Tom Harkin

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, John Chrystal, an outstanding Iowan, is one of only two Americans to be awarded the Order of Friendship, the highest honor that the Government of Russia can bestow on a noncitizen. This award, which was given at the behest of Russian President Boris Yeltsin, was presented at a ceremony in Des Moines, IA, by the Russian Ambassador to the United States, Yuli M. Vorontsov. It has been my privilege to have John as a close personal friend for many years, and I am extremely proud of his achievement in receiving this high and well-deserved honor. Under Russian law, the Order of Friendship, which was established in 1994 by President Yeltsin, ``is awarded to persons for significant contribution to strengthening friendship and cooperation between nations and nationalities, for helping the development of the Russian economy, for especially fruitful activities in scientific development, for bringing together and mutually enriching the cultures of nations and nationalities, and for strengthening peace and friendship between nations.'' John was honored for all of these reasons and in recognition of his 70th birthday, which was December 11 of last year. John has had a long and distinguished career as a farmer and banker, and is recognized as a leading expert on agricultural, trade and economic matters involving the former Soviet Union. He has long worked to improve trade relations between our nation and the countries of the former Soviet Union and to help those countries modernize and restructure their agriculture and food systems. As a farmer himself, John has real credibility when he talks with farmers in Russia, Ukraine or one of the other countries of the NIS. John has traveled to Russia, Ukraine, Georgia, and other nations of the former Soviet Union some 50 to 60 times since 1959, representing our State of Iowa and our Nation as a private-citizen ambassador of good will and understanding. In addition, he has been remarkably generous in hosting many exchanges and delegations from those countries to our Nation and our State of Iowa. John has known personally all of the recent leaders of the Soviet Union and Russia and is well known among farmers and policy makers in the countries of the former Soviet Union. We Iowans are tremendously proud of all the good work that John Chrystal has done over the years to help improve food and agriculture systems in the former Soviet Union and to foster stronger ties and a deeper level of understanding among our peoples. Mr. President, I ask that a number of articles pertaining to the awarding of the Order of Friendship to John Chrystal be printed in the Record. The article follows: [From the Carroll, IA, Daily Times Herald, June 24, 1996] Chrystal Earns High Russian Honor (By Butch Heman) John Chrystal jokes that dozens of times he's gone to Russia, ``one of the few major nations in the world that we've never had a war with,'' and apparently hasn't angered anybody there yet. Russia honored the rural Coon Rapids man today with its highest honor bestowed on a foreigner: the Order of Friendship. Russia's ambassador to the United States, Yuli Vorontsov, presented the award during a ceremony at The Des Moines Club in Des Moines. President Boris Yelstin established the Order of Friendship in 1994. It is warded to persons for significant contributions toward ``strengthening friendship and cooperation between nations and nationalities, for helping the development of the Russian economy, for especially fruitful activities in scientific development, for bringing together and mutually enriching the cultures of nations and nationalities, and for strengthening the peace and friendship between nations.'' The Russian Embassy in Washington, D.C., said Chrystal was being honored for activities in all those areas, according to a press release. The other American to receive it was astronaut Norman Thagard, the first U.S. citizen to live aboard the Russian space station Mir. Chrystal, who has been visiting Russia, the Ukraine, Georgia and other parts of the former Soviet Union for 36 years, was chosen for the award at the urging of Yeltsin. Since 1959 he has been helping those countries modernize farming and agriculture infrastructure. Chrystal has known all Russian leaders--from Nikita Khrushchev through Yeltsin--and most of their agricultural ministers. ``I've traveled from the Baltic States to Vladivostok, from the permafrost to palm trees. I'm more widely traveled in Russia than I am in the U.S.,'' he said with a chuckle. He observed the evolution from collective state-owned farms to ``a modern attempt at democracy that has not yet been achieved.'' Chrystal teasingly says he's done more criticizing of Russian agriculture than assisting. ``I've always been anxious to better our relations with Russia because I think it can become an economic partner with the U.S.,'' he said. Russia is not a third world nation by any means. Chrystal said, describing it as a place with vast natural resources and a very well-educated populace that survived 1,000 years of autocracy under the czars and communism. The country has some grave faults, mainly no management of culture by competitive ideas and no cash, he said. ``And they are having a social, political and economic revolution simultaneously and without blood, which is certainly one of the first times in the history of the world,'' Chrystal said. A big problem for Russia is that change has to happen quickly, he said. ``When I was growing up on the farm we had a two-row planter, and when the neighbor had a four-row planter, boy that was a big deal and we had to have one too,'' Chrystal said. ``Imagine these 44-row planters we have today and a satellite that tells you when to increase fertilizer. It's the beginning of a new era, and the Russians are going to have to run faster if they want to be in the same place. It's a really difficult but exciting time for them.'' ``I suppose it will be another decade or generation before they achieve the goals that I hold dear, but I have no doubt they'll achieve them.'' Chrystal said that despite the fall of communism, less stability exists in the region. Communism, although a government by edict, maintained control, he said. ``That's not to say this isn't a much better situation,'' he said, noting that while the Soviet Union might be dead but economic relationships among its former members exist. America has an opportunity to form friendly relations with the newly independent countries, and Iowa, because of its agriculture, has a special chance, Chrystal said. His goals are to have the federal government encourage American business to form joint ventures with Russian firms. Chrystal already services on the Overseas Private Investment Corp., a government agency that helps developing nations. ``I think our foreign aid ought to be practical rather than theoretical,'' he said. ``Countries that are hard-up think less about democracy than they do about tomorrow.'' Chrystal recently spoke about agribusiness at a seminar in Moscow. ``I detect already a substantial change in attitude,'' he said. ``. . . The tone of the participants was something new. They were talking about competition, efficiencies, cropping and ventures that were either new or in cooperation with various aspects of the economy.'' Even through he's visited exotic locales and rubbed elbows with international dignitaries, Chrystal says he gets the most happiness out of what he sees right here in Carroll County. ``I think the most successful thing I've done is seeing farmers in Carroll County entertain Soviets, Russians and Ukrainians. The hosts have fallen in love with these people and even traveled to their homes. That's really thrilling to see Americans develop great relationships with them,'' He said. The 70-year-old Chrystal is a native of Coon Rapids. Chairman of Iowa Savings Bank of Coon Rapids and Carroll and a director at several rural Iowa banks as well as Bankers Trust Co. of Des Moines. Chrystal was president of Bankers Trust from 1984-86. For many years he was a grain and cattle farmer and is still a partner in his family's farm operation. Chrystal is a former state banking superintendent, former member of the Iowa Board of Regents and former president of the Iowa Bankers Association and the Iowa Civil Liberties Union. He is also a trustee of Grinnel College and a director of F.M. Hubbell and Sons Co. ``I really don't know how I was chosen for this award, but I'm very honored and I certainly haven't expected it,'' her remarked. ``I was always afraid I'd make the Russians mad, but obviously I haven't,'' he added with a laugh. ``And who would've though a fella from Coon Rapids would get to know all these Russian leaders?'' Among the other recipients of the Russian Order of Friendship is South Africa President Nelson Mandela. Chrystal said some of the Russian officials attending today's ceremony would be staying in Iowa for several days and he hopes to bring some to a Carroll Chamber of Commerce reception Friday night at Iowa Savings Bank in Carroll.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I rise as cosponsor of America's Agricultural Heritage Partnership Act of 1996. This bill would establish America's Agricultural Heritage Partnership in northeast Iowa in order to promote the story of agriculture in our Nation's rich history. A few years ago, leaders from Waterloo and other communities in northeast Iowa developed an initiative called Silos and Smokestacks. Silos and Smokestacks is a private organization that has worked to remodel and renovate old, and often abandoned, buildings in Waterloo. This effort is a wonderful example of communities and concerned citizens working together to preserve a unique part of American history. The hard work by Silos and Smokestacks has provided the foundation for a unique heritage park that would combine the stories of our Nation's agricultural and industrial development. In the past, the focus of the National Park Service has been to create and administer the so-called natural areas, commonly known as our National Park System. A heritage park involves local, State, Federal, and private interests in recognizing and preserving sites of cultural and historical significance. Heritage areas are something like a large interactive museum in which people have the opportunity to gain firsthand knowledge of an important facet of our Nation's history. The National Park Service has determined that northeast Iowa is an ideal location for a heritage park. This park would tell the nationally significant, but often overlooked, story of American agriculture. Northeast Iowa combines the rich histories of our Nation's farming and industrial sectors. In the area surrounding Waterloo one will find some of the most productive and fertile land in the Nation. Boasting the production lines of John Deere and other farm equipment manufacturers and some of the largest meatpacking operations in the Midwest, the city of Waterloo represents our Nation's industrial strength. Taken together, this area represents nearly every aspect of agricultural and food production. The National Park Service has suggested that four principal topics of the heritage area could include: the amazing science of agriculture, agriculture as a way of life, organizing for survival, and crops from the field to the table. The legislation introduced today would authorize the Secretary of Agriculture to make grants and provide technical and management assistance to those entities developing the introductory heritage park. This assistance would be the critical impetus to see this unique project through to completion. A heritage project in northeast Iowa would provide countless Americans with a valuable insight into one of the most fascinating, and important, aspects of American society.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. The Senator from Vermont is correct. In addition to our discussion about title III, I would like to speak about my deep concern regarding the overall cuts in funding for the Public Law 480 Food for Peace Program in recent years. These cuts, combined with higher commodity prices and the virtual disappearance of surplus commodities, have caused a dramatic reduction in the volume of U.S. food aid. Since fiscal year 1993, total food aid provided by the United States has dropped by about two-thirds--from 8 million metric tons to about 2.8 million metric tons this fiscal year. The United States has been generous in providing food aid. Since its inception in 1954, our Food for Peace Program has delivered over 372 million metric tons of food to needy countries--and Americans sincerely want to help alleviate world hunger. We also realize that Public Law 480 assistance works to our own benefit. It is a win-win proposition for our farmers and agricultural businesses. In the short term, purchases for Public Law 480 shipments strengthen markets for U.S. commodities. Over the long term, Public Law 480 helps develop world markets for U.S. agricultural exports. Forty-three nations that once received U.S. foreign aid are now among the top consumers of U.S. agricultural products. It is very unfortunate that these cuts in Public Law 480 are occurring at a time when world food aid needs are growing dramatically. These needs are expected to double by 2002 according to a report by USDA's Economic Research Service issued in October 1995. Regrettably, as U.S. food aid tonnages have dropped, so have those of other donor nations, resulting in only about 6 million metric tons of food aid annually to meet need amounting to some 27 million metric tons of food. Over 800 million people on Earth are now chronically undernourished. The people hardest hit are young children and pregnant and lactating mothers who are deprived of adequate nutrition at the most critical times in their lives because of abject poverty and horrible living conditions. They suffer from frequent illness, poor growth and development, lack of productivity, and early death.

Mr. HARKIN. We have discussed the importance of title III in targeting countries with low incomes, high infant mortality, and low caloric intakes. Title II is similarly focused on addressing the critical needs of the hungry and malnourished. Title II saves lives through emergency assistance and improves health, incomes, and living conditions through development programs conducted by private voluntary organizations. It is particularly important that title II have enough resources so that emergency food aid demands do not consume resources that would otherwise be available for the development component of title II carried out by PVOs. Eroding these development programs--which are critical to alleviating poverty and hunger over the long term--to meet overriding emergency demands is surely a stark example of eating one's seed corn. By contrast, the title I market development program serves a completely different population. Title I is important to U.S. agriculture and to foreign market development--and I am concerned about the funding cuts it has suffered--but I also believe that we must seek a reasonable balance among the three titles in light of pressing human needs. Given the growing need for food aid and the reductions in Public Law 480 funding, I encourage the administration to make full use of its authority to focus the limited Public Law 480 funds on meeting the priority needs of the poorest and most food-deficient countries.

Mr. HARKIN. I thank the distinguished Senator from Vermont for raising this issue. His work on food aid issues has been unsurpassed. It was under his leadership as chairman of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry in 1990 and as ranking member during the 1996 farm bill, that the Public Law 480 Food for Peace program continues to benefit the world's starving and undernourished people. I share the concerns of the Senator from Vermont regarding the funding level for the title III Food Aid Program adopted in conference. It would have been much better, in my view, to have retained the Senate level of funding for title III. Title III is an important tool in combating the long-term obstacles to food security, yet it has been cut significantly over the past several years. The title III fiscal year 1995 funding level was down by well over 50 percent from fiscal year 1994, and the number of countries receiving title III food aid dropped from 13 in fiscal year 1994 to 7 in fiscal year 1995. Title III serves the poorest and most food-deficient countries. In times of shrinking budgets, it is especially important that in using the available funds priority be given to addressing the most pressing needs. Unfortunately, the $40 million contained in the President's budget and in the Senate bill already represented a substantial cut in title III funding, as compared to $50 million in fiscal year 1996, $117.4 million in fiscal year 1995, $255.1 in fiscal year 1994, and $333.6 million in fiscal year 1993. So I believe that at a minimum the title III funding should have been maintained at the $40 million level in the President's budget and the Senate bill.

Mr. HARKIN. The Senator from Vermont is certainly correct in his comments about the title III program. The focus of title III is on structural, policy reforms and activities that directly affect or improve food production and consumption, including nutrition. Helping the poorest, most food-deficient countries address these issues will help them see their way to food security. Reforms achieved through title III are an important tool in a longer term strategy for poorer developing countries.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, this amendment would simply continue a small program that provides assistance to help start and expand school breakfast and summer food programs for low-income kids. This is directly related to education. When these kids come in to school, they can have breakfast in the morning; they can receive meals in the summer when school is out--but only if there is a school breakfast or summer food program locally. That is why the start-up and expansion grants are so important. Also, I want to say that this amendment does not prevent the nutrition portion of this bill from meeting the 6-year budget instruction. The Ag Committee's portion of the bill reduces spending by $570 million more than its instruction. This program will spend only $39 million for grants over 6 years, but it is a vitally important program. This amendment is supported by the American School Food Service Association, the Food Research and Action Center, and the Children's Defense Fund. I ask you not to cut a program that gets kids into school and gets them learning. It is directly related to education, and we do not have to cut other programs to continue this one because the Ag Committee has more than enough money to pay for it.

Mr. HARKIN. Yes.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, all I can say is: Remember the $600 toilet seat and the $500 hammers that had taxpayers up in arms during the mid-1980's. Today's subsidized mergers are going to make them look like bargains. That is not my quote. That is a quote of Lawrence Korb, President Reagan's Under Secretary of Defense. In 1993, DOD changed its policy to allow payments to defense contractors for the costs of mergers and acquisitions. The GAO and inspector general have both recently issued reports that seriously question DOD's purported savings. This amendment simply puts a 1-year hold on merger costs while the GAO, the IG, and OMB put together a mechanism to make sure that future payments actually result in savings. It does not affect Government assistance to laid-off workers. It does not prohibit payment of any merger costs which DOD is contractually obligated to pay in the fiscal year 1997.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.

Mr. HARKIN. Let me rephrase that request. I ask unanimous-consent that this amendment, if it is not accepted, be put over to a vote until Tuesday so that Senator Coats might speak on it.

Mr. HARKIN. As I understand it, tomorrow morning at 9 votes will start. After those stacked votes, there will be no more votes after that.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I still hope the amendment will be accepted after it is looked at. I do want to thank Senator Coats for his help in crafting this amendment and making changes to it. Again, I still hope it will be accepted. As I said, something similar to it was adopted unanimously on the bill we put through last fall.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I have a second amendment. It will not take very long. Amendment No. 4916 (Purpose: To strike amendments to child nutrition requirements)

Mr. HARKIN. I thank the majority leader.

Mr. HARKIN. Just a small followup. I do not always agree with the President of the United States. These start-up and expansion grants stand on their own merits, without regard to what is contained in the President's or any other welfare reform proposal. As the Senator from Pennsylvania says, this is kind of a modest program. But we did in 1994, as I said, make it permanent and modify it to include summer food start-up and expansion. We got the first of the new grants out last year. It is a modest program. It is not a big, overwhelming program. But it allows really the poorest schools to get the seed money. As I said, it is a one-time infusion of money. Let us say they have some sites they want to deliver meals to. They have a central kitchen and they want to delivery some meals to other sites. Maybe they do not have a vehicle to do it. Well, this program would help them get the vehicle that will be able to deliver those meals to other sites, let us say, around the area. So it is a one-time cost that will enable them to go ahead and have a breakfast program or a summer food program. It is needed. You say, well, it is a modest program. I suppose if it was big, they would argue it is too big. But it is a modest program and it is needed. Right now, I say to my friend from Pennsylvania, that in the ag function we have over $500 million in excess spending reductions beyond the levels required by the budget resolution. CBO estimates that eliminating this program will reduce spending over 6 years by $112 million. So there is plenty of excess savings in the Agriculture Committee's portion of this bill to cover this amendment. I hope that we will correct this bill to allow these very important start-up and expansion grants for school breakfast and summer food programs to continue. Thank you very much.

Mr. HARKIN. Will the majority leader yield?

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, when individuals are hired for a job they are handed a job description, a job description which outlines their responsibilities so on day one they know what is expected in order to earn a paycheck. However, when individuals go into a welfare office to sign up for benefits, they fill out an application and then the Government sends them a check. There is no job description, nothing is expected on day one. The individual goes home and collects a check. I believe that is wrong. It saps an individual's self-esteem and makes a family dependent. We must fundamentally change the way we think about welfare. We should be guided by common sense and build a system based on a foundation of responsibility. If you want a check, you must earn it and you must follow the job description. We need to stop looking at welfare as a Government giveaway program. Instead, welfare should be a contract, demanding mutual responsibility between the Government and the individual receiving the benefits. The contract should outline the steps a recipient will take to become self-sufficient, and also a date certain by which benefits will end. Responsibility should begin on day one, and benefits should be conditioned on compliance with the terms of the contract. Essentially, the contract would outline the responsibilities for an individual, just like a job description outlines a worker's duties. It builds greater accountability in the welfare system and sends the clear message that welfare as usual is no more. A binding contract of this nature makes common sense, and it works. Here is how I know. The Family Investment Agreement, or contract, is the centerpiece of Iowa's innovative welfare reform program. The agreement or the contract is negotiated between individual recipients and their case workers. Failure to negotiate and sign a Family Investment Agreement or to refuse to follow its terms results in elimination of welfare benefits. I meet with welfare recipients and their case workers on a regular basis in Iowa. I always ask them what they think about the requirement for this contract. An overwhelming number credit the contract for creating a fundamental change of the welfare system in Iowa, change which has meant fewer families on welfare and an increase in the number of families working and earning income and a decrease in the amount of money spent on cash grants. The results have been truly impressive in Iowa. Caseworkers say the family investment agreement, or contract, has helped them guide families off welfare. Welfare recipients often say it is the first time that anyone ever asked them about their goals, and with the contract, they get a clear picture of exactly what is expected of them. That is an important first step toward making families self- sufficient. The amendment I am offering with Senator Coats is simple. It builds on the successful reforms that are going on in our States; that welfare recipients negotiate and sign an agreement which outlines what will be done to move off welfare. A similar amendment was included in last year's bipartisan Senate bill. That bill we adopted 87 to 12. This would be a good improvement to the pending bill. Some changes were made in that amendment at the suggestion of Senator Coats, very good changes, I might add. So I urge my colleagues to support that amendment. Mr. President, I do not know if this amendment is going to be agreed to or not. There is some talk that it will be. We do not really know yet. I ask unanimous consent that if this amendment is not agreed to that it be put over until Tuesday so that Senator Coats can speak on it. He could not be here this evening. So I ask unanimous consent that it be put over, that the vote on it be put over until Tuesday, and I will ask for the yeas and nays, which, if it is accepted, we can vitiate the yeas and nays.

Mr. HARKIN. I did get the yeas and nays, but we had a unanimous consent to hold off until Tuesday.

Mr. HARKIN. That would be very acceptable.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, this amendment would strike the provision in the bill that eliminates the existing program of grants for initiating or expanding school breakfast or summer food programs. The provision in the bill has nothing to do with welfare reform. It is merely killing a good program to save only a relatively small amount of money in terms of the total amount of money involved in this bill. In fact, I believe this provision in the bill will actually hinder welfare reform, because it will mean more kids will be hungry during the school year and over the summer months. That is a circumstance that will make it harder for that family to get off welfare. Many children having the greatest need for school breakfast and summer food assistance do not get the opportunity they should have to receive the benefits of these valuable programs. Currently, about 12 million low-income children take part in the School Lunch Program. Only about 5.5 million children participate in the School Breakfast Program, and the number of participants in the Summer Food Program is only about 2 million. What these numbers mean is that a large proportion of low-income children who benefit from the School Lunch Program do not benefit from the School Breakfast Program and even fewer from the summer food program. Less than half of the low-income kids getting school lunches now receive breakfasts and less than 20 percent of low-income kids in the lunch program receive summer meals. There are many children who cannot take part in these very important programs because they simply are not available in their neighborhoods due to a lack of community resources. Startup and expansion funds have proven themselves as a means to get these programs going in neighborhoods. What this program does is provide modest amounts of assistance to allow schools and summer food sponsors to get programs started or expand them in low-income areas. The school may need, for example, some equipment or some other resource that will help them deliver meals to hungry kids. There is no other program that is in existence to help out on these equipment and infrastructure needs. This is the only one. The School Breakfast Startup and Expansion Program was begun by Congress to provide competitive grants for one-time expenses associated with starting a School Breakfast Program in individual schools. In 1994, the startup and expansion program was modified and made permanent and made to cover both school breakfast and the summer food programs. The first grants under the new guidelines were announced in June of 1995, just last year. Forty-eight States have applied for grants; 31 States have received funding under this program. So it is needed, and it is helping to improve access of low-income kids to nutritious breakfasts and summer meals across the country. There has been a resounding consensus from State departments of education that the availability of these funds has played a major role in increasing the availability of school breakfast and summer food programs to low-income kids. These funds are for one-time startup costs. Funding does not go on and on and on, but it provides schools and sponsors with the seed funds necessary to start or to expand to new sites these proven nutrition programs for children. These startup and expansion funds have meant the difference between needy children going hungry in the morning--because their schools are too poor to afford the startup costs of a breakfast program--and children ready to learn after eating a school breakfast. This bill that we have before us cuts spending by over $50 billion. My amendment would only have a minuscule effect on the magnitude of those savings. Mr. President, I submit that the cost in human terms, the cost in diminished futures for our Nation's children is far too high to pay in order to achieve the relatively minor spending reductions associated with the provision that my amendment strikes. By striking this provision, my amendment will ensure we continue to make a modest, sound investment in the nutrition, health, education and future of our children. Finally, Mr. President, I believe that this amendment will actually save money in the long run, because kids who are well-nourished grow up healthy. They are able to learn and acquire the skills they need to live as productive members of society. That means less welfare dependency, less crime, less poor health and less cost to our society in dealing with the various ills that result from poor nutrition and stunted human development. Mr. SANTORUM addressed the Chair.

Mr. HARKIN. Yes. I offered two amendments.

Mr. HARKIN. I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. HARKIN. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. I yield myself the remainder of the time. Mr. President, I support the motion to strike the Medicaid provisions of the pending bill, thereby providing for a realistic change of historic welfare reform becoming law this year. This is something I have supported for some time. I joined with Senator Bond in 1994 to introduce the first bipartisan welfare reform plan that required responsibility from day one. Last year, I worked with Republican and Democratic colleagues to craft a bipartisan compromise that passed the Senate by a vote of 87-12. This year, I have been pushing to free welfare reform from controversial proposals to cut nursing home and other health care in Medicaid. In May, I offered an amendment to the budget resolution calling for the separation of welfare from Medicaid. Although my effort at that time was defeated, I am pleased that it looks like that change is agreed to here today, and we do have them separately. Mr. President, there is no doubt that the current welfare system is broken and in desperate need of reform. It is failing the people on it and the taxpayers who provide the money to finance it. We need to change it, and we should do it, as we did last year, with bipartisan cooperation. No one has a corner on good ideas, and by putting partisan politics aside and working together, we can forge a bill that makes common sense. For the past few years, I have talked, from time to time, about the need to enact bipartisan welfare reform, which demands responsibility from day one, requires work, and releases welfare families from the cycle of dependency. The Iowa Family Investment Program, I believe, provides us with an effective model for achieving these goals. Since Iowa began implementing welfare reforms in October 1993, the number of people working has almost doubled, the welfare caseload has declined, and welfare costs are down. I call that a triple play. In fact, I am proud of the fact that our State of Iowa, right now, has a higher percentage of people on welfare who work than any State in the Nation. I believe that is because of the historic welfare reform that we passed in 1993. Mr. President, there are other good reasons to look at the Iowa experience as we craft legislation. I commend the Iowa experience to my colleagues. In 1993, Iowa enacted sweeping changes to the welfare system, and did so with very strong bipartisan support. In fact, the Iowa plan received only one dissenting vote from the 150-member Democratically controlled general assembly, and it was signed into law by our Republican Governor. So it shows that it is possible to work together on welfare reform, and the State of Iowa is better because of it. In 1994, I sought to take a page from the Iowa playbook and went to work with my Republican colleague from Missouri, Senator Bond, to develop bipartisan welfare reform legislation modeled on innovations occurring in our respective States. The result was the first bipartisan welfare reform legislation in that session of Congress. The bill was reintroduced last year. The centerpiece of the Iowa program is the family investment agreement. In order to receive aid, all welfare recipients are required to sign a binding contract which outlines the steps that each individual family will take to move off of welfare and a date when welfare benefits will end. Last September, I offered, and the Senate adopted, an amendment to include such a requirement in our bipartisan bill that passed by a vote of 87 to 12. Unfortunately this provision was dropped in the conference with the House. Later today, I will again, hopefully with bipartisan support, once again try to include a provision which requires individuals to sign a personal responsibility contract as a condition of receiving benefit. I can tell you these contracts are working in Iowa. In fact, I frequently visit with welfare recipients and caseworkers to ask about the contracts. An overwhelming majority say it is positive and very helpful in charting the course for a family to move off of welfare and to keep on track. While there are many positive features in this bill that we have before us, from requiring work to increased child care funding to child support enforcement improvements, I have concerns about some provisions, and I hope we can work together to improve them. I will not go into all of them. But I want to say that some of the cuts in nutrition really do not have anything to do with welfare reform, and I think are more designed to reach arbitrary budget savings. We cannot back off of our commitment to child nutrition. It will cost us more money in the long run. I also have concerns about assuring that we maintain basic health and safety standards for child care. I think the work first substitute is far superior to the committee reported bill. It addresses my concerns, and it also includes a strong contract requirement as well as making our Iowa program a model that other States might adopt. It also maintains our commitment to child nutrition and preserving important protections for children. Senator Daschle will be offering this substitute shortly. As one of his cosponsors, I believe it deserves the support of all Senators. It is tough on work while protecting kids. And that is common sense. Mr. President, if there is one lesson to be learned from the past year and a half it is this: Confrontation and partisanship is a prescription for failure. The only way we can truly accomplish welfare reform this year is to stop the political games and join forces across the aisle to craft a bipartisan welfare reform which accomplishes the goals that the American people support--a welfare system that puts people to work, and gets them off public assistance quickly, fairly, and permanently. The adoption of this amendment to take up stand-alone welfare reform moves in that direction of bipartisanship, and I hope that as we proceed on this bill we will continue to work in this spirit--a spirit of bipartisanship--to craft and pass a bill so we can finally achieve needed reform in the area of welfare. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. DASCHLE addressed the Chair.