Kent Conrad

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Is it expected that the Social Security Administration and the Congress will rely heavily on the expert advice of the National Academy of Science when engaging in future regulatory activity and deliberations regarding impairments of children in the SSI program?

Mr. CONRAD. I also understand that the amendment is designed to facilitate expert analysis of the SSI program for children by the National Academy of Science, to ensure that program changes, including determination of disability, are based on the best possible science.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I have a series of clarifications concerning the children's SSI program that I would like to discuss with the majority leader. But first, let me express my appreciation to Senator Dole for his leadership in helping us reach a compromise on this issue. The SSI agreement is not everything I had hoped to achieve when Senator Chafee and I introduced the Children's SSI Eligibility Reform Act, but it is clearly an improvement over the House bill. In addition, I believe the agreement includes a number of extremely important provisions to both address criticisms that have been leveled against the Children's SSI program and protect children with severe disabilities. I am extremely pleased we were able to reach a bipartisan compromise on this issue, and thank Senator Dole, Senator Santorum, Senator Daschle, Senator Chafee, Senator Simpson, Senator Jeffords, and others who were so deeply involved. Mr. President, I would like to clarify for the Record the intent surrounding several of the provisions in the amendment. First, the amendment deletes the word ``pervasive'' from the definition of child disability that was included in the welfare reform bill reported in May by the Finance Committee. This is an important change, and one that I fully support. Would the majority leader clarify his understanding of the intent of this change?

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators Pryor, Bradley, and Kerry of Massachusetts appear as original cosponsors in addition to Senator Lieberman.

Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Senator from Rhode Island. I ask unanimous consent to modify my amendment, as per the previous agreement.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, this amendment promotes a comprehensive strategy that prevents teen pregnancy. Mr. President, if there is one agreement on both sides of the aisle, it is that teen pregnancy is a crisis in America. One out of three children being born today are born out of wedlock. In some cities of America, two out of three children being born are born out of wedlock. Here in the Nation's capital, this year, more than two out of three children are being born out of wedlock. Teen pregnancy is a critical challenge. It is a tragedy for America. It is a tragedy for the children. It is a tragedy for the young women. It is a tragedy for our entire country. Mr. President, in 1992, there were more than a half million births to teenagers, and 71 percent of those births were to unmarried parents. The Conrad-Lieberman amendment is designed as a comprehensive strategy to take on this challenge. Mr. President, the Conrad-Lieberman amendment does the following: It provides $150 million over 7 years for States to develop adult- supervised living arrangements. I call them ``second-chance homes.'' They are places where young, unmarried mothers can get the structure and supervision they need to turn their lives around. It retains the requirement that teen parents live with their parents or another responsible adult. It requires that they stay in school. It establishes a national goal to prevent out-of-wedlock pregnancy to teens by 2 percent a year. It encourages communities to establish their own teen pregnancy prevention goals. Finally, it calls for the aggressive prosecution of men who have sex with girls under the age of 18. Mr. President, I think the most compelling testimony before the Finance Committee was from Sister Mary Rose McGeady, the head of Covenant House. She has been in the trenches, she has fought this battle, and she has been succeeding. They have dealt with hundreds of young mothers who have come into their facilities and have had the structure, the support, and the discipline, and the help in seeing themselves as having a future, the vision to see that they could do something more with their lives, if they did not have another child before they were able to care for it. Sister Mary Rose reported that they have been very successful in preventing those young women from having another child. Mr. President, I read in the Record yesterday the statement of Elena, a young woman in New York who was in one of these second-chance homes. I will repeat her statement: I feel this is a place where I can get my life together. I am getting my education and learning to work. My mother never cared if I went to school, and she never told me about having babies or being a parent. The people here and the programs here are helping me. I am learning to be a teacher's assistant so that I can go to college and start my own business and get off of public assistance. I needed this chance. Elena is not alone. There are others like her that need a chance. Mr. President, I ask to have printed in the Record a statement of Bishop John Ricard, Chairman of the Domestic Policy Committee, United States Catholic Conference, a statement of Catholic Charities USA also be printed in the Record, and a National Council of Churches of Christ in the USA, a statement in support of the amendment, also be printed in the Record. There being on objection, the material was ordered to be printed in

Mr. CONRAD. Might I ask for 15 seconds to resolve this matter? Mr. President, we have checked with cosponsors who had made a commitment to ask for a vote on this matter, and we have persuaded them that the better part of valor is to have this accepted. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Rockefeller be listed as a cosponsor.

Mr. CONRAD. I ask that the majority leader also be listed as an original cosponsor.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we be able to temporarily set aside the Conrad-Lieberman amendment because we have a request from the other side that we do that so that we perhaps have a chance to work things out before a vote.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Connecticut. I call up the Conrad-Lieberman amendment No. 2528.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, this amendment promotes a comprehensive strategy to prevent teen pregnancy. If there is one problem I think Senators on both sides of the aisle recognize is right at the center of the problems of this Nation, it is the dramatic increase in teen pregnancy. I have talked to my colleagues before and shown a chart that shows that in 1992 there were more than a half million births to teen mothers, and 71 percent of those births were to unmarried parents. I have also shown my colleagues, in the past, a chart that demonstrates that our Nation's teen birth rate is now more than twice as high as in any other industrialized country. The Federal Government, we believe, has a responsibility to assist States in developing effective teenage pregnancy prevention strategies, and that will help prevent the cycle of poverty that results. The Conrad-Lieberman amendment does the following: It provides $300 million, over 7 years, for States to develop adult supervised living arrangements. I call them ``second chance homes.'' They are places where young, unmarried mothers can get the structure and supervision that they need to turn their lives around. Second, the Conrad-Lieberman amendment retains the requirement added to the Dole bill that teen parents live with their parents or another responsible adult and that they stay in school. There are a lot of things we do not know. But we do know that for a teenage parent to have a chance, it is critically important that they be in an adult- supervised setting and that they stay in school. If there is one thing that is clear, it is that. Mr. President, the Conrad-Lieberman amendment also establishes a national goal to reduce out-of-wedlock pregnancies to teens by 2 percent a year. It encourages communities to establish their own teenage pregnancy prevention goals. It establishes a national clearinghouse to share what we learned about what works to prevent teenage pregnancy. It establishes a 5 percent set-aside for teen pregnancy prevention strategies to be developed by the States. Finally, the Conrad-Lieberman amendment calls for the aggressive prosecution of men who have sex with girls under the age of 18. Mr. President, there is compelling evidence that two things have an enormous impact on long-term welfare dependency: teenage pregnancy and lack of a high school education. According to the General Accounting Office, in 1992, teen mothers comprised 42 percent of the welfare caseload. We also know that 63 percent of those on welfare for more than 5 years have less than a high school degree. Mr. President, if you start analyzing the problem of welfare dependency, you have these two factors, and they are very, very clear: teenage pregnancy and lack of a high school education. If we are really going to reform welfare, we absolutely must confront both of these issues. We must reduce teen pregnancy, and we must require that those teen parents get an education to equip them to care for their children. The Conrad-Lieberman amendment does both. Mr. President, I want to highlight our provision related to second- chance homes. The second-chance home provision is supported by a significant sector of the religious community, including the U.S. Catholic Conference. Second-chance homes are commonsense responses to the teen pregnancy crisis. I want to acknowledge the tremendous work of the Progressive Policy Institute, and specifically Kathleen Sylvester, in developing this recommendation. Second-chance houses are innovative, adult-supervised living arrangements that should be available to teens who are unable to live with a parent or other responsible adult. Communities can use second-chance homes to create a structured living environment that provides education and training, early childhood intervention and development, case management, and family counseling. [[Page S 13530]] We have a bipartisan agreement that States should provide adult- supervised living arrangements. The requirement in this bill, however, could unintentionally place teen parents at risk of being forced to live in abusive households. Mr. President, if we are not going to force young girls with infants of their own to live in households with abusive parents, then we must provide appropriate alternatives to be available. As currently written, the Republican bill acts as a disincentive to States serving these young girls at all. Why? First, when the authors of the Republican bill added the adult-supervision requirement, they failed to add any funding to make it work. Second, because it costs money to develop structured environments like second-chance homes, States are much more likely to use the very limited funds in the bill for other purposes. Therefore, the most vulnerable teenage girls with their own children will simply not be served by most States. This is why the U.S. Catholic Conference, Catholic Charities, and the National Council of Churches support my proposal. In fact, last Friday, Catholic Charities sent a letter to every Member of the Senate supporting my approach. Their letter said: The first principle in welfare reform must be: ``Do no harm.'' The letter went on to say: We support Senator Conrad's amendment, which not only would require teen mothers to live under adult supervision and continue their education, but it would also provide the resources for second chance homes to make that requirement a reality. The majority of teenage mothers will live with their parents, with legal guardians, with relatives, or foster parents. In some cases, however, there will be no place for the teen mother and her child to go. That is the reason and that is the purpose for second-chance homes. Teen mothers are extremely difficult to place in foster care. Most foster families simply do not want them. Go to any foster-care agency and ask them what is the most difficult placement they have. Other than the severely disabled, there is nothing more difficult to place in a foster-care home than a young mother with her own child. Certainly, none of us want to deny needed aid to a teen mother and her child when no suitable adult is available to look after them. We must provide the means for States and local communities to create structured living environments for these teens. It takes money to develop the kinds of structured settings that will be needed. The Conrad-Lieberman amendment provides funding for States to develop such settings--these second-chance homes--where teenage mothers can have the attention, the discipline, supervision, and structure that they need in order to have a second chance. Our Nation simply cannot sustain a system that locks millions of children into a lifetime of poverty because their parents were teenagers when the children were born. Confronting teenage parenthood requires a comprehensive approach, with maximum flexibility for States. That means providing the resources to enable States to prevent teenage pregnancies, including the development of second-chance homes. During the debate on the Coats amendment earlier today, there was much discussion of the need to capitalize on community resources. Many local institutions and individuals do a remarkable job of instilling positive values in teen mothers and others in need. One of the best examples that I have seen is Covenant House. Covenant House is a Catholic-based charity that provides an excellent model of what second- chance houses can be. When Covenant House takes young mothers under their wing, those mothers seldom experience a second pregnancy until they are ready to provide for that child. The strategies in the Conrad-Lieberman amendment can provide a significant boost to our national attempt to combat teen pregnancy. I hope our colleagues will support it. In closing, Mr. President, let me just say that among the most compelling testimony before the Finance Committee was the testimony of Sister Mary Rose McGeady. The sister came before the Finance Committee, and she described to us what they have experienced at Covenant House, taking in hundreds and hundreds of young mothers, unmarried, and their children. She said over and over, our experience has been if you provide structure, if you provide supervision, if you give these people a vision, that they can lift themselves beyond their current circumstances and have a chance to succeed in life. If they can make the best of the opportunities that they have, if they see a path through education to make something of their lives, they will not have a second child until they are ready to care for that child. I wish my colleagues could meet this sister who runs Covenant House, see the sparkle in her eye and see the spring in her step and see the vision that she has of what we can do to really achieve results in combating teen pregnancy. She has been there. She has been in the trenches. She has fought the fight. She has done it successfully. We ought to make certain that model is available in every State in this Nation. That would do something serious about combating a problem that I think all of us understand to be one of the critical problems facing this Nation. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Vermont, Senator Lieberman, who has been a real leader in the whole challenge of dealing with what is happening with respect to teenage pregnancies. I, first of all, want to apologize to him. I moved him from Connecticut to Vermont. I was just in Vermont. It is a beautiful place, a wonderful setting, and I am quick to identify Senator Lieberman with places that are pleasant. But in fairness, he belongs in Connecticut. And Connecticut is lucky to have him. I have enjoyed our partnership on this challenge because I think of teenage pregnancy as really a tragedy for America. It is a tragedy for the children, it is a tragedy for the young women and girls, and it is a tragedy for the entire country. Mr. President, one in three children being born in America today are born out of wedlock. In some cities in America, two out of three children are being born out of wedlock. Tonight, we are in the Capital City of the United States. In this city, two out of three children born this year are being born out of wedlock. What chance do they have? What chance do their mothers have? We know, according to the GAO, that 42 percent of the welfare caseload in this country is teenage mothers or girls or women who had babies when they were teenagers. It is central to the problem we face. I wish to share a couple of vignettes from an example of a second- chance home before I end because I think these vignettes are important. They are real life experiences. This is what is happening to the people about whom we are talking. This is a story about Sherice. Sherice, now 20, has a 2-year-old daughter and no one to help out. She, too, was trapped early in the cycle of welfare dependency. Sherice grew up on welfare, and was made responsible for caring for her ten younger siblings by her alcoholic mother. At 17, she dropped out of high school when she became pregnant with her daughter Jamila. She was forced to take her daughter out of the family's overcrowded apartment to live with reluctant relatives. Sherice's options ran out when this living situation also proved inhospitable, and she found herself with no one to turn to and became homeless. Sherice and Jamila were referred to an American Family Inn in Queens, NY. After obtaining her GED through the on-site high school and completing a 4-month job training apprenticeship in food services, Sherice found a place to live and set out to find a job. With the help of the American Family Inn's employment specialist, Sherice entered the New York Restaurant School with a partial scholarship in order to follow her dream of becoming a chef. She recently completed her demanding cooking classes and soon will begin an externship in a local catering company. She plans to use the skills she learned to form her own catering company after she graduates in October, 1995. Mr. President, this is someone who, because of a second-chance home, has her life together, who is a productive member of society because of the structured, supervised setting she was able to experience in a home. A final vignette. Elena. Elena is an 18-year-old single mother with a 2-year-old son, Andrew. She has never been married, has never lived independently, and she receives public assistance. She represents a typical mother residing at American Family Inn. Elena has a fractured and unstable past. She shuffled between her mother and father until age 5, when she was placed in the first of three foster homes due to physical abuse from her mother. At age 14, Elena moved in with her boyfriend and his parents and at age 16, dropped out of high school to give birth to her son. Her relationship with her baby's father deteriorated as he continued and increased his drug use. She left with her son and moved back in with her mother until her stepfather forced her to leave. Elena had no other choice but to enter the shelter system. Prior to arriving at an American Family Inn in Manhattan, Elena had lived in an emergency assistance center, a short-term shelter and a welfare hotel. The day after she enrolled in the on-site programs, including the alternative high school where she is working toward completing her GED, the licensed day care center where her child is being socialized to the norms of education and the independent living skills workshops where she is learning topics such as parenting, budgeting, nutrition, and family violence prevention. Elena has also begun intensive job readiness and job training. Each afternoon she fulfills her internship requirement as a teacher's aide in the on-site day care center. She is expected to complete the program in the next several months, move into her own apartment and either find full-time employment or a enroll in a community college to pursue higher education. This is Elena's statement, and I quote: I feel this is a place where I can get my life together. I'm getting my education and learning to work. My mother never cared if I went to school and she never told me about having babies or being a parent. The people here and the programs here are helping me. I'm learning to be a teacher's assistant so that I can go to college and start my own business and get off of public assistance. I needed this chance. Mr. President, I do not think there is a Member in this Chamber whose heart is so cold that they are not moved by a story like that one-- somebody who grew up in an abusive home, had a child at much too early an age, forced into homelessness, and who now, because of a second- chance home, is getting an education, wants to start her own business, wants to get off public assistance and make something of her life. That is the promise of what we can accomplish by focusing on this critical challenge to America's future. We can make a difference. We can do something that will lead to a different result than a life of poverty and dependence, and we can do it by action tomorrow. That is when the vote will be held. I urge my colleagues to support the Conrad-Lieberman amendment. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise as a cosponsor of the Lieberman-Breaux-Conrad amendment. I am also pleased that we have been able to reach a compromise with Senator Roth on this issue. Mr. President, the funding for work in the Republican bill is woefully insufficient. When the Finance Committee considered welfare reform, the Congressional Budget Office told me that funding in the Republican bill was so insufficient, that only 6 States would have a work program. CBO said States were more likely to take the 5 percent penalty in the bill than put welfare recipients to work. Now, after the Dole bill has undergone several modifications, CBO says that only 10 to 15 States will have resources sufficient to meet the work requirements under the bill. Seventy to eighty percent of the States will simply not operate the kind of work program advocated by the bill. The risk that most States will not even have a work program makes the Lieberman-Breaux-Conrad amendment extremely important. Our amendment establishes a bonus fund under the block grant for States that move people into unsubsidized, private sector jobs. Our compromise with Senator Roth dramatically improves the incentives for States to operate meaningful work programs, even in the face of woefully insufficient resources. It is important to remember that many welfare recipients are difficult to employ and require more significant assistance in order to become employable. Sixty three percent of long-term welfare recipients--those on the rolls more than 5 years--lack a high school diploma. Fifty percent of long-term welfare recipients had no work experience in the year before the entered the welfare system. Mr. President, I do not want to leave anyone with the impression that our amendment is a panacea. It is not. Nor does our amendment fix the significant problems in the Republican bill. Even with our amendment, States will not have the resources to move long-term welfare dependents into the private sector work force. However, the amendment I offering with Senators Lieberman, Breaux, Nunn, and Dodd does provide a critical incentive for States to get people into real jobs and off the welfare rolls. It is a small, but important step toward improving the bill before us. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment, and again thank Senator Roth for his willingness to work with us in reaching a bipartisan compromise.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, the Conrad-Bradley amendment is based on the four principles of requiring work, protecting children, providing flexibility for States, and promoting the family structure. Our amendment fundamentally reforms the welfare system by allowing States to choose between the pure block grant approach of the Dole bill and a program that maintains a safety net for children, provides an automatic stabilizer for States, and includes the funding to pay for them. None of us can predict the future. If there are floods in Mississippi, earthquakes in California, a drought in North Dakota, or some economic calamity in Colorado, a flat-funded block grant approach may not meet the need. We should retain the automatic stabilizer that allows a State to receive the help it requires. After all, this is the United States of America, not just 50 separate States. Our amendment allows States to choose the Dole approach or the Conrad-Bradley option for 4 years. After that, the State may continue its program or switch to the other approach at their option. Our option provides States with complete flexibility to design work requirements, job training programs, to determine eligibility and sanctions. It allows States to set time limits of any duration for participants, provided that no participants are terminated if they comply with all State requirements. The Conrad-Bradley amendment expands the State flexibility already included in the Dole bill. It uses States as laboratories to experiment, to find what is effective in welfare reform strategies. Although the States will have almost total flexibility to design their own welfare programs, they will do so without the risk that a natural disaster or economic collapse will prevent them from protecting children and families. The Dole proposal before us already includes such an option for the food stamp program. If an option to choose between a pure block grant approach and a system that automatically adjusts for the need is appropriate for food stamps, I suggest we should provide the same option for the Dole AFDC block grant. According to CBO, our amendment provides protection for children and States while saving $63 billion over 7 years, compared with the $70 billion of [[Page S 13316]] savings in the current version of the Dole bill. In other words, we reduce the overall savings in the Dole bill, which are currently $70 billion, by $7 billion over the 7 years, in order to protect children and protect the States--to preserve the automatic stabilizer mechanism. Again, it is a State choice. They can choose the pure block grant approach of the Dole bill. They can choose that for 4 years. Or they can choose the approach in our bill, which represents the most dramatic welfare reform ever presented on the floor of the Senate. Finally, the Conrad-Bradley amendment eliminates the need to struggle over State allocation formulas because it allows States to choose, to choose between the Dole block grant approach and a funding mechanism that automatically adjusts for State need and effort. Proponents of the Dole bill say that we should let States experiment. We agree. That is precisely what we ought to do. Let us let the States go out and try various welfare reform strategies and see what works. That makes good sense. Let us give the States a chance to experiment. Let us give the States a chance to determine what works and what does not work. But let us maintain the automatic stabilizer to help States hit by natural disasters or economic calamities. Let us make certain they have the resources to meet the need that none of us can foresee. Let us make certain that we can protect children. We are, after all, the United States of America, not the divided States of America. Let us remember our strength flows not only from our diversity, but from our union. I thank the Chair and reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Chair. I inquire if the Conrad-Bradley amendment is the pending business?

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Will the Senator yield for a question or a point on that?

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, let me just say, with respect to the Republican plan, it is true that they have 50 percent of the total, but that total is a different total than the total I am talking about, because they take 15 percent of the caseload right off the top. They have 15 percent that are exempted right off the top. It is impossible to know whether the categories that we have exempted--that is, a mother with a child under 12 weeks, we think it is appropriate that the mother stay home with the child. If somebody is sick and disabled and cannot work, it is appropriate that they not be expected to work. They come at it a little different way. They take 15 percent off the top and say the provisions do not apply to them. We come at it by specifically categorizing those people who should not be expected to be part of the work force. Mr. President, there is a larger issue of work here, as well, and that is, what is the fundamental complaint about welfare? The fundamental complaint is that we are not moving people to work. The Republican plan is sadly deficient with respect to that issue. According to the testimony we had by the Congressional Budget Office, in 44 of the 50 States, there will not be a work requirement because there is not sufficient funding for child care to get the people to work, and that 44 of the 50 States would be better off taking a 5- percent penalty than to have a work requirement. So if we want to talk about a work requirement, let us be honest about it. The work requirement in the Republican plan is a hoax. It says it is tough on work, but they do not provide the funds necessary for people to actually go to work, because they do not have the child care. So people are not going to be going to work. And States will not have the work requirement because they are better off; rather than providing the child care necessary to get people to work, they will take the 5- percent penalty. That is CBO's analysis, not mine. CBO said that 44 of the 50 States will not have a work requirement under the Republican plan. Mr. President, the proposal I am offering says we want to devolve power to the States. We want to give States the ability to experiment. We want to have a chance to have 50 different States have 50 different programs, and let us see what works. Absolutely, I am all for it. Sign me up. That is what my amendment does. But my amendment also says there ought to be the economic stabilizer. I do not know if it has become an ideological question that you eliminate the role for the Federal Government just because it feels good--because rhetorically it feels good. I do not get it. Are we saying that if California has massive earthquakes, tough luck? Are we saying if North Dakota has a devastating drought, tough luck? Are we saying if Mississippi has massive flooding, tough luck, the United States is not in on the deal? I thought this was the United States of America. I thought this was a Union. That is the America I know. So there is this idea that we are going to cut States adrift and they can do whatever. Here is the money and good luck, I hope things work out. But if you have a disaster--a natural disaster or an economic calamity--and kids get put on the street, tough luck. I do not think much of that plan. I was in California and I saw a young woman on the street with two little kids--a middle-class woman, begging. I went up to her and I said, ``How did you get on the streets of San Francisco begging with these two little kids?'' I tell you, if you would have seen that woman, you would have seen a person that looks like she just came from the shopping center, grocery shopping with her two little kids. She was an attractive woman, nicely dressed, and the kids were nicely dressed. They were out on the streets begging. Why? Because her husband had taken a hike and her house had gotten foreclosed, and she was homeless with two little kids. Well, some of us believe that is not a circumstance that should be tolerated in America. That woman and those little kids ought to have a place to go. The Republican plan says we are so locked into ideology, the Federal Government should not have a role in anything, and we are willing to take that chance. Well, I am not willing to take that chance. I think if some State suffers a disaster, the United States of America ought to stand together and protect the kids--at least the kids. That is the difference. Mr. President, this is dramatic welfare reform that is being proposed in my amendment--dramatic. It is not the Federal Government deciding these programs; it is the States deciding. But if we get to the circumstance where there is a disaster and the State cannot meet the needs of the kids, then I think we live in a United States of America. I yield the floor. Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, that document makes clear that my amendment would reduce the $70 billion of savings by $7 billion over 7 years to still achieve $63 billion of savings, but to give the States this added flexibility, which I think is critical.

Mr. CONRAD. The Senator is absolutely correct, if I might say, the document from CBO--which I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record.

Mr. CONRAD. The amendment that I am offering as an amendment to the Dole welfare reform plan would reduce the savings by $7 billion. So is it not correct to say that the total package would still achieve $63 billion of savings over the next 7 years? In other words, I do not think it is correct to compare a $70 billion savings under the Dole bill to a $7 billion cost under my plan. The correct comparison is a $70 billion savings over 7 years under the Dole plan, $63 billion of savings under the Conrad plan.

Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Chair. I thank my colleague from New York for the opportunity to discuss my amendment. Mr. President, the amendment that I offer I call a State flexibility amendment because it allows States to choose between the Dole AFDC and job training block grant and titles I and II of my own welfare reform plan, the WAGE Act, the Work and Gainful Employment Act, that I offered in May of this year. Titles I and II of the WAGE Act are based on four principles: First, work; second, protecting children; third, providing States flexibility; and fourth, preserving the family structure. I believe those are the fundamental principles of any serious welfare reform effort. My plan provides unprecedented flexibility to States while providing a safety net for children and an automatic economic stabilizer for States. Mr. President, I agree strongly with my colleagues that States should be given great flexibility to design and deliver welfare programs. My amendment expands this principle by giving States a choice between block grants, the pure block grant approach as contained in the Dole proposal, and my totally new approach to welfare that has a combination of a block grant and a temporary assistance program that includes an automatic economic stabilizer so that States are not put in a circumstance in which they may not be able to meet the needs of children in their States due to economic conditions or a natural calamity. Under my amendment, States are given a chance to choose the block grant approach in the Dole bill or the WAGE approach contained in my bill for 4 years, after which the State could choose to continue its program or switch to the other approach. In other words, the amendment that I am offering today expands the choice of individual States. They can choose the Conrad approach that contains a block grant as well as a temporary assistance program or they can choose the pure block grant approach of the Dole program. For the past month, my Republican colleagues have engaged in extensive and arduous discussions to work out a formula for States with high rates of population growth. While we may differ with the merits of the formula, the negotiations dealt with the most important issue confronting the Senate as we debate welfare reform, and that is economic uncertainty. None of us in this room can predict the economic future. History has taught us that the business cycle is not predictable, natural disasters are not predictable, State growth patterns are not predictable, and economic performance may differ dramatically between the States. Economic uncertainty must be at the forefront of this debate. It is precisely the fact of economic uncertainty that leads millions of people to welfare during times of crisis. Welfare programs, with all their flaws, provide the safety net that helps families survive plant closings, droughts, floods, layoffs, and other crises. When I set out to develop a welfare reform plan, I told my staff that the word ``entitlement'' was banned from their vocabulary. The word ``entitlement'' sends all the wrong messages and underscores the devastating problems of our current system. Unfortunately, in the current system, there are no incentives to work. Welfare recipients learn quickly that work does not make them better off and that not working entitles them to a guaranteed monthly check. I think that is the reason the taxpayers have no respect for the welfare system as it currently exists. Our current welfare system violates American values of hard work and personal responsibility. We must reform the status quo and create a system that encourages work, self-sufficiency, and that strengthens family. I believe my welfare reform plan meets those tests. It does not entitle people to a free ride. Instead, it demands responsibility and a personal commitment to become self-sufficient in return for a transitional welfare check. Mr. President, when I go to my State and I talk to the people in every corner of North Dakota, they say to me, ``We're not unwilling to help somebody that has hit hard times or somebody that is permanently disabled or somebody that for some reason has fallen into a circumstance where they need some help for a time. And we're even willing to help people permanently who are disabled. But, you know, we are not willing to be shelling out to pay for somebody who could work who refuses to work. That's not fair.'' Mr. President, they are exactly right. Unfortunately, the debate between entitlements and block grants has missed the fundamental issue highlighted by these intense Republican negotiations over formula, and that is economic uncertainty. I agree that the notion of the no- responsibility entitlement philosophy of welfare needs fundamental change, but the automatic economic stabilization must be retained. States will experience hard times and prosperous times in the coming years. We cannot predict the economic winners and losers. The only thing we can predict is that the future will look very different in 1996, 1997, and 1998 than it looks in 1995. Under the amendment that I am offering today, if States choose my transitional aid and WAGE programs, States will have almost complete flexibility to design welfare programs. At the same time, the funding mechanism will provide an automatic stabilizer to assure that States and regions in economic downturns receive the necessary funds. Under the State flexibility amendment that I am offering today, States would be allowed to choose, first, the Dole block grant, or second, the Conrad WAGE and transitional aid program. States would choose one approach for 4 years, after which the State could either keep the program they have chosen or switch to the other program. Under either approach, States would receive their proportional share of funding, assuming all States were participating in the same program. I would like to briefly describe the specifics of my WAGE and transitional aid program. There really are two elements here: [[Page S 13161]] The WAGE program which is a block grant for job training. The WAGE block grant gives States flexibility to provide job placement and supportive services to move individuals into jobs as quickly as possible. The WAGE block grant consolidates funding from five different current welfare programs. The JOBS Program, emergency assistance, AFDC child care, transitional child care, and the administrative costs of AFDC. Welfare would become what the American people want it to be, a temporary, employment-based program to move people into the work force. The States are given enormous flexibility under the WAGE block grant that is part of my overall proposal. States have complete flexibility to design employment programs. States may provide monetary incentives to case managers for successful job placements and retention, as well as to outsource job services and to use performance-based contracts. States determine eligibility criteria and participant requirements for the specific work and training programs. States have the option to require noncustodial parents with child support arrears to participate in WAGE. States can establish time limits of any duration that require individuals to work as a condition for benefits. However, a State may not terminate participants from WAGE if the participants have played by the rules and complied with the requirements set forth in the WAGE plan. States have the ability under the WAGE approach that I have introduced today to make the decisions on what the welfare reform program will be. We have heard the outcry that States ought to make these decisions. My approach allows States to make them within a certain broad framework. Self-sufficiency is the goal of my welfare reform plan. I am not interested in kicking kids into the streets with no support. If a parent is making a good-faith effort to get off welfare, as required by the State--and the State determines what is a good-faith effort, not the Federal Government--this parent should be encouraged to continue to strive for self-sufficiency. States are given complete flexibility to determine the sanctions imposed on individuals who fail to comply with the State's program requirements. Again, it is not the Federal Government deciding, it is the States deciding. If a sanction results in the complete elimination of aid to a family, States must take measures to ensure the well-being of the children. Mr. President, obviously there are certain requirements that are expected of the States. At the very minimum, States are required to administer a WAGE Program that promotes moving parents into private- sector employment. States must develop a wage employability plan with the recipient that indicates the requirements necessary to move off of welfare. There is a personal contract that is entered into between the person seeking temporary assistance and the State. They line out a contract of what the recipient is going to do in return for what they receive. The States must ensure that children are protected by making certain that the child care is available for WAGE participants. The funding mechanism is very simple. The WAGE block grant is a cap entitlement to States based on historical funding for emergency assistance, AFDC child care, transitional child care, and the administrative costs of AFDC. The WAGE block grant includes additional funding each year to put people to work and to ensure that child care is available. The WAGE block grant grows 3 percent a year. States receive incentive payments for moving individuals off welfare and into employment, as well as for improvements in the number of individuals combining work and welfare. Mr. President, my plan is serious about work. Work rates in the WAGE Program are phased in, reaching 55 percent in fiscal year 2000. That is the highest participation rate of any welfare reform program that is before this body. States focus specifically on getting people into work with work preparation activities with a minimum of 20 hours a week. If the State decides they want to require more than that, that is their decision. Half of the participation rate must be met by individuals who are working. After 2 years individuals must be working in order to meet State participation rate requirements. In addition to the block grant approach that replaces current jobs programs, we also have eliminated AFDC and, in its place, created a transitional aid program. The transitional aid program maintains a basic safety net for America's children and provides an automatic stabilizer for States. This is where my plan differs fundamentally from the Dole plan that is before us, because the Dole plan contains only a block grant approach. My plan contains a block grant approach for the jobs programs, but has in the temporary assistance program, which replaces AFDC, a continuation of the automatic stabilizer. Because, again, Mr. President, none of us can predict what the future holds. If there are floods in Mississippi or a drought in North Dakota, or some kind of economic calamity in the State of Vermont, we do not think it makes sense just to have a flat amount of money going out there to deal with any kind of emergency. It does not make sense. We ought to continue the automatic stabilizer that allows this country to function as the United States of America, not just as 50 separate States. Let the 50 individual States experiment with any kind of welfare program they want to create, yes, absolutely. We ought to have 50 States operating in that way. But, Mr. President, if there is an economic calamity, then this country ought to stand as one, all of the States standing together to help a sister State that may have experienced some incredible economic calamity or natural disaster. That is the strength of America. That is not something that ought to be abandoned. The transitional aid program, as I have indicated, maintains that basic safety net for America's children. And for the States as well. My plan fundamentally reforms welfare. It eliminates the Federal bureaucracy and overregulation that hampers State efforts to develop their own innovative welfare programs. The transitional aid program reduces the State plan to 14 elements, compared to the 45 in the current AFDC State plan. Instead of Federally mandated policies, States have the option to determine eligibility criteria, support and benefit levels and the form of those benefits, the treatment of earned and unearned income, the extent to which child support is disregarded when determining eligibility and benefits, the treatment of children's earnings, resource limits, restrictions imposed on eligibility for assistance for two-parent families. And States have the ability to determine the requirements on recipients whether it be work, school attendance, or whatever. States have the ability to determine sanctions for individuals who fail to comply with State requirements. States determine the payment or denial of benefits to children born to individuals receiving assistance. And States decide the timeframes for achieving self-sufficiency. Mr. President, for those on the other side of the aisle who say, ``States ought to be the laboratory of experimentation in this country,'' I say, amen. Absolutely. Let us let the States experiment. Let us let all of the States have a chance to determine a welfare reform approach and see how it works. As the Senator from New York has said repeatedly, the only thing we can be certain about is that we do not know much about what works and what does not work. So let us give the States an opportunity to experiment. Let us let them have a chance to figure out what works and what does not work. But, Mr. President, while we are doing that, while we are engaging in this great experiment, let us maintain the automatic stabilizer, let us maintain the underlying financing of a system that permits the United States to function as one country, that says if Iowa, for some reason, gets in special difficulty, that we are not going to just leave the children of Iowa out there on their own, that the other States of this Union will come together and help that State. That makes sense, Mr. President. My plan, with respect to temporary assistance, requires that a family meet the following criteria to be eligible for the transitional aid program: They must have a needy child that is defined [[Page S 13162]] by the State; they must comply with the WAGE employability plan; and they must cooperate and comply with paternity and child support measures. While I have indicated that States have substantial flexibility in the design of their transitional aid program, there are minimal Federal requirements: They must serve all families with needy children uniformly--uniformly--as defined by the State; they must operate a WAGE Program; they must operate a child support enforcement program; they must maintain categorical Medicaid eligibility for the transitional assistance program and provide transitional Medicaid for at least 1 year. It could be longer at State option. And they must maintain assistance in some form to needy children and families in which the parent is complying fully with all WAGE and other requirements. The State designs the program. The State decides what it is, but if people are complying with that program, people cannot be kicked off for some other reason. Mr. President, under my plan, welfare remains a Federal-State partnership. States draw down Federal funds for the transitional aid program using the Medicaid matched rate. My plan gives States extensive flexibility to design these programs and to invest State funds toward these efforts. The Federal Government continues to finance the majority of program costs. In conclusion, my amendment allows States a choice. States can choose between the Dole approach and my approach, a new welfare program that combines the flexibility of block grants with an automatic stabilizer funding mechanism to respond to economic uncertainty. Since day one, the welfare debate has focused on devolution, how much authority should be turned over to the States. Every plan of either party expands State authority and lessens Federal oversight, and that is appropriate. There are many State officials, however, that have expressed grave concern about ending the current funding mechanism and completely block granting welfare. The Dole plan will create 50 different safety nets across the country, some of which will hold strong and some of which will tear and dissolve when the vagaries of the market create economic downturns or in the face of a natural disaster. If States do not want to take this chance, we should allow them to choose the alternative approach I have presented in my amendment. Mr. President, Americans are rightfully demanding welfare reform that focuses on work, personal responsibility, and accountability. My amendment focuses on the public's demands. It emphasizes work, it protects kids, it gives the States enormous flexibility. Mr. President, I believe it is the right mix of allowing States the right to determine what welfare reform ought to look like while at the same time continuing the automatic stabilizer that has proved such an important part of our ability to function as the United States of America. I ask support for this amendment to expand States' abilities to develop welfare programs to move parents toward self-sufficiency while protecting children. I thank the Chair and yield the floor. Mr. GRASSLEY addressed the Chair.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I would like to call up my amendment No. 2529.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I have listened to my colleague from Pennsylvania and found that I agree with much of what he says in terms of where the decisions might be made, but I disagree with him in terms of his characterization of the divide that exists in this debate. I do not really think it is a question of where should the decision be made. In my own welfare proposal that I made before the Senate Finance Committee, I left it entirely up to the States. Let the States decide what the makeup of the program should be. Let the States decide what the eligibility should be. Let the States decide what the time periods are. Let the States decide what the sanctions are. That was not the divide in the debate. The fundamental difference in the debate was, should there be a continuation of an automatic stabilizer, a mechanism that allows the State to be assisted by the Federal Government if there is a circumstance in which State resources are overwhelmed. Mr. President, if there is a flood in Mississippi, if there is a drought in [[Page S 12769]] North Dakota, if there is an earthquake in California, if there is an economic collapse in Pennsylvania, some of us believe just as fervently as does the Senator from Pennsylvania that the Federal Government has an obligation to make certain the kids in that State do not wind up on the street. I remember being in the State of California, going down the street in San Francisco, in one of the most affluent neighborhoods of that beautiful city, and encountering a young mother with two children sitting on the curb with a sign that said, ``I'm homeless. Please help me.'' I inquired of the woman, who was dressed as a middle-class person and her children were well groomed, ``How did you wind up on the streets of San Francisco?'' And she said to me, ``My husband left without notice, abandoned the family. I could not make the house payment. I was just evicted yesterday.'' And here sat this young woman, a lovely young woman, with two little kids on the street in San Francisco, CA, begging for money to feed her children. If, God forbid, we are in a circumstance in which California suffers a whole other series of economic calamities or, closer to home, my home State suffers through another devastating drought as we did in 1988 and 1989, there comes a time when a flat level of funding from the Federal Government does not do the job, does not protect people who I think everyone in this Chamber would want to see protected. The fundamental debate here is are we going to preserve an automatic stabilizer that says to individual States if they suffer an economic collapse or some other calamity, that it will not just be a flat funding from the Federal Government and strained State resources that are ready to meet the challenge but this country stands together united. That is why we are the United States of America. Over and over, we have seen this country respond to tragedy. Whether it was the bombing in Oklahoma, the earthquakes in California, or the drought in my State, we stood together as one nation under God, indivisible, and we came to help out, to make certain that a young mother with two little kids was not on the street because the husband deserted the family and the house payment was not made. Mr. President, let me just say, if the American people agree on one thing, it is that the current welfare system is broken. Make no mistake about it. Both sides are offering dramatic changes with respect to how we deal with welfare in America. The current system is one that nobody respects. The taxpayers do not respect it. Those who are caught in the welfare system do not respect it. The current system does not emphasize work. It contains perverse incentives that actually break up low-income families. It allows parents to abdicate responsibility for raising their children. It allows fathers to escape their child support obligations. And it subjects 9.5 million children and 4 million mothers to a future of hardship and failure. That is why on both sides of the aisle there is a fundamental commitment to reforming our welfare system and rebuilding it from the ground up. Mr. President, in January I began to develop my own alternative welfare reform legislation. I called it the Work And Gainful Employment Act. I hoped it would foster a bipartisan dialog on welfare. The WAGE Act was the first Senate proposal to completely reform our welfare system while maintaining an economic safety net for States and children. It represented a substantial departure from the past. And I am proud that many of the concepts included in the WAGE Act are now in the Work First proposal offered on our side. Under the WAGE Act States receive unprecedented flexibility to experiment. They can develop the methods for moving welfare recipients to work. They have complete flexibility to design employment programs, determine eligibility criteria, develop sanctions, and determine the support that individuals receive. States may establish time limits of any duration, but those limits only apply to participants who refuse to work. The WAGE Act eliminates the unconditional entitlement of AFDC, but unlike the blank check block grant approach in the Republican bill, it does not abdicate Federal responsibility. Instead, my bill replaces AFDC with a new transitional aid program. Under that program, welfare recipients must work in order to receive benefits. The WAGE Act also creates a block grant to fund child care work activities and includes the resources to put people to work. The only part of the current system that is maintained by my plan is the safety net for States and children. That is where we have a fundamental difference and divide between the two sides. My plan assures that as poverty and population increase, as recessions occur, and as natural disasters confront our States, the Nation will not abandon Americans in need. Mr. President, I am disappointed in the partisan nature of the welfare debate to this point. I very much hoped that we would approach welfare on a bipartisan basis. In fact, Senator Chafee and I authored one of the few bipartisan welfare-related proposals, the Children's SSI Eligibility Reform Act, which I incorporated into the WAGE Act that I offered earlier this year. Mr. President, I listened to the majority leader on the floor in August when Senator Kennedy questioned him about the lack of resources for child care in the Republican bill. The majority leader said he was aware of the problem. He said he was discussing possible solutions within his caucus. Mr. President, I would say to the majority leader, this problem should come as no surprise. When the Finance Committee debated welfare, I asked the Congressional Budget Office whether the Republican proposal had sufficient resources to meet its work requirements. It was a very important point, Mr. President and my colleagues. The Congressional Budget Office looked at the Republican plan and told us in open hearing that 44 of the 50 States of these United States would have no work requirement under the Republican plan, a plan that puts itself forward as work oriented, tough on work. If the Congressional Budget Office said in testimony before the Senate Finance Committee that 44 of the 50 States under the Republican plan will have no work requirement, that is not tough on work. That is not insisting that people go to work. That is no work requirement at all in 44 of the 50 States, because the States would be better off taking the penalty than actually having the funds necessary to require people to go to work. Mr. President, that is a fundamental difference between what the Republicans hold out as a work-oriented bill and the Work First proposal advanced by this side, a proposal that has sufficient funding to deliver on the promise of moving people from welfare to work. And that ought to be the first test of any bill. No serious effort to reform welfare can succeed without child care. Shortly before I offered my WAGE Act, Governors Carper, Carnahan, and Caperton wrote me in support of my bill. In their letter the Governors describe the elements needed for serious welfare reform. The Governors said in part: The litmus test for any real reform is whether or not it adequately answers the following three questions: First, does it prepare welfare recipients for work? Second, does it help welfare recipients find a job? Third, does it enable welfare recipients to maintain a job? The Governors went on to say, and I quote: Your bill meets this test because it provides assistance to prepare individuals for work, to help individuals find and keep jobs, and to ensure that work pays more than welfare. They went on to say: Your bill appropriately recognizes the critical link of child care in enabling welfare recipients to work and emphasizes that both parents have a responsibility to their children with the inclusion of measures to increase paternity establishments, child support collections, and interstate cooperation of child support enforcement. Mr. President, while the WAGE Act and Work First Act both recognize the critical child-care link, the Dole bill gets a failing grade. Not only does it fail to provide child care, but it kicks children off of welfare roles if their parents are unable to work because child care is unavailable. That makes no sense. It is unconscionable to subject children to a time limit regardless [[Page S 12770]] of whether their parents receive the child care they need to become employed. That is a catch-22 for the kids. But the Dole bill does precisely that. Mr. President, not only does the Dole bill include insufficient resources for child care and job training--and that is not my estimate, that is the bipartisan Congressional Budget Office telling us that that is a fact--it amounts to a $16.7 billion unfunded mandate to the States. We have heard a lot of talk around here about how bad it is to have an unfunded mandate for the States. But that is exactly what the Dole bill represents, a huge unfunded mandate to the States. It calls for more welfare recipients to go to work, but it does not provide the money or the resources to make that happen. It calls for child care to be provided, but insufficient resources are made available. Mr. President, the Republican plan is from the land of make believe. You say it and it is true. We are going to move people to work. But the resources are not provided to make that happen, so it is all a hoax. It is just words. And, again, that is not my analysis. That is the Congressional Budget Office telling us 44 of the 50 States will not have a work requirement under this proposal. There has been plenty of time since the Finance Committee met to get this bill right. But, frankly, no serious effort has been made. Now, I want this debate to be bipartisan. The American people want it to be bipartisan. They do not care whether the solution has a Democratic or Republican label. They just want the problem fixed. But they want real reform, not false promises, not just words, not just rhetoric. They want the reality of changing this system. Mr. President, when I set out to develop a welfare reform proposal, I started with four principles. One, emphasize work; two, protect children; three, provide flexibility to the States; and four, strengthen families. Mr. President, a reformed welfare system should require people to work in order to receive assistance. This is where those of us on both sides of the aisle, I think, are in agreement. I believe there is a consensus that if people are going to get something, they ought to work. If a reformed welfare system does that and enables States to experiment, helps keep families together, then the American people will have a system worth respecting. The proposal I developed meets those tests. The Work First proposal, that I am proud to cosponsor with the Democratic leader, does as well. But the Republican bill does not. Mr. President, both my proposal and Senator Daschle's put work first. They take action where the Republican proposal makes promises. Unlike the Dole and Gramm proposals, they provide the resources necessary to make work a reality. And Work First protects children; the Republican plan does not. Mr. President, while Work First provides States with unprecedented flexibility to develop welfare programs, it also requires States to match Federal contributions so they do not get a free ride. The Republican plan does not. We all agree that State flexibility is important, but there is an enormous difference between a flexible program and a blank check. The Dole block grant program is a blank check. It divorces who spends the money from who raises the money, and that is a profoundly misguided principle. We ought not to separate the responsibility of raising money from the responsibility of spending that money. There are some similarities between the Democratic and Republican proposals. Both are significant departures from the status quo. They are departures from a system that focuses too much on writing checks and too little on promoting work and self-sufficiency. Both junk overly prescriptive Federal regulations, and both provide significant flexibility for States. But the shortcomings of the Republican proposal are a lost opportunity. Without significant changes now, the Republican proposal will undoubtedly require substantial future revisions by the Congress, and those revisions will come after the Republican plan has irreversibly harmed millions of vulnerable children and wreaked havoc on State economies. Let me highlight a few of the most significant shortcomings in the Republican proposal and how our approach differs. First, the work requirements in the Dole proposal are hollow. The Republican plan provides essentially flat funding for States while calling for an increased effort at putting people to work. Work First, on the other hand, makes a serious effort to provide the necessary resources to put people to work. It uses savings from the welfare system to put welfare recipients to work and includes the resources necessary to fund work programs. I do not disagree with the goal of the Republican proposal, but it simply does not add up. If we are going to make an honest effort to put people to work, we should remember the words of responsible commentators like the Republican Governor from Wisconsin, Tommy Thompson, when he testified before the Finance Committee. Governor Thompson reminded all of us that it takes an upfront investment to have a work requirement. Senator Moynihan recalls that, no doubt. We need to provide resources for child care and job training if we are going to have a serious work requirement. Second, the Republican plan eliminates the safety net for children and the automatic stabilization mechanism for States. Whatever the faults of the current welfare system, and they are many, it does automatically adjust for changing needs. I am going to conclude soon, because I have colleagues waiting to speak. Under the Republican plan, States are left to face crises on their own. Whether faced with a drought in North Dakota, a flood in Mississippi, an earthquake in California, or an economic downturn in Pennsylvania, the Federal Government ought to help stabilize State economies. The Work First plan continues the Federal Government's responsibility; the Dole plan does not. The Republican bill includes a so-called rainy day loan fund. But the funding is simply not sufficient to confront the magnitude of economic impacts that occur during State recessions or disasters. Even New Jersey's Republican Governor has said the rainy day fund in Senator Dole's bill won't get the job done. The genius of a national approach to automatically assisting individual States that experience recessions, large population increases, high unemployment, increases in poverty or natural disasters, is that we all support each other in times of need. Part of what binds us as a nation is our sense of mutual obligation and common purpose. Our entire Nation watched as California struggled to overcome the devastation from the L.A. earthquake. The same was true after Hurricane Andrew and the Oklahoma bombing. And whenever one State is in recession, we provide an influx of national resources through unemployment insurance and other Federal programs. The current funding structure automatically adjusts to State need. It accomplishes automatically what any nation should guarantee to its citizens--they will not be abandoned in their time of greatest need. But under the Republican proposal, States would have to borrow the money and pay it back while they still may be in the midst of a recession or other economic emergency. The Dole bill's rainy day fund is clearly a second-best approach. Third, Mr. President, the Republican bill makes a hollow commitment to ensure that teen mothers will receive the adult supervision they need to improve their lives and the futures of their children. In the Finance Committee, I offered an amendment that would have required all teen mothers to live with their parents, some other responsible adult, or in an adult supervised setting like a second chance home. To my surprise, that amendment failed on a tie 10-10 vote. I would have expected overwhelming support for such a provision. But every Republican on the committee except for Senator Nickles opposed the amendment. Now the Republican bill includes the adult supervision requirement and another provision I have been advocating for some time--a requirement that minor parents stay in school. But again, the rhetoric and reality are two different things. First, the requirements are a facade because the bill provides no resources. Without sufficient resources, infants and their young mothers who have no place to go will [[Page S 12771]] simply be denied needed assistance. Second, the Republican plan fails to guarantee that adult supervised living environments will be available to young mothers as an alternative to living in an abusive household. To be serious, any requirement that teenage parents live with a parent or other responsible adult must provide alternatives when no such adult is available. Therefore, I plan to offer an amendment that will provide Federal resources for second chance homes. Second chance homes are adult supervised living arrangements that provide the training, child care, counseling, and other resources that teenage parents need to learn how to care for their children. And they work. When the Finance Committee held its hearings on welfare reform, Sister Mary Rose McGeady from Covenant House gave the most compelling testimony we heard. She told us that Covenant House works. Covenant House takes in teenage parents and helps them build a future for themselves and their children. She also told us that Covenant House has been extremely successful in preventing second pregnancies among the girls it serves. We know that 42 percent of welfare recipients gave birth as teens. And we also know that the younger a girl is when she gives birth, the more likely she will become a long-term welfare recipient. But Covenant House and other second chance homes increase the chance that these mothers will break out of the welfare failure chain. We should not penalize the children of teenage mothers simply because of the circumstances into which they were born. Nor should we allow their mothers the option of getting a benefit check that is a ticket to their own apartment. Rather, teenage mothers should have to finish school and learn how to take care of themselves and their children. They should learn the kind of responsibility that will not only improve their lives, but the future prospects of their children. That will only happen it States receive the resources necessary to make second chance homes a reality. The U.S. Catholic Conference, the National Council of Churches, Catholic Charities U.S.A., and many others agree with me that second chance homes should be included in reform. We are all concerned about the need for strong welfare reform that discourages out-of-wedlock pregnancies. I hope my Republican colleagues will work with me to make second chance homes a reality. But while I see enormous potential for Republicans and Democrats to work together on many aspects of welfare reform, there is one significant problem. The sponsors of welfare reform on the Republican side have shown complete unwillingness to move from their block grant approach. They argue that block grants are the only way to provide State flexibility. But, Mr. President, that's simply not true. Both the WAGE Act and Work First provide States with unprecedented flexibility without dumping welfare completely on the backs of State and local taxpayers. The block grant in the Republican bill is the height of irresponsibility. History will prove that fact. We must all recognize that the need for a nationwide safety net has nothing to do with whether Governors or Members of Congress care more about children. Obviously, we all care deeply about our children. But ending our Nation's safety net for children is extremely dangerous. Neither Governors nor Members of Congress can prevent the uncertainties that come from the business cycle, recessions, population shifts between States and natural disasters. If we abolish a safety net for children, the security of our Nation's children will be left to chance, depending solely on where a child lives. It is inconsistent at best for those who preach about morality and family values to support a plan that undermines those values. The Work First plan strikes the right balance. It prohibits any unconditional entitlement to welfare benefits. Instead, it requires people to work in return for welfare. While it includes a few basic requirements for States, it also provides States with significant flexibility. It wipes out the 45 State plan requirements that are currently in AFDC. Work First replaces the old requirements with only a few categories. It provides States with the flexibility to design employment programs; provide incentives to case managers for successful job placements and retention among the welfare population; determine program eligibility; and establish a number of other policies under the State work program. The last time the Senate acted on welfare reform, we passed a bipartisan bill with 96 votes. There are many aspects of welfare reform on which Republicans and Democrats can agree. But I am disappointed in the block-grants-or-bust approach being taken by the Republican majority. There are responsible and innovative ways to address this issue without the second-best pure block grant approach. I developed the WAGE bill in order to demonstrate that there is, indeed, a better way to reform welfare. The Work First Act closely parallels my approach. I sincerely hope that my Republican and Democratic colleagues alike will support Work First. Work First scraps a system that is broken. It uses the best ideas to build an effective welfare system that will move people into work and keep families together. And it allows States the freedom to try new ideas. I strongly believe that Work First offers the best possibility for bipartisan welfare reform this year. Mr. President, I want to conclude by thanking my colleague, Senator Moynihan, who has been a visionary on this question for longer than most people have been aware that it was a critical problem facing this country. I can remember so well 30 years ago when my colleague from New York warned this Nation of what was to come, and he has been precisely correct in what he predicted. There is no other Member of this Chamber, there is no other academic in American society, there is no other expert who predicted with such accuracy and such vision what would occur in this country. No one has matched the predictive power of the Senator from New York, and I think his views are owed special deference because he is the only one here who has a track record of accurately predicting what would happen in 30 years. It is truly remarkable the vision that he has had with respect to this issue, and I have listened to and learned from my colleague from New York. I hope other colleagues, before this debate is concluded, will listen and learn from this very wise man. I thank the Chair and yield the floor. Mr. MOYNIHAN addressed the Chair.