[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 116 (Thursday, August 1, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9387-S9415]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY AND WORK OPPORTUNITY RECONCILIATION ACT OF 
                        1996--CONFERENCE REPORT

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the conference report.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from 
Alabama.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, 1 week ago, I voted for the welfare reform 
legislation that passed the Senate. Previously, I had supported two 
alternatives--one a Democratic version and the other a bipartisan 
alternative. Although both these attempts failed, some of their 
provisions were adopted into the bill that passed, making if far better 
by providing a wider safety net for children and the poor.
  The conference report before us now is not as good as I would like. 
It probably is not anyone's ideal plan for welfare reform. Frankly, I 
think the Senate's version was preferable to this conference report. 
But, while some provisions within the legislation are still troubling 
and need to be reworked down the road, at least we are off to a good 
start in reforming a system that we all agree to a good start in 
reforming a system that we all agree is broken and needs to be 
overhauled. One thing is certain: regardless of its shortcomings, this 
bill is a product of sincere efforts to end the harmful dependency and 
other severe short-comings which currently exist in our welfare system. 
Throughout this debate and these difficult negotiations, I have been 
impressed with the diligence, tenacity, and honesty which Members have 
displayed in trying to come up with an acceptable plan to end welfare 
as we know it.
  The measure we are considering today does, in fact, represent a 
change in philosophy in how we think about children and families. This 
is the most significant and sweeping change in the social compact of 
our Nation since the New Deal. Its strength is that it overhauls our 
welfare system without the harshness of previous bills that have been 
vetoed. The two vetoes, along with the threat of a third, served the 
purpose of eliminating the extreme measures that made the previous 
bills unacceptable--even harmful.
  For example, we have now rightly recognized that a mother with young 
children who wants to work will have access to adequate child-care. 
Also among its vast improvements is the fact that child nutrition 
programs, such as the school lunch program, are not block granted. The 
same is true of the Food Stamp Program. I had grave fears that block-
granting these kinds of nutrition programs would impose tremendous 
burdens on States like Alabama, which over the years has suffered from 
several periods of budget proration and economic recession. Programs 
like these aimed at helping children and the poor would have faced 
drastic cuts if they had been block-granted.
  This measure raises the cap on the contingency fund from $1 billion 
to $2 billion to provide States with more protection during economic 
downturns. It also adds a new trigger mechanism based on the food stamp 
caseload. It includes some provisions for States to establish objective 
criteria for delivery of benefits and to ensure equitable and fair 
treatment.
  This welfare reform legislation, while not as sound as the Senate-
passed plan, is still a vast improvement over the Republican bills 
which were vetoed. As I stated earlier, I still have some reservations 
surrounding certain provisions contained in the measure. But I believe, 
overall, that the positive outweighs the negative. I think the 
compromise we have struck is a major step in the right direction, and 
an overall positive effort at making welfare more of a helping hand in 
getting people on their feet economically.

  Our debate over the last few months has been both constructive and 
productive. We now have a bill before us which is a testament to the 
Congress and its leadership--majority and minority. In essence, it is a 
product of the Congress' legislative process working as it was designed 
to work.
  We have seen some hard-fought battles and witnessed significant 
changes from the original bill after some intense debate and good-faith 
negotiations between the two sides of the aisle. Each side has made 
concessions, while holding firm to certain core principles. We have 
arrived at agreements on several major issues. As a result, we now have 
a bill that contains stronger work provisions and that is not as harsh 
on children. While there are undoubtedly problems still remaining in 
the legislation that will have to be addressed down the road, this 
compromise is an overall positive step for reforming welfare, reducing 
dependency, and offering a brighter future for millions of American 
families.
  Mr. President, except for the balanced budget constitutional 
amendment, this welfare reform bill is arguably the most important 
legislation we will tackle in this or any other Congress. There is no 
doubt that our current system is failing welfare recipients and 
taxpayers alike. I am pleased to join my colleagues and the President 
in taking advantage of this historic opportunity and enacting reforms 
which will empower recipients to break cycles of dependency, to focus 
on work and responsibility, and to become successful and productive 
citizens.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about this important 
issue before us--perhaps the most important initiative undertaken by 
the 104th Congress--welfare reform. For the last nineteen months, 
Congress has been embroiled in an enormous debate over how best to 
reform our welfare system. There has been a lot of talk about ending 
welfare ``as we know it'', but for the most part, it has been just talk 
and no action. Today, however, the Senate stands close to passing 
legislation that I believe will make the much-needed changes in the way 
our welfare system operates.
  I think many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, as well as 
a majority of my fellow Montanans, would agree that our welfare system 
needs improving. I am glad we agree that changes need to be made in our 
welfare system so that our assistance programs are more effective and 
less costly. Let's face it, however, we don't need this legislation to 
know that the welfare system has failed miserably. The truth is, the 
system is not working as it was intended--as a temporary assistance to 
help people until they can get back to work. Over the last thirty 
years, the system has become a way of life, not because those receiving 
assistance don't want to work, but because the

[[Page S9388]]

system makes it tough, even discourages people, to get off welfare.
  Although we all know that this bill before us today will not solve 
all the problems with the current welfare system, it does take a giant 
step toward reversing years of failed social welfare policy. This bill 
will end welfare as a way of life for many Americans. By requiring most 
able-bodied adults to go to work within two years and by putting a 
five-year limit on welfare assistance, we are making great strides 
forward in putting people back to work. I have to believe that most 
people would rather work than be on welfare. And it pleases me to no 
end that the tough and real work requirements contained in this bill 
will get folks off the welfare roles and into a productive job, job 
training program or community service. There is no doubt there will be 
exceptions, but the goal of welfare reform is independence, not 
government reliance.
  This bill also contains provisions to strengthen families and 
personal responsibility, something I think is essential to getting at 
the root of our welfare problems. In a scant few decades, we have seen 
the demise of families and family values in our country. And 
illegitimacy rates are rising to almost dangerous levels. These are the 
things that are contributing most to the decline in our society. More 
and more children are growing up without a father, without a solid 
family to support them, and crime statistics show that kids who are 
raised without a father commit more crimes. I think our welfare system, 
though designed to assist folks and born of good-hearted intentions, 
has served to fuel some of the social problems we face today. It 
is clear that our present welfare system encourages young mothers to 
have children, and many of those children are not being cared for. 
Though it is impossible to legislate, this bill takes a giant step 
forward in addressing these problems by encouraging families to stay 
together, providing more resources for child care and enhancing child 
support enforcement and domestic violence measures.

  Perhaps the fact that is most important to me personally, by passing 
this bill we will give the states flexibility to design programs that 
will work best for their residents. Currently, the Federal Government 
has so many rules and regulations that when States want to try 
something innovative to reform the welfare system, like my home State 
of Montana, the barriers are often times too great. Over the last 7 
years, I have spoken with the folks who administer the welfare programs 
in my State and time and time again they ask for the opportunity and 
flexibility to run the welfare system as they see fit. And by block 
granting funds to the States and letting States set many of their own 
program rules, this bill will allow the decisionmaking to be done at 
the state and local level, not by Washington bureaucrats. There is no 
doubt in my mind this will serve both our Nation and, specifically, the 
people of my State well. After all, Montanans do know what is best for 
Montana.
  The bill does all this and will still succeed in reducing welfare 
spending by roughly $55 billion over 6 years. Given our Nation's budget 
problems, that's an important fact.
  I realize that there are many Americans, including a number of folks 
in Montana, who have serious concerns with this legislation. Folks seem 
to be particularly troubled by the possibility that this bill will 
actually increase poverty and fails to provide a nutritional ``safety 
net'' for our Nation's needy families. I appreciate and understand 
these concerns--no one wants to push more children and families into 
misery. In fact, I have been an ardent supporter of nutrition programs 
in the past, especially those for children, and I have made every 
effort to protect them throughout the current welfare reform process.
  The reality is, however, that the American taxpayer is not getting 
his money's worth when it comes to many of the current assistance 
programs and the tragic state of the welfare system makes reforming the 
system all the more urgent. What's more, there have been those who have 
suggested that this bill is heartless and out to punish children and 
immigrants. In response to those who would make such accusations, I 
would join with many of my colleagues in asking if the current welfare 
system is not already punishing--even degrading--children and other 
folks it is supposed to help? Why do we insist on protecting, or at 
least not reforming, a system that promotes a culture of dependency and 
poverty? As for the immigration provisions contained in the bill, 
perhaps Senator Santorum summed it up best when he noted that as we 
become the retirement home for the rest of the world, the taxpayers of 
this country are picking up the tab. To that end, the goal of this 
welfare reform bill is not to punish, favor or discriminate against 
anyone or any group. Its intent is not to promote and strengthen the 
system. It is constructed to end the cycle of generational dependency 
and irresponsibility promoted by the current welfare system.

  Mr. President, we have a historic opportunity today to change a 
system that has consistently failed poor Americans. I want to thank the 
Governors and all of those who have worked so hard, in both parties, to 
bring this legislation to this point. I particularly want to commend 
the Republican leadership for leading the way on this issue. Though Bob 
Dole may not be with us on the Senate floor today, I also want to thank 
him for his efforts and dedication in ending welfare as we know it. I 
also want to congratulate President Clinton on his announcement 
yesterday. Though the President has resisted real welfare reform by 
casting two vetoes on similar bills in the past, he has realized that 
the American people want this bill and that bipartisan cooperation is 
needed to reform this broken system. And with the overwhelming 
bipartisan support in the House yesterday, it looks as though we are 
seeing our way clear to bring about the much needed reforms with what I 
believe will be the right kinds of results.
  In closing, Mr. President, it was almost exactly 1 year ago--in fact, 
it was August 9, 1995--that I stood on the floor of this esteemed 
chamber and spoke about how much I was looking forward to the upcoming 
welfare reform debate. I spoke about how excited I was to see some real 
changes in how Americans perceive welfare, how welfare is paid out, and 
the direction our country was headed. There were a number of goals then 
that I was looking for in welfare reform legislation. Would it promote 
and strengthen the family? Would it give more flexibility to the 
States, allowing each State to design a system that best suits their 
needs? Would it include strong work requirements to get folks back into 
the workplace? Would it address our growing problem with illegitimacy 
and teenage pregnancy? Mr. President, I think we have addressed these 
issues with this legislation.
  It is now a year later. During this time, a number of differing 
opinions have been offered--suggestions put forth--on how best to 
achieve these goals. It has been a very slow process indeed--but I 
think that most of us would agree that welfare reform is still very 
necessary and this bill does that. Business as usual was not working in 
August 1995 or even in November 1992, and it is not working now. All 
Americans deserve the chance to succeed, whether they are poor or not. 
I think this bill gives all of us the chance to do just that. Let's not 
squander this opportunity.
  I yield the floor.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I will vote for this bill because 
maintaining the status quo is unacceptable. The other alternative is to 
do nothing. I vote for this bill, having reservations, but believing it 
is the right thing to do.
  We Democrats have made 36 important improvements in this bill that 
protect the most vulnerable, the children. But there are still yellow 
flashing lights, warnings regarding the bill's safety net for children. 
We will need to monitor them closely.
  On balance, though, I believe the poor and the taxpayers will be 
better off because we are voting for this bill.
  We all acknowledge that our current welfare system does not work. It 
has failed to move people from welfare to work, and has created a 
culture of poverty that has ensnared generations of our most vulnerable 
citizens in poverty and dependency. I believe in the capacity of people 
to better their lives and build a better future for themselves and 
their families. The current welfare system does not provide people with

[[Page S9389]]

the tools they need to do that. Welfare should be a way to a better 
life not a way of life.
  The current welfare system is dysfunctional and destructive to the 
poor. I have worked to change that. I have fought for a plan, which I 
helped to write, that was firm on work and demanded responsibility from 
those who find themselves on public assistance, but that protected 
children.
  I will vote for this bill because it is greatly improved over the 
original Republican bill which the Senate debated last year. There are 
some 36 improvements in the bill, improvements which I fought for and 
which are drawn largely from the Democratic alternative bill which I 
co-authored with Democratic leader Senator Daschle and Senator Breaux.
  Our Democratic alternative provided people with the tools to move 
from welfare to work. It demanded work of all able-bodied adults. It 
removed the key barriers to work--such as lack of adequate child care 
and inadequate job skills. Our bill ensured that no child would go 
without health care or adequate nutritional assistance because of the 
failings of their parents. It ensured that when we aimed at the parent 
we did not hit the child.
  I am proud of my work on the Democratic alternative bill. I am proud 
that we gained the support of every Democratic Member of this body. I 
regret that it was rejected by the other party. But thanks to the 
persistent advocacy of our Democratic leadership, of which I am a 
member, many of the provisions of the Democratic alternative were 
adopted in the bill that the Senate passed. They are now in this 
legislation. These improvements have helped to make this a more 
acceptable bill.
  I'm particularly proud of my role in fighting for child abuse 
programs, for child care health and safety standards and for the health 
care safety net. I offered amendments on these issues and fought for 
their adoption.
  From day one, I insisted that we could not do anything in this bill 
to lessen our commitment to fighting child abuse. I am pleased that 
this bill no longer includes provisions which would have replaced 
Federal child abuse and protection programs with an inadequate block 
grant. As a former child protection worker, I know how vital 
these programs are for taking care of children who have suffered from 
abuse or neglect.

  I fought to keep current Federal child care health and safety 
standards. Along with Senator Dodd, I offered an amendment to restore 
those standards which the other party was prepared to abandon. I fought 
to maintain those standards because I believe strongly that parents 
should have every assurance that when they place their children in 
child care, they will be protected from infectious diseases, from 
unsafe buildings and playground hazards, and that the child care worker 
will know basic first aid. This is a significant improvement in the 
bill.
  I also fought for a health care safety net for children. I wanted to 
make sure that children would still be eligible for Medicaid coverage 
even if their parents failed to meet the work requirements of this 
bill. This bill contains the provision I fought for to ensure that 
children will still have access to health care.
  I was an energetic and enthusiastic advocate for other improvements 
to the bill, such as the provisions to provide funding for child care, 
to exempt mothers with infant children from the work requirements, and 
the provision that ensures that a mom with a preschooler cannot be 
penalized for not working if she can't find or afford child care. These 
are all important measures to protect children, and I am pleased that 
we were successful in having them included in this bill. The 
protections for children are significantly better than in previous 
bills we have considered.
  So I acknowledge that this bill has been improved in important ways 
from the conference report that I opposed and which the President 
vetoed last year. And I believe the strong support for the Democratic 
alternative bill is what made these improvements possible.
  While I will vote ``yes'' today, there are yellow flashing lights 
that give me pause. They must be monitored meticulously. And all of us 
who vote for this bill must be prepared to make modifications if the 
safety net for children and the working poor becomes tattered.
  A key yellow flashing light for me is the bill's changes in the rules 
for the food stamp program. Changes in the excess shelter deduction 
could harm the working poor--those families that pay over half their 
income for housing. Other changes will severely limit food stamps for 
adults without children who lose their jobs. Another yellow flashing 
light for me is the bill's restrictions on assistance for children of 
legal immigrants, who have not yet obtained their goals of citizenship. 
Another yellow flashing light for me is the bill's provisions for 
meeting the needs of children whose parents reach the 5-year time limit 
for benefits and still do not have work. I fought for a requirement 
that States must assess and meet the basic subsistence needs of those 
children through vouchers or other non-cash assistance. The conference 
agreement did not include what I advocated, but it gives States the 
option to use their title XX, social service block grant funds, to 
provide vouchers to meet the needs of children.
  Mr. President, today we must face facts. We cannot make the perfect 
the enemy of the good. And so I will vote for this bill. The American 
people and I want welfare reform. And I believe the people currently 
mired in poverty, who have not been well-served by the current welfare 
system, deserve better. There are over 9 million children currently on 
welfare. Under the current system, that number is estimated to grow to 
12 million in 10 years. We owe it to those children to give their 
parents every incentive to leave welfare behind and to lift themselves 
and their families out of poverty.
  I will vote yes today. But I will be standing sentry and will be in 
the forefront in fighting for any changes needed to prevent the safety 
net for children from being tattered.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, future historians are likely to regard this 
as a momentous occasion in Congress--a welfare bill is finally about to 
be approved by Congress and signed by the President--a bill which will 
effectively drive a nail in the coffin of the Great Society.
  This welfare reform bill proposes to set welfare policy on the right 
course.
  It requires welfare recipients to work;
  It promotes family and the work ethic; and
  It exercises sound fiscal responsibility.
  In addition, this legislation will insist that illegal aliens must 
not receive welfare and that non-citizens cannot hereafter lawfully 
receive most Federal welfare benefits during their first 5 years in the 
United States.
  These legislative goals are tough, but fair. Requiring welfare 
recipients to work provides the hammer that can break the cycle of 
poverty and dependency. As matters now stand, the average welfare 
recipient stays at the public trough for 13 years. This bill reverses 
that folly; it proclaims for all to hear that welfare must not be a way 
of life.
  Equally important, Mr. President, this legislation is fair to 
taxpayers because it saves $55 billion of taxpayers' money. The average 
American worker in 1993 paid $3,357 in taxes just to support welfare 
recipients. Taxpayers are sick and tired of working hard, paying taxes 
and watching folks on welfare get a free ride.
  Mr. President, the taxpayers can be thankful that this bill contains 
tough work requirements for food stamp recipients. On several 
occasions, including during the conference, I took the position that 
Congress should require able-bodied food stamp recipients go to work 
before they receive free food stamps.
  The original Senate welfare bill allowed recipients to receive free 
food stamps for 6 months every year with no work requirement. Now, 
Congress is sending a bill to the President that will require food 
stamp recipients to work 20 hours per week for an average of 11 months 
per year or be thrown off the welfare rolls. This is a giant step 
forward from current law which gives folks a free lunch at taxpayer's 
expense.
  Mr. President, when the liberal politicians pushed through their 
welfare system more than 30 years ago, the American people were assured 
that welfare would not become a way of life.

[[Page S9390]]

  And when Lyndon Johnson signed the war on poverty legislation in 
1964, he promised, ``The days of the dole in our county are numbered.'' 
Unfortunately, 30 years after this war began, the days have numbered to 
about 11,680--and we're still counting.
  Since Congress obediently embarked down the road called the Great 
Society, the result has been the most massive Federal spending in 
history, increased poverty and untold millions of Americans trapped in 
the welfare cycle. The Great Society has been a monumental failure, but 
it got a lot of promising politicians elected because they promised 
everything to everybody. But with the enactment of the bill, the days 
of the Great Society are coming to a close.

  The cost of welfare programs has now reached a budget-busting $345 
billion a year. During the past three decades, welfare spending has 
cost the American taxpayers $5.4 trillion. It may come as a surprise 
that welfare programs have cost 70 percent more than the war against 
Germany and Japan in World War II.
  What, Mr. President, do we have to show for these exorbitant 
expenditures? An increase in the poverty rate. As of 1993, 15.1 percent 
of Americans were in poverty, compared to 13 percent in 1964, a 2-
percent growth.
  Mr. President, the human devastation caused by rising illegitimacy 
rates and the breakdown of the family is even more troubling than the 
cost of welfare programs. Government programs of any magnitude carry 
with them a cargo of unintended consequences. In welfare, like most 
other things, you reap what you sow. For 30 years, the welfare system 
rewarded idleness and illegitimacy and there has been a marked increase 
in both.
  Mr. President, I emphasize that nobody is opposed to helping those 
who are less fortunate. Americans, as individuals and communities, have 
a responsibility to help those who cannot help themselves. That 
responsibility cannot and should not be abdicated. But we must help 
them by teaching them to ``help themselves'' as President Kennedy once 
stated.
  This legislation will help those on welfare because it restores the 
American work ethic which once was one of the cornerstones of this 
Nation. In addition, this bill takes a step in the right direction in 
helping reduce the rising illegitimacy rates by providing funds for 
abstinence education, and by allowing States the option of denying 
benefits to welfare recipients who already have children living on the 
public dole.
  An Associated Press poll showed recently that 69 percent of Americans 
favor a 5-year limit on welfare payments. Likewise, most Americans 
obviously don't think it's right that working people are required to 
give up a substantial percentage of taxes to support people who refuse 
to work.
  Mr. President, the majority of Americans are calling for welfare 
reform. Welfare entitlements must be replaced by limited handouts 
conditional on self-improvement and work.
  Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I rise to support the welfare reform 
legislation pending before this body. I do so with both reluctance and 
hope.
  My reluctance stems from some very real concerns I have with this 
bill. First, I am concerned that we fail to give States the resources 
they need to do the job right. I am willing to pay more in the short 
term to bring about economic independence in the long term. Second, 
like the President, I am extremely uncomfortable with both the level of 
cuts to the Food Stamp Program and the severity of the restrictions on 
legal immigrants. We cannot simply abandon our obligation to protect 
the most vulnerable among us. And, finally, I am troubled by specific 
provisions of this bill--like the one dealing with mothers with young 
children who do not work because they cannot find child care. The 
conference lowered the age from 11 to 6--and this is wrong, Mr. 
President. If we want mothers to move from welfare to work, we have to 
ensure they have child care for their young children.
  I will vote for this bill believing strongly that it is not our final 
word on welfare reform. And I'm prepared to work with the 
administration and with my colleagues here in the Congress to address 
the concerns that I have--and that I know others have--with this 
legislation.
  But, Mr. President, like the President of the United States, I also 
believe strongly that the opportunity before us is one we cannot let 
slip away. We simply cannot allow another generation of American 
children to fall victim to a welfare system that fosters dependency 
rather than opportunity, that has become for far too many children, not 
a second chance, but a way of life.

  I will vote for this bill, Mr. President, because I believe it 
contains the incentives needed to bring people out of poverty and into 
the economic mainstream. It contains tough work requirements, time 
limits on benefits and nearly $4 billion in new money for child care. 
It protects health care for current populations and allows States to 
use Federal money to provide non-cash vouchers for children whose 
parents meet the time limits.
  It emphasizes work and responsibility. It includes a strong community 
service component, which teaches both the value and the obligations of 
citizenship.
  But I know, Mr. President, that all the positive incentives in the 
world mean nothing if there are no jobs at the end of the line--and 
that the best social policy of all is economic growth.
  That is why I believe that the first edition of welfare reform was 
approved by this Congress in l993 with the passage of the President's 
deficit reduction plan. We can approve legislation today that aims at 
moving people from welfare to work because we do so amidst a strong, 
vital economy. In less than 4 years, our economy has created over l0 
million new jobs--most of them in the private sector--and we have the 
lowest unemployment rate in 6 years.
  As we bring down our deficit, we enhance our ability to invest in our 
people. And as we strengthen our economy, we provide new avenues of 
opportunity for poor Americans to enter the economic mainstream.

  We cannot just give incentives to move people from welfare to work, 
Mr. President. We have to also better invest in programs that give them 
the tools to succeed--programs like education and job training.
  Mr. President, I have outlined my reservations about this bill, and I 
am committed to working in the coming months to remedy these concerns. 
But my hope for this bill transcends the ability of individual mothers 
to exchange a welfare check every month for a pay check.
  For every time a welfare recipient earns a living wage, at least one 
more child in America sees their role model go to work in the morning, 
earn a salary, pay their bills, believe a little more in their own 
ability and self-worth, and live in a world that is infinitely stronger 
because they contribute to it.
  And every time a welfare recipient earns a living wage, at least one 
more child in America escapes from what could become a cycle of 
dependency and hopelessness that is inherently unAmerican--and which we 
have an opportunity and an obligation to break.
  Although only history will tell for sure, I will vote for this bill 
because I believe it is the first step in breaking the cycle of poverty 
which has sapped the optimism and the opportunity of too many 
generations of innocent American children.
  Mr. President, I thank the chair and I yield the floor.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, as we end the debate on the welfare reform 
conference report, I would like to make several acknowledgements of 
effort in bringing forward this truly historic legislation.
  First, I want to congratulate Chairman Domenici and Chairman Roth and 
thank them for their leadership. As chairman of the Agriculture 
Committee, I am pleased to have been a partner with them in crafting 
this bill.
  I also want to thank my staff on the Agriculture Committee for their 
efforts throughout this 104th Congress to make welfare reform a 
reality. Staff director Chuck Conner, as always, contributed strong 
leadership. Dave Johnson and Beth Johnson worked tirelessly to develop 
proposals that both meet our budget goals and continue to deliver 
assistance to the needy.
  They were assisted ably over the past year by Bill Sims, who has 
returned to the U.S. Secret Service. Special thanks are also due to Joe 
Richardson of the Congressional Research Service, whose knowledge of 
the very complicated nutrition assistance programs was invaluable.

[[Page S9391]]

  The legislative process that culminates here in the Senate today 
sometimes seemed like a rollercoaster ride with no end. Frustration and 
long hours were common for my staff. But they have my sincere thanks 
for their efforts. They should be very proud of this landmark bill.
  In the final analysis, this welfare reform legislation represents the 
best of our democratic process. After much debate, a proposal of 
potentially monumental importance is about to be approved 
overwhelmingly by a Republican-led Congress, and a Democrat President 
will sign it. I hope we will someday be able to look back at this bill 
as a major step toward restoring the public's confidence in the ability 
of its elected leaders to respond to our Nation's pressing needs.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, the bill before us represents a historic 
opportunity to change and improve the welfare system in this country. 
Today's Washington Post headline proclaims that this bill represents a 
``basic shift in philosophy'' about welfare in this country.
  It is true that this bill sends a strong message. That message is: 
welfare should not be a way of life. We are saying that welfare should 
be a safety net--a first step toward achieving independence and self-
reliance.
  But this is not a major change from the way most Americans view the 
welfare system. We are a compassionate nation, and we accept our 
responsibility to help those who are less fortunate, who are on the 
bottom rung of the economic ladder, and those--especially children and 
the elderly--who are unable to help themselves. This basic notion is 
embedded in our social policy, and this bill does not--can not--change 
that fundamental view. Our task in drafting this bill has been to 
ensure that the safety net will always be there for those families 
needing assistance to get over a temporary setback.
  I will vote for the welfare reform bill today because I think we need 
to make some changes in our welfare system. I believe that this bill 
represents a significant improvement over last year's conference 
report, which I opposed because it did not provide an adequate safety 
net for poor children. Specifically, this bill does not include the 
deep levels of cuts in child nutrition programs or an optional block 
grant for food stamps. It permits States to use Federal money to 
provide noncash assistance, or vouchers for children. And it preserves 
a national guarantee for access to health care for pregnant women and 
children.
  This bill also takes the right first steps toward encouraging and 
rewarding work. It requires welfare recipients to work after receiving 
benefits for 2 years, and backs up that requirement with the support 
families need to move from welfare into the workplace.

  The bill provides $4 billion more for child care and maintains strong 
health and safety standards for day care. It gives recipients 
flexibility to use some of their time on assistance to get the 
education they need to find and keep a job. The bill also gives States 
more flexibility to use Federal dollars to create new jobs for welfare 
recipients, and preserves the earned income tax credit for working 
families. All of these provisions work together to give welfare parents 
the support they need so they can afford to leave welfare and enter the 
workplace. When combined with the minimum wage increase that I hope the 
Senate will approve in the next few days, it is a significant move in 
the right direction for America's working families.
  While I have reservations about the block grant approach presented in 
this legislation, the bill does take steps to ensure that States will 
follow through on their obligation to spend Federal welfare dollars to 
move people up and out of poverty. Most importantly, we require States 
to maintain a significant portion of their own contributions for 
welfare programs. While the maintenance-of-effort provisions are not as 
strong as I would have liked them to be, they are a major improvement 
over last year's bill.
  One of the most important parts of this bill is its tough child 
support provisions. Nationwide, only 18 percent of child support cases 
referred to State agencies for collection result in payments by the 
absent parent. Yesterday, the President pointed out that, if every 
parent paid the child support they should, we could move 800,000 women 
and children off welfare immediately. This bill takes the necessary 
steps to move us toward demanding responsibility from both parents, and 
I wholeheartedly support this effort.
  Having said why I am voting for the bill, let me now explain that I 
remain concerned about some of its provisions. One specific area that 
we will have to adjust with follow-up legislation is the bill's change 
to the rules for determining eligibility for food stamps. The bill 
repeals a provision that would have helped families who are forced to 
pay a higher-than-average percentage of their income for shelter and 
heating costs. In my state of North Dakota, heating costs take a big 
bite out of every family's income. For a poor family, this can mean 
choosing between heat and food. The excess shelter deduction that was 
scheduled to go into effect next year would have gone a long way toward 
eliminating the need for that painful decision, and I intend to work to 
see that provision restored in separate legislation.
  We must also address a punitive measure that denies food stamps to 
Americans who are looking for but have not been able to find work. The 
conference bill places a 3-month limit on the receipt of food stamps by 
jobless adults between the ages of 18 to 50. I am certain that each of 
us knows someone--a brother, an uncle, a cousin--who is out of work, 
has been looking for work every day, but has not been able to find a 
job because no work is available. In rural North Dakota, unfortunately, 
we are not creating a lot of jobs, and finding work may take more than 
3 months. It is simply mean-spirited to deny an unemployed person food 
assistance while they are looking for work, and I will work to fix 
that.
  Despite these concerns, this bill is, on balance, a responsible bill. 
It moves toward achieving the right balance of personal responsibility 
and giving people the tools they need to move up and out of poverty. I 
will support this bill today, and I will work to fix those areas that 
need improvement.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I am pleased that we are here for this final step in 
the process of ending welfare as we know it. Just yesterday, President 
Clinton made clear that he will sign this conference report. After 
weeks of obfuscation, President Clinton finally has made clear that he 
will act on his promise to end welfare as we have known it and sign 
this dramatic change in the welfare system. After all we have been 
through in the last 18 months, I have to admit that I was beginning to 
feel like a broken record. We passed 2 different welfare bills under 
the able leadership of former Senate majority leader Bob Dole. In both 
cases, the President vetoed those efforts.
  From the President's most recent remarks, apparently out hard work 
has paid off and he is finally going to approve our efforts. 
Interestingly, Doug Besharov, a resident scholar at the American 
Enterprise Institute, and known expert on the welfare program, says 
that the new bill is not significantly different from the 2 previous 
proposals. A Washington Times article of yesterday quoted Mr. Besharov 
as saying, ``This business about `how much' improved is a certain 
amount of political rhetoric.''
  In my judgment, Mr. Besharov is being kind in his remarks. This bill, 
in fact, is significantly the same as previous efforts.
  In the last 30 years we have spent more than $5 trillion to fight the 
war on poverty. Unfortunately, we have lost. The child poverty rate in 
our nation is .8 percent higher than it is was when we started this 
process 30 years ago. So what have the families on welfare gotten for 
their difficulties? And what have the taxpayers gotten for their money? 
For all we have invested, we have made no progress.
  Clearly, something is not working.
  The reconciliation bill before us takes a new approach to an old 
problem. it restores power and authority to the States to create their 
own systems to meet the needs of low-income citizens.
  Iowa is a perfect example of success. Iowa overwhelming passed 
legislation in April 1993 to change welfare in the State. In order to 
implement their plan, the State had to seek 18 initial Federal waivers 
and more since. Although the State wanted to implement

[[Page S9392]]

a statewide program, in order to obtain their initial waiver, they were 
required to have a control group of 5 to 10 percent who would remain 
under old AFDC policies.
  In October of 1993, the work incentives and family stability policy 
changes were implemented. At that time, there were over 36,000 families 
receiving assistance, with an average monthly benefit of over $373.
  Last week I received the latest State figures. Iowa's caseload is 
down 12.6 percent to under 32,000 families. The average monthly benefit 
is down 11.7 percent to $330.
  In January 1994, Iowa implemented its personal responsibility 
contracts. A family commits to pursue independence and the State 
commits to provide supports. Before the State implemented reform, only 
18 percent of Iowa welfare families had earned income. The most recent 
numbers show that over 33 percent of all welfare families are earning 
income now.
  With Iowa's success as a backdrop, it is easy to understand why 
States want welfare reform, not waiver reform.
  Another reason is the frustration States feel when seeking a waiver. 
Though President Clinton has expressed glowing support for the 
Wisconsin welfare waiver it has not been signed. If the President is 
for the Wisconsin waiver, why can't he approve it? Even yesterday 
during his CNN interview, the President challenged other States to 
follow Wisconsin's lead in reforming their welfare system. Once again 
we see him saying one thing and doing another.
  The reconciliation bill before us also provides for a lifetime limit 
of 5 years for welfare benefits. This means that there is an actual 
measurable end so that parents are held accountable for their choices.
  When working Americans do not show up for work, they are not paid and 
are likely to lose their job. They want welfare recipients to live with 
the same reality. Taxpaying Americans do not understand why their hard 
work is subsidizing those who are not working.
  Mr. President, again, I want to say that I am pleased that the 
President has finally agreed to sign this conference report. I think 
this is an historic effort on the part of Congress and it is 
appropriate for him to sign this legislation.
  I look forward with anticipation to what our outstanding Governors 
and State leaders will do with the freedom and responsibility we are 
entrusting to them.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I will vote for the welfare reform 
conference report. I do so with grave reservations about many specific 
provisions.
  Like President Clinton, I think the cuts in nutrition programs are 
too deep and they can and should be corrected.
  Like President Clinton, I am concerned about the treatment of legal 
immigrants--people who followed the rules and came here under our legal 
immigration laws. Many have contributed in numerous ways to their 
communities. They are taxpayers and workers who, like all of us, may 
become ill or unemployed. This bill slams the door on them to a variety 
of programs in a manner that is neither appropriate nor necessary.
  There are other provisions of the final bill that I feel are too 
harsh and should be changed.
  But the overall effort at reforming the current welfare system is one 
that I support.
  When I campaigned for the U.S. Senate in 1992, I said then, and I 
continue to strongly believe, that if people can work, they should 
work. The focus of this bill is to encourage people to work, rather 
than remain on welfare. I support that goal.
  I also believe that the States should have more flexibility to design 
programs to meet the needs of their residents. I do not believe that 
detailed prescriptions from Washington, DC are the answer to the 
problems afflicting the current welfare system.
  Nationwide, the current welfare system is a disaster.
  It keeps families trapped in poverty. It discourages self-
sufficiency. It creates unnecessary barriers to those trying to move 
from welfare to the work force. It forces recipients and local 
officials to wade through piles of bureaucratic red-tape. It fosters 
dependency, discourages initiative, and dampens the spirits of those in 
need.
  We must do better. We must change the status quo. We must provide a 
new, flexible approach that will help people work and get off welfare.
  This bill has improved dramatically from the original Republican 
proposal of last year. Many of the draconian provisions have been 
dropped.
  The Medicaid safety net has been restored for vulnerable children, 
the aged and disabled. Child care funds have been significantly 
increased and efforts to roll back Federal health and safety standards 
for child care were defeated. Attempts to dismantle the food stamp 
program and child protection programs failed. The effort to impose a 
family cap--a penalty for having a child when on welfare--was rejected 
by a bipartisan majority in the Senate. Maintenance of effort 
provisions were retained, helping to assure that Federal dollars do not 
simply replace State dollars.

  There are other provisions of the bill that I am disappointed about. 
I am disappointed that the conference agreement did not include an 
important improvement made during the Senate debate which expanded the 
educational activities that welfare recipients could take part in. In 
addition, the bill is too punitive on mothers who cannot work because 
of lack of affordable child care. There are vast areas that should have 
been improved.
  I believe that those of us who vote for this measure have an 
obligation to watch closely as it is being implemented to make sure 
that it works, works fairly, and that if changes are needed, they are 
enacted. I am deeply concerned about the opposition of many individuals 
whose opinions I respect. I share their concerns that in an effort to 
get able-bodied adults to enter the workforce, we do not inadvertently 
punish innocent children.
  But we are faced with the choice of supporting this bill or 
maintaining the current system. I vote to change the system.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the welfare 
reform bill. I applaud the bipartisan effort that has taken place to 
end welfare as we know it, but most importantly I applaud the efforts 
of the former majority leader, Senator Dole for his efforts in helping 
to shed some light on the problem of America's children living in 
poverty.
  Mr. President, the most vital investment that we can make in 
America's future is our children. If there has been any one single 
pledge that I have made to the people of Tennessee, it was that I would 
spend my time in Washington working tirelessly to protect the American 
family but most importantly our Nation's children.
  In the real world, beyond the Washington Beltway, everyone knows that 
the real investment and sacrifice on behalf of children is not made by 
government do-gooders, educrats, Members of Congress, or social 
workers. The real investment and sacrifice is made by parents.
  Mr. President, few in Washington understand this fact more than I do. 
As the father of three young boys, it is my belief that we should not 
be asking the question ``what should the Government do for our 
children?'' Instead our question should be ``what must we do to get 
parents to do more?'' I strongly believe that our children do not need 
more Government spending but a mother and a father who care about them.
  My Republican colleagues and I pledged to return to families 
something more than a program or a slogan. We have tried to return 
resources to families, rather than the Federal Government, to help them 
in raising their children. Our devotion to our Nation's children is 
demonstrated in our agenda of strengthened families, safer streets, and 
stronger communities. Our agenda has included:
  A balanced budget that saves tomorrow's generations from crushing 
debt levels--because of Washington spending, each child born this year 
already owes more than $187,000 just to pay their share of interest on 
the debt.
  A $500-per-child tax credit to ease the pressures on families and 
allow parents to spend more time with their kids.
  Adoption reforms, including an adoption tax credit, to make adoptions 
more frequent, less expensive, more secure, and designed to make it 
easier to place children in loving homes.
  Tough crime legislation to protect our children from violent criminal 
predators.

[[Page S9393]]

  Welfare reform that lifts families out of poverty and into work, 
provides for child care, introduces the toughest child support 
enforcement standards ever considered by Congress, and real reform that 
reverses the destructive effects of the $5 trillion War on Poverty that 
has failed so many of our children.
  Education reforms which empower parents, teachers, school boards and 
the local communities instead of the Washington bureaucracy. This 
includes solid reforms which would enable low-income parents to send 
their children to quality public, private, and religious schools.
  Unfortunately, our efforts to enact much of these pro-family items 
has been stymied by the President's veto or through filibusters here in 
Congress. The President vetoed the $500-per-child tax credit, thus 
refusing to ease the financial burden that so many families feel today, 
a financial burden that often results in parents spending less and less 
time with their kids. The President has vetoed a balanced budget, a 
budget which would have given the children of Tennessee freedom from 
the repercussions of Washington's destructive spending habits.
  Right now, because of the traditional Washington habit of spending 
now and passing on the bills to future generations, your children and 
my children will face a lifetime tax burden of more than 80 percent. 
Imagine that--more than three-quarters of their income will be taken 
away to pay for the debts we have left behind. That to me is truly 
immoral. That is why I worked tirelessly last year to pass a balanced 
budget, the first balanced budget in almost 30 years. A balanced budget 
would have put a stop to reckless Washington spending and would have 
allowed us to pay our bills--not pass them on to our grandchildren. The 
bottom line is: a balanced budget helps to secure a better future for 
our children--and the President vetoed it.
   Mr. President, my Republican Colleagues and I understand that many 
children are trapped in poverty or failing schools, with little hope of 
achieving a better life than their parents. During the past year and a 
half, we have made it our priority to lift the lives and hopes of these 
children. In addition to lifting the crushing debt burden, we must 
recognize this immediate, abusive, and destructive threat to the lives 
of America's children: the liberal welfare state.
  Nothing punishes single parents and children more than the current 
welfare system. Our Federal Government is fixated with a system that 
is riddled with perverse incentives which discourage work and marriage 
while encouraging illegitimacy and long-term dependency. Designed as a 
system to help children, our current welfare system has ended up 
damaging and abusing the very children it has intended to save.

  Consider the facts:
  Between 1965 and 1994, welfare spending cost taxpayers $5.4 trillion 
in constant 1993 dollars.
  There are 77 overlapping welfare programs to assist Americans 
officially designated as poor.
  Total welfare spending in the United States, in 1993 exceeded $324 
billion. Of this spending, 72 percent is Federal and 28 percent is 
State. About 90 percent of all State welfare spending is on federally 
designed welfare programs.
  The cost of the war on poverty has been some 70 percent greater than 
the price tag for defeating Germany and Japan in World War II, after 
adjusting for inflation.
  Welfare spending is so large it is difficult to comprehend. One way 
to make it more tangible is to recognize that, on average, the cost of 
the welfare system amounted to $3,357 in taxes from each household that 
paid Federal income tax in 1993.
  A final way to assess the growth in welfare spending is to compare it 
to the increase in spending on other government functions:
  Since President Johnson launched the War on Poverty in 1965, means-
tested welfare spending by Federal, State, and local governments has 
grown more rapidly than spending on all other major government 
functions.
  In 1965, the United States spent 17 cents on welfare for each dollar 
spent on national defense. By 1993, this had risen to $1.11 on welfare 
for each dollar spent on defense.
  In 1965, the United States spent 29 cents on welfare for every dollar 
spent on primary, secondary, and post-secondary education by all levels 
of government. By 1993, the United States spent 91 cents on welfare for 
every dollar spent on education.
  Even if the analysis is restricted to welfare spending on cash, food, 
housing, and energy programs, the trends are virtually identical. Since 
the beginning of the War on Poverty, means-tested cash, food, housing, 
and energy programs have grown more rapidly than defense, education, or 
Social Security.
  After $5.4 trillion has been spent on welfare there remains little to 
cheer about. The onset of the War on Poverty coincided with the 
disintegration of the low-income family and the rapid increase 
in illegitimacy. Overall, 30 percent of American children are born to 
single mothers. We have spent more money on welfare programs since 1965 
than on all the wars we have fought this century, yet people are poorer 
and more dependent than ever.

  These are just a few of the ways that Federal Government's welfare 
policies and social programs are actually working against the American 
family and our children. I believe that we have a responsibility to 
provide a safety net--helping those who, by no fault of their own, have 
fallen on hard times. It is the right thing to do. But when we help 
people who are able, and yet make no effort to help themselves, we 
destroy the individual and undermine the very principles of personal 
responsibility in which our society was founded on. And this is what 
has happened.
  It is clear that our Great Society national urban policy has not 
helped people. It has destroyed them. It has not kept families 
together. It has torn them apart. It has not turned the urban areas of 
America into shining cities on a hill, it has made them war zones where 
residents live in fear. Our inner cities should be a symbol of what is 
right about America. Unfortunately, they have become examples--dying 
examples--of everything gone wrong with government policy.
  Mr. President, this bill changes that harmful government policy.
  I firmly believe that most of America's children are being raised in 
loving, caring families that struggle every day to ensure that their 
children have a chance at achieving the American Dream. But I also know 
that many of these same families are filled with guilt, at not spending 
enough time with their kids because both parents must work to make ends 
meet. While Washington cannot alleviate these parents' guilt--the 104th 
Congress has acted to ease the tremendous pressures and burdens on 
struggling families.
  Too many single moms are near poverty because their child support 
checks are nowhere to be found. Just since President Clinton was 
elected, 175,000 women, mostly single moms, have slipped into poverty. 
Through the efforts by my colleagues in the House and the Senate, this 
welfare reform bill holds fathers accountable for their child support, 
putting in place the toughest ``deadbeat dads'' provisions anywhere in 
the country. We increased child care funds by $4 billion over current 
law in order to help single parents make the successful transition from 
welfare to work. Our children are suffering from the current welfare 
state. We must reverse this trend, to make welfare a helping hand, not 
a way of life.

  Changing the welfare system will help children. Encouraging families 
to stay together will help children. Putting welfare recipients back to 
work will help children. Restoring the work ethic will help children. 
Improving the quality of local education will help children. 
Encouraging spirituality will help children.
  Spending more on the current broken Washington welfare system will 
not help children. It's time we take away the blindfold and accept 
reality. We have to rebuild parents, families, and communities, but you 
can not do it from inside the beltway. It has to be done at home, in 
school and at church.
  Mr. President, the most important thing that we as a nation can do 
for our children, does not come from the Congress or even the White 
House. Rather, it must come from within all of us--a commitment to read 
to your son or daughter, a commitment to attend church with your child 
and family, coaching your son or daughter's little league team, and 
becoming involved in the education of your son or daughter. Mr. 
President, our children are the future of this great country.

[[Page S9394]]

  I urge my colleagues to vote for this historic bill.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. PELL. Mr. President, when the welfare reform bill was before us 
last week, I said that I could not let my desire to vote for reform 
cloud my judgment about the bill, and about the serious flaws which I 
perceived in it. The bill has been returned to us from conference with 
some of those flaws remedied, but alas not all, and the omissions to my 
mind are determinative. And so once again, I shall vote against the 
bill.
  I am especially concerned about the bill's undeservedly harsh 
treatment of legal immigrants. I note with dismay that nearly half of 
the $56 billion that would be saved by this bill comes from the denial 
of benefits to people in this category. More often then not, legal 
immigrants are hard-working, tax paying individuals who deeply 
appreciate the freedom and opportunity of U.S. citizenship, which they 
hope to attain. To deny them so many of the benefits that they might 
legitimately need as they build a life here, seems unfair and 
unjustified. While I applaud President Clinton's assurance that this 
grievous flaw in the bill will be corrected by future legislation, the 
provision amounts to justice denied, here and now, and I cannot bring 
myself to vote for it.
  I remain concerned, moreover, about the practical consequences of 
ceasing to treat welfare as an entitlement and replacing it with block 
grants. But what this means is that this Nation will cease to respond 
to anyone in great need, as a matter of right, and that some people in 
need may be cut off simply because we have shifted this serious 
national problem to the States, and we have done so without providing 
them with adequate support to address the problem. I am particularly 
concerned that some States, including my own State of Rhode Island 
which has just enacted a new welfare program, may be penalized if they 
choose to have a welfare program which is relatively more liberal than 
the Federal law.
  Also troubling is the retention of cuts in food stamp spending, 
projected at roughly $24 billion over 6 years. Unemployed workers 
without children will be hard hit, as will legal immigrants.
  Finally, I continue to be deeply concerned about the plight of 
children. I simply cannot believe that eliminating an entitlement which 
ensures that all poor children get the food, clothing, and shelter that 
they need can move us individually or as a society down the path we all 
want to go. While some improvements were made in conference, the fact 
remains that children will be the ones most vulnerable to the vagaries 
of variable State welfare programs.
  Mr. President, it is with real regret, then, that I cast a ``no'' 
vote on this welfare reform legislation. I recognize that the bill 
achieves many important broad objectives which are clearly desired by 
the public at large--including work requirements, time limits on 
benefits and job creation incentives. But looking at the final product, 
I cannot say that what we have before us is better than what we now 
have. The bill is, as the Senator from New York [Mr. Moynihan] reminded 
us ``radical legislation with unforeseeable consequences.'' Better to 
reject it now than try to make up for its deficiencies in the future.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, it is the understanding of welfare 
conferees regarding the reconciliation bill that that bill exempts 
electronic benefits transfers from coverage of the Electronic Funds 
Transfer Act. The Department of Agriculture is empowered to establish 
regulations which will provide some protections against recipients' 
loss of benefits through electronic transfer systems. We encourage the 
Department of Health and Human Services [HHS] to develop similar 
regulations which will require procedures to minimize the losses of 
benefits for aid to families with dependent children recipients. It is 
also the conferees' understanding that nothing in this bill in any way 
prevents or discourages HHS from promulgating these essential 
regulations.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today we take the first big step in ending 
the era of big government. Today, we send the states the authority to 
design their own programs for the needy. We move one step further away 
from the one-size-fits-all approach that comes from a Federal 
bureaucracy far removed from individual state environments and 
constituencies. This bill completely changes the very nature of welfare 
from one of endless individual entitlement to one of temporary 
assistance and personal responsibility.
  This legislation is the result of a truly bipartisan process. I want 
to thank my colleagues for their work in crafting a compromise that can 
be supported by a majority of both parties.
  I also want to congratulate the President for joining this effort. 
While we all wondered whether, after vetoing welfare reform twice in 
the last year, he would sign this measure, I am delighted that he has 
announced his support for this bill. I commend him for this decision. 
This is a great victory for Congress, for the President, for the 
States, for the taxpayers, and, above all, for the needy families of 
America.
  Do we know exactly what will happen after this bill is passed? No. No 
one is blessed with that kind of omniscience. The current system 
provides an excellent illustration of the uncertainty of the future. 
The current system was well-intentioned at its inception. No one was 
deliberately trying to create a cycle of dependency or despair for 
beneficiaries who much too often found themselves locked into the 
system. However, the current system has turned out to be just that, 
destroying the very spirit of those who are receiving benefits. Through 
hindsight, we can see that the approaches taken in the current system 
have not, do not, and will not work. It has been a near total failure 
despite its worthy intentions.
  We have learned from this experience. We have not crafted this 
welfare reform proposal out of whole cloth. We did not simply dream it 
up. We reviewed the findings of academics; we heard hours and hours of 
testimony; we poured over statistics; and we listened to our 
constituents.
  The result is a welfare system built on a new paradigm--a ``can do'' 
philosophy that must be infused into recipients and administrators 
alike.
  In designing a new approach to assisting the needy, we have looked to 
those programs that are successful in moving people to work and helping 
them become independent. The States have been moving in this direction 
and have been designing innovative and successful programs for several 
years. My own State of Utah is in the third year of a successful 
demonstration project that has just gone statewide. The Single Parent 
Employment Demonstration [SPED] has 90 percent of the caseload actively 
participating in work activities, utilizes the use of education and 
training to provide basic job skils, and has been successful in moving 
participants into unsubsidized, private sector jobs. This bill will 
continue this trend and allow the States to continue to design 
comprehensive programs to address their unique constituencies, needs, 
and resources.
  Mr. President, this bill is not perfect. There are several things 
included in this bill that I don't agree with. There are many things 
that aren't in this bill that I think should be there. There are even 
some things that I think need to be changed. I would particularly like 
to see an expansion of the use of education and training to provide job 
skills for long-term employment, changes made in the language regarding 
existing State waivers, and a broader compromise on Medicaid 
eligibility to provide a level of administrative relief to the States.
  However, the core reforms contained in this bill far, far outweigh 
these concerns. This bill contains block grants to States and gives 
them the opportunity to design their own systems--systems that will 
provide not only the wherewithal to transition people into jobs, such 
as child care, but also systems that have dignity, hope, and 
independence as the primary goals.
  Throughout this debate, we heard from many who were concerned about 
the effects that these reforms could have on native Americans. I am 
pleased that this conference report retains several provisions 
addressing these concerns. The most important of these provisions is 
the native American tribal allocation provision. I would like to thank 
my colleagues for working with me to address this issue.
  The tribal allocation provisions in this bill will provide tribal 
governments the same opportunities and responsibilities as the States 
to receive

[[Page S9395]]

direct funding and the flexibility to design their own programs based 
on the unique geographical and cultural needs of tribal members. This 
represents a significant shift in thought and Federal policy. Through 
provisions like these, this legislation reinforces the Federal 
Government's commitment for Indian self-determination and self-
governance.
  Mr. President, we have heard from the American taxpayers in no 
uncertain terms that they are tired of paying for people to do nothing. 
Families who are getting up to work every day and are still struggling 
to make ends meet are tired of seeing families receiving assistance 
with virtually no obligation to work for it. This bill changes all 
that. Under this legislation, people must work for their benefits. No 
longer will beneficiaries be able to continue to receive benefits for 
nothing. Families receiving assistance will now be given the resources 
and opportunity to receive job training and education and to move into 
work and independence. The legislation provides child care and other 
support services to these families.

  Mr. President, we have heard much during this debate about the 
children and about how this bill is bad for children. This bill is not 
bad for children. If there is a program that has been cruel to 
children, it is the current system. How can anyone say that a program 
that traps our families in a hopeless cycle of dependency is good for 
and helps children? The current system may throw money at the problem 
of poverty, but it does not provide a solution.
  This bill provides a solution, a way out of the dependency cycle. 
This bill gives needy children back the things that money can't buy--
hope, dignity, self esteem, and a way out of long-term dependency. The 
best way we can help needy children in the long run is to give their 
parents the skills and resources--and, yes, motivation--to enter and be 
successful in the labor market. It can be done. Many have done it. Many 
more can be successful under the new system of assistance and 
incentives incorporated in this bill.
  Mr. President, this bill is not the end of the welfare reform debate. 
Congress will continue to review and reform programs for the needy of 
this country. The reforms contained in this bill will continue to be 
monitored and evaluated. We can even see some technical corrections 
that could be made in the near future. I assure my colleagues and the 
American people that the passage of this legislation does not signal 
the end of congressional interest in the welfare programs. Passing this 
legislation is only the first, most important step in a long ongoing 
process.
  Not only is this bill only the first step in reforming the welfare 
system, it is also the first step in tackling the seemingly 
insurmountable problem of ever-growing entitlement programs and 
balancing the Federal budget. This is not a plateau but rather a ledge 
on the way to the top of the mountain. Congress must continue to look 
at other entitlement programs for the needy. We must look at the 
Medicaid Program, at Medicare, at programs for the disabled, and yes, 
even Social Security. Without reforming these programs, this country 
will find itself digging itself deeper and deeper into a black hole 
with no way to get itself out. But, more importantly, our citizens who 
have come to rely on these programs will wake up one day to find that 
these programs have met with fiscal disaster and are no longer viable.
  Just as important as the fiscal aspect of reforming these programs is 
the evaluation of the role and values of the Federal Government. We 
must reform the very nature of Federal programs from one of dependency 
to one of independence and transition. I encourage my colleagues to 
continue this fight. We must not stop here at the first victory over 
big government, but rather continue the process of reviewing the role 
of the Federal Government and of reforming those programs that are 
holding us back on the way to a prosperous and secure 21st century.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I regret that the conferees on the welfare 
reform bill have decided to report out a measure that is short-sighted 
and punitive to children, the disabled, and legal immigrants. I realize 
that the President has indicated that he will sign this bill into law, 
but I have concerns, as have already been expressed by the President in 
his recent statement, with many of its provisions.
  Preliminary estimates that this measure will push an additional 1.3 
million children nationwide into poverty. Once families have reached 
the 5-year time limit for receiving assistance in this legislation, 
they will have no recourse for assistance if a poor economy leave them 
without the possibility of finding employment.
  Legal immigrants, including those who have been in this country for 
some time already, will be prevented from participating in all Federal 
means-tested programs, including the Food Stamp and Medicaid Programs.
  This measure also cuts $23 billion from the Food Stamp Program over 
the next 6 years. It also limits benefits for those out of work without 
minor children to 3 months total in a 3-year period.
  This measure will cause much grief in Hawaii. The State is already at 
its limit in its ability to assist those living in poverty, and the 
changes in the Federal law will only exacerbate a bid situation
  I believe that the intent of a welfare reform bill should be to make 
it easier for families to make the transition from welfare to work. 
This bill does not provide adequate resources for States to provide the 
necessary support for families to do so. For these reasons, I will vote 
against the conference report.
  However, I wish to commend the conferees for including in the bill 
that will now go before the President important provisions that would: 
First, provide child support enforcement services and funding to Indian 
tribes; second, authorize a State to exempt any Indian tribe from the 
5-year limitation on participation for any Indian residing on an Indian 
reservation where the resident Indian population is 1,000 or more and 
where the unemployment rate is 50 percent or higher; and third, 
establish a 3 percent set-aside for American Indian tribal governments 
in the child care development block grant. Given the President's 
statement of his intent to sign his measure into law, I am pleased that 
the conferees have given special attention to the very serious needs of 
tribal communities.
  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, in 1935 Franklin Roosevelt had the 
foresight to realize that a welfare system that replaces real work with 
handouts was doomed to fail the very individuals it was intended to 
assist. In FDR's own words,

       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.

  I am pleased that America's long, costly drug addiction to the easy, 
insidious welfare drug may be beginning to end today. Destructive 
generational dependency, illegitimacy, fraud, waste, abuse, and neglect 
soon will be replaced with greater self-sufficiency, responsibility and 
pride.
  The bill before us would change the welfare system and the lives of 
many Americans for the better. Welfare was meant to be a safety net, 
not a way of life. This bill would restore the values of personal 
responsibility and self-sufficiency by making work, not Government 
benefits, the centerpiece of public welfare policy. I am proud to be a 
part of the team that has brought this historic legislation to the 
Senate and, soon, to the President's desk.
  Why did the welfare system fail? The value of work was replaced with 
a handout, instead of a hand-up. The welfare system eroded the American 
work ethic. In many cases, welfare recipients today can sit at home and 
make double the minimum wage. Work, as my colleagues and staff know all 
too well, is a character building process. For generations, South 
Dakotans demonstrated this principle, that a hard-work ethic provides 
for themselves and their families. 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. That is why we needed workfare.
  Workfare may seem innovative here in Washington, but it's not a new 
idea. Fifteen years ago, South Dakotans sought to develop new solutions 
for

[[Page S9396]]

their welfare system. South Dakota wanted workfare, not welfare. With 
the reforms it has implemented, South Dakota has succeeded in 
decreasing its welfare caseload by 17 percent and saved taxpayers $5.6 
million. Those reforms, considered radical at that time, will the 
vision of the future for the rest of the country when the bill before 
us become law. Governor Janklow first pursued workfare in the early 
1980's, and former Governor Miller and our late Governor Mickleson 
continued with further reforms. I also want to acknowledge and commend 
Deputy Secretary Mike Vogel, Social Services Secretary, Jim 
Ellenbecker, Denny Pelkofer, Donna Keller, Judy Heinz, Julie Osnes, and 
the rest of the staff at the South Dakota Department of Social Services 
for their efforts to make welfare reform a reality in South Dakota. 
When today's bill becomes law, these innovators will have even greater 
freedom to succeed where the Federal Government has failed.

  I am pleased that the final bill includes workfare amendments I had 
included during the Finance Committee's markup of welfare reform. These 
amendments ensure that welfare recipients will put in a full workweek, 
just as other Americans do, in order to receive benefits. My amendments 
also increase the number of welfare recipients who must work and 
tighten liberal loopholes that have allowed people to avoid real work.
  This historic legislation is a dramatic turn to decentralization of 
government. We are putting greater faith and trust in the states to 
operate their own welfare programs. I am confident South Dakotans will 
do better than Washington bureaucrats. No longer will the Federal 
Government apply a one-size-fits-all welfare system run by bureaucrats. 
Indeed, the Federal agencies responsible for welfare will be 
drastically reduced. States will have the flexibility to seek solutions 
and alternatives to welfare problems. This bill also would do something 
very revolutionary for the native American community-- it would give 
them the opportunity to run their own welfare programs. This is a great 
opportunity for them to seek innovative solutions as well. This bill is 
not just about changing the welfare culture, but also the big 
Government culture. We change both for the better.
  Workfare is not just about restoring responsibility at the individual 
and State level, it is about protecting children in need. This workfare 
bill would ensure that children have quality food and shelter. This 
bill would increase our investment in child care by $4.5 billion and 
increase federal child protection and neglect funding by $200 million 
over current law. What this bill eliminates is cumbersome bureaucracy 
and needless regulations.
  We also 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. The past welfare 
system fostered illegitimacy and discouraged marriage and parental 
responsibility. This welfare reform would promote the basic family 
unit, and crack down on those who deliberately walk away from meeting 
the needs of their children. 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.

  I am also pleased the final bill includes provisions I authored to 
crack down on food stamp fraud and prisoner fraud. Last year, I was 
shocked to learn the extent to which prisoners are able to continue 
receiving welfare benefits. The workfare bill before us once and for 
all puts an end to cash payments to alcohol and drug addicts in prison. 
It also would, reward States that crack down on food stamp recipients 
who abuse the welfare system. Although my home State's food stamp 
program is ranked first in the Nation, each year $1.7 billion is lost 
nationally through food stamp fraud, waste, and abuse. My provision 
would give additional incentive to crack down on those who abuse the 
welfare system. I want to extend my thanks to the staff at the South 
Dakota Office of Recovery and Investigations, specifically Marty 
Armstrong, for their diligent and effective work on this matter.
  Several years ago, President Clinton promised America he would change 
welfare as we know it. Our former colleague and majority leader, Bob 
Dole, made the same promise. Last year Congress delivered on that 
promise. We passed workfare. Unfortunately, President Clinton vetoed 
that workfare bill. The President vetoed workfare again as part of our 
balanced budget plan. Thanks to Chairman Roth, Senator Domenici, and so 
many others we didn't quit. We produced another workfare bill. I am 
pleased the President has said he will do the right thing this time and 
support this workfare legislation.
  I want to thank the conferees for their quick action in approving the 
welfare bill. Again, I am proud to have played a significant role in 
this effort to enact workfare legislation. The workfare bill before us 
will end welfare dependency by requiring work and placing a time limit 
on benefits. Tomorrow's welfare system would encourage people to become 
more self-sufficient and productive members of society, as was intended 
many years ago. 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. Welfare reform ensures a 
better future for all Americans.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, as the Senate debates the Conference Report 
on H.R. 3734, the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act, 
Senators are considering one of the most significant pieces of 
legislation to come before this body in the current Congress. Indeed, 
if this legislation is approved today--and the President signs it as he 
has indicated--this welfare reform legislation may be the very hallmark 
of the 104th Congress. This being said, Mr. President, it is important 
that all Senators pay heed to the vast and complex changes that this 
legislation would effectuate on federal welfare policy. I intend to 
support the Conference Report on H.R. 3734 because I believe it 
represents a necessary departure from a welfare system that few will 
deny is fundamentally flawed. My overall support of this legislation 
notwithstanding, I do harbor certain reservations about the possible 
effects of certain aspects of this welfare reform initiative on our 
neediest citizens. With this in mind, Mr. President, allow me to 
explain why I believe that this legislation, even with its potential 
deficiencies, represents a marked improvement over ``welfare as we know 
it.''
  Mr. President, by combining many of the current federal welfare 
programs into a single Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Block 
Grant, H.R. 3734 would effectively end the federal entitlement to 
welfare assistance and give the States expanded control over their 
respective welfare programs. Under the bill's provisions, each State 
must establish objective criteria for determining eligibility and 
providing ``fair and equitable'' treatment for its welfare recipients. 
In order to receive their full block grant, States would have to 
enforce rigid work requirements for welfare recipients and provide 
adequate child care resources to families with children. Moreover, H.R. 
3734 stipulates that States, in order to receive their full block 
grant, must continue to spend at least 75 percent of the amount they 
spent on cash assistance programs in fiscal year 1995. And, 
importantly, H.R. 3734 would limit welfare recipients to five years of 
benefits and would require most welfare recipients to work at least 30 
hours per week by the year 2000. In addition, to protect children of 
families whose 5 years of assistance have expired, H.R. 3734 permits 
States to use funds from their Social Services Block Grant to provide 
vouchers for food for children.

  Finally, the legislation permanently bans illegal immigrants from 
receiving any Federal benefits, and bans legal immigrants from 
receiving most assistance for the first five years of their residency 
in this country.
  Mr. President, having mentioned the various aspects of this welfare 
reform legislation that I believe will improve our system of welfare, I 
must also allude to a particular provision of the bill that I believe 
may have unnecessarily negative effects on many of the neediest welfare 
recipients. Specifically, I am concerned about the food stamp work 
requirements included in this legislation, which would limit adults 
without dependent children to just 3 months of food stamps every 3 
years. Unemployed laid-off workers

[[Page S9397]]

would be given an additional three months, and areas with unemployment 
of ten percent or more would also be given a waiver from the work 
requirements. Nevertheless, Mr. President, these provisions represent a 
significant departure from the Senate-passed welfare bill, and they 
also embody a complete departure from our national policy of providing 
our needy with the most basic safety net: food. On the surface, it 
might seem that the two exemptions from the work requirement provide a 
safety net. Yet, the Congressional Budget Office has reported that 
States will not be able to create the necessary jobs or workfare slots 
for individuals that are likely to be subjected to these new work 
requirements.

  Mr. President, the Senate-passed measure, like the measure before us 
now, would penalize States for not creating the necessary jobs or 
workfare programs. However, this bill goes further than that by 
including provisions that would also punish an individual who simply 
cannot find a job or a workfare slot available. While ostensibly 
intended to target those who could work but choose not to, this 
provision may in fact have the worst effect on vulnerable individuals 
who want to work but cannot find a job. Indeed, this issue warrants 
careful watching. I believe the conferees would have better served this 
country by adopting the Senate food stamp work requirements.
  While this legislation is not perfect, it represents what I believe 
to be a reasonable attempt to restore the concept of welfare to its 
original purpose: a temporary ``safety net'' for those who have fallen 
on hard times. Welfare should not be a permanent way of life for those 
among us who are able to work. The cost of such misguided policies is 
far greater than the dollars spent on providing benefits to those who 
choose not to work because, in time, they foster dependence and 
indolence among recipients and their families. This argument is not 
new. President Nixon, in addressing the Nation on welfare reform in 
1969 said, ``If we take the route of the permanent handout, the 
American character will itself be impoverished.'' Mr. President, I 
agree fully with President Nixon's statement and that is why I support 
this conference report.
  (At the request of Mr. Daschle, the following statement was ordered 
to be printed in the Record.)
  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, today, I will be unavoidably absent 
from the Senate, as I am in Arkansas on a family matter. However, I 
feel it is important to express my support for this welfare reform 
measure and discuss briefly the reasons for my support.
  My concerns in the debate over welfare reform stem from proposals 
that would outright dismantle the safety net in this country. For 
decades, the Federal Government has assumed the responsibility to help 
those that can-not help themselves. The welfare reform bill before us 
shifts much of that responsibility to the States. I voted against last 
week's Senate version of the welfare bill with the hope that I could 
improve it in the conference committee. In some ways it has improved, 
in others it has not.
  Even so, if I were able to vote for this bill today, I would. I am 
not going to say this bill before us today is perfect. It is not. But I 
cannot justify keeping the current system. There are more individuals 
in poverty now than ever before. I believe we have a responsibility to 
seek new ways to help people help themselves. Our current system fails 
at this task and we must recognize this fact.
  Welfare as we know it has not effectively emphasized work or pulled 
individuals out of poverty. I do not like all of the provisions in this 
bill, but I can not support the status quo.
  In the past week I have heard from many people in Arkansas about 
welfare reform. They know how the current program works in places like 
Little Rock, and in Camden, in Fayetteville, and across the Arkansas 
Delta. They can see that the current program needs reform.
  Under this bill, States will be given the flexibility to reform 
welfare to meet the needs of that State. Yesterday, President Clinton 
said that the welfare population today is different than the one 60 
years ago. It is also true that the welfare population today differs 
from State to State. Individuals on welfare in Arkansas face different 
problems and have different strengths than those in New York or 
California. This legislation will give States the opportunity to design 
a welfare program unique to that State. It is a big responsibility we 
hand over to the States today. I pray they act wisely.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today to voice my support for the 
legislation upon which we are about to vote. We have been working on 
this bill for a year and a half and we've been back to the drafting 
table several times. Today, though, we're going to pass this bill and 
we have the President's assurance that he'll sign it. I am truly 
pleased to have been part of this historic effort, and I want to thank 
my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for their hard work and 
dedication to reforming welfare.
  Does my support mean that I believe we've got the perfect bill and 
all of our concerns have been addressed? Do I think we've finished the 
job and we can forget about welfare for another thirty years? Certainly 
not. No one thinks that this is the perfect approach to reforming 
welfare. Many of us would like to see less in cuts to food stamps; we 
would prefer more support for children.
  In particular, we're emphasizing work in a way that we never have 
before--and let me stress that I think we are emphasizing that goal, 
and I commend the bill on that point. Even so, we're not doing nearly 
as much as we need to do to ensure that jobs are available for people, 
and that people have the education and training they need to fill the 
available jobs. We've spent a fair amount of time and energy this 
session talking about job training. As we all know, reconciliation on 
this issue has eluded us to date. We must address this issue. The first 
thing people need to get and hold down a job is a good education. Too 
often, I think, we assume that to mean a college education. That is not 
necessarily true. In the next Congress, I hope we will renew our 
discussion of how to link education and job training so that people are 
able to fulfill the expectations of the jobs that are available.
  Our international competitors have been leaders in making the 
important link between education and work. Germany for example, has 
long been a model for vocational education. As early as the sixth 
grade, students opt for a college-prep or vocational education program.
  Over and over we've said people need to get off welfare and get back 
to work. I agree with that. We've said ``you can always get a job at 
McDonalds.'' There are two flaws with this flippant argument. One is 
that a person doesn't earn a living wage at a fast-food restaurant--but 
we've had that debate. The other flaw with the argument is that even 
the fast food industry jobs are not as available as we'd like to 
believe. A 1995 Columbia University study of fast-food minimum wage job 
openings found that 14 people applied for every opening. Among those 
rejected, 14 percent hadn't found work a year later. What are we going 
to do for these people? What are we going to do about this problem?

  While this bill makes some nods in that direction, I think perhaps 
its biggest failing is it fails to recognize all the work we need to do 
to get people back to work. So far, the necessary resources in 
education and job training far exceed the available resources. Job 
training and education are an investment that will yield us incredible 
returns. Last year the Department of Education released a study that 
found that ``a 10 percent increase in the educational attainment of a 
company's workforce resulted in an 8.6 percent increase in 
productivity. Whereas a 10-percent increase in the value of capital 
stock such as tools, buildings, and machinery only resulted in a 3.4 
percent increase in productivity.'' I won't belabor this point, but 
education and job training are issues I will continue to work on, and I 
urge my colleagues to do the same.
  I think all of us realize that it will be our responsibility to 
monitor the effects of this bill, to improve and enhance those 
provisions that seem to work well, and to revisit those provisions that 
are unproductive or fall short of what's needed, such as those 
surrounding job training and education that I have just highlighted.
  This bill is not perfect. Even so, the system we have now is not 
working and

[[Page S9398]]

we need to move forward now. The bill before us takes important steps 
in the right direction, and is clearly preferable to the welfare 
program we've arrived at after 30 years under the old system.
  We enacted this system 30 years ago to combat poverty, and the truth 
is--this system hasn't worked. In 1965, 3.3 million children received 
AFDC benefits. In 1990, 7.7 million kids received AFDC benefits, and in 
1994 9.6 million children received AFDC. At the same time, between 1965 
and 1990, the actual number of children in the United States declined 
by nearly 5 million. Clearly, the current system isn't working, and 
because of that there is strong support in this country and in this 
Congress to reform welfare.
  Furthermore, the current system has developed into one that permits, 
even encourages, a lifestyle of dependence. Under the system we have 
now, 65 percent of families on welfare will be dependent for at least 
eight years. One in eight children in this country is on welfare, and 
nearly one in five mothers in inner cities is on welfare. Without 
welfare reform, millions more children will grow up dependent on 
welfare. Under the current system, children who grow up in families 
dependent on welfare are twice as likely to rely on welfare when they 
become adults. It is clear that for many people, welfare has become a 
way of life.

  The bill before us will terminate reliance on Federal assistance as a 
way of life. We end this reliance by terminating cash assistance after 
5 years of receiving benefits. After two years, we require people to 
get jobs. This is real welfare reform. Time limits are unprecedented at 
the Federal level. Five years of benefits allow adequate time for most 
people to get their feet under them and get back on the road to 
supporting themselves. But even after 5 years the line is not a hard 
and fast one. There can be exceptions. The bill allows a 20 percent 
hardship exemption for the really difficult cases. So even though we 
say ``5 years and you're off,'' even then there's some leeway.
  Another strength of this reform bill is that it retains the Federal 
safety net for nutrition benefits. One of the changes I worked hard on 
in the Senate version of the bill was the food stamp block grant. We 
eliminated the block grant option last week, and the conference bill 
retains the food stamp entitlement. The entitlement ensures that food 
stamps will always be available to our most vulnerable populations: 
children, the very poor, and the elderly. And food stamps will be 
available even after the eligibility for cash assistance has ended. I 
want to thank my colleagues for joining me and voting to strike the 
optional block grant.
  Another difference between this bill and the ones we've considered 
previously is the money provided for child care. This bill fulfills the 
Governors' and the President's request for additional child care funds, 
and as a result we'll be spending $4.5 billion above current law on 
child care. In addition, the bill retains minimal health and safety 
standards for child care, and it maintains a quality set-aside from 
child care block grant funds so we might better focus on encouraging 
and developing good child care for our children. Finally, this bill 
requires that the Secretary report to the Congress on how children are 
affected by welfare policy change; additionally, it requires the states 
to report on their child poverty rates. If the child poverty rate 
increases by more than 5 percent, then immediate corrective action is 
required. I mention all of these factors because they contribute to my 
willingness to support this bill, and also because they illustrate that 
the drafters are concerned about children and intend to monitor the 
effect of this bill and follow up to ensure that we are bringing about 
the positive change we're attempting to achieve.

  In conclusion, let me speak briefly on how this bill will affect 
Vermont. I was pleased to learn that the Governor of my home State, 
Gov. Howard Dean, has spoken positively of this bill. While he shares 
the concerns that many of us have, Gov. Dean thinks that Vermont can 
come out ahead under the provisions of this bill. Vermont is currently 
operating its welfare program under a waiver. Not only does this bill 
allow the State to continue its first-in-the-nation reform project, the 
Governor recognizes that the calculations used to determine the size of 
the Federal block grants mean that Vermont will have more money to 
spend on its welfare program.
  While I am on this subject, I would like to take a moment to voice my 
support and praise for those states, like Vermont, that have already 
undertaken welfare reform through waivers and demonstration projects. I 
am pleased that we will allow those waiver projects to continue.
  But let me urge clarification on what I consider to be a confusing 
and counter-intuitive provision in the bill. Under the provisions of 
the bill setting forth the guidelines for the temporary assistance for 
needy families block grants we have a section that gives States the 
option of continuing the waiver projects already underway. In fact, the 
section goes so far as to require the Secretary to encourage any State 
operating under a waiver to both continue the waiver and to evaluate 
the result of the waiver so that other States may make use of the 
valuable information to be gained from these demonstration projects.
  However, under the hold-harmless provisions of this waiver section, 
we seem to forgive the accrued liability of States that choose to 
terminate their waiver projects. Our intent, I believe is to forgive 
the accrued liability of those States, like Vermont, that choose to 
continue their waiver projects. To take any other stance except one 
that also wipes those slates clean would give States incentive to 
terminate their waivers. States like Vermont that are already 
conducting demonstration projects should be encouraged and supported in 
their efforts to continue those projects. I understand that there may 
be an opportunity to revisit that issue soon, and I urge my colleagues 
to ensure that we're creating incentives to continue the waivers that 
are promising, rather than offering incentive to terminate those 
projects.

  Another aspect of the bill that is very important to Vermont is the 
assurance that, as under current law, LIHEAP benefits will not be 
counted as income for purposes of determining food stamp eligibility. 
This provision is very important to poor people in cold regions of the 
country who may rely on both LIHEAP benefits and food stamp benefits. 
There was a provision in both the House and Senate bills that would 
have forced people to choose between heating and eating, and I thank my 
Senate colleagues for accepting my amendment to strike those 
provisions. I also want to thank my colleagues who worked on the 
conference committee for working to maintain the Senate bill provisions 
on this issue.
  Mr. President, I agree with my colleagues who say this bill has 
flaws, and I look forward to working with them next year and in future 
years as we continue to work towards the proper balance between self-
sufficiency and Gvernment assistance. In spite of its weaknesses, I 
think this is a good bill. We've worked hard over the past year and a 
half to get to this point and I think we've made some very positive 
changes that will help all Americans to be productive and contributing 
citizens. I will be pleased to vote ``yes'' on final passage.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, since 1987, when I first proposed an 
overhaul of the welfare system, I have argued that welfare recipients 
should be required to work. None long years later, I am pleased that it 
is finally about to happen.
  It has been a long road. I was pilloried by many of my friends back 
then for even suggesting the idea of requiring work. Today, I think 
everyone here believes that work should be the premise of our welfare 
system.
  It was unthinkable a few short years ago, that we would limit the 
time that people could collect welfare benefits. Today, I think that is 
a proposition on which nearly everyone here agrees.
  And, on the other side of the aisle, it was just a few short months 
ago, that many were unwilling to invest sufficient amounts in child 
care so that the children of welfare mothers would be taken care of 
when their mothers went to work.
  We have come a long way toward reaching agreement on how best to 
reform our failed welfare system. And, much of that meeting of the 
minds is reflected in this bill. So, I will vote for it, although I 
believe it could have been better.

[[Page S9399]]

  I would feel much more comfortable if we were here today debating and 
voting on the Bipartisan Welfare Reform Act that Senator Specter and I 
introduced in the Senate and that Representatives Castle  and Tanner 
introduced in the House. It was more realistic in putting people to 
work; it was more compassionate to the children who did not ask to be 
born in poverty; and it was a model of bipartisanship from the very 
beginning.
  Unfortunately, the Biden-Specter, or Castle-Tanner, bill is not a 
choice facing us today. Today, we have but one choice: this bill with 
its flaws or the current flawed system. And, in weighing the 
alternatives, the flawed--I should say failed--status quo is simply no 
longer an alternative.
  The culture of welfare must be replaced with the culture of work. The 
culture of dependence must be replaced with the culture of self-
sufficiency and personal responsibility. And, the culture of permanence 
must no longer be a way of life. I will vote for this bill, Mr. 
President, because it is a step toward changing the culture.
  This bill will require welfare recipients to work in exchange for 
their benefits, and it will limit the amount of time that families can 
receive welfare. The bill will increase our investment in child care so 
that welfare mothers can go to work, and it will go after the deadbeat 
dads who refuse to support their own children. Finally, it will crack 
down on fraud in the Food Stamp Program.
  These are important and crucial changes that need to be made in our 
failed welfare system. They have been my priorities in reforming 
welfare, and this bill meets those goals.
  But, we should not fool ourselves. There will be people, many of them 
children, who will fall through the cracks because of this bill. I do 
not know how many. I have heard numbers thrown around on how many more 
poor children there will be under this bill. To tell the truth, no one 
knows for sure. But, there will be some. And, for that, we should not 
brag or boast or pound our collective chests or, as one Member of the 
other body did yesterday, claim that this will be great for America.
  However, that's not a reason for failing to move forward. It is a 
reason for watching closely what happens as we move forward. As this 
new welfare system is implemented, we must monitor it with a 
microscopic eye. And, I hope the authors of this legislation will be as 
willing to make corrections if corrections are needed as many of us 
have been willing to vote for a good, but not perfect, bill.
  And, this is not a perfect bill. In fact, I do not even believe this 
is the best bill we could have written. But, it is a good bill. And, it 
is time to move forward.
  Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, about 11 months ago, the Senate passed a 
welfare reform bill by an overwhelming 87 to 12 margin. That vote 
demonstrated that there was strong, bipartisan agreement that the 
current welfare system needs a dramatic overhaul. After almost a year 
of discussion relating to the best way to reform the current system, it 
is satisfying that the same bipartisan spirit will be present when we 
vote on a welfare reform plan for third time.
  The current system, with its trademark entitlement programs, has been 
only marginally successful in providing for the most basic needs of 
low-income people, and has been a dismal failure in encouraging 
recipients to become independent.
  While we supported changes in 1988 to emphasize work in our welfare 
system--those reforms included so many exemptions that the incentives 
to work were seriously undermined. Those reforms did not do enough to 
help us distinguish those who had fallen on hard times and needed a 
helping hand from those who simply refused to act in a disciplined and 
responsible manner. When welfare is a Federal entitlement, it is very 
difficult to make that distinction.
  The legislation before us today will put welfare recipients on notice 
that their time on the system is limited. We are offering them 
assistance with child care, health care, and training to become self-
sufficient. In return, recipients are expected to put in time improving 
their education, participating in training, and getting a job to get 
off the system permanently.
  As recipients increase their efforts to comply with these new 
requirements, States must understand the responsibility they are 
accepting with the flexibility gained from the block grant. The Federal 
Government is ending the 60-year philosophy that anyone at anytime is 
entitled to cash assistance.
  The philosophy has changed to: we will help someone get a job and 
keep a job by providing child care and health care for a specified 
period of time. This shift in philosophy means that the culture of 
State welfare offices must evolve into the culture of a job placement 
service where the focus is getting jobs, not mailing checks.
  This legislation also takes a big step forward to reinforce the 
importance of families in society. Regrettably, too many of our young 
people are growing up without two parents involved in their lives; 92 
percent of AFDC families have no father in the home. This bill 
recognizes that reducing out-of-wedlock births is an important goal, 
but does not prescribe Federal solutions that would hamstring the 
ability of States to try different approaches.
  One of the most essential ingredients for self-sufficiency is the 
availability of child care. By funding child care activities at almost 
$22 billion, States will have the resources they need to design 
successful return-to-work programs. With this enhanced funding, parents 
will have some assurance that their children will be cared for in safe 
settings.
  As the President indicated yesterday, this bill is not perfect. One 
of my principle concerns is the impact of cuts in food stamps on the 
working poor. Food stamp benefits do not extend just to families on 
AFDC. The Food Stamp Program plays an important role in helping poor, 
working families make ends meet.
  Food stamps are the front-line defense against poverty, providing a 
minimum safety net of 1 out of every 10 people in Maine. This program 
has proven vital in improving the health of our children and the 
elderly, and protecting people with disabilities. We need to ensure 
that this program retains its vital mission: to ensure that families 
have enough resources to buy food.
  One of the most important provisions in this bill is the emphasis on 
the collection of child support and establishing paternity for children 
born out-of-wedlock. Child support collections continue to increase 
across the Nation. The Republican bill includes provision which will 
encourage even greater increases in child support collections. By 
taking a tougher stand to establish and then enforce child support 
orders, some of the families currently tied to the welfare system may 
be able to get loose.
  It is obvious that no one likes the current system. Governors don't 
like it, welfare recipients don't like it, and the public believes that 
welfare programs serve only those people who want to take advantage of 
the system. As a result, support for antipoverty programs has eroded 
drastically in recent years.
  By injecting a work ethic into our welfare system and emphasizing 
self-sufficiency, which this bill does--we are on the right track. This 
bill comes very close to providing resources and incentives that will 
improve our anti-poverty programs, but I also hope we will continue to 
work to ensure that our most vulnerable populations are protected.
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, today the Senate will be voting to 
transform the Nation's welfare system. Despite some changes, I believe 
that the fundamental flaws of the Senate and House passed bills remain 
and therefore I will vote against the conference report.
  Children and low-income working men and women will be the victims of 
this legislation. There are already far too many poor children in this 
country and I believe that this bill will in the end cause many more 
children to live in poverty. I am particularly concerned that in Ohio 
alone, as many as 43,500 children will be pushed into poverty by the 
implementation of the bill before us. Mr. President, I cannot support 
legislation that would cause this kind of 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 risky policy and

[[Page S9400]]

there will no longer be any mechanism for guaranteeing a national 
safety net for our poorest families.
  I am concerned that the work requirements in the bill can not be met. 
States that do not meet employment goals will lose part of their block 
grants. Penalties would rise from 5 percent in the first year to 21 
percent in the ninth year. The Congressional Budget Office has already 
reported that most States will be unable to meet the work requirements. 
This legislation lacks the necessary commitment or resources to help 
people move from poverty to meaningful employment. It does not provide 
any specific funding for States to help people find or train themselves 
for better-paying jobs. Rather than moving people off welfare and onto 
work, this bill emphasizes cutting off welfare.
  While I support reform that promotes personal responsibility and 
community initiatives, I cannot support legislation which undermines 
the national safety net and reduces resources for hungry families.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, during consideration of the Senate 
reconciliation bill, two definitions regarding immigrants, section 
2403(c)(1), and in section 2423, section 213(A)(f)(2), were stricken 
because they contained material that was not under the jurisdiction of 
the Finance Committee. Specifically the definitions denied all means-
tested benefits to immigrants including benefits subject to 
appropriations.
  The Parliamentarian also agreed that the provisions violated another 
section of the Byrd rule, section 313(b)(1)(D). Section 313(b)(1)(D) 
prohibits language in a reconciliation bill or conference report if the 
deficit reduction is merely incidental to the larger policy changes 
contained within the provision. The Parliamentarian agreed that since 
the reconciliation process is confined to mandatory spending, expanding 
the scope of provisions to include benefits provided by discretionary 
spending was a violation of the Byrd rule.
  The conferees were certainly notified about these rulings and the 
offending provisions were not included in the conference report.
  Moreover, would the Senator agree that, when the Senate struck these 
sections as violating the Byrd rule, the Senate's intent was to prevent 
the denial of services in appropriated programs such as those that 
provide services to victims of domestic violence and child abuse, the 
maternal and child health block grant, social services block grant, 
community health centers and migrant health centers? Does the Senator 
agree that recipients of appropriated funds are not forced to conduct 
checks on citizenship and immigration status when providing community 
services?
  Mr. KENNEDY. Yes. Under the Byrd rule, the budget reconciliation 
process cannot be used to change discretionary spending programs. Only 
mandatory spending is affected.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Is this consistent with the understanding of the Senator 
from Nebraska as well?
  Mr. EXON. Yes. As ranking minority member of the Budget Committee, I 
have been concerned to ensure that the budget reconciliation process is 
limited to affecting mandatory spending and is not misused to achieve 
other objectives. Budget reconciliation's departure from ordinary 
Senate rules of debate must be carefully limited to its original and 
proper purpose. Our colleagues on the other side of the aisle shared 
this view when they agreed to strike the offending provisions from the 
Senate bill.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Would the Senator agree that the version of the bill 
recommended in this conference report is consistent with this 
understanding?
  Mr. EXON. Yes. These provisions stayed out of the bill in conference, 
as the conferees sought to avoid another challenge on the Senate floor 
that these provisions violated the Byrd rule. This manifests our intent 
to keep this bill within the proper parameters of budget 
reconciliation.
  Mr. President, changes in discretionary programs on a reconciliation 
bill, such as the ones mentioned by the Senator from Florida and the 
Senator from Massachusetts, result in no direct budgetary savings and 
are therefore extraneous under the Byrd rule.
  During floor consideration of this legislation, we struck section 
2403(c)(1), and in section 2423, section 213(A)(f)(2) because they 
contained material that was not under the jurisdiction of the Finance 
Committee, namely many discretionary programs, because they violated 
section 313(b)(1)(C) of the Budget Act. These provisions also provide 
no budgetary savings, and violating the intent of section 313(b)(1)(A) 
of the Budget Act, but because they were cleverly embedded in language 
which did provide direct budgetary savings, it was difficult to fully 
enforce the Byrd rule. Nonetheless, it is clear that this bill should 
not be used to make changes in discretionary programs, and those who 
look to interpret the action of the Congress should take this into 
account.
  Mr. President, the purpose of the Byrd rule is to prevent 
reconciliation bills from being loaded up with provisions, such as 
these, that have no budgetary impact. This is important because 
reconciliation bills move in the Senate under special rules which limit 
amendment and time for debate. Without the protections provided by the 
Byrd rule, it would be far too easy to take advantage of the privileged 
nature of reconciliation to enact controversial items without proper 
consideration in the Senate. Allowing reconciliation to be used in this 
manner fundamentally undermines the basic nature of the Senate's rules 
which protect the voice of the minority and damages the Senate as an 
institution.
  For this reason, I feel it is important to bring these provisions to 
the attention of the Senate, and I thank the Senators for their 
efforts.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, today, the Senate will reach a milestone in 
the long and sometimes twisting journey of welfare reform legislation. 
The Senate will pass this bill, as the House of Representatives did 
yesterday. The President has told the Nation that he will sign it, and 
soon it will become law. I will vote in favor of this bill because it 
is a step toward ending the present system which simply does not work 
and replacing it with a system which requires and rewards work. I wish, 
however, that we had before us a reform bill which I could 
wholeheartedly, without reservation, endorse and support. I would 
greatly prefer a bill, for example, like the work first legislation 
which contained a Federal safety net for children and which I 
cosponsored with Senator Daschle and many of my colleagues or even like 
the bipartisan Biden-Specter approach which I voted for in the Senate.
  The bill before us is an improvement over the legislation which I 
opposed last year and which the President vetoed because, among other 
things, it provides more support for child care, retains needed child 
protection programs and services, includes my amendment strengthening 
the work requirement, does not block grant food stamp assistance, 
requires a greater maintenance of effort from the States, and doubles 
the contingency fund to help States in times of economic downturn. 
However, it contains a number of serious flaws. That is why it is a 
milestone and not a final destination. It will need repairs. As the 
President has indicated, there are aspects of this legislation which 
the Congress will be required to revisit. And beyond that, I believe 
that this kind of sweeping reform involves an element of risk. Although 
our efforts are directed toward improving the system, recognizing 
within the welfare system the principle of the value of work, assuring 
the protection of children and reasserting the responsibility of absent 
parents to their children, we cannot possibly be sure that all the 
effects of such sweeping reform will be those intended. For that 
reason, the Congress must remain vigilant in its oversight and 
monitoring of the impacts of this legislation. We must stand ready to 
address negative impacts. If critics are fully correct and there is a 
large increase in the numbers of American children who find themselves 
impoverished, we must stand ready to remedy quickly the defects in this 
bill.
  For a number of years, I have been working toward reform of the 
welfare system. The existing system has failed. It does not serve 
families and children well. It does not serve the American taxpayer 
well. It was created to meet the needs of families in hard times. 
Unfortunately, for far too many, what was intended as a safety net has 
too often become a way of life, a cycle of dependency. It is wrong to 
allow such a system to continue.

[[Page S9401]]

  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.
  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 
over last year's bill. 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. The 
bill will provide the kind of flexibility which the States have been 
asking for. Now, they must step up to the task and meet their 
responsibility. If they fail, this reform will fail because it is built 
on the foundation of getting able-bodied people back to work.

  I am particularly pleased that this legislation includes my amendment 
which I first offered last year which greatly strengthens the work 
requirement in the bill. The original legislation required able-bodied 
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.
  As I have said, I am deeply concerned by several provisions contained 
in this legislation. I am afraid that the reductions in food stamp 
assistance may go too far, although the conference committee added $1 
billion in food stamp assistance back in. Also, while some language was 
added in the conference to allow States to use some funds under this 
bill to provide noncash vouchers for minimum safetynet support to 
children of families which lose their benefits they have reached the 5-
year limit on assistance, I believe such minimum aid should be 
mandated. We will want to monitor how the States handle this problem. 
And, I am concerned that the provisions included, denying benefits to 
legal immigrants, are too harsh. I particularly object to the impact on 
legal immigrants who are already in the United States and on legal 
immigrants who come here, work hard, and then may unfortunately become 
disabled. As the President stated yesterday, these provisions don't 
belong in a bill relating to welfare reform.
  I am also concerned by a provision in the bill which did not appear 
in either the House-passed or Senate-passed bill. Both the House and 
the Senate bills prohibited penalties against single custodial parents 
with children under 11 years old who cannot find adequate, affordable 
child care, as determined by the State. Inexplicably, the conference 
committee changed that provision to lower the protected age to children 
under the age of 6. Again, I think this is a matter which Congress 
should monitor closely as it is applied in the States, and revisit it, 
soon.
  Mr. President, the decision on this bill is a difficult and a close 
one. But, I believe we must reform the broken welfare system which 
currently serves America's children poorly and serves the American 
taxpayer poorly. But, as we move forward on a bipartisan basis, we must 
vigilantly work with the States, to make this reform successful, to get 
people back to work, and to improve the lives of America's most 
vulnerable children, with an on-going commitment that mistakes will be 
addressed, and shortfalls will be reevaluated.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, the Personal Responsibility and Work 
Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 moves our Nation in a positive 
direction by reforming our current welfare system. Not only does it 
eliminate the entitlement status of welfare, but the bill requires 
those able-bodied recipients who can work, to work. In addition, the 
bill provides $4.5 billion more for child care than current law, 
maintains Medicaid eligibility for those citizens who qualify for 
assistance, and allows those States who are operating under Federal 
waivers to continue to do so. The child care and Medicaid provisions in 
this bill will allow welfare recipients to better make the transition 
to work. Also, the Federal Government, by allowing States to continue 
with their innovative welfare reform programs, will see continued 
successes, as in Oregon, in welfare reform.
  As chairman of the Appropriations Committee, and while currently 
embroiled in the appropriations process, my experience has taught me 
all too well the dire consequences of continuing, without change, 
entitlement programs that we do not, and cannot control. We can no 
longer keep spending until all needs are met. These entitlement 
programs place a great burden on the Appropriations Committee and more 
importantly, a burden on the many other needs of our Nation.
  Only through a commitment to providing better opportunities for those 
living in poverty will we find a solution to poverty. We can achieve a 
reduction in welfare spending while working to transition the 
impoverished, out of poverty. The recent vote in the Senate to increase 
the minimum wage is an indication of Congress' commitment to ensure 
that in the area of employment, a minimum standard is assured. However, 
Congress cannot eliminate poverty by merely raising the minimum wage. 
There is a cycle of poverty which is passed from generation to 
generation, and it is the root causes of this poverty that must be 
addressed: a lack of education and access to upward social, and 
economic stability. Education is the key to the success of society. 
Citizens without the opportunity to educate themselves, to increase 
knowledge and skills, will weaken in despair, maintaining the status 
quo at best. In my home State of Oregon, the Governor's office, county 
commissioners, and the Oregon Workforce Quality Council, are only a few 
among many who have worked towards improving job training. As a result 
of the efforts in Oregon, in only a few years Oregon has reduced their 
welfare roles by almost 25 percent. By progressing towards a seamless 
link amongst differing human resource agencies, Oregon has made 
outstanding progress in integrating education, employment, and training 
programs. These are key links in ending the cycle of poverty. Thus, I 
am pleased to see waiver language contained in this bill which will 
continue the welfare reform process. With this added flexibility Oregon 
will be able to continue its extraordinary welfare program.

  Mr. President, we have chosen to address welfare reform and Medicaid 
reform separately; a decision which I cannot fully support. Welfare 
reform is an integrated effort which includes: child care, effective 
job training and quality health care. To end welfare as we know it we 
must allow our citizens the opportunity to climb out of the welfare 
trap and become productive citizens of our Nation. Without an 
integrated approach the entire system is placed in jeopardy. Thus, I am 
dismayed that we did not reform Medicaid while reforming welfare, for 
they are an integrated pair. However, I am satisfied at this point to 
know that Medicaid will remain intact for our citizens who are 
fulfilling the work requirements of this bill. Furthermore, I am 
pleased that the State of Oregon will continue to operate its Medicaid 
system under the Oregon health plan. Under the Oregon health plan, my 
State has enrolled 114,000 more Oregonians who would otherwise not have 
had access to health care. The Oregon health plan required numerous 
Federal waivers to achieve this success, and I am hopeful that Medicaid 
reform, whenever enacted, will have similar success as in Oregon.

  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter from 
the State of Oregon endorsing this bill.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                              Oregon Department of


                                              Human Resources,

                                         Salem, OR, July 31, 1996.
     Hon. Mark O. Hatfield,
     United States Senator,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Hatfield: Thank you for your ongoing work with 
     us on both our welfare reform waivers and the current pending 
     legislation. Your assistance has made it possible for Oregon 
     to continue to improve upon its extraordinarily successful 
     strategies to move families from poverty to employment.
       Regarding the current bill, it is my understanding that the 
     conference committee has allowed states the option to 
     determine if, after a five-year period following enactment, 
     qualified aliens (generally speaking, legally residing non-
     citizens) would remain eligible for Medicaid coverage. With 
     this issue resolved, the Department of Human Resources

[[Page S9402]]

     is satisfied that the bill will allow the State to have more 
     flexibility and success in helping Oregon families become 
     self-sufficient than would be possible under current law.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Gary Weeks,
                                                         Director.

  Mr. HATFIELD. In Oregon, we are reducing our welfare roles by 
training our workers and putting people to work. This is being 
accomplished through a concerted effort of local, State and Federal 
officials striving together towards a common goal of putting people to 
work. We are demonstrating that welfare reform is an integrated system 
of job training, child care, personal responsibility, and health care.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, today the Senate will vote to change the 
Nation's welfare system. While I hope these changes will make people's 
lives better, I greatly fear that these changes will do far more harm 
than good.
  Let me say I believe the country needs welfare reform, and I strongly 
support some portions of this bill. I support requiring all able-bodied 
recipients to work, turning welfare offices into employment offices, 
providing adequate child care and requiring strong child support 
enforcement. This bill achieves some of these goals, but I am deeply 
concerned that it will push more people into poverty instead of lifting 
them out.
  I am encouraged by the President's commitment to pursue these 
concerns and come back next year to propose changes to this 
legislation. In fact, I wish we had incorporated those changes in this 
bill.
  I have been hopeful that this Congress would achieve real welfare 
reform. A good bill would encourage adults to work without threatening 
the well-being of children or legal immigrants or the States that need 
welfare assistance most. I originally voted for welfare reform 
legislation in the Senate with hopes of ultimately achieving this goal.
  Unfortunately, this has not happened. In the highly politicized 
environment in which we find ourselves, I fear that we are trading an 
admittedly imperfect system for one that may prove to be far worse for 
our Nation's children and poor. That is why I am voting against the 
conference report before us.
  I have been persuaded that this bill will hurt New Mexico. While 
under this bill, States may have substantial discretion on how they 
administer welfare benefits, it is equally clear that they will have 
substantially less money with which to administer those benefits.
  I believe this bill will increase the number of children living in 
poverty in our State. Relative to other States, low per capita income 
states like New Mexico will suffer. According to the New Mexico Human 
Services Department, the number of families on welfare is increasing in 
New Mexico--from an 18,400 caseload in 1989 to 34,000 cases per month 
in 1996. New Mexico cannot easily absorb funding cuts when the caseload 
is growing and the State budget is not.
  This bill requires progressively more hours of work, from a greater 
percent of each State's caseload every year, with States losing 
cumulatively more funding each year they fail to hit their targets. 
While I am a strong proponent of work requirements as an integral part 
of welfare reform, I am skeptical of this approach.
  Currently, unemployment in New Mexico is 6.8 percent, higher than the 
national average of 5.3 percent. While we have experienced a recent 
period of high job creation, many of those new jobs are concentrated in 
our urban centers and are not likely to be accessible to those who live 
in rural areas. And what will happen to New Mexico in the event of an 
economic downturn, when rates of job creation are not so high? This 
bill provides a penalty of a 5 percent cut in Federal funds for the 
State's block grant that will be increased to a maximum of 21 percent 
cut should targets be missed in consecutive years. The National 
Governors' Association [NGA] shares the concern that many States will 
have difficulty in meeting the work requirements. This will leave 
States with the choice of using State and local funds for education, 
training, and child care, or throwing more people off the rolls so it 
will be easier to hit their work targets, or cutting far back on 
benefits.
  The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has said that, over 6 
years, this bill falls $12 billion short of the funding needed to meet 
the work requirements of this legislation, and about $2.4 billion short 
in child care resources. Currently, the caseload in New Mexico is 
growing. Who will be forced to pick up the shortfall? State and local 
governments will.
  Last year in New Mexico, 239,000 recipients in 87,000 households 
relied on food stamps. About $28 billion in savings realized by this 
bill will be in food stamps. Such cuts to funding benefits erode the 
integrity of the safety net for those who need it most. I say again 
that we are trading in an imperfect system for one that may prove much 
worse.
  Our common goal is to eliminate public assistance as a way of life 
while preserving temporary protections for those truly in need. We can 
do this without denying the basic needs of innocent children and 
without driving State and local governments further into debt. I look 
forward to voting for the necessary amendments to this legislation in 
the next Congress.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I am pleased that the welfare reform 
conference report includes a suggestion I made to the conferees.
  Before final passage in the Senate, I suggested that we delete a 
direct spending appropriation that was in the Senate-passed bill--
section 2211(e)(5).
  This provision would have given the Social Security Administration 
[SSA] $300 million in entitlement funding for administrative costs 
associated with welfare reform.
  Although it is important to make sure SSA gets the funds it needs to 
implement welfare reform, I oppose creating new entitlement spending 
for Federal agencies.
  As an alternative, I suggested that we build upon a process that is 
already in current law and which adjusts the discretionary spending 
caps to accommodate additional funding in the appropriations process 
for SSA to do continuing disability reviews.
  I am pleased that the conferees accepted this approach.
  Let me also clarify one issue.
  The language in the conference report provides that the chairman of 
the House Budget Committee must take back the cap adjustment in the 
event the President vetoes the bill.
  For the record, we do not need this explicit authority in the Senate. 
The chairman of the Senate Budget Committee already has the authority 
to reverse adjustments of this kind in the event the legislation does 
not become law.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise to support the conference report 
and welfare reform.
  The Congress and the administration have worked now for over 3 years 
to reform the shameful situation in which millions of Americans on 
welfare find themselves. Parents seeking work are discouraged from 
doing so by the current system. Teenage mothers languish alone in 
households without the support of their children's fathers and often 
without proper adult supervision. Welfare as we know it has allowed 
these societal ills to fester and drain increasingly large amounts of 
public assistance funds. The current system has made it too easy for 
young men to father children without assuming either the financial or 
emotional responsibilities of parenthood. For too long, society has 
assumed the responsibility of caring for poor children with welfare 
checks, while not placing expectations of accountability upon the young 
parents. Too many families face the daily burden of survival, 
unemployment, and society's suspicion of their unwillingness to change 
their situation.
  The provisions of this conference agreement can ensure that our 
welfare system will finally reflect a respect for two of the most 
fundamental values of our society--an adherence to the American work 
ethic balanced with a compassion for those truly unable to care for 
themselves. This bill redirects hard-earned tax dollars toward 
achieving employment opportunities for adults and improvements in the 
quality of life of children.
  First and foremost, it eliminates the possibility of receiving public 
assistance without any intention of making some kind of a contribution 
to society in return. Beneficiaries will be aware

[[Page S9403]]

that from the day they receive their first check, the clock will be 
ticking. Society is fulfilling an obligations to help them get back on 
their feet, and they in turn are obligated to make every effort to 
receive job training or education and to find employment. The 
employment of parents will enrich their children not only financially, 
but morally as well. In watching their parents benefit from educational 
opportunities and engage in gainful employment, children may embrace a 
valuable work ethic and eventually be better able to free themselves 
from the cycle of poverty and welfare dependence in which they are 
currently entrapped. States will also have an incentive to help 
beneficiaries find work. Welfare offices should become employment 
offices as States strive to move recipients into the work force in 
order to earn a performance bonus from the Federal Government.

  The conference bill also holds the hope of protecting children and 
reducing welfare spending by attacking the problem of unmarried teen 
parenthood. Welfare will no longer encourage the proliferation of 
single and uneducated parents by automatically and unconditionally 
underwriting the mothers who bear children out of wedlock. Children 
born out of wedlock are shown by studies to be three times more likely 
to be on welfare as adults than their peers. By implementing this bill, 
however, the Federal Government will require States to combat this 
problem and hopefully prevent it in a number of ways. First, paternity 
must be established for all children born out of wedlock at birth as a 
condition for receiving assistance, and fathers will be required to pay 
child support and set a good example for their children by engaging in 
either private sector or community service jobs. Mothers must live with 
an adult parent or relative or in an adult-supervised, strictly run 
Second Chance Home where they can learn skills necessary to the proper 
management and care of a child and household. A further condition of 
receiving assistance is a commitment to educational advancement. Young 
mothers must stay in a school or training program as a condition of 
continuing to receive welfare checks.
  This welfare reform bill will additionally work to prevent a new 
generation from entering into the cycle of early parenthood and welfare 
dependence by making it a national goal to lower teen pregnancy rates. 
It establishes a national campaign that will assure the creation of 
teen pregnancy prevention programs in at least 25 percent of American 
communities by 1997. It includes two amendments which I authored with 
the intent of combating this problem. One will require the Justice 
Department as well as the States to crack down on what studies show is 
a class of older men--many of them predatory--who father the children 
of young girls in the majority of teen pregnancy cases. The second 
amendment requires States to reserve a portion of their social service 
block grant funds for programs and services that educate young people 
about the consequences of premarital pregnancy. As we reduce the number 
of teens who become pregnant, we will be increasing the number of 
children who are able to enjoy a childhood without deprevation.

  There are other aspects of this legislation which have been framed 
with the protection of children in mind. For example, minor children 
continue to receive Medicaid even if their parents lose coverage as a 
penalty for not getting off of welfare into job training and work. 
Families can also be eligible for transitional Medicaid coverage as 
they move from welfare to work. These provisions are vital as many 
parents currently refrain from finding jobs and moving off welfare for 
fear of losing the medical coverage for their children that welfare 
provides.
  Mr. President, this bill provides a significant improvement over the 
Senate-passed bill in allowing States to provide needy children of 
parents who go off of welfare with vouchers through the title XXblock 
grant. The legislation also answers the all-important question of who 
will care for the children as their mothers and fathers move into the 
world of education and work. We have designated $13.8 billion--a 
substantial increase--to be spent just on child care over the next 6 
years, and we have retained child care health and safety standards. 
Moveover, we will not penalize mothers with children under the next 6 
years, and we have retained child care health and safety standards. 
Moreover, we will not penalize mothers with children under the age of 6 
who do not accept employment because they cannot find or afford child 
care. I would have preferred the retention of the Senate provision in 
this regard which allowed the mothers of children age 6 to 11 who 
cannot find adequate, affordable child care to stay home with them 
without penalty.

  Mr. President, this is a good bill--a giant step forward from the 
welfare status quo--but it is no more perfect than any other bill that 
has passed the Senate on a big, complicated problem. I am especially 
concerned by the food stamp provision which is a real break with what 
was agreed to in the Senate-passed bill. It limits the receipt of food 
stamps by jobless individuals who do not have children to 3 months out 
of a 3-year period and allows no hardship exemptions. This is far 
harsher than the Senate provision which allowed jobless individuals to 
receive food stamps for 6 months out of each year as well as a 20-
percent hardship exemption. Food stamps are also now cut for households 
receiving energy assistance, a proposal not included in the Senate 
bill. The conference report also cuts the cap on the shelter deduction 
by $42 and takes away food stamps for more families with children who 
pay over half their income for housing. And I remain very concerned 
about the ban on food stamps, Medicaid, and other assistance for legal 
immigrants; it has no good place in a welfare-to-work bill.
  As the President has urged, we must keep these issues in mind for 
repair in the future even as we recognize that this legislation is 
definitely an improvement in the current welfare program. In voting for 
this bill, we will realize an historic opportunity to meet President 
Clinton's call to ``end welfare as we know it.'' We will have also 
proven to the American people that the Federal Government is capable of 
bringing about change through bipartisan cooperation.
  This is not the end of welfare reform but it is the largest step 
forward we have taken to improve the way America cares for its poor, 
and tries to make real for them the dreams of equal opportunity, which 
is the driving impulse of our history.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  Mr. GRAHAM. I wonder if my colleague could address one point on this 
bill. I notice that the term ``Federal means-tested public benefit'' 
was defined in previous versions of the bill. However, in this 
conference report, no definition is provided.
  Mr. CHAFEE. It is my understanding that the Parliamentarian noted 
that the previous definitions of ``Federal means-tested public 
benefit'' were broad enough to include discretionary spending. 
According to the Parliamentarian, that inclusion caused the definition 
to violate Section 313(b)(1)(D) of the Byrd rule, which prevents 
reconciliation legislation from extending its scope to items that 
provide merely incidental deficit reduction, that is, discretionary 
programs.
  Therefore, when the bill was considered in conference, I understand 
that there was an intentional effort to ensure this provision complied 
with Byrd rule by omitting the definition of that particular term.
  In other words, then, the term ``Federal means-tested public 
benefit''--if it is to be in compliance with the Byrd rule--does not 
refer to discretionary programs. I would assume that programs such as 
funding for community health centers, as well as the maternal and child 
health block grant, would not be impacted.
  Mr. GRAHAM. I thank the Senator for clarifying that point.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I believe our last Senator, other than 
the leader and myself, is Senator Thurmond, and he would like 8 
minutes. We have plenty of time, so I give him 8 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise in support of the conference 
report to H.R. 3734, the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity 
Reconciliation Act of 1996. This legislation reforms welfare to 
emphasize fundamental American values. It rewards work and self 
reliance, promotes personal responsibility, and renews a sense of hope

[[Page S9404]]

in the future. Additionally, the bill slows the growth of Federal 
welfare spending, thus reducing the Federal budget deficit by $55 
billion over 6 years. The measure does provide sufficient increases in 
spending to protect vulnerable populations.
  This Congress previously passed two welfare reform bills. The 
President subsequently vetoed those bills, despite his 1992 campaign 
pledge to end welfare as we know it. I hope as we send him another 
bill, that the President will finally keep his pledge on this issue, 
and sign the bill.
  Mr. President, more than 30 years ago the Federal Government declared 
its War on Poverty. Since then, the number of individuals receiving aid 
to families with dependent children has more than tripled. Over two-
thirds of these recipients are children. The increase in the number of 
children receiving public assistance is closely related to the dramatic 
increase in births to unmarried women, particularly to teenage young 
women. Mr. President, the War on Poverty has inflicted many casualties. 
Multiple generations of children have grown to adulthood, continuing 
welfare as a way of life. Mothers and children have been abandoned. 
Families have been destroyed by long-term dependence on Government. The 
War on Poverty has been costly, both in terms of human suffering and 
taxpayer dollars spent.

  In contrast, this reform measure takes steps to promote stable 
families and discourage illegitimacy. We recognize many children in 
America are vulnerable. In response to this need, the bill guarantees 
they will continue to receive the support they need. In doing so, the 
prospects of children in welfare families are greatly improved.
  Mr. President, the measure before us is built on five main 
principles, which I believe are supported by residents of South 
Carolina and by the American people in general. I would like to briefly 
summarize these pillars of welfare reform.
  First, welfare should not be a way of life. By placing lifetime 
limits on benefits, this bill ensures that welfare will be temporary 
assistance to those who are in need.
  The second principle is work, not welfare. Able-bodied beneficiaries 
will, for the first time ever, be required to work for their benefits. 
This principle is designed to restore dignity to the individual and 
fairness to the system.
  Third, welfare for noncitizens and felons will be limited. The bill 
provides adequate exceptions for emergency benefits, for refugees, and 
for those who have contributed to this Nation by paying taxes for 10 
years or through military service.
  Fourth, the bill encourages personal responsibility to halt rising 
illegitimacy rates. This legislation seeks to counter that trend by 
increasing efforts to establish paternity and enforce child support 
orders. Furthermore, the bill encourages the formation and maintenance 
of two-parent families.
  Finally, this legislation returns responsibility and flexibility to 
the States. The national Government has an obligation to promote the 
general welfare of the United States. At the same time, we know that 
those who are closest to the problem are better able to provide for the 
specific welfare of needy individuals. This bill establishes general 
guidelines and provides broad cash welfare and child care block grants. 
With this flexibility States can design programs that meet local 
conditions and particular needs.
  Mr. President, like the two vetoed bills that preceded it, this bill 
has many provisions that will encourage work and education, lessen 
dependency on the Government, and foster an environment to reduce unwed 
and teen pregnancy. The legislation also ensures that needy Americans 
will receive a wide range of services including cash assistance, child 
care, food stamps, medical care, child nutrition, and disability 
payments. The bill also contains strong provisions related to child 
support enforcement, child protection, foster care, and adoption 
assistance.
  I compliment the managers of the bill who have brought historic 
reform to our welfare system. This bill deserves our support. I thank 
the Chair and yield the floor.
  Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I yield 2 minutes off our side to Senator Ford to go 
along with whatever he has.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. EXON. I yield 2 minutes on our side to the Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I thank my friend from New Mexico for 
allowing me to have a couple minutes.
  Mr. President, I think we need to be very careful to put this bill 
into perspective. Yes, it will modify a system that no one defends. 
Yes, it will give States more flexibility to deal with their poorest 
citizens. Yes, it will provide more for child care than H.R. 4, easing 
one of the greatest barriers for those on welfare who want to work. All 
of these things are good reasons for supporting this bill.
  But I find some of the predictions of what this bill will do to be a 
bit of a stretch. It is being suggested by some that this bill will 
reduce the poverty rate, the illigitimacy rate, the teen pregnancy 
rate, the crime rate, and just about every other kind of rate you can 
imagine. We hear that this bill provides dynamic opportunities for 
education and training and is the opportunity that people who are poor 
in this country have been asking for.
  Well, I hope the strongest supporters of this bill are right. 
Sometimes I wonder when I listen to some of these speeches just how 
many poor people some of my colleagues have ever met. Maybe they could 
come to eastern Kentucky. Maybe then they could understand how 
difficult it is to determine whether a lack of personal responsibility 
or a lack of opportunity is the greater cause of poverty.
  For those of us in the middle of the political spectum, this is a 
tough vote. When I hear some of the predictions about what this bill 
will do, I am skeptical. I have a hard time figuring out how it will 
affect my State.
  We have been doing some innovative things in Kentucky with welfare 
reform. We are one of the 10 States left that has not obtained a 
Federal waiver from welfare laws--something you hear so much about in 
Washington today. Yet we are 1 of the top 10 States in reducing our 
welfare rolls--reducing welfare rolls without a waiver--23-percent 
reduction since January 1993. We have tried a lot of things to put 
people to work. Our current Governor is looking at even broader 
changes--maybe this bill will allow him to do most things without 
having to worry about a waiver request, and that is a good thing.
  But when I talk to those in my State about why our welfare rolls have 
come down, the most important reason I hear about is the improvement in 
the economy. I remember how tough the vote was in 1993 on the deficit 
reduction package. I believe that vote had a lot to do with the 
strength of our economy today. In many ways, that bill may have been 
much more important in reducing welfare rolls and putting people to 
work than the welfare bill before us today.
  And speaking of predictions, I remember the predictions that 
opponents of deficit reduction made in 1993. They said the 1993 deficit 
reduction package would cause a recession, cost jobs, increase 
inflation, cause interest rates to rise, fail to reduce the deficit 
below $200 billion, and shake up the stock market. Guess what, Mr. 
President? Our friends who made these predictions were zero for six. 
That kind of batting average won't even get you in the minor leagues. 
Just this morning, we learned that the economy grew in the second 
quarter at an extremely strong annual rate of 4.2 percent. We have a 
healthy, growing economy, and the deficit has been cut from $290 
billion to $117 billion and may go below that. These are important 
reasons why the welfare rolls are down in my State by 23 percent.
  Some of our colleagues who made those wrong predictions about the 
1993 deficit reduction package are the same ones making the boldest 
predictions about what this welfare bill will do. So I am skeptical.
  I am willing to support, and will support, this conference report for 
the steps it takes in the right direction. But we need to monitor the 
impact of this bill very carefully. About the only thing we know for 
sure is that it will reduce the growth in welfare spending by about $55 
billion over the next 6 years. We hope it will achieve some of the 
other things that are being predicted today, and at least give our 
Governors and State legislatures more

[[Page S9405]]

flexibility in experimenting and designing programs which address 
poverty. I hope that we will see more success at the State level. But 
somehow, I am also quite certain that as we monitor the impact of this 
bill, we will quickly find out that this is not the end of the welfare 
reform debate, and that future Congresses will find there is much more 
work to be done. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

  Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Senator Roth started off today following me. Since he 
is the chairman of the committee that wrote most of this, we thought it 
might be appropriate that he give the closing argument. We have saved 
time for him. I yield 5 minutes to Senator Roth.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, in these last few minutes before we put 
August 1, 1996, into the history books as the day we end the welfare 
system as we know it, I will close with a few observations and some 
important acknowledgments.
  Last February, after welfare reform had been vetoed twice, the 
Nation's Governors restarted today's legislation by reaching a 
unanimous agreement to reform welfare. Gov. John Engler of Michigan 
testified before the Finance Committee later that month and put this 
entire debate into its proper perspective. He said:

       Just consider the Washington Post headline describing what 
     the governors' policy--adopted unanimously with the support 
     of our most conservative and most liberal governor and 
     everybody in between--meant.
       The Post headline read, ``Governors reform plan would break 
     with 60 years of policy.''

  Governor Engler went on to say:

       Remember what the governors propose is changing a law that 
     has been the basis of federal policy for 60 years and 
     remember how counterproductive these policies have been.
       They punish parents who work too much.
       They punish mothers and fathers that want to stay together.
       They punish working families who save money.
       They reward teenagers who have babies out of wedlock, and 
     the list is longer.

  Mr. President, this 60-year-old welfare system rewards the behavior 
which leads to poverty and punishes the behavior which leads out of 
poverty. Yes, it is time to end this system.
  Mr. President, this legislation is about personal responsibility and 
work opportunity. Work is not only about earning our daily bread. Work 
is an integral part of the human condition. A parent's work also 
teaches the values necessary to prepare the next generation for its 
responsibilities.
  We can all be proud of our work today because it will make a profound 
difference in the lives of millions of Americans.
  It will go down as one of the most important legislative achievements 
not only in this Congress, but in many, many years.
  This is a historic week for a historic Congress. In a matter of 
weeks, we have moved from gridlock to winning gold medals. Welfare 
reform is certainly one of our gold medal achievements.
  I end by again thanking Senator Domenici for his leadership in 
orchestrating this legislation through the process. I want to extend my 
thanks to the Finance Committee conferees, Senator Chafee, Senator 
Grassley, Senator Hatch, and Senator Simpson for their extraordinary 
assistance and cooperation.
  The contributions of Senator Nickles, Senator Gramm, and Senator 
Santorum as we moved through the conference cannot be overstated. They 
played key roles in assuring this legislation would meet all of our 
objectives, especially with respect to tough work requirements.
  Let me compliment the majority leader, Senator Lott, getting this 
conference report completed. This is a major accomplishment in the 
brief time of his leadership position.
  Our former majority leader and colleague, Bob Dole deserves as much 
credit for this legislation as anyone. When the tough decisions needed 
to be made, and there were plenty through this process, he demonstrated 
the leadership we all look to.
  I extend my congratulations and thanks to those Members in the House 
of Representatives who have worked so hard on this issue. It was a 
privilege to work with Chairmen Bill Archer, Clay Shaw, Bill Goodling, 
and Tom Bliley over these months.
  I extend the thanks of everyone to both the majority and minority 
staffs of the leadership, the Finance Committee, especially Lindy 
Paull, Frank Polk, Ginny Koops, and Dennis Smith, the Budget Committee, 
and the Agriculture Committee, for their work. There are too many to 
name individually and I would not want to fail to mention anyone. I do 
thank each of them.
  I also extend those same thanks to the respective staffs in the 
House, most especially to Ron Haskins, Matt Weidinger, Cassie Bevin, 
and Margaret Pratt at the Committee on Ways and Means.
  We should remember that until a few weeks ago, Medicaid was included 
in this package, so the staffs at Finance and the House Commerce 
Committee who worked on Medicaid should be recognized, especially Susan 
Dull, the First Heinz Fellow working in Congress.
  Of course, the committee work cannot be done without the help of 
those staff members at Legislative Counsels in both the Senate and 
House, especially Ruth Ernst, and Mark Mathiesen.
  I extend our thanks to those at the Congressional Budget Office, 
especially Jean Hearne, Robin Rudowitz, Sheila Dacy, Justin Lattice, 
and Kathy Ruffin; the Congressional Research Service, most especially, 
Vee Burke, Gene Falk, and Melvina Ford; and the General Accounting 
Office, especially, Greg Dybalski and Jerry Fastrup.
  Let me mention something else that is historical about this day which 
has been overlooked.
  I know of no other time in which congressional and State officials 
and staffs have worked so closely together on an issue.
  For months, Governors John Engler, Tommy Thompson, and Mike Leavitt 
have given so generously of their time, support, and the power of 
ideas. They truly deserve the thanks of the American people.
  They have donated the talent and expertise of their staffs, 
especially LeAnne Redick, Kathy Tobin, who also worked on this 
legislation as a staff member of the Finance Committee, Joanne Neumann 
and Mary Kay Mantho.
  Mr. President, this will indeed be a day to remember. Thank you and 
congratulations to all the Republicans in the House and Senate who 
stuck to our principles and stuck together to make this a reality. 
Together we have made a difference.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I believe we have a few moments left.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 7 minutes and 15 seconds.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I will use 5 minutes, then yield the balance to our 
leader.
  While I have during the day given deference to this being a very 
bipartisan effort, and while I have from time to time and during the 
day said we are glad the President is going to sign this measure, I 
take a few minutes of my closing time to thank the Republicans in the 
U.S. Senate and Republicans in the U.S. House, because I think it is 
obvious the President of the United States came into office promising 
the end of welfare as we know it, and for 2 years during his 
administration he had Democrats in the Senate and Democrats in the 
House and no welfare reform was achieved.
  Now, while we are glad to have the President saying, ``Yes, I will 
sign this bill,'' I do not think it ought to escape anyone that there 
would be no welfare reform if the Republicans had not taken control of 
the U.S. House and the U.S. Senate. I believe I can say that with a 
degree of certainty, because I worked on reconciliation bills and 
budget bills that called for reform for at least 10 years and nothing 
happened.
  So I say thank you to the American people who elected the Republican 
Members to the House and Republican Members to the Senate, because 
tonight we celebrate a very, very significant achievement. As we moved 
through the Chamber of the Senate with our efforts to get a balanced 
budget, I say to most Republicans it was truly a difficult job to stand 
here and ask you to vote for all those tough items, as we moved a 
budget resolution toward balance, and a reconciliation bill, a big bill 
changing the law, only to find that the President did not agree.
  I believe tonight the fruits of that effort are going to be realized 
and a program that has not worked for millions

[[Page S9406]]

of Americans will begin to work in their behalf, as it works for all 
Americans who get jobs and assume personal responsibility. For tonight 
we say if 60 years ago, or even 30 years ago, or even 10 years ago, if 
we would have looked at this program and said it is inconsistent with 
everything that is good about America, for it locks people in poverty 
and denies them the interest and enthusiasm to get a job--for many, 
many years the welfare laws of America were administered by people who 
were worried about the sociological problems of the poor.
  I am hopeful that across America the offices that are helping welfare 
people will be job training, will be jobs-oriented, will be talking 
about training and education, and how people can get off welfare 
instead of finding ways to assure them that they can stay on.
  This bill is going to say most Americans work, and we are going to 
ask that welfare recipients work. We will give them training. We will 
give them child care. But we will say, you ought to work because 
through work, you get responsibility, and through responsibility, you 
and your families get the joy of living.
  Second, simple as it sounds, we are going to ask parents to take care 
of their children. We stress personal responsibility. I can predict 
that across this land, as millions of welfare recipients who are not 
working and have children get jobs, guess who will be the happiest 
about it? Their children. For they do not like it any more than anyone 
else that they are locked in, and so are their parents, in poverty.

  Third, we are going to change the culture of welfare. How obvious it 
is--had we changed this culture a few decades ago and said the 
principle of welfare is a short-lived assistance while you attempt to 
get a job and take care of yourself, we would not have the welfare 
problem we have in America today.
  Fourth, we will end the futile and cumbersome regulations of the 
Federal Government and its bureaucrats who set such stringent 
requirements that they assume a degree of arbitrariness that people 
cannot even make sense of getting on and off of welfare, and those 
running them in the State governments are constantly looking through 
five volumes of regulations to see just what they can do.
  Fifth, and finally, and this should not go in any sheepish manner as 
if we are embarrassed to say it, we are going to save money. What is 
wrong with that? The taxpayers of America have been paying for a 
program that does not work. They will be paying now for a program that 
at least has a chance of working.
  I am very hopeful those leaders, including the Catholic hierarchy of 
America, who I generally talk to and seek advice from, I am hopeful 
that they understand there is a lot more to welfare reform and to 
trying to help the poor people than to continue programs that exchange 
money and give them benefits, for they, too, may find them more 
responsible and more independent and doing for themselves. I believe 
this has a chance of working, and I think when we adopt it tonight, it 
is going to be historic.

  I ask unanimous consent that a detailed analysis of the savings to 
the Federal budget in all categories, made by June O'Neill, dated 
August 1 be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                    U.S. Congress,


                                  Congressional Budget Office,

                                   Washington, DC, August 1, 1996.
     Hon. Pete V. Domenici,
     Chairman, Committee on the Budget, U.S. Senate, Washington, 
         DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) 
     has reviewed the Conference Report on H.R. 3734, the Personal 
     Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 
     1996. The bill would replace federal payments under the 
     current Aid to Families with Dependent Children program with 
     a block grant to states, restrict the eligibility of legal 
     aliens for welfare benefits, modify the benefits and 
     eligibility requirements in the Food Stamp program, increase 
     funding for child care programs, and tighten the eligibility 
     requirements for disabled children under the Supplemental 
     Security Income program.
       Although the estimate assumes that the bill will be enacted 
     by September 1, 1996, its impact on direct spending and 
     revenues in 1996 is estimated to be negligible. The bill 
     would reduce federal spending by $3.0 billion in 1997 and by 
     $54.1 billion over the 1997-2002 period, as well as increase 
     revenues by $60 million and $394 million over these 
     respective periods. Detailed tables are enclosed. For the 
     most part, the underlying assumptions and methodology are 
     described in CBO's estimates for the House- and Senate-
     reported versions of the bill (see House Report 104-651 and 
     Senate Print 104-59).
       In addition to its federal budgetary impacts, the bill 
     would have a significant impact on the budgets of state, 
     local, and tribal governments. A statement on the 
     intergovernmental and private-sector mandates in the bill is 
     also enclosed.
       If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
     pleased to provide them.
           Sincerely,
                                                  June E. O'Neill,
                                                         Director.

SUMMARY TABLE.--FEDERAL BUDGET EFFECTS OF H.R. 3734, THE PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY AND WORK OPPORTUNITY RECONCILIATION ACT OF 1966; AS ORDERED REPORTED BY
                                THE COMMITTEE OF CONFERENCE ON JULY 31, 1966; ASSUMES ENACTMENT DATE BY SEPTEMBER 1, 1966                               
                                                        [By fiscal year, in millions of dollars]                                                        
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                                7 year  
                                         1995         1996         1997         1998         1999         2000         2001         2002        total   
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Projected Direct Spending Under                                                                                                                         
 Current Law:                                                                                                                                           
    Family Support Paymentsa.......       18,066       18,371       18,805       19,307       19,935       20,557       21,245       21,937             
    Food Stamp Programb............       25,554       26,220       28,094       28,702       31,092       32,476       33,847       35,283             
    Supplemental Security Income...       24,510       24,017       27,904       30,210       32,576       37,995       34,515       40,348             
    Medicaid.......................       89,070       95,766      105,081      115,438      126,306      138,514      151,512      166.444             
    Child Nutritionc...............        7,899        8,428        8,898        9,450       10,012       10,580       11,166       11,767             
    Old-Age, Survivors and                                                                                                                              
     Disability Insurance..........      333,273      348,186      365,403      383,402      402,351      422,412      444,081      466,767             
    Foster Cared...................        3,282        3,840        4,285        4,667        5,083        5,506        5,960        6,433             
    Social Services Block Grant....        2,797        2,880        3,010        3,050        3,000        2,920        2,870        2,840             
    Earned Income Tax Credit.......       15,224       18,440       20,191       20,894       21,691       22,586       23,412       24,157             
    Maternal and Child Health......            0            0            0            0            0            0            0            0             
                                    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Total......................      519,715      546,168      581,571      616,140      652,106      693,186      728,608      775,976             
                                    ====================================================================================================================
Proposed Changes:                                                                                                                                       
    Family Support Paymentsa.......            0          (*)          868          882          897          762          456         -146        3,720
    Food Stamp Programb............            0          (*)       -2,093       -3,939       -4,129       -4,194       -4,334       -4,568      -23,260
    Supplemental Security Income...            0          (*)         -793       -3,526       -4,280       -4,824       -4,344       -4,958      -22,725
    Mediciad.......................            0            0          -38         -514         -567         -581         -948       -1,433        4,082
    Child Nutritionc...............            0          (*)         -128         -403         -494         -553         -605         -670       -2,853
    Old-Age, Survivors and                                                                                                                              
     Disability Insurance..........            0            0           -5          -10          -15          -15          -20          -20          -85
    Foster Cared...................            0          (*)           68           25           16           31           41           51          232
    Social Services Block Grant....            0            0         -375         -420         -420         -420         -420         -420       -2,475
    Earned Income Tax Credit.......            0            0         -445         -456         -463         -480         -493         -515       -2,852
    Maternal and Child Health......            0            0           18           35           50           50           50           50          253
                                    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Total......................            0          (*)       -2,923       -8,326       -9,404      -10,224      -10,618      -12,630      -54,127
Revenues: Earned Income Tax Credit.            0          (*)           60           61           62           65           68           78          394
Net Deficit Effect.................            0          (*)       -2,983       -8,387       -9,466      -10,289      -10,688      -12,706      -54,521
Projected Direct Spending Under                                                                                                                         
 Proposal:                                                                                                                                              
    Family Support Paymentsa.......       18,086       18,371       19,673       20,189       20,832       21,319       21,701       21,791             
    Food Stamp Programb............       25,554       26,220       26,001       25,763       26,963       28,282       29,513       30,715             
    Supplemental Security Income...       24,510       24,017       27,111       26,684       28,296       33,171       30,171       36,390             
    Medicaid.......................       89,070       95,786      105,043      114,924      125,799      137,573      150,564      165,011             
    Child Nutritionc...............        7,898        8,428        8,770        9,047        8,516       10,027       10,561       11,097             
    Old-Age, Survivors and                                                                                                                              
     Disability Insurance..........      333,273      348,186      365,398      383,382      402,336      422,397       44,061      486,747             
    Foster Cared...................        3,282        3,840        4,363        4,712        5,099        5,537        6,001        6,484             
    Social Services Block Grant....        2,797        2,880        2,636        2,630        2,560        2,500        2,450        2,420             
    Earned Income Tax Credit.......       15,224       18,440       19,748       20,438       21,228       22,106       22,919       23,642             
    Maternal and Child Health......            0            0           16           35           50           50           50           50             
                                    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page S9407]]

                                                                                                                                                        
        Total......................      519,715      546,168      578,748      607,814      642,701      682,982      717,991      763,347             
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Amounts less than $500,000.                                                                                                                            
a Under current law, Family Support Payments include spending on Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), AFDC-related child care, administrative
  costs for child support enforcement, net federal savings from child support collections, and the Job Opportunities and Basic Skills Training program  
  (JOBS). Under proposed law, Family Support Payments would include spending on the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Block Grant, administrative 
  costs for child support enforcement, the Child Care Block Grant, and net federal savings from child support collections.                              
b Food Stamps includes Nutrition Assistance for Puerto Rico under both current law and proposed law, and the Emergency Food Assistance Program under    
  proposed law.                                                                                                                                         
c Child Nutrition Programs refer to direct spending authorized by the National School Lunch Act and the Child Nutrition Act.                            
d Under current law, Foster Care Includes Foster Care, Adoption Assistance, Independent Living, and Family Preservation and Support.                    
                                                                                                                                                        
Notes: Details may not add to totals because of rounding.                                                                                               



 SUMMARY TABLE II.--FEDERAL BUDGET EFFECTS OF H.R. 3734, THE PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY AND WORK OPPORTUNITY RECONCILIATION ACT OF 1996; TITLE I--TEMPORARY
 ASSISTANCE FOR NEEDY FAMILIES BLOCK GRANT; AS ORDERED REPORTED BY THE COMMITTEE OF CONFERENCE ON JULY 31, 1996; ASSUMES ENACTMENT BY SEPTEMBER 1, 1996 
                                                        [By fiscal year, in millions of dollars]                                                        
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                                 7-year 
                                                                     1996       1997       1998       1999       2000       2001       2002      total  
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Direct Spending:                                                                                                                                        
    Title I: Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Block Grant                                                                                        
        Budget Authority........................................         10       -212     -1,125       -969       -837     -1,109     -1,839     -6,100
        Outlays.................................................        (*)       -571       -945       -819       -667     -1,064     -1,814     -5,889
    Title II: Supplemental Security Income                                                                                                              
        Budget Authority........................................        (*)       -408     -1,031     -1,525     -1,869     -1,729     -2,048     -8,610
        Outlays.................................................        (*)       -408     -1,031     -1,525     -1,869     -1,729     -2,048     -8,610
    Title III: Child Support Enforcement                                                                                                                
        Budget Authority........................................         88        -21        144        168        183        110         74        746
        Outlays.................................................        (*)         25        148        173        183        110         74        712
    Title IV: Restricting Welfare and Public Benefits for Aliens                                                                                        
        Budget Authority........................................        (*)     -1,174     -3,947     -4,311     -4,652     -4,525     -5,038    -23,655
        Outlays.................................................        (*)     -1,174     -3,947     -4,311     -4,652     -4,525     -5,038    -23,655
    Title V: Child Protection                                                                                                                           
        Budget Authority........................................          6         86          6          6          6          6          6        122
        Outlays.................................................        (*)         68         25          6          6          6          6        117
    Title VI: Child Care                                                                                                                                
        Budget Authority........................................        (*)      1,957      2,067      2,167      2,367      2,567      2,717     13,852
        Outlays.................................................        (*)      1,635      1,975      2,082      2,227      2,377      2,482     12,778
    Title VII: Child Nutrition Programs                                                                                                                 
        Budget Authority........................................        (*)       -151       -449       -505       -563       -615       -680     -2,963
        Outlays.................................................        (*)       -126       -403       -494       -553       -605       -670     -2,853
    Title VIII: Food Stamps and Commodity Distribution                                                                                                  
        Budget Authority........................................        (*)     -1,792     -3,539     -3,918     -4,282     -4,580     -4,990    -23,103
        Outlays.................................................        (*)     -1,792     -3,539     -3,918     -4,282     -4,580     -4,990    -23,103
    Title IX: Miscellaneous                                                                                                                             
        Budget Authority........................................        (*)       -591       -594       -597       -608       -618       -634     -3,642
        Outlays.................................................        (*)       -578       -609       -597       -608       -618       -634     -3,644
    Total Direct Spending:                                                                                                                              
        Budget Authority........................................        104     -2,296     -8,468     -9,504    -10,265    -10,493    -12,430    -53,353
        Outlays.................................................        (*)     -2,923     -8,326     -9,404    -10,224    -10,618    -12,630    -54,127
Direct spending:                                                                                                                                        
    Repeal AFDC, Emergency Assistance, and JOBS:                                                                                                        
        Family Support Payments:                                                                                                                        
            Budget Authority....................................        (*)     -8,021    -16,550    -17,003    -17,439    -17,893    -18,342    -19,247
            Outlays.............................................        (*)     -7,925    -16,510    -16,973    -17,409    -17,863    -18,322    -95,001
    Repeal of Child Care Programs: a                                                                                                                    
        Family Support Payments:                                                                                                                        
            Budget Authority....................................          0     -1,405     -1,480     -1,540     -1,595     -1,655     -1,715     -9,390
            Outlays.............................................          0     -1,345     -1,475     -1,535     -1,590     -1,650     -1,710     -9,305
    Authorize Temporary Family Assistance Block Grant: b                                                                                                
        Family Support Payments:                                                                                                                        
            Budget Authority....................................        (*)      8,368     16,389     16,389     16,389     16,389     16,389     90,314
            Outlays.............................................        (*)      8,300     16,389     16,389     16,389     16,389     16,389     90,246
    Population and Poverty Adjustment to the Temporary Family                                                                                           
     Assistance Block Grant:                                                                                                                            
        Family Support Payments:                                                                                                                        
            Budget Authority....................................          0          0         87        174        261        278          0        800
            Outlays.............................................          0          0         87        174        261        278          0        800
        Food Stamp Program:                                                                                                                             
            Budget Authority....................................          0          0         -5        -10        -15        -15          0        -45
            Outlays.............................................          0          0         -5        -10        -15        -15          0        -45
    Contingency Fund: c                                                                                                                                 
        Family Support Payments:                                                                                                                        
            Budget Authority....................................          0        107        210        313        393        473        565      2,061
            Outlays.............................................          0        107        210        313        393        473        565      2,061
        Food Stamp Program:                                                                                                                             
            Budget Authority....................................          0         -5        -15        -20        -25        -30        -35       -130
            Outlays.............................................          0         -5        -15        -20        -25        -30        -35       -130
    Study by the Bureau of the Census:                                                                                                                  
        Family Support Payments:                                                                                                                        
            Budget Authority....................................         10         10         10         10         10         10         10         70
            Outlays.............................................        (*)          4         18         10         10         10         10         62
    Research, Evaluations, and National Studies:                                                                                                        
        Family Support Payments:                                                                                                                        
            Budget Authority....................................          0         15         15         15         15         15         15         90
            Outlays.............................................          0          3         15         15         15         15         15         78
    Grants to Indian Tribes that received JOBS Funds:                                                                                                   
        Family Support Payments:                                                                                                                        
            Budget Authority....................................          0          8          8          8          8          8          8         46
            Outlays.............................................          0          6          8          8          8          8          8         44
    Grants to Territories:                                                                                                                              
        Family Support Payments:                                                                                                                        
            Budget Authority....................................          0        116        116        116        116        116        116        696
            Outlays.............................................          0        116        116        116        116        116        116        696
    Penalties for State Failure to Meet Work Requirements:                                                                                              
        Family Support Payments:                                                                                                                        
            Budget Authority....................................          0          0          0        -50        -50        -50        -50       -200
            Outlays.............................................          0          0          0        -50        -50        -50        -50       -200
    Grants to States that Reduce Out-of-Wedlock Births:                                                                                                 
        Family Support Payments:                                                                                                                        
            Budget Authority....................................          0          0          0         50         50         50         50        200
            Outlays.............................................          0          0          0         50         50         50         50        200
    Bonus to Reward High Performance States:                                                                                                            
        Family Support Payments:                                                                                                                        
            Budget Authority....................................          0          0          0        200        200        200        200        800
            Outlays.............................................          0          0          0        200        200        200        200        800
    Hold States Harmless for Cost-Neutrality Liabilities:                                                                                               
        Family Support Payments:                                                                                                                        
            Budget Authority....................................          0         50          0          0          0          0          0         50

[[Page S9408]]

                                                                                                                                                        
            Outlays.............................................          0         50          0          0          0          0          0         50
    Establish Rainy Day Loan Fund:                                                                                                                      
        Family Support Payments:                                                                                                                        
            Budget Authority....................................          0          0          0          0          0          0          0          0
            Outlays.............................................          0          0          0          0          0          0          0          0
    Extension of Transitional Medicaid Benefits:                                                                                                        
        Medicaid:                                                                                                                                       
            Budget Authority....................................          0          0          0        180        390        400        210      1,180
            Outlays.............................................          0          0          0        180        390        400        210      1,180
    Increased Medicaid Administrative Payment:                                                                                                          
        Medicaid:                                                                                                                                       
            Budget Authority....................................          0        500          0          0          0          0          0        500
            Outlays.............................................          0         75        135        135        135         20          0        500
    Effect of the Temporary Assistance Block Grant on the Food                                                                                          
     Stamp Program:                                                                                                                                     
        Food Stamp Program:                                                                                                                             
            Budget Authority....................................          0         45         90        170        430        560        695      1,990
            Outlays.............................................          0         45         90        170        430        560        695      1,990
    Effect of the Temporary Assistance Block Grant on the Foster                                                                                        
     Care Program:                                                                                                                                      
        Foster Care Program:                                                                                                                            
            Budget Authority....................................          0          0          0         10         25         35         45        115
            Outlays.............................................          0          0          0         10         25         35         45        115
    Effect of the Temporary Assistance Block Grant on the                                                                                               
     Medicaid Program: d                                                                                                                                
        Medicaid:                                                                                                                                       
            Budget Authority....................................          0          0          0          0          0          0          0          0
            Outlays.............................................          0          0          0          0          0          0          0          0
Total Direct Spending, Title I, by account:                                                                                                             
    Family Support Payments:                                                                                                                            
        Budget Authority........................................         10       -752     -1,195     -1,319     -1,642     -2,059     -2,754     -9,710
        Outlays.................................................          0       -684     -1,142     -1,284     -1,607     -2,024     -2,729     -9,459
    Food Stamp Program:                                                                                                                                 
        Budget Authority........................................          0         40         70        140        390        515        660      1,815
        Outlays.................................................          0         40         70        140        390        515        660      1,815
    Foster Care Program:                                                                                                                                
        Budget Authority........................................          0          0          0         10         25         35         45        115
        Outlays.................................................          0          0          0         10         25         35         45        115
    Medicaid:                                                                                                                                           
        Budget Authority........................................          0        500          0        180        390        400        210      1,680
        Outlays.................................................          0         75        135        315        525        420        210      1,680
Direct Spending Total All Accounts--Title I:                                                                                                            
        Budget Authority........................................         10       -212     -1,125       -989       -837     -1,109     -1,839     -6,100
        Outlays.................................................          0       -569       -937       -819       -667     -1,054     -1,814     -5,859
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Amounts less than $500,000.                                                                                                                           
a Funds for existing child care programs are repealed by this title, but equal or greater funding for similar activities is restored in Title VI.       
bStates have the option to begin to operate under the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Block Grant any time after enactment of this bill. A few  
  states may opt to do so in FY 1996 creating small savings in the AFDC, Emergency Assistance, and JOBS programs and small costs in the TANF program.   
c The bill appropriates $2 billion for the contingency fund for use in years 1997 through 2001. The estimate shows costs of the contingency fund in 2002
  because section 257(b)(2) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 requires that the baseline shall assume that mandatory     
  programs greater than $50 million dollars are continued.                                                                                              
d The bill retains categorical eligibility for Medicaid for families that meet the eligibility criteria for Aid to Families with Dependent Children as  
  they are in current law.                                                                                                                              



    FEDERAL BUDGET EFFECTS OF H.R. 3734, THE PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY AND WORK OPPORTUNITY RECONCILIATION ACT OF 1996; TITLE II--SUPPLEMENTAL SECURITY   
                   INCOME; AS ORDERED REPORTED BY THE COMMITTEE OF CONFERENCE ON JULY 31, 1996; ASSUMES ENACTMENT BY SEPTEMBER 1, 1996                  
                                                        [By fiscal year, in millions of dollars]                                                        
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                                 7-year 
                                                                     1996       1997       1998       1999       2000       2001       2002      total  
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Direct Spending:                                                                                                                                        
    SSI Benefits to Certain Children:                                                                                                                   
        Supplemental Security Income:                                                                                                                   
            Budget Authority....................................        (*)       -125       -925     -1,450     -1,800     -1,675     -2,000     -7,975
            Outlays.............................................        (*)       -125       -925     -1,450     -1,800     -1,675     -2,000     -7,975
        Family Support Payments:                                                                                                                        
            Budget Authority....................................        (*)        (a)        (a)        (a)        (a)        (a)        (a)        (a)
            Outlays.............................................        (*)        (a)        (a)        (a)        (a)        (a)        (a)        (a)
        Food stamps: b                                                                                                                                  
            Budget Authority....................................        (*)         20        130        210        240        265        290      1,155
            Outlays.............................................        (*)         20        130        210        240        265        290      1,155
        Medicaid:                                                                                                                                       
            Budget Authority....................................        (*)         -5        -25        -40        -45        -55        -60       -230
            Outlays.............................................        (*)         -5        -25        -40        -45        -55        -60       -230
                                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Subtotal provision:                                                                                                                             
            Budget Authority....................................        (*)       -110       -820     -1,280     -1,605     -1,465     -1,770     -7,050
            Outlays.............................................        (*)       -110       -820     -1,280     -1,605     -1,465     -1,770     -7,050
    Reduction in SSI Benefits to Certain Hospitalized Children                                                                                          
     With Private Insurance:                                                                                                                            
        Supplemental Security Income:                                                                                                                   
            Budget Authority....................................          0        -40        -55        -60        -70        -60        -65       -350
            Outlays.............................................          0        -40        -55        -60        -70        -60        -65       -350
    Funding for Cost of Reviews: c                                                                                                                      
            Budget Authority....................................          0        (c)        (c)          0          0          0          0          0
            Outlays.............................................          0        (c)        (c)          0          0          0          0          0
    End Payment of Pro-Rated Benefits for Month of Application:                                                                                         
        Supplemental Security Income:                                                                                                                   
            Budget Authority....................................        (*)        -55       -130       -150       -160       -165       -175       -835
            Outlays.............................................        (*)        -55       -130       -150       -160       -165       -175       -835
    Pay Large Retroactive Benefit Amounts in Installments:                                                                                              
        Supplemental Security Income:                                                                                                                   
            Budget Authority....................................          0       -200        -15        -15        -15        -15        -15       -275
            Outlays.............................................          0       -200        -15        -15        -15        -15        -15       -275
    Tighten Restrictions on Payment of Social Security Benefits                                                                                         
     to Prisoners: Make Payments to Prison Officials Who Report                                                                                         
     Ineligible Recipients:                                                                                                                             
        Old-Age, Survivors and Disability Insurance--benefits                                                                                           
         saved: d                                                                                                                                       
            Budget Authority....................................          0         -5        -10        -15        -15        -20        -20        -85
            Outlays.............................................          0         -5        -10        -15        -15        -20        -20        -85
        Supplemental Security income--benefits saved:                                                                                                   
            Budget Authority....................................          0        (*)         -5        -10        -10        -10        -10        -45
            Outlays.............................................          0        (*)         -5        -10        -10        -10        -10        -45
        Old-Age, Survivors and Disability Insurance--payments to                                                                                        
         prison officials:                                                                                                                              
            Budget Authority....................................          0          0          0          0          0          0          0          0
            Outlays.............................................          0          0          0          0          0          0          0          0
        Supplemental Security income--payments to prison                                                                                                
         officials:                                                                                                                                     
            Budget Authority....................................          0          2          4          5          6          6          7         30
            Outlays.............................................          0          2          4          5          6          6          7         30
                                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page S9409]]

                                                                                                                                                        
        Subtotal, provision:                                                                                                                            
            Budget Authority....................................          0         -3        -11        -20        -19        -24        -23       -100
            Outlays.............................................          0         -3        -11        -20        -19        -24        -23       -100
Total Direct Spending:                                                                                                                                  
    Supplemental Security Income:                                                                                                                       
        Budget Authority........................................        (*)       -418     -1,126     -1,680     -2,049     -1,919     -2.258     -9,450
        Outlays.................................................        (*)       -418     -1,126     -1,680     -2,049     -1,919     -2.258     -9,450
    Food Stamps: b                                                                                                                                      
        Budget Authority:.......................................        (*)         20        130        210        240        265        290      1,155
        Outlay..................................................        (*)         20        130        210        240        265        290      1,155
    Medicaid:                                                                                                                                           
        Budget Authority:.......................................        (*)         -5        -25        -40        -45        -55        -60       -230
        Outlays.................................................        (*)         -5        -25        -40        -45        -55        -60       -230
    Family Support Payments:                                                                                                                            
        Budget Authority........................................        (*)        (a)        (a)        (a)        (a)        (a)        (a)        (a)
        Outlays.................................................        (*)        (a)        (a)        (a)        (a)        (a)        (a)        (a)
    Old-Age, Survivors and Disability Insurance:                                                                                                        
        Budget Authority........................................          0         -5        -10        -15        -15        -20        -20        -85
        Outlays.................................................          0         -5        -10        -15        -15        -20        -20        -85
Total All Accounts:                                                                                                                                     
  Budget Authority..............................................        (*)       -408     -1,031     -1,525     -1,869     -1,729     -2,048     -8,610
  Outlays.......................................................        (*)       -408     -1,031     -1,525     -1,869     -1,729     -2,048     -8,610
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Denotes less than $500,000.                                                                                                                           
a Proposed to be block-granted elsewhere in the bill.                                                                                                   
b Includes interactions with other food stamp provisions of the bill.                                                                                   
c The bill proposes an adjustment to the discretionary spending caps of $150 million in 1997 and $100 million in 1998 to cover the costs of reviewing   
  300,000 to 400,000 children on the SSI rolls under the new, tighter criteria. The bill does not, however, directly appropriate that money. Its        
  availability remains contingent on future appropriation action. In addition to those one-time costs of $250 million or more, the bill would require   
  that most disabled children who qualify even under the tighter eligibility criteria be reviewed every 3 years to see if their medical condition has   
  improved. That cost, which CBO estimates at about $100 million a year beginning in 1998, could be met by raising the caps on discretionary spending as
  permitted in P.L. 104-121. The cap adjustment in that law, however, was designed to cover periodic reviews and not the heavy volume of one-time       
  reviews that would be mandated in 1997 by this legislation.                                                                                           
d The provision would encourage prison officials to exchange data with SSA by paying them up to $400 for providing information that helps to identify   
  each inmate who receives SSI (and whose benefits should therefore be suspended). In the course of checking that information, SSA would find that some 
  inmates collect OASDI. Therefore, although the language makes no mention of OASDI, savings in that program would result.                              



 FEDERAL BUDGET EFFECTS OF H.R. 3734, THE PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY AND WORK OPPORTUNITY RECONCILIATION ACT OF 1996; TITLE III--CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT;
                                                         ASSUMES ENACTMENT BY SEPTEMBER 1, 1996                                                         
                                                    [Outlays by fiscal year, in millions of dollars]                                                    
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     1996       1997       1998       1999       2000       2001       2002    1997-2002
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New enforcement techniques:                                                                                                                             
    State directory of new hires:                                                                                                                       
        Family support payment..................................          0          0         -1         -4         -6         -9        -10        -30
        Food stamp program......................................          0          0         -1         -7        -12        -18        -21        -59
        Mediciad................................................          0          0         -3        -11        -20        -31        -38       -102
                                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal..............................................          0          0         -5        -21        -38        -58        -70       -192
    State laws providing expedited enforcement of child support:                                                                                        
        Family support payment..................................          0          0          0        -17        -35        -55        -77       -185
        Food stamp program......................................          0          0          0         -6        -13        -21        -30        -70
        Mediciad................................................          0          0          0         -5        -11        -18        -26        -59
                                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal..............................................          0          0          0        -28        -59        -94       -133       -314
    State laws concerning paternity:                                                                                                                    
        Family support payment..................................          0        -16        -18        -20        -22        -24        -26       -127
        Food stamp program......................................          0         -3         -3         -4         -4         -4         -5        -23
        Mediciad................................................          0         -2         -2         -2         -3         -3         -3        -15
                                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal..............................................          0        -21        -23        -26        -29        -31        -34       -164
    Suspend drivers' licenses:                                                                                                                          
        Family support payment..................................          0         -4         -9        -14        -19        -20        -21        -88
        Food stamp program......................................          0         -2         -5         -8        -12        -12        -13        -52
        Mediciad................................................          0         -1         -3         -5         -7         -8         -9        -35
                                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal..............................................          0         -7        -17        -27        -38        -41        -43       -175
    Adoption of uniform state laws:                                                                                                                     
        Family support payment..................................          0         10          2         -7        -11        -15        -21        -41
        Food stamp program......................................          0          0         -1         -3         -4         -6         -9        -24
        Mediciad................................................          0          0         -2         -3         -6         -8        -11        -30
                                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal..............................................          0         10         -1        -13        -21        -29        -41        -95
          Subtotal new enforcement..............................          0        -19        -46       -115       -185       -254       -322       -940
                                                                 =======================================================================================
    Lost AFDC collections due to reduced cases funded by black                                                                                          
     grant funds:                                                                                                                                       
        Family support payment..................................          0          0         29         63        142        200        224        658
        Food stamp program......................................          0          0          0          0          0          0          0          0
        Mediciad................................................          0          0          0          0          0          0          0          0
                                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal..............................................          0          0         29         63        142        200        224        658
    Eliminate $50 passthrough and exclude gap payments from                                                                                             
     distribution rules at state option:                                                                                                                
        Family support payment..................................          0       -222       -236       -260       -285       -311       -336     -1,850
        Food stamp program......................................          0        114        122        139        147        164        171        857
        Mediciad................................................          0          0          0          0          0          0          0          0
                                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal..............................................          0       -108       -114       -121       -139       -147       -165       -793
    Distribute child support arrears to former AFDC familes                                                                                             
     first:                                                                                                                                             
        Family support payment..................................          0          0         62         69         76        148        183        539
        Food stamp program......................................          0          0        -11        -12        -14        -27        -33        -96
        Mediciad................................................          0          0          0          0          0          0          0          0
                                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal..............................................          0          0         51         57         63        122        150        442
    Hold states harmless for lower child support collections:                                                                                           
        Family support payment..................................          0          0         17         29         34         39         29        148
        Food stamp program......................................          0          0          0          0          0          0          0          0
        Mediciad................................................          0          0          0          0          0          0          0          0
                                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal..............................................          0          0         17         29         34         39         29        148
Other Provisions with Bugetary Implications:                                                                                                            
    Automated data processing development:                                                                                                              
        Family support payment..................................        (*)         83         91        129        129          8          0        440
        Food stamp program......................................          0          0          0          0          0          0          0          0
        Medicaid................................................          0          0          0          0          0          0          0          0
                                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal..............................................        (*)         83         91        129        129          8          0        440
    Automated data processing operation and maintenance:                                                                                                
        Family support payment..................................          0         12         55         52         52         46         40        257

[[Page S9410]]

                                                                                                                                                        
        Food stamp program......................................          0          0          0          0          0          0          0          0
        Medicaid................................................          0          0          0          0          0          0          0          0
                                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal..............................................          0         12         55         52         52         46         40        257
    Technical assistance to state programs:                                                                                                             
        Family support payment..................................        (*)         48         51         50         48         47         45        290
        Food stamp program......................................          0          0          0          0          0          0          0          0
        Medicaid................................................          0          0          0          0          0          0          0          0
                                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal..............................................        (*)         48         51         50         48         47         45        290
    State obligation to provide services:                                                                                                               
        Family support payment..................................          0          0          0          3         11         22         39         75
        Food stamp program......................................          0          0          0          0          0          0          0          0
        Medicaid................................................          0          0          0          0          0          0          0          0
                                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal..............................................          0          0          0          3         11         22         39         75
    Federal and state reviews and audits:                                                                                                               
        Family support payment..................................          0          3          3          3          3          3          3         20
        Food stamp program......................................          0          0          0          0          0          0          0          0
        Medicaid................................................          0          0          0          0          0          0          0          0
                                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal..............................................          0          3          3          3          3          3          3         20
    Grants to States for Visition:                                                                                                                      
        Family support payment..................................        (*)         10         10         10         10         10         10         60
        Food stamp program......................................          0          0          0          0          0          0          0          0
        Medicaid................................................          0          0          0          0          0          0          0          0
                                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal..............................................        (*)         10         10         10         10         10         10         60
    Optional Modification of Support Orders:                                                                                                            
        Family support payment..................................          0         -5          0         10         15         15         20         55
        Food stamp program......................................          0          0          0          0          0          0          0          0
        Medicaid................................................          0          0          0          0          0          0          0          0
                                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal..............................................          0         -5          0         10         15         15         20         55
                                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal, Other provisions............................        (*)        151        210        258        269        151        157      1,197
                                                                 =======================================================================================
Total, by account:                                                                                                                                      
    Family support payment......................................        (*)        -81         57         99        142        103        101        421
    Food stamp program..........................................          0        109        100         99         88         76         62        533
    Medicaid....................................................          0         -3         -8        -27        -46        -68        -88       -242
                                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total.....................................................        (*)         25        148        172        184        110         74        712
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Amount less than $500,000.                                                                                                                             
**Budget authority is generally equal to the outlay shown in                                                                                            
 this table. Where this is not the case, budget authority is                                                                                            
 shown here: Family Support Payments Budget Authority--                                                                                                 
Automated data processing development...........................         42         42         91        129        129          8          0        440
Technical assistance to state programs..........................         36         44         47         46         48         47         45        314
Grants to States for visitation.................................         10         10         10         10         10         10         10         70
All other provisions............................................          0       -222        -95        -91        -45         38         45  .........
Family support payments: Total BA...............................         88       -127         53         95        142        103        101        455
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



   FEDERAL BUDGET EFFECTS OF H.R. 3734, THE PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY AND WORK OPPORTUNITY RECONCILIATION ACT OF 1996; TITLE IV--RESTRICTING WELFARE AND  
       PUBLIC BENEFITS FOR ALIENS; AS ORDERED REPORTED BY THE COMMITTEE ON CONFERENCE ON JULY 31, 1996; ASSUMED TO BE ENACTED BY SEPTEMBER 1, 1996      
                                                        [By fiscal year, in millions of dollars]                                                        
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                                 7-year 
                                                                     1996       1997       1998       1999       2000       2001       2002      total  
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Direct Spending:                                                                                                                                        
    Supplemental Security Income:                                                                                                                       
        Budget Authority........................................      (\1\)       -375     -2,400     -2,600     -2,775     -2,425     -2,700    -13,275
        Outlays.................................................      (\1\)       -375     -2,400     -2,600     -2,775     -2,425     -2,700    -13,275
    Medicaid:                                                                                                                                           
        Budget Authority........................................      (\1\)       -105       -615       -815     -1,015     -1,245     -1,495     -5,290
        Outlays.................................................      (\1\)       -105       -615       -815     -1,015     -1,245     -1,495     -5,290
    Family Support Payments:                                                                                                                            
        Budget Authority........................................          0      (\2\)      (\2\)      (\2\)      (\2\)      (\2\)      (\2\)      (\2\)
        Outlays.................................................          0      (\2\)      (\2\)      (\2\)      (\2\)      (\2\)      (\2\)      (\2\)
    Food Stamps: \3\                                                                                                                                    
        Budget Authority........................................      (\1\)       -470       -700       -660       -630       -610       -590     -3,660
        Outlays.................................................      (\1\)       -470       -700       -660       -630       -610       -590     -3,660
    Child nutrition: \4\                                                                                                                                
        Budget Authority........................................          0          0          0          0          0          0          0          0
        Outlays.................................................          0          0          0          0          0          0          0          0
    Earned income tax credit:                                                                                                                           
        Budget Authority........................................          0       -224       -232       -236       -242       -245       -251     -1,430
        Outlays.................................................          0       -224       -232       -236       -242       -245       -251     -1,430
Total Direct Spending:                                                                                                                                  
        Budget Authority........................................          0     -1,174     -3,947     -4,311     -4,662     -4,525     -5,036    -23,655
        Outlays.................................................          0     -1,174     -3,947     -4,311     -4,662     -4,525     -5,036    -23,655
Revenues: Earned income tax credit..............................          0         28         29         29         30         30         31        177
Deficit Effect..................................................      (\1\)     -1,202     -3,976     -4,340     -4,692     -4,555     -5,067    -23,832
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Denotes less than $500,000.                                                                                                                         
\2\ Proposed to be block-granted elsewhere in the bill.                                                                                                 
\3\ Includes interactions with other food stamp provisions of the bill.                                                                                 
\4\ Section 742 of the bill, in Title VII, specifically states that benefits under the school breakfast and school lunch programs shall not be          
  contingent on students' immigration or citizenship status. Therefore, CBO estimates no savings in the child nutrition program from the proposed       
  restrictions contained in Title IV on immigrants' eligibility for federal benefits.                                                                   
                                                                                                                                                        
Note: The CBO estimate assumes that the proposed exemption for public health programs that provide immunizations will be modified or interpreted to     
  permit continued Medicaid funding for pediatric vaccines.                                                                                             


 FEDERAL BUDGET EFFECTS OF H.R. 3734, THE PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY AND WORK OPPORTUNITY RECONCILIATION ACT OF 1996; TITLE V--CHILD PROTECTION; AS ORDERED
                            REPORTED BY THE COMMITTEE OF CONFERENCE ON JULY 31, 1996; ASSUMES ENACTMENT BY SEPTEMBER 1, 1996                            
                                                        [By fiscal year, in millions of dollars]                                                        
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     1996       1997       1998       1999       2000       2001       2002    1996-2002
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Direct Spending:                                                                                                                                        
    Extend Enhanced Match Rate for Computer Purchases for Foster                                                                                        
     Care Data Collection:                                                                                                                              
        Budget Authority........................................          0         80          0          0          0          0          0         80
        Outlays.................................................          0         66         14          0          0          0          0         80
    National Random Sample Study of Child Welfare:                                                                                                      
        Budget Authority........................................          6          6          6          6          6          6          6         42

[[Page S9411]]

                                                                                                                                                        
        Outlays.................................................        (*)          2         11          6          6          6          6         37
Total Direct Spending:                                                                                                                                  
    Foster Care:                                                                                                                                        
        Budget Authority........................................          6         86          6          6          6          6          6        122
        Outlays.................................................        (*)         68         25          6          6          6          6        117
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



   FEDERAL BUDGET EFFECTS OF H.R. 3734, THE PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY AND WORK OPPORTUNITY RECONCILIATION ACT OF 1996; TITLE VI--CHILD CARE; AS ORDERED   
                            REPORTED BY THE COMMITTEE OF CONFERENCE ON JULY 31, 1996; ASSUMES ENACTMENT BY SEPTEMBER 1, 1996                            
                                                        [By fiscal year, in millions of dollars]                                                        
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     1996       1997       1998       1999       2000       2001       2002    1996-2002
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Direct Spending:                                                                                                                                        
    New Child Care Block Grant:                                                                                                                         
        Budget Authority........................................          0      1,967      2,067      2,167      2,367      2,567      2,717     13,852
        Outlays.................................................          0      1,635      1,975      2,082      2,227      2,377      2,482     12,778
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: For states to draw down the child care block grant remainder, this subtitle requires them to maintain the greater of fiscal year 1994 or 1995     
  spending.                                                                                                                                             


 FEDERAL BUDGET EFFECTS OF H.R. 3734, THE PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY AND WORK OPPORTUNITY RECONCILIATION ACT OF 1996; TITLE VII--CHILD NUTRITION PROGRAMS; 
                       AS ORDERED REPORTED BY THE COMMITTEE OF CONFERENCE ON JULY 31, 1996; ASSUMES ENACTMENT BY SEPTEMBER 1, 1996                      
                                                    [Outlays by fiscal year, in millions of dollars]                                                    
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             Section                                 1996       1997       1998       1999       2000       2001       2002    1996-2002
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Direct Spending:                                                                                                                                        
    704  Special assistance:                                                                                                                            
        Extension of payment period:                                                                                                                    
            Budget Authority....................................  .........        (*)        (*)          1          1          1          1          4
            Outlays.............................................  .........        (*)        (*)          1          1          1          1          4
        Rounding rules for lunch, breakfast, and supplement                                                                                             
         rates:                                                                                                                                         
            Budget Authority....................................  .........         -2        -15        -15        -15        -15        -15        -77
            Outlays.............................................  .........         -1        -10        -15        -15        -15        -15        -71
    706  Summer food service program for children:                                                                                                      
            Budget Authority....................................  .........        -24        -29        -29        -34        -34        -39       -189
            Outlays.............................................  .........        -18        -29        -29        -34        -34        -39       -184
    708  Child and adult care food program:                                                                                                             
            Budget Authority....................................  .........       -105       -380       -430       -480       -535       -595     -2,525
            Outlays.............................................  .........        -90       -340       -420       -470       -525       -585     -2,430
    723  School breakfast program authorization:                                                                                                        
            Budget Authority....................................  .........        -10        -15        -22        -25        -22        -22       -116
            Outlays.............................................  .........         -8        -14        -21        -25        -22        -22       -112
    731  Nutrition education and training programs:                                                                                                     
            Budget Authority....................................  .........        -10        -10        -10        -10        -10        -10        -60
            Outlays.............................................  .........        -10        -10        -10        -10        -10        -10        -60
Total Child Nutrition Programs:                                                                                                                         
    Direct Spending:                                                                                                                                    
        Budget Authority........................................  .........       -151       -449       -505       -563       -615       -680     -2,963
        Outlays.................................................  .........       -128       -403       -494       -553       -605       -670     -2,853
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Less than $500,000.                                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                                        
Note: Details may not add to totals because of rounding.                                                                                                


 FEDERAL BUDGET EFFECTS OF H.R. 3734, THE PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY AND WORK OPPORTUNITY RECONCILIATION ACT OF 1996; TITLE VIII--FOOD STAMPS AND COMMODITY
                DISTRIBUTION; AS ORDERED REPORTED BY THE COMMITTEE OF CONFERENCE ON JULY 31, 1996; ASSUMES ENACTMENT BY SEPTEMBER 1, 1996               
                                                    [Outlays by fiscal year, in millions of dollars]                                                    
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             Section                                 1996       1997       1998       1999       2000       2001       2002    1996-2002
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
801  Definition of certification period.........................          0          0          0          0          0          0          0          0
802  Definition of coupon.......................................          0          0          0          0          0          0          0          0
803  Treatment of children living at home.......................          0       -115       -245       -255       -265       -280       -290     -1,450
804  Adjustment of thrifty food plan............................          0       -935       -980     -1,025     -1,070     -1,115     -1,155     -6,280
805  Definition of homeless individual..........................          0        (*)        (*)        (*)        (*)        (*)        (*)        (*)
806  State option for eligibility standards.....................          0          0          0          0          0          0          0          0
807  Earnings of students.......................................          0        -10        -10        -10        -10        -15        -15        -70
808  Energy assistance..........................................          0       -125       -170       -175       -175       -180       -180     -1,005
809  Deductions from income:                                                                                                                            
        Standard deduction at $134 each year a..................          0          0       -555       -770       -990     -1,220     -1,465     -5,000
        Homeless shelter allowance..............................          0         -1         -1         -2         -3         -3         -5        -15
        Cap excess shelter deduction at $247 through 12/31/96.                                                                                          
         $250 from 1/1/97 through FY98 $275 in FY99 and FY00 and                                                                                        
         $300 in each later fiscal year.........................          0       -350       -570       -505       -565       -490       -550     -3,030
    State option for mandatory standard utility allowance and                                                                                           
     otherwise allow change between SUA and actual costs only at                                                                                        
     recertification............................................          0        -35        -70        -75        -80        -80        -85       -425
810  Vehicle Allowance at $4,650 FY97-2002......................          0        -45       -140       -175       -200       -225       -245     -1,030
811  Vendor payments for transitional housing counted as income.          0        -10        -10        -10        -10        -10        -10        -60
812  Simplified calculation of income for the self-employed.....          0          0          0          0          0          0          0          0
813  Doubled penalties for violating Food Stamp program                                                                                                 
 requirements...................................................          0        (*)        (*)        (*)        (*)        (*)        (*)        (*)
814  Disqualification of convicted individuals..................          0        (*)        (*)        (*)        (*)        (*)        (*)        (*)
815  Disqualification...........................................          0         -5         -5         -5         -5         -5         -5        -30
816  Caretaker exemption........................................          0          0          0          0          0          0          0          0
817  Employment and training....................................          0          2          6          9         11         13         15         56
818  Food stamp eligibility.....................................          0        -15        -21        -27        -27        -27        -27       -145
819  Comparable treatment for disqualification..................          0        -20        -20        -20        -20        -20        -25       -125
820  Disqualification for receipt of multiple food stamp                                                                                                
 benefits.......................................................          0         -5         -5         -5         -5         -5         -5        -30
821  Disqualification of fleeing felons.........................          0        (*)        (*)        (*)        (*)        (*)        (*)        (*)
822  Cooperation with child support agencies                                                                                                            
  Option to require custodial parent cooperation:                                                                                                       
    Food Stamps.................................................          0         -5        -10        -15        -20        -20        -20        -90
    Family Support Payments.....................................          0          5         10         10         15         15         15         70
823  Disqualification relating to child support arrears.........          0         -5        -15        -25        -25        -30        -30       -130
824  Work requirement...........................................          0       -160       -830       -960     -1,010     -1,050     -1,100     -5,110
825  Encourage electronic benefit transfer system...............          0        (*)        (*)        (*)        (*)        (*)        (*)        (*)
826  Value of minimum allotment.................................          0          0        -30        -30        -30        -35        -35       -160
827  Benefits on recertification................................          0        -25        -25        -25        -25        -30        -30       -160
828  Optional combined allotment for expedited households.......          0          0          0          0          0          0          0          0
829  Failure to comply with other means-tested public assistance                                                                                        
 programs.......................................................          0        -25        -25        -25        -25        -25        -25       -150

[[Page S9412]]

                                                                                                                                                        
830  Allotments for households residing in centers..............          0        (*)        (*)        (*)        (*)        (*)        (*)        (*)
831  Condition precedent for approval of retail stores and                                                                                              
 wholesale food concerns........................................          0          0          0          0          0          0          0          0
832  Authority to establish authorization periods...............          0          0          0          0          0          0          0          0
833  Information for verifying eligibility for authorization....          0          0          0          0          0          0          0          0
834  Waiting period for stores that fail to meet authorization                                                                                          
 criteria.......................................................          0          0          0          0          0          0          0          0
835  Operation of food stamp offices............................          0          0          0          0          0          0          0          0
836  State employee and training standards......................          0          0          0          0          0          0          0          0
837  Exchange of law enforcement information....................          0          0          0          0          0          0          0          0
838  Expedited coupon service...................................          0          0          0          0          0          0          0          0
839  Withdrawing fair hearing requests..........................          0          0          0          0          0          0          0          0
840  Income, eligibility, and immigration status verification                                                                                           
 systems........................................................          0         -5         -5         -5         -5         -5         -5        -30
841  Investigations.............................................          0          0          0          0          0          0          0          0
842  Disqualification of retailers who intentionally submit                                                                                             
 falsified applications.........................................          0          0          0          0          0          0          0          0
843  Disqualification of retailers who are disqualified under                                                                                           
 the WIC program................................................          0          0          0          0          0          0          0          0
844  Collection of overissuances................................          0        -25        -30        -30        -25        -25        -30       -165
845  Authority to suspend stores violating program requirements                                                                                         
 pending administrative and judicial review.....................          0          0          0          0          0          0          0          0
846  Expanded criminal forfeiture for violations................          0        (b)        (b)        (b)        (b)        (b)        (b)        (b)
847  Limitation of federal match................................          0         -2         -2         -2         -2         -2         -2        -12
848  Standards for administration...............................          0          0          0          0          0          0          0          0
849  Work supplementation or support program....................          0          5         15         20         30         30         30        130
850  Waiver authority...........................................          0          0          0          0          0          0          0          0
851  Response to waivers........................................          0          0          0          0          0          0          0          0
852  Employment initiatives program.............................          0         -1         -2         -2         -2         -2         -2        -11
853  Reauthorization............................................          0          0          0          0          0          0          0          0
854  Simplified Food Stamp program..............................          0          0          5         10         20         20         25         80
855  A study of the use of food stamps to purchase vitamins and                                                                                         
 minerals.......................................................          0          0          0          0          0          0          0          0
856  Deficit reduction..........................................          0          0          0          0          0          0          0          0
871  Emergency Food Assistance program..........................          0        100        100        100        100        100        100        600
872  Food bank demonstration project............................          0          0          0          0          0          0          0          0
873  Hunger prevention programs.................................          0          0          0          0          0          0          0          0
874  Report on entitlement commodity processing.................          0          0          0          0          0          0          0          0
891  Provisions to encourage electronic benefit systems c.......          0          0          0          0          0          0          0          0
    Interactions among provisions...............................          0         20        101        111        136        141        166        674
Total Food Stamp Program:                                                                                                                               
    Budget Authority............................................          0     -1,792     -3,539     -3,918     -4,282     -4,580     -4,990    -23,103
    Outlays.....................................................          0     -1,792     -3,539     -3,918     -4,282     -4,580     -4,990    -23,103
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Less than $500,000.                                                                                                                                    
Note: Details may not add to totals because of rounding.                                                                                                
a No savings are shown in fiscal year 1997 for setting the standard deduction at $134 because the fiscal year 1997 Agriculture Appropriations Act which 
  cleared the Congress before this bill cleared, contained a similar provision.                                                                         
b Any proceeds from this provision would be used to reimburse law enforcement agencies or for retail compliance investigations. Thus, CBO estimates no  
  net effect on the federal budget, though funds could be received in one year and not spent until a later year.                                        
c This provision is included elsewhere in the bill. If the exemption from Regulation ``e'' were not enacted, there likely would be costs to the federal 
  government. CBO estimates these costs would be small.                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                                        



 FEDERAL BUDGET EFFECTS OF THE PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY AND WORK OPPORTUNITY RECONCILIATION ACT OF 1996; TITLE IX--MISCELLANEOUS; AS ORDERED REPORTED BY 
                                  THE COMMITTEE OF CONFERENCE ON JULY 31, 1996; ASSUMES ENACTMENT BY SEPTEMBER 1, 1996.                                 
                                                         [By fiscal year in millions of dollars]                                                        
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             Section                                 1996       1997       1998       1999       2000       2001       2002    1996-2002
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Direct Spending and Revenues:                                                                                                                           
    908  Reduction in block grants to States for social                                                                                                 
     services:                                                                                                                                          
        Social Services Block Grant:                                                                                                                    
            Budget Authority....................................          0       -420       -420       -420       -420       -420       -420     -2,520
            Outlays.............................................          0       -375       -420       -420       -420       -420       -420     -2,475
    909  Denial of earned income credit on basis of disqualified                                                                                        
     income: a                                                                                                                                          
        Budget Authority........................................          0       -170       -168       -151       -146       -152       -160       -947
        Outlays.................................................          0       -170       -168       -151       -146       -152       -160       -947
        Revenue.................................................          0         26         27         27         23         23         25        151
        Net Deficit Effect......................................          0       -196       -195       -178       -169       -175       -185     -1,098
    910  Modification of adjusted gross income definition for                                                                                           
     earned income credits: a                                                                                                                           
        Budget Authority........................................          0        -98       -106       -112       -120       -129       -138       -704
        Outlays.................................................          0        -98       -106       -112       -120       -129       -138       -704
        Revenue.................................................          0         15         18         20         22         25         28        128
        Net Deficit Effect......................................          0       -113       -125       -133       -141       -154       -166       -832
    911  Abstinence Education:                                                                                                                          
            Budget Authority....................................          0         50         50         50         50         50         50        300
            Outlays.............................................          0         18         35         50         50         50         50        253
    Interaction among revenue provisions:                                                                                                               
        Budget Authority........................................          0         47         50         36         28         33         34        229
        Outlays.................................................          0         47         50         36         28         33         34        229
        Revenue.................................................          0         -9        -13        -14        -10        -10         -6        -62
        Net Deficit Effect......................................          0         56         63         50         38         43         40        291
Total Miscellaneous--Title IX:                                                                                                                          
    Direct Spending:                                                                                                                                    
        Social Services Block Grant:                                                                                                                    
            Budget Authority....................................          0       -420       -420       -420       -420       -420       -420     -2,520
            Outlays.............................................          0       -375       -420       -420       -420       -420       -420     -2,475
        Earned Income Tax Credit:                                                                                                                       
            Budget Authority....................................          0       -221       -224       -227       -238       -248       -264     -1,422
            Outlays.............................................          0       -221       -224       -227       -238       -248       -264     -1,422
        Maternal and Child Health Services Block Grant:                                                                                                 
            Budget Authority....................................          0         50         50         50         50         50         50        300
            Outlays.............................................          0         18         35         50         50         50         50        253
Total All Accounts:                                                                                                                                     
    Budget Authority............................................          0       -591       -594       -597       -608       -618       -634     -e,642
        Outlays.................................................          0       -578       -609       -597       -608       -618       -634     -3,644
Revenues: Revenue a.............................................          0         32         32         33         35         38         47       217 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a Estimates provided by the Joint Committee on Taxation. Components may not sum to totals because of rounding.                                          

    Congressional Budget Office: Conference Agreement on H.R. 3754, 
Estimated Cost of Intergovernmental and Private Sector Mandates, August 
                                1, 1996


                       intergovernmental mandates

       CBO cannot determine if the bill contains intergovernmental 
     mandates that would impose costs exceeding the $50 million 
     threshold established in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 
     1995 (Public Law 104-4). At issue is a provision dealing with 
     an increase in child poverty.
       Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). The bill 
     would require a state to carry out a corrective action plan 
     if it determines that the rate of child poverty increases by 
     five percent in a given year as a result of carrying out its 
     new program for needy families. Depending on how this 
     requirement is enforced, it may constitute a mandate when it 
     is combined with the reduction in federal funding for needy 
     families and the work requirements of the bill. Under the 
     work requirements, a state would be required to have 50 
     percent of certain families that are receiving assistance in 
     work activities by fiscal year 2002.
       Under Public Law 104-4, an increase in the stringency of 
     conditions of assistance or a

[[Page S9413]]

     reduction in federal funding for an entitlement program under 
     which the federal government spends more than $500 million 
     annually is considered a mandate only if state, local, or 
     tribal governments lack the authority under that program to 
     amend their own financial or programmatic responsibilities to 
     continue providing required services.
       The bill does not specify how this child-poverty 
     requirement would be enforced. On the one hand, if a state 
     would be allowed simply to submit a corrective action plan 
     but would not be required to take action to reduce child 
     poverty, then the requirement, by itself or in combination 
     with the other changes, would not constitute a mandate 
     because the state would have the flexibility to reduce 
     caseloads and benefit levels in response to the federal 
     requirements and reduced federal funding. On the other hand, 
     if the bill would require a state to reduce child poverty 
     (and a mechanism was developed to enforce that requirement) 
     then it may constitute a mandate when it is combined with the 
     funding reductions contained in the bill and the work 
     requirements.
       Even if the requirement is stringently enforced, however, 
     states may still have sufficient flexibility to meet all the 
     requirements of the bill without devoting more state funds to 
     the TANF program. States, not an outside party, would 
     determine whether the rate of child poverty has increased by 
     5 percent. In addition, the majority of people currently 
     receiving Aid to Families with Dependent Child (the program 
     that TANF would replace) are already in poverty, so that rate 
     of child poverty might not increase significantly even if 
     these people lose benefits.
       Child support. The bill would mandate changes in the 
     operation and financing of the state child enforcement 
     systems. The primary changes include using new enforcement 
     techniques, eliminating a current $50 payment to welfare 
     recipients for whom child support is collected, and allowing 
     former public assistance recipients to keep a greater share 
     of their support collections. The net savings from these 
     mandates would exceed the costs by $200 million to $500 
     million annually over the next six years.
       Restricting Welfare and Public Benefits for Aliens and 
     Supplemental Security Income. CBO estimates that the new 
     mandates contained in the portion of the bill titled 
     Restricting Welfare and Public Benefits for Aliens would not 
     be significant. However, the bill would reduce the size of an 
     existing mandate. Current law requires states that supplement 
     federal Supplemental Security Income (SSI) either to maintain 
     their supplemental payments levels at or above 1983 amounts 
     or to maintain their annual expenditures at a level at least 
     equal to the level from the previous years. Once a state 
     elects to supplement SSI, federal law requires it to continue 
     in order to remain eligible for Medicaid payments. Because 
     the bill would restrict eligibility for SSI, primarily for 
     aliens and disabled children, states would no longer have to 
     maintain their supplements for these individuals. CBO 
     estimates that states could save roughly $750 million 
     annually by fiscal year 1998.
       Other Titles. Two other titles of the bill--Child Nutrition 
     and Food Stamps--contain intergovernmental mandates, but the 
     total cost of the mandates would be significantly less than 
     the $50 million threshold.


                        PRIVATE SECTOR MANDATES

       The bill contains several private sector mandates as 
     defined in Public Law 104-4. CBO estimates that the direct 
     cost to the private sector of those provisions would be $65 
     million in fiscal year 1997 and would total about $1.0 
     billion over the five-year period from 1997 through 2001, as 
     shown in the following table.

                                       [Fiscal year (dollars in millions)]                                      
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       1997     1998     1999     2000     2001 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Requirement on Employers...........................................  .......      $10      $10      $10      $10
Requirement on Sponsors of New Immigrants..........................       $5       20       55      195      400
Changes in the Earned Income Credit................................       60       61       62       65       68
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

       Requirement on Employers. The child support provisions of 
     the bill include a requirement that employers provide 
     information on all new employees to new-hire directories 
     maintained by the states. This provision would impose a 
     direct cost on private sector employers of approximately $10 
     million per year once it became effective in 1998. Based on 
     data from the Bureau of the Census, CBO estimates that 
     private employers hire over 30 million new workers each year. 
     Even so, the cost to private employers of complying with this 
     mandate would be expected to be relatively small. Many states 
     already require some or all employers to provide this 
     information, so that a federal mandate would only impose 
     additional costs on a subset of employers. In addition, 
     employers could comply with the mandate by simply mailing or 
     faxing a copy of the worker's W-4 form to the state agency, 
     or by transmitting the information electronically.
       Requirement on Sponsors of New Immigrants. The bill would 
     also impose a new requirement on individuals who sign 
     affidavits of support for legal immigrants by making future 
     affidavits legally binding. This requirement would impose a 
     direct cost on the sponsors estimated to be $5 million in 
     1997, rising to $400 million in 2001. This estimate 
     represents the additional cost to sponsors of providing the 
     support to immigrants that would be required under the bill. 
     The added costs are larger after the first three years 
     because of the new responsibility sponsors would have to 
     provide support after a three-year deeming period.
       Changes in the Earned Income Credit. Finally, the bill 
     would make several changes in the Earned Income Credit. The 
     bill would modify adjusted gross income by disregarding 
     certain losses, expand the definition of disqualified income 
     and index the threshold, and strengthen compliance. The Joint 
     Committee on Taxation estimates that the direct mandate cost 
     of these changes would be $60 million in 1997, increasing to 
     $68 million in 2001. These estimates include only the revenue 
     effect of the changes in the credit, and not the effect on 
     federal outlays.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I yield the floor.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I believe the Democratic leader is on his 
way and will be prepared to close on that side, and I will go 
immediately following that.
  Until he arrives, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, after 18 months, we are about to pass 
welfare reform. It has been a long, divisive debate about the direction 
our Nation will follow on fundamental social policy. The initial bill, 
approved by the House last year, I think, by virtually any standard, 
was an extreme piece of legislation. As a result, it enjoyed very 
little public support. Twice the President vetoed extreme legislation, 
and that resulted in far more bipartisan cooperation in the ensuing 
months.
  It is clear that there is a consensus on many concepts relating to 
welfare reform. Most of us believe the current system is not working, 
that welfare must be reformed, that welfare as a way of life must end. 
There is a consensus about the need for work, that able-bodied people 
should work, that there should not be welfare for those who are 
unwilling to work. There is a consensus about the need to allow States 
flexibility and a recognition that South Dakota is different from New 
York and different from California. There is a consensus that the lack 
of child care is a major barrier to work, that States need to provide 
adequate funds to help parents afford it, that the current law with 
regard to health and safety standards must be maintained and even 
improved, and that child care needs to become more available and 
certainly more affordable.
  So there are points on which there is common ground and a great deal 
of agreement. The welfare debate has come a long way since those early 
months when the President felt compelled to veto that extreme 
legislation. There have been many areas where bipartisan progress in 
reducing the barriers that I have just discussed has been made. The 
debate began on welfare reform with not $1 for child care money, with 
not $1 for child care to be provided under any circumstances. Now, in 
this legislation, there is $14 billion to assist parents' efforts to 
secure child care.
  The debate began over a House bill with absolutely no guarantee of 
Medicaid coverage for families under any circumstances. Now families 
moving from welfare to work will continue to receive health care during 
a 1-year transition period.
  We have made bipartisan progress in other areas, too. This bill 
improves the Nation's child support enforcement system. It improves the 
Nation's supplemental security program for the disabled children of our 
country. We dropped the proposals to block grant food stamps and 
eliminate the national nutrition safety net, and we dropped proposals 
to block grant child abuse funds, which would have undermined our 
Nation's child protection system.
  So, Mr. President, this bill does represent progress. In these areas, 
and in others, I think it is fair to say that we have come a good 
distance. But in a democracy everybody has to make their own 
assessment. We have our own internal comfort zone. We have our own 
sense of what is right. From phone calls I have received from my State 
of South Dakota, and letters I received from across the country, the 
views are as diverse outside Washington as they are here in the Senate.
  Every Senator, every Representative, and the President of the United 
States must make his or her own judgment

[[Page S9414]]

and draw his or her own lines. It is better than when we started. We 
began having a threshold for which there could be agreement and 
consensus on items that I have discussed. Thoughtful people will 
disagree about where we go from here, how we can assess that progress, 
and whether or not this marks enough progress to stop now. For many, 
including this Senator, it is a tough call.
  There is no crystal ball. Nobody can predict with certainty the 
effect of this bill. It will improve, in some ways, the welfare system 
that we have right now. I think that is a given. But will it help move 
welfare recipients to work? We can only hope that it does. Will it 
ensure that children are protected? We can only hope that it does.
  Is there a guaranteed safety net for children in the future? On that 
answer, in my view, Mr. President, the answer is not even hopeful. The 
answer, in my view, is no. Is this the last point? Is this the only 
point? There are others. But the fact is that this important issue 
affecting 100 percent of the future population is not resolved. On that 
issue, we can do better.
  We all want reform. We want to require people to work. But we also 
want to protect children who can't protect themselves.
  We have to be careful to balance those goals. The need a meaningful 
safety net for children--a guarantee that they will not pay for the 
mistakes or circumstances of their parents--ought to be paramount for 
every one of us as we make our decision tonight.
  Mr. President, we need vouchers to ensure children's basic needs are 
met when their parents reach the time limits, and you can't find 
vouchers in this bill--not to any meaningful extent. We need a 
contingency for emergencies. When we went through the last recession, 
this country drew down more than $6 billion in emergency AFDC funds an 
18-month period. These were the resources necessary to provide the 
safety net, especially for children who otherwise had nothing--$6 
billion. You know what is in this bill? We have about $2 billion in 
contingency funds. We may be more than $4 billion underfunded the next 
time we have a recession in this country. Then what happens?
  The level of nutrition cuts continue to concern me as well. I am not 
comfortable reducing food stamp benefits for families with children who 
pay more than 50 percent of their income in rent. We do not treat the 
elderly that way, and we should not. And we should not treat children 
that way, either. Nutrition cuts have nothing to do with work, nothing 
to do with reforming welfare. It is an attack on the essential 
nutritional safety net in this country, and we ought to recognize it as 
that.
  I support strong work requirements. But the work requirements in this 
bill are inadequately funded. This is something that we ought to be 
concerned about, and the Congressional Budget Office says that most 
States in the country, when this legislation passes, will fail to meet 
the work requirements. They will not even be close.
  We all agree that the lack of affordable child care is a barrier to 
work. The Senate and House bills said mothers with elementary school 
children could not be sanctioned or terminated from assistance if they 
don't find child care or cannot afford it, but the conference bill 
precludes sanctions only for mothers with children under 6. The 
distinguished Senator from Connecticut addressed this point earlier 
this afternoon. I am concerned that this is an impossible choice for 
mothers. A mother's choice is to go to work in order to receive 
assistance, leaving a child of 7 or 8 alone after school, or not to go 
to work and lose the help she needs to feed and clothe her child. What 
a choice. Mr. President, that is not a choice that you and I and the 
rest of this body can be comfortable with.
  Frankly, I am very troubled about the treatment of legal immigrants. 
There is no assistance for illegal immigrants, and perhaps that is 
appropriate. But this bill attacks legal immigrants. I am not talking 
about those who cross our borders in the dead of night. Individuals who 
have followed the rules, paid taxes in this country, and gone to fight 
in other parts of the world for this country are now going to be told 
that there is nothing, no help whatsoever, even when they desperately 
need it through no fault of their own.
  It was 100 years ago that my grandparents came to this country with 
the promise of 160 acres of soil. They came with a lot of hopes and 
dreams about what this country could provide for them and their 
grandchildren and for all of the Daschles to follow. They came here for 
freedom. They came here in the belief that this would be a better life. 
We joked about the Government betting you 160 acres of land that you 
could not survive it on for 5 years in South Dakota. If you could 
survive for 5 years, it was yours. They got off the railroad, they 
built a sod house, and survived. But the Government gave them the 
opportunity to survive, gave them the license to be Americans, and I am 
here 100 years later because that happened.
  We do not have any more land to give, but I sure hope we can still 
give dreams. I hope that there are still people out there who believe 
that the freedom that they can find in this great country of ours, for 
all of the things this country can provide, ought to be ample reason to 
come to this country and give it their best.

  But we are saying we are not going to help you; we are going to 
punish you if you even try. That is not American. My grandparents could 
not have come with this law in effect 100 years ago.
  So, Mr. President, it is with some sadness that we have come to the 
conclusion that we cannot do better than this. But we are going to pass 
this legislation tonight with the understanding that there are some 
very severe deficiencies. Is it an improvement over what we passed a 
year ago? Yes. Can we do better? I think we all know in our heart of 
hearts that the answer to that is also yes.
  I hope that we can agree when it is signed into law that we will go 
back, without much time to waste, and attempt as best as we can to fix 
those deficiencies so we do not punish children, so we do not send the 
wrong message to people who want to be Americans, so we recognize that 
this country is still all that it can be, so we can work together to 
make it an even better one.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I believe we have some 2\1/2\ minutes left, 
and beyond that I will use my leader time.
  Mr. President, over the years we have watched a program that we 
started some 60 years ago with very good intentions to help the weak 
and the genuinely poor people in this country to be able to get some 
degree of temporary assistance to help them exist.
  We have watched over the years as the taxpayers of this country 
worked hard to try to look after their families, tried to get clothes 
to put their children in school, and pay their taxes. Then they began 
to wonder, who was thinking about them? Because they saw this program 
continue to grow and build, and they saw it continue to cost more and 
more billions of dollars, and they saw abuses. Then they started to 
worry. What about the children that are getting locked into this system 
of welfare dependency?
  Over the years it moved in that direction--to where we have 
disaffection on all sides; those who pay the bills for the welfare 
program and those who are on the program. People ask: Who is it really 
helping? Is it really giving people a lift out of poverty, or it is it 
locking them in? Does it really help the children when the parents are 
not able to get a job, they do not have the training, the education, 
nor the day care to be able to really get a job? Who is the real loser? 
The children have become the losers of this program. It has become a 
program of dependency without a way out. That is what this bill is 
really about.
  I am happy that the Senate is about to take this final action on this 
monumental accomplishment, a bipartisan accomplishment on a bill that 
is entitled ``Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act of 
1996.'' We call it welfare reform, but that is the real title. That is 
what it is really about--personal responsibility; taking advantage of 
the program when you really need it on a temporary basis, to give you 
an opportunity to exercise your responsibilities and get off the system 
and get into a job--work opportunity. That is the American way; to have 
an

[[Page S9415]]

opportunity to get what you need temporarily with training to go out 
and get a job and look after your family.
  It has been a long haul with more than a few dead-ends. But we stuck 
with it. We forged the kind of compromises that were needed to move it 
ahead, and at last we have come to our destination: ending the 
destructive welfare cycle. That is what this is all about.
  There is more than enough credit to go around. But I think special 
tribute clearly should be given to the Senator from Delaware, Senator 
Roth. He has pulled off a gold medal performance this week. He was lead 
chairman on the welfare reform bill. He was the chairman that 
negotiated the agreement on the small business tax relief bill, and he 
was the lead participant in the health insurance reform legislation; a 
tremendous week. We are all indebted to Senator Roth for that great 
work. I know it has been exhausting, but I know you are extremely proud 
of the accomplishment that you have in this bill and those other bills.
  Of course, the venerable chairman of the Budget Committee, Senator 
Domenici, hangs in there. It was going to be maybe just a few hours and 
then it looked like it was going to be the full 10 hours. He has to do 
it over and over again. He has been a partner with the Senator from 
Delaware. They have done a great job. He is the most knowledgeable 
Member that we have on how we deal with these budget issues.
  Senator Nickles, at my request, was representative of the leadership 
in a lot of the negotiations. That youngster from Pennsylvania, Senator 
Rick Santorum, he was great. He came to the floor one night. He did his 
job. He knew his subject matter. He has been working on it for 2 
years--actually longer than that. I guess about 4 years. He really 
knows the intricacies of this bill. It has been bipartisan, House and 
Senate. The vote in the House, 328 to 101. That looks mighty broad to 
me in its support and its bipartisanship.
  In the Senate, Senator Breaux was involved and helpful as we went 
along. Senator Lieberman, I read his article, I believe, in a New York 
newspaper last week, an excellent article. So I think we have truly 
made this bipartisan. It is an effort of which we can be proud.
  Also, I have to say this. A lot of credit goes to the man whom I 
succeeded as majority leader. Bob Dole worked on this effort, pushed 
this effort, would not let it end, helped get it through, not once but 
twice, and was committed to getting it done again this year for the 
third time. Without his leadership, without his determination, without 
his commitment, we would not be here tonight passing this welfare 
reform package. In my opinion, it should truly be called the Dole 
Welfare Reform Package.
  The last time I spoke on the Senate floor about welfare, I expressed 
the hope then that President Clinton would not again veto the reform 
bill that we had come up with on welfare. And I did have an opportunity 
over the past 2 weeks to talk with him about it. There were some 
changes made that he had hoped for in the bill, and so I am, frankly, 
greatly satisfied that he has announced he will, indeed, sign this bill 
into law.
  So now our country begins a great transition. It will be complicated 
and difficult and probably will require fine tuning on our part in the 
future, but we have made a start. We have made a commitment. We signed 
on to the blueprint for the most profound restructuring of public 
assistance since the New Deal.
  This legislation will end the Federal entitlement to welfare and 
replace it with block grants to the States. All by itself, that makes 
this landmark legislation. But the flexibility for the States and the 
Governors, I think, will work well. They are close to the problems. 
They will be able to use the money where it is needed the greatest to 
help the people who need it the most.
  More than that, for the first time ever we are legislatively imposing 
time limits on the receipt of welfare on an endless basis, and for the 
first time ever we are applying a meaningful work requirement that can 
help recipients make the move--and we know it is not always an easy 
one--from dependence to independence.
  That is what we desire and we hope for all Americans. This bill 
responds to a consensus among the American people by ending most 
welfare for noncitizens. It strengthens our child support enforcement 
and paternity establishment requirements. It combats fraud and abuse of 
welfare programs and will save the taxpayers about $54.5 billion over 
the next 6 years.
  We can be proud of this package, and we can build on it in the months 
ahead as we seek to improve Medicaid and other programs of assistance 
to the needy. We are going to be working with the Governors to make 
sure that this bill sets the pattern for a new era of cooperation 
between the States and the Federal Government.
  Again, I thank everyone whose diligence and patience brought us this 
far. There is an old saying: ``Well begun is only half done.'' Today, 
the herculean task of comprehensive welfare reform is, indeed, well 
begun and much more than half done.
  With the lessons we have learned in this effort, we can finish the 
job for the benefit of both the taxpayers of America and the poor in 
the months ahead.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Smith). 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 conference 
report to accompany H.R. 3734, the Budget Reconciliation Act of 1997. 
The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  [Disturbance in the Gallery]
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will cease until order is restored.
  The Sergeant at Arms is directed to restore order.
  The Senate will come to order.
  The clerk will resume the call of the roll.
  The legislative clerk resumed the call of the roll.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Pryor] is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 78, nays 21, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 262 Leg.]

                                YEAS--78

     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
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Ford
     Frahm
     Frist
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Pressler
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner
     Wyden

                                NAYS--21

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

                             NOT VOTING--1

     Pryor
      
      
  The conference report was agreed to.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
conference report was agreed to.
  Mr. NICKLES. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will come to order. Members will 
stop conversations so the Chair can recognize the majority leader.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, can we have order in the Chamber?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will come to order. Will Senators 
please take their conversations to the Cloakroom?

                          ____________________