Barbara Mikulski

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Ms. MIKULSKI. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I know in a few minutes one of our distinguished colleagues, Senator Glenn of Ohio, wants to speak about the importance of NASA and its adequate funding. We are so honored to have a Senator astronaut with us who, of course, can speak in a unique way, but I wish to make one comment on the amendments that we just passed because when we run through them they sound so technical, they sound so dry, and they sound so easy. I should like to bring to the attention of my colleagues that each one of these took a lot of hard work and a lot of staff time and will be enormously important to people. The FEMA flood insurance authorization means that we can actually write flood insurance. What we are facing with Edouard and Fran, and so on--flood insurance. We have worked to protect the American refiner industry. We had something a lot stronger, but we were told that we would trigger a WTO action, so therefore we sat down and worked very hard to make sure we comply with international trade but we made sure we had our dukes up to protect America's jobs in the gulf coast, to make sure that Americans are working, being able to have jobs in the refiner industry, and ultimately with Iran and Iraq staring each other down now it would be very important to ensure our independence in the refinery process. When we look at the amendment of a $50 million earmark for vouchers for displaced disabled, what does that mean? It means now that disabled people are now living in housing for the elderly. That is what was included in the Americans With Disabilities Act. These are younger people. There is a clash of culture between the younger disabled and the elderly. We want to have the elderly be able to have their own housing. We want to make sure that we do not abandon our commitment, and that is what this amendment is about. I could go through example after example. We want to show when we are spending this money we are protecting jobs, we are looking out for the disabled, and we are also protecting property owners with flood insurance. It takes a lot of hard work, focusing on the detail, and making sure that Government is working in a way that serves people. So having said that, I did not mean to give a long speech but that is why we agree to these amendments and again we find that a sensible Senate can protect our jobs and protect our folks. I yield the floor. Mr. GLENN addressed the Chair.

Ms. MIKULSKI. I too will keep this request in mind during the conference.

Ms. MIKULSKI. I would agree with the chairman, and support this excellent program.

Ms. MIKULSKI. I would be grateful if the Senator would provide an interpretation of the assurance contained in the letter dated July 23, 1996, addressed to you and me from the U.S. Trade Representative and the Administrator of EPA. I will submit the text of the letter for the Record. The letter states that compliance with the WTO decision ``will not result in the degradation of gasoline quality required by the Clean Air Act with respect to imported conventional and reformulated gasoline.'' I understand that the EPA proposed in 1994 a foreign refiner baseline rule that could have allowed foreign oil companies to export gasoline to the United States with higher levels of sulfur and olefins than allowed under existing rules. However, the letter we recently received provides assurances that the WTO compliance process will not allow foreign refiners to supply gasoline with higher levels of precursors of ozone pollution than are currently allowed.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the letter dated July 23, 1996, be printed in the Record.

Ms. MIKULSKI. I concur with the distinguished manager of the bill. funding for the epa long island sound office

Ms. MIKULSKI. I understand the Long Island Sound Office is as my colleague, Senator Dodd, states ``the glue that is holding'' the restoration of the Long Island Sound together. Recognizing the office's importance, I will do everything I can to support the Senators' request in conference.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that during the consideration of H.R. 3666, Miss Catherine Corson, a detailee from the National Science Foundation serving with the VA-HUD subcommittee, be provided floor privileges.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Yes. In fact, Congress has appropriated funds for this worthwhile program in the past through special purpose grants.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Not at all.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Several things. We cannot agree to a time agreement on the Daschle amendment. I don't know whether he would like his amendment to go first. We hope to have that clarified. Second, for many of our Members, there is a request from the Democratic leader that votes be postponed until after the caucus, and I think that is not only for our side, but your Members who are also flying back. So we are trying to find out whether in the morning there will be, first, a resolution on Iraq or whether we can go to Bion. I am ready to go to Bion.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I think we have gotten a lot accomplished. We look forward to tomorrow moving our bill in a crisp way. We ask all Democratic Senators who have amendments to please notify my staff, and on all of the major ones we hope to be working on time agreements, particularly those related to the space station. We know Senator Daschle has an amendment, which is very important, on veterans health care. We know one will involve experimental research with animals in the space program. We hope to deal with those. We say to our colleagues, please notify us. If you don't need to offer an amendment, and we can resolve it, please discuss it with us. As we have seen in colloquies, people of good will and good manners can get a lot done pretty quickly.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the Health Insurance Reform Act. There are three reasons why I support this bill. It makes health insurance portable--people can take it with them from job to job. It provides health insurance to people with preexisting medical conditions. And it makes health insurance more available to working Americans. I am pleased to vote for this bill. Health insurance is a priority for Maryland's families. It's a top priority for me. I strongly support this commonsense health insurance reform. It's a safety net for working Americans and their families. This bill ends ``job lock.'' Working Americans won't be afraid to change jobs. They no longer have to fear that they'll lose their health insurance coverage if they do. I know a mother in Baltimore who supports her family in a manufacturing job. Her husband stays home and cares for their disabled child. She has been offered a higher paying job. But she can't take it. I think that's outrageous. She knows if she changes jobs that her son will lose the health coverage he so desperately needs. This bill is good news for people like her. She could make that job change under this bill. This bill helps people who have preexisting medical conditions. They won't be penalized any longer by insurance companies. They can now get health insurance if they have a disease like diabetes. I am pleased that the bill has the potential to help millions of women and their families. The legislation will help a woman who starts a new job with an employer who provides health insurance. Under the Health Insurance Reform Act, a woman or her family can't be denied insurance coverage. She and her family can't be denied coverage for a preexisting condition. A woman who is pregnant will get immediate coverage for pregnancy care even if she is already pregnant. Her newborn or adopted child will also receive health insurance coverage. This just isn't good for families. It makes good business sense. The bill makes health insurance more available to working Americans. It goes along way to eliminating barriers to coverage. There are more than 40 million Americans without health insurance. More than 1 million working Americans lost their insurance over the last 2 years. Workers who are self-employed will be able to take a greater tax deduction for health expenses. It treats long-term care expenses as medical expenses for the purposes of tax deductibility. This bill helps those who practice self-help. I was disappointed that we were not able to enact comprehensive health insurance reform. After that debate came to a close, I pledged to continue the fight to reform health care--day after day and month after month. This is an important first step in that direction. I thank my colleagues Senator Kassebaum and Senator Kennedy for their hard work in bringing us this far. But didn't get here without tremendous struggle. Despite broad bipartisan support, this bill has been held up for weeks and months. But we persevered. I wanted to get this bill passed this year. And now we have done that. We have won the day. And helped many Americans gain accessibility and portability to health insurance coverage. There is much more that I would like to be able to do to make insurance coverage affordable, accessible, portable and undeniable. I would like to see coverage for long-term care. I would like to see a comprehensive benefit package for women and children. But this is a very important step. We have a tremendous opportunity to improve the lives ofmany Americans. I am pleased to support this bill.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I will vote in favor of the Safe Drinking Water Act conference report. Government's most important responsibility is to protect public health and safety. Safe drinking water is the lifeblood of our society and the basic foundation of good health. This bill incorporates sound scientific principles and protects public health and safety. The Safe Drinking Water Act keeps our promise to the American people. This bill provides flexibility to State and local governments, enabling them to better assist water utilities in complying with Federal health and safety standards. This is a win-win situation because it provides utilities with the resources to meet safety standards without putting them out of business. This legislation not only protects the safety of our drinking water, it will create jobs in construction. Modernizing our infrastructure is one of the best investments we can make. This bill helps burst the myth that environmental protection comes at the expense of economic development. The reality is that good environmental policy is good business. Staying on the cutting edge of environmental technology presents the American economy with a large and growing market here and around the world. While the United States is already a leader in this burgeoning market, we should seize the initiative to expand our leadership even further. Marylanders have told me they want adequate resources devoted to making drinking water safe and clean. I believe this bill is the best way to move forward toward the safest, cleanest drinking water for Maryland and America.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I will vote for this bill because maintaining the status quo is unacceptable. The other alternative is to do nothing. I vote for this bill, having reservations, but believing it is the right thing to do. We Democrats have made 36 important improvements in this bill that protect the most vulnerable, the children. But there are still yellow flashing lights, warnings regarding the bill's safety net for children. We will need to monitor them closely. On balance, though, I believe the poor and the taxpayers will be better off because we are voting for this bill. We all acknowledge that our current welfare system does not work. It has failed to move people from welfare to work, and has created a culture of poverty that has ensnared generations of our most vulnerable citizens in poverty and dependency. I believe in the capacity of people to better their lives and build a better future for themselves and their families. The current welfare system does not provide people with the tools they need to do that. Welfare should be a way to a better life not a way of life. The current welfare system is dysfunctional and destructive to the poor. I have worked to change that. I have fought for a plan, which I helped to write, that was firm on work and demanded responsibility from those who find themselves on public assistance, but that protected children. I will vote for this bill because it is greatly improved over the original Republican bill which the Senate debated last year. There are some 36 improvements in the bill, improvements which I fought for and which are drawn largely from the Democratic alternative bill which I co-authored with Democratic leader Senator Daschle and Senator Breaux. Our Democratic alternative provided people with the tools to move from welfare to work. It demanded work of all able-bodied adults. It removed the key barriers to work--such as lack of adequate child care and inadequate job skills. Our bill ensured that no child would go without health care or adequate nutritional assistance because of the failings of their parents. It ensured that when we aimed at the parent we did not hit the child. I am proud of my work on the Democratic alternative bill. I am proud that we gained the support of every Democratic Member of this body. I regret that it was rejected by the other party. But thanks to the persistent advocacy of our Democratic leadership, of which I am a member, many of the provisions of the Democratic alternative were adopted in the bill that the Senate passed. They are now in this legislation. These improvements have helped to make this a more acceptable bill. I'm particularly proud of my role in fighting for child abuse programs, for child care health and safety standards and for the health care safety net. I offered amendments on these issues and fought for their adoption. From day one, I insisted that we could not do anything in this bill to lessen our commitment to fighting child abuse. I am pleased that this bill no longer includes provisions which would have replaced Federal child abuse and protection programs with an inadequate block grant. As a former child protection worker, I know how vital these programs are for taking care of children who have suffered from abuse or neglect. I fought to keep current Federal child care health and safety standards. Along with Senator Dodd, I offered an amendment to restore those standards which the other party was prepared to abandon. I fought to maintain those standards because I believe strongly that parents should have every assurance that when they place their children in child care, they will be protected from infectious diseases, from unsafe buildings and playground hazards, and that the child care worker will know basic first aid. This is a significant improvement in the bill. I also fought for a health care safety net for children. I wanted to make sure that children would still be eligible for Medicaid coverage even if their parents failed to meet the work requirements of this bill. This bill contains the provision I fought for to ensure that children will still have access to health care. I was an energetic and enthusiastic advocate for other improvements to the bill, such as the provisions to provide funding for child care, to exempt mothers with infant children from the work requirements, and the provision that ensures that a mom with a preschooler cannot be penalized for not working if she can't find or afford child care. These are all important measures to protect children, and I am pleased that we were successful in having them included in this bill. The protections for children are significantly better than in previous bills we have considered. So I acknowledge that this bill has been improved in important ways from the conference report that I opposed and which the President vetoed last year. And I believe the strong support for the Democratic alternative bill is what made these improvements possible. While I will vote ``yes'' today, there are yellow flashing lights that give me pause. They must be monitored meticulously. And all of us who vote for this bill must be prepared to make modifications if the safety net for children and the working poor becomes tattered. A key yellow flashing light for me is the bill's changes in the rules for the food stamp program. Changes in the excess shelter deduction could harm the working poor--those families that pay over half their income for housing. Other changes will severely limit food stamps for adults without children who lose their jobs. Another yellow flashing light for me is the bill's restrictions on assistance for children of legal immigrants, who have not yet obtained their goals of citizenship. Another yellow flashing light for me is the bill's provisions for meeting the needs of children whose parents reach the 5-year time limit for benefits and still do not have work. I fought for a requirement that States must assess and meet the basic subsistence needs of those children through vouchers or other non-cash assistance. The conference agreement did not include what I advocated, but it gives States the option to use their title XX, social service block grant funds, to provide vouchers to meet the needs of children. Mr. President, today we must face facts. We cannot make the perfect the enemy of the good. And so I will vote for this bill. The American people and I want welfare reform. And I believe the people currently mired in poverty, who have not been well-served by the current welfare system, deserve better. There are over 9 million children currently on welfare. Under the current system, that number is estimated to grow to 12 million in 10 years. We owe it to those children to give their parents every incentive to leave welfare behind and to lift themselves and their families out of poverty. I will vote yes today. But I will be standing sentry and will be in the forefront in fighting for any changes needed to prevent the safety net for children from being tattered.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I am proud to join my colleagues in supporting and cosponsoring this amendment to enlarge NATO. I support NATO enlargement because I do believe it will make Europe more stable and secure. It will mean that the new democracies of central and Eastern Europe will share the burden of European security. It could mean that future generations of Americans might not be sent to Europe to fight for Europe. Mr. President, a word about Poland. As an American of Polish heritage, I know that the Polish people did not choose to live behind the Iron Curtain. In 1939, when Poland was invaded by the Nazis, the West was silent and talked about peace, but it was appeasement. After the end of the war, they were forced by the Yalta agreement, by Potsdam and the very West itself, to put them behind the Iron Curtain. During World War II, my great grandmother, who came to this country from Poland, had three pictures on her mantelpiece when I would go to her home. One of Pope Pius the XII, our spiritual leader, the other of my Uncle Joe who was on the police force, and President Roosevelt, because she believed that President Roosevelt was good for America and the world. After Yalta and Potsdam, my great grandmother turned Roosevelt's picture down on the mantel. She would not take him down because she was a Democrat, but she was pretty mad at Roosevelt, as were so many other people. I cannot forget the history of this region. But my support for this amendment is not based on the past. It is based on the future, a future which these newly free and democratic countries will take their rightful place as members of Western Europe. That is where they want to be, with Western Europe. NATO did play an important role in securing the freedom of the world and ending the cold war. This has been an alliance that helped us win the cold war, a deterrent between the superpowers. It helped prevent confrontations between member states. I know if NATO is to survive, it must adopt to the needs of the end of the cold war. NATO has evolved since 1949 and this is the next important step in NATO enlargement. How many times have we talked burden sharing in Europe? These countries are ready to do it. Thousands of troops from Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, the Baltics, Ukraine, and others are there to help secure peace. They are not asking for a handout. They are asking for a chance to be part of NATO. This amendment puts Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic into NATO where it runs them up where they belong. Some people believe we will offend Russia by expanding NATO. Maybe we will. And my response to that is, so what? So what if we offend Russia? We must delink the future of Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic from what Russia thinks. I was offended when Russia invaded Hungary in 1956. I was offended when they forced Poland behind the Iron Curtain and made them an involuntary Communist nation. I was offended by what the Russians did around the world for over 50 years. So, now, I want to support this amendment to enlarge NATO, to secure Europe in a better way, and I hope, after we take this vote tonight, that I can go back to my great grandmother's home and put not only Roosevelt's picture back up, but Hank Brown and so many other people here. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Vermont for this important clarification.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I wish to engage the distinguished ranking member of the Foreign Operations Appropriations Subcommittee, Senator Leahy in a colloquy regarding the use of Agency for International Development funds designated for Assistance for Eastern Europe and the Baltics. This legislation provides funds for Assistance for Eastern Europe and the Baltics. One of the more successful programs we have established in the region are the joint research programs we have with Poland, the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Slovakia. In addition to funding high- quality, competitively awarded joint research grants, these programs strengthen ties between our countries, and expose foreign researchers to the American research system. This program also enables American researchers to form partnerships with Eastern European researchers. Projects are chosen to mutually benefit both the United States and the collaborating partner. The benefits of these research programs don't flow one way, but flow in both directions. Finally, unlike most United States collaborative research programs, or assistance programs in general, Poland, the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Slovakia, match dollar for dollar the United States contribution to the joint research funds for their countries. This shows the importance they attach to this collaboration. In fact, I have just received a joint letter from the Ambassadors of these four countries stressing their governments' support and financial commitment to the programs. I have also received letters from American researchers stating the benefits of this program. I want to stress that every dollar of funding supports research projects--there are no overhead costs associated with these joint research funds. I believe that these cooperative research and development programs exemplify the type of programs we should support with these countries and are in line with the goals of our assistance programs in Eastern Europe and the Baltics. I would ask the distinguished ranking member if he agrees with my assessment of these collaborative research programs and that guidance provided to the Agency for International Development should encourage AID to make a contribution to these four programs in fiscal year 1997 at the level these programs received in fiscal year 1996.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the Gregg amendment to the agriculture appropriations bill. I believe it is time to reform the sugar program. The sugar program has become nothing more than corporate welfare for a small group of growers which operates to the detriment of consumers and sugar refiners like Domino Sugar in Baltimore and other refiners around the country. The Gregg amendment simply requires growers to repay their loans to the Federal Government. It is shocking that sugar growers are the only group of people who do not have to repay their loans to the Government. If students and veterans have to re-pay their loans to the Government, then so should sugar growers. While the sugar program gives growers a significant advantage, sugar refiners have no such benefits or protection. Sugar refiners must use imported raw product in order to stay in business because there is not enough domestic supply to satisfy demand. While growers receive artificially high prices, refiners must bear the high cost of domestic product without any benefits or protection. It is time this Government recognize the value of our sugar refining industry and the jobs that depend on it. Since 1981, the sugar refining industry has lost forty percent of its capacity not to mention the thousands of blue collar jobs that went with it. Sugar refining is one of the few manufacturing industries still left in our inner cities. Domino Sugar in Baltimore employs almost six hundred people. Their jobs are just as important as the jobs of growers. I urge my colleagues to support the Gregg amendment and vote for fairness in the sugar program.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I was ready to vote for a welfare reform bill today. I believe we need welfare reform. I have fought for a tough welfare reform bill, and I have voted for welfare reform. It is deeply disappointing to me that I must vote against final passage of this bill. I voted for the bill which the Senate passed last year. I hoped at that time that the conference on that bill would make even further improvements in the bill, and that we would be able to send a good bill to the President for his signature. I was disappointed when the conferees last year took an acceptable bill and turned it into an unacceptable and punitive one. Welfare reform was within our grasp last year. But we let it slip away by placing political considerations ahead of sound policy decisions. I hope we will not make the same mistake this year. I have not only voted for welfare reform, but I am one of the coauthors of the work first bill, which would have ended welfare as we know it. Along with my coauthors, the Democratic leader, Senator Daschle and Senator Breaux, I am proud that we crafted a plan that is tough on work but not tough on children. Our plan called for a time-limited and conditional entitlement. It would have required all able-bodied adults to go to work. Our plan provided people with the tools to move from welfare to work; tools like job training, job search assistance, and most importantly, child care. We recognized that the No. 1 barrier to work is the lack of affordable child care. So our bill provided sufficient funds to ensure that child care would be available to families as parents moved into the work force. The work first bill also protected children. We made sure that our reform was targeted at adults not at children. We included provisions to ensure that no child would go hungry or go without needed health care because a parent had failed to find and keep a job. So let me be clear. I support welfare reform. Throughout this Congress, I have fought for welfare reform. I have coauthored not one, but two, major welfare initiatives. And I had hoped to be able to vote for a welfare reform bill today. Unfortunately, I cannot vote for this bill. This bill does not provide adequate protection for children. What will happen to children once their parents reach the time limit for benefits? Without vouchers to ensure that the basic subsistence needs of children are met, we know that children will suffer if their parents have not found jobs. We simply cannot punish children for the shortcomings of their parents. Although we adopted a good amendment today to prevent the Food Stamp Program from becoming a block grant, this bill still contains deep cuts in food stamps. Families who depend on the Food Stamp Program to meet their basic nutritional needs will suffer from the cuts in this bill. Even families with full-time workers sometimes need food stamps because their full-time jobs don't provide enough money to feed their families. This bill will hurt them too. This bill does not provide enough money for child care. In fact, it is likely that States will be unable to meet the work requirements of the bill because of the inadequate level of child care funding. Parents who are ready to work and who want to work will not be able to work if there is not child care which is both affordable and available. These holes in the safety net for children are of deep concern to me. If protecting children is a priority for this Congress, how can we take a chance on a bill which is sure to hurt innocent children. We cannot. Mr. President, I have not given up on welfare reform. While I cannot vote ``yes'' for this bill today, I hope that the conference on the bill will continue to build on the progress we have made on this issue. Unlike last year's conference, which took an adequate bill and made it unacceptable, I hope that this year's conference will make a good, strong bill out of this unacceptable bill. I urge the conferees on the bill to continue to work with the White House and with the best minds from both parties to reach agreement on a plan we can all support, and that the President will sign. We can do it. We can have a plan that saves lives, saves tax dollars, creates opportunities for work, and protects children. I hope the conferees will negotiate in good faith to achieve a plan that is tough on work and protects kids. I would be proud to vote for that plan. protect children

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Of course.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I am proud to join the Democratic leader and Senator Breaux in offering this substitute amendment, the Work First Act of 1996. As one of the coauthors of this amendment, working with Senator Daschle and Senator Breaux, I want to say it does reform welfare. It embodies the principles of turning the welfare system into an employment system, of being firm on work, and of providing a safety net for children. It recognizes that child care is the linchpin between welfare and work. And it puts men back into the picture. We do it very straightforwardly. We do it by replacing AFDC with temporary employment assistance, which is time-limited and conditional. We require all parents on welfare to sign a parent empowerment contract, which is their plan for moving from welfare to work, and which also emphasizes their role and responsibility in child rearing. We advocate not only moving people to work, but we do it by providing the tools to move people to work, through child care assistance, transitional Medicaid coverage, and other work-related services. We also require a safety net for children with child care funding, a guarantee of health care, and noncash aid where it is needed to meet the specific needs of each child. In the event the parents do not meet their responsibilities, we are not going to punish the child for the failings of the mother. We also eliminate the cruel and punitive rule called the ``man in the house'' rule and allow States to offer job placement services to fathers. The Work First Act is a plan that is tough on work but not tough on kids. It is important to note the bill before us today is much improved over the Republican plan which the Senate considered last year. Many of the provisions included in the Democratic work first bill from last year have been incorporated into this version. I am particularly pleased that earlier Republican efforts to block grant child protection programs--to take the child protection programs and turn them into a block grant--have been abandoned. This is an issue of special importance to me. I worked as a child abuse and child neglect worker, and I know how crucial those programs are. It was absolutely crucial this bill maintain those protections. I thank Senator Chafee and all those on the other side of the aisle who worked on that. I want to acknowledge the Senator from Maine for her particular role in that advocacy. I believe the changes that have been made to last year's Republican bill has brought us a long way. The pending bill is no longer the punitive one that was brought to the floor last year. But I do believe improvement needs to be made. That is why we are offering the work first amendment. This amendment is the result of ongoing efforts to find the sensible center. We listened to the concerns raised about the work first bill in last year's debate. So we tightened up our plan, and we save more money. We save some $51 billion. We also heard the voices of the Governors, and in response made sure our plan provided greater flexibility for the States to design their own programs. I believe our plan is a stronger plan as a result. In drafting our amendment, we emphasize two clear priorities. First, we wanted to emphasize work as the goal of any welfare program. Second, we wanted to protect children and provide a safety net for them. First and foremost, our plan is about the empowerment of people, not the enlargement of bureaucracy. Empowering people has become almost a cliche. What does empowerment mean? Empower means that you give people tools to get ready for a job, to obtain a job, and to keep a job. We think you have to be in job training and we emphasize the job training must immediately lead to work. I do believe the best social program is a job; one that moves a person from welfare to work, and to a better life for themselves and their families. That is what we hope to do. Work is the cornerstone of our plan. The first step for any welfare recipient will be to sign an empowerment contract, which is a contract outlining a plan to get into the work force. Our plan ensures that people live up to their contract by requiring recipients to engage in an intensive job search, ending assistance to those who refuse to accept a legitimate job offer, and providing a 5-year time limit for benefits. We give the States the resources and the flexibility to help people meet the terms of their empowerment contract, whether it is job search assistance, on the job training, placement vouchers or even wage subsidies. This emphasis on work changes the whole culture of welfare by saying welfare should not be a way of life but a way to a better life. We want to turn welfare offices into employment offices, by changing the focus to looking for work rather than looking for benefits. But while we are making work the top priority, we also look out for the children with a safety net that provides child care, health care and protections from child abuse. We recognize that lack of child care is the biggest obstacle to work; to both getting a job and keeping one. So our bill provides $16 billion in child care funds for those required to work, for those transitioning to work, and for the working poor so they don't slide into welfare. We also make sure that every child has access to health care; that they get their immunizations; that they get their early detection and screening so that their parents are not only work-force ready, but the children are learning ready when they go to school and stay in school. We maintain that Federal commitment to fight child abuse by requiring States to meet Federal standards in child welfare and foster care programs. We also reauthorize the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act. Child abuse and neglect is growing like an epidemic. Just like we need to end welfare abuse, we need to end the abuse of children. With child protection systems overwhelmed, and half the States under court order because of the way they handle child protection, we must do all we can to make sure no one gets away with abusing or neglecting a child. Madam President, we also provide a safety net for children. I believe that most welfare recipients will move to work and take advantage of the opportunities in this bill. But if they do not, we are not going to punish the child. We are not going to aim at a parent and hit the child. So we require the States to assess the needs of children in families who have reached the time limit, and to provide noncash aid, for example, vouchers to a third party, to meet the basic subsistence needs of children. States will have the flexibility to design this program, but we believe the Federal requirement is needed to make sure that children do not pay the price when parents are unable to move from welfare to work. Because we value family, marriage, and work, we know the strongest family is one with two parents, with the father in the home. So the work first amendment brings men back into the family by ending rules which create a marriage penalty if poor people get married and stay married. Our bill is also tough on child support. It requires Federal and State governments to work together to enforce child support orders, streamlines the process to collect child support checks, and calls on States to implement tough procedures to make sure that parents do live up to their responsibilities. We, the Democrats, believe that if you are a deadbeat parent, you should not have a driver's license or a professional license, and so we call on States to implement procedures on that. Madam President, I hope we adopt this work first amendment. It is an amendment which pulls together the best ideas of both parties. It ends the cycle of poverty and the culture of poverty. It is a plan that saves lives, saves taxpayers dollars, creates opportunities for work and protects the children. I urge the adoption of the amendment, and I yield the floor. Mr. D'AMATO addressed the Chair.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the Dodd- Mikulski-Kassebaum-Coats, et al. amendment. This amendment is really quite simple. It restores basic health and safety standards for child- care providers receiving Federal funds. The bill before us repeals those modest standards. I think that is shocking. Safe child care is too important to be left to chance. Mr. President, we have to make sure that what we explicitly state are our values we put in our legislative policy. This bill does that. It restores the requirement that states have standards in place to protect children. These standards protect children from infectious diseases, make sure their buildings and playgrounds are safe, and require the people who take care of children to know first aid. I hope that every Senator will support this amendment because in moving families to work, we must ensure not only the adequacy of child care, but that child care is safe. Sure, we often focus on debating the amount of money we are going to spend on child care. And this is one Senator who believes we need to provide more funding for child care. However, we have to make sure that child care is not only affordable, but that it is safe. There is a basic need for health and safety standards for child care facilities and providers. We need standards to make sure our kids are not around open electrical outlets, that there are not open manholes like little Jessica fell down some years ago. This is basic. Child care has to be more than warehousing kids. Parents have to have some assurance that their children are in a hazard-free environment, and that those who are taking care of them know at least basic first aid, so they will know what to do if a child is hurt or becomes ill. This is not an unfunded mandate. It is not even a mandate at all. It is common human decency. Requiring States to assure certain basic health and safety standards is the least we can do to give parents peace of mind, while they are working to provide for their children. Mr. President, in 1990 the Congress enacted a major child care bill. We had bipartisan support for that bill. It provided Federal funds for tax credits and grants to make child care more affordable. It also ensured that providers who receive those funds had to meet minimum health and safety standards, which each State would establish. We recognized that basic standards were needed to ensure that all children would be safe and well-cared for. The 1990 child care bill made sense then and it makes sense now. Under that law, States set the standards; they decide what will work best for their State. In my own State of Maryland, we have a three tiered system of health and safety standards. Maryland felt it was important that child care centers that care for lots of kids have a higher level of regulation than someone who provides care in a home setting or in the child's own home. Maryland also ensures background checks to screen providers for criminal records. Other States have different standards to meet the particular needs of their State. But this law ensures that each and every State must have at least a minimal level of safety and health standards. If we are serious about protecting children, we absolutely must maintain that requirement. It is what every mom and dad wants for their kids. We should vote our values and support the Dodd-Mikulski, et al, amendment. I yield the floor.