurisdiction. For example, Los Angeles County continues to be the most 
devastated county in the Nation under this bill with almost $500 
million in added costs each year. California counties must help us 
press our case with the House-Senate conferees on the impact of this 
bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading and was read 
the third time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the clerk will 
report H.R. 3734.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 3734) to provide for reconciliation pursuant 
     to section 201(a)(1) of the concurrent resolution on the 
     budget for fiscal year 1997.

  The Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, all after the 
enacting clause of H.R. 3734 is stricken and the text of S. 1956, as 
amended, is inserted in lieu thereof.
  The question is on the third reading of the bill.
  The bill (H.R. 3734), as amended, was ordered to a third reading and 
was read the third time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from New 
York is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I have the honor to yield 2 minutes to 
my distinguished friend from New Jersey, Senator Bradley.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, I do not think we have really even 
started to talk about the consequences of this act on the lives of 
people who actually live in American cities. If this bill passes and we 
look ahead 5 years into the future, city streets will not be safer, 
urban families will not be more stable, new jobs will not be created 
and schools will not be better. None of these things will happen. 
Instead, this bill will simply punish those in cities least able to 
cope.
  With the repeal of title IV of the Social Security Act, the Federal 
Government would have broken its promise to children who are poor. It 
will have washed its hands of any responsibility for them. It will have 
passed the buck.
  What we need to do to change the broken welfare system is not block 
grants. What we need is not transferring pots of money from one group 
of politicians to another group of politicians without regard to need, 
rules or accountability.
  In fact, with the block grant, we will even be paying for people who 
have been shifted off the State welfare rolls onto the Federal SSI 
rolls. In 22 States that have cut welfare rolls, 247,000 adults went 
off AFDC and 206,000 went on to SSI.
  Because Governors are good at gaming Federal funding systems, we will 
be paying for these 206,000 people through the block grant at the same 
time we are paying for them through SSI. What we need is a steady 
Federal commitment and State experimentation so that we can change 
welfare in a way that will encourage marriage, get people off welfare 
rolls and into jobs for the long term. Sadly, this bill will produce 
the opposite result.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I have the honor to yield 2 minutes to 
my distinguished friend from Illinois.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois is recognized.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Mr. President, I thank very much the Senator from 
New York.
  Mr. President, I believe that the Senate will rue the day that we 
pass this legislation. This day, this bill opens up the floor under 
poor children which in our lifetimes no child has ever had to fall no 
matter how poor, how irresponsible its parents might be. This day, in 
the name of reform, this Senate will do actual violence to poor 
children, putting millions of them into poverty who were not in poverty 
before.

  No one in the debate on this legislation has fully or adequately 
answered the question: What happens to the children? They are, after 
all, the greatest number of people affected by this legislation.

[[Page S8528]]

  Mr. President, 67 percent of the people who are receiving welfare 
today are children, and 60 percent of those children are under the age 
of 6 years old. This bill makes a policy assault on nonworking parents, 
but it uses the children as the missiles and as the weapons of that 
assault.
  I believe that this bill does not--does not--move in the direction of 
reform. Reform would mean that we give people the ability to work, to 
take care of their own children. It would have a commitment to job 
creation, to adequate child care, to job training, to job placement. 
But this legislation, Mr. President, does none of those things.
  This legislation does not give able-bodied people a chance to work 
and support their own children. It simply is election-year politics and 
rhetoric raised to the level of policy. I believe this bill cannot be 
fixed--not in conference committee, not on anybody's desk--and I 
believe that this bill is a shame on this U.S. Senate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York has 30 seconds 
remaining.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for an 
additional 20 seconds.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, Senators such as I, such as Senator Paul 
Wellstone, cannot conceive that the party of Social Security and of 
civil rights could support this legislation which commences to repeal, 
to undermine both. Our colleagues in the House did not, nor should we.
  The Washington Post concluded this morning's editorial, I quote:

       This vote will likely end up in the history books, and the 
     right vote on this bill is no.

  I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
Delaware is now recognized for up to 5 minutes.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, S. 1956 is a good package, and just as this 
Congress has begun to reverse 30 years of liberal-spending policies, 
this welfare reform proposal reverses 30 years of social policy.
  Mr. President, 30 years of welfare policy has demonstrated that 
Government cannot promote policies that divide families and expect 
healthy children; Government cannot centralize power and expect strong 
communities; Government cannot challenge and undermine religion and 
then expect an abundance of faith, hope, and charity.
  This reform initiative is largely based on the proposals made by our 
Nation's Governors, and it mirrors the Personal Responsibility and Work 
Opportunity Act of 1995. Remember, Mr. President, that act was reported 
out of the Finance Committee and passed the Senate by a vote of 87 to 
12 before being vetoed by Bill Clinton.
  This legislation is much the same. While it doesn't have everything 
it should--while it does not, for example, contain any provision to 
reform Medicaid--it represents a good start. There have been 
compromises, Mr. President. Welfare reform is so important to the 
American people that they have let us know that there should be 
compromise, if that's what it takes.
  This legislation, I believe, represents a good compromise. It 
contains real work requirements. It contains real time limits. It 
cancels welfare benefits for felons and noncitizens. It returns the 
power to the States and communities, and it encourages personal 
responsibility toward combating illegitimacy.
  Mr. President, this welfare reform proposal is the first step in a 
necessary effort to bring compassion and sensibility to a process that 
has gotten out of hand. It benefits children by breaking the back of 
Government dependency; it requires sincere effort on the part of their 
parents--effort that will restore respect, pride, and economic security 
within the home--effort that will lay a new foundation for future 
generations.
  Our current failed system has not done this. Prof. Walter Williams 
shows how the money spent on poverty programs since the 1960's could 
have bought the entire assets of the Fortune 500 companies and 
virtually all U.S. farm land. Consider that again--all the assets of 
the Fortune 500 companies and virtually all U.S. farm land. With all 
this, where are we? Welfare rolls are at record highs, problems are 
mounting and the attendant consequences are worse than ever.
  Our reform legislation ends this destructive cycle. It replaces the 
hopelessness of the current system that engenders dependency with the 
hope that comes from self-reliance. Thirty years is long enough. The 
safety net has become a snare. Freedom for the families trapped in 
dependency comes only through responsibility--through personal 
accountability--and that is the step we take today with this 
legislation.
  I appreciate all who have worked on both sides of aisle to bring us 
to this point. We have established a reform proposal that the President 
should be able to sign. I ask him to make good on his promise. Mr. 
president, please take this first, important step toward ending welfare 
as we know it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
Nebraska is now recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, the welfare reform bill before us will win 
no beauty contests. It is not the fairest of them all--and I intend the 
double meaning.
  With reservations, I voted in committee to send the measure to the 
floor. I wanted changes for fairer treatment of children and other 
stated concerns. We have made some improvements, but more are needed.
  In the opinion of this Senator, we have already voted on the best 
welfare reform bill. That distinction belongs to the Democratic work 
first plan that regrettably, in my view, did not pass the Senate.

  I believe, Mr. President, that the bill before us is maybe, just 
maybe, the framework for a welfare plan that can win the support of a 
majority in both Houses, and just as important, the approval of the 
President. It is near the best plan we can pass and bring to bear on a 
welfare system that cries out for change.
  I will not strike my tent now because I did not get everything I 
wanted in this bill. I believe that it goes a long way to reforming 
much that is wrong with the welfare system. We cannot lose this 
opportunity to break welfare's bitter cycle of dependency.
  It is my sincerest hope that the majority will work with those of us 
appointed as minority conferees and with the President during 
conference to improve this measure, and to push that process forward. I 
hope, as well, that the Senate will insist on its more moderate 
positions in the conference with the House.
  Mr. President, in my 18 years in the Senate, this Senator has always 
sought the middle ground. I do so again today. I will vote for this 
bill today and reserve my final determination until the conference 
report returns to the Senate.
  In closing, let me take a moment to thank the Democratic staff, and 
in particular, Bill Dauster, Joan Huffer, Jodi Grant, and Mary 
Peterson. They have provided invaluable service to this Senator and our 
caucus.
  I yield the balance of my time to the Senator from California.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. President, how I wish I could vote for this bill. I voted for the 
last Senate bill and then voted against the conference committee report 
because I did not think the conference committee report was an 
improvement on the Senate bill.
  Today I, and I believe my colleague from California, will vote 
against this bill in hopes that when the bill comes out of conference 
it is a bill that does not so severely disadvantage one State in this 
Union, and that State is California.
  Mr. President, as I look at the savings of this bill, a net of about 
$55 billion, $17 billion of those savings come from the largest State 
in the Union and the State I believe most impacted by poor people. We 
know $9 billion comes from the cutoff of legal immigrants, including 
refugees and asylees who have no sponsor--the aged, the halt and the 
blind--$3.5 billion of AFDC, and $4.2 billion of food stamps, totaling 
about a $17 billion impact on the State of California.
  Now, I ask the State legislature, the State of California, look at 
the budget. Are they prepared to pick up some of the difference? I ask 
the counties to let Senator Boxer and I know how this bill impacts your 
county, because I

[[Page S8529]]

suspect it is going to be a major transfer, particularly on counties 
like Los Angeles. I suspect Los Angeles County will be the county most 
impacted by the passage of this bill in the United States of America.
  A fair bill, OK, I vote for; but a bill that says, OK, we will take 
from the biggest State in the Union as much as we possibly can--and 
that is what this bill has done to date. I do not believe it is a fair-
share bill. I do not believe we see communities across the Nation doing 
their share. Perhaps because we have the two largest metropolitan areas 
in the Nation is one of the reasons why this bill will fall very hard 
on poor people and cities, and particularly on cities that have large 
numbers of dispossessed.
  Mrs. BOXER. Will the Senator yield?
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I am happy to yield to the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
  Mrs. BOXER. I ask unanimous consent for 30 additional seconds, if I 
might.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. In my 30 seconds, I want to underscore, first of all, 
what my senior Senator said, which is that we are very willing to make 
changes in welfare. We want to reform welfare. We both said that when 
we ran for the U.S. Senate. We have both supported our Democratic 
leader's bill, and we even voted for a Senate bill.
  The fact of the matter is that this, essentially, is paid for by one 
State. I will tell you, that is unfair. Yes, we are the largest State, 
and we have a lot of the population, but not to the extent that we are 
hit.
  Also, when this country cannot pay for diapers for its children and 
food and school supplies for its kids, I think we ought to relook at 
who we are.
  Thank you.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from New 
Mexico is recognized for 5 minutes 30 seconds.
  Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes of my leader time to the 
Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. Santorum].
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania is recognized.
  Mr. SANTORUM. I thank the majority leader. Mr. President, I just want 
to say that this is welfare reform. This is the dramatic change in the 
system that the American public has been asking for for years and years 
and years. This is the real deal. This is the opportunity to change 
millions of people's lives. This is the opportunity that people who are 
poor in this country have been wanting and asking for for a long, long 
time--the opportunity to get education and training that is meaningful, 
the opportunity to go to work, and if you cannot find a job in the 
private sector, if you cannot get a job on your own, the State will 
assist you getting that job. If you cannot find a private-sector job, 
the State will assist you in getting a public-sector job. There are no 
more barriers because of labor unions to get that job in the public or 
private sector. This is the real deal when it comes to work, when it 
comes to education, training, and helping families get out of poverty. 
From now on, after this bill, we are no longer going to measure whether 
we are successful in poverty by how many people we have on the welfare 
rolls, but by how many we got off of the welfare rolls, because they 
have dynamic opportunities for education and training to make that 
happen. And, yes, they have requirements.
  We have had lots of welfare reform pass in the U.S. Senate for years 
and years. But there has never been the requirement to have to work. I 
know some people say that is mean and tough. I can tell you that it is 
the only way that you move people who are having struggling times in 
their lives off of those welfare rolls. It is tough love--but the 
operative word is love. It is there and it is to help people.
  I hear a lot of people say, ``Well, this is going to punish children, 
and we should not punish the children,'' as if the current system does 
not punish children, as if illegitimacy rates where over a third of all 
the children born in America are born to single moms does not punish 
children. That does not hurt kids not to have a father in the 
household? That does not hurt kids not to have the work values that are 
taught in the household where a mom gets up in the morning and a dad 
gets up in the morning and goes to work? That does not hurt kids? It 
does not hurt kids to have to go out and play in a playground and worry 
about stepping on a needle from a drug addict? Of course, it does. This 
system hurts kids. That is why we are here--because the system hurts 
kids.

  The issue before us is whether it is more important to have a Federal 
safety net system that is there to provide for every aspect--and the 
majority leader will talk about this--of the 50 or more programs that 
are there to take care of every possible need a child in America has. 
Is that what we want? Do we want the Federal Government guaranteeing 
every aspect of everybody's life? Or do we want solid families, safe 
neighborhoods, good schools, the values of work, and an opportunity to 
pursue the American dream? I will trade guarantees of Government 
protection of every aspect of someone's life for a solid home, a solid 
community, and loving parents.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, first, I thank the majority leader for 
his backing on this bill and for his constantly pushing us to get this 
job done. I want to thank Senator Dole, who left the Senate to run for 
President, for his work before he left here. Without that work in 
leading us on the budget resolution that created it, we would not be 
here.
  Now, Mr. President, I want to talk about history, because I heard a 
couple of speakers from the other side say that history would rue this 
day. I believe history will praise this day, because I believe a system 
that has failed in every single aspect will now be thrown away, and we 
will start over with a new system that has a chance of giving people an 
opportunity instead of a handout. They will have a chance to get 
trained and educated, go to work and feel responsible, instead of this 
law on the books for decades that is out of tune with our times, which 
makes people feel dependent, makes people feel neglected. It is time 
that it be changed.
  Now, frankly, kids are us, and this bill is about our kids, because 
if anybody thinks the children that are under this welfare system are 
getting a good deal today, then, frankly, I do not know what could be a 
rotten deal, because they are getting the worst of America. We are 
perpetuating among their adult relatives and parents a system of 
dependency, a system that lets them think less of their children 
because they think less of themselves. We can go right down the line.
  We intend to return responsibility to the States, with prescriptions 
that are set out by us that give them plenty of room to do a better job 
than we have been doing. That is what this approach is all about.
  This is a bill that gives those who have been campaigning for years, 
saying, ``Let us get rid of welfare as we know it''--and I will not 
even cite who used that the most. Well, we are finally doing that 
today. When we come out of conference, we are going to send our 
President a bill. Our President is going to have before him a bill that 
says: Here, Mr. President, you can get rid of welfare as you know it. 
Just sign this endeavor.
  Now, from my own standpoint, I have been part of trying to push 
reform and save money. Many times, the bullets that we vote on are not 
real bullets, but this is a real one. When you vote on this bill, you 
are going to change the law. When you voted on amendments, they were 
real amendments. I compliment the Senate for a tough job. There were 
many amendments. The bill that came out of it is a better bill than 
when it started. I believe some other Senators will cite the many 
aspects of this bill that protect our children. For myself, I believe 
there are 8 or 10 provisions. Food stamps remain an individual 
entitlement, current law Medicaid protection, child care subsidized, 
child development block grants--$5 billion more, for a total of $14 
billion. So people can go to work and have somebody care for their 
children. This and many more provisions make this a bill that we can be 
proud of for our children.

[[Page S8530]]

  Last but not least, let me conclude, if ever we had a chance to say 
to Americans, as America's economy grows, we want you to be part of it, 
profit from it, have a dream, and this is an opportunity for welfare 
recipients of the past to participate in a real future, and for us to 
never again have welfare people among us that we think we are helping 
when, in fact, we have been hurting them. Let them share in the dream, 
also. That is our hope, that is our wish, and that is what we believe 
history will say about this effort.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Democratic 
leader is recognized.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, as I understand it now, both leaders have 
their leader time to be used for purposes of closing the debate. I will 
yield 2 minutes of my time to the distinguished Senator from Louisiana.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana is recognized.
  Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I thank the leader for yielding. Is this 
bill perfect? Of course not. Nothing that we as humans do is ever 
perfect. But is it a bill that desires and needs and deserves our 
support at this time in order to send it to conference? The answer, I 
think, is clearly yes.
  President Clinton said that the goal of welfare reform should be to 
be tough on work, but good for kids. This bill is tough on work. It 
sets time limits for how long someone can be on welfare. It sets out 
work requirements. It tells teen parents, for the first time, that they 
have to live with an adult or with their parents. It is a tough bill on 
work, but it is also a bill that is good for kids.
  This bill has the same language on vouchers as a bill that passed 
this body 87 to 12.
  I would have liked the Ford amendment to pass. But the language is 
exactly what we passed already 87 to 12 when it comes to taking care of 
families after this time limit on welfare is determined.
  There are about 49 programs that will be available to families after 
the 5-year limit is reached; 49 separate programs that we in America 
say we are going to make available to families.
  We have corrected the Food Stamp Program with the Conrad amendment. 
It is still an entitlement program.
  We have preserved the Medicaid health protections for families and 
for children, and for pregnant mothers. It is still an entitlement 
program.
  We have added $5 billion to what passed this Senate in terms of child 
care. We have current law on child welfare protections for foster care 
because of our amendments.
  We have SSI cash payments for disabled children, social service 
programs for children under title XX, housing assistance, child 
nutrition assistance for children, the school lunch program, the school 
breakfast program, and the summer food program.
  This bill is not perfect. But it is a major step in the right 
direction. It deserves our support and our vote to send it to 
conference and see if it can somehow be improved. It is not a perfect 
bill. But I would suggest it is a major improvement over the current 
system.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes of my leader time to the 
distinguished Senator from Oklahoma.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, first I would like to compliment Senator 
Domenici and Senator Roth for their leadership on this bill; in 
addition, Senator Lott and Senator Dole because they have worked hard 
to bring this about. This truly is a historic piece of legislation 
because we really are reforming welfare. And we should. The present 
welfare system is broke. It is a failure. It has not worked.
  We have 334 federally defined welfare programs stacked on top of each 
other. They cost hundreds of billions of dollars. The cost of welfare 
in 1960 was $24 billion. The cost of welfare in 1995 was almost $400 
billion. We have spent trillions of dollars in the last three decades. 
What do we have? We have more welfare dependency, more people dependent 
on the Federal Government, and more people addicted to welfare. In my 
opinion, it has hurt the beneficiaries in many cases more than it has 
helped them, and it certainly has hurt the taxpayers in the process.
  We need to help taxpayers save some money. But, more importantly, we 
need to help the so-called beneficiaries to help them climb away from 
welfare into jobs; into more self-reliance; into more independence and 
away from more Government dependence.
  This bill has time limits. This bill has real work requirements. This 
bill is real welfare reform.
  President Clinton, as a candidate and also recently, has been saying 
that we need to end welfare as we know it. I have applauded that 
comment. But, unfortunately, his actions have not done that. He has 
vetoed real welfare reform twice. I hope he does not veto this bill.
  A ``yes'' vote, in my opinion, is a vote for real welfare reform. A 
``no'' vote is a vote for status quo; the continuation of a welfare 
cycle in a welfare system that unfortunately is a real failure.
  I thank my leader.
  Mr. DASCHLE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority leader.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, let me begin by congratulating the 
distinguished Senator from Nebraska for his admirable job in helping to 
manage this piece of legislation on the Senate floor. I also want to 
commend the distinguished Senator from Connecticut, Senator Dodd, the 
Senator from Maryland, Senator Mikulski, Senator Breaux, and so many 
others on our side who have worked so diligently now over the better 
part of 18 months in an effort to bring us to this point.

  I think it is fair to say that everyone of us knows that reform is 
necessary. We also know after the experience we have had for the last 
18 months that there is no easy solution.
  Democrats offered the ``Work First'' bill that did three things: It 
required work for benefits. It provided flexibility for States, and it 
required protection for children. I am disappointed that not one 
Republican voted for that piece of legislation.
  Every single Democrat supported welfare reform when it came to the 
Senate floor--not once, not twice, but on three different occasions.
  In spite of our failure to convince our Republican colleagues to join 
us in passing a bill that represented meaningful welfare reform, 
Democrats have worked with Republicans to improve the pending bill.
  There are, as a result of our amendments, more resources for child 
care. There is a greater requirement for States for maintenance of 
State effort. There is a requirement for access to Medicaid and food 
assistance, and protection for women from domestic violence.
  So now at this hour at the end of this debate the question is very 
simple: Is this bill now good enough to pass? In my view, 
unfortunately, the answer is no. Too many kids will still be punished. 
Too many promises about work will remain unfulfilled. Too many 
opportunities to truly reform welfare will have been lost.
  The Congressional Budget Office says that most States, even with the 
bill before us today at this moment, will fail to meet the work 
requirement. The Congressional Budget Office says there are 
insufficient funds in this legislation to make a meaningful difference. 
The bill is heavy on rhetoric, and we have heard a lot of it today and 
throughout this debate. But in my view, Mr. President, this bill is 
still too light on real reform. It is either a huge new unfunded 
mandate to the States, or an admission by Republicans that they really 
do not expect this bill to work in the first place.
  But perhaps my biggest concern is the concern that many of us share 
for children. This bill says that it does not matter how bad things 
are, how destitute, how sick, or how poor kids may be. Kids of any 
age--6 months or 6 years--are going to have to fend for themselves. 
When it comes to kids, when it comes to their safety net, this bill is 
still too punitive.
  And I have heard the discussion of a list of other Federal programs 
that may be provided. But, Mr. President, the emphasis is on ``may.'' 
We are talking for the most part about discretionary programs here that 
are in large measure underfunded today.
  Eight million children in this country do not deserve to be punished. 
They need to be protected.
  You can come up with a litany as long as you want of programs that 
technically are designed to provide assistance. But, if they do not 
have the resources, if we do not have the safety

[[Page S8531]]

net, if they do not have the opportunities to access those programs, 
then, Mr. President, they are meaningless.
  Finally, the treatment of legal immigrants in this bill is far too 
harsh. We ought to require more responsibility of sponsors, and the 
``Work First'' bill did that. But this bill even cuts off assistance to 
legal immigrants who are disabled. What kind of message does that send 
about what kind of people we are? We can do better than this. On a 
matter so important we have no choice but to do better.
  This bill must be improved. This bill must protect kids. It must not 
force the States to solve these problems by themselves. It must provide 
some empathy for disabled citizens regardless of where they have come 
from.
  We can improve it in conference, if the political will is there--
since we are not doing it here. Or, we are not doing it this afternoon. 
But, because it is not done, the best vote on this bill, the best vote 
at this time, is to vote ``no.''
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that excerpts from the CBO 
report, to which I referred about the States' inability to meet the 
work rates under the pending bill, be printed in the Record.
  I yield the floor.
  There being no objection, the excerpts were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

       First, the bill requires that, in 1997, states have 25 
     percent of certain families receiving cash assistance in work 
     activities. The participation rates rise by 5 percentage 
     points a year through 2002. Participants would be required to 
     work 20 hours a week through 1998, 25 hours in 1999, 30 hours 
     in 2000 and 2001, and 35 hours in 2002 and after. Families 
     with no adult recipient or with a recipient experiencing a 
     sanction for non-participation (for up to 3 months) are not 
     included in the participation calculation. Families in which 
     the youngest child is less than one year old would be exempt 
     at state option. A state could exempt a family for a maximum 
     of one year.
       States would have to show on a monthly basis that 
     individuals in 50 percent of all non-exempt families are 
     participating in work activities in 2002. CBO estimates that 
     this would require participation of 1.7 million families. By 
     contrast, program data for 1994 indicate that, in an average 
     month, approximately 450,000 individuals participated in the 
     JOBS program. (The bill limits the number of individuals in 
     education and training programs that could be counted as 
     participants, so many of these individuals would not qualify 
     as participants under the new program). Most states would be 
     unlikely to satisfy this requirement for several reasons. The 
     costs of administering such a large scale work and training 
     program would be high, and federal funding would be frozen at 
     historic levels. Because the pay-off for such programs has 
     been shown to be low in terms of reductions in the welfare 
     caseload, states may be reluctant to commit their own funds 
     to employment programs. Moreover, although states may succeed 
     in reducing their caseloads through other measures, which 
     would in turn free up federal funds for training, the 
     requirements would still be difficult to meet because the 
     remaining caseload would likely consist of individuals who 
     would be the most difficult and expensive to train.
       Second, while tracking the work requirement for all 
     families, states simultaneously would track a separate 
     guideline for the smaller number of non-exempt families with 
     two parents participating in the AFDC-Unemployed Parent 
     (AFDC-UP) program. By 2002, the bill would require that 90 
     percent of such families have an adult participate in work-
     related activities at least 35 hours per week. In addition, 
     if the family used federal funds to pay for child care, the 
     spouse would have to participate in work activities at least 
     20 hours per week. In 1994, states attempted to implement a 
     requirement that 40 percent of AFDC-UP families participate, 
     and roughly 40 states failed the requirement.
       Finally, states would have to ensure that all parents who 
     have received cash assistance for two years or more since the 
     bill's effective date. The experience of the JOBS program to 
     date suggests that such a requirement is well outside the 
     states' abilities to implement.
       In sum, each work requirement would represent a significant 
     challenge to states. Given the costs and administrative 
     complexities involved, CBO assumes that most states would 
     simply accept penalties rather than implement the 
     requirements. Although the bill would authorize penalties of 
     up to 5 percent of the block grant amount, CBO assumes--
     consistent with current practice--that the Secretary of 
     Health and Human Services would impose small penalties (less 
     than one-half of one percent of the block grant) on non-
     complying states.

  Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gorton). The majority leader.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, first I would like to thank the managers of 
the bill, the Senator from Delaware, Senator Roth, the Senator from New 
Mexico, Senator Domenici, and the Senator from Nebraska, Senator Exon. 
I guess Senator Exon is managing his last reconciliation bill on the 
floor, and maybe he will get to take up a conference report. But I am 
sure this is a blessing in many ways for the Senator from Nebraska. He 
has always been very kind and approachable. We appreciate his 
cooperation--on both sides of the aisle. Senator Breaux certainly has 
worked to try to make this a bipartisan bill. Senator Hutchison today 
showed real courage in saying we should keep the formula that has been 
worked out and has been agreed to.
  It has been a very slow process. It has taken too long, in my 
opinion, to get to this point on this bill. But we are here.
  But I am shocked to hear the Democratic leader say after 18 months, 
after all these efforts, after changes have been made, working across 
the aisle to get real welfare reform, that the answer will still be no.
  I think this is a case of Senators who talk a lot about wanting 
welfare reform, but every time they have the opportunity to actually do 
something about it, they back away from it.
  Now, we have had amendments accepted on both sides, some that 
obviously we did not agree with, some that you did not agree with, but 
it has been a bipartisan effort. So we are now in a position where we 
can take this positive step forward to go to conference and then send 
another welfare reform bill to the President.
  The Senate stands on the brink of passing a welfare reform bill 
worthy of the name; not a hollow shell that we will send to the 
President and say we will give you real welfare reform and not do it.
  We have done this before--twice, as a matter of fact--but in both 
cases, President Clinton vetoed what we sent him. I hope this will not 
be the case this time around.
  After we pass this bill--and I'm certain it will pass--it should not 
take too long for our Senate and House conferees to work out their 
differences so we can send a bill to the White House.
  I appeal to President Clinton to consider carefully its provisions. 
They have the broad support of the American people.
  They emphasize work as the best way out of the welfare trap. That's 
why the bill significantly expands resources available to the States 
for child care. This bill will give States the flexibility they need to 
help welfare recipients into the mainstream of American life.
  The bill also ends the entitlement status of welfare. That's an 
important step. It will not only help to control costs, but will let 
State and local governments speed the transition from welfare to 
productive participation in the economy.
  It imposes time limits for welfare and discourages illegitimacy, 
which everyone now realizes is the single most important root cause of 
poverty in this country.
  A lot of questions have been raised about programs for children. As a 
matter of fact, there are some 49 programs included in this bill. I ask 
unanimous consent that this list of selected programs which benefit 
children be included in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

 Selected Programs for Which Families on Welfare Would Continue to be 
                         Eligible After 5 Years

       Supplemental Security Income.
       Social Services Block Grant.
       Medicaid.
       Food Stamps.
       Maternal and Child Health Services Block Grant Programs.
       Community Health Center Services.
       Family Planning Methods and Services.
       Migrant Health Center Services.
       Family nutrition block grant programs.
       School-based nutrition block grant programs.
       Rental assistance.
       Public Housing.
       Housing Loan Program.
       Housing Interest Reduction Program.
       Loans for Rental and Cooperative Housing.
       Rental Assistance Payments.
       Program of Assistance Payments on Behalf of Homeowners.
       Rent Supplement Payments on Behalf of Qualified Tenants.
       Loan and Grant Programs for Repair and Improvement of Rural 
     Dwellings.
       Loan and Assistance Programs for Housing Farm Labor.
       Grants for Preservation and Rehabilitation of Housing.
       Grants and Loans for Mutual and Self-Help Housing and 
     Technical Assistance.

[[Page S8532]]

       Site Loans Program.
       Grants for Screening, Referrals, and Education Regarding 
     Lead Poisoning in Infants and Children.
       Child Protection Block Grant.
       Title XIX-B subpart I and II Public Health Service Act.
       Title III Older Americans Act Programs.
       Title II-B Domestic Volunteer Service Act Programs.
       Title II-C Domestic Volunteer Service Act Programs.
       Low-Income Energy Assistance Act Program.
       Weatherization Assistance Program.
       Community Services Block Grant Act Programs.
       Legal Assistance under Legal Services Corporation Act.
       Emergency Food and Shelter Grants under McKinney Homeless 
     Act.
       Child Care and Development Block Grant Act Programs.
       State Program for Providing Child Care (section 402(j) SSA)
       Stafford student loan program.
       Basic educational opportunity grants.
       Federal work Study.
       Federal Supplement education opportunity grants.
       Federal Perkins loans.
       Grants to States for state student incentives.
       Grants and fellowships for graduate programs.
       Special programs for students whose families are engaged in 
     migrant and seasonal farmwork.
       Loans and Scholarships for Education in the Health 
     Professions.
       Grants for Immunizations Against Vaccine-Preventable 
     Diseases.
       Job Corps.
       Summer Youth Employment and Training.
       Programs of Training for Disadvantaged Adults under Title 
     II-A and for Disadvantaged Youth under Title II-C of the Job 
     Training Partnership Act.
       Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC).

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, this list includes supplemental security 
income, social services block grants, Medicaid, food stamps, family 
nutrition block grants, school-based nutrition block grants, grants for 
screening, referral and education regarding lead poisoning, not to 
mention Medicare and housing assistance--a long list of programs that 
will help children.
  So there are good programs here that will be preserved and, in many 
cases, improved. So if you really want welfare reform, this is it.
  This may be the last opportunity to get genuine welfare reform. Vote 
yes. Send this bill to conference. We will get it out of conference 
next week, and we will send it to the President before the August 
recess.
  I hope the President will not veto welfare reform for a third time in 
18 months.
  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 bill having been read the third time, the 
question is, Shall it pass? The yeas and nays have been ordered. The 
clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Kansas [Mrs. Kassebaum] 
is absent due to a death in the family.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii [Mr. Inouye] is 
necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Hawaii [Mr. Inouye] would vote ``nay.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 74, nays 24, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 232 Leg.]

                                YEAS--74

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brown
     Bryan
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feingold
     Ford
     Frahm
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kempthorne
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Pressler
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner
     Wyden

                                NAYS--24

     Akaka
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Bumpers
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Faircloth
     Feinstein
     Glenn
     Graham
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Pell
     Pryor
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Wellstone

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Inouye
     Kassebaum
       
  The bill (H.R. 3734), as amended, was passed.
  (The text of the bill will be printed in a future edition of the 
Record.)
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the bill passed.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate insists 
on its amendment, requests a conference with the House and appoints 
conferees on the part of the Senate.
  The Presiding Officer (Mr. Gorton) appointed, from the Committee on 
the Budget, Mr. Domenici, Mr. Nickles, Mr. Gramm, Mr. Exon, and Mr. 
Hollings; from the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry, 
Mr. Lugar, Mr. Helms, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Santorum, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Heflin, 
and Mr. Harkin; from the Committee on Finance, Mr. Roth, Mr. Chafee, 
Mr. Grassley, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Simpson, Mr. Moynihan, Mr. Bradley, Mr. 
Pryor, and Mr. Rockefeller; from the Committee on Labor and Human 
Resources, Mrs. Kassebaum and Mr. Dodd, conferees on the part of the 
Senate.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the cosmetic improvements made in this 
bad bill cannot possibly justify its passage. It is no answer to say 
that this bill is less extreme than previous bills. Less extreme is 
still too extreme.
  This bill condemns millions of innocent children to poverty in the 
name of welfare reform. But no welfare bill worthy of the name reform 
would lead to such an unconscionable result. This bill is not a welfare 
reform bill--it is a ``Let them eat cake'' bill.
  In fact, welfare reform would have nothing to do with the tens of 
billions of dollars in this bill in harsh cuts that hurt children. Cuts 
of that obscene magnitude are totally unjustified. They are being 
inflicted for one reason only--to pay for the massive tax breaks for 
the wealthy that Bob Dole and the Republican majority in Congress still 
hope to pass. Today the Republican majority has succeeded in pushing 
extremism and calling it virtue. It is nothing of the sort. This bill 
will condemn millions of American children to poverty in order to 
proivde huge tax breaks for the rich.
  These are the wrong priorities for America. If children could vote, 
this Republican plan to slash welfare would be as dead as their plan to 
slash Medicare. But children don't vote--and they will pay a high price 
in blighted lives and lost hope.
  Perhaps the greatest irony of all is now on display, as America hosts 
the Olympic games. We justifiably take pride in being the best in many 
difficult events. We may well win a fistful of golds in Atlanta. But 
America is not winning any gold medals in caring for children.
  The United States already has more children living in poverty--the 
United States already spend less of its wealth on its children--than 16 
out of the 18 major industrial nations in the world. The United States 
has a larger gap between rich and poor children than any other 
industrial nation. Children in the United States are twice as likely to 
be poor than British children, and three times as likely to be poor 
than French or German children. And we call ourselves the leader of the 
free world? Shame on us. Shame on the Senate. Surely we can do better--
and there is still time to do it.

                          ____________________