[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 19 (Tuesday, March 3, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1217-S1223]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        INTERMODAL SURFACE TRANSPORTATION EFFICIENCY ACT OF 1997

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now 
resume consideration of S. 1173, which the clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 1173) to authorize funds for construction of 
     highways, for highway safety programs, and for mass transit 
     programs, and for other purposes.

  The Senate resumed consideration of the bill with a modified 
committee amendment in the nature of a substitute (Amendment No. 1676).
  Mr. CHAFEE. It is my understanding the distinguished Senator from 
Minnesota has an amendment which he wishes to present. What we would 
like to do, if it is agreeable with him, is he could present his 
amendment and discuss it but we not proceed to a vote until we have had 
an opportunity to check with the Labor Committee, and check some other 
factors. So he and I could work together on when would be a good time 
to call it up for a vote.
  Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota is recognized.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I have talked to the distinguished 
Senator from Rhode Island. I will send an amendment to the desk, but I 
will not be asking for a vote until after we work together on this. I 
certainly hope there will be support for it. I thank the Senator from 
Rhode Island for his graciousness.


                Amendment No. 1679 to Amendment No. 1676

  (Purpose: To require the Secretary of Health and Human Services to 
 report on the number of former recipients of public assistance under 
  the State temporary assistance to needy families programs that are 
                     economically self-sufficient)

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

       The Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Wellstone] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1679.

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:
       On page 309, between lines 3 and 4, insert the following:

     SEC. 18__. REPORT ON THE STATUS OF FORMER TANF RECIPIENTS.

       Section 413 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 613) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(k) Report on the Status of Former TANF Recipients.--
       ``(1) Development of plan.--The Secretary shall develop a 
     plan to assess, to the extent possible based on all available 
     information, the number and percentage of former recipients 
     of assistance under the State programs funded under this part 
     that are, as of the date that the assessment is performed, 
     economically self-sufficient. In determining economic self-
     sufficiency, the Secretary shall consider--
       ``(A) the number and percentage of such recipients that 
     are, as of the date of the assessment, employed;
       ``(B) the number and percentage of such recipients earning 
     incomes at or above 150 percent of the poverty line (as 
     defined in section 673(2) of the Community Services Block

[[Page S1218]]

     Grant Act (42 U.S.C. 9902(2)), including any revision 
     required by such section for a family of the size involved); 
     and
       ``(C) the number and percentage of such recipients that 
     have access to housing, transportation, and child care.
       ``(2) Reports to congress.--Beginning 4 months after the 
     date of enactment of this subsection, the Secretary shall 
     submit biannual reports to the appropriate committees of 
     Congress on the assessment conducted under this subsection. 
     The reports shall analyze the ability of former recipients of 
     assistance under the State programs funded under this part to 
     achieve economic self-sufficiency. The Secretary shall 
     include in the reports all available information about the 
     economic self-sufficiency of such recipients, including data 
     from quarterly State reports submitted to the Department of 
     Health and Human Services (in this paragraph referred to as 
     the `Department'), data from State applications submitted to 
     the Department for bonuses, and to the extent the Secretary 
     determines they are relevant to the assessment--
       ``(A) reports prepared by the Comptroller General of the 
     United States;
       ``(B) samples prepared by the Bureau of the Census;
       ``(C) surveys funded by the Department;
       ``(D) studies conducted by the Department;
       ``(E) studies conducted by States;
       ``(F) surveys conducted by non-governmental entities;
       ``(G) administrative data from other Federal agencies; and
       ``(H) information and materials available from any other 
     appropriate source.''.


                         privilege of the floor

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that privilege 
of the floor be given to Mikki Holmes, who is an intern with me, during 
consideration of this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Both she and Kelly Ross have helped me a great deal on 
the amendment, so I would love for her to be able to be out on the 
floor, and I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, let me give my colleagues a bit of 
background on this amendment--some context. I am, if you will, changing 
the conversation. We are going to be getting into ISTEA amendments 
soon, and I will have some other amendments on ISTEA. But this is a 
vehicle out here on the floor and this is a time for me to raise 
another question, which I think is a very important one. This amendment 
would require the Secretary of Health and Human Services to report on 
the number of former welfare recipients, recipients of public 
assistance under the State Temporary Assistance to Needy Families 
programs, who are economically self-sufficient. In other words, what we 
want to do is have some clear understanding about what is going on in 
the country right now.
  When we debated the welfare bill, I had an amendment which said 
something like: Let's please get Health and Human Services to take a 
look at what is going on in the country. And if it should be the case--
and I certainly hope it will not be the case--that, as opposed to 
families being moved from welfare to work with more economic self-
sufficiency, which is what our goal is, we are seeing families that are 
actually becoming more impoverished, children becoming more 
impoverished, then what we need to do is take corrective action. Let's 
at least monitor what is happening. That amendment was defeated.
  What I am saying to colleagues today is that by passing that piece of 
legislation, we have a certain responsibility to make sure that we know 
what is going on throughout the country. Gunnar Myrdal, a Swedish 
sociologist, once said that ignorance is never random. I think we have 
to be very careful that we at least make an effort, as responsible 
policymakers, to understand what is happening.
  What I mean by ``economic self-sufficiency'' is we just need to know 
whether or not, as the rolls drop--and we have heard reports about how 
the welfare rolls have dropped by 4 million--whether this reduction in 
the rolls or reduction in welfare caseload is a reduction of poverty. 
It can't be viewed as reform unless we are talking about a reduction of 
poverty. We just need to know whether or not these parents, mainly 
women, are now working at jobs that provide them a decent wage. The 
operational indicator that I have in this amendment is we need to know 
whether or not these families are at 150 percent of poverty. Are they 
now out of poverty? We need to know whether or not there is child care 
available for the children. We need to know what the housing situation 
is. We need to know whether or not there is transportation available 
for people so they can get to jobs. We just do not know that.
  What I am saying in this amendment is, at the very minimum--and I 
hope there will be support for it--we ask the Secretary of Health and 
Human Services, based upon the data that she has--some reports from 
States, some Census Bureau survey statistics, some agency data--to pull 
together all the available data--someone has to do that--and provide to 
the Senate, to the Congress, a report 4 months from enactment of this 
amendment, and then every 6 months, as to what is going on in the 
country--whether or not these families are reaching economic self-
sufficiency.
  Let me talk a little bit about some of my own travel, and why I bring 
this amendment to the floor, and also just let me draw from some 
documentation, empirical data, that I think will help colleagues as 
they make up their minds. This is very reasonable. This is very 
reasonable, Democrats and Republicans. The only thing I am saying is, 
please let us know.

  Now, when I travel around the country--and I have spent some time in 
low-income communities--I am not just focused on welfare. Personally, I 
think the most important policy goal for us is to make work pay. I 
think if people work almost 52 weeks a year and almost 40 hours a week, 
they ought not be poor in America.
  I think some of that is skills development for people who are looking 
for work. Some of that is access to capital, especially for small 
businesses, whether it be in Kansas or Minnesota, so we can have more 
entrepreneurs and have more economic opportunities. And some of that is 
affordable child care and affordable health care. If you can put that 
package together, that is probably the best single thing you can do for 
families in America, especially families, if you will, in the bottom 50 
percent of the population.
  I hope that is the direction we will go. But as I travel the 
country--from Delta, MS, to East LA, Watts, to the Pilsin neighborhood 
in South Side Chicago, to public housing projects, the Ida Wells 
housing project, to the Robert Taylor Holmes housing project, to inner 
city Baltimore, to inner city Minneapolis, to rural Aitkin County, to 
Letcher County, Appalachia, eastern Kentucky--what I find is a bit of a 
disturbing picture. And I have been trying to check with people in 
other States.
  I am finding another thing. First of all, what I do when I travel 
around the country is say, OK, now you have seen a drop in caseload and 
you have fewer people on welfare. That is being applauded. But can you 
tell me where they are? Where are the people? What kinds of jobs do 
they have? At what wages? How about the children? Is there decent child 
care for the children?
  Generally speaking, the answer--and it will not just be what I am 
going to tell you on the basis of my own travel, but I also want to 
quote from some reports--is people do not know. People do not know. 
State by State they do not really know. There ought to be some way to 
assemble that data and at least get a report on what has happened.
  I can tell you, I talked a little bit about this on the floor of the 
Senate before. This is why I bring this amendment to the floor. It is 
why I am changing the conversation on the floor of the Senate at least 
at the beginning of this bill. It is why I think this is a matter of 
urgent importance.
  What I find is that I will go to a community, like in Delta, MS, or, 
for that matter--let us start with rural Aitkin County, MN, or, for 
that matter, maybe even more importantly, in Whitesburg, KY, and people 
will say in rural communities two things. No. 1--and in a lot of inner 
cities; I hope every colleague at some point in time can read William 
Julius Wilson's book, ``The Disappearance of Work,'' just an eminent 
sociologist, African American sociologist, who has done superb work; 
rave reviews for his very careful research.
  There are a lot of communities in our country where work still does 
not exist, even with a record low official unemployment rate. We have 
communities in our country where there are no jobs.

[[Page S1219]]

  So there are two issues here. If you are going to tell people they 
are going to be off assistance, we have to make sure the job 
opportunities are there.
  Now, a lot of people in rural America are saying, ``Look, in our 
communities we don't have the jobs. And just as importantly, we don't 
have the transportation to be able to get to some of those jobs that 
are 50 or 60 miles away.'' So I think we need to know what is 
happening. I mean, in Whitesburg, KY, in Letcher County, KY, boy, I 
will tell you what--I say this to the Senator from Kansas--you want to 
talk about a group of people that are independent, you want to talk 
about a group of people that are self-reliant and self-sufficient--I am 
a little biased. That is where my wife's family is from. This is the 
community.
  People say, ``We want to be able to work. And if you give us the 
tools whereby we can have some access to capital, we can chart our own 
economic future.'' And there are jobs for people. We are all for this. 
But right now, in a couple of years from now, everybody please remember 
in that bill that we passed, there is a drop dead date certain where, 
depending upon the State, 2 years from now or 4 years from now or a 
year and a half from now everybody is going to be off assistance. All 
these parents--women; almost all women--and children will be cut off 
all assistance.

  Before that finally happens, Mr. President, we need to know whether 
or not these families are now reaching economic self-sufficiency. We 
need to know what is going on. We cannot just cut all people off 
assistance without knowing whether or not there are jobs available, 
whether or not any will be available, or, worse--and I am visiting a 
lot of communities around the country, and I think Senators are 
probably hearing this now as we implement this legislation--they are 
telling me there are no jobs.
  Same thing in a lot of inner cities I visit where people tell me in 
Baltimore. And you know what? I am in complete agreement on this. I 
want my conservative colleagues to know that I am now changing my 
ideology. I am becoming a conservative Democrat. I cannot go quite as 
far as being a Republican. But I am in complete agreement with the 
proposition that you can have all of the social services imaginable, 
you can have the WIC program, and you can have the Head Start Program, 
and you can have outreach programs, but it does not work unless people 
have an employment opportunity. That is dignity for people.
  But you know, when I visit some just great people in Baltimore--they 
are doing great work--what they tell me is, ``Look, all the social 
services in the world don't cut it unless there are job opportunities 
here. And the jobs are not available in our ghettos and boroughs. They 
are available in some of the suburbs, but people cannot get out to 
them. A lot of poor people do not own cars. And a lot of people rely on 
the public transportation.''
  So what I am saying, colleagues, is, let us find out--find out--
whether or not people are moving to economic self-sufficiency. Let us 
find out what this reduction in caseload means. Because I think 
otherwise we could be doing something here in Washington, DC, that 
could be unbelievably harsh and unbelievably cruel and just really 
unconscionable, which is eventually supporting the idea that all 
families are cut off all assistance even when people have tried to find 
a job and have not been able to find a job, even when the child care 
isn't available.
  Now, as I travel the country--I wanted to also mention this to 
colleagues--I have met with entirely too many families who tell me that 
either their 3- or 4-year-olds, part of the time, are home alone 
because it is a single parent working because the child care isn't 
available, or their children, small children, age 2, age 3, one week 
are with a cousin, another week with another relative, another week 
with a friend somewhere, because there is no affordable child care.
  Or I talk to parents--and I would like for every Senator to put 
himself or herself in the place of some of these parents--who tell me 
that before this legislation passed, they would go to school, and they 
would pick up their first grader--this happened to me in East LA--and 
this mother, who was just weeping, she was saying, ``I work.'' She 
wanted me to know she was working. She wanted me to know that she wants 
to work. I was asking her, how was it going? And it was at that point 
that she broke down crying, when she said, ``It's fine until about 3 
o'clock every day,'' because that is when she would pick up her first 
grader--now a second grader--at school, and walk her home, sometimes 
passing gangs in a pretty violent neighborhood. Too much violence 
still. And she would walk her child home, and then she would be with 
her child. Now she tells her second grader, ``You know, when you get 
home at the housing project, you're to lock the door, and you're to 
take no phone calls.''
  Colleagues, I want you to know that even when there is good weather, 
there are too many children in America who are not outside playing 
because there is no supervision for them. Now, we ought to know what is 
happening around the country to these children. Just because these 
children are low-income children, just because their mothers are low-
income mothers does not make them any less important than anybody else. 
They are all God's children.

  Mr. President, let me just read from a very important article that 
came out last week in the National Journal by Burt Solomon called 
``Monitoring Welfare Reform--Sort Of.'' This is why I want to see us at 
least call on the Secretary of Health and Human Services to assemble 
some data, to provide us with reports as to what is going on. That is 
all. How many families are reaching economic self-sufficiency? Are 
people who are now off welfare, have they found jobs? At what wage 
level? Are the children OK? Is there decent child care? That is all 
that says. We all ought to want to know that. There should not be one 
vote against this. We should want to know. We should want to know.
  Now, to provide some evidence or marshal some evidence for this 
amendment, let me just read from this very fine piece by Burt Solomon. 
In quoting one Federal official:

       ``I don't think we will be following enough people 
     thoroughly enough''--or long enough--``to get a [strong] 
     understanding of what's going on,'' a federal official 
     steeped in welfare policy said. Queried about whether there 
     are plans to better organize monitoring, the official 
     replied: ``I think the answer is, not really.''

  Mr. President, I think that is sort of an apt summary. We just do not 
right now have any coordination. We do not have anybody who is 
responsible for collecting the data to be able to tell us what is 
happening to these families.
  Secretary Shalala gave a speech at the American Enterprise Institute 
on Friday, February 6. I will start out at the beginning of her speech. 
She said:

       But we also have a moral obligation to keep making 
     improvements in welfare reform, and in our social policies.

  She is talking about how, now that we have had this law for a while, 
it is time to ask the questions and figure out where we need to go from 
here.

       ``Today, fewer than 4 percent of Americans are on welfare. 
     What we don't know is precisely what is happening to all of 
     these former welfare recipients.'' We know that some have 
     married or moved in with family or friends. Others have left 
     the rolls and are holding on to jobs that they were already 
     going to--what is sometimes called the smoke out effect. But 
     what's important is that many are looking for work--and 
     finding it.

  Many are looking for work and finding it. But the real issue is that 
we still do not know what is happening to these 4 million people who 
are no longer on the rolls.
  I go on to quote from her speech:

       States are working hard to enforce the mandatory work 
     requirements in TANF. Sanctions were actually rising even 
     before TANF. Still, most of the 33 states that were 
     authorized by waivers to impose full-family sanctions rarely 
     did so. Now, when sanctions are imposed, it's usually because 
     recipients fail to show up for their initial appointments--
     not because they refuse to comply with work requirements.

  Mr. President, I just want to make the point that one of the things 
that is happening--it is happening in my State of Minnesota--is a lot 
of people are basically getting cut off welfare because they are 
sanctioned. They do not show up for some of their initial appointments. 
But the question is whether they do not show up for their initial 
appointments because they do not want to work, or is it because they do 
not have transportation? Or is it because there is not adequate 
outreach?

[[Page S1220]]

 Or it is because we are imposing a kind of stability in the lives of 
people who sometimes have to deal with crisis after crisis? Or is it 
because, with a lack of child care arrangements, they cannot be there?
  I mean, we want to make sure that people are not just being 
eliminated from the rolls and then, not having any employment 
opportunities or having jobs that barely pay minimum wage, are worse 
off a year from now, and they no longer have any health care. I read 
from an editorial from the Minnesota Star Tribune entitled ``Life After 
Welfare--States Must Ask the Right Questions.'' I just quote one 
relevant section.

       The federal law requires states to submit lots of data on 
     the number of clients who receive benefits and who find jobs, 
     but it is almost silent on the issue of family well-being 
     after clients leave welfare. As federal bureaucrats draft new 
     reporting requirements, there's a danger that Washington and 
     the governors will define ``success'' as merely cutting 
     caseloads.

  And this is the conclusion of the editorial:

       It's worth remembering that Congress didn't tackle welfare 
     reform because caseloads were rising--they were already 
     falling by 1996. It wasn't because assistance costs were 
     climbing--cash welfare to families has been stable at less 
     than 2 percent of the federal budget since Richard Nixon was 
     in office. It was because welfare was seen as a failed 
     program that fostered other social pathologies: idleness, 
     drug use, broken marriages and neglected children. Having 
     blamed welfare for these problems, it seems only fair to find 
     out whether welfare reform is solving them.

  Again, what I am saying to my colleagues is that I think it is 
terribly important that at least we understand--and to ask the 
Secretary of Health and Human Services to provide some reporting of 
data as to--what is happening around the country so that we have some 
understanding how many of these families have found work, how many of 
these families are reaching self-sufficiency. Or are matters worse off? 
What has happened to those parents? And what is happening to these 
children?
  If it is, colleagues, the best-case scenario, I am all for it. If we 
pass this amendment and the Secretary provides us with some data, 
assuming she has the data--if she can't pull together data, then we 
have to figure out what we need to do in order to understand what is 
happening in the country--if she provides data that shows us that, as 
we look at this reduction of caseloads by 4 million, that many of these 
mothers and many of these children are better off, great.
  But if, in fact, we find that people have been cut off but haven't 
found a job, or they find a job that barely pays minimum wage and there 
is not adequate child care and some of their children are in harm's way 
as a result of this legislation, then we need to know that as well. 
Certainly we can't just follow through on eliminating all assistance 
for all families until we understand whether or not these families have 
reached economic self-sufficiency.
  Mr. President, I quote from an article in the Philadelphia Inquirer 
on a recent study by Tufts University:

       Despite numerous reports of welfare reform's early success, 
     most states have enacted measures that hurt the families 
     they're supposed to help, a national study at Tufts 
     University pointed out that only 14 states have welfare 
     policies that are likely to improve the economic conditions 
     of poor families.

  Let me read a hard-hitting statement by J. Larry Brown, who is 
director of the poverty center at Tufts University, which I concede has 
been controversial because they have issued reports over the years. 
They have been at this for decades, and they focus a lot on 
malnutrition, hunger and poverty, especially among children in America. 
Sometimes we don't like what they say because it is just unpleasant 
news. But I think their research is terribly important, and I will read 
from J. Larry Brown:

       The evidence shows that as of now welfare reform is 
     failing, and it is failing badly. The vast majority of states 
     are not developing programs to improve the economic 
     circumstances of the poor.

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that an executive summary of 
the Tufts University study be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

  [From the Tufts University Center on Hunger and Poverty, Feb. 1998]

 Are States Improving the Lives of Poor Families?--A Scale Measure of 
                         State Welfare Policies


                           Executive Summary

       The Tufts Scale measures whether each state is making 
     progress toward increasing the economic security of poor 
     families under the newly ``devolved'' welfare system created 
     by Congress in 1996. It also compares whether each state's 
     progress toward this goal is better or worse than that of 
     other states. Results of the study show that:
       The majority of states have created welfare programs that 
     ultimately will worsen the economic circumstances of the 
     poor.
       More than two-thirds of all states (35) have implemented 
     state welfare policies that will make the economic situations 
     of families worse than under the old welfare system.
       Less than a third of all states (14) have implemented state 
     welfare policies that are likely to improve poor families' 
     economic conditions.
       Overall, more states in the Northeast and Western region 
     received positive scores on the Scale, indicating they have 
     created state welfare programs that are more likely to help 
     families achieve economic self-sufficiency, while more states 
     in the South and Midwest received negative scores, indicating 
     that their new welfare policies are likely to make self-
     sufficiency harder to achieve.
       Of the fourteen states whose new welfare policies are 
     likely to improve family economic well-being, seven (VT, RI, 
     PA, NH, ME, CT and MA) are in the Northeast, four (OR, CA, 
     WA, and UT) are in the West, two (IL and MN) in the Midwest, 
     and one (TN) in the South.
       Of the fourteen states whose new welfare policies are 
     likely to worsen family economic security the most, seven 
     (FL, NC, LA, MS, AL, GA and DC) are in the South, four (OH, 
     IA, MO and KS) are in the Midwest, two (WY and ID) in the 
     West, and one (NJ) in the Northeast.
       Two states represent the extremes in measuring progress and 
     failure to date:
       Vermont, with a score of +12, is the state whose new 
     welfare policies are most likely to improve the economic 
     security of recipient families.
       Idaho, with a score of -15.5, is the state whose new 
     welfare policies are most likely to worsen the economic 
     conditions of poor families.
       The cornerstone of the newly decentralized national welfare 
     system is the TANF Block Grant. Under TANF, states are given 
     unprecedented flexibility to create and implement customized 
     state welfare programs to help families become economically 
     self-sufficient. Yet the Scale results show that the vast 
     majority of states have adopted policies under their TANF 
     Block Grants that are likely to worsen the economic security 
     of poor families instead.
       Forty-two states have adopted policies under their TANF 
     Block Grants that are likely to worsen the economic security 
     of poor families.
       Eight states (VT, OR, NH, MA, WA, RI, ME, and CT) have 
     implemented policies under their TANF Block Grants that are 
     likely to improve poor families' economic security in 
     comparison to the old welfare system.
       Vermont received the highest score on the TANF section of 
     the Scale (+7), indicating that it has implemented policies 
     under its TANF Block Grant that are more likely than all 
     other states to improve family economic security. Idaho 
     received the lowest Scale score for TANF (-15.5), indicating 
     that its TANF policies are more likely than those of any 
     other state to worsen family economic security.
       The Child Care and Development Fund was created under 
     PRWORA to assist families in obtaining child care so that 
     adults could engage in activities eventually leading to self-
     supporting employment. According to the Scale, all states 
     except one have adopted child care policies which are likely 
     to improve family economic security compared to their 
     policies under prior law.
       All states except Wyoming have implemented child care 
     policies in their new state welfare programs that are likely 
     to improve family economic security.
       Six states (CA, MS, NE, PA, RI and VT) received the highest 
     score on the child care part of the Scale.
       The Tufts Scale was designed to provide early feedback to 
     help evaluate the likely impact of state welfare program 
     inputs on family economic well-being while the nation waits 
     for longer-term measures of their outcomes. Each state's 
     score provides a measure of whether that state is using its 
     newly available flexibility to invest in the economic 
     circumstances of poor families.
       Concerns have been raised by some critics of the 1996 
     welfare reform law that ultimately it will further impede the 
     economic viability of poor families. The data reported here 
     suggest that these concerns may be well founded. While a few 
     states have made choices which can improve the lives of poor 
     families in their states, most are disinvesting in the poor.


              Comparing States' Overall Tufts Scale Scores

       Table 2 shows overall state scores ranked in descending 
     order (highest to lowest). Recalling from Table 1 that the 
     range of possible overall scores is -38 to +22, it is clear 
     that no state did as little, or as much, as could have been 
     done to change the impact of its welfare programs on the 
     economic security of poor families with children. The

[[Page S1221]]

     highest overall score of +12 points, received by VT, fell 10 
     points short of the maximum score. The lowest score of -15.5 
     points, received by ID, was also 22.5 points higher than the 
     minimum.

        TABLE 2.--OVERALL TUFTS SCALE SCORES WITH STATE RANKINGS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       State                           Rank      Score
------------------------------------------------------------------------
VT................................................          1       12.0
OR................................................          2        7.5
RI................................................          3        6.5
PA................................................          4        4.5
NH................................................          4        4.6
ME................................................          4        4.5
CA................................................          4        4.5
WA................................................          8        4.0
CT................................................          8        4.0
UT................................................         10        2.5
IL................................................         10        2.5
MN................................................         12        2.0
MA................................................         12        2.0
TN................................................         14        1.5
NY................................................         15        0.0
NE................................................         15        0.0
VA................................................         17       -0.5
TX................................................         17       -0.5
MT................................................         19       -1.0
DE................................................         20       -1.5
NV................................................         21       -2.0
HI................................................         21       -2.0
CO................................................         21       -2.0
AR................................................         21       -2.0
AK................................................         25       -2.5
NM................................................         26       -3.0
ND................................................         26       -3.0
MI................................................         28       -3.5
MD................................................         28       -3.5
WV................................................         30       -4.0
WI................................................         30       -4.0
SC................................................         30       -4.0
AZ................................................         30       -4.0
SD................................................         34       -5.0
0K................................................         34       -5.0
KY................................................         34       -5.0
IN................................................         34       -5.0
OH................................................         38       -6.0
FL................................................         38       -6.0
NC................................................         40       -6.5
LA................................................         40       -6.5
IA................................................         40       -6.5
NJ................................................         43       -7.0
MO................................................         44       -8.0
MS................................................         45       -9.0
AL................................................         45       -9.0
GA................................................         47       -9.5
DC................................................         48      -10.0
KS................................................         49      -11.0
WY................................................         50      -12.0
ID................................................         51      -15.5
------------------------------------------------------------------------

       Generally, states in the Southern region scored lower than 
     states in the Northeast. Among the fourteen states receiving 
     overall scores above zero, seven are in the Northeast region 
     (VT, RI, PA, NH, ME, CT and MA), and four are in the Western 
     region (OR, CA, WA and UT). Two states in the top fourteen 
     are in the Midwestern region (IL and MN), and one (TN) is in 
     the South. Of the fourteen states with lowest overall scores, 
     seven are in the Southern region (FL, NC, LA, MS, AL, GA, and 
     DC), four are in the Midwest (OH, IA, MO and KS), two in the 
     West (WY and ID), and one in the Northeast (NJ).
       During the 1996 policy debate over ``devolving'' welfare to 
     the states, leaders in six states were particularly active in 
     efforts to obtain greater state prerogatives. In the states 
     of CA, MD, MI, NJ, OH, and WI, governors made welfare reform 
     a major component of their policy agendas \18\. All of these 
     states except one are doing worse than their peers in terms 
     of promoting the economic security of recipient families. 
     With one exception, all these states received scores at or 
     below the median value of -3 points, while two (OH and NJ) 
     scored among the worse in the nation. CA scored among the top 
     fourteen states with an overall score of +4.5 points (though 
     several of its newer policies were not implemented until 
     after October 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \18\ Norris, D.F., and L. Thompson, The Politics of Welfare 
     Reform, SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, 1995.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Overall, fourteen states created welfare programs 
     demonstrating greater investment in the economic security of 
     poor families, while two states maintained the status quo 
     under prior law. Thirty-five states (including DC) designed 
     welfare programs which are likely to worsen the economic 
     security of poor families.

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, let me cite two other pieces of 
evidence to support this amendment and to explain to my colleagues why 
I have been out here from the word ``go'' trying to get us to go on 
record on this question.
  This is a piece from the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. The title is 
``Few Leave Welfare Earning Above Poverty Level.'' This is about a 
study of welfare recipients in Wisconsin.

       Only about 1 in 6 families that left welfare in Milwaukee 
     County in 1996 earned more than poverty-level wages. This is 
     in Wisconsin, which has really put an all-out effort to 
     invest in this reform.

  Let me read again:

       Only about 1 in 6 families that left welfare in Milwaukee 
     County in 1996 earned more than poverty-level wages in a 
     three-month period, according to the most conclusive 
     examination yet of what is happening to local families under 
     Wisconsin's sweeping welfare initiatives.

  It goes on to point out that ``the turnover rate among those workers 
was extremely high--in part because the jobs were concentrated in 
industries that typically have plenty of part-time spots and a more 
transient work force.''

       By the first quarter of 1997, welfare recipients had left 
     most of the jobs for which they were hired the previous year.

  So again, let's just understand that this is a study that comes out 
based on what is happening in Milwaukee County in Wisconsin, saying one 
out of six families that left welfare earned more than poverty level 
wages--only one out of six. Moreover, a lot of the jobs are part-time 
jobs, jobs that people can't count on, and a lot of people had to 
switch from one job to another.
  Finally, Mr. President, an article that appeared in the Star Tribune 
in my State, ``Parents Face Cuts In Welfare Checks.''

       Hundreds of Minnesotan parents are in danger of having 
     their welfare checks reduced starting March 1, the first wave 
     of penalties meted out under the state's new welfare law.

  Interestingly, in Hennepin County about 50 percent of the parents 
converting to the new welfare system are showing up for orientation 
meetings at work; about 70 percent are showing up in Ramsey County.
  A lot of these families are in crisis. Some don't plan well--the bus 
can be late, they can't work out arrangements for kids. The question is 
going to be whether or not we are going to basically be sanctioning 
people and cutting people off, even people who want to work.
  Now, summarizing what this amendment says, we call on the Secretary 
of Health and Human Services to take a look at those families who have 
now been moved off welfare around the country and to provide us with 
some data as to what the current situation is. The whole goal of this 
bill was to move families from ``welfare'' to ``workfare,'' to move 
families to economic self-sufficiency. That is what we said it was 
about.
  I have said to colleagues today on the floor of the Senate that from 
articles that are now coming out, looking at what is happening around 
the country, we see some evidence that a lot of people who have been 
moved off welfare have not been able to obtain jobs that pay a decent 
wage, have not been able to obtain employment that gets a family 
anywhere close to 150 percent of poverty--out of poverty. I am saying 
to colleagues that Secretary Shalala, who has been very direct and 
honest herself, has said we need to know more about what is happening 
with these reform efforts.
  I'm saying to colleagues today that there have been some pretty hard-
hitting studies that have come out, the Tufts University study being 
one, which have said that actually it is pretty harsh what is happening 
around the country. I'm saying that as I travel around the country I 
have tried to spend time in low-income communities. I have tried to be 
with people. I have tried to understand what is happening. I don't have 
all the empirical data, but I am just saying to colleagues what I have 
observed, and I think I have been honest in my observation. I have been 
in too many communities with long waiting lists for affordable child 
care for working poor, moderate income families, and now welfare. 
Therefore, a lot of these mothers go to work but there is not adequate 
child care for their children.

  I don't want to see, nor should any of my colleagues want to see, 
more children put in harm's way because of action that we have taken. I 
am saying to colleagues that in too many inner-city communities and too 
many rural areas, people have said to me that the jobs aren't there, 
nor is the transportation available to enable them to get to some of 
the jobs, that they would work, for themselves and their families.
  I am saying to colleagues that you cannot argue that because there 
has been a reduction of 4 million recipients, that that represents 
reform if it hasn't led to reduction in poverty. You can't say 
something is working well if what is happening is that many of these 
families are economically worse off and many of these children are not 
better by what we have done.
  I am saying to colleagues that I have heard enough speeches on the 
floor of the Senate about children. I have heard enough speeches about 
the very early years being very important for nurturing of a child, 
very important to fire up a child's imagination. I am saying to 
colleagues that in a whole lot of cases these single parents--almost 
all women, even with children younger than 1--are being told they have 
to leave the home and take a job. We

[[Page S1222]]

don't know what is happening to those 1-year-olds, those 2-year-olds, 
the 3-year-olds and their 4-year-olds. It is our obligation to know 
what is happening to those children.
  I am making a plea to my colleagues. This is, I say to Senator Chafee 
and Senator Baucus, a moderate Paul Wellstone amendment. This is a 
moderate version. All this does is say, please, let's ask the Secretary 
of Health and Human Services to pull together some data and make 
reports to us every half a year as to how many of these families are 
reaching economic self-sufficiency so we have some understanding of 
what is going on in the country.
  Before I yield the floor--and I am not prepared to yield the floor--
might I ask the Senator from Missouri, because I don't want to keep him 
waiting long, but before yielding the floor, might I ask my colleague 
whether he is here to debate the amendment or intends to introduce 
another amendment.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I am interested in knowing when I might have 
the floor. I have a brief statement on the measure.
  I will have something to say about this, but I ask my colleague how 
long he intends to go on.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, if I understand my colleague from 
Missouri, if he has a statement on the overall legislation or something 
else aside from the amendment, then I want to inquire of the Senator 
from Rhode Island as to whether or not this amendment will be accepted. 
If it will be accepted, then we can dispose of it and move on.
  If the Senator from Missouri means he has another point of view and 
wants to speak on this amendment, I am glad to yield the floor and then 
come back and respond to some of his arguments. I am not quite sure 
what he has in mind.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, it is my understanding the Senator from 
Missouri is going to speak on the underlying bill. Is that correct?
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I am prepared to address the finance 
amendment that we reported out today and that will be brought up for 
debate, we hope, perhaps later today or tomorrow under the unanimous 
consent agreement. I wanted to speak briefly about that.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Might I ask the leader as to whether or not he has any 
additional information as to how he wants to proceed?
  Mr. CHAFEE. What I suggest, Mr. President, is that the Senator from 
Missouri is not going to be very long. We will be in 45 minutes anyway, 
or more, before we recess. So I suggest if we could just let the 
Senator from Missouri go ahead, and then I have some comments I will 
direct to the Senator from Minnesota. That is my suggestion.

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I don't want to keep my colleague from 
Missouri waiting. It would be fine with me, I say to the Senator from 
Rhode Island. I await eagerly his response. I hope we can reach some 
agreement on this.
  I do have more to say about this amendment, but I don't want to 
inconvenience my colleague from Missouri. I am pleased to relinquish 
the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has relinquished the floor.
  The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank the Chair.
  I say in response to my colleague from Minnesota, be careful about 
relying on the Tufts study. The officials in charge of public 
assistance in my State and other States have pointed out some rather 
serious flaws in that study. We all share concerns about assuring there 
is adequate transportation, adequate day care, child care, for people 
moving from welfare to work, and I am not here to debate that 
amendment. At the appropriate time, we will review that amendment.
  What I wanted to call to the attention of my colleagues is the fact 
that yesterday my good friend, the distinguished chairman of the 
Environment and Public Works Committee, Senator Chafee, along with 
Senator Baucus, Senator Gramm, Senator Byrd and the very distinguished 
chairman of the Budget Committee, Senator Domenici, announced agreement 
on funding levels for the highway authorization for the next 6 years. 
It will be $171 billion for highways.
  Let me explain what that means for my State of Missouri. Under the 
formula that was passed out of the committee as a committee amendment 
today, Missouri would receive $3.6 billion--that is billion dollars--
compared to $2.4 billion that Missouri received over the last 6 years 
of the 1991 transportation bill. Missouri's average allocation per year 
would be around $600 million, as opposed to the $400 million the State 
was receiving under the old.
  That is tremendous progress. I am deeply indebted to the leadership 
of our committee and particularly to the budget chairman for making 
these dollars available. This is vitally important. Everybody in this 
Chamber knows how important funding for transportation is.
  I was not a cosponsor of the Byrd-Gramm amendment, but I have always 
made clear and reiterated my support that highway money and 
transportation money should go for highways. In Missouri and across the 
country, when people go to the gas pump, buy gas and pay a tax, they 
think it is going to the highway trust fund. They think it is going for 
transportation purposes. And that is a reasonable assumption, except 
that in this body we have divorced the revenue from the spending stream 
and in the past we have had that money siphoned off to cover 
overspending elsewhere. In the 1993 major tax increase, a 4.3-cent tax 
was levied for deficit reduction.
  Now, I believe that the transfer of the 4.3 cents back to the highway 
trust fund instead of deficit reduction has not only made a 
significantly increased amount of money available for transportation 
needs, but it has, I think, put the ``trust'' back into the highway 
trust funds. That is what we ought to be about; that is what we ought 
to be telling the people who are paying those taxes. We are 
recommitting ourselves to the basic principle and promise that we made, 
which is that when we provide the revenues to the Government under the 
dedicated gas tax money, we are going to use it for roads, bridges, 
highways and transportation when it's collected.
  In Missouri, these funds are desperately needed. I daresay that I 
have heard stories from other States where they understand the 
importance of highway dollars. I came to the floor last week and 
explained that the debate over transportation funding and policy was 
not just an academic debate for Missourians. It is about, obviously, 
convenience and ease of transportation. It is about economic growth 
because, in our State, you can see where jobs occur. They occur where 
there are good highways. But most important, good highways and bridges 
are matters of life and death in Missouri. Highway fatalities in the 
State of Missouri increased 13 percent from 1992 to 1995, and many of 
us in Missouri know somebody or several people who have lost their 
lives on highways. And 77 percent of the fatal crashes during this 
timeframe occurred on two-lane roads.
  Mr. President, it is a simple matter. When you have heavy traffic on 
two-lane roads, you have traffic delays, somebody gets anxious and 
pulls out to pass, and if there is a hill, if there is a curve, or if 
there is an unseen hidden spot in the road, a head-on crash occurs. 
That has happened too many times, and it happens because the two-lane 
roads that we are driving on are carrying traffic that everybody agrees 
should be carried on four-lane roads. This is why I say it is a matter 
of life and death.
  In Missouri, 62 percent of the roads on the National Highway System, 
when you exclude the Interstate System, are two-lane roads--two-lane 
roads that are supposed to be part of our National Highway System. We 
are in the top 10, in terms of highway count, in the number of cars 
traveling those roads. Many of those National Highway System roads 
don't even have shoulders on them. So if somebody comes across the line 
and you are passing a large truck, if you move too far to the right, 
you are off on the shoulder, and that can be deadly.
  In addition, my State of Missouri has the oldest--I repeat, the 
oldest--bridges in the country. There are a number of things that we 
like to be No. 1 in, but having the oldest bridges and some of the 
worst conditions in the country is not one of them. This is a dubious 
distinction. We are sixth from

[[Page S1223]]

the bottom in the condition of our bridges. These are the reasons that 
the highway funding formula and the transportation bill is so vitally 
important in my State. The potential funding that this bill provides is 
a huge step in the right direction to save lives on Missouri's 
highways, roads, and bridges. Last week, I told the story of driving 
across some of the bridges in our State where you can look down and see 
the water. That is not reassuring. They don't design them as ``see-
through'' bridges. Years and years of decay have opened up gaping 
holes, which is a frightening prospect when you are crossing the 
Missouri River or the Mississippi River.
  I urge my colleagues to work through the budget and the 
appropriations process to determine that we will make the real funding 
commitment and that we will meet that funding commitment that we put 
forward in this bill.
  When I began this process, when I started work on it, I had two 
primary goals. One was for the transportation bill to increase the 
overall size of the pie for highways, and getting that 4.3 cents in is 
vitally important. Secondly, Missouri, as one of the donor States, 
needed to get its share up. I believe these two conditions are met.
  You may recall last fall when filibusters held up the bill I crafted 
a bipartisan interim solution that enabled highway funding to continue 
through May 1 of this year, which means, as the distinguished occupant 
of the chair knows, we will be the bedeviled by those orange and white 
barrels this year. They will be springing up on our highways like the 
summer road flowers along the highways. They are going to be 
blossoming. I am pleased to be causing those headaches. But we need to 
continue the orange and white barrels; we need to continue that 
construction.
  I know the funding debates are far from over. As I mentioned last 
Friday, there are reasonable people who have passionate differences, 
and there is nothing like a highway funding fight to bring out those 
differences. We hope that it is merely a matter of verbal debate. But 
when it comes to highway funding, these differences have been visible 
and audible. I want to express again my sincerest thanks to Senator 
Chafee, Senator Baucus, and Senator Warner, for their leadership in 
working with committee members to avoid the ``guerrilla warfare'' that 
has been known to erupt on the highway bill in the past. I told the 
committee that I thought the leadership had achieved a rough system of 
justice that would make it possible for us to move this bill forward.
  Nobody is going to get everything that they want, but I believe that 
reasonable compromises have been made, and there may still be more 
made. We need to get this bill moving. I look forward to working with 
the members of the committee and my other colleagues throughout this 
process to achieve the goals that we all have for our States, that I 
have for my State of Missouri, but, most important, that we all must 
have for our national transportation policy.
  Again, my thanks to the leadership and my congratulations for the 
great staff work. We look forward to working on it. It will be an 
interesting debate.
  I thank the Chair.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I want to thank the distinguished Senator 
from Missouri for those kind comments. We have worked closely together, 
and he has been a valuable member of the committee, not only on highway 
matters, but in other matters likewise. We look forward to his vigorous 
support as we move forward with this legislation.
  Now, the Senator from Minnesota, I believe, has matters to discuss.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota is recognized.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, let me also associate myself with the 
remarks of the Senator from Missouri. I think all of us owe a debt of 
gratitude to our colleagues, Senator Chafee and Senator Baucus, for 
their determination and doggedness in getting this bill on the floor. 
This is a very important piece of legislation, I think, for all of our 
States.
  Mr. President, I think the Senator from Rhode Island, in a moment or 
two, has some questions he wants to put to me. While I am waiting for 
that, let me just, for my colleagues' information, give the official 
poverty level income for a family of one woman and two children. It is 
$12,516. And 150 percent is $18,774.
  This amendment, everybody should understand, doesn't dictate 
anything. It doesn't say that every family of three ought to be able to 
make that income of $18,000. It doesn't mandate anything; it doesn't 
dictate anything. It simply says--look, I think people trust me, and I 
have traveled the country, and I am telling you that some of what is 
going on--I am not pointing the finger at any particular point, 
although it is uneven. It is harsher in some States than in others, but 
we do need to understand exactly what is going on, whether or not these 
families are able to find jobs and whether or not these are jobs with 
decent wages, and what is going on with their children. We need for the 
Secretary to kind of bring together some data and present reports to us 
so we have knowledge about this.
  I see the majority leader on the floor. I would be happy to yield to 
the majority leader. Then if my colleague has questions he wants to put 
to me, I would be pleased to respond.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Minnesota for 
yielding me this moment of time. It won't be long.

                          ____________________