Bob Graham

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, it is my purpose today to reiterate my support as an original cosponsor of legislation introduced by Senator Helms, now the substitute amendment offered by Senator Dole, to the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act. I was the Senate sponsor in 1992 of the Cuban Democracy Act. This legislation reiterated the policy of the United States relative to the [[Page S 15101]] Castro regime in Cuba and emphasized that the United States had no ill feeling for the people of Cuba, in fact, that the United States citizens shared in the pain of the people of Cuba and desired to reach out to them in ways that would ease that pain while facilitating a transition from their authoritarian regime. The Cuban Democracy Act of 1992 was a continuation of the spirit of bipartisanship which has characterized United States policy toward Cuba since the emergence of the dictator, Fidel Castro. Through Democratic and Republican Presidents and Congresses we have had a consistent policy of political and economic isolation of the Castro regime. And particularly since the fall of the Soviet Union and the end of the significant subsidy which the Soviet Union had supplied to the Cuban regime, we have had a bipartisan policy of reaching out directly to the people of Cuba. The adoption of the Cuban Democracy Act of 1992 sent a clear and concerted message of common purpose with the people of Cuba. The Cuban Democracy Act helped force an economic crisis for Castro's government, a crisis which has reached the point that he has now begun to contemplate economic reforms. There is some evidence that he is beginning to ease some of the restrictions which he holds on the Cuban people. Unfortunately, it has not resulted in any movement toward liberalization of his political regime in terms of steps toward democratic government, nor has it resulted in any significant improvement in human rights. In fact, in areas such as the treatment of human rights activists, the treatment of journalists, in just the past few months, the Castro regime seems to have increased its attempts to control its people. This legislation that is before us today continues the two-track policy of restraint on the regime through the embargo, isolation, economically and politically, of the Castro regime and, on the second track, an effort to reach out to the Cuban people. This legislation strengthens the embargo and at the same time indicates our continued admiration and desire to see the day when freedom and democracy will be available to the Cuban people. This legislation increases the pressure on the Cuban Government by tightening the embargo. It prohibits the Cuban Government from profiting from confiscated property. This legislation has already deterred the flow of foreign capital to the Castro regime as investors who are anxious to enter into business partnerships with the Castro government have been closely monitoring this legislation awaiting action by the United States. For the Cuban people, this bill reaches out to demonstrate our common purpose. As an example, in the area of strengthening radio and television Marti, this legislation will facilitate the exchange of information from the United States to the Cuban people with the aim of fostering dialog and stimulating activism at the grassroots level. The Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act builds an apparatus for the peaceful transition of a post-Castro Cuba to a free, democratic society. By conditioning United States assistance to Cuba's commitment to change, this legislation helps prevent another dictator from ascending to power in Cuba. President Clinton's recent actions, actions of just last week, were consistent with the purposes of the Cuban Democracy Act and consistent with the purposes of the bill before us today. The President's actions followed on the two-track approach. It stepped up the enforcement of the embargo by strengthening the Office of Foreign Asset Control both here in Washington and, as the Cuban Democracy Act provided, the Office of Foreign Asset Control in Miami. These offices monitor and enforce the embargo. As part of the effort to foster democracy at the grassroots level, President Clinton has taken the following actions: He has allowed United States nongovernmental organizations, such as Freedom House, to work in Cuba to promote human rights and democratic actions; he has permitted transfer of communications equipment to Cuban nongovernmental organizations so that they will have an opportunity to communicate among themselves and with the rest of the free world, exchange of news bureaus, authorizing the issuance of licenses for United States news bureaus in Cuba; and permitted travel on a case-by-case basis for humanitarian, religious, and educational purposes. All of those initiatives are part of the effort to demonstrate to the Cuban people our common resolve. This legislation is a continuation of a consistent, bipartisan Cuban policy and a bold step toward the goal of a democratic, free Cuba. This vote is a measure of our resolve not to aid or abet the government of Fidel Castro. We are unwavering in our commitment to freedom and democracy in the Western Hemisphere. We are anxious for the day when this last holdout of authoritarianism within our own hemisphere is eliminated. Congress has a great opportunity to send a message, to send a message to Fidel Castro and to the rest of the world, that the United States stands firm in its conviction against totalitarian regimes. We all await with hope the day that a free and independent Cuba will have a normal and friendly relationship with the United States. Until that day, we must firmly let Fidel Castro know that we are not interested in contributing to his oppressive rule and remain vigilant to the threat that he poses. Thank you, Mr. President. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRAHAM

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

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the municipal leaders' communique which was produced at the Second Municipal Leaders Summit on Climate Change. It is important for our Nation to be made aware of the problems and progress in the climate research and air quality fields. I ask that this communique be printed in today's Record. The communique follows: Article 1--Local Authorities' Commitments to Climate Protection 1.1 We, the participants at the Second Municipal Leaders' Summit on Climate Change, urge local authorities, especially those in industrialized nations, who have not yet undertaken climate protection activities to: (a) endeavor to reduce CO2 emissions by at least 20% from 1990 levels by 2005; (b) develop a local action plan to reduce urban level emissions of greenhouse gases and protect carbon sinks, which could include protecting and establishing municipal forests, managing urban growth, establishing sustainable transportation modes, reducing the procurement of tropical wood, etc.; (c) set a target for emissions reduction appropriate to local municipal capacity and circumstances; (d) undertake to reduce energy use and greenhouse gas emissions in the municipality's own operations, including building, facilities, vehicle fleets, and employee travel; (e) undertake initiatives to change public attitudes and behavior to reduce energy consumption energy use; (f) promote the advancement of renewable energy sources: hydro-energy, solar energy, wind energy, geothermal energy, biogas, biomass, as the only sustainable alternative forms of energy, noting that existing nuclear technology is not an appropriate alternative to fossil fuels. Specific target dates for the above activities will be established by ICLEI's Cities for Climate Protection Campaign. 1.2 We urge local authorities in non-industrialised countries and countries in transition to strive to break the link between economic growth and energy consumption and, instead of imitating the path taken by industrialised nations, to take the wiser course and actively promote and give priority to renewable energy sources such as solar power and to newly emerging energy-efficient technologies. Energy efficiency will also enable the freeing up of financial resources for the economic and social development of these communities in a more sustainable manner. Article II--Communication to National Governments 2.1 We urge national governments and their utilities to accord local authorities [[Page S 14945]] greater powers, responsibilities and resources to enhance their capacity to reduce local energy use and thus reduce net greenhouse gas emissions. 2.2 We urge national governments to include local participation in the formulation of their national climate action plans and to enable local authorities by providing adequate training and financial resources, for example, by creating a dedicated fund to finance national and municipal climate protection efforts. 2.3 We urge national governments to give priority in their public infrastructure investments to local projects that reduce energy use, save money, improve air quality, create jobs, mitigate poverty, stimulate the local economy, and make communities more liveable. 2.4 We urge national governments to be innovative in their application of regulatory, tax, and other economic instruments to help adjust public and private sector behaviour in order to reduce fossil fuel consumption, protect and restore forests, and encourage the use of renewable energy sources. Article III--Communication to the Conference of Parties (a) recognition of local authorities as a distinct sector 3.1 For the critical purposes of implementing the Framework Convention on Climate Change, we urge the Conference of the Parties (COP) to recognise that local authorities around the world are strategic partners with national governments in climate protection by recognising that the municipal sector is distinct from other sectors. (b) local authority's input into the subsidiary bodies 3.2 We urge the COP to establish consultative processes within the Subsidiary Bodies, pursuant to Articles 9 and 10 of the Framework Convention, which permit and encourage local authorities as a sector to advise the Subsidiary Bodies with respect to scientific and technical matters, as well as to implementation of the Convention. 3.3 We urge the COP to endorse the establishment of a Local Authority Climate Assembly to facilitate municipal advice to the COP on scientific, technical, and implementation matters subject to Articles 9 and 10. 3.4 We urge the COP to include local authority representation on all general advisory committees established to advise the Subsidiary Bodies. (c) greenhouse gas reductions in annex 1 parties 3.5 We urge the COP to endorse and implement the ``Draft Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change on Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction,'' proposed by Trinidad and Tobago on behalf of the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS). Key provisions of the draft protocol propose that Annex 1 Parties shall: (a) Reduce their 1990 level of anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide by at least 20% by the year 2005. (b) Adopt specific targets and timetables to limit or reduce other greenhouse gases not controlled by the Montreal Protocol, including targets and timetables for methane, nitrous oxides and fluorocarbons. (c) Stimulate the use of green, renewable sources of energy. 3.6 We urge the COP to give due recognition to local authorities that undertake to reduce their emissions by 20% or more, by endorsing the goals of the Cities for Climate Protection Campaign, which is urging cities to adopt a 20% reduction target as a minimum, and by facilitating appropriate UN-sponsored recognition events and activities. (d) greenhouse gas reductions in non-annex 1 parties 3.7 We urge the COP and other UN agencies to recognise the important role that local authorities in both Annex 1 \1\ and non-Annex Parties can play in contributing to greenhouse-gas reduction through municipal policy exchanges, technology transfer, and promotion of new technologies. \1\ Australia, Austria, Belarus, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark, European Community, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russian Federation, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States of America. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3.8 We urge the COP and other UN agencies to facilitate this crucial partnership and help build local capacity for reducing greenhouse-gas emissions by ensuring that local authorities in developing countries and countries in transition have access to scientific findings, technology, programs and funding that will be available for the implementation of the goals set out in the Framework Convention on Climate Change--through their respective national governments where appropriate--with the aim of building local capacity in the area of methodologies and policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Second Municipal Leaders' Summit on Climate Change, Berlin, Germany, 29 March 1995.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, as a former Governor of Florida, where the tourism industry is the State's largest employer, I am amazed at the fact that an industry with such tremendous economic impact can continually be so under-appreciated and misunderstood. Travel and tourism is the second largest industry in the United States behind health care, employing more than 13 million Americans both directly and indirectly. Last year, foreign spending on U.S. travel accounted for 39 percent of all service exports and 9 percent of total U.S. exports resulting in a $22 billion trade surplus. The work of the administration gives our country international presence. USTTA plays an important role in helping States and the private sector to develop its international travel market, a part of a coordinated national marketing and economic strategy. State governments and private industry depend on USTTA research to assist them in marketing activities and spending decisions. In Florida, tourism represents a $33 billion a year industry, employing 750,000 residents. International visitors, who make up 20 percent of Florida tourists, also have a regional impact. Often, tourists first visiting the United States will travel to Florida or California. On subsequent visits, however, statistics show they are likely to travel throughout the region or the country. Yet while we are debating this issue today it is imporant to note that the National Governors Association at their 1995 summer meeting, adopted a resolution supporting the USTTA and their proposal to transition the agency into a public private partnership at the end of fiscal year 1996. The resolution states: The Governors believe that a strong public private partnership is essential to promote tourism abroad and increase visitation to the United States. The Governors also believe that in a number of areas, the federal government bears responsibility for functions that can ensure benefits for state and national economies and international visitors. This resolution like the Bryan-Burns amendment has bipartisan support because in the final analysis international tourism promotion is an investment in economic development and job creation. The United States cannot afford to be the only one of 157 developed nations without an official National Tourism Office. Additionally, the first ever White House Conference on Travel and Tourism will bring together the recommendations of over 15,000 travel and tourism representatives from the 55 States and territories. One of the key recommendations to be announced is the strong support for a national tourism office that will serve as a catalyst for implementing a national tourism strategy for the 21st century. Please join me in supporting the Bryan-Burns amendment which provides one additional year of funding at the $12 million level to allow the agency to transition itself in a businesslike and professional manner while implementing the recommendations of the first ever White House Conference of Travel and Tourism.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, as we enter into the debate as to whether we should convert yet another Federal program into a block grant, it would behoove us to consider fully the wise comments of our former colleague, Gov. Lawton Chiles. I ask unanimous consent that the following letter from Governor Chiles, which questions the wisdom of transforming the Legal Services Corporation into a block grant, be printed in the Congressional Record.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I stand along side my colleague, Mr. Mack, in calling this Congress to take action in providing long promised and much needed medical services to Florida veterans. While Congress squabbled over the location of the facility, our veterans continued to wait. Finally, with the issue of location resolved, the President's fiscal year 1996 budget request included this facility, and veterans thought they saw the light at the end of the tunnel. We were extremely disappointed to say the least when that request was ignored by the House VA/HUD Subcommittee.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I concur with my colleague from Florida regarding downgrading the request for funding a comprehensive hospital to an outpatient clinic and long-term nursing care facility. This proposal is to construct a nursing home care facility and outpatient clinic on the site contributed for the East Central Florida Medical Center to provide specialized care which is not currently available. A 120-bed nursing home care unit will have, in addition to regular nursing home care, the capacity to provide psychogeriatric care-- including that for Alzheimer's patients--and ventilator-dependent care. The ambulatory care clinic will be available to serve all veterans in the area. Approximately 30,000 patient visits per year will be accommodated. The total cost would be $35 million. We have existing funds of $17.2 million which was appropriated in fiscal year 1995 for the design and planning of the VA medical facility. We would like to use those funds toward the design and construction of the alternative proposal. In the near future, we would request that Congress provide the balance of $17.8 million to complete the project. This proposal is more than a Band-aid to the problem and is surely a more reasonable request for our veterans to make of this Congress.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. This laboratory is truly a partnership between Florida State University, the University of Florida and the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico. It is clearly a Federal/state/industrial partnership that works well and produces tremendous breakthoughs. Furthermore, industrial involvement and support is paving the way for future progress.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, the space program is an investment in our Nation's future. A commitment to continued space exploration means a commitment to providing for the prosperity and wealth of future generations. No one can predict the exact outcome of our investment in the international space station, but I believe that the continued exploration of space will present many positive opportunities. First, the space program will provide significant contributions to the well-being of mankind, both in America and around the world. We have already seen the results of space-related research in life sciences, and the potential for expansion and further development is virtually limitless. Second, we must consider our Nation's leadership role in high- technology activities and international competitiveness. The areospace industry is a significant area of international competitiveness, and we should support our space program if we desire to maintain and enhance our position as a world leader in space science and exploration. Third, the case today for such activities is even more compelling as we work on space projects in a collaborative and multinational manner, especially with the Europeans, Japanese, and Russians. International participation in the program contributes to increased cooperation and stability with participating partners, and the space station can be a constructive and tangible example of international cooperation at a new and more exciting level. We have the opportunity to accelerate the pace of our technological and space exploration as well as the strength of our good relations with our friendly competitors. Mr. President, I believe that these are compelling reasons for the continued support of space exploration. The international space station is an integral part of our space program. We must invest in our future, and we must invest in ourselves.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I share the concerns of the Senator from North Dakota. I, too, am concerned about the ability of State to receive needed assistance from the contingency fund in the event of a recession or some other economic, demographic or natural calamity. I am very interested in the potential for exploring other trigger options in conference.

Mr. GRAHAM. Today, we will vote on final passage of S. 1120, the so- called Work Opportunity Act of 1995, better known as welfare reform. During the robust Senate debate on welfare reform, I have been a critic and a skeptic about the fundamental fairness and the workability of the legislation advanced by our majority leader, Senator Dole. I have also watched this bill improve with time, and I remain hopeful that progress will continue through the conference process. I remain hopeful because I have an abiding, underlying interest in achieving genuine welfare reform because I know the current system does not work. The incentives in the current system are in all of the wrong places and trap individuals into welfare dependency. For so many Floridians on welfare, it pays to stay there instead of to work. Why? Because without day care you can not train to get a job that pays a living wage. Without transitional, subsidized day care it is difficult to make ends meet when you first go back to work. And, finally, without some form of health insurance, a sick child in the house, is reason enough to stay at home and to stay on welfare. That is the failed system that we have today in America. That is what we seek to discard today. But we must make sure that the new system we are contemplating today is not a patchwork of slogans and wishful thinking, but instead a meaningful attempt to provide temporary assistance to families in need until they can return to the work force quickly. Mr. President, you cannot just wish away the children on welfare while you deal with the adults who receive the welfare checks. We must remind ourselves that children comprise almost 70 percent of the number of welfare beneficiaries. It is for the children that the old system was built, and in so many cases that system has failed them. As we construct a new system, we must look at the real needs of the children: quality and available child care is a critical need. I spoke earlier of the recent efforts which have been made to improve S. 1120. I would be remiss if I did not commend the leadership on both sides of the aisle, and also Senator Dodd who helped lead the charge, for the improvements in the child care provisions from the original bill. The additional $3 billion in funds for child care represents meaningful progress in the movement toward true welfare reform. We know very well from our experiences in Florida that you can not get a mother back to work if her children have no place to go during the work day. The old system forced a woman to choose between her children and work, and an enhanced Federal investment in subsidized child care can allow her to address both concerns. That is what the $3 billion Federal investment is intended to buy. But before we celebrate these advances in the funding levels for child care, we need to look at the cold realities facing the families who comprise the so-called working poor. Today in Florida, there is a waiting list of 25,000 children who are seeking subsidized day care. This number is not even representative of the actual unmet need when those who do not bother to add their names to this gargantuan list are considered. Because Florida has taken steps the last several years to invest more dollars into its child care system, the amount of Federal dollars that will go to Florida due to the additional $3 billion in this bill, will barely maintain Florida where it is today. This new money will actually only assist Florida to the point that it does not have to cut back on its subsidized day care program. Today Florida is investing in child care well beyond the 1994 spending base upon which S. 1120 is predicated. Further, I think every Member of the Senate should pause and contemplate the effect the new work requirements will have on the availability of subsidized child care for the working poor. In Florida, of the total child care pie, about half of it goes to the children of the working poor, primarily through the child care development block grant and the social services block grant programs. S. 1120 imposes a requirement that 25 percent of all welfare recipients must be working in the first year, and 50 percent by the year 2000. Therefore, the States will be under extreme pressure to move all eligible welfare families to the front of the line for day care, at the expense of the working poor families presently enrolled. The numbers speak for themselves, and currently Florida is barely half way toward that goal of 25 percent employment. As the conferees wrestle with the issues of maintenance of effort, work requirements and State flexibility, they need to focus on this important child care trade-off. This is not the time for shell games, moving some people off welfare and into work, while forcing others on welfare because we have withdrawn child care help from them. For a working poor family trying to make ends meet, the approximately $300 a month per child in day care in Florida can be a budget buster. Mr. President, I want welfare reform. The people of Florida want welfare reform. The people of America want welfare reform. For that reason, I am voting for this bill, with reservations. I am voting for this bill to keep this legislative process alive, with the hope that the bill will be improved when we vote on the conference report. I would rather support this bill and keep this process moving, than vote no and kill any chance of welfare reform this year. With that premise stated, I want to outline two key reservations about this bill: First, The fundamental inequity of distributing resources under the proposed block grants to States. Under this legislation, we would divide Federal resources based on spending patterns in 1994. This arbitrary method would lock in current inequities, would disadvantage growth States, would be difficult to change once its in place, and would set a troubling precedent for our upcoming decisions on Medicaid. In the past, the Federal welfare allocation to States has varied from State to State due to the local match incentive. If a State put more funds into the welfare system, it got more funds from Washington. By using 1994 as the baseline for future allocations, we would perpetuate wide disparities among States. On a per-child basis, some States would receive five or six times the amount received by less- affluent States. These stark disparities raise fundamental questions of fairness which I am hopeful the conference committee will address. Second, My second reservation about this bill deals with its unfair treatment of legal immigrants. Mr. President, most people of this Nation trace their heritage to somewhere else. My family came here from Scotland. This Nation has benefited from a long tradition of legal immigration. Let me repeat: Legal immigration. We set out rules and expectations for legal immigrants to become citizens. Under this bill, we are saying to legal immigrants who have followed the rules that we are going to change the rules, retroactively, on their way to citizenship. Again, this raises fundamental questions of fairness. Denying benefits to legal immigrants would unfairly impact certain communities in this Nation that have attracted a large number of newcomers. I will leave for another day the discussion over how Florida currently picks up the Federal tab for illegal immigration, to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars each year. Permit me to focus on the dollars that are spent today for legal immigrants. In Florida in November, 1994, there were 34,224 legal immigrants on the welfare rolls, and 149,732 on the food stamp rolls. The estimated annual costs associated with these groups are $39 million and $133.5 million, respectively. In addition, Medicaid costs for legal immigrants in Florida in 1994 was greater than either AFDC or food stamps. This represents a substantial sum of money which Florida spends and which Florida might be asked to absorb under certain versions of this welfare reform legislation. This is a significant issue which must be addressed in conference. Furthermore, changing the rules for legal immigrants would be unfair to the newest Americans. I am particularly concerned about access to education. One of the great principles of America, that has bound us together as a diverse people and provided a foundation for the American Dream, is access to education. I implore my colleagues to consider the impact of this legislation on students. At Miami-Dade Community College, an estimated 8,000 students could lose financial aid. Is that the type of message we want to send to tomorrow's citizens, that the door to education is closed to you in the name of welfare reform? I am hopeful that the House-Senate conference can work to remedy this inequity in the overall bill. In part, I base my hope on public comments made by Majority Leader Bob Dole, who visited Florida last weekend. Senator Dole said he would prefer more flexibility on the issue of providing benefits to legal immigrants. The Gainesville Sun, on Sunday September 17, reported Senator Dole's views as follows: Dole later said he supported giving some benefits to legal immigrants and said the amendment would be reviewed when the welfare package goes to conference committee. I am pleased that the majority leader has not closed the door on changes to the portion of this bill that deals with treatment of legal immigrants. I look forward to reviewing the product of the conference committee with the hope that my concerns about fairness will be addressed.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I would like to reserve that to close.

Mr. GRAHAM. This amendment keeps the status quo, particularly as it relates to students who are using Federal programs, such as the guaranteed student loan to continue their education. The Senator from Wyoming talks about holding sponsors responsible. If we had been able to hold sponsors responsible, we would not have to have the change in the law that is contained in the underlying amendment. The fact is that we have a policy which has been to set a period of time within which we would deem the sponsors' income. We are now about to change that in a prospective manner. Our previous policies relative to changing immigration law as it relates to legal immigrants have always been to do it for the future, not to change the rules of the game for those people who are here in America today. I believe this goes to two fundamental principles. One is we play by the rules of the game as those rules were set when the game begins. If you change the rules, you do it for the next game. Second, we want to encourage these people to get an education so that they can become, to the maximum possible extent, participants in the American dream, participants in building their families, communities, and this Nation. I urge the adoption of this amendment. [[Page S 13639]]

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Pryor be added as a cosponsor of this amendment.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, could I ask one question of either the Senator from Pennsylvania or the Senator from Colorado. Would they please read the last page of the amendment.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I must say that I range between being somewhat offended by that description or concerned about our colleague's ability to read the English language because that is not what this does. The amendment retains the participation levels as stated in the bill. Then it directs the Secretary of HHS to make such adjustments in the rate. That is, a State, instead of being asked to meet a 50-percent standard, may be asked to meet a 55-percent standard, if it is one that is receiving a substantial amount of funds above the national average, as happens to be the case with the State of our colleague who just spoke, or it might be something less than 50 percent if you are getting substantially less than the national average in terms of Federal resources. It just seems to me patently unfair to start 50 States in such different positions in terms of their Federal resources per poor child and then say but at the end of the day they all have to get to the same end position. We retain the mandatory provision. We retain all of the requirements to work. I am proud to come from a State which has one of the demonstration projects which has already gotten in the first few months of operation almost 10 percent of its welfare beneficiaries in jobs, and it is moving toward the goal of having 50 percent of its welfare beneficiaries to work. I support that as an important principle, but I also recognize there are resources required to reach those objectives, and if you have made a decision that we are going to allocate resources in a differential manner, then I think fairness says we have to look at what will constitute success in a differential manner. Failure to do so is just going to mean that those who start poor are going to not only end poor but they are going to be beaten around the head and neck with penalties and sanctions because they have failed to achieve unrealistic objectives given the resources that were provided.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, the structure of this bill establishes objectives that States are to meet, particularly in the area of placement of people in work, 25 percent in 1996 rising to 50 percent in the year 2000. Those are laudable objectives. There are also some very serious sanctions against States that do not meet those objectives. A State is subject, for instance, to losing 5 percent of its Federal grant if in any year it fails to meet the standard that has been set. What is the problem? The problem is that we are distributing to States wildly different amounts of Federal resources in which to meet those consistent objectives. We are telling, for instance, the State of Mississippi that it will have to use 88 percent of its Federal money in order to meet the mandates of this bill. Other States will be able to meet the mandates for less than 35 percent of the Federal money that will be made available. That seems inherently unfair, to have 50 States, each of which has a much different position at the starting line in terms of the kind of support they are going to meet but then say that each one has to get to the finish line at exactly the same point and, if they fail to do so, be subject to significant financial personality. What this amendment says is that the Secretary of HHS should look at the national standards and make adjustments based on the amount of Federal support that each State will receive and the number of minor children in poverty in that State, so that if we are going to have the starting line different from State to State we at least ought to have the finish line adjusted to those States' realistic capabilities. If we do not do this, I can tell you without question there are going to be substantial numbers of States that will be almost subject to automatic penalty. There will be virtually no chance that they can reach the same finish line, the same standard, for instance, of job placement, with the heavy commitments that that means in terms of training, support services, and child care, as the more advantaged States. It is a simple, straightforward amendment of fairness. I urge its adoption.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, as my colleague has just explained, the basic thrust of this amendment is to maintain the status quo and the rules of the game under which those people who are currently in the country as legal immigrants, playing by the rules as they were at the time they entered the country, particularly as it relates to [[Page S 13638]] that group of legal immigrants who are attending educational institutions and depend upon their access to things like guaranteed loans to be able to finance their education. There has been some discussion of possibly limiting the scope of this amendment to be more specifically focused on that one issue. As of this point, there does not appear to be interest in that limitation. But I will state to my colleagues that that is an extremely important part of what this legislation would do. It really means the ability for thousands of students across the country to be able to continue their education and continue their pursuit of the American dream--coming to America, getting an education, becoming a fully self-supporting citizen. I yield to my colleague.

Mr. GRAHAM. I guess the Senator will not understand it then.

Mr. GRAHAM. How much time remains, Mr. President?

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. If that is the law, why do we need to change it? The statement that you have is that there are set periods of time in which a sponsor's resources are deemed to be part of the sponsor-legal immigrant's economic status. Those have been the law. If you are saying those were meaningless, in fact the 3-year periods we used to have in the past were inapplicable then, why do we need to change the law now?

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, in order to protect our interest, I would like to ask for the yeas and nays on this amendment, indicating that if we can arrive at an amiable resolution of this, I would be prepared tomorrow to ask to vitiate the yeas and nays.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I do not wish to belabor this issue, because it is really an offshoot issue we debated at some length yesterday and the day before yesterday which related to the fact that there are very extreme differences in the amount of Federal resources that the 50 States will receive under this legislation. I introduced two amendments in an attempt to deal with that disparity. One of those amendments has been accepted and will be included in the managers amendment. That was what I called the ``embarrassment'' amendment. In this bill, there is a provision which states that there will be a periodic or annual evaluation of how the individual States are performing under this bill, how well they are doing in terms of achieving its objectives, particularly in getting people off of welfare and into work. I would compare that standard to a series of football teams, some of whom are made up of professionals and others are junior high school players, because that is about the way in which the 50 States are being equipped to carry out these responsibilities. In the case of the assistant majority leader, his State is going to have to spend 88 percent of all of its Federal money just to meet the mandates in this bill. There are other States that can meet the mandates with less than 40 percent of the Federal money. So the first amendment, which, as I indicated, has been accepted for inclusion in a managers' amendment, will simply say that when we go through this embarrassment test of how well you have done, part of that evaluation will be: How many resources did the State have? We are not going to ask the State that has one-tenth the resources of another to necessarily perform at the same level. We are not going to subject that State to the ridicule of its inability to reach the same level of accomplishment. This is another amendment in the same spirit. We have in this bill a series of national work participation rates. For instance, for a family receiving assistance under this, where there [[Page S 13610]] is a single adult in the family, we are expecting 25 percent participation in 1996, up to 50 percent participation by the year 2000. Again, I think it is unrealistic and unfair to expect the same standard of achievement for all States, given the fact that the resources available are unequal. So I provide in this amendment that the Secretary of Health and Human Services, after consultation with the States, shall establish specific work participation rate goals for each State, adjusting the national participation rate goals to reflect the level of Federal funds the State is receiving under this program and the average number of minor children in the families having income below the poverty line for that particular State. This will mean that we will set the goalposts consistent with how much money we are prepared to make available to that State. Those States that are going to be richly endowed under this program will have a long goalpost to meet. Those that are more limited in their participation will have a less demanding standard. That seems to me to be imminently fair and reasonable in terms of what we are going to be providing to the States to accomplish the objectives of this act. Mr. President, that is the amendment. I urge its adoption. I think it will be an amendment that the Senators who are on the floor today, who represent some of that diversity, would be very receptive to, and possibly even willing to accept. Thank you, Mr. President.

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

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2568. It is one of the amendments under the unanimous consent agreement.