Nancy Kassebaum

Mrs. KASSEBAUM

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. I object.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I want to take just a few minutes as the chairman of the Labor and Human Resources Committee, the authorizing committee for the Legal Services Corporation, to express strong support for the Domenici-Hollings amendment. I want to say why I do so. We have had an extensive hearing in the Labor and Human Resources Committee. We heard from witnesses on both sides of the issue. I have introduced legislation in the Senate as a companion measure to the McCollum-Stenholm bill that is under consideration in the House. We will soon be marking up this legislation in the Labor Committee. As Senator Domenici pointed out quite correctly, the language in the Domenici-Hollings amendment is agreed to by some and not by others. It is language that returns the Legal Services Corporation to its original mission. It is language that reforms the program in a way that restores it to what it was supposed to be when the legislation was passed and became law. The most important part of this amendment is that it restores funding for the Legal Services Corporation. That point has already been well made by Senator Domenici and Senator Hollings. As Senator Domenici also noted, this amendment has important reforms and tight restrictions on permissible activities. I would just like to reiterate those, if I may, very briefly. In terms of operational reforms: Frist, a competitive bidding system will be required for awarding LSC grants based on quality and cost effectiveness of service; second, the governing board of LSC grantees will establish priorities for the types of cases to be handled. thrid, the LSC grantees will be required to keep time sheets identifying the client and matter under consideration; fourth, LSC grantees will be restricted in their use of non-LSC funds. and fifth, finally, there are new safeguards requiring the identification by name of plaintiffs and statement of facts underlying the case before initiating litigation or settlement negotiations. On the restrictions side, Legal Services grantees: May not lobby for passage or defeat of legislation, may not represent illegal aliens, may not participate in training programs and political activities, may not take redistricting cases, may not participate in abortion litigation, may not participate in class actions, may not challenge welfare reform, may not defend tenants evicted from public house projects because of drug dealing, may not take fee-generating cases, and may not solicit clients. These are all very important restrictions. Some, as Senator Domenici pointed out, were far too restrictive for [[Page S 14590]] some of our colleagues. Nevertheless, I believe these restrictions provide the necessary guidance to take Legal Services back to its primary mission, which is providing assistance to those who need legal representation and cannot afford it. It is very important that low income individuals have the same access as anyone else to the legal system. But it seems to me, over the years, the Legal Services Corporation has gone far beyond its initial mandate when the law was passed under President Nixon's leadership. So, for all of those reasons, I strongly support and have high regard for the legislation that has been put forward as an amendment by Senator Domenici and Senator Hollings. I yield the floor.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. I will be happy to yield to the Senator from New Mexico.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Yes.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. That is right, the competitive bidding is based on quality and cost effectiveness.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I rise today to extend my congratulations to the distinguished Senator from Oregon, Mr. Hatfield, upon his receipt of the 1995 Albert Lasker Public Service Award for his ``energetic leadership and enduring advocacy in support of biomedical research.'' I can think of no Member of the Senate more deserving of this recognition. Senator Hatfield has been unflagging in his dedication to the cause of biomedical research--recognizing the importance it holds for Americans today and the promise it holds for Americans in the future. As chairman of the Senate Committee on Appropriations, Senator Hatfield is keenly aware of the competing demands upon dwindling federal resources. Establishing priorities among a series of worthy causes is a difficult task. I believe it is a tribute to his judgment and his vision that he has always assigned the highest priority to biomedical research efforts. In addition to protecting the current federal investment in this area, Senator Hatfield has also sought creative ways to expand the pool of funds which can be made available to it. I was pleased to have been counted among the supporters of the biomedical research trust fund proposal he put forward during the last Congress and of his efforts to restore National Institutes of Health [NIH] funding in the budget resolution this year. The Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources, which I chair, has authorizing and oversight responsibility for the NIH. Senator Hatfield has consistently offered his support and suggestions for NIH activities, and I look forward to continuing to work with him. The Albert and Mary Lasker Foundation has made a wise choice in selecting Senator Hatfield for this prestigious award. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the award citation be printed in the Record.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Since funding under this bill is very tight, I agree not to offer the amendment, with the understanding that $10 million in additional funding will be sought in conference with the House for the purpose of establishing this fund. I also understands that the INS will be required in the next two months to provide a plan for deployment of additional personnel and offices in the central states. law enforcement support center

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. I had intended to offer an amendment to provide such funds as may be available, but no less than $10 million, for a Central States Support Fund. These funds are needed to provide additional INS offices in the central states. Additional offices are needed to support communities in their efforts to reduce the flow of illegal workers and to assure expeditious deportation. Senator Grassley is a cosponsor of this amendment. Mr. President, it has been said that the border states are increasingly a pass-through to reach jobs in the interior. My state and others in the central corridor need help in meeting this challenge. But not much help has been forthcoming. There is no INS office in the whole western half of Kansas, where the need is great. In other parts of my state, the INS presence is thin. Local law enforcement, having arrested vans of illegal aliens being smuggled into the country, have been told to send them on their way because INS personnel was not available. Senator Grassley, if he were not tied up in the Finance Committee, would point out that in the whole state of Iowa there is no INS office, though, again, the need is great. The efforts of these interior states are critical to the success of national initiatives to control the flow of illegal workers. Areas in the central corridor that are most challenged by the flow of illegal workers must have a day-to-day INS presence--for example, to assist local law enforcement in expeditious deportation of illegal workers who are repeat criminal offenders. Mr. President, I urge the adoption of this amendment. This amendment would open a separate account, to be called the Central States Support Fund, to assure that these needs are promptly addressed and that the funds are used exclusively for that purpose.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I rise today to offer an amendment to help focus our approach to reform of the United Nations and to ensure that Congress is fully involved in administration initiatives on this important matter. This amendment is identical to language that was included in S. 908, the State Department authorization bill, except I have deleted a paragraph, to which the administration objected, which would have called for a review of potential amendments to the U.N. Charter. The amendment before us focuses exclusively on reforms that can be achieved without opening the charter to amendment. The administration has welcomed this initiative generally and has not opposed other provisions of this amendment, which was accepted in the manager's amendment to S. 908. When Congressman Lee Hamilton and I outlined our thoughts on U.N. reform earlier this year, we were strongly encouraged by the support we received from many different quarters, including from the White House and from the majority leader, Senator Dole. My hope is that this amendment will provide a framework for building a broad-based consensus on U.N. reform. This amendment has two key elements. First, it states sense of Congress that the United States should lead an effort to develop and implement reforms of the United Nations, and it outlines several specific reform proposals that should be considered. This not intended to be an exhaustive list but rather to outline several proposals that are of particular concern. Second, it requires that the President submit to Congress along with his fiscal year 1997 budget a plan recommending a strategic reorganization of the United Nations. It also requires that Congress be closely consulted as the administration develops this plan. Mr. President, I long have had a keen interest in reforming the United Nations. This is an effort I have undertaken with colleagues in both Houses and on both sides of the aisle. I believe it is imperative that we start to bring together the many divergent voices calling for U.N. reform and develop a single, responsible agenda for reform that all Americans can support. The language I propose today is a small step, but I believe it will help us advance toward the goal of reaching consensus on what reforms we believe the United Nations must undertake. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I came to speak because there was a quorum call on, so I could tailor my remarks to the time I would be allowed. I would say about 5 minutes.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I first want to commend the chairman of the Foreign Operations Subcommittee, Senator McConnell, and the ranking member, Senator Leahy, for their leadership on this bill. Getting a foreign operations appropriations bill through the Senate is never an easy process. I think they have done an extraordinary job. This legislation is a reasonable approach that meets the stringent reality of the Federal budget but also recognizes that our national interest requires America to be a leader in world affairs. For years, we have been engaged in a debate about how best to reform our foreign aid programs. I have long been an advocate of reform, and I continue to believe it is necessary. The debate has taken on new vigor this year with the chairmanship of Senator Helms in the Foreign Relations Committee, and it is ongoing. The legislation before us today walks a fine line and, in my view, does so appropriately. On the one hand, it recognizes the substantial reform of our foreign aid programs is properly carried out through the authorizing legislation, not through this appropriations bill. On the other hand, this bill undertakes important reforms necessary to ensure that the shrinking resources it provides can be used to the greatest effect. The foreign affairs budget, which, unlike other accounts in the Federal budget, had already been cut dramatically before this year, has been cut even further. I regret that decision, but that die was cast last spring during the budget resolution debate. Given the limited resources available, it will become increasingly important that the President have more flexibility to target our resources toward the areas of greatest importance. This is not easy to do. We always feel that we want to have some hand--and we should have--in shaping those priorities. On the other hand, I think flexibility is needed for administrative decisions and it is important that legislative and administrative bodies work as closely together as possible. While some of the accounts retain their traditional protection, this legislation on the whole has very few earmarks. Again, I want to commend the committee for that. It is not an easy task. At the same time, the bill seeks to promote fairness by preventing any single account or region of the world from bearing a disproportionate share of budget reduction. As a long observer of United States policy toward Africa, I believe this legislation treats Africa fairly and recognizes that continent's importance in the overall reach of United States foreign policy. I am particularly pleased with the sincere effort to address the difficult problem of African debt relief. However, important African issues will remain for the conference committee--in particular, this legislation's consolidation of the Development Fund for Africa into a larger economic assistance account diverges from the path Congress has followed since 1987. The House has retained the Development Fund for Africa regional account. The Congress created the DFA in 1987, with bipartisan support, to ensure that consistent long-term funding for African development would be there if it were necessary. I hope that as we debate funding the mechanisms and accounts this year, we will not lose sight of, or compromise, this important goal. I am particularly concerned about the effect on our foreign policy and the sharp cuts in two programs in this bill. One is the International Development Association, funded at $775 million, well below the $1.3 billion request. While it has detractors, I believe this program is an effective means of leveraging U.S. foreign aid and effecting change in the economic policies of countries abroad. I worry that low-balling this funding--and the House is lower still--will cause other donors to do the same and threaten the viability of this important program. I also worry about cuts in our contributions to international organizations and programs. Last year, we [[Page S 13927]] spent $374 million on this account, but this bill includes only $260 million--again, better than the House bill. Mr. President, international organizations and programs is never a popular part of the budget. Again, I share the view that we should critically reevaluate our participation in many low-priority international organizations. But it seems to me we should conduct that review as a matter of policy and take steps to reform or withdraw from organizations in accordance with the obligations we have made to them. We should not just stop paying our bills. These cuts in important programs are, to me, made more frustrating by another item in the bill. This legislation would appropriate $150 million for international narcotics control--$45 million more than last year and $37 million more than was approved by the House. This account may be politically popular, but, in my view, it is a poor candidate for added funding. I doubted the effectiveness of this program in both the Reagan and Bush administrations--not that we do not want to direct our attention to getting narcotics abuse and use under control--even though, however, we had programs over the years in narcotics control initiatives, and they keep requesting more money. In 1995, we will spend nearly $13.3 billion on antidrug measures, of which $1.6 billion will go for international and interdiction efforts. I can only hope it will be successful. But I do question whether we are monitoring closely the successes of these efforts. I care just as deeply as everybody else about getting the international narcotics problem under control, but I am not convinced that increased funding for this program will make any real difference in reducing the flow of drugs into this country. Frankly, I would prefer we consider reducing funding from fiscal year 1995 levels, but, at the very least, I think we should not increase funding. I suggest that the $45 million added beyond current-year levels will be better used elsewhere within this bill, or for deficit reduction. Mr. President, I think I am beyond my time. I ask unanimous consent for 2 additional minutes to speak to an amendment I would like to offer as well.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. First, I conclude my statement by saying that despite the concerns I have raised I believe this bill on the whole represents very responsible leadership in the field of foreign affairs. I intend to support it. Amendment No. 2710

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I rise today to submit an amendment on Liberia.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. I send that amendment to the desk. I understand it will be a noncontroversial amendment and it is just to express strong support for the latest Liberia peace agreement and facilitate the provision of limited United States assistance to Liberia. It will be considered at another time. I yield the floor, Mr. President.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I rise today to offer an amendment on Liberia. I am pleased to be joined by Senator Simon, former chairman of the Africa Subcommittee, and Senator Feingold, ranking member of the Subcommittee. This amendment expresses strong support for the latest Liberia peace agreement and facilitates the provision of limited United States assistance to Liberia. Begun on Christmas day 1989, the civil war in Liberia has devastated that country. More than 150,000 people have been killed, mostly innocent women and children. Upward of three-quarters of a million people have been forced to flee to neighboring countries. Most heart- wrenching is the disastrous effect of the war on the children of Liberia. Many young boys--probably tens of thousands--have been conscripted by the warring factions, handed weapons sometimes bigger than they are, and sent into battle. Mr. President, in August 1990, the Economic Community of West African States sent a peacekeeping force led by Nigeria. The force, called ECOMOG, did stop the rebel advance--but over time became one of the combatants and did little to bring peace to Liberia. And, the situation has only become more confused the last couple of years. The number of factions multiplied. Some of these groups have split and others connected with a rebel movement in Sierra Leone. ECOMOG formed alliances with certain factions. Arms flows continued. Clearly the warlords appeared much more interested in their personal power and wealth than in the future of their country. After more than 5 years of brutal and inhuman conflict, many in the outside world had simply given up on Liberia. I must say that I was one who had become increasingly frustrated with the situation and pessimistic about the future of Liberia. Yet, in the midst of the cynicism, we have seen a dramatic and very positive breakthrough in Liberia. Last month, the major faction leaders--under intense pressure from Ghanaian President Jerry Rawlings--signed a peace agreement in Abuja, Nigeria. Unlike the previous 11 accords, many believe and hope that this is a peace accord with a difference. For once, the Nigerians--the leaders of ECOWAS--and rebel leader Charles Taylor appear to have reached an understanding. All the major faction leaders are part of the transition. Mr. President, I believe that now is the time for the international community, including the United States, to respond positively to this latest development. Liberia is a country founded by a group of freed American slaves. We have a long history of involvement in Liberia and, I believe, a special responsibility for its future. This amendment expresses the sense of Congress that the United States should strongly support the recent peace accord. We should assist with the ECOMOG peacekeeping force. We should help demobilize the troops, many of which are children. We should support efforts to resettle the refugees. This amendment also facilitates the delivery of United States relief by waiving the Brooke amendment for Liberia for these types of aid. Because of the irresponsible fiscal policies of former President Doe and the war, Liberia is prevented from receiving any nonemergency United States assistance under the Brooke amendment. In 1992, I sponsored a bill--signed into law by President Bush--which waives the Brooke amendment for limited types of assistance to Liberia. That action followed an earlier peace accord that many hoped would end the fighting. But, as we know, the war resumed, and the current authority does not apply because the law refers only to the Yamoussoukro accord. This amendment simply deletes the reference to ``Yamoussoukro'' in the current law. It does not appropriate any new money or affect direct spending. It only gives the President the limited authority to support the latest peace agreement in Liberia from existing accounts. Mr. President, I would urge support for this amendment. I believe it is a limited, but important, step in facilitating United States assistance for Liberia at this critical time. It is my hope that this latest peace agreement will hold and the devastating and brutal conflict in Liberia will finally end.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, first, I would just like to respond to my colleague, whom I admire and whom I know feels deeply about children, about those who may not have a safety net protection. I would just like to say to Senator Moseley-Braun that I think one of the real strengths of this legislation is that we did strengthen child care, and child care is a very important requirement in order to have successful welfare reform. I think this bill does strike a good balance, and I express my appreciation to those on both sides of the aisle who have worked to shape an exceptionally strong welfare reform bill, particularly the majority leader, Senator Dole, who has tried hard to balance the interests of many people on both sides of this aisle, to Senator Santorum who also has worked tirelessly among those on our side of the aisle and those on the other side of the aisle. I will say to Senator Dodd, as well, who has cared a great deal about trying to meet the needs of children in this legislation, that I think we do have a good welfare reform bill and, most importantly, it is not welfare as an entitlement. That starts us on a new path and one that I think will be most successful.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. This legislation is clearly intended to provide Federal financial support for the education and training of all segments of the work force in each State. The bill provides States the flexibility to set up structures that best serve their citizens and I expect that States will continue to use the community college as a primary resource, due to their past successes.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. The State work force education plan is to be developed by the elementary and secondary agency of the State. That agency must collaborate with the postsecondary agency of the State, including community colleges. I expect this to be meaningful collaboration, leading to appropriate support for secondary and postsecondary education programs in the State. In addition, State officials responsible for postsecondary education and community colleges are members of the collaborative process the Governor must work with on the State strategic plan.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. This legislation consolidates programs that have provided support for both secondary and post secondary educational programs. The legislation is designed to expand, improve, and modernize quality vocational education at both the secondary and postsecondary levels. As in current law, however, States will remain free to choose the percentage of funds they will allocate to secondary and postsecondary vocational education.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. How much time do I have, 5 minutes?

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. I yield myself 3 minutes and would yield the rest of the time to the Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Gregg]. I know how much the Senator from Maryland cares about older workers, as does the Senator from Iowa [Mr. Grassley]. But I must oppose the Senator's amendment to remove the Senior Community Service Employment Program from the job training consolidation bill, which has been incorporated into the legislation before us, for the following reasons. First, older workers are already protected in the bill. Each State must meet benchmarks that show how well they are providing jobs for needy older workers. Their funds may be cut if they do not do an adequate job. Second, successful grassroots programs like Green Thumb--and it has been a very successful program in Kansas--will be able to continue. This does not mean that that program is going to end. It simply means that it will be part of the training initiatives in the State, and its voice will be heard at that level. Older workers will have a very strong voice with Governors, and States will hear that voice when they develop their statewide training system. I have no doubt but that such strong programs will prevail. Third, older workers will be better served under the current bill because we will eliminate the middleman. Right now, most of the older worker funds go to 10 national contractors. The Senator from Maryland mentioned that fact. Let me just say, Mr. President, something I think it is important for my colleagues to recognize. The GAO will soon release a report showing that there is a great deal of waste in these national contracts, overhead that will be eliminated if the funds go directly to the States. For example, the GAO found that one contractor spent about 24 percent of its contract on administrative expenses, well above the amount that is currently permitted. Over $2 million was spent on personnel and $1 million was spent on fringe benefits. None of these funds went to older workers. It is an important group to reach, and I think the Senator from Iowa made that point. But I strongly feel there is a better way in which to deal with this. This training program is just one of 90 programs we have consolidated into a single system that will hold States accountable. Finally, and I think this is an exceptionally important point to take into account, if we make an exception for this program, other programs will want out as well, and we will only perpetuate a system of duplication and overlap. I must oppose the motion to strike. I would like to yield the remainder of the time to Senator Gregg, who cares a great deal also about the Older Americans Act. He is the ranking member of the Labor and Human Resources Subcommittee dealing with this issue.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I wish to respond for a moment to the Senator from Iowa. I know that Senator Grassley cares as much as I do about making sure that we can enact a welfare reform initiative and the importance of doing that. But I think I need to reiterate that the amendment I am offering deals with child care for low-income working families. The child care and development Block Grant, which has been in law for 5 years, and is being reauthorized, has been included in this overall welfare reform package. It was designed to provide, as I said earlier, a sliding fee scale of support for low-income working families. It is not addressing the child care provisions for AFDC recipients. It does bring them together into a single system rather than a two-track system, but it is not Government bureaucracy so much as I would argue the need to continue that support for families that are moving off welfare. Child care is very expensive. As I say, if you are not lucky enough to have some member of the family or a good neighbor or friend who is assisting with child care--sometimes those provisions and tradeoffs can be made; having a daughter and daughters-in-law who work, I know that sometimes it is possible, but many times it is not--child care can range as low as $60 to $80 per week to as high as $150 to $200 a week. That is a lot of money for families who are trying to enter the work force at very low-income levels, and that is why I feel strongly about not permitting transferability of funds out of the CCDBG account so that we can help those families in transition. It seems to me that this is a very important part of this provision. I think we should be concerned about low-income families who do not have any support for child care versus the welfare family who would have total support for child care. For those just right over the line, it is difficult and it does not make a lot of sense. That is why I feel strongly about a sliding fee scale where recipients make a contribution to their child care and are given some Federal assistance based on their income as they are trying to break away from welfare assistance. I think every State, including Iowa, has some concerns about how to help a population that has been very dependent on benefits over the years and how to make this transition without harming children. This is what I am trying to address by keeping intact the provisions of the child care and development block grant. I yield the floor, Mr. President. Mr. President, I call up my amendment, which is No. 2522.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I am happy to be able to start off by offering one of the 200 amendments that will be considered today. As we know, all these amendments were laid down before the close of business on Friday. The amendment that I am offering and that I would like to discuss briefly this morning would restore provisions contained in the Child Care and Development Block Grant Amendments Act of 1995. This is the reauthorization of legislation that has been in law for 5 years. It was approved by the Committee on Labor and Human Resources by a unanimous vote on May 25. While I am committed to ending the concept of welfare as an entitlement, I have some concerns about the legislation before us, the Work Opportunity Act, regarding changes that have been made to child care. It seems to me that one of the most important considerations we have to undertake when we are considering welfare reform is how we handle child care. I think that all of us here in the Senate on both sides of the aisle regard our ability to structure welfare reform in an effective manner a top priority for the 104th Congress. We can talk about ending support for mothers who should be working, for families who should be working, but it is the children who become a crucial element. It is with the children that we have to be careful and must begin breaking the cycle of dependence that has occurred through years of being on welfare. It is the protection of the children that is the most important responsibility that we have. Title VI of the welfare reform bill includes the reauthorization of the Child Care and Development Block Grant. It is called the CCDBG and it was enacted in 1990 with bipartisan support because Congress recognized there was a lack of adequate child care for many low-income working families. These just are not families on welfare. These are families that are in the work force, frequently with low-paying jobs, but who do not have the access to affordable, quality child care. It was in that light that we felt it was very important to address this, with a sliding fee scale determined by the states, so that low- income families could be participants with some subsidies as they worked their way into better paying jobs. I think this continues to be a nationwide problem. One of the primary goals of the CCDBG as it came out of committee is to ensure that there is a seamless system of child care where it counts the most at the point where the parent, child, and provider meet. The provision that was in S. 850 that would have consolidated child care funds into one unified system is not included in the leadership welfare reform bill. The amendment I offer today restores that provision so that we will [[Page S 13148]] have one unified system of child care, one State plan, and one set of eligibility requirements. I believe this only makes sense, Mr. President, as we are trying to consolidate and trying to work together to form a better system. Why continue to have two different child care systems--one under the child care and development block grant, and one under the welfare child care system? I think it makes sense to bring the two systems together in a unified approach. My amendment does make one change to the original consolidation provision that was included in S. 850, the legislation that we approved out of committee, and that relates to the 15-percent set-aside for quality improvement activities. The set-aside will apply to the discretionary funds appropriated for the CCDBG, but will not apply to other child care services provided through the unified system. We have tried to take into account some of the concerns of Governors who obviously would like to have a system that does not have too many requirements from Congress, and we have tried to do that. On the other hand, we believe that through the CCDGB there are some important requirements that have proven to be of benefit and to have created a successful child care approach in the States. My amendment also strikes the provision in the welfare bill that would allow up to 30 percent of the funds to be transferred between the CCDBG and the cash assistance block grant. I oppose the transferability provision for two major reasons. First, I am concerned that there is too little child care money available now. Funds transferred out of the CCDBG would not necessarily be used for child care, which would create an even bigger problem; the Governors could use it for other assistance such as cash benefits, which they might choose and which they may feel is important. But I feel strongly that these funds need to be targeted toward child care. If we fail in this, we are going to fail to reform welfare in ways that will be beneficial for years to come. Second, the primary purpose of the CCDBG is to assist the working poor who contribute something toward child care through the sliding fee scale. Having this type of assistance available will become even more important as individuals make the transition from welfare to work. I think we all know that finding the right child care can be one of the most costly and stressful aspects for parents as they enter the work force. Not everyone is fortunate enough to have a grandparent or an extended family member who can help with child care. In fact, many today do not have relatives that can or will care for their children. And that becomes one of the most stressful problems that a mother faces when she goes to work in the morning, if she cannot be certain of some quality child care, or cannot count on child care that she feels comfortable with for her children. Having this type of assistance available to those who are trying to work their way off welfare will become even more important as we stress the transition from welfare to work. Diverting CCDBG funds for other purposes diminishes a program which is badly needed by the working poor, and I believe it is unfair to penalize those who are struggling to provide for themselves and their families. I hope that all of my colleagues can support the amendment I offer today, Mr. President, to consolidate child care into one unified system and to preserve the limited funds allocated to child care. I yield the floor.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, as has been indicated, this will be one of the amendments that will be voted on after 5 o'clock this afternoon. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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