Tom Daschle

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, first let me commend the distinguished Senator from Virginia for his excellent statement and the support he has provided this legislation. His input and his participation has been invaluable on this issue, as it has been on so many others. I am very grateful for that. Let me reiterate my gratitude as well for the assistance and leadership provided by the distinguished senior Senator from New York, and the Senators from Maryland, Louisiana, and so many other Senators who have had a vital role to play in bringing us to this point. As we have said now for the last couple of days, our intent in offering this amendment is to hold out the hand of partnership to Republicans in bringing forth a proposal that Democrats as well as Republicans could support to bring about meaningful welfare reform. That is our goal. There are four fundamental aspects of that goal that we view to be very important. First and foremost, we expect, we want, we propose real reform. Second, we recognize that real reform is not possible without an appreciation of the need to provide more opportunities for work than are provided today. Third, we must protect children. We understand that we cannot provide opportunities for work, we cannot truly engage in any kind of effort to encourage people to leave their homes, we cannot ask a mother to be separated from her children, without also ensuring that her children are going to be cared for. Finally, all of us must recognize that South Dakota is different from New York, is different from Michigan. There ought to be, first, flexibility, and, second, the realization that the last thing we want-- given that this Senate has put itself on record in opposition to additional unfunded mandates--is to ask States to do things without adequately ensuring that the funding is there to get them done right. Those are the four goals: Real reform, work, children, and flexibility through an opportunity to sensitize people to the needs and the resources necessary in the States themselves. [[Page S 12793]] We have had a good debate in the last couple of days about many of these goals and how they relate to each other. The reality is different than the rhetoric we have heard on many occasions during this debate. First, there is a fundamental difference between our approach and the Republican approach with regard to work. The Work First plan fundamentally redefines welfare as we know it by putting a great deal of emphasis on ensuring that the skills can be provided, but ensuring as well that we have the resources to do the job. The Republican plan, on the other hand, simply boxes up the problem and ships the current system to the States. It tells the States, ``You do it. You find a way to ensure that we can come up with some magical solution to all these goals, but we are not going to allow you the resources adequate to get the job done.'' Boxing up the plan and sending it out is no solution. Providing the necessary infrastructure, providing the resources, and ensuring a partnership between the Federal Government and the States truly is. Second, we recognize, as I said in articulating the goals of our amendment, that we need to ensure that mothers have the capacity to work, that young mothers in particular have the resources--and from that the confidence--that they will need to go out and seek jobs, to go out and obtain the skills, to go out and get the counseling, to go out and get the education to ensure that at some point in their lives they can be productive citizens with the full expectation that they are doing this in concert with those of us who want to work with them to see that the job gets done right. We recognize that if we are going to reach this goal of putting people to work, if we are going to ask a mother to leave the home, if we are going to ask a young mother in particular to leave her children, then, my heavens, how long does it take for every Member of this Chamber to realize as well that child care is the linchpin to making that happen? Protecting children is what this is all about; if we do not protect children, if we do not ensure that the children are cared for, there is no way they are going to leave home. So it seems to me this is exactly what we have to produce in this Chamber prior to the time we finish our work on welfare reform: A realization that protecting children, caring for those kids as mothers leave for work, is an essential element of whatever welfare reform we pass. The Republican plan ignores 9 million children. It has been aptly described as the ``Home Alone'' bill, because there simply are not the resources, the infrastructure, the mechanism, the will on the part of many on the Republican side of the aisle to address this issue in a meaningful way. We simply cannot be willing to leave child care as the only aspect of our need to address the cares of children. We must also recognize, as the distinguished ranking member of the Finance Committee has said on so many occasions, that we must address the problem of teenage pregnancy. While we do not have all the answers to teenage pregnancy, we must recognize that there is a need there. We must try to address the problem in a meaningful way. There is a responsibility for us to care in whatever way we can, ensuring that teen parents get some guidance, ensuring that teen mothers are given an opportunity to work through the challenges they face as young mothers. We do that in the Work First proposal. We do not claim to have all the answers to teen pregnancy. No one does. No one can possibly tell you, unequivocally, here is how we are going to stop teenage pregnancies. But we can say that teen mothers have to begin taking responsibility. We can say that we have some initial steps in providing them with an infrastructure and with a mechanism by which they can be productive mothers first, workers second, or students third. This amendment does that. This amendment addresses the realization that unless we begin to put the pieces together in working with teenage pregnancy, recognizing we do not have the answers, we are never going to solve the problem at all. The Republicans have used quite a bit of their time to say that, somehow, this is a plan run out of Washington. Nothing could be further from the truth. The truth is that the Work First plan is specifically designed to give States the flexibility that they need to do whatever it takes in their States, to recognize that in South Dakota we have a different set of circumstances than we might have in Florida or California. You heard the charge that somehow our plan is weaker on work than the one proposed on the other side, but the truth is the Work First plan is stronger than the current Dole bill as it has been proposed. Our amendment requires community service after 6 months. The Republican plan calls for no work until after 2 years. Our amendment provides for resources to help mothers go to work. The Republican plan is $16.5 underfunded. They say our plan may have too many exemptions from the time limit. The truth is that both plans have exemptions. The Republican plan has a 15-percent exemption, arbitrarily set. As I said last night, if we use every one of the criteria specified in our amendment, including mothers who have young children, disabled, those people who work in high-unemployment areas, if we have in some way used up all of that 15 percent and still find young mothers who have children, are we then to say to them, ``I'm sorry, we have arbitrarily set the line at 15 percent. You happen to be in the 16th percentile. You have to go to work?'' I do not think anyone wants to say that. That is why we believe using selective criteria makes a lot more sense, why giving States the flexibility makes a lot more sense. So, indeed, that is what we have attempted to do, to recognize that States need flexibility, but to recognize, too, that there are certain categories of people who simply may not be required, because of the extreme circumstances in which they find themselves, to fit the neat, defined descriptions that we have laid out in this amendment concerning the time limit. So, Mr. President, the Work First proposal is real reform. The Work First amendment goes beyond rhetoric and meets the reality of reform. The Work First amendment does what we say is important if indeed we are going to redefine welfare. It provides the opportunity for work. The Work First amendment provides for child care and child protection in ways that are essential to the well-being of the future of this country. Mr. President, the Work First amendment recognizes that we are not going to do a thing unless States have the resources, and unless we share those resources in a meaningful way, giving maximum flexibility to the States to decide how to use them. Maybe that is why the U.S. Conference of Mayors has endorsed one welfare reform proposal. They have endorsed Work First because they are the ones who are going to be charged with the responsibility of carrying out what we do here. So the mayors understand all of this. They have said, on a bipartisan basis: We want the Work First plan. Local officials have also endorsed one plan. Local officials have indicated they, too, understand the consequences of no funding, understand the importance of child care, understand the importance of providing maximum flexibility, understand the importance of funding and real work. And they, too, support the Work First proposal. Organizations of all kinds have come forward to say this is the kind of legislation they want us to pass. The Democratic Governors have said again, as late as this morning: This is what we want; this is what we need. This will do the job. Mr. President, it has been a good debate. I am hopeful that, as so many have expressed on the Senate floor in the last couple of days, we truly can find bipartisan solutions to the challenges we face in passing meaningful welfare reform. This is our best good-faith effort to accomplish meaningful reform, to reach out to our Republican colleagues and say join us, to reach out across the board to Democratic and Republican Governors alike and say join us, to reach out to all of those people currently on AFDC who want to find ways out of the boxes they are in and say join us. We are providing new opportunities, new solutions, and even new hope for people who need it badly. Let us hope as a result of the passage of this amendment this afternoon that we can begin our work in earnest to ensure that the reality of welfare reform [[Page S 12794]] can be realized at some point in the not too distant future. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. If the Senator from Nevada will yield, let me urge my colleagues. We have been polling our Members and have been told that we have about 130 amendments. If we have that many amendments, there is no reason why tonight we cannot have a good debate on some of these amendments. I would like to see a couple of them offered and debated tonight. The ranking member is here and prepared to work with any of our Members on this side. So I hope we can do that. If we have that many amendments, there is no reason why at 6 o'clock tonight we do not have more of an opportunity to discuss some of these important matters. So I really urge all of our Democratic colleagues to cooperate in good faith and to come to the floor. This is a good time to be offering the amendments, and we will accommodate Senators as they come to the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, in his commencement address at Syracuse University in 1957, Senator John F. Kennedy called American politics one of this country's ``most neglected, most abused, and most ignored professions.'' ``As one who is familiar with the political world,'' Senator Kennedy told the graduates: ``We stand in serious need of the fruits of your education. Bear in mind, as you leave this university and consider the road ahead, not the sneers of the cynics or the fears of the purists.'' Instead, he urged us to bear in mind that politics has been a home as well as a noble career to America's best and brightest. In the early days of our Republic, there were George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, John Adams, John Quincy Adams, and George Mason, to name but a few. John Kennedy had a way of making you feel good about yourself as well as your country, and he inspired many of us to look for ways to serve our country to preserve its strengths and address its weaknesses. This is one of the reasons so many of us look back on the Kennedy administration with fondness and respect, and with a knowledge that we, as individuals, and we, as a country, are forever indebted to President Kennedy for nurturing that spirit. We are also indebted to another man who has dedicated his life to that spirit: Senator Claiborne Pell. Through the years it has been my privilege to work with the senior Senator from Rhode Island, I have only known him to stress the positive, never the negative. He has always looked for the best in us, instead of dwelling upon our faults. Never once have I heard him berate an opponent, or disparage this institution. He has sought to bring us together instead of divide us. To make the system work better, instead of despairing it. To Senator Pell, as it was with President Kennedy, politics is an honorable profession, an enriching experience and meaningful service. The political arena is where ordinary people can accomplish great things. Claiborne Pell understood that. In announcing his intention to leave the Senate, this gentle and good man remarked: I continue to believe that government, and the Federal Government in particular, can and should make a positive impact on the lives of most Americans. Through his efforts, the Federal Government has made a positive impact. In his 34 years in the Senate, Senator Pell used the system, with all of its faults and limitations, to make our country a better place to live, a better place to work, and a better place to raise a family. He has taken a leading role in passage of much of the landmark education legislation of the past three decades, including reducing financial barriers to higher education, with the educational grants that bear his name. He has taken a leading role in the creation of the Nation's most important educational and cultural institutions, including the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities. He has also sought to make not only the country, but also the world, a better place in which to live and work. As a U.S. Senator and chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, he has worked tirelessly to promote international cooperation through his work on behalf of arms control agreements and international environmental treaties. As Senator Moynihan pointed out yesterday, Senator Pell has ``brought to the Senate floor two of the most important treaties for the control of nuclear weapons in our Nation's history.'' Just this year, he proudly represented the Senate at the 50th anniversary of the United Nations. This was fitting, as Senator Pell was at the United Nation's opening ceremonies 50 years ago, and he has been instrumental in the effort to further the noble goals that inspired the United Nation's creation in the first place. Mr. President, this is statesmanship at its finest. It is the quest of peace--for international cooperation for the benefit of the United States and the benefit of humankind. Although Claiborne Pell is leaving the Senate, he has pledged to continue ``to fight for the values and programs'' that he considers vital. How pleased I was to hear that promise. We will continue to need his spirit, his energy, and his dedication to making the good fight. Therefore, instead of saying goodbye, I will simply thank him for the years he gave to the people of Rhode Island and to the people of this great country. I urge all of my colleagues in the Senate and in the House, and those in other great political arenas, to be a bit more like Senator Pell, to look for the high roads, not the lowest ones. We should summon America's best to step up onto the political stage, not scare them away from it. That is something Claiborne Pell has done remarkably well for 34 years. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I know that the day has almost ended. Prior to the time that it does, I want to have just a few minutes to address one more time the Work First legislation, the pending piece of legislation, and my reasons for believing it ought to be adopted by our colleagues tomorrow. Before I describe again those reasons and our goals in drafting the legislation, let me reiterate my gratitude to the many Senators who have had much to do with the tremendous effort put forth by our caucus in proposing this legislation. Thirty Members of the Senate have cosponsored this bill, and that, in large measure, is due to the leadership of Senator Mikulski, Senator Breaux, and the remarkable efforts of a number of our colleagues who have had special interests in various pieces of the bill, and were instrumental in bringing us to the point of introducing the bill prior to the August recess. Let me also express my gratitude to the ranking member of the Finance Committee, Senator Moynihan, for his unparalleled leadership in this area, for all of the work he has done on this issue, for the many years he has provided us guidance, and for the terrific legislative accomplishments we have been addressing as we have debated this bill. The Family Support Act is really the foundation of our welfare reform system. And, as many have indicated throughout the day, were it not for that, we would not have made the progress that has already been well documented already in this debate. Madam President, there are four fundamental goals, as I see it, as we look to what we hope to achieve by the enactment of this legislation. First, we want real welfare reform. Second, we want to recognize that providing people with skills, providing people with new opportunities, and providing people with the wherewithal to get off welfare is really the primary objective of what we are doing. Work is a goal that I hope would unite all Senators, Republican and Democrat, as we attempt to accomplish our goals in this area. Third, and perhaps equally as important in many respects, we want to protect children. Of the 14 million AFDC recipients in the 5 million families who receive assistance through AFDC, 9 million are young children dependent upon the services and the resources that we provide through the infrastructure that exists today. Protecting children, ensuring that they have the opportunities to become productive adults, and ensuring that they can acquire the skills necessary to break the cycle of dependency if their parents cannot--protecting children ought to be a goal for everybody here, and certainly that is the goal of the Work First plan. Finally, we recognize that you simply cannot have meaningful welfare reform if you do not provide the funding. It is one thing to set goals. It is one thing to lay out a new infrastructure. It is one thing to assert objectives and to expect the States in some way to respond to all of those objectives and requirements within any new piece of legislation; but if they are not funded properly, we cannot expect any of those goals to be realized. Regardless of how elaborate and how pleased we may be with whatever infrastructure we create, we cannot expect those goals to be meaningfully realized without adequate funding. We want to ensure that, whatever it is we do, we understand up front how we are going to pay for it. Those are the goals. We want real reform. We want to emphasize work. We want to protect children. We want to ensure that, as we do those three things, we provide the necessary resources to do so. Madam President, I want to talk briefly tonight about each of those four goals and what it is we believe is so important and essential as we consider the strategies to achieve those goals. There are four specific strategies we have laid out in the Work First plan that we hope will convince any skeptic we are serious in our strong desire to build upon the things that have worked well, and to replace those things that have not worked as well as we would have hoped. Part of this effort involves changing the culture of welfare. We need to have people in those welfare offices who are there to provide more than just financial resources, who can be there to provide the kind of opportunities that people want as they walk into a welfare office-- people with an expectation that they want more than just money, with an expectation that they want to acquire skills, with an expectation that they want to break the cycle of dependency, with an expectation that they truly can change their lives. To do that we have to make welfare offices employment offices, recognizing that it is through employment and through opportunities to use acquired skills that people can acquire a dignity and a confidence about their lives that they do not have today. If we are going to do that, indeed, we have to retrain staff and refocus the whole concept of what the welfare office is about. We need to refocus this concept on work, on providing the training and opportunities necessary to make these services meaningful for the people who walk through those doors. We want to encourage States to consolidate and streamline the welfare infrastructure to ensure that, through a one-stop mechanism, we can do all that is possible with a visit to that particular office so that we do not require people to go from one office to the next to the next to the next in search of help. We also need to restore some common sense to this process. Common sense would say that yes, a father ought to be part of this process. Yes, we want to welcome the man back into the family. Yes, we recognize that two parents are better than one. Yes, we recognize the current system, in some respects, is penalizing families for staying together. We want to restore common sense to the system. We want to do all of this, not by boxing up the current system and shipping it to the States, not by simply saying to the States, ``You do it with fewer resources, with less real ability for Federal-State partnership. You do it.'' That is not the solution. That simply is shifting the problem to somebody else. We really hope we can avoid doing that with whatever course we choose to take during this debate. However we finally achieve our goal of changing the welfare culture, it is certainly our hope [[Page S 12713]] that we simply do not expect the States to do it by themselves. To accomplish real reform, we have to start by changing the culture of welfare. We also want to redefine it--not just change the culture, we want to redefine it. We want to give it a new meaning, a new understanding, a new definition from that which has existed in the past. That is why we eliminate the program commonly referred as AFDC. We replace it with what we call temporary employment assistance. That is more than just a name change. Temporary employment assistance is a conditional entitlement. It says to welfare recipients that there is no more unconditional assistance. We will provide assistance subject to your willingness to take responsibility. If you are willing to take responsibility, we are willing to provide you with the tools to enable you to achieve change in your life, to achieve new opportunities for yourself and for your family. All recipients would be required to sign a parent empowerment contract, which puts into writing this reciprocity in a way that everyone understands, so there is no misinterpretation. It is in black and white. ``Yes, I will go find work. Yes, I will acquire the skills. Yes, you will help me do so. You will provide me with opportunities that I do not have today.'' It is all going to be written out so there is no misunderstanding. We require all able-bodied recipients to do as much as possible to achieve their goals in work. Even those who are not able-bodied would be required to take some responsibilities, even if they are not working. But there would be an appreciation of the need to take responsibility. So we do redefine the system. We try to break it out from past practice and clearly define what it is we are trying to do. Part of what we are trying to do is limit the length of assistance. We say that 5 years ought to be enough. Five years is applicable in just about all cases, but there are some very clear cases where that is inappropriate or not prudent. Certainly, children who live with someone other than their parent ought to be exempt. Certainly, those who are disabled, or caring for the disabled, need to be exempt. We both agree that mothers with children under the age of 1 ought to be exempt. Women in the third trimester of pregnancy, I believe of all people, ought to be exempt. Those living in high unemployment areas, that is above 8 percent--and there was a good colloquy this afternoon about what that means--should not be thrown into the street. You cannot expect someone to go out there and find a job when there are simply no jobs available. So we base all of those exemptions, Madam President, on set criteria, and that really is a fundamental difference between our bill and the bill introduced by our Republican colleagues. What the Republicans do is simply exempt a flat 15 percent. It does not matter if any of these categories would take the population in any given area beyond 15 percent. If you are a woman in the third trimester of pregnancy and we have hit the 15 percent threshold, you are out of luck. If you are a child living with someone other than your parent and you need help and you are in an area where 15 percent has already been realized, you are out of luck. I really do not believe my colleagues on the other side want to do that, but that is what the bill says. So, Madam President, we understand the need to set a lifetime limit in most cases. But we also recognize the necessity of addressing the real needs and concerns and problems of individuals, the practical problems associated with real lives of people who do not fit any neat little box, any neat little description. We also recognize that you cannot dictate all this from Washington. It does not work. And, as we have seen already with the Family Support Act, providing opportunities for States to become workshops, become prototypes, become environments within which new ideas can be explored, can be very valuable. Giving States flexibility is absolutely essential, so we allow States to set benefit levels and eligibility and asset rules and income- disregard policies. We recognize we are not going to require a one size fits all, that South Dakota is different from New York and Maine. So we want, as much as possible, to give States latitude, to give States flexibility, to give States the opportunity to experiment. And the Work First plan ensures that States are given that flexibility. So, Madam President, that is our first goal, to engineer real reform by creating a new infrastructure that allows us to provide assistance in a way that we have not done before. So we began with that. Then, as I said, our second goal is to give as many people as possible the opportunity to work. We prescribe five strategies to do that by attempting, in part, to reflect the values that many of us had the good fortune to learn early on. We call it Work First because that is really what we want to do. That is what we were all, hopefully, brought up to think--that in order to live our lives fully as American citizens, in order to achieve all that we want to do, we have to take responsibility, and part of taking responsibility means acquiring skills to work in whatever endeavor we may choose. That is part of what it is to become a productive citizen in this country. Whatever luxuries we may enjoy, whatever opportunities we may have, whatever benefits we hope to acquire, in part is dependent upon our ability and our desire to work. Those are not just South Dakota values, as ingrained as they are in most people in my State, but they are values that we find in every State of this country. So we require recipients to work. The goal is not simply to create jobs that do not exist today. What we want, as much as we can achieve it, is to ensure that we create those opportunities in nonsubsidized, private sector employment. We want people to be employed for the right reasons--not simply to occupy their day, not simply to pay off a Government debt, but truly to become involved in an activity, in a job function for which there is a reward other than the money they receive. So finding private sector employment is our first objective. So we require an intensive job search for the first 2 months. If no job has been achieved at the end of 6 months, we go to the second option: we require community service. We work with them to develop the kind of job skills and the discipline through community service that may ultimately give them the chance to apply those skills in private sector opportunities later on. There is a difference, as others have alluded to today, between our bill and the Republican bill in that regard. Our bill requires that this effort take place in 6 months. The Republican plan has no work requirement for 24 months. But again, Madam President, as I said just a moment ago with regard to our goal of real reform, when it comes to work we also recognize the need to give States flexibility--the flexibility of putting people to work through placement services or vouchers, by creating micro- enterprise or self-employment concepts, by using work supplementation, by implementing a program like the GAIN program in Riverside, CA, the JOBS-Plus Program in Oregon, the Family Investment Program which has worked so well in Iowa--all of those options and many more would be available to any State that would so choose. We do not want to limit them. In fact, we want to expand the short list that I have already provided, giving States the flexibility to put people to work in whatever way they find to be the most appropriate. I could imagine in South Dakota there would be a lot of rural-related work, a lot of agriculture-related work, perhaps in some cases work having to do with forestry or tourism. But clearly every State would have definitions, different expectations, and certainly different strategies. We give States bonuses for putting people to work, bonuses for exceeding the work threshold, and bonuses based on job retention, not just placement. It is not enough just to acquire a job. We want to ensure that those people have the opportunity to stay in that job, to go beyond just the first month or 2 months or 3 months. We want to give people careers--not just jobs--careers that give them satisfaction and reward beyond just a check. Finally, and perhaps this is the most important--certainly our caucus feels that it is the most important-- if we [[Page S 12714]] are going to create incentives for work, we have to abolish the disincentives that exist today. And there are two profound disincentives. The one that troubles me the most is to tell a young woman, we want you to work, but you have to leave your children somewhere to do so. We are not going to help you pay for it. We are not going to really make much of an effort to help you find adequate child care. We want you to work, and you have to take care of your children regardless of cost. We do not care if you only net $1 an hour. We want you to work. We cannot accept that. If we want real reform, then we owe it to those families to do our level best to help them find a way to take care of their children. I do not want to see 10 million children on the streets 10 years from now and everybody asking the question, as the distinguished ranking member said so eloquently in our caucus, ``How did it happen?'' I do not want to see more broken homes. I do not think any one of us ought to ask the question, How is it so many people today do not have the appropriate upbringing, and we are filling our prisons with people who do not know better, when there is no one at home to teach them right from wrong? It is no mystery to me why crime is going up, when two people in the same household have to work night and day to make ends meet, and oftentimes, because they cannot afford child care, rationalize that maybe it is OK to leave their children at home unattended day after day, night after night. That is unacceptable. Today 60 percent of AFDC families are mothers with children under six-- over half. And we are going to ask them to go out and get a job and somehow miraculously have an angel appear somewhere to take care of their kids while they do so. We cannot do that. Child care is critical. It enables people to work. It is an investment in our kids. But the Republican plan has no money for children. There is none in there right now. So I do not know how they expect to cope with that problem, if, indeed, they want to solve the work problem. As I said, it is great to lay out all these goals, and it is great to set up a new infrastructure that looks wonderful on a chart. But how great is it when you get down to the real issue, when you are going to tell someone they better find a job in a 6-month period of time, but there is no money for your children. Health and Human Services said that we need an additional $10.7 billion to do it right over a 7-year period of time--$10.7 billion if we are going to do it. The second issue is health care. I do not blame anybody for not taking a job at a minimum wage in a McDonald's restaurant if all they get is $4.35 an hour and lose the health care their children have access to through Medicaid today. I do not blame them for doing that. I must tell you that if I were in that situation, I would do exactly the same thing. How can we say, ``We do not care if your kids get sick; you go out and flip hamburgers, and somehow your kid will get well without health insurance.'' Madam President, we are better than that. Those kids deserve better than that. And providing them with transitional Medicaid coverage is just common sense. So that is how we handle work. Five strategies, five very specific ideas on how we get people out the door, confident that their children are cared for, confident that they have some real opportunities to change their lives. The third goal is protecting children, and so much of work and protecting children is interrelated. But ensuring that child care and health care and maintaining the safety net we have created for children is essential. If you are going to protect children, child care is a higher goal than simply the money we save, as important as that is, and I do not want to minimize it. Health and Human Services estimates the Republican plan has a shortfall of over $16 billion in protecting children, $10 billion in child care costs alone. That is the shortfall. Now, maybe somebody someday can give us a projection on what that savings will ultimately generate in additional costs. How much more will we pay later on for what we have saved today? Madam President, we have to protect children, so we put an exemption to the time limit for children in our plan. There ought not be any time limit for children. We want to give them all the time they need to grow into productive citizens. We want to provide them with every opportunity for rent, for clothing, for whatever other needs they have because it is not their fault they are in the position of needing assistance. It is not their fault that their parents do not have a job. It is not their fault that they were born into families that may or may not have any real chance of success. But I can tell you this: If we do not care for them, their chance of success is gone. We recognize as well that teenage pregnancy is something we have to address, so we ask that teen mothers be required to live at home or in some supervised group home. We require that teen parents stay in school so they have the skills they need to succeed in life. I have had the opportunity on occasion to talk to teen mothers who had no home and who were out there all by themselves, despondent, desperate, rejected. The chance for them is even less than all those who may have had some other opportunity. This is one area in which there ought not be a lot of State flexibility, in my opinion. I think it is critical that we address the teenage pregnancy problem, given our limited understanding of what is occurring there. No one has all the answers. But we recognize that we have to provide a safety net to the extent that it can be provided. We also recognize that we have a right to expect some responsibility. And it is that balance between a safety net and responsibility that always, in my view, has to be considered as we make our decisions with regard to policy options. We also have tough child support enforcement provisions. We base our provisions on those proposed by the distinguished Senator from Maine, the Presiding Officer, to improve interstate and intrastate collection. We require that noncustodian parents take responsibility, pay up, enter into a repayment plan or choose between community service and jail. I am told that the default rate on used cars is 3 percent. The default rate on child support is 50 percent in this country. We can do better than that, Madam President. And it is going to take tougher enforcement requirements, a realization that we can do a lot more than we have done so far in bringing people to the responsibility that it is going to take to make families families again, to give children the chance to be protected. That ought not just be a Federal or State responsibility; it must be a family and a parental responsibility. And the provisions of the Work First Act allow that to occur. Finally, as I said, Madam President, our fourth goal is to ensure that we do not have the unfunded mandates, that we all lament here from time to time. And I am deeply concerned--of all the concerns I have, other than child care and the protection for children in the Republican bill, the greatest second concern most of us have with the bill as it is now written is this requirement for States to do so many new things, but the absolute absence of resources to do so. We are not going to address the root causes of our problems if we simply rhetorically address them in new legislation without providing the resources. And there has to be an understanding of partnership. The Federal Government and the States can work together, local governments can work with the Federal Government, but there has to be a sharing of resources and an acquisition of resources in the first place to make it happen. The Republican bill increases requirements on the States dramatically, all kinds of new requirements that the States are going to be expected to do--a huge unfunded mandate. As I said, Health and Human Services says over the next 7 years that unfunded mandates will exceed $16 billion. So States are going to be left with one of two options: ignore them or cut benefits and increase taxes to pay for them. The costs are being shifted to the States and ultimately they will be shifted to localities and to the taxpayers, and in a mishmash of ways to acquire the resources that I think would be very unfortunate. We need to provide a guaranteed funding stream to [[Page S 12715]] make this happen correctly. We do not want the Federal Government to be the biggest deadbeat dad of all. We do not want this bill to be the mother of all unfunded mandates. And yet I fear, Madam President, that is exactly what we are going to do unless we address the concerns that many of us have raised in this debate already. So that is really what we accomplish with this bill: No. 1, real reform; No. 2, an emphasis on work; No. 3, a desire and a mechanism to ensure that we protect children; and No. 4, the assurance that we are not going to create something that nobody wants, a huge new unfunded mandate. Madam President, I sincerely hope that tomorrow when the vote is taken, this can be a bipartisan vote, that a number of Republicans who care as deeply as any of us do about all that we have addressed tonight will join with us in passing a bill we believe can accomplish all that we want in changing welfare reform and changing the culture of welfare, in creating jobs, in protecting children. We can do that. We can do it tomorrow afternoon. We can do it by voting for the Work First bill. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, our friend and colleague Bill Bradley has said that he has always preferred moving to standing still. When the 104th Congress adjourns around a year from now, the senior Senator from New Jersey will move on to new challenges in his life and career, and we will feel the loss of one of the most principled and thoughtful Members of this body. While Senator Bradley has expressed a deep sense of disappointment in the country's current political climate, I know that he will be able to look back on his career in the Senate with a lasting sense of pride in his accomplishments on behalf of the people of New Jersey, and of the Nation. Bill Bradley's work in the Senate has been remarkable for the breadth of its legislative range, and for the depth of its intellectual foundation. Whether addressing the intricacies of tax policy or the broad impact of international trade proposals, his grasp of the subject matter before him is unrivaled. Ask any Senator who has stumbled unprepared into a debate with him. Bill Bradley has been a legislative force to be reckoned with, as he will continue to be until his last vote is cast in this Chamber. Senator Bradley is often recognized for his mastery of technically intimidating issues. But I will always remember him more for the passion he can bring to a debate than for his oft-cited professorial prowess. In the last decade, some of the most socially important and emotionally powerful statements on the subject of racial strife in America have been delivered from the heart and soul of Senator Bradley. When Senator Bradley takes the floor to speak, or offers a legislative solution to a national problem, he comes armed with formidable arguments and effective insights. When Bill Bradley takes up an issue or takes on a cause, he will likely succeed in what he's set out to achieve. This is the result of a rare combination of the competitiveness with which he was clearly born, and the credibility he has earned through a life in public service. If you are a working-class American, then Bill Bradley has served you well. If you are poor or disadvantaged, Bill Bradley has made your concerns his cause. Through the din of violence and divisiveness in our society, Bill Bradley has been a voice of healing. In the face of monied special interests, Bill Bradley has been a fighter for fairness and economic justice. Bill Bradley has been a credit to the Senate, to the Nation, and to public service. He has been a powerful advocate for the values that so many of us share, and I look forward to working with him on the vital matters we will face together in the months remaining in his term.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. If the majority leader will yield, I know that we have a list of amendments that may require rollcall votes. Does this anticipate then that other amendments, which would be offered either tonight or tomorrow morning, would still be in order and would be subject to a vote following disposition of the amendment?

Mr. DASCHLE. Reserving the right to object----

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, as the Congress considers its appropriations bills and strives to reduce the rate of growth of Federal programs, I would like to call attention to one very small, but important agency that policymakers and industry representatives alike have praised as responsible and cost-effective--the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research [AHCPR]. AHCPR, which is part of the Department of Health and Human Services, was established in 1989 with strong bipartisan support. Broadly stated, the agency's mission is to conduct impartial health services research and disseminate information that will complement public and private sector efforts to improve health care quality and contain costs. AHCPR's charge is to find out what works and what does not work in the health care system, and the results of its research are being used voluntarily by the private sector to contain health care costs. The agency funds outcomes research projects that examine the efficacy of medical interventions in terms of how they affect patients. It also funds studies on the medical effectiveness of particular procedures and conducts assessments of health technologies utilized by HCFA and CHAMPUS to make coverage decisions. These projects have identified millions of dollars in potential savings to Medicare. Finally, the agency convenes multidisciplinary panels of experts to develop clinical practice guidelines on such topics as low back pain, cataracts, sickle cell anemia, mammography, unstable angina, and cancer pain. These guidelines are disseminated to consumers, private and public sector health care policymakers, providers, and administrators for use as they see fit. AHCPR is a true public/private partnership designed to improve the quality of health services and contain their cost. And it is working. Supporters of the agency include conservatives and liberals in both political parties and span the health care spectrum, from the insurance industry to providers to academia and other highly regarded public policy institutions. AHCPR has been called an ``honest broker'' because of the way it compiles and distributes health care cost and quality information among competing public and private sector interests. It is very important to the health care system that AHCPR continue producing the kind of significant research it has developed in the past 5 years. To slash AHCPR's funding now would truly be penny-wise and pound-foolish: The current funding level for the agency amounts to a little more than a dollar per American. Yet potential savings from the use of its guidelines and research could save hundreds of millions, and by some estimate billions, of dollars. [[Page S 12609]] AHCPR should continue to play a critical role as we struggle to control national health care costs, particularly in the Medicare and Medicaid programs. AHCPR-funded research has provided strong evidence that health care costs can be contained while improving the quality of services. It would be irresponsible to devastate funding to the only Government agency devoted to finding ways for us to improve quality and lower costs. Recently three of our esteemed former colleagues who were intimately involved in the creation of the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research--Senator George Mitchell, Senator David Durenberger and Representative Willis Gradison--jointly authored an article entitled, ``The Agency for Health Care Policy and Research: A Beacon for Policy Makers.'' This article gives a historical perspective and summarizes the current situation while making a persuasive argument for the AHCPR's continued funding. I ask unanimous consent that this article be printed in the Record, and I urge my colleagues to carefully consider these noted health care experts' comments and weigh their advice when the Senate considers the fiscal year 1996 Labor-HHS appropriations bill.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, the tough part of the budget process is about to commence. Up until now, budget balancing has been all talk. Now comes the time for action. For example, the Senate Energy and House Natural Resources Committees have now been presented a budget blueprint and must move to make the hard choices that meet their spending targets. Their job is to decide what to cut and what to keep. There is no disagreement that we need to cut Government spending and eliminate the deficit. The real argument is over how to get there. Are we going for quick fixes that make the numbers add up, but are blind to the underlying policy problems that cause the deficit? Will we opt for a politically expedient formula that gets us to the bottom line now, and asks questions later? Or are we going to consider carefully all the consequences of our options before making final decisions? Mr. President, today, I would like to highlight one example that illustrates the dilemma we face, and demonstrates the need to look a little harder at some of the items on the chopping block. Earlier this year, President Clinton recommended in his fiscal year 1996 budget that three Power Marketing Administrations be sold to private industry. He projected that this sale would save the Treasury over $4 billion. A number of Senators representing States served by these PMA's--and whose constituents' electric rates would likely rise significantly if the sale goes through--protested this proposal vigorously. I am one of those Senators. We have visited the President to make our case against the PMA sale. We have spoken on the Senate floor. And we have lobbied our colleagues on the Senate Budget Committee. Nonetheless, the Senate and House Budget Committees, eager to cobble together a plan that balances the Federal budget within 7 years, endorsed the President's idea and incorporated it into the congressional budget resolution. Why? Because it made their daunting challenge $4 billion easier. Where does that leave the opponents of the PMA firesale? It leaves us with the task of convincing the members of the Senate Energy Committee that the sale does not make sense, and that it does not save money. My State of South Dakota is served by the Western Area Power Administration [WAPA], which is one of the three power marketing administrations the President and the Budget Committees want to sell. The budget resolution passed by Congress will ask most South Dakotans to pay higher electric rates in order to fund another tax break for the wealthiest Americans. Meanwhile, the reality is that the sale of WAPA is a bookkeeping gimmick that helps make the numbers add up, but unnecessarily hurts working families. And it does nothing to address the underlying budget problem facing our country. The sale of WAPA is bad economic policy. It is not fair to South Dakota. And, in the long run, it does not even save any money. Let us look at the facts. First, WAPA pays its own way. In South Dakota, it guarantees a dependable and affordable supply of electricity for nearly half the people of my State. It is on solid financial ground, covering its operating expenses every year and paying off the original construction expense, with interest. If other Federal programs were as successful as WAPA, we would not have a deficit to deal with. The proposed sale simply would allow the Federal Government to collect the construction debt faster. But since that debt is now being paid back with interest, the sale will not result in any long-term financial benefit to the Government. Long-term revenue losses from the sale will offset any short-term revenue gains. Second, WAPA is a promise made to the people of South Dakota. Our State made a deal with the Federal Government, and WAPA is the Government's end of the bargain. The State of South Dakota sacrificed prime land to the construction of the mainstem dams along the Missouri River to provide critical flood control. Every year there is more erosion and more land lost. Affordable power is South Dakota's compensation for the loss of the land as well as the flood control it provides. A deal is a deal, and selling WAPA to private industry, with the inevitable rate increases that would follow, would [[Page S 12367]] mean the Federal Government is reneging on its commitment. Mr. President, my colleagues and I have been making this case with anyone who will listen, and I am pleased that our arguments have not fallen entirely on deaf ears. The final version of the fiscal year 1996 congressional budget resolution concedes that selling WAPA is not necessary to meet deficit reduction objectives. And our case keeps getting stronger. Since this scheme was first proposed, further evidence of its flaws have come to light. First there is the issue of river management. This year, South Dakota experienced much more rain than normal, causing flooding throughout the State and resulting in record levels of water accumulating behind the dams on the Missouri River. These high water levels caused considerable property damage and threaten to cause additional damage as water is released from the dams. Managing the water levels and releases on the river is a monumentally difficult and complicated task, where often competing economic and environmental issues must be balanced to minimize damage to property and land, and to maximize national benefits. Selling WAPA would complicate this already contentious process by increasing pressure to generate electricity at the expense of other objectives, so that the new owners of the system could maximize their profits. Second, it is my understanding that much of the thousands of miles of transmission lines that make up the WAPA system cross private lands. The rights-of-way held by the Federal Government for this purpose in many cases would revert to the private landowners if the WAPA system is sold into private ownership. Therefore, the sale could result in the need for the new owners to renegotiate many of the rights-of-way with private landowners, some off whom might be reluctant to do so. This added complication could diminish the value of the system to potential buyers, leading to less revenue than the Federal Government expects. And third, there is the problem of potential cherry-picking. The WAPA system is expansive, covering 14 States, and includes many different components. As these components are broken up for sale, what is to prevent some buyers from purchasing only the best and most profitable parts, leaving behind the older, less valuable parts, and thus preventing the Federal Government--and the taxpayers--from getting the full value from the system? In conclusion, Mr. President, the sale of WAPA is a bad deal for its current customers, and it is a bad deal for the American taxpayers. Beyond that are some very real practical problems with the execution of the sale of WAPA. These issues alone should be enough to sink the deal. No one will win if WAPA is sold, except perhaps a few select private interests who could exploit first the Federal Government, and later their customers to maximize profit. Since I have been in Congress, I have seen a lot of proposals that did not make sense for South Dakota. Selling WAPA is one of the worst. I urge my colleagues to join with me in this battle and do the right thing by the energy consumers of South Dakota and other Western States, and the right thing for the taxpayers of the Nation.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, what is the pending business?

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, let me make a couple of comments prior to the time I address the modifications. I did not have the opportunity to be on the floor a few minutes ago as the distinguished majority leader made his remarks. I appreciate his comments with regard to the progress we made this week. I think it has been good progress. We had the opportunity to take up and pass some very important appropriations bills. Obviously, there are ways in which we could have improved those bills, but nonetheless we needed to pass them. We did. We also had an agreement that I think will work well for all as we consider the defense authorization the day we get back. I think, as the agreement indicates, it is our expectation to finish that bill in 1 day. We had very good cooperation from colleagues on both sides in order to accommodate that schedule. This may be record time for considering a defense authorization. I appreciate very much the willingness, at least on the part of colleagues who had amendments, to consider the need to address all of these issues in a timely way and accommodate the schedule of the Senate as we take up this bill once again when we return. We worked to accommodate that schedule, in part because I know colleagues on the other side wanted very much to be able to finish that. The leader has been very helpful in accommodating a need that we have, which is to complete work on a number of nominations that are still pending. It is my expectation that before the end of the day, we will be able to deal with the remaining ones. There are a number of them. A lot of people have been waiting a long time and want very much to be able to know the disposition of these nominations prior to the time we leave. Simply to hold them over for another month, I think, would be very unfortunate. And that is why I know we are still working to resolve a couple of matters. But I believe that, given the work on both sides in accommodating the schedule and the pending legislation when we return, that we can finish this work as well. Mr. President, the modifications that I have just sent to the desk will further strengthen the Work First welfare reform plan. During the last few days, I have had numerous conversations with many Senators, in particular the distinguished Senator from Michigan, Senator Levin. He repeatedly has made the case for requiring welfare recipients to work even earlier than the timeframe we had already required in the Work First bill. We believe our bill, like the Republican bill, addressed the need to require workfare at a very early stage in the welfare eligibility process. Senator Levin felt it would be helpful if we could find ways to move that date up even further. As a result of Senator Levin's persistence and tenacity, as is so often demonstrated on the floor, we have been able to work with him and many others to address the concern that he has expressed and to take suggestions that he has made. We have modified the requirements to ensure that welfare recipients are working as soon as is humanly possible, to make the system accommodate our goal of moving people into a workforce at the earliest possible moment. So, under this amendment, welfare recipients will be required to perform community service if they have been receiving welfare for 6 months but are not yet working or in job training or education. It was no more than 2 years. Now it is 6 months. We have given the States some lead time to get ready to meet this tough requirement. But, ultimately, welfare recipients must perform community service tasks after 6 months of welfare receipt. Able-bodied welfare recipients ought to work-- period. If they cannot find work in the private sector, States will assist them in getting community service jobs. So, I believe this is a very significant, even stronger addition to the Work First plan. We called it Work First because we had the toughest work requirements of any pending legislation, and now we have just made them even tougher as a result of our work with Senator Levin, in particular, and other Senators as well who have expressed that strong desire to strengthen that aspect of the legislation. We have also clarified the use of vouchers for children. While we strongly believe that welfare reform ought to be about putting welfare recipients to work, we do not believe that welfare reform ought to punish children. No child should be made homeless, no child should go hungry, under the guise of welfare reform. That is not tough, that is mean. Therefore we have clarified that if a family is terminated from welfare receipt, States will be required to perform an assessment of the needs of the child in that family. Vouchers in the amount of the child's portion of the grant will be provided to a third party as reimbursement for the needs of the child--such as a vendor payment to a social service organization for clothing or food, a vendor payment to a landlord as a partial rent payment, or other needs the State may identify for the child. We have strengthened the nondisplacement language and grievance procedure under our plan and made several technical adjustments. We have also taken a look at our exemptions to the 5-year time limit. We have decided to raise the exemption for high unemployment areas from 7.5 to 8 percent. Now, that does not mean that these individuals do not have to work. They do. In fact, they will have to work after 6 months if they are not working before. But, this particular exemption means that if a young mother is in a high unemployment area, we will not throw her and her baby into the street where there are no jobs. By definition under our amendment, she will be working. So, she is not getting something for nothing. We just do not believe it is right to throw her into the street. Should unemployment decline in the area in which she lives, there would be no more exemption for her and she would be on her own if she has not found a job. [[Page S 12513]] We think that 8 percent is a fair and reasonable threshold. In fact, it matches the threshold set in the majority leader's bill under the food stamp title. Under the majority leader's bill, able-bodied single individuals are required to work if they receive food stamps in 6 months of any 12, except that the Secretary may waive the work requirement for those in areas of unemployment exceeding 8 percent. We agree. There ought not be any disagreement about that particular exemption. You cannot require someone to work if there are no jobs there. If there is 8 percent unemployment, then obviously it is very, very difficult in that competitive environment to accommodate people's job placement needs. And, as the majority leader does, so do we recognize and accept that fact and believe there are likely to be more options just as soon as the unemployment level drops but not until that time. We have modified our exemption to the time limit to make it apply to those States with 8 percent unemployment. We hope that those on the other side of the aisle will not engage in a bidding war on the unemployment rate and raise it even higher. Welfare reform should not be a bidding war. It ought to be about putting welfare recipients to work. I would like to make a few comments about modifications to the majority leader's amendment. While I have not yet read the modifications, if it is true that an exemption has been included so that women with children under 1 would not be required to work or, if they are required to work, the state must provide child care assistance, I hope my colleagues will take a close look at that provision. A requirement to provide child care assistance to families with children under 1 is a real concern for many of us. This does not address the problem welfare mothers face. This is not realistic approach to a real barrier that women have to employment. Only about 10 percent of welfare recipients have children under 1. But, about 60 percent of welfare families have children under 5. What does that mean? It means that about 50 percent of welfare recipients with preschool children, mostly young toddlers, would receive no day care assistance. What kind of child care fix would that be? No Senator should believe that somehow this addresses the problem. Obviously, it does not. Child care is truly the linchpin between welfare and work. Under our Work First plan, we guarantee and fund child care assistance to mothers and recognize, if the parent's choice is between leaving children in the living room when they walk out the door and go to work and staying at home to care for their children, they are not going to leave the children at home. They are not going to allow their 2- or 3- or even 6- year-old children unattended for 6, 8, or 10 hours. That cannot work. What happens to those children? Who feeds them? Who cares for them? Who protects them? Who disciplines them? If child care is not going to be provided for, then what real expectation is there that somehow these mothers are going to be forced to go out that door and expect the system to work? It is not going to happen. Let us not fool anyone, least of all ourselves. If we are going to make this work, let us address the problems. Let us not ignore them. Let us recognize that there are fundamental challenges we have to face. One challenge, in my view, that is very controversial, but it ought not be, is that it is also awfully difficult to expect anybody to leave that house if they take a minimum wage job, work 40 hours a week, have a family of four and find themselves still below the legal definition of poverty. What kind of incentive is that to go to work? So if we are going to address real work and real expectations of trying to achieve greater participation in the work force, then it would seem to me only logical that we have to make work pay. We are at one of the lowest points we have been in terms of the purchasing power of minimum wage earners that we have been since the establishment of the minimum wage. That is something we have to address. We also recognize that Medicaid is not going to help at all if people are forced to give it up when they go to work. They have to be eligible for some kind of health care, or they are not going to endanger their children's lives or good health by saying, ``Well, I am going to work. I am going to leave my kids in the living room. I am going to give up their health insurance because I want that minimum wage job that leaves me below the poverty line when I work 40 hours a week.'' That is not going to happen. So we have to recognize the importance of health care. Finally, we have to deal with the issue of child care. I have children. The Presiding Officer certainly has, and he understands parenthood as well or better than anybody in this Chamber. And recognizing the need for child care is something that I hope we can all address when we come back. It is the linchpin, in my view, between welfare and work. Mr. President, at this point, I ask unanimous consent that the following Senators be added as cosponsors to amendment No. 2282, the Work First welfare reform plan: Senators Breaux, Mikulski, Rockefeller, Moynihan, Reid, Kerrey, Ford, Conrad, Dorgan, Dodd, Kerry, Lieberman, Bingaman, Bryan, Inouye, Robb, Exon, Murray, Feingold, Boxer, Glenn, Akaka, Levin, Feinstein, Bumpers, Lautenberg, Pryor, Johnston, Kennedy, and Heflin.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I send some modifications to the desk under a previous agreement. The modification to the amendment (No. 2282) is as follows: In Title I, on page 3, line 20, strike ``7.5 percent'' and insert ``8 percent''. In Title I, on page 5, line 24, strike ``solely''. In Title I, on page 5, line 25, strike ``subparagraph (A)-- '' and insert ``subparagraph (A) or due to the imposition of a penalty under subparagraph (B) or (D) of section 403(c)(1)--''. In Title II, beginning on page 3, line 21, strike all through page 5, line 2, and insert the following: ``(c) Nondisplacement.-- ``(1) In general.--No funds provided under this Act shall be used in a manner that would result in-- ``(A) the displacement of any currently employed worker (including partial displacement, such as a reduction in wages, hours of nonovertime work, or employment benefits), or the impairment of existing contracts for services or collective bargaining agreements; or ``(B) the employment or assignment of a client to fill a position when-- ``(i) any other person is on layoff from the same or a substantially equivalent position; or ``(ii) the employer has terminated the employment of any other employee or otherwise reduced the employer's workforce in order to fill the vacancy so created with a client. ``(2) Enforcing anti-displacement protections.-- ``(A) Grievance procedure.--The State shall establish and maintain (pursuant to regulations issued by the Secretary of Labor) a grievance procedure for resolving complaints alleging violations of any of the prohibitions or requirements of paragraph (1). Such procedure shall include an opportunity for a hearing and shall be completed not later than 90 days from the date of the complaint, by which time the complainant shall be provided a written decision by the State. A decision of the State under such procedure, or a failure of a State to issue a decision not later than 90 days from such date, [[Page S 12512]] may be appealed to the Secretary of Labor, who shall investigate the allegations contained in the complaint and make a determination not later than 60 days from the date of the appeal as to whether a violation of such prohibitions or requirements has occurred. Remedies shall include termination or suspension of payments, prohibition of the placement of the client, reinstatement of an employee, and other relief to make an aggrieved employee whole. ``(B) Other laws or contracts.--Nothing in subparagraph (A) shall be construed to prohibit a complainant from pursuing a remedy authorized under another Federal, State, or local law or a contract or collective bargaining agreement for a violation of any of the prohibitions or requirements of paragraph (1). In Title II, on page 7, line 23, strike ``7.5 percent'' and insert ``8 percent''. In Title II, beginning on page 11, line 21, strike all through page 12, line 2, and insert the following: ``(c) Workfare.--If, after 2 years, a client (who is not exempt from work requirements) who has signed a parent empowerment contract is not working at least 20 hours a week (within the meaning of section 485(a)(2)) or engaged in community service, then the State shall offer that client a workfare position, with minimum hours per week and tasks to be determined by the State. ``(d) Community Service.--Not later than 3 years after the date of the enactment of the Work First Act of 1995, each State should (and not later than 7 years after such date, each State shall) require a client who, after receiving assistance for 6 months-- ``(1) is not exempt from work requirements; and ``(2) is not either-- ``(A) working at least 20 hours a week (within the meaning of section 485(a)(2)); nor ``(B) engaged in an education or training program; to participate in community service, with minimum hours per week and tasks to be determined by the State. In Title II, on page 18, strike lines 10 through 23, and insert the following: ``(e) Wages are Not Considered Earned Income.--Wages paid under a work supplementation program shall be considered to be earned income for purposes of any provision of law. In Title II, on page 19, strike lines 13 through 16, and insert the following: ``(a) In General.--A State through the Work First program shall establish and carry out-- ``(1) a workfare program in accordance with section 486(c); and ``(2) a community service program in accordance with section 486(d), that meet the requirements of this section. In Title II, on page 21, line 9, strike ``(5)'' and insert ``(6)''. In Title II, on page 21, lines 13 and 14, strike ``paragraph (4)'' and insert ``paragraphs (4) and (5)''. In Title V, on page 12, line 10, strike ``(f)'' and insert ``(g)''. In Title VIII, on page 16, line 16, strike ``7 percent'' and insert ``8 percent''.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, we are looking forward to a good debate when we return in September. As the majority leader indicated, we had a good debate in the last couple of days. Something the distinguished Senator from Arkansas said earlier in the week is something I guess I will just leave on. He said that good legislators ought to be good educators. I hope that we can educate. I hope we can lead a meaningful public debate about this issue, and not as partisans, but as people interested in solving a problem, and we can solve this one. I hope that we can have a good debate, recognize our philosophical differences, but deal with them in a way that will bring us to a resolution of a problem that has been with us for a long time. With that, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, on August 14 we will mark the 50th anniversary of V-J Day, the end of the war in the Pacific. As much as the war in Europe, the American role in the Pacific war definitively created the modern-day role of the United States in the international community. The attack without warning that Japan's military rulers launched against Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, had the effect, in the United States, of uniting Americans against the Axis Powers in the global conflict. The almost immediate declaration of war on the United States by the Nazi regime in Germany solidified that unity. For the first time, Americans poured into recruiting centers to volunteer in the Armed Forces. From every city in the country, and every State in the Union, men--and many women--lined up to defend their Nation. The men and women of South Dakota, like those of all other States, did their share. The war in the Pacific was a difficult conflict, unprecedented in human history. Never before had nations contended across such vast miles of open sea, over such small, scattered island groups. Until the development of carriers and air flight, a war like the Pacific war could not even be imagined. Tragically enough, in our century, it came to pass, and at enormous cost in lives and treasure to all participants. From the devastating loss of men and materiel at Pearl Harbor at the end of 1941, the United States struggled to regain momentum in the Pacific theater. The demands of the war in Europe competed with the needs of the men and women stranded on Pacific islands, and the whole weight of the Nation bent to the task of filling those needs. It was not until the Battles of Midway and Coral Sea that the tide turned in the Pacific war. And it was not until after the use of the atomic weapon in Hiroshima and Nagasaki that Japan's military rulers were willing to concede and surrender. The technology that gave mankind the power of the atom and ended the war in the Pacific has, understandably, overshadowed much of the history of the Pacific war. That is understandable, but it is unfortunate. There are stories of heroism, bravery, courage in the face of incredible danger and sheer human endurance that deserve to be honored in our national memory. Some of those stories are the stories of South Dakotans who served. [[Page S 12425]] One South Dakotan, Joe Foss, returned to the United States to a successful career in politics, as State Governor and the first commissioner of the American Football League. Joe Foss was a marine captain at age 28, in 1943. By then, he had won the Congressional Medal of Honor and the Distinguished Flying Cross. Captain Foss has the distinction of downing more enemy planes than any other combat pilot in the war. He equaled the record of the fabled Eddy Rickenbacker of World War I, with 26 kills, 23 of them during a grueling 34-day-long test of endurance in the sky over Guadalcanal. In an interview, many years after the war, Joe Foss described a mission on which he was sent as a decoy against a Japanese battleship off Savo Island, with the goal of engaging the big ship's guns so that a second wave of torpedo bombers could have a clear path to come over and drop their armaments to sink the ship. He talked about aiming the nose of his Grumman Wildcat almost directly down at the ship's smokestacks, knowing that an airplane at 12 o'clock makes the hardest target, but knowing, as well, that the moment a plane changes angles to pull out of a dive leaves it entirely vulnerable. Twice, during dogfights, he found himself on a collision course with Japanese Zeros, heading directly into the Zeros' propellers, knowing that the first pilot who peeled away would expose his plane's underside to machine-gun fire. He never turned, and those two Zeros were among his kills. Joe Foss earned the Congressional Medal of Honor for conspicuous bravery in the face of the enemy, and his fellow South Dakotans rewarded him later by electing him Governor of the State. His story echoes many of those of others from South Dakota who served in the Pacific theater. Another South Dakotan who distinguished himself in the Pacific theater is Philip LeBlanc. He was one of many Native American Code Talkers. The Lakota-speakers of South Dakota and other States were formed into teams, who were dropped on isolated Pacific Islands and instructed to radio back reports of enemy activity that to help guide strategy. They were known as ``MacArthur's boys'' and had priority over the air-waves, because so many American lives depended on their reports of enemy strength, landings, and shipping. Their unique contribution was the use of Lakota, the language of their birth, which defied all code-breaking efforts. Their unique war experience included the fact that they often felt they faced more danger from American troops, by mistake, than from Japanese. Left on isolated islands, equipped with camouflage gear and caps, not helmets, native Americans were often subjected to rigorous interrogation by European Americans questioning their status as American combat soldiers. Philip LeBlanc served with the 302 Reconnaissance Team in the 1st Cavalry Division from 1942 to 1945 in the Pacific theater. He served his entire term of service in the field without a single furlough. LeBlanc served in New Guinea, where it was impossible to dig foxholes because the intense rainforest climate created a groundwater table that was barely 5 inches below the surface. He had to be ferried to medical care by Filipinos when he came down with malaria in the middle of Japanese-held territory, and he was finally felled when he was hit riding atop an armored car in the last days of the campaign to retake the Philippines. He carries shrapnel in his hip and a bullet scar on his chest. But much more proudly, he has the right to carry on his chest four Bronze Battle Stars, four major campaign medals, a Purple Heart, an Asiatic Pacific Campaign Medal, a Bronze Arrowhead and a Philippine Liberation Ribbon. He is part of a proud and honorable tradition of native Americans who have served courageously and honorably in every U.S. conflict, from the Revolutionary War onward. The outcome of the Second World War changed our world profoundly, with effects that still resonate today. It left the United States the sole undamaged world power. With that status came responsibilities that most Americans had not imagined at the outset. Victory also carried a price. In the 50 post-war years, those responsibilities have demanded more in American treasure and lives than from any other participant. But by 1990, it is estimated that the total cost of the Second World War to the United States had reached $4.6 trillion--including the post-war cost of veterans health care and benefits. The cost of that care and those benefits is a cost of war, and should be recognized as such, lest we forget, decades later, the price of war in the form of our greatest treasure--our young men and women who served. In total, more than 16 million American men and women served their Nation in World War II. More than 291,000 paid the ultimate price on the field of combat; 113,000 others died of wounds, accidents, illness--all the risks and dangers that attend service in wartime. All told, more than 405,000 American lives were cut short by the war. Another 670,000 Americans were casualties in that war--men and women who returned with their health damaged, their bodies scarred, their lives changed. Every State in the Nation sent men and women to the Second World War. South Dakota, one of the Nation's least populous States, sent an estimated 60,000 men and women to fight. A post-war review in 1950 estimated that more than 10 percent of the South Dakotans who served earned citations for personal bravery, military valor and, in three cases, the highest military honor our Nation grants, the award for service ``above and beyond the call of duty,'' the Congressional Medal of Honor. We should honor those who fought for our Nation in the Pacific theater. But we should not allow the distance of time to let us forget that they served at incredible cost to their lives, their health, their well-being and, too often, their futures. The Second World War is often sentimentally called the last good war. I understand what people mean by the term. But for those who saw active duty--who saw friends and buddies die, who felt the sheer brutality of heavy artillery attack or the random terror of combat on unknown, rough terrain against a well-trained and ruthless opponent, who faced years of imprisonment in sometimes barbaric conditions, the men who endured the death march of the Kokoda Trail, the tortures of jungle imprisonment--there was no ``good'' war. There was a job to be done, often at a price that scarred their lives for decades afterward. In victory, America has been magnanimous and generous to her former enemies. That is as it should be. Our ideals command no less. But in retrospect, let us not forget the terrible price that our own people paid for our victory. Let us not imagine that the historic graciousness of our Nation toward the conquered was something bought without pain and tears and terrible suffering. Victory is a fine accomplishment. But its price is often beyond counting. Its price should never be forgotten. Today, I hope Americans across the country will pause to consider the price of our victory, for those who served, those who died, those who suffered. We owe them a debt of remembrance, along with a debt of gratitude for their sacrifice.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, the 1995 farm bill got off to a good start recently when the Senate Agriculture Committee drafted significant parts of the legislation, including the research, farm credit, rural development and trade sections. Taken as a whole, I am optimistic these first four provisions will benefit rural America by helping beginning farmers get started and putting renewed focus on the production of value-added agricultural products. While progress was indeed made and such a good beginning is encouraging, I walked out of the committee room after voting feeling a bit like a farmer watching his fields in early spring. It is always nice when your crop gets off to a good start, but experience suggests we should not get overly confident until it has been harvested and sold at a fair price. There is still a long and difficult path to travel before we can declare any sort of victory for the American farmer. My highest priority in the coming months will be to tackle those parts of the farm bill that will have the most immediate impact on the income of family farms and ranches. I have talked to hundreds of producers across South Dakota in the last few months about the importance of this farm bill. They all tell me the same, very simple thing: ``Go back to Washington and write a farm bill that will allow us to get a fair price for the food we produce.'' They ask for nothing more--and nothing less. I have been very pleased by the bi-partisan nature in which we were able to work out the fine details of these first provisions, and hope this cooperation will continue as we take up the issues that are most important to farm and ranch families across South Dakota. Make no mistake--increasing net farm income will not come without a fight, but those of us in Congress who have been waiting for years to draft a farm bill that puts the farming family above the farming corporations are ready and eager for the debate. To this point, the Senate Agriculture Committee has taken action on four sections of the farm bill: The research provisions include my proposal to require that USDA allocate 40 percent of competitive research dollars to applied research that will have a tangible, positive impact on the daily lives of producers and the economic health of our rural communities. I also fought for a provision that requires USDA to include full-time farmers as members of their research advisory board. Many of the decisions made by the Secretary of Agriculture are based in part on the advice of this board. It simply does not make sense to have it packed with bureaucrats. The farm credit provisions improve the guarantee program by increasing the protection afforded to banks if they lend to a beginning farmer or refinance the loan of an existing direct USDA borrower. Also, the direct loan program is reformed to increase its focus on beginning farmers and on those in need of only temporary assistance. The trade title sets workable, concrete goals for trade expansion, increases the percentage of our exports that must be used for high- value and value-added products, and creates new procedures that will help enforce recently signed international trade agreements. Finally, the rural development title in the committee-approved bill will give States the flexibility they need to pursue innovative projects to revitalize our small communities by allocating a portion of the funds for State-specific projects. There are many reasons to be optimistic about the progress achieved to date. These first few provisions address important issues facing our future--beginning farmers, meaningful applied research, expanded trade and new markets. We now need to reenforce the point that if we do not do something about declining farm income in the present, there may not be a future. We also need to remember that no one gets the prize for a good start. My sights are now set on continuing this initial momentum on through to the finish line. Our goal is a farm bill that will improve net farm income, simplify farm programs and bolster our rural economies. The stakes of this race are nothing less than the future of rural America.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, as the Senate prepares to begin its August recess, it is clear that much business awaits our return. One of the first issues we will return to will be reform of our Nation's welfare system. As we reflect over the coming weeks on how our policy choices made here will affect our Nation's neediest, and American society as a whole, I would ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to consider the powerful statement made this week by 47 leaders of our Nation's major religious denominations and social service agencies. This week, in an unprecedented and moving way, 47 leaders from the Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, and Moslem communities signed a letter that was delivered to every Member of the Senate. The letter called on Congress to remember the poor as it makes decisions on welfare reform. Citing the verse in Proverbs 31:9, ``Speak up, judge righteously, champion the poor and the needy,'' the leaders called on Congress to reaffirm a federally guaranteed safety net for those in our Nation who are most vulnerable. The letter also focused on the drastic effects of current proposals on the ability of the religious social service organizations to provide for the poor. Mr. President, these religious leaders wrote that they are motivated not only from their faith-based ethics, but also from their years of experience in serving poor families in the churches, synagogues, mosques, temples, and service agencies across the country. I was particularly moved by the consensus found among America's many and diverse religious communities with regard to the obligation of all of us to care for all of our citizens, especially our children. I urge my colleagues to reflect on the points raised in this important letter from our Nation's religious leaders. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the letter and the list of 47 signatories be printed in the Congressional Record. Dear Senators Dole, Daschle, Packwood and Moynihan: We write on behalf of the religious organizations we represent to urge you to make the well-being of women, children and families your primary objective as you seek to reform the nation's welfare system. As the Congress sorts through fiscal, political, and ideological pressures to construct real reform, the decisions you make will be a test of our nation's values, of our commitment to ``the least among us,'' and of our willingness to offer genuine help and opportunity to our poorest families. We are commanded in Proverbs 31:9, ``Speak up, judge righteously, champion the poor and the needy.'' We are called to share God's wealth with those of God's children who cannot provide for themselves. The moral test of any nation is how well it fulfills this Biblical mandate. As leaders of many of this nation's religious faith communities and religious social service organizations, we are called to stand with, and seek justice for, people who are poor. We share a conviction that welfare reform must not focus on eliminating programs, but on eliminating poverty and the damage it inflicts upon children (who comprise 2/3 of all recipients of cash assistance), on their parents, and on the rest of society. Genuine reform must provide the disadvantaged with the tools they need to become self- sufficient. Specifically, we advocate reform that: Strengthens families; Preserves a federally guaranteed safety net for the vulnerable; Protects human life and human dignity; Encourages and rewards work; Creates jobs, strengthens job training and improves child [[Page S 12361]] care; Improves aid to all needy children, regardless of the circumstances of their birth; Maintains current support for legal immigrants; and Builds public/private partnerships to overcome poverty. In particular, we urge policy makers not to abandon the concept of ``entitlement:'' i.e. that there are certain categories of vulnerable people who are entitled to protection. The existing guaranteed support, in the form of support for poor children and the disabled, school lunch programs, and food stamp programs, must remain priorities for our nation. Current proposals for block grants eliminate the structure of guaranteed support and leave our country's needy at risk from natural disasters and economic downturns. This system of block grants would also create annual budget battles over funding, which could further cripple the welfare safety net. If the Senate enacts block grant proposals despite these very troubling concerns, we strongly urge the inclusion of ``maintenance of effort'' requirements, which will guarantee that states will continue to do their part in supporting the poor. With the existing requirements that states must match federal funding, the states currently provide 45% of support for America's poor. Without ``maintenance of effort'' provisions, states could slash their funding to dangerously low levels, especially financially disadvantaged states where assistance is most needed. The needs of children of unwed mothers under 18 years of age and of mothers already on welfare are just as legitimate as the needs of all other children, and they must not suffer as a result of their parents' circumstances or choices. Therefore, we urge you to vote against family caps and child exclusion provisions. Such measures have never been proven to be effective, and only succeed in encouraging women to have abortions or forcing children to live in extremely deprived conditions. In addition to our faith-based ethics, these principles are based on years of experience in serving poor families in our churches, synagogues, mosques, temples, and service agencies. Many religious social service providers have a strong track record in developing programs that achieve independence from welfare. We seek to work with the Congress to shape policies that build on these successes. We are gravely concerned that some current proposals rely on the idea that the religious community can provide for those who will ``fall through the cracks'' of the safety net, cracks created by proposed reforms now before Congress. In fact, over the last decade, our social service providers have experienced a marked increase in the demand for our services, which are now operating at full capacity. Many of these services, in fact, are currently a partnership between government and religious bodies, dependent upon government funding. A recent study on the effect of the proposed budgetary reforms by Independent Sector reveals that charitable contributions would have to double over the next seven years in order to compensate for the massive cuts proposed by the House. Since the present system severely challenges the religious community's ability to meet the needs of the country's poor, we fear that the current proposals would completely overwhelm our resources for serving the needy. We support a stronger partnership between the religious community and the government in serving and empowering poor families. For this crucial public-private partnership to survive, it is imperative that Congress pass welfare reform legislation that maintains an effective and helpful role for the federal government to care for our nation's needy. Sincerely, The Catholic Community: Bishop John Ricard, S.S.J., Chair of the Domestic Policy Committee of the U.S. Catholic Bishops Conference; The Very Reverend Gerald L. Brown, S.S.J., President, Roman Catholic Conference of Major Superiors of Men's Institutions; Andree Fries, C.P.P.S., President, Leadership Conference of Women Religious; Reverend Fred Kammer, S.J. President, Catholic Charities

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, last year Congress reauthorized and improved several important nutrition programs under the National School Lunch Act and the Child Nutrition Act. The legislation strengthened access to good nutrition for some of our Nation's most vulnerable children. I was pleased to be a cosponsor of the bill. As part of that legislation, Congress directed the Department of Agriculture to bring schools into compliance with specified ``dietary guidelines'' by the 1996-97 school year rather than the 1998-99 school year, as originally stipulated by USDA. These guidelines establish a 30-percent limit on daily dietary fat, and a 10-percent limit on saturated fat. [[Page S 12368]] Compliance with the dietary guidelines will have a real impact on the health of children who participate in the school meals program. It should be aggressively pursued. At the same time, however, I appreciate the effort it takes to implement such an extensive rule as well as the importance of providing schools sufficient time to comply with it. I realize that not all schools may be able to comply with the dietary guidelines by 1996. In an effort to make the 1996-97 school year date achievable for compliance, Public Law 103-448 provides that schools may elect to use a food-based system of menu planning and preparation. It also offers an exemption from the requirement. Schools that encounter difficulty with the 1996 compliance date will be able to apply for a waiver from their own State departments of education. If compliance is truly problematic, the State may grant a 2-year extension. Our objective is not to force compliance at any cost. Rather, it is to encourage aggressiveness on this initiative and make clear that Congress is serious about delivering healthy meals to our youth. Schools that have the ability to implement the dietary guidelines before 1998 should do so. One organization that has been particularly closely involved in the development of these regulations is the American School Food Service Association [ASFSA]. ASFSA members are on the front lines of the effort to provide nutritious meals to school children. On July 19, 1995, the ASFSA executive board passed a resolution that emphasizes the organization's commitment to encouraging and assisting schools in the implementation of the dietary guidelines and that underscores ASFSA's view of the importance of USDA providing maximum flexibility for local food authorities in meeting the guidelines. I commend ASFSA's commitment to promoting timely implementation of the dietary guidelines and support their call for flexibility, as long as that flexibility serves the objectives outlined above. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the ASFSA executive board resolution be printed in the Record at this point.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, let me just respond. I think this is a very appropriate way to handle this process. We have done it before. We want to expedite to the extent we can to accommodate all Senators. It is not too much to ask to have these amendments offered. I will be as supportive as anyone in setting aside whatever business we have to accommodate Senators who want to have these amendments offered. I would like to know what amendments are out there. If we do not have them offered, we are not going to know what amendments are there. So it is very important I think that we try to accommodate the schedule. Let us lay down the amendments. We can agree to time limits later on. But this will give us a good indication of what we have left to do as anything I know. So I hope we can work with the managers and get the job done and determine what the schedule is after that.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I, too, would like to thank my distinguished colleagues for this clarification.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, under those restrictions using 1993 data, it is our understanding that Brookings, SD and Mitchell, SD would no longer be eligible for EAS subsidies because they are located more than 75 miles from the Sioux Falls airport. As my colleagues on the Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation know, under data compiled by the Department of Transportation in 1993, the Sioux Falls airport was determined to be a small hub.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, Senator Pressler and I understand the fiscal year 1996 transportation appropriations bill, as approved by the Appropriations Committee, limits EAS subsidies for those communities that, first, are located fewer than 75 highway miles from the nearest large, medium, or small hub airport; and, second, require a rate of subsidy per passenger in excess of $200, when that community is less than 200 miles from a large or medium hub.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, Senator Pressler and I would like to engage the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation, Senator Hatfield, and the distinguished ranking member of the subcommittee, Senator Lautenberg, in a colloquy on H.R. 2002, the [[Page S 12117]] fiscal year 1996 transportation appropriations bill and essential air service [EAS].