COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA LEGISLATIVE JOURNAL · 6/8/1994 · accomplished here thisday be to...

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

LEGISLATIVE JOURNAL

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 8, 1994

SESSION OF 1994 178TH OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY No. 30

SENATEWEDNESDAY, June 8, 1994

The Senate met at 10:30 a.m., Eastern Daylight SavingTime.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore (Robert C. Jubelirer) inthe Chair.

PRAYER

The Chaplain, Pastor GRACE T. LAWRENCE, of FirstBaptist Church, Lykens, offered the following prayer:

We are in the presence of the living God. Let us be stillbefore him.

o God, our help in ages past, our hope for years tocome, we praise You and thank You for all we are and allwe have and all we enjoy. We thank You for our countryand for all those who govern. Bless Your peopleeverywhere. Gathered in this beautiful Chamber, we aremindful of the past, grateful for the present; and hopefulfor the future. Give us humility towards those who havegone before us. Give us vision to prepare the way for thosewho are yet to come.

o gracious God, grant that these esteemed Senators mayrecognize their call to serve our Commonwealth as a sacredduty and a privilege. Fill them with courage to face thedifficult battles and the perplexing decisions that comebefore them. Give them a boldness to stand for right andtruth as well as the clarity of mind and conscience torecognize Your will.

Forgive us for thinking of prayer as a formality. Rather,help us to see it as an opportunity to receive from Youpower and peace. Let Your wisdom be our wisdom, Yourstrength our strength, Your compassion our compassion,Your justice our justice. Remind these leaders to rule asthey should like to be ruled, so that what is spoken andaccomplished here this day be to Your honor and glory andfor the good of all Your children here and in this land.

May the blessings and mercy of the eternal God be uponus all, for it is in confidence and certainty we pray. Amen.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair thanks PastorLawrence, who is the guest today of Senator Shumaker.

JOURNAL APPROVED

The PRESIDENTpro tempore. A quorum of the Senatebeing present, the Oerk will read the Journal of thepreceding Session of June 7, 1994.

The Oerk proceeded to read the Journal of thepreceding Session, when, on motion of Senator LOEPER,further reading was dispensed with and the Journal wasapproved.

HOUSE MESSAGE

HOUSE CONCURS IN SENATECONCURRENT RESOLUTION

The Oerk of the House of Representatives informed theSenate that the House has concurred in resolution from theSenate, entitled:

Weeklyadjoumment.

SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESSANNOUNCEMENTS BY mE SECRETARY

The SECRETARY. Consent has been given for theCommittee on Rules and Executive Nominations to meetduring today's Session to consider certain nominations. Alsothe Committee on Transportation will meet to considerSenate Bills No. 12, 15,386,443,539, and House Bills No.1313, 1950, and 2630.

REPORTS FROM COMMITTEES

Senator TILGHMAN, from the Committee onAppropriations, reported the following bills:

8B 416 (Pr. No. 439) (Rereported)

A Joint Resolution proposing an amendment to theConstitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,providing for spending limitations on the Commonwealth.

SB 738 (Pr. No. 2232) (Amended) (Rereported)

An Act to regulate levels of airborne asbestos and theremoval of asbestos-eontaining material in educationalfacilities and public buildings; and to designate conditionsunder which asbestos removal may be conducted.

2220 LEGISLATIVE JOURNAL - SENATE JUNE 8,

LEGISLATIVE LEAVES

CALENDAR

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Senator MELLOW asked and obtained leave of absencefor Senator PECORA, for today's Session, for personalreasons.

RobbinsSalvatoreSchwartzShafferShumakerStapletonStewartStoutTilghmanWagner

LoeperMadiganMarksMellowMoweryMustoQ'PakePetersonPorterfieldPunt

YEAS-49

FumoGreenleafHartHecklerHelfrickHollJonesJubeJirerlaValleLemmond

HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTIONNo. 195, CALLED UP OUT OF ORDER

Senator LOEPER, without objection, called up out oforder, from page 10 of the Calendar, as a Special Order ofBusiness, House Concurrent Resolution No. 195, entitled:

A Concurrent Resolution memorializing the Presidentand Congress to take action to help ease the burden thatincreased lumber prices have placed on homebuilders andhomebuyers.

On the question,Will the Senate concur in the resolution?

Senator LOEPER. Mr. President, I move that the Senatedo concur in House Concurrent Resolution No. 195.

On the question,Will the Senate agree to the motion?

The yeas and nays were required by Senator LOEPERand were as follows, viz:

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair recognizesthe gentleman from Allegheny, Senator Fisher.

Senator FISHER. Mr. President, I request temporaryCapitol leaves for Senator Armstrong, Senator Holl, andSenator Salvatore.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Senator Fisher requeststemporary Capitol leaves for Senator Armstrong, SenatorHoll, and Senator Salvatore. Without objection, thoseleaves will be granted.

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Lackawanna,Senator Mellow.

Senator MELLOW. Mr. President, I request legislativeleaves for Senator Fattah and Senator Lewis.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Senator Mellowrequests legislative leaves for Senator Fattah and SenatorLewis. Without objection, those leaves will be granted.

AfflerbachAndrezeskiArmstrongBaker

..;~lJe1atrBeDBodackBortnerBrightbillCorman

SB 1660 (Pr. No. 2205) (Rereported)

An Act amending Title 71 (State Government) of thePennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, providing for the transferof certain pension setvice credit relating to the MiddleAtlantic-Great Lakes Organized Crime Law EnforcementNetwork.

DB 1392 (Pr. No. 3815) (Rereported)

An Act amending the act of June 13, 1967 (p. L. 31, No.21), known as the Public Welfare Code, further providing forState participation in cooperative Federal programs, forlegislative intent, for uniformity in administration ofassistance and for the community work program; providingfor responsibilities of the Department of Public Welfare andassistance recipients, for a job creation task foree, foreducation savings accounts and for a recipient identificationprogram; further 'providing for eligibility, for identificationand proof of residence and for determination of medically .needy eligibility; providing for additional setvices to themedically needy; further providing for medical assistancereimbursement and for employment incentive payments;providing for minimum school attendance requirements;further providing for business enterprises, for specialrecipient participation, for penalties and for third-partyliability; providing for repayment from probate estates;conferring powers and duties on the Department of PublicWelfare; making appropriations; and making repeals.

Senator MADIGAN, from the Committee onAgriculture and Rural Affairs, reported the following bills:

DB 1860 (Pr. No. 3471)

An Act reenacting the proceeds disposition provision ofthe act of June 18, 1982 (p.L.549, No.159), entitled "An actproviding for the administration of certain Commonwealthfarmland within the Department of Agriculture," andproviding for an agricultural land conservation assistancegrant program.

DB 2520 (Pr. No. 3827) (Amended)

An Act amending the act of June 30, 1981 (p.L.128,No.43), known as the Agricultural Area Security Law,providing for definitions, for decision on proposed area, foragricultural security areas and for installment purchaseprograms; further providing for evaluation criteria anddecision on proposed area; and further authorizinginvestment of State money.

DB 2521 (Pr. No. 3828) (Amended)

An Act amending the act of June 30, 1981 (p.L.128,No.43), known as the Agricultural Area Security Law, furtherproviding for definitions; providing standards, criteria andrequirements for the purchasing of agricultural conservationeasements; providing for review of county programs;imposing duties on the State Agricultural Land PreservationBoard and county boards; and further providing forsubdivision of land and ch~nge'ofownership.

1994 LEGISLATIVE JOURNAL - SENATE 2221

DawidaFattahFisher

Lewis ReibmanLincoln Rhoades

NAYS-o

WengerWilliams

Democratic Caucuses report to their caucus rooms at theconclusion of the meeting of the Committee onTransportation. For those purposes, the Senate will standin recess.

A majority of the Senators having voted "aye," thequestion was determined in the affirmative.

Ordered, That the Secretary of the Senate inform theHouse of Representatives accordingly.

LEGISLATIVE LEAVE CANCELLED

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair notes thepresence on the floor of Senator Salvatore, who voted forhimself, thereby negating his temporary Capitol leave.

ANNOUNCEMENTS BYCOMMITTEE CHAIRMEN

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair recognizesthe gentleman from Centre, Senator Corman.

Senator CORMAN. Mr. President, I would like toannounce that the recessed meeting of the SenateCommittee on Transportation will meet now in the Rulesroom.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. For those of you whodid not hear, the recessed meeting of the Committee onTransportation is going to meet in the Rules room uponrecess.

And Senator Holl has asked me to announce that themeeting of the Committee on Banking and Insurance hasbeen postponed to the call of the Chair.

All Members of the Committee on Transportation pleasereport to the Rules room now.

RECESS

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair recognizesthe gentleman from Delaware, Senator Loeper.

Senator LOEPER. Mr. President, immediately upon therecess, if we could have the meeting of the Committee onTransportation and then all Republican Members reportdirectly to the first floor caucus room, with an expectationof trying to be back on the floor at 12 noon.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair recognizesthe gentleman from Lackawanna, Senator Mellow.

Senator MELLOW. Mr. President, immediately upon theconclusion of the committee meetings, we will have aDemocratic caucus at the rear of the Chamber.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Immediately uponrecess, Senator Corman has asked all Members of theCommittee on Transportation to report to the Rules roomfor that recessed meeting.

Senator Holl has announced that the meeting of theCommittee on Banking and Insurance has been postponedto the call of the Chair.

Senator Loeper and Senator Menow have both askedthat the respective Members of the Republican and

AFI'ER RECESS

The PRESIDENT (lieutenant Governor Mark S. SiDget)in the Chair.

The PRESIDENT. )'he time of recess having expired,the Senate will come to order.

CONSIDERATION OF CALENDAR RESUMED

THIRD CONSIDERATION CALENDAR

BILL ON THIRD CONSIDERATIONAND FINAL PASSAGE

S8 394 (Pr. No. 2201) -- The Senate proceeded toconsideration of the bill, entitled:

An Act authorizing and directing the Department ofGeneral Services, with the approval of the Governor, toconvey to East Pikeland Township a tract of land situate inEast ~eland Township, Chester County, Pennsylvania.

Considered the third time and agreed to,And the amendments made thereto having been printed

as required by the Constitution,

On the question,Shall the bi)) pass finally?

LEGISLATIVE LEAVES

The PRESIDENT. The Chair recognizes the gentlemanfrom Lackawanna, Senator Mellow.

Senator MELLOW. Mr. President, I request legislativeleaves for Senator Afflerbach, Senator Bodack, SenatorO'Pake, and Senator Reibman.

The PRESIDENT. The Chair recognizes the gentlemanfrom Allegheny, Senator Fisher.

Senator FISHER. Mr. President, I request temporaryCapitol leaves for Senator Salvatore and Senator Wenger,and a legislative leave for Senator Helfrick.

The PRESIDENT. Senator Mellow asks for temporaryCapitol leaves for Senator Afflerbach, Senator Bodack,Senator O'Pake, and Senator Reibman.

Senator Fisher asks for temporary Capitol leaves forSenator Salvatore and Senator Wenger, and a legislativeleave for Senator Helfrick.

The Chair hears no objection. Those leaves will begranted.

And the question recurring,Shall the bi)) pass finally?

The yeas and nays were taken agreeably to theprovisions of the Constitution and were as follows, viz:


YEAS--49

Afflerbach Furno Loeper RobbinsAndrezeski Greenleaf Madigan SalvatoreArmstrong Hart Marks SchwartzBaker Heckler Mellow ShafferBelan Helfrick Mowery ShumakerBell Holl Musto StapletonBodack Jones O'Pake StewartBortner JubeUrer Peterson StoutBrightbill LaValle Porterfield TilghmanCorman Lemmond Punt WagnerDawida Lewis Reibman WengerFattah lincoln Rhoades WilliamsFisher

NAYS~

A constitutional majority of all the Senators having voted"aye," the question was determined in the affirmative.

Ordered, That the Secretary of the Senate present saidbill to the House of Representatives for concurrence.

SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESSGUESTS OF SENATOR DAVID J.

BRIGHTBILL PRESENTED TO THE SENATE

The PRESIDENT. The Chair recognizes the gentlemanfrom Lebanon, Senator Brightbill.

Senator BRIGHTBILL. Mr. President, I am proud tomake an introduction here. We have serving as a Page forthe day a young man named David Christman, and Davidis the son of Martin and Sandra Christman of Hamburg.He is a high school athlete. Sandy works, runs, andmanages my Hamburg office and does a terrific job. Davidis the owner of something that is unique in all ofPennsylvania, and that is that he has hanging on his wall apicture of Lenny Dykstra, autographed by the gentlemanfrom Chester, Senator Earl Baker. So if we could giveDavid a warm welcome.

The PRESIDENT. Would David please rise so we canwelcome you to the Senate of Pennsylvania, and we thankyou for your help.

(Applause.)

LEGISLATIVE LEAVES CANCELLED

The PRESIDENT. The Chair recognizes the presence onthe floor of Senator Holl and Senator Armstrong. Theirtemporary Capitol leaves will be cancelled.

LEGISLATIVE LEAVES


Senator MELLOW. Mr. President, I request legislativeleaves for Senator Musto and Senator Stapleton.

The PRESIDENT. Senator Mellow requests legislativeleaves for Senator Musto and Senator Stapleton. The Chairhears no objection. Those leaves will be granted.

SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESSSUPPLEMENTAL CALENDAR No.1

BILL ON THIRD CONSIDERATIONAND FINAL PASSAGE

DB 1392 (Pr. No. 3815) -- The Senate proceeded toconsideration of the bill, entitled:

An Act amending the act of June 13, 1967 (p. L. 31, No.21), known as the Public Welfare Code, further providing forState participation in cooperative Federal programs, forlegislative intent, for uniformity in administration ofassistance and for the community work program; providingfor responsibilities of the Department of Public Welfare andassistance recipients, for a job creation task force, foreducation savings accounts and for a recipient identificationprogram; further providing for eligibility, for identificationand proof of residence and for determination of medicallyneedy eligibility; providing for additional services to themedically needy; further providing for medical assistancereimbursement and for employment incentive payments;providing for minimum school attendance requirements;further providing for business enterprises, for specialrecipient participation, for penalties and for third-partyliability; providing for repayment from probate estates;conferring powers and duties on the Department of PublicWelfare; making appropriations; and making repeals.

On the question,Will the Senate agree to the bill on third consideration?

JONES AMENDMENT A2589 OFFERED

Senator JONES offered the following amendment No.A2589:

Amend Sec. 5 (Sec. 432), page 16, line 23, by striking outthe bracket before "A"

Amend Sec. 5 (Sec. 432), page 16, line 23, by insertingbrackets before and after "FORTY-FIVE" and insertingimmediately thereafter: fifty-five

Amend Sec. 5 (Sec. 432), page 16, lines 23 through 27, bystriking out "] PERSONS" in line 23 and all of lines 24through 27

Amend Sec. 5 (Sec. 432), page 17, by inserting betweenlines 17 and 18:

(D.n Persons who are parents residing in two-parenthouseholds with their child who is under eighteen years ofage. Every possible effort shall be made by the departmentto place these persons in the AFDC program.

On the question,Will the Senate agree to the amendment?

The PRESIDENT. The Chair recognizes thegentlewoman from Philadelphia, Senator Jones.

Senator JONES. Mr. President, this amendment raisesthe age of the chronically needy category to age 55. It willaffect 11,132 people, and it will cost $16 million.

Mr. President, the reason why I am introducing thisamendment is because I realize that for people 55 years ofage it is very hard, almost impossible, for them to get


employment, and certainly that is a fact if they have beenout of work. And we know because of the lack of work inPennsylvania, the closing of factories, factories moving tothe Sunbelt and overseas, a lot of people who had been outof work are out of work and people are not apt to hirepeople who are 55 years of age, and that is why I amintroducing this amendment. Plus, I found that people inthat age bracket, a lot of them are not employable. A lot ofthem are not employable. They have illnesses, some ofthem, such as arthritis, diabetes, and other illnesses that donot warrant them to be on SSI, the Federal program.

Mr. President, I am appealing to my colleagues in theSenate to consider a woman 55 years old who is trying toget a job in this day and time, and let us think of womenwho are not qualified. We are living in a different day.People are not trained, they are not skilled, and certainlypeople would rather hire younger people if they haveavailability than to hire older people. And I am appealingthat we at least allow these people 55 years old some grace.As I said, it would affect 11,132 people, and it would costabout $16 million to not eliminate these people 55 yearsold to 65 years old.

Thank you.

POINT OF ORDER

The PRESIDENT. On the amendment, the Chairrecognizes the gentleman from Philadelphia, SenatorWilliams.

Senator WILLIAMS. Mr. President, first of all, a pointof order.

The PRESIDENT. The gentleman will state his point.Senator WILLIAMS. Mr. President, the point is, do I

understand that there is to be offered an exact sameamendment to House Bill No. 1392 which would be from45 years old as well?

The PRESIDENT. The Chair has no way of knowingwhether that is the case or not.

Senator WILLIAMS. Mr. President, well, it is myunderstanding that there is one.

The PRESIDENT. Perhaps the gentlewoman fromPhiladelphia, Senator Jones, would be in a better positionto answer that question.

Senator Jones, do you wish to respond to thatinterrogation?

Senator JONES. Mr. President, well, if this fails, Icertainly intend to.

Senator WILLIAMS. Mr. President, my thought was thatthe idea is precisely the same, and perhaps it would bebetter in terms of order ifwe had the amendment regarding45 years of age first, because the thrust of that argues forthe whole group. Then there may be in the body some whowould not be for that but who would be for the same ideaat a higher age. And in terms of order in the debate, I waswondering if the gentlewoman would withdraw and offerthe other first and then proceed to the other if that failed,as a matter of order.

The PRESIDENT. The Chair would respond simply thatyour order does seem to make sense from a strictlypractitioner's standpoint, but it is really up to the offerer ofthe amendment.

Senator Jones, the gentleman from Philadelphia, SenatorWilliams, is suggesting a different order for offering thoseamendments.

Senator WILLIAMS. Mr. President, I was notsuggesting, I was asking if she would consider that order.

Senator JONES. Mr. President, let me understand. Youare saying I should introduce the amendment regarding 45years of age first? Is that what you are saying?

The PRESIDENT. Would the Senators yield for just amoment. Perhaps we can resolve this in a sidebarconversation on the subject.

The Senate will be at ease for just a moment.(The Senate was at ease.)

AMENDMENT WITHDRAWN

The PRESIDENT. The Chair understands that SenatorJones wishes to withdraw the present amendment and offerin its place a different amendment. Could you tell us whatthe number of the amendment is?

Senator JONES. Mr. President, this amendment numberis A2587, and I apologize for the confusion.

And the question recurring,Will the Senate agree to the bill on third consideration?

JONES AMENDMENT A2587





(d.1) Persons who are parents residing in two-parenthouseholds with their child who is under eighteen years ofage. Every possible effort shall be made by the departmentto place these persons in the AFDC program.



Senator JONES. Mr. President, not to take up too muchtime, my argument is almost the same. Forty-five years oldis not that much different from 55 in terms of gettingemployment. We have to realize in the Commonwealth thatthere is a lack of jobs. We have to realize the fact that theDepartment of Labor says we lack 391,000 jobs right nowin the State, and we have to realize that people are notworking because there are no jobs. Factories have closed,they have moved to the south, they have gone overseas, and


people just cannot find employment. And my argument at55 years old, it is just as hard for someone 45 years old nowto get employment. Young people cannot even getemployment. So, Mr. President, this is why I am introducingthis amendment to include the 45 years old to 65 years old.

Thank you.The PRESIDENT. The Chair recognizes the gentleman

from Philadelphia, Senator Williams.Senator WILLIAMS. Mr. President, I rise to support the

amendment. The proposed bill seeks, as most of us know,to eliminate those who are right now chronically needy,people who, because of a defined age grouping, are largelyunemployable, and, therefore, chronically unable to supportthemselves. Those definitions were first arrived at prettymuch in Thornfare. We thought then that Thornfare wasinsensitive and mean to a very deserving population ofsome help and subsidy by the State.

Mr. President, the amendment is appropriate becausethat group of people who because of age cannot find a joband because of the present circumstances we find that jobsjust are not there, it is composed of a lot of people, not justelderly and growing elderly. We have in that category anynumber of people who fought for this country and whowere ho~orably discharged from the military services. Wehave people of other kinds of distinction, and so we saythat even though you cannot find a job, and even thoughyou fit a profile where employability is largely extremelydifficult, we the State do not care. And I believe, Mr.President, that the amendment seeks to restore some senseof respect and respectability to that grouping ofPennsylvanians. I think anything opposite would, bydefinition, be mean and cruel.

On top of that, I must add the observation that everyprogram of this nature that has been devised has cost theState millions upon millions upon millions of dollars. All ofthe studies support that view, and I wonder why theofferers of this particular segment of the bill would do so.Well, the reason rings back clear, and that is because itsounds like we are cutting some folks we do not like off ofwelfare. It sounds like we are cutting some people who arecommitting fraud off of welfare. It sounds like we aretaking someone undeserving and restoring that money tothe taxpayers. Well, for political expediency that sounds allright. But for the first time in this State, almost everyresponsible newspaper understands it is mean, it isnonproductive, it is stupid and insensitive.

I merely want to add that it is here and now. At somepoint there is a crossroads at which what we do isirresponsible, not moral and not very American by our ownstandards. We stood here 2 days ago and talked aboutD-Day, those who lost their lives in military combat. Well,there are a lot of us who were on foreign shores to engagein combat, and a lot of those people are in this category.That is why I say it is un-American. A lot of those peoplepaid dues and were working people and now are elderly.That is why it is un-American. A lot of those people got to

these ages, and because of other kinds of discrimination-yes, the statistics show that too, the statistics show that withwomen, blacks, and other minorities that there is not a levelplaying field in this country, and so some people justlumber on into old age and never, ever have a chance. Sowe did not give them a chance early on, and we punishedthem on the other end.

We cannot have it both ways, Mr. President, and that isto talk about fiscal responsibilities, to talk about all thosegeneralities about restoring some order to a system, and tothrowaway these people and to waste money on top of awaste of money. I wonder, Mr. President, who among theparties who offer these programs has guts enough tore~gnize it loses money, has guts enough to recognize it isinsensitive, has guts enough to recognize it punishesindividual people, thousands ofour individual people whomwe wrap our confidence around all year? And I wonder,Mr. President, whether or not this foolishness will evercatch up with us?

Thank you.The PRESIDENT. The Chair recognizes the gentleman

from Allegheny, Senator Fisher.Senator FISHER. Mr. President, what the amendment

really attempts to do is preserve the current age limit forthe transitionally needy at age 45. What we have here, Mr.President, is a comprehensive welfare reform package thatreduces the overall cost of welfare in this State byapproximately $90 million. This is one of the keycomponents. It is one of the key components which I thinkis an appropriate reform, and for that reason, Mr.President, I would ask for a negative vote on thisamendment.

The PRESIDENT. The Chair recognizes the gentlemanfrom Philadelphia, Senator Williams.

Senator WILLIAMS. Mr. President, in response to thatresponsible request for support, I would like to also observethat the very philosophy on this particular part of the billsays that they are going to give some people a couplehundred dollars a couple times every 2 years. How great aninsult when people who have jobs and are more well-to-doget that much because they work. We have a dependentand, therefore, we get several hundred or a couplethousand or a $1,200 deduction, a subsidy because weworked. It just adds to the insult, to the meanness, to theludicrousness of this idea to have the gall to say, okay, wedisdain you so badly we will throw a couple hundred dollarsat you every couple of years. Just think about it. No wayanybody offers that. If you examine the recesses of yourmind and cannot come up with anything other than the factthat that is just plain mean, that it is a disdain for fellowPennsylvanians, if that part were not included with theother part, I do not know whether it would make it anybetter, but the character of this assassination is revealed inthe disdainful offering of a couple hundred dollars.

It also defines the fact that every approach in this bill,and in particular in this section, is designed to rob from the


Less than a majority of the Senators having voted "aye,"the question was determined in the negative.

And the question recurring,Will the Senate agree to the bilJ on third consideration?


to tell you, as Senator Bell told you in 1982, that this willcome back to haunt us if we do this, and it will not take 10years either. It will not take 10 years. I am pleading withyou to reconsider this. At least I am for welfare reform,more so than a lot of people in this room think. I havebeen for welfare reform, but the legislation always falls ondeaf ears. I think we need to think what we are doing heretoday and at least give these people an opportunity. Weneed to be about seeing that they get job training and jobplacement first and then talk about cutting offwelfare. Thatis being real.

Thank you, Mr. President.

And the question recurring,WilJ the Senate agree to the amendment?

1The yeas and nays were required by Senator JONES andere as follows, viz:



Amend Sec. 5 (Sec. 432), page 16, line 23, by insertingbrackets before and after "FORTY-FIVE" and insertingimmediately thereafter: fifty-five



CD,n Persons who are parents residing in two-parenthouseholds with their child who is under eighteen years ofage. Every possible .effort shall be made by the departmentto place these persons in the AFDC program.

On the question,WilJ the Senate agree to the amendment?

poor and to enhance the rich, as will be further revealed aswe discuss this bill, on all the tax deductions that we aregiving to the people who are already wealthy. And so,indeed, it is, I guess, a reverse Robin Hood, as I amlooking at an article here, where you rob from the poor andyou give to the rich.


LEGISLATIVE LEAVES


Senator FISHER. Mr. President, I request temporaryCapitol leaves for Senator Hart and Senator Robbins.

The PRESIDENT. Senator Fisher requests temporaryCapitol leaves for Senator Hart and Senator Robbins. TheChair hears no objection. Those leaves will be granted.

And the question recurring,Will the Senate agree to the amendment?


Senator JONES. Mr. President, I would like to point outanother problem with this bilJ, should it become effectiveJuly 1, and that is the transitionally needy recipients whohave received assistance within the past year would not beeligible to receive any kind of assistance until 1996 becausethey have already drawn their so-called funds. What I amsaying is to me, that is inhuman, to not even give thesepeople a grace period, but this is what House BilJ No. 1392does. It would go into effect July 1, and as I said, it isretroactive and those people will not have anything to liveon. We are going to have more homeless people in thestreet, we are going to have more crime in the street. And,Mr. President, when we think of how much money it costsus to just house one inmate a year, certainly since we donot have jobs, since we do not have training slots for thesepeople, then I do not understand, what is the big rush?Why cannot we be good human beings, good Americans,and at least say we are going to put you in a trainingprogram or give you a job and then we will cut your checkoff?

My mind goes back to 1982 when I had the privilege ofsitting upstairs listening to my good friend, the gentlemanfrom Delaware, Senator Bell, who gave that astoundingspeech on this floor that I think had a little effect aboutcutting these people off, where are they going? Heemphasized how jobs had gone to the SunbeJt. He laid it allout.

The situation, Mr. President, is even worse now in 1994.People are unemployable, somehow or other drugs havebeen allowed to come into our communities, and now thosepeople who got involved in drugs, and believe me, they gotinvolved in drugs, are not employable. We have to dosomething to get these people back into the market so theycan go out and get a job. There is no point in us foolingourselves. We could do something politically, but I am here

AfflerbachAndrezeskiBelanBodackDawida

ArmstrongBakerBellBrightbillCormanFisherGreenleaf

FattahFumoJonesLaValleLewis

HartHecklerHelfrickHollJubelirerLemmondLoeper

YEAS-20

LincolnMellowMustoPorterfieldSchwartz

NAYS-28

MadiganMarksMoweryQ'PakePetersonPuntReibman

StapletonStewartStoutWagnerWilliams

RhoadesRobbinsSalvatoreShafferShumakerTilghmanWenger



Senator MELLOW. Mr. President, this basically is thesame amendment that was sponsored by the gentlewomanfrom Philadelphia, Senator Jones, and the gentleman fromPhiladelphia, Senator Williams, except instead ofhaving thecutoff at age 45, this now moves it up to age 55. It wouldamend the bill to that effect, and I would ask for anaffirmative vote on the amendment.

LEGISLATIVE LEAVE


Senator MELLOW. Mr. President, I request a legislativeleave for Senator Fumo.

The PRESIDENT. The Chair hears no objection to therequest, and the leave will be granted.



Senator FISHER. Mr. President, as I indicated before,we have a comprehensive welfare reform package thatreduces the overall cost of welfare in this State as we knowit. Adoption of this amendment would increase the ~st ofwelfare. It would add an arbitrary age limit, and I wouldask for a negative vote on the amendment.


The yeas and nays were required by Senator JONES andwere as follows, viz:

YEAS-24

Afflerbach Fattah Marks SchwartzAndrezeski Furno Mellow StapletonBelan Jones Musto StewartBodack LaValle O'Pake StoutBortner Lewis Porterfield WagnerDawida Uncoln Reibman Williams

NAYS-25

Armstrong Hart Loeper RobbinsBaker Heckler Madigan SalvatoreBell Helfrick Mowery ShafferBrightbill Holl Peterson ShumakerCorman Jubelirer Punt TilghmanFisher Lemmond Rhoades WengerGreenleaf


RECONSIDERATION OF A2587 TO HB 1392


Senator MELLOW. Mr. President, I move to reconsiderthe vote by which amendment A2587 to House Bill No.1392 was defeated.

The motion was agreed to.

And the question recurring,Will the Senate agree to amendment A2587?


Senator MELLOW. Mr. President, the gentleman fromYork, Senator Bortner, came on the floor just as you wereannouncing the roll, and he would like to be recorded onthe amendment.

The PRESIDENT. The Chair thanks the gentleman.


The yeas and nays were required by Senator MELLOWand were as follows, viz:

YEAS-20

Afflerbach Fattah Uncoln StapletonAndrezeski Furno Mellow StewartBelan Jones Musto StoutBodack LaValle Porterfield WagnerDawida Lewis Schwartz Williams

NAYS-29

Armstrong Hart Madigan RhoadesBaker Heckler Marks RobbinsBell Helfrick Mowery SalvatoreBortner Holl O'Pake ShafferBrightbill Jubelirer Peterson ShumakerCorman Lemmond Punt TilghmanFisher Loeper Reibman WengerGreenleaf





Amend Sec. 5 (Sec. 432), page 19, lines 13 through 18, bystriking out "ANY" in line 13 and all oflines 14 through 18


LEGISLATIVE LEAVES


Senator MELLOW. Mr. President, Senator Bortner hasbeen called to his office and would like to be placed ontemporary Capitol leave.


The PRESIDENT. Without objection, Senator Bortnerwill be placed on temporary Capitol leave.

Senator MELLOW. Mr. President, both Senator Lincolnand I have to go to a legislative meeting and would like tobe placed on legislative leave.

The PRESIDENT. Senator Lincoln and Senator Mellowrequest legislative leaves. The Chair hears no objection, andthose leaves will be granted as well.



Senator JONES. Mr. President, what this amendmentdoes is takes away the retroactiveness from the transitionalbenefits of 90 days. In other words--I spoke of this earlier-if this bill passes July 1, 1994, the transitional recipients willnot get any other money until 1996 because they havealready gotten their benefits. I am asking that we reconsiderthis and have the effective date be July 1, 1994.


Senator WILLIAMS. Mr. President, I also support thisamendment and make the observation that this is a furtherdemonstration of the meanness I referred to earlier wheresomeone apparently wants to play with someone. You have$200 but, guess what, you do not have it because we madeit retroactive. What kind of foolishness is that? If there isanything at all in the couple hundred dollars, you eithergive it or take it away. I do not think it means anythinganyway, but it is an intellectual exercise of the highest orderto demonstrate our disdain for people. Once again, I askyou to really think about that. What does that mean to sayto a poor person who went to war, yeah, you had a coupledollars but we took it back. Come on. I mean, it actually isplaying with people. I think that the amendment is a seriousattempt to prevent us from looking like complete fools. Ifthe purpose of this is to save money, it is not to disdainfullylaugh at people with some very desperate lives, and I thinkwe should all support the amendment just to beself-respecting.

LEGISLATIYE LEAYE CANCELLED

The PRESIDENT. The Chair recognizes the presence onthe floor of Senator Wenger. His temporary Capitol leavewill be cancelled.



Senator FISHER. Mr. President, likewise, I would urgea negative vote on this amendment. This is a key provisionof the bill. It is one that was a key element that was

supported by the Casey administration and it is one that Ithink that we need to keep in the bill, although it doesprovide a degree of retroactivity. I still think that thatportion of the bill is fair. It is a 12-month retroactivitysection, and I would urge a negative vote on thisamendment.

Thank you, Mr. President.The PRESIDENT. The Chair recognizes the gentleman

from Philadelphia, Senator Williams.Senator WILLIAMS. Mr. President, on that note, the

bottom line here is to save money. If the thought was, well,we will give it and then we will steal it back, I just want toobserve that there are millions and millions and millions ofdollars that are going to be taken from the taxpayersbecause there are going to be some reductions to the richsometime shortly, and if the purpose of this $88 million,this drop in the bucket, and this particular section is to letthe taxpayers know we are going to save you some money,everyone really needs to know that at the same time thereis going to be $120 million, $130 million just to start. Sothat is not really a key part of anything.

I must also return to the wise words of Governor Caseyin 1982 where he said that these GA people are supposedlyable-bodied, but they are not able-bodied. They arechemically dependent, illiterate. Even people at PanAmerican airways and people in major corporations cannotfind a job, and I will be damned if I will tell the walkingwounded of our society that we are going to throw youdown the steps to find a job. At another time in 1983talking about removing the transitionally needy, this verygroup, of greatest concern is this bill's provision toeliminate assistance for over 120,000 Pennsylvanians fromthe program, leaving them without any source of incomeand without health care coverage. Such a cut would becruel and counterproductive. I will not support a bill thatcontains provisions which do not achieve their purportedgoal, cost-containment, and at the same time hurt thosemost in need and least likely to find employment in thecurrent economy.

And so I say, Mr. President, to those wise words by theSenator as to why these are key provisions of a program isaptly demonstrated by one of the people whom he isbragging about really does not believe that. Cogently put,I just quoted, it would be cruel and counterproductive.Would not think of harming the walking wounded, thewalking wounded of our society. And so rather than quoteThornburgh anymore, quoting Casey, you will get in troubledoing that.

The other thing, as I said, costs just are not here. Youare taking out of one hand and you are putting more in theother pocket. And so to say that this is a significantprovision of a program just is not so. And I would urge andplead that this body show one sign of self-respect bysupporting Senator Jones's amendment, which really tries toput us on board with some degree of sanity.





DAWIDA AMENDMENT A2668

The PRESIDENT. The Chair notes the presence on thefloor of Senator Fumo. His temporary Capitol leave ishereby cancelled.


The yeas and nays were required by Senator JONES andwere as follows, viz:

Senator DAWIDAoffered the following amendment No.A2668:

Amend Sec. 4 (Sec. 405.3), page 11, line 19, by insertingafter "BENEFITS.": Employable persons. who are otherwiseeligible. shall receive cash assistance benefits upondemonstration of active work search. It is the intent of theGeneral Assembly that the department. in conjunction withthe Department of Labor and Industry. develop regulationsfor active work search. including provisions for weeklyreporting to the local job service office.


The PRESIDENT. The Chair recognizes the gentlemanfrom Allegheny, Senator Dawida.

Senator DAWIDA. Mr. President, I will not belabor theissue. This is a simple amendment, and I will admit to youthat it was not my idea. It was brought to me by the folksat the Mon Valley Unemployed Committee. This is thecommittee, you may remember, that was formed largely offormer steelworkers and industrial workers in the MonValley. Their idea is simple. It says to the lazy people whodo not want to work, you do not get welfare, and it says tothe strong work-ethic people I represent in the Mon Valley

YEAS-22

Jones Musto StapletonLaValle Q'Pake StewartLewis Porterfield StoutUncoln Reibman WagnerMarks Schwartz WilliamsMellow

NAYS-27

Fisher Lemmond RobbinsGreenleaf Loeper SalvatoreHart Madigan ShafferHeckler Mowery ShumakerHelfrick Peterson TilghmanHoll Punt WengerJubelirer Rhoades

that we will help you until you can find work. You mustsearch for work. While you search for work, you canreceive general assistance. If you do not, you are off of it.lt is that simple. And I urge a "yes" vote.

The PRESIDENT. On the amendment, the Chairrecognizes the gentleman from Allegheny, Senator Fisher.

Senator FISHER. Mr. President, I would urge a negativevote on this amendment. The standard that Senator Dawidais proposing in this amendment has contained within it, Iam sure, some bureaucratic nightmares for those in thecounty assistance offices who will be forced to implementthe law. I believe, just as I have said on the otheramendments, we have a comprehensive welfare reformproposal. Many of the issues that are addressed by thisamendment are already addressed in the bill, particularlywith the new funding that is provided for the NewDirections program. For those and other reasons, I wouldrequest a negative vote on this amendment.



The yeas and nays were required by Senator DAWIDAand were as follows, viz:


Senator SCHWARTZ offered the following amendmentNo. A2678:

Amend Sec. 5 (Sec. 432), page 18, lines 29 and 30, bystriking out "NO INDIVIDUAL SHALL QUALIFY ASCHRONICALLY NEEDY" in line 29 and all of line 30



SCHWARTZ AMENDMENT A2678

AndrezeskiArmstrongBakerBellBortnerBrightbillCorman

AfflerbachBelanBodackDawidaFatlahFumo

StewartStoutWagnerWilliams

RhoadesRobbinsSalvatoreShafferShumakerStapletonTilghmanWenger

UncolnMarksPorterfieldSchwartz

MadiganMellowMoweryMustoQ'PakePetersonPuntReibman

YEAS-I7

NAYS-32

GreenleafHartHecklerHelfrickHollJubelirerLemmondLoeper

FumoJonesLaValleLewis

AfflerbachBelanBodackDawidaFatlah

AndrezeskiArmstrongBakerBellBortnerBrightbillCormanFisher


The PRESIDENT. The Chair recognizes thegentlewoman from Philadelphia, Senator Schwartz.

Senator SCHWARTZ. Mr. President, this amendmentwould adjust some language in this bill. The bill the way itwas written would say that victims of domestic violenCewould have a 9-month lifetime limit on general assistancebenefits. And while I understand the interest in producingbenefits for people so that they can get jobs and get off ofwelfare rolls, and obviously that is the intent of thislegislation, although as I will speak to later, I think it is arather punitive approach to it. I think this particularprovision fails to recognize the issues around domesticviolence.

It is particularly distressing since I believe that in thiscountry and even in this Commonwealth we haveincreasingly understood some of the issues around domesticviolence and have had a very appropriate and wonderfulresponse in many ways. We have terrific services for victimsof domestic violence, and we do know that one of the issuesin the fact that women stay with their batterers is economic.The fact that they are not at all sure how they will actuallysurvive financially if they leave their batterer. And so oneof the things that we want to make sure is there as one ofour safety nets is that women who leave their abusers, whohave the courage to do so, and sometimes it is extremelydifficult to do so, will be able to get the support from therest of us through general assistance in being able toprovide some support.

I understand the 9 months came from the fact thatsomeone said, look, 9 months is enough time for a womanto get her life together and move on. I think that is ratherglib, it is rather flip. We also know that this is a veryserious issue for women. They sometimes leave theirbatterer and sometimes return. We would like to all say, ofcourse, that is right. In some arbitrary number of monthsshe should be able to get her life back together, find a job,find a new place to live and figure out her life and her lifecircumstances, but we do not know whether for a particularwoman it might take longer than that. We hope for somewomen it would take less time. But what if, in fact, it takes15 months? Are we saying to women, I am sorry, too bad,you are out on the street. What we are going to do for youis not provide even this minimal level of assistance that weprovide in terms of some kind of cash grant.

We do not have good figures on this, but we do knowthat 85,000 women a year seek assistance because ofdomestic violence. Obviously, some of those women havefinancial resources of their own. Many have children sothey would qualify for AFDC, but there are a number ofwomen who do turn to the State in this time of crisis. AndI certainly believe it is not a time when we can say, I amsorry, your time is up and you are on your own. Instead, weshould do what we do now in the State and help thatwoman through the crisis and help her move on, as mostwomen do, to find jobs and a place to live and a way tostart her life again. But to arbitrarily say it takes 9 months,

you get one shot in a lifetime, if you go back and you needto start again, too bad for you, and in Pennsylvania we arenot going to help you, I do not believe even the sponsorsof this legislation intended to be quite that harsh to thewomen of Pennsylvania who are domestic violence victims.

I would ask all of my colleagues to, simply put, undo thisparticular provision of the legislation.

Thank you very much, Mr. President.The PRESIDENT. The Chair recognizes the gentleman

from Allegheny, Senator Fisher.Senator FISHER. Mr. President, I would oppose the

amendment. Currently, all the bill says is that a person whohas been a victim of domestic violence will only be eligIble.It is one specific criteria which will make that personchronically needy. The limitation on chronically needy is a9-month limitation. That does not say that the personcannot continue to receive benefits as transitionally needy;it does not preclude the receipt of benefits for MedicalAssistance; it does not preclude receipt of food stamps. Ithink that the 9-month restriction is a good restriction. Itdoes what the gentlewoman from Philadelphia, SenatorSchwartz, has said we really ought to do. We ought to helpwomen who have been victims of domestic violence duringtheir period of strife, but help them move on with theirlives. For that reason, I believe we should oppose theamendment, and I request a negative vote.


Senator SCHWARTZ. Not to prolong this too long, Mr.President, but I believe what we are hearing is that what isbeing offered is that she might qualify for transitionallyneedy which, of course, under this legislation would meanthat she would be able to get $200 every 2 years. Now, Ithink very few of us really think that we could supportourselves on that and that is not what transitionally needyis. In between jobs, that kind of thing is really what isintended, and I do not want there to be any pretense thatthere will be something else that this woman would qualifyfor except for the potential of transitionally needy, which,as we know under this legislation, would offer so little. Itreally is essentially offering her nothing, and that is thereality that is before us with this legislation.


LEGISLATIVE LEAVES


Senator FISHER. Mr. President I request temporaryCapitol leaves for Senator Shaffer and Senator Punt.

The PRESIDENT. Senator Fisher requests temporaryCapitol leaves for Senator Shaffer and Senator Punt. TheChair hears no objection. Those leaves will be granted.


The PRESIDENT. Senator Hart is back with us. Hertemporary Capitol leave will be cancelled.



The yeas and nays were required by SenatorSCHWARTZ and were as follows, viz:

YEAS-17

BeJan Hart Lincoln StewartBodack Jones Marks StoutDawida LaVaJle Porterfield WagnerFattah Lewis Schwartz WilliamsFurno

NAYS-32

Afflerbach Fisher Madigan RhoadesAndrezeski GreenJeaf MeJlow RobbinsArmstrong Heckler Mowery SaJvatoreBaker HeJfrick Musto ShafferBeJl HoJl O'Pake ShumakerBortner Jubelirer Peterson StapletonBrightbill Lemmond Punt TiJghmanCorman Loeper Reibman Wenger



The PRESIDENT. The Chair recognizes the gentlemanfromPhiladelphia, Senator Williams.

Senator WILLIAMS. Mr. President, I offer amendmentA2582, together with its companion, amendment A2581.

. The PRESIDENT. The Chair is advised that we have abit of a logistical problem on our hands in that amendmentA2582 appears to be a freestanding amendment, and itwould be very difficult to deal with both simultaneously.Therefore, the Chair would suggest that we deal first withamendment A2581.

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Philadelphia,Senator Williams.

Senator WILLIAMS. Mr. President, I offer them so thatdiscussion can be had in the context of the two. I wouldprefer to offer, for technical reasons, amendment A2582first because of its comprehensiveness.

WILLIAMS AMENDMENT A2582

Senator WILLIAMS offered the following amendmentNo. A2582:

Amend Title, page 1, lines 4 through 23, by striking outall of said lines and inserting:Establishing the Department of Family and Community

Economic Security; providing for various divisions withinthe department; providing for powers and duties of thedepartment; providing for assistance for certainbusinesses and economically distressed communities;establishing an advisory board; and providing foreligibility for receipt of services from the department.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter 1. Preliminary ProvisionsSection 101. Short title.Section 102. Legislative findings.Section 103. Definitions.Chapter 3. Department of Family and Community Economic

SecuritySection 301. Establishment.Section 302. Secretary.Section 303. Deputies and other employees.Section 304. Training.Chapter 5. Division of Community RecoverySection 501. Definitions.Section 502. Division established.Section 503. Economically distressed communities.Section 504. Research.Section 505. Employees of authority.Section 506. Oversight by division.Section 507. Annual report.Chapter 7. Human Resource BankSection 701. Human Resource Bank established.Section 702. Loan forgiveness.Section 703. Assistance from community financial

institutions.Section 704. Annual report.Chapter 9. Work Corps DivisionSection 901. Definitions.Section 902. Division established.Section 903. Responsibilities of division.Section 904. Annual report.Chapter 11. Family Economic Recovery DivisionSection 1101. Definitions.Section 1102. Division established.Section 1103. Assessment and management.Section 1104. Family advocate.Section 1105. Specialized services.Chapter 13. Educational Opportunities and Assistance

DivisionSection 1301. Definitions.Section 1302. Division established.Section 1303. Scholarship program.Section 1304. Notice of program.Section 1305. Annual report.Chapter 15. Public Housing DivisionSection 1501. Definitions.Section 1502. Division established.Section 1503. Duty of division.Chapter 17. Division of Penn FareSection 1701. Definitions.Section 1702. Division established.Section 1703. Duties of division.Chapter 19. Family and Community Economic Security

Advisory BoardSection 1901. Definitions.Section 1902. Board established.Section 1903. Duties of board.Chapter 21. Access to Department ServicesSection 2101. Availability of services.Section 2102. Application for services.Section 2103. Referrals.Section 2104. Appointment of manager.Section 2105. Recovery plan.Section 2106. Reassessment for further referral.Chapter 23. Miscellaneous Provisions


Section 2301. Repeals.Section 2302. Effective date.

Amend Bill, page 5, lines 22 through 30; pages 6 through46, lines 1 through 30; page 47, lines 1 through 15, by strikingout all of said lines on said pages and inserting:

CHAPTER 1PRELIMINARY PROVISIONS

Section 101. Short title.This act shall be known and may be cited as the Family

and Community Economic Security Act.Section 102. Legislative findings.

(a) Review and analysis.-The General Assembly declaresthat a review and analysis of the following is imperative:

(1) The social and economic crisis afflicting thisCommonwealth.

(2) The isolation of certain geographical, ethnic andeconomic classes from productive and constructiveparticipation in social affairs.

(3) Appropriate strategies and investments tocapitalize on the existing but unused human andstructural resources, economic and social, to thebetterment of the overall economy and quality of life inthis Commonwealth.

(4) The limitations of the paternal and intrusiveaspects of governmental attempts to reverse the situation,and in particular the inadequacies of the largelypernicious, self-defeating and self-perpetuating denial offull status, including the opportunity to succeed or fail, tocitizens disadvantaged by exclusion from the mainstream.(b) Findings.-The General Assembly finds as follows:

(1) Existing social service programs are based on anddirected towards "problems" which do not accuratelyreflect the potential needs of the population, howeverappropriate they may have been 50 years ago when theywere developed.

(2) Existing programs, characterized as welfare,ADC, transitionally needy, and other such euphemisms,are in reality a patchwork of efforts to stretch,accommodate and force fit new problems into oldproblems, without being oriented or properly targetedtowards the present existing problems.

(3) The consequence, even if not the intention, hasbeen to create perpetual dependence, destructive bothsocially and economically, serving no legitimate needs ordesires of any population. This has left a smaller andsmaller segment of "successful" citizens to pay anincreasingly intolerable cost of maintenance, includingincarceration.

(4) There are programs, whose efficacy has beentested and determined, which have been employed inoccasional individual initiatives and in other countries.These programs offer the opportunity for enablingburdensome costly problems to be converted toproductive contributing taxpaying private sectorpopulations.

(5) The critical characteristics of the appropriateprograms must include the following:

(i) Support for self-determination, individualenterprise and the opportunity for independenteconomic and social success (and failure).

(ii) Enhancement of and not detraction from theefficacy of normal supportive social groupings,

specifically and especially, family, community andreligious structures.

(iii) Anticipation of and provision for substantialassistance in technical areas, to complement theavailable talent.

(iv) Use of rather than disregard for existingleadership qualities to enable and empower existingleaders to lead.

(v) Allowance for voluntary and profit-makingcontributory participation by more advantagedpersons and groups.

(vi) Establishment of goals and time frames thatanticipate varying degrees of success by varyingpersons and groups.

Section 103. Definitions.The following words and phrases when used in this act

shall have the meanings given to them in this section unlessthe context clearly indicates otherwise:

"Bank." The Human Resource Bank."Department." The Department of Family and

Community Economic Security of the Commonwealth."Minority firm." A business enterprise, other than a bar,

tavern or any other enterprise which has as its primaryfunction the dispensing of alcoholic beverages on a retailbasis, that is owned or controlled by one or more socially oreconomically disadvantaged persons who are residents of thisCommonwealth. The disadvantage may arise from cultural,racial, chronic economic circumstances or background orother similar cause. Such persons include, but are not limitedto, African-Americans, Puerto Ricans, Spanish-speakingAmericans, American Indians, Eskimos and Aleuts.

"Secretary." The Secretary of Family and CommunityEconomic Security.

CHAPTER 3DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY AND COMMUNITY

ECONOMIC SECURITY

Section 301. Establishment.There is hereby established a cabinet-level State agency

~o be known as the Department of Family and CommunityEconomic Security. The department, its divisions and thebank shall have the powers provided for in this act and suchother powers as are necessary to accomplish their objectives.Section 302. Secretary.

(a) Appointment.-The Governor shall nominate inaccordance with the provisions of the Constitution ofPennsylvania and, by and with the advice and consent of amajority of the members elected to the Senate, appoint theSecretary of Family and Community Economic Security.

(b) Qualifications.-The person nominated to be thesecretary shall possess training and experience in the field ofsocial services, economic development, public health or acombination of these fields.Section 303. Deputies and other employees.

The secretary shall appoint deputies to develop andadminister the divisions and the bank provided for in this act.The deputies and other employees of the department shall beselected on the basis of training and experience,· andpreference shall be given to persons with personal experiencewith the welfare system or another human service program.Section 304. Training.

Each division and the bank shall develop and implementprograms to educate employees concerning the needs ofclients that are served by a particular division and the bank.


The department shall contract for provision of the trainingprograms, giving preference to small and minority firms. Thedepartment shall make every attempt to engage the servicesof firms that have a policy of training and hiring welfareclients.

CHAPTER 5DIVISION OF COMMUNITY RECOVERY

Section 501. Definitions.The following words and phrases when used in this

chapter shall have the meanings given to them in this sectionunless the context clearly indicates otherwise:

"Division." The Division of Community Recovery.Section 502. Division established.

There is hereby established the Division of CommunityRecovery within the department. The division shall have thepowers provided for in this chapter.Section 503. Economically distressed communities.

(a) Creation of authority.-In the case of a communitythat is economically distressed under the act of May 24, 1945(p.L.991, No.385), known as the Urban Redevelopment Law,the division shall create an authority which shall oversee theeconomic recovery of the community. The authority, whichshall be an instrumentality of the Commonwealth, shallexercise the powers conferred upon an authority by theUrban Redevelopment Law, including the power to issuebonds.

(b) Job creation.-The authority shall issue bonds asnecessary to create jobs within the community, either throughexpansion of existing business or creation of new businesses.

(c) Eligibility for assistance.-(1) The authority shall not provide assistance to a

business unless the business has an established policy ofhiring and training recipients of welfare or SSI, veteransor homeless persons. A new entrepreneurial venture shallnot receive assistance unless at least 60% of its principalsare welfare clients, have incomes that are 150% of theFederal poverty level or less, are veterans or arehomeless persons.

(2) In order to be eligible for assistance, a businessmust have an established policy of nondiscriminationregarding hiring and promotions.

Section 504. Research.The authority shall conduct research into national and

international business trends and shall provide assistance andexpertise of any sort needed to insure the success of anybusiness in which it invests.Section 505. Employees of authority.

The authority shall make every effort to employ and trainwelfare recipients, homeless persons, veterans and lowincome persons.Section 506. Oversight by division.

The division shall oversee the operation of the authorityand shall assure that its services are appropriate to meet theneeds of the community it is designed to selVe. An annualperformance audit shall be conducted by the division andshall contain the following information:

(1) The number and the type of businesses created.(2) The number and the type of businesses expanded.(3) The total number of jobs created.(4) The average wage of the jobs created.(5) The economic impact of these efforts on the

community.Section 507. Annual report.

The division shall report annually to the GeneralAssembly on the effectiveness of this chapter and makerecommendations for its funding.

CHAPTER 7HUMAN RESOURCE BANK

Section 701. Human Resource Bank established.There shall be established within the department the

Human Resource Bank, which shall make available loans tolow-income individuals for the purpose of entrepreneurialactivities. The loans shall be repaid by recipients at aninterest rate consistent with the rate charged by local lendinginstitutions.Section 702. Loan forgiveness.

Any business entity with an outstanding loan shall havea portion of the loan forgiven for each public assistancerecipient who becomes gainfully employed by the entity. Theamount of the loan forgiveness shall be equal to the monthlygrant under General Assistance or AFDC formerly receivedby the employee and the cost of health insurance coverage,in the event the employer pays for the health care benefits ofthe employee.Section 703. Assistance from community financialinstitutions.

The bank shall seek donations from local communityfinancial institutions to create a loan fund. It shall seek theparticipation of local community financial institutions for thepurpose of gaining technical expertise and investment advice.The bank may also seek tax credits for investments.Section 704. Annual report.

An annual report shall be submitted to the GeneralAssembly by the principals of the bank consisting of thefollowing:

(1) The number and type of businesses assisted orcreated.

(2) The number of welfare recipients hired by entitiesthat were expanded or created.

(3) The savings to the welfare system achieved bymoving recipients off the welfare system.

CHAPTER 9WORK CORPS DIVISION



"Division." The Work Corps Division.Section 902. Division established.

There shall be established within the department theWork Corps Division.Section 903. Responsibilities of division.

(a) Work readiness program.-The division shall developand contract for services for the operation of a workreadiness program. The elements of the program shallinclude, but need not be limited to, the following:

(1) Instruction in resume writing and job applicationprocedures.

(2) Job interviewing skills.(3) Development and maintenance of responsible

work attitudes.(4) The fundamentals of employer-employee

relations.(b) Other responsibilities.-The division shall also assess

the needs of and provide assistance regarding work-related


transportation, appropriate work attire, day care and otherservices required by a person in order to obtain and maintainemployment.Section 904. Annual report.

The division shall submit an annual report of its activitiesto the General Assembly.

CHAPTER 11FAMILY ECONOMIC RECOVERY DIVISION



"Division." The Family Economic Recovery Division.Section 1102. Division established.

There is hereby established within the department theFamily Economic Recovery Division. The duty of the divisionshall be to assist families, both as individuals and as a unit,to assure timely referrals to the appropriate divisions withinthe department.Section 1103. Assessment and management.

The division shall, in addition to assisting in referralsunder section 1102, provide the following services:

(1) Health care assessments.(2) Preparation for employment, including providing

transportation and day-care assistance.(3) Family unit management which shall involve

assessment of the relationships between and among familymembers and recommendations and referrals for services thatare needed to preserve and enhance the integrity of thefamily unit.Section 1104. Family advocate.

(a) Assignment.-Upon request the division shall assigna family advocate to the family.

(b) Duties.-The family advocate shall have theresponsibility of insuring that each family member has a planto become self-sufficient. The family advocate shallcoordinate delivery of services with other professionals,including family physicians, school counselors and paroleofficers, and shall serve as an advocate and liaison forindividual family member needs.

(c) Qualifications.-All family advocates assigned underthis chapter shall be social workers.Section 1105. Specialized services.

The family advocate shall recognize that each individualhas his own specific needs and shall tailor the delivery ofservices so as to properly address specific individual needs.

CHAPTER 13EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES AND

ASSISTANCE DIVISION



"Division." The Educational Opportunities andAssistance Division.Section 1302. Division established.

There is hereby established the Division of EducationalOpportunities and Assistance within the department.Section 1303. Scholarship program.

The division shall develop in cooperation with theDepartment of Education a program that requires Stateaided universities and colleges to provide scholarships for

AFDC families. The number and amount of scholarships thatwill be provided by each university or college shall bedetermined jointly by the division and the Department ofEducation.Section 1304. Notice of program.

The Department of Education shall insure that all AFDCrecipients receive notice of the scholarship programestablished under this chapter. School districts throughoutthis Commonwealth shall be required to disseminateinformation regarding the scholarship program.Section 1305. Annual report.

The division shall niake an annual report of its activitiesto the General Assembly. The report shall evaluate theeffects of outreach programs and shall include the number ofchildren and families who have participated in the programestablished under this chapter.

CHAPTER 15PUBLIC HOUSING DIVISION



"Division." The Division of Public Housing.Section 1502. Division established.

There is hereby established the Division of PublicHousing within the department.Section 1503. Duty of division.

The division shall have the duty to insure that residentsof public housing are provided with services that may berequired to meet their needs.

CHAPTER 17DIVISION OF PENN FARE



"Division." The Division of Penn Fare.Section 1702. Division established.

There is hereby established the Division of Penn Farewithin the department.Section 1703. Duties of division.

(a) Evaluation of available positions.-The division shallevaluate each available job classification in allCommonwealth departments and agencies to determineavailable positions and shall design training and educationalprograms which will assure that persons who qualify forpublic assistance, homeless persons and low-incomeindividuals can qualify for these positions.

(b) Study of departments and agencies.-The divisionshall conduct a study of all Commonwealth departments andagencies to determine the number of employees who have atany time been hired from the public assistance rolls.

(c) Health services outreach program.-The division shallalso develop a program under which recipients will be trainedin health services outreach and allied health delivery. Thedivision shall develop a network of employees who areformer recipients to work in the field to assure that allrecipients and former recipients of assistance have a meansof access to the medical care system.


CHAPfER 19FAMILY AND COMMUNITY ECONOMIC SECURITY

ADVISORY BOARD



"Board." The Family and Community Economic SecurityAdvisory Board.Section 1902. Board established.

There is hereby established within the department theFamily and Community Economic Security Advisory Board.The board shall consist of the following:

(1) The Secretary of Health or a designee.(2) The Secretary of Public Welfare or a designee.(3) The Secretary of Community Affairs or a designee.(4) The Secretary of Education or a designee.(5) Ten former or current recipients of public assistance

appointed by the secretary.Section 1903. Duties of board.

The board shall assess all available Federal andCommonwealth programs designed to assist low-incomepersons and families to assure that every available programhas been implemented. The board shall serve in a capacityadvisory to both the General Assembly and the departmentand shall assure interdepartmental activity designed toaddress every possible social and economic need of lowincome persons. The goal of the board shall be to insure thattotal family independence is achieved through all availablesystems to produce a whole, self-supporting, economicallyindependent family unit or individual.

CHAPfER 21ACCESS TO DEPARTMENT SERVICES

Section 2101. Availability of services.Services provided by the department shall be available to

all low-income residents of this Commonwealth and theirfamilies whose income is 150% of the Federal poverty level,or less, as well as the homeless and all veterans.Section 2102. Application for services.

A person seeking services from the department shallinitially apply through an intake division and must be willingto submit to complete services management and assessment.Payments of General Assistance, AFDC, Medical Assistanceand other qualified services will be provided for as long aspossible during the time period that the family or individualis receiving services from the department.Section 2103. Referrals.

After assessment, referrals shall be made, based on a caseplan developed through the department's assessment process.The individual or family shall be further evaluated by eachdivision to which the individual or family is referred, and anaction plan shall be developed.Section 2104. Appointment of manager.

A department manager shall be assigned to each familyunit for the duration of its participation in the program.Section 2105. Recovery plan.

At the point of recovery, when the family will terminateactual family management, a recovery plan will be developedwhich will be a joint design by all the divisions to which thefamily unit was referred. During the recovery period, thefamily unit will maintain a point of contact within the

department, which will do continuing follow-up with thefamily unit.Section 2106. Reassessment for further referral.

Recipients of department-provided services shall beencouraged to return to the department during the recoveryperiod when they experience difficulties, to be reassessed forfurther referral.

CHAPfER 23MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

Section 2301. Repeals.All acts and parts of acts are repealed insofar as they are

inconsistent with this act.Section 2302.' Effective date.

This act shall take effect in 60 days.



Senator WILLIAMS. Mr. President, this whole debate isheld in the context of people who talk about welfarereform. It is almost a self-fulfilling big-lie prophecy thatthat means something. I just want to say that the things inthe bill that are offered are the same old worn-outpresentments of years and years ago. Nothing containedherein is anything new at all. I would venture to say it alsois a competition for containment. As one newspaperreporter put it, the poor people have no lobby and,therefore, no clout and, therefore, no arrangement in thisbudget process. And so, I also think that is true.

However, these amendments are called "names" and"FACES," and the reason the amendments are called"names" and "FACES" is to indicate that despite the fact-

Mr. President, to my right, I cannot hear because the dinof the political conversation is overwhelming.

The PRESIDENT. The Chair wonders if theconversation in direct proximity to the speaker could cease.The Chair thanks the Members. Would the Members pleaserefrain from individual conversations, as the acoustics in theChamber leave something to be desired.

Senator WILLIAMS. Mr. President, I appreciate theattention of the Republican side of the aisle. I hope thatindicates they are paying close attention.

The PRESIDENT. The Chair thanks the gentleman andall of the Members of the Senate for their cooperation.

Senator Williams.Senator WILLIAMS. As I said, Mr. President, these two

amendments, one is called "names" and one is called"FACES," because we are talking about real people, realPennsylvanians, real participants, and so if the philosophyof our offerings on this knotty problem really did take intoconsideration the individual, then the approach towardreform would be directed toward the uplifting and theself-sufficiency of people. I observe that nothing so far doesthat. I offer that amendment A2582 attempts to begin that.

This calls for a Family and Community EconomicSecurity Act, FACES, in which the Governor will nominate


and we will duly enact into being a board of which therewill be several divisions, one for the community, theDivision of Economic Recovery, so that we can payattention to those areas so the economics can be put intothe form of a policy where people participate, and thisauthority would provide assistance to business and thepeople who live therein, that there should be basically awelfare bank where people can borrow to go into business.I tell you not everybody who is poor and on welfare iswithout brains, is without brains in business, and indeed weall know that some of the greatest inventors, the greatestbusiness people this country has ever had were people whowere poor and on a handout. Recognizing that humanexcellence and potential in Americans, why can we not havea program that seeks to find and develop that? So thereought to be a bank, State-initiated, from which there issome leverage for people who have ideas so they can buildsome businesses.

Three, there is a Work Corps Division, which wi))establish for contract services to find real work readinessprograms, not so much training - everybody trains and thebusiness people make all the money and the people whoare trained are trained for worn-out jobs. But some of ushave seen through our testimony and all of that that thereare programs that do get people ready, and we favor andsupport that in the Work Corps Division.

The Family Economic Recovery Division will bedeveloped to assist families and individuals as a unit. Weare talking about managed care, managed health, managedthis, save money. Come on. If that works, why can we nothave those responsible who are paid to conduct this missionof public assistance? Why can we not require them tomanage those families into productivity? What I reallymean to say is that Joe Jones who lives in a family, thecaseworker or whomever it is should know whether JoeJones, age 11, has certain potential because that family unitis known, understood, worked with, and managed. Thatdoes not happen. We should require it, go directly to that.

We feel, Mr. President, that the EducationalOpportunities and Assistance Division as well should betracked and collected with real people. There are, as we allknow, millions of very smart people who are poor who areprobably per capita more highly motivated and, therefore,smarter than some of the richer people. And so we wouldconnect that division with real scholarships, real educationalopportunities, and real different kinds of approaches so wecan stimulate the minds of young people.

The Public Housing Division would recognize we have agroup of people throughout this country on whom we spendmillions and millions and millions of dollars of public fundsto promote crime, to promote blocks of people heldhostage for their lives, for their health, and for theirwelfare, and we do not require anybody to do anythingabout it. Just throwaway people, knowing full we)) that theexpense of that tomorrow is crime on your street, robberyon your street, proliferation of costs and all that

degradation weighs. And so there is a special division thatsays if they are public housing residents, we will addressthat head on. We will take the chaUenge because of thedole to enhance that and protect that, a specialresponsibility, one that is totally abdicated at the presenttime, one that has a fundamental impact on the welfarereform question.

There is a division, PennFare, which says this Staterecognizes potential. We wi)) provide jobs, built-in jobs forthose who want to work. We are all concerned about theable-bodied. Well, we, the State of Pennsylvania,established PennFare, and we want to have folks work forus in the Department of Environmental Resources, in theDepartment of Community Affairs, so we would be thedemonstration project because we want workers and wefully believe that in the ranks of those who do not havejobs and want to be taken off of public assistance that weindeed will conduct outreach within aU the departments forwhat they need and we wi)) do some real matching up. Inshort, we will have the boards and advisory boards thatwould include the Health Department, the WelfareDepartment, Community Affairs, Education, and involvepeople who are currently on assistance and some pastrecipients.

Now, the approach here, Mr. President, "FACES," meansthat we can see the people. We can see the people who runthe programs for the rest of the people, and we can trackall of that because we are in charge. And so everybody isface to face, and this, of course, is just a start. Most peoplehere are much smarter than I am, and some of the peopleon our committee are, but in response to the aUegation,we)), there is no other welfare reform, we spent aU this timeand we have no welfare reform, I repeat, as I have allsummer, and every time I heard that blatant, irresponsibleuntruth, we invited Republicans and Democrats, we satdown not only on health reform last summer, but we hadseveral meetings about what do we do about this problem.And we came up, I mean staff people came up with thefact, why do not we recognize real people, real names, realfaces? We have the money, why do we not put in motionnot the same old bureaucratic mess that rewards a lot ofbusiness contractors on the backs of poor people, but whydo we not say we want you who work for us to be just asresponsible as we say welfare people are lazy, just ascreative as we think we are because we are very smart.

We have been talking about welfare reform for 20 years,and all we produce is homelessness, crime, and whatnot.And we think no one is watching, and most of the time thatis true. And so I say to those who have idle ears andsurface solutions that some of us have been trying, that isall, and we believe an approach similar to this that taps,connects to the potential of real people, real children willproduce real jobs, real businesses and solve bafflingsolutions about real crime. We believe that. We believe youbelieve that. We also believe that there are not a lot of gutswhen it comes to politics. We believe that convenience is


the rule. But somewhere in time you have to know thatyour own grandchild, your own great-grandchild in thiscountry will wrestle with our own stupidity, will wrestle withour own surface stuff, and some of us are lucky enough tobe placed, temporarily a lot of times, in the positions ofusing your skills and your gifts to make a difference withthose who follow you. I think it is so damned selfish not tohave that thought passed along just to be a politician. Ibecame a Senator. I became a Congressman. So what? Welive and we die. And I say that on this very issue, probablynone other greater than maybe health, this is not thequestion of morality but the basis upon which the lawsunder which we function are tested. And they recognize theleast of us and everything that is said. We are talking aboutpoor people. The approach we have is to treat them likethey are dregs, they are nothing, and, incidentally, we donot care what you did or what category you fall in. All weare saying is that amendment A2582, together withhopefully a corresponding amendment, which wouldproduce a direct responsibility on getting jobs, ought to bea very simple approach. We ought to say, well, we are goingto save money, and we are going to take the responsibilityof doing it, rather than to particularly waste money. Now,someone might say, well, how much is that going to cost?Well, it is going to be a lot less than $88 million, I will tellyou that.

In conclusion, Mr. President, I would urge this asSemblyto support and, therefore, vote for this amendment becauseit is right, because as you vote today, you describe theparameters of what you think about what is going to followin terms of your own family, your own children, your owngrandchildren. And because, very frankly, it used to takemaybe 5 years for something that does not make sense forus to catch up with this, but it is a lot quicker today, thathappens. I was sitting here noting how some Senators werevoting today and looking at their speeches a while ago, andnot to name anybody but quoting certain Senators, itsounded like the gentlewoman from Philadelphia, SenatorJones, or one of our Senators were talking when they calledthis kind of approach a welfare ripper and talked about allof the evil things that could happen in terms of crime andthe other things from passing the bill like we are proposingtoday. And I feel bad to look at those gentlemen today andto look them in the eye and know what they said before,and they said it both times like they really believed it. Ithink that is sad because it takes the heart and the soul outof people who are otherwise bright, smart, visionary, and allof that. But sometimes we deceive ourselves so badly it islike a punch-drunk fighter, give me some more but you aregetting brain dead. And it would not be so bad if you justwasted yourself, but I am saying here you have crime, youhave insensitivity. We are turning our backs upon ourgreatest heritage, and that is our people, that is ourchildren, that is the least of us who can tap into a fountain.It is easy to say, oh, they are lazy. Those people are lazy,and all sorts of other stereotypical notions. So, once again,

in conclusion, I would hope that we get some votes for thiskind of a concept. At least it can be a start.

The PRESIDENT. The Chair recognizes the gentlemanfrom Philadelphia, Senator Marks.

Senator MARKS. Mr. President, it is perhapsunfortunate that the first time that I speak on the floor ofthe Senate I must follow the eloquent remarks of mydistinguished colleague from Philadelphia, because I amsure the eloquence of his remarks will far exceed what Ihave to say on the welfare legislation currently before theSenate. I intend to speak at length later in this proceeding,but I wanted to speak generally about the welfare proposalbefore the Senate and the current amendment.

Mr. President, I share the view of many of my colleaguesand constituents that real reform of the welfare systemmust be achieved. Taxpayers understandably resent thatcertain persons consider welfare as a way of life and wouldrather be on welfare than engage in productiveemployment. As St. Paul is believed to have said, quote,"He who will not work should not eat." Welfare is meant tobe a safety net, not a handout, to help people through atransition period with dignity. At the same time, it is notmeant to be a permanent alternative for those able but notwilling to work.

Mr. President, I also share the concern that there arethose on welfare who do not fulfilJ their parentalresponsibilities to use their best efforts to ensure that theirminor children attend school. Poverty is a vicious cycle.Parents whose children receive aid for dependency musttake all reasonable steps to ensure that their childrenattend school. However, at the same time, we must becareful not to take measures which simply punish those notat fault in response to our frustrations with the currentsystem.

. Mr. President, I would like to support the amendment ofmy distinguished colleague from Philadelphia when it ispossible to do so. However, I have reviewed in detail thecurrent amendment which is before the State Senate whichwould result in the creation of an entirely new program.Mr. President, it is my hope that my colleague fromPhiladelphia introduces legislation on that issue and thatthat legislation is referred to committee, and that we havethe opportunity, perhaps in my own committee, theCommittee on Urban Affairs and Housing, to address thatlegislation. And after the benefit of a hearing and after thebenefit of testimony, perhaps I will have the opportunity tosupport that legislation. But at this point, I do not feel thatI am able to do so, but I commend my colleague fromPhiladelphia for his efforts.

Thank you, Mr. President.The PRESIDENT. On the amendment, the Chair

recognizes the gentleman from Allegheny, Senator Fisher.Senator FISHER. Mr. President, I would join with the

gentleman from Philadelphia, Senator Marks, and I ask fora negative vote on this amendment.



Senator WILLIAMS. Mr. President, in keeping with myobservation that we get all these generalities, I just want tosuggest to the gentleman who I guess talked out of bothsides of his mouth and who said this was a new program,saying what folks need to do, I am not talking, let us beclear, I am not talking about lazy folks who are on publicassistance, and I am not talking about lazy folks who mightbe in the legislature or in some other business who aregetting some kind of subsidy and some kind of handout. Iam talking about the responsibility of government to makesure that lesser people and poor people have a chance, andthat government has the responsibility to present a programthat does that. We are spending millions of dollars anywayacting like we are doing that, and I am saying those peoplewho have the responsibility should do their job, and theyshould do it in keeping with a high standard.

I am saying that the amendment before this body todayis a terrific start because it recognizes people and it saysyou must know what is happening to little Johnny in theprojects. You cannot guess and talk about those people asa generality. It says that this government must provide somejobs itself if it wants private industry to do that. It is sayingthat we exercise a responsibility in all of these areas, and ifa poor person has a good idea, why can they not have abusiness like a rich person?

In any event, if the gentleman from the Second Districtwants a program, then help get Senate Bill No. 1519 andSenate Bill No. 1520 out of the Committee on StateGovernment, because that is where it is. This amendmenthas a program that has been proposed for several monthsnow. It is not an amendment to react, it is a program tocause affirmative action. Anybody can talk general wordsabout good intentions, but the gentleman who just spoke,for one amendment did not vote on the first amendment,so I said, well, that is a zero. And then the gentleman voted"no," and then the gentleman voted "yes." I do not knowwhat the gentleman believes. When it comes to the issue ofpoor people, when it comes to the issue of jobs, a lot ofyoung men, a lot of young men cannot have, cannot find,and sometimes when they find it, because they are Hispanicor African-American, cannot get the job. And if thegentleman turns his back on people who want to work andbecause of the color of their skin or their heritage cannotfind a job, if he is not concerned about that, then I do notneed the generalities to say he cares about poor people.

The question really is what we are going to docollectively to combine, to produce, and save money andrecognize people regardless of their sex, regardless if theyare poor or rich, and regardless of their race or nationalorigin. And I say that the amendment does just that. Thereis nothing more American than to say we require you tofind out what is happening with that child. There is nothingmore American than saying that poor people have a rightand a way to borrow money and go into business the same

as wealthy people. There is nothing more American thansaying there are colleges, there are schools and we want totake young people out of degradation and connect them toopportunities. There is nothing wrong with saying that wewill do just that. D-Day means nothing that people by thethousands died for freedom if those of us who are thecustodians of same do not recognize that one part of thatis not to demean and disregard poor people who areAmericans but to recognize them in as creative a fashion aswe can. If that means a new program and throw out our oldsystem, so be it.

And so the gentleman's remarks about he does not knowhow to vote, I think the amendment is very clear. I do notknow anything more clear-cut in terms of what we want tohappen than to have poor people in the Second District beable to participate in the fruits of this economy, toparticipate in the educational system, to participate inhealth coverage, to participate in a self-respecting,participatory way, and a proposal that would recognizethose individuals as names and faces and real people, as Isaid, I think it is one heck of a start, and if the gentlemanwants to add to that, then fine. But if the vote of thegentleman is to say no to poor people, no to people who donot yet have a way or a place to be recognized, people whonow are just referred to as those people who are on thecycle of welfare, well, most people there, gentlemen andladies, do not want to be there. So if the gentleman thinksthat the people on there who are in the Second Districtwant to be on there, he ought to knock on their doors andask them that question. He ought to look them in the face.He ought to call their names. Because we do not thinkthere is any confusion about what is being offered here.What is being offered here is an opportunity to recognizepeople as people, to give government the responsibility andnot to be an obstructionist but to be one who facilitatesthat.

In short, the real question is whether the gentleman isgoing to vote for something that robs from the poor thelittle bit of money that they have now and take that $88million and subsidize big business. That is the issue.

LEGISLATIVE LEAVES


Senator FISHER. Mr. President, I ask to add SenatorHeckler and Senator Brightbill to temporary Capitol leaves.

Senator FUMO. Mr. President, we would like to addSenator Dawida to a temporary Capitol leave as well.

The PRESIDENT. The Chair thanks the gentlemen fortheir cooperation, and all three will be added and recordedas being on temporary Capitol leaves.


The yeas and nays were required by Senator WILLIAMSand were as follows, viz:


YEAS-IS

Afflerbach Fatlah Lewis StewartBelan Fumo Lincoln WagnerBodack Jones Porterfield WilliamsDawida LaValle Schwartz

NAYS-34

Andrezeski Hart Mellow RobbinsArmstrong Heckler Mowery SalvatoreBaker Helfrick Musto ShafferBell Holl O'Pake ShumakerBortner Jubelirer Peterson StapletonBrightbill Lemmond Punt StoutCorman Loeper Reibman TilghmanFisher Madigan Rhoades WengerGreenleaf Marks




Senator WILLIAMS. Mr. President, I have about sixadditional amendments that are prepared, and they run intothe categories of Learnfare, IRRC, and the like. I am goingto withdraw offering those amendments for practicalreasons, but just to throw in those issues that are issues thatare substantive issues in this debate and, therefore, notcontinue to debate on additional amendments.

The PRESIDENT. The Chair thanks the gentleman forhIS statement.


The PRESIDENT.The Chair recognizes the gentlemanfrom Delaware, Senator Bell.

Senator BELL. Mr. President, I am going to vote againstthis bill.

In my area, it is impossible for the average able-bodiedadult to obtain employment. As I said years ago, and I amthe one who called it the welfare ripper bill, and I am theone who stated--in those days it was called Thornfare--thatthis would cause many of my neighbors to go elsewhere, togo south for jobs. And I am going to make a predictionright now that if this bill goes through and able-bodiedpeople of the ages stated in this bill can obtain welfarebenefits for, what, 2 months every 2 years, we are going tobreed a new crop of criminals, because when a man needsmoney to live, if he cannot get it legally, he is liable to getit illegally. One of the biggest costs we have in thisCommonwealth is the increased cost of prisons. By denyinghonest, law-abiding folks money to live-- I know they willget food stamps, and I know they will get Medicaid, butthere are other things they will need that they will steal,and I think this is outrageous.

I am also of the opinion that a lot of welfare fraud haspushed up the cost of welfare, and as long as we have asituation in our county boards of assistance where they donot have the proper use of computers and cross-computers,this is an open invitation for fraud. I can recall when theDelaware County Board of Assistance insisted that awelfare recipient's photograph be put on their card. Therewere something like 10 or 15 percent who did not evenshow up to get photographs. That means they were drawingwelfare also in Delaware, New Jersey, possibly in theadjacent counties.

And finally, the big cost is Medicaid. And my fellowSenators, if there was ever an invitation for a Senateinvestigation, in-depth, bipartisan, it is to look into whywelfare Medicaid costs have gone through the sky. As Iheard in caucus today, and I have heard before, whensomeone on Medicaid goes to the emergency room fortreatment, the costs go through the ceiling. That is just anopening.

I have talked long enough. I am against this bill.


The PRESIDENT. The Chair recognizes the presence onthe floor of Senator Bortner, and his temporary Capitolleave is cancelled.


BORTNER AMENDMENT A2683

Senator BORTNER offered the following amendmentNo. A2683:

Amend Sec. 6, page 19, line 25, by striking out"SECTIONS" and inserting: Section

Amend Sec. 6, page 19, line 25, by striking out "AND442.1"

Amend Sec. 6, page 19, line 26, by striking out "ARE"and inserting: is

Amend Bill, page 21, by inserting between lines 8 and 9:Section 7. Section 441.1 of the act, added July 31, 1968

(P.L.904, No.273), is amended to read:Section 441.1. Persons Eligible for Medical

Assistance.-W The following persons shall be eligible formedical assistance:

(1) Persons who receive or are eligible to receive cashassistance grants under this article;

(2) Persons who meet the eligibility requirements of thisarticle for cash assistance grants except for citizenship,durational residence and any eligibility condition or otherrequirement for cash assistance which is prohibited underTitle XIX of the Federal Social Security Act; and

(3) The medically needy.(b) A person who receives medical assistance and

becomes employed full time by an employer who does notprovide health insurance coverage shall. notwithstanding anyother provision of this act. remain eligible for medicalassistance for a period of one year following the date theperson becomes employed.


Section 8. Section 442.1 of the act, amended April 8,1982 (P.L.231, No.75), is amended to read:

Amend Sec. 7, page 21, line 28, by striking out "7" andinserting: 9







Amend Sec. 14, page 42, 'line 16, by striking out "14" andinserting: 16









Amend Sec. 22, page 47, line 12, by striking out "16 AND17" and inserting: 18 and 19


The PRESIDENT. The Chair recognizes the gentlemanfrom York, Senator Bortner.

Senator BORTNER. Mr. President, this is a fairly simpleamendment. I will try to make my remarks very brief andconcise.

I think one of the main problems with the currentwelfare system is that there are built-in disincentives forpeople to go to work. I think one of the best ways we canimprove the system is to remove some of thosedisincentives. One of them is the fact that many of theentry-level positions that these people who are able-bodiedwhom we are asking to return to the work force are goingto be looking at are positions that do not provide healthbenefits.

This amendment would do one very simple thing. Itwould say that a person would continue to receive MedicalAssistance even after they became employed full-time if theemployer did not provide health insurance coverage,notwithstanding any other provisions of the act, and theywould remain eligible for such coverage for a period of 1year and 1 year only. It limits the amount of time that they

would continue to get their health care. Hopefully withinthat period of time if they had an entry level position thatdid not have benefits, they would have either used thatexperience to move on to a better position or perhaps earnsome benefits from their employers at that time.

I think it is a good amendment. There may be somecosts in the short run. In the long run, I think we areencouraging people to do what we have said this legislationis to do, to get able-bodied people to work.


Senator WILLIAMS. Mr. President, I have a point ofinquiry on the bill. Would the gentleman from York,Senator Bortner, stand for interrogation?

The PRESIDENT. He indicates that he will stand forinterrogation. The gentleman may proceed.

Senator WILLIAMS. Mr. President, I just want to beclear. If someone goes off of public assistance and gets ajob making $50,000, would they be eligible? I just want toknow the parameters. I thought there was some built-inlimit on Medicaid, and I want to make sure whatever we doactually gets followed through on that. Are we talkingabout a category of people below a certain income level?

Senator BORTNER. Mr. President, the amendment, asit has been drafted, simply says that if you are leaving thewelfare rolls and you take a position with an employer whois not providing health insurance, you would continue to getyour health insurance for a period of 1 year.

Senator WILLIAMS. Mr. President, thank you.Mr. President, I am not sure that that answers the

question. I understand the proposal.Senator BORTNER. Mr. President,would the gentleman

yield?Senator WILLIAMS. Mr. President, sure.Senator BORTNER. Mr. President, the way the

amendment is drafted, I wanted to go on to say, it says thatyou would "remain eligible for medical assistance for aperiod of one year following the date the person becomesemployed." So whatever other requirements, or whateverother limits are part of our Medical Assistance programwould continue to apply to this legislation. I do not knowif that answers the question, but I think it is a little morecomplete than my first response.

Senator WILLIAMS. Mr. President, I guess directlywhatI am trying to say is that there are Federal standards andalso State standards built in which have to do with incomeand I just wanted to make sure that-- It has been broughtto my attention that the amendment says, "notwithstandingany other provision of this act," they would remain eligible.In other words, even if presently there is a limit of, let ussay, $4,000, that provision would be disregarded and a'person could make $50,000 and still be eligible, and I justwant to bring to our attention that unless there is ananswer to that, I do not want us to fly in the face ofignorance. That is all I am saying. I am for the spirit of thisamendment, but if it contradicts the Federal or the State


laws, we are going to have egg on our face, and I think weought to recognize that. That is aU I am saying. I do notknow the answer to that, and I think we ought to know theanswer to that.

The PRESIDENT. Does the gentleman from York careto respond to that or can the gentleman respond to thatinquiry?

Senator BORTNER. Mr. President, I think I haveresponded to it as we)) as I can. I understand the point thatis being made. I think the circumstances would besomewhat unlikely that that would happen. My own feelingwas, my own understanding is that under MedicalAssistance that would not happen, but I am not in aposition to completely recite all the requirements forMedical Assistance.

Senator WILLIAMS. Mr. President, there must besomeone in this Chamber who understands specificallywhatour limits would be relative to income, both Federal orState, because that is what Medicaid is all about. I am surewe have that answer somewhere here and if we have it,then I think there is no problem. If, indeed, without lookingat it, on the face of it, all I am saying is that is not the waywe ought to do it. That is all. The income restriction thatmakes people eligible for assistance is X, whatever that is,for a family of whatever. Once one gets off of publicassistance they could easily make a salary far beyond that,and it just seems to me that you may have a built-inproblem, and I would not want to do that if we have aproblem.


Senator SCHWARTZ. Mr. President, if I may, I dothink that -- I understand the discussion that is going onhere. There is certainly a provision within the MedicalAssistance program that if you have other kinds of healthinsurance, Medical Assistance is the payer of last resort.There is a copay, I mean, a feature in every time they billMedical Assistance, there is a question, do you have otherkinds of medical insurance? And if so, they are always thefirst payer. Medical Assistance is always the last payer. Soif someone were to get a job that had health benefits, evenif they kept their Medical Assistance benefits, MedicalAssistance benefits would not be paid out except as thepayer of last resort. So I think that would take care of it.Obviously, if you are self-employed and chose not to gethealth insurance, you could continue, I suppose, even withhigh income, to get Medical Assistance. The assumptionhere is that would be a rare circumstance. But at least Ithink we can be assured that if you were to get a job andhave health benefits through your employer, that would betaken care of under current law.

Senator WILLIAMS. Mr. President, maybe what I saidwas not clear. I am not relating to that aspect. All I amsaying is that there is an income limit for persons who areon assistance, and that then allows eligibility for Medicaidor health care. Whatever those limits are, once a person

gets a job and is making a higher income, I am saying, arethere income prohibitions· that would then disallowMedicaid to kick in and can we override it in this State? Ido not have any problem overriding it in the State undercertain circumstances, if it is not too high, but then againyou might also have a Federal prohibition that we wouldhave no power to change. I am just raising that. That is aconcern to me because I do not think we should legislate inthe dark.


Senator SCHWARTZ. Mr. President, if I may, I thinkthat possibly we could, through the department's regulatoryprocess, they may be able to come up with the fine-tuningof this, but I think the intention of this amendment and thespecifics of where it would apply in most cases areextraordinarily important. We know that the issue of notbeing able to get medical benefits is a deterrent to gettinga job coming off of welfare. We also know that, realistically,most people who get jobs coming off of welfare get lowpaying jobs, many of them without health benefits. I mean,we have been talking about this in this country. If those inthis Chamber do not know, there are a millionPennsylvanians who do not have health insurance now andmore who do not have ongoing adequate insurance. Weknow that there are people, particularly if we are talkingabout people of middle age and older who have healthproblems, who probably are reasonable in their concernabout how they would cover medications and health visitsand how they would maintain their health in order to keeptheir job.

If we are really interested in getting people off ofwelfare and into jobs, we know that we have to providehealth insurance coverage. We know that. That is a fact. Itis a major issue. It has been debated in Congress as wespeak. We all, I think, hope that -- well, many of us hopethat Congress does do something about covering theuninsured and that we all, regardless of what our income isor what our employment status is, would have access tohealth-insurance coverage and would have health insurancecoverage. In the meantime, it is a deterrent, and if we areconcerned, as the maker of this legislation has talked about,and want to truly get people off of welfare and into jobs,we have to deal with the issue of medical insurancecoverage, and that is what this amendment does. It isprobably one of the most important things we will betalking about this afternoon, and I would certainly say thatwe ought to support this amendment. It would do a greatdeal toward moving people off of welfare and into jobs.And if our concern is that somebody is going to be paid somuch money and have such good benefits, I think thatreally is not the concern we have here. The concern here ispeople who are in low-paying jobs who need healthbenefits, and we can give it to them and we should continueto do so.



The PRESIDENT pro tempore (Robert C. Jubelirer) inthe Chair.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair recognizesthe gentleman from Washington, Senator Stout.

Senator STOUT. Mr. President, I rise to support theamendment of the gentleman from York, Senator Bortner,because if we as a body want to finally do something aboutMedical Assistance and abuses of Medical Assistance, weneed to support this amendment, because all the studiesand all the surveys have shown over and over and over thatmany people do not go out and seek jobs, do not take jobsbecause their jobs may be at the minimum wage level, andat the lower wage level they would have no benefits. Itbecomes a disincentive for that person to leave publicassistance and medical benefits to take a job that pays $4 to$5 an hour. They cannot begin to go out and get the kindof medical coverage they would need for themselves and fortheir famiJies. It is good etonomics to allow these peoplefor 1 year after they have left assistance rons to go and takethese jobs that are available, entry level jobs, get the workhistory, the experience and the work ethic to do that and,at the same time, to support them by allowing them to havemedical benefits, because if we do not do that, it is notgoing to happen. We have to do this and move forw.ar~

because again and again the studies have shown that thIS ISwhy a lot ofpeople do not take those types of jobs, becauseof lack of benefits.

I think it makes good sense for this body to support theBortner amendment, and the cost figures are probablyabout $8 million. The same amendment was offered lastnight in the House. It is an amendment that has a lot ofsupport. Those who want to truly reform abuses to MedicalAssistance and put it in a responsible manner will supportthe Bortner amendment that allows that person who takesthese low-paying jobs, entry level jobs, to receive benefitsfor that I-year period. You cannot have the best of bothworlds. You have to give people the kind of support so theycan go out and start a work history and start to beresponsible to themselves and during this I-year period givethem that necessary support. So I think it makes good senseto support Senator Bortner's amendment.

Thank you, Mr. President.The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair recognizes

the gentlewoman from Philadelphia, Senator Jones.Senator JONES. Mr. President, I also rise to support this

amendment and wish to thank the maker of thisamendment.

Ifwe are going to talk about true welfare reform, this isexactly where we need to make this a part of our start. Iknow many, many women want to go to work. They havechildren, but when they think of that medical cost and themedical card that they have, this is why they cannot affordto go to work. So I would hope my colleagues would vote"yes" on this amendment if they are truly concerned aboutwelfare reform.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair recognizesthe gentleman from Allegheny, Senato~ F~sher. ..

Senator FISHER. Mr. President, I nse In opposItion tothis amendment. We are talking here today about welfarereform, about a welfare reform package which win reducethe overall cost of welfare in this State while at the sametime reforming the system. But this amendment, althoughI recognize that it is well-motivated by the gentleman fromYork, Senator Bortner, and others who may support it, hasthe potential for trem~ndous impact on our already verycostly Medical Assistance program.

Let us just look at the history of some of the people whohave been on welfare over the past 6 1/2 years. The Caseyadministration has indicated that over that period of time,330,000 people have moved off the welfare rolls throug~

the New Directions program into jobs. If, in fact, thisamendment had been the law of the Commonwealth, it ispossible that all 330,000 of those people would havecontinued at least for a year, or the first year, on theMedical Assistance payroll.

Now, Mr. President, currently, and I think the point thatthe gentleman from Philadelphia, Senator Williams, wastrying to get at, our current system for Medical Assistance,which is a Federal- and State-funded program, 55 percentFeder~, 45 percent State, already covers people who arethe working poor in this Commonwealth. AlthoughPennsylvania is not required to cover those people, thereare, in fact, people who have moved into jobs and off ofwelfare who are covered today for Medical Assistance, and,in fact if their earnings are below a certain level, they arecover~d for more than a year. But the amendment which isbefore us would say that anybody who moved off ofwelfareinto a job would be eligible to continue to receive theMedical Assistance benefits. I do not think that is the rightdirection for us to be going. It is clear that there are goingto be additional costs by virtue of this change.

Obviously, the issue that we are talking about here getsus into the larger issue of healthcare reform. That is anissue for another day in this Chamber, another day for theCongress of the United States. But this issue that is beforeus today and this amendment that is before us today re~would increase the cost, the overall cost of welfare to thisCommonwealth. At the same time, it would possiblyjeopardize this comprehensive welfare reform package thatis before us, and for all of those reasons, Mr. President, Iwould ask for a negative vote on the amendment.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair recognizesthe gentlewoman from Philadelphia, Senator Schwartz.

Senator SCHWARTZ. Just very briefly, Mr. President,the previous speaker just mentioned as a reason not to votefor this amendment how successful the New Directionsprogram is, and I just want to point out for the informationof the Members that there are many good reasons why NewDirections is successful. One is because it gives realeducation and ongoing help in developing skills for people,but it is also because under that program it provides

2242 LEGISLATIVE JOURNAL - SENATE ruNE 8,

ongoing Medical Assistance coverage while that person isin education or on their first job. It is one of the reasonsthat it has been so successful, so part of the point here islet us use what we know is successful, which is that you cancover Medical Assistance benefits, you can extend thoseMedical Assistance benefits while people are in job trainingor, in this case, employment. That makes a difference. Thatis what works. It is so interesting that the person who issupposedly for welfare reform is so strongly resisting doingwhat we know works and, instead, has chosen such punitiveways to go. This is something we know will make adifference in the lives of Pennsylvanians, it will make adifference in getting people off of welfare. Just by theexample of New Directions, it is because MedicalAssistance benefits are extended to those people, that isone of the reasons that it works, and it is one of thereasons that this is such an excellent amendment.


LEGISLATIVE LEAVE


Senator FISHER. Mr. President, I request a temporaryCapitol leave for Senator Corman.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Senator Fisher hasrequested a temporary Capitol leave for Senator Corman.Without objection, that leave will be granted.


The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair recognizesthe gentleman from York, Senator Bortner.

Senator BORTNER. Just very briefly, Mr. President, inresponse, I would only point out that, number one, this isnot a benefit that is being extended indefinitely. It has alimit. The limit is 1 year. Hopefully, many of the peoplewho moved into the work force would not need or wouldnot be able to take advantage of this because they might begoing to employers that do provide them with medicalbenefits. But to the extent to which that is a disincentive totaking a job or going back to work, I would like to removethat, because I believe our goal should be getting as manypeople as possible off the welfare rolls and back on thework rolls. There may be some short-term costs. I thinkthere is much more long-term gain than any short-termcost, and I think it is more than justified.


The yeas and nays were required by Senator BORTNERand were as foUows, viz:

RECONSIDERATION OF A2678 TO HB 1392

StoutWagnerWilliams

RobbinsSalvatoreShafferShumakerTilghmanWenger

LoeperMadiganMoweryPetersonPuntRhoades

Q'PakePorterfieldReibman

NAYS-25

LaValleLewislincoln

HartHecklerHelfrickHollJubelirerLemmond

YEAS-24

Afflerbach Fattah Marks SchwartzAndrezeski Furno Mellow StapletonBelan Jones Musto StewartBodack LaValle Q'Pake StoutBortner Lewis Porterfield WagnerDawida Lincoln Reibman Williams

NAYS-25

Armstrong Hart Loeper RobbinsBaker Heckler Madigan SalvatoreBell Helfrick Mowery ShafferBrightbill Holl Peterson ShumakerCorman Jubelirer Punt TilghmanFisher Lemmond Rhoades WengerGreenleaf

BodackBortnerDawida

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair recognizesthe gentleman from Philadelphia, Senator Furno.

Senator FUMO. Mr. President, I move that wereconsider the vote by which amendment A2678 to HouseBill No. 1392 was defeated.

The motion was agreed to.

On the question,Will the Senate agree to amendment A2678 to House

Bill No. 1392?

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair recognizesthe gentleman from Philadelphia, Senator Fumo.

Senator FUMO. Mr. President, for the information ofthe Members, this is the amendment that the gentlewomanfrom Philadelphia, Senator Schwartz, offered previouslywhich deals with women who are victims of domestic abuse.The cost on this is probably $1 million or less. It allowsthose women who have been abused to avail themselves ofthe chronically needy status. We ask for an affirmative vote.


The yeas and nays were required by Senator FUMO andwere as follows, viz:

ArmstrongBakerBellBrightbillCormanFisherGreenleaf


SchwartzStapletonStewart

MarksMellowMusto

YEAS-24

FattahFurnoJones

AfflerbachAndrezeskiBelan




SCHWARTZ AMENDMENT A2600

Senator SCHWARTZ offered the folJowing amendmentNo. A2600:

Amend Bill, page 27, lines 27 through 30; pages 28through 34, lines 1 through 30; page 35, lines 1 through 25,by striking out all of said lines on said pages





Amend Sec. 15, page 43, line 13, by striking out "IS" andinserting: 14








Amend Sec. 22, page 47, line 12, by striking out "16 AND17" and inserting: 15 and 16


The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair recognizesthe gentlewoman from Philadelphia, Senator Schwartz.

Senator SCHWARTZ. Mr. President, this amendmentwould delete that part of this bill that talks aboutimplementing a pilot project on Learnfare, and I wilJ nottake too much more time on this, although I do believe thatthis is important. We have debated the issue of Learnfarebefore on this floor, and I can understand why it has beenmoved to a pilot project rather than a universal project,which was the original proposal on it.

There has been much controversy about theimplementation of Learnfare in Wisconsin. It has been avery expensive program to implement, and it is particularlycurious to me that we would be willing to spend millions ofdolJars to have bureaucrats check on the absentee record ofthose in school in order to deduct $65 from their family'swelfare checks so that they have less money to pay for rentand utilities and that sort of thing. While I do certainly

endorse the notion that we have to help families in everyway to make sure that they help to get their children toschool and that they do get to school and that they do havea successful time in education, the connection betweenmonitoring the absenteeism of students and then penalizingtheir families financially seems to not be, although quitepunitive, a particularly successful notion.

Ifwe buy the idea that money, in fact, is the reason thatwe would or would not send our children to school, whynot create financial incentives for success in school? Whynot increase a grant when a child graduates from middleschool or increase a grant when children graduate and geton the honor rolJ, when they leave 10th grade and go on to11th grade? Why not, if we really do believe that financialincentives are what encourages parents one way or anotherto send their children to school, and I do not believe thatit is. Why not use a positive approach?

Certainly, if we are going to spend money to make surethat our children stay in school, why not spend money ontruancy counselors? In the city of Philadelphia there are nosuch things as truant officers anymore. No one evenparticularly monitors when children do not go to school.Why not have counselors who can help families whosechildren are truant and interject some positive supports forthat child when they start to drop out to see what thereasons are? We know in Philadelphia there are childrenwho are truant because they cannot afford bus money. Weknow there are children who are truant because theirparents go off to work and day care fell apart that day andthey had to stay home to take care of a younger sibling. Weknow that there are difficulties within families, somedysfunctional families, that keep kids from school, butinstead of reducing welfare checks, why not help thosefamilies be successful in sending their children to school,and in particular, help those children? Ifwe have dollars tospend, why not create the transition programs betweeneighth and ninth grade, a critical year in drop-out in ourschools. It is something we know about. Again, why not usewhat we know could work to the benefit of our children, tothe benefit of keeping our kids in school, to the benefit ofhelping them graduate instead of this notion of punitivesanctions when, in fact, you failed in some way.

I asked the gentleman from Allegheny, Senator Fisher,when this came up in the Committee on Health andWelfare whether, in fact, they would take into account aparent who tried in every way to take their children toschool and maybe even walked their children to school,walked them into the class, talked to the teachers and thatchild still did not attend class, cut during class, or left theschool during the day. And he said, well, maybe therewould be some provision, there would be some waivers.Maybe he has not tried to get a waiver out of theDepartment of Welfare about this kind of a thing. It doesnot take into account any of the reality of the lives of thesefamilies and has not, I believe, demonstrated any successwhere it has been done. So why would we choose to spend


dollars when this whole effort is to cut welfare expenses ona program that has been shown, at best, to be mixed and,in most cases, to have disastrous results and be ineffectiveseems to me short-sighted, punitive, and really not wellthought-out.

So I would encourage my colleagues to take a momentin a long afternoon to consider what it is we are doing tothe families and to the children of our most vulnerablecitizens, our poorest citizens and to think about potentiallynot doing this particular piece of these welfare cuts. So Icall my colleagues to carefully consider this Leamfareprovision and not to spend our taxpayer dollars to penalizeand disrupt our families even further.

Thank you very much, Mr. President.The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair recognizes

the gentleman from Allegheny, Senator Fisher.Senator FISHER. Mr. President, I think it is a wise use

of our taxpayers' dollars to try to do something to get thefamilies on AFDC to do more to help to get their kids inschool and to get them an education. If we are ever tobreak the cycle of welfare dependency that some familieshave been on from generation to generation, first we haveto get our kids educated. And the Learnfare provision,which is contained in this bill and which this amendmentseeks to delete totally, is patterned after some of thesuccesses in Wisconsin and other States. We have learnedfrom some of the problems of the implementation'of theLeamfare program in other States that particularly in aState the size of Pennsylvania perhaps it is better if weproceed first with a pilot program. That is why we havedesigned a pilot program which will be implemented inseven geographic areas across this Commonwealth for a3-year period. I believe this is a wise expenditure of dollars.I believe it is appropriate that we say to the people whomwe are asking to enter into a contract who will be providedeither general assistance or AFDC through the FederalState program that the families have to take a much biggerrole in getting their children into school and getting theman education. I think it is time that we try something thathas been successful elsewhere. I believe it is time that wetry something that is a little different, and I believe it istime that we say to the people we are helping to supportthat you need to do just a little more to help get your kidsthe education that hopefully is going to make themsuccessful and get them a job in the future. Therefore, Mr.President, I would ask for a negative vote on thisamendment.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair recognizesthe gentlewoman from Philadelphia, Senator Jones.

Senator JONES. Mr. President, I hold in my hand theLegislative Budget and Finance Committee report, a jointcommittee of the Pennsylvania General Assembly, and thiswas started in 1993 and completed in May of 1994. I rise tosupport my colleague on Learnfare because I think itshould be eliminated because, number one, it has notworked in other States, and certainly when we look at our

programs out of Pennsylvania that have worked - forinstance, we have school-based programs and initiatives, wehad the Elect-1 program and the Elect-2 program, and Mr.President, just to let you know, this program has been verysuccessful. It has kept AFDC children in school. I think alot of us have not even read this book.

The other thing I want to put out is that we spendmoney on studies, and we are talking about a pilotprogram. You had a study done in this book and it proves,and there is proof here, that AFDC children go to school,and the Leamfare program failed in other cities and ourprograms are working here in Pennsylvania. I urge you toread this book. Let us not waste money to have studiesdone and then we do not even look at the results of thestudies. I am very proud. We can always improve situations,but I can say I am proud of this for 1 year. I urge mycolleagues to read it, and we would not have to talk aboutLearnfare to penalize welfare mothers.


Senator WILLIAMS. Mr. President, just to correct anobservation made by the gentleman from Allegheny,Senator Fisher, study upon study has said that thisparticular provision is a failure. In other words, it has beenvery clear that a program which says you are going toreduce benefits to people whose children may not go toschool or do not go as frequently as they should, and theyare already below a poverty level, has not worked and,indeed, it is punitive. I would also add to that that to spendany significant amount of money on a program which studyhas already indicated is a failure is even more so anadditional waste of millions of dollars.

I am not sure that the Senator from westernPennsylvania did indicate a cost behind his idea, and Iwonder if he would stand for brief interrogation on thatpoint, Mr. President?

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Do you wish tointerrogate the gentleman from Allegheny, Senator Fisher?Is that correct?

Senator WILLIAMS. Yes, Mr. President, I do.The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Senator Fisher, Senator

Williams wishes to know if you will stand for interrogation.Senator FISHER. I will, Mr. President.The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Senator Williams, you

may proceed.Senator WILLIAMS. Mr. President, you have indicated

that it is well worth the expenditure of money. Did we getwhat your estimate is on what it would cost to run themodel Leamfare program?

Senator FISHER. Mr. President, I do not have a goodestimate on that for a couple of reasons. One, I do notknow, I have no idea, although I would hope I can saywhich counties it would be, but I really do not have anyidea as to which geographic areas the department is goingto select for the pilot programs. I think that makes adifference. Obviously, if the city of Philadelphia was


selected as opposed to the city of Pittsburgh, there could bea big difference. Or if they selected only part of the city ofPhiladelphia, that could be a big difference. But if you lookat the requirements of the Learnfare program, I believethat the costs overall will be relatively minimal. They will berelatively minimal because what we are going to be askingthe Department of Public Welfare to do is to compare alog for each school district. Let us assume we just haveseven school districts. To compare a roll of AFDCrecipients and their children, forward them to the schooldistricts and have the school districts report back to thecounty assistance offices as to the attendance records ofthose children, I do not think that is going to be a majorexpense. I believe we can do most of that within the scopeof the existing expenditures. I would suspect that there willbe some additional costs, but as I said, if we want to get thechildren of Pennsylvania educated and get them into jobs,I think it is an expense that is well worth spending for thepeople of Pennsylvania.

Senator WILLIAMS. Mr. President, with reference tothe Catholic schools and truant officers, do you envisionwhat would be required to do the oversight in these schoolsas well as the public schools of Pennsylvania? And wouldthat require hiring additional truant officers, which, ofcourse, you know were recently disbanded in certainsections?

Senator FISHER. Mr. President, the Learnfare programwould be applicable to private and public schools within thegeographic area. Quite frankly, I think we are probablygoing to find some interesting statistics, but as I know it, ifchildren are truant and they are not attending schools, theprivate schools, quite frequently those schools are alreadytoday reaching out and trying to find out why, and I thinkwe may find out some very important statistics, andcomparable statistics, on attendance rates between publicand private schools. But I bet we will find that the privateschools will very much welcome the opportunity toparticipate in this pilot and be able to participate and showthe people in their areas perhaps some of the differencesbetween the educational opportunities they are offering andthe educational opportunities in the public school system.

Senator WILLIAMS. Mr. President, your opinions andyour speculations about what we would find appear toindicate, therefore, you do not have what you say we wouldfind if we searched. However, there are abundant statisticsstarting from 1832 in New York where programs yousuggested produced just the opposite statistics that yousuggest we would be surprised to see. Nevertheless, I takeit that the gentleman is not familiar with the costs in any ofthe jurisdictions that have had such a program, and I takeit the gentleman has not seen where in some places $7million was spent and the sanctions amounted to maybe lessthan one-third of that. Has the gentleman seen any of thosestatistics?

Senator FISHER. Mr. President, I have seen some ofthose statistics. I do not know that those statistics and the

way they were collected and the differences between theprogram here and the program in those other areas, I donot know that there is any validity in attempting to comparethose statistics to what we have in this biIJ.

Senator WILLIAMS. Mr. President, well, let me just saythis, the gentleman's lack of preparedness on an issuewhere he said there were significant expenditures and hedoes not know what the savings and expenditures are,seems to me to be a lesson in Learnfare, because if we areproposing that there should be someone who learnssomething, we should have the information to prove that.

I believe it was in Milwaukee, and there are otherjurisdictions, where the expenditure of money for this kindof model program was, like in one case in 1991, some$7,491,000, while realizing $1,000,001 in public-assistancesanctions. Now, we are going to build in expenditures ofmore money and, incidentally, that money goes to peoplewho already are in industry. How in the world do we justifysomething that, by way of tests, has proven to be a failureand, therefore, punitive and, at the same time, has spent alot more money for another bureaucracy that does notbring any money in?

I just want to observe that those are the facts on that.The gentleman mentioned costs and expenditures and all ofthat, and I would suggest that the gentleman ought to basethat business proposition on something he has learnedabout that idea. I would say that if you learned anythingabout Learnfare at all, the background shows it is a failure.It shows it is another bureaucracy, another expenditure ofmoney, and for the life of me, I cannot imagine how wefiscally could conceive of setting up such a program.

Thank you, Mr. President.. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair recognizes

the gentleman from Venango, Senator Peterson.Senator PETERSON. Mr. President, I guess I listened to

the debate on this amendment with really some shock anddisappointment. If there is anyone issue where we need tohelp the young people stay in school and get an education,this is the issue. The language that has been drafted hasbeen very broad. The department has a lot of discretion.We did not build the box that has to fit in every part of theState just the same. The department is allowed to trydifferent things. The geographical area could be one schooldistrict here, two school districts there; it does not have tobe whole counties. There is a lot of latitude. It just seemsto me that if we could keep 100 or 500 or even 10 youngpeople in the system and get an education, that is 10 or 100or 500 young people who now have a shot at life. Ayoungster who drops out of school today has no place inthe job market and will probably end up in the judicialsystem or the welfare system for life. We must make every'effort. I also was shocked to find out that the city ofPhiladelphia has no truant officers. Maybe this would forcethem to do what they ought to be doing, to try to keepthose young people in school at whatever cost it takes,because a young person without an education has no future.


This is a chance to try just some small pilot projects. I donot understand why it is so threatening to the system. Itmakes sense and we ought to do it, and we ought to defeatthis amendment.


Senator PUMO. Mr. President, if I may, this concept ofLearnfare is another false hope and another false promisethat people are attempting to perpetrate upon a basicallyuneducated public when it comes to this issue.

The concept of Learnfare started in 1832 in the NewYork Common Council when they passed legislation todeny public aid to families of impoverished children not inschool. However, the ordinance, Mr. President, that wasaimed at thousands of Irish Catholic children in the city wasnever enforced.

Mr. President, it is an insult, an outright insult to thepoor families on welfare to say that they do not want tohelp their children get an education and that we find itnecessary to monitor them and penalize them if theirchildren do not go to school. Forget the fact, Mr. President,that it is impossible from a practical sense to do that, i.e. tomonitor this thing, but it certainly sounds sexy toconservatives that we are doing something for the children.

Mr. President, ifwe are really worried about the childrenof our society, why do we not do something about thechildren whose parents are not on welfare who do not goto school? I do not see any discussion here about that, andcertainly statistics, at least in the city of Philadelphia, bearout the fact that there are just as many truancies amongchildren whose families are not on welfare as those onwelfare. Yet how do we respond to that at the State level?In reality, the city of Philadelphia did not have the moneyand had to do away with truant officers. I did not hear anybig hue and cry from the Members of the GeneralAssembly that we have an obligation to give the city ofPhiladelphia money so that they can go out and hire truantofficers to make sure that all children go to school. No, wedo not have any solution in the positive. All we have is ascrewy concept called Learnfare that does not workanywhere yet, but it sounds good when you are talking tobigots to say you voted for Learnfare, because there issomehow something inherently evil about a welfarerecipient.

Mr. President, what a sad day it has become when welook at people based on their social class and view them asevil merely because they are poor. This type of concept isan insult to poor people throughout the world, yet in thisChamber we have the audacity to say we are willing tospend taxpayer money--taxpayer money, spend it, not saveit--to go on this folly because somebody believes somewhereit might be another way to denigrate the poor people onwelfare. Mr. President, the concept of Learnfare isoutrageous and impractical and expensive, all at the sametime. Yet we still find those with no basis in fact who wantto try to implement it in Pennsylvania, even though they

know they will not succeed. Even though the provision says"may" and calls for Federal wawers and everything else, thisis about symbolism, and I submit to you, negativesymbolism. Instead of trying to help people get ahead, totry to help people out of the problems of welfare, we findhere that it is more politically expedient to do the exactopposite. We find here it is more politically expedient tobrand welfare recipients as somehow being such incapable,evil thieves that we have to monitor their children. Webrand those people by this concept by saying they do notlove their children, they do not 'care for their children, butsomehow we up here do when we do not want to put themoney into education and other programs to take care ofthose children? A bigger lie was never fostered upon thepublic.

Mr. President, of all the things we have done in this bill,and I have not argued yet, but of all the crazy things in thisbill and all the nonsense in this bill and all the pain thatthis bill inflicts, this is the most obnoxious, the absolutemost obnoxious because it costs us money, does not do adamn thing, will not work, and insults people just becausethey are poor. I ask for a negative vote, Mr. President.

Thank you.The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair recognizes

the gentlewoman from Philadelphia, Senator Jones.Senator JONES. Mr. President, I rise to speak in

opposition to Learnfare, because if we are talking about anincentive in this legislation, I would like to take theopportunity to thank Governor Casey, because we met withhim and one of the ideas that we gave him was aneducational savings account, that is for welfare mothers tobe able to save money and not be penalized so that theycould send their children to college at age 18, and I amhappy to know that this is in this bill. But if we are talkingabout an incentive, this is one here, because when wetalked about this across the State, many, many motherswere very pleased and happy to know that if they have achild now, by the time that child is 18 years old, they willhave an income to send that child to college. I like thisbecause if we are talking about ending this cycle, let us bereal, education is the only way we are going to end this, notLearnfare, punishing a mother.

Let me tell you something. In the city of Philadelphiaright now, the way drugs are infested in our community, theway that young people are carrying guns to school, we havechildren who are afraid to go to school. Just recently, ayoung boy in my district had stayed home for 4 days. Hisfriend told his mother he was staying home because he wasafraid. One of the guys in school had showed him a gun. SoI am saying there are many reasons why in this day andtime children do not go to school. Nobody on the otherside has thought about perhaps that mother did not havecarfare, the school does not and cannot provide carfare forthese children.

Let us be real. Let us stop thinking so punitively, and letus think in terms of this savings account so that this mother


Andrezeski Hart Marks SalvatoreArmstrong Heckler Mowery ShafferBaker Helfrick Peterson ShumakerBell Holl Porterfield StewartBrightbill Jubelirer Punt StoutCorman Lemmond Rhoades TilghmanFisher Loeper Robbins WengerGreenleaf Madigan

will be able to send her child to college at age 18, and thenwe can truly say we are beginning to talk about ending thiscycle of welfare.



The yeas and nays were required by SenatorSCHWARTZ and were as follows, viz:


And the question recurring,Will the Senate agree to the bill on third consideration?It was agreed to.And the amendments made thereto having been printed

as required by the Constitution,

On the question,Shall the bill pass finally?


The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair recognizesthe presence on the floor of Senator Corman, and histemporary Capitol leave will be cancelled.

And the question recurring,Shall the bill pass finally?

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair recognizesthe gentleman from Philadelphia, Senator Marks.

Senator MARKS. Mr. President, I rise today inopposition to the welfare plan which has been proposed byGovernor Casey. My office has been contacted by manypublic interest groups who have expressed their strongopposition to the Casey cuts. In fact, many have noted thatthe Casey cuts are even more draconian in their reformthan legislation proposed in Senate Bill No. 516, which wasgenerally known as the Republican proposal.

Religious organizations across the State which opposethe Casey cuts include the Pennsylvania Catholic

Conference, which believes that the Casey cuts will causeundue hardship and suffering; the Archdiocese ofPhiladelphia, which calls the Casey cuts unjustified andpunishing; the Pennsylvania Jewish Coalition, which assertsthe draconian welfare benefit cut proposal will magnifymisery and despair; the Lutheran Advocacy Mission simplycalls the Casey cuts cruel. Labor organizations whichoppose the Casey cuts include the Pennsylvania SocialServices Union and the Pennsylvania AFL-CIO, which callsthe Casey cuts cruel punishment for being poor. Manyconstituents have voiced their opposition to the Casey cutsas well.

Mr. President, under current law, individualsbetween theages of 18 to 45 who are unemployed are deemedtransitionally needy. Under current law, they may receivebenefits of approximately $200 per month for 3 monthseach year. Under the Casey cuts, these benefits would belimited to two monthly payments every 2 years. In addition,this change will apply retroactively to deny certain personsfuture benefits over the next 2 years. The mayor ofPhiladelphia, the city which I represent, estimates that thiscut will affect 45,000 people in Philadelphia.

Mr. President, under current law, individuals between theages of 45 to 65 who are currently unemployed are deemedchronically needy and qualify for year-round benefits. Asthe Pennsylvania Council of Churches observes, peoplebetween the ages of 45 and 65 years of age are generallythe last hired because of their age cohort, even when theyhave education with good work history and some skill. Inmy district, Mr. President, there are not enough jobs forthose between the ages of 18 and 55. How can we expectthose at least older than the age of 55 to find employmentwhen those more likely to be hired cannot find jobsthemselves? The mayor of Philadelphia estimates that over12,000 people in Philadelphia will be adversely affected bythis change.

Mr. President, under the current proposal, familieswhose children are between the ages of 8 and 18 who donot attend school will be penalized by the loss of benefitsfor each child for each month of nonattendance. Mr.President, I believe all people have the responsibility to usetheir best efforts to ensure that their children attend school.This is especially true of those parents receiving generalassistance who are not otherwise employed. However, Mr.President, I have a concern that this change will adverselyaffect those parents who do make an effort to get theirchildren to go to school. I do support Learnfare generallybecause I think that there should be some incentive ordisincentive to encourage parents to have their children goto school, but I am not happy with the current proposal andwill, through other legislation, seek a means to address this.

Mr. President, in addition to the adverse effects theCasey cuts will have on individuals, they will have a terribleeffect on the economy in Philadelphia. According toinformation provided by the mayor of Philadelphia, theimpact of the Casey cuts will have a dramatic impact, a loss

SchwartzStapletonWagnerWilliams

UncolnMellowMustoO'PakeReibman

YEAS-19

NAYS-3D

FattahFurnoJonesLaValleLewis

AfflerbachBelanBodackBortnerDawida


of $72 million. Putting the economic effects aside, theCasey cuts are projected to have a negative impact on thebudget of the city of Philadelphia for social services. Again,the mayor of Philadelphia estimates that the Casey cuts willincrease homelessness by at least 5,000 people. The mayorestimates that this might increase city expenses by at least$50 million. Governor Casey, Mr. President, evenrecognizes this by including an additional $5 million forhomeless services in the State budget. Certainly, this is anadmission by the Casey administration itself of theunfortunate impact of these cuts, although, of course, theState appropriations appear to be far short of the realcosts.

Mr. President, already Philadelphia residents are unfairlysaddled with a disproportionate share of our State's welfarecosts. It is wrong if Philadelphians are singled out to beara greater burden of this societal problem simply becausethey live in Philadelphia, which has a higher proportion ofdisadvantaged people. Already Philadelphia's wage tax isthe highest in the State. The Casey cuts only increase theunfairness of this system.

Mr. President, Governor Casey's job training programdoes not begin to address the problems that will be createdby the Casey cuts. The Governor's proposal makes theassumption that there are adequate job training programsthat exist in my district and that upon completion of theprogram enough jobs exist. This is simply untrue.

Mr. President, I find it interesting that I got a letter fromKaren Snider, who is the Secretary of the Department ofWelfare, saying: "Dear Senator Marks, I need your help.There are not enough community work experience jobs forthe number of people on public assistance who qualify forthem."

Mr. President, perhaps it would have been moreappropriate if the Secretary of Public Welfare had sent thisletter to the Governor before the Casey cuts wereproposed.

Mr. President, in conclusion, I believe that the Caseycuts are an ill-considered change in current law, motivatedmore by budgetary concerns than a policy-based approachto reform of the welfare system. Although the Caseywelfare proposal contains some improvements, such asincreased funding for job training and the New Directionsprogram, as the Philadelphia Inquirer succinctly observedin a June 8, 1994 editorial, "Those initiatives are not nearlystrong enough to offset the devastating impact of thebenefit cuts themselves, many of them which wouldadversely impact the Second Senatorial District." Mr.President, for these reasons, I must oppose the Casey cuts.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair recognizesthe gentleman from Philadelphia, Senator Williams.

Senator WILLIAMS. Mr. President, I do not believe myears. I just heard a lot about the Casey cuts, and ifanything, the proposals that we have before us are acombination of somebody's top-shelf conspiracy, I wouldsay. I do not know whether it is Republicans, Democrats,

or just aristocrats, but there is certainly a lot ofparticipation in these proposals by Members of theRepublican Party, and too much in the Democratic Party.I do not know what to call it except to say that we couldsay the observations of the gentleman are Marksmaneuvers, Marks manipulations, whatever, but it certainlydoes change what I thought I heard. I thought I heard thegentleman vote in favor of Learnfare, which his speechcalled insensitive and evil. I do not know what that means.Maybe it is so fast that it is a maneuver or manipulation. Ido not know what kind of a cut that is, but I just do notcomprehend how the gentleman's vote could be in favor onthe record, "no" against the amendment that removedLearnfare, and to hear a speech which just said that it isinsensitive and evil. I do not think that has anything to dowith Governor Casey. That is not a Casey cut. It looks likea Marks maneuver, I would say. Itwas not Governor Caseywho voted against the FACES proposal, which I submit hadto do with poor people's ability to have someself-sufficiency in keeping with all the pronouncements inthat speech.

The amount of money, $88 million, a large part of thatcash savings, maybe around $70 million, comes in the veryprovision which the gentlewoman from Philadelphia,Senator Jones, proposed to restore. Those very cuts fromthe ages of 45 to 60, which the gentleman found evil andinsensitive and called them Casey cuts, the gentleman voted"no" on an amendment which would restore that, had anopportunity to restore that. I do not know how we canblame Governor Casey for that, and certainly GovernorCasey deserves a lot of blame in this.

And so we cannot have it both ways. We cannot say,well, we are going to save the taxpayers money and take$88 million from poor people and say, here, we will giveyou that plus about $50 million more to the rich people.We did not save anything. There was a tax, and the bruntof the tax is going to be borne by the citizens ofPennsylvania. And so the Casey cuts on the one hand, I donot know what that is designed to promote, but if you lookone by one at these situations, you look people in the facesand you look at the devious approach by the representativeof the Second District and he is saying, look, please believeme, these Casey cuts are bad, but I voted in favor of themain part of those cuts. I voted in the heart of the so-calledCasey cuts. I voted for the part of the cut of the meatwhich was the beef - the gourmet part, the filet part, thereal money part. The heart of the insensitivity, the heart ofthe disdained, the heart that made poor people not count.I voted for that, but I am telling you it is the Casey cuts.We can tell that to the people of the Second SenatorialDistrict. We can manipulate and maneuver any part of theState of Pennsylvania, and I just think it is representative ofour approach to poor people, that they are so dumb and weare so smart we just glibly gloss over it.

And so the people in the Second Senatorial District canlook to a representative who can say a mother with five


boys, 14, 15, and 16, and three of them are doing finebecause she is without a husband at that point, a father,and one of them she cannot control because he is feelinghis--I cannot remember about estrogens andprogesterones--his testosterone. He says he is not going toschool, he is going to hang with the brothers on the comer.And you mean that lady cannot have that little bit ofmoney? Come on. And the representative from the SecondSenatorial District is going to look that lady in the eyedoing that and say we cut you off? Come on. That is amaneuver. That is a manipulation. That is not very straightup. And so, as I was saying when I offered an amendmentwhich says "names" and "FACES," why do we not look thesepeople in the eye, individual people, despite the fact thatthey are poor, and say, here is what we are doing and itcounts up this way. And so the gentleman says we do notwant to do that either. I vote "no" on that.

Mr. President, there is not much more that I can saybecause I have debated throughout this discussion, and Ihave called the proposals, I guess, a fraud, and I have saidthat it is a perfect example of reverse Robin Hood, becausehere is an example of folks robbing the 'hood, taking themoney out of the 'hood, robbing the 'hood and, at the sametime, putting money somewhere else. But I think the mostreprehensible part about that is when we have an argumentwhich really is so deceptive that we would blame anoutgoing, ill-informed Democratic Governor who in thepast, in his own words, stood up for the poor ratherstrongly, and I do not know whether the Republicans justwore him down or what, but you cannot blame Casey forthese cuts. We are responsible for these cuts, those of us inthis body and the other body. But if the rest of us portrayour message in the same way that the gentleman from theSecond District does, then those representations will be likea maneuver. They will be misrepresentations. And I do notwant to say that it is a Marks maneuver, a Marksmanipulation. I think that is all stuff that should not besaid. But let us not put it in code words as though we area hero in blaming Governor Casey. It is we individualMembers from our respective districts who have the weightof the responsibility to pass this or to defeat this. So thegentleman's opposition has a hollow sound if he can say,well, I am going to vote right in the end, but all along theway I could save it, I could vote against certain things, andI failed to do so. I think it is just, as I said, amisrepresentation, and I would urge us to vote "no" onHouse Bill No. 1392.


Senator FISHER. Mr. President, the bill before us, Ibelieve, is a bipartisan effort, which for the first time in 12years attempts to get to the heart of one of the majorproblems in State government, one of the major problemsafflicting this State from east to west and from north tosouth. This Caucus, over the past 4 years, has beenattempting to bring reform to Pennsylvania's welfare system.

Two years ago, we voted on a bill at that time that wassponsored by myself and other Members of the RepublicanCaucus and now-Congressman Jim Greenwood whichcontained a number of the provisions which were includedin Senate Bill No. 516, which many of us on this side of theaisle introduced this Session. In February of this year, atthe time the Governor gave his Budget Message, GovernorCasey, for the first time, indicated that he was serious andinterested in trying to bring about some significant reformsin the welfare system. At that time, I applauded GovernorCasey for that effort, just as I do today. The proposals thathe put forward are part of the effort that is before us heretoday. We have worked on this side of the aisle to combinewhat we felt were the best of Governor Casey's proposalswith the best of our proposals. And what we have today inHouse Bill No. 1392 is a bill that, for the first time,willclearly indicate that Pennsylvania preferswork overwelfareand we want to do more to discourage dependency and tofoster independence.

Mr. President, this bill, for the first time, puts inPennsylvania's law a residency requirement. For many,many years, people have been coming to all of us and theyhave told us stories, whether it be as the gentleman fromButler,.Senator Shaffer, earlier today told us about Ohioanssigning up for welfare in New Castle, or whether it besomeone getting off a bus in Philadelphia or Harrisburgand signing up for welfare. For the first time in our generalassistance program, we will have a residency requirement.

Mr. President, one thing that most people across thisCommonwealth do not know is the fact that Pennsylvania'sgeneral assistance program is not a federally mandatedprogram, it is a State program. It is one in which today, inthis fiscal year that we are wrapping up, we will spendapproximately $675 million alone in cash grants toparticipants in our general assistance program. The totalcost of that general assistance program, the administrationof it, is over $1 billion.

What we are trying to do here in this legislation is to tryto attack at least one of the problems of the growing costsof welfare in Pennsylvania. All of us recognize that thebiggest problem facing welfare in Pennsylvania is MedicalAssistance. There is no question about that. Oearly, thebiggest new burden year after year, and it is going tocontinue until some major changes are made to the MedicalAssistance program, is the burdening cost of that program,both State and Federal, for the people of Pennsylvania. Butour general assistance program, which, by and large, thisbill attempts to reform, is a State program. In fact, eightStates do not even have one. Twenty-two other States haveprograms that are scaled down much below whatPennsylvania has. A number of States have reformed theirgeneral assistance programs in 1991 and 1992, when mostStates in this country, including Pennsylvania, were goingthrough tough economic times. We did not. But the netimpact and the net effect of our failure to do so in 1991and 1992 places us where we are today, with the highest


business taxes in this country and with many other problemswhich truly prohibit us from balancing a budget at this time.

So what this bill does, in addition to preserving it for thepeople of Pennsylvania, is to say that we prefer work, weprefer education, and we prefer not to say that the merefact that you are 45 years old means that you are going tobe eligible for year-round welfare benefits. Because I donot know about you, but at age 49, I do not want anybodyto say to me that it is time for me to be retired and to giveup hope that I can get a job. And I think there are a lot ofpeople across Pennsylvania who recognize that it is timethat we quit discriminating between those over a certainage. So we say in this legislation that the test should bewhether or not you are employable, whether or not you aredisabled, whether you are able to work. And under thatnew test, which we agreed upon with Governor Casey, thetest will be just that. And if you can work, we are going totry to get you a job. But during the time in which we aregoing to try to get you a job and try to get you trained fora job, you are going to continue to receive MedicalAssistance, you are going to continue to receive foodstamps, but we are going to do our best to try to get you ajob.

There are other changes that deal with the transitionallyneedy in this bill, changes that are going to reduce theoverall costs of welfare. Rather than receiving 3 months ofwelfare every year, those who are transitionally needy areonly going to receive 60 days of welfare every 2 years. It isa recognition that that bridge payment should be there forthose who maybe have left their job, have leftunemployment, and are now in training. But it is also arecognition that Pennsylvania today just can no longercontinue to afford a program whose costs have spiraledover the $1 billion mark. That is what we are doing. We arerecognizing through the changes in this program that wecan direct the moneys that are spent in a fashion to getpeople back to work.

The gentleman from Philadelphia, Senator Furno, saidearlier today that what this change is going to mean bychanging from the age of 45 and eliminating that cutoff isto say that we are going to take $2,400 a year away frompeople who are today being categorized as chronicallyneedy, and with the passage of this legislation would betransitionalJy needy. But really what I am saying is we arenot satisfied to have you making $2,400 a year. We want tospend some of that money, which thisbiIJ does, to get thatperson and every person in the transitionalJy needyprogram trained, qualified, and educated for a job. I thinkthat is the way we ought to go.

And there are additional provisions in this biIJ which wehave needed for a long time. The identification program,which is a pilot program for 2 years in three geographicareas, is a partial recognition, it is a partial attempt to tryto root out the fraud in our welfare program. It wi)) rootout the fraud by providing a fingerprint program which wi))give the Department of Public Welfare in learning how to

adapt a program and hopefully be able to expand it to traceand determine whether people are collecting benefits in twolocations or conecting benefits in two States. In addition,we have stiffened the laws and increased the penalties forwelfare fraud, steps that people have asked us to do allacross this Commonwealth.

Furthermore, we talked here before about Learnfare. Aswith many of these proposals, I was the person whoadvanced the Learnfare proposal first. I have had theopportunity to look at the statistics from Wisconsin andother places. I believe that you can find a lot positive inthat experience and in those statistics. But what I know isthat the most important factor, not just in the short run,but in the long-term, to change the cycle of dependencyacross this Commonwealth is the fact that we have to getour children educated. Someone asked earlier today whyare we not here today saying that nonwelfare parentsshould also do more? I agree they should do more. Butwhat we have before us today is a welfare bill. We have awelfare biIJ that recognizes for the first time that parentsowe the State and owe their children more in someinstances than what they are providing. I do not believe thefact that we are saying to the parents of welfare childrenthat we want you to playa bigger role is punitive. I believeit is constructive. It is a way in which we can say toeveryone, do not count on just the community. Do notexpect the teachers and the superintendents and theprincipals to do the job of getting your child educated. Youhave to play a bigger role. And it is not sufficient for aparent to say we tried. I think parents have to do morethan recognize it. And unfortunately, perhaps one of thefew ways that we can do it is to hit that pocketbook. But weare doing it in this bill through the creation of a pilotprogram. It is not as ambitious as I would have liked toh:we seen, but, in fact, it is a pilot program which wi)) beused and implemented over a 3-year period in sevengeographic areas. There is enough discretion within this billto allow the Department of Public Welfare to tailor thatpilot program so that we can go on and get the best results,with the best reading on the successes and, perhaps, someof the failures in trying to implement Learnfare. But Ibelieve if we do it and we do it right, we win be able to getmore kids, whether they be in second grade or whether theybe in 12th grade, to recognize, together with their parents,that, in fact, education is the most important thing they cando to move ahead in Pennsylvania.

Mr. President, some have labeled this bill as beingunfair. Mr. President, I do not think this bill is unfair at all.I think it is fair to the people on welfare in Pennsylvania.It is fair to the taxpayers. It is tough. It is tough. Butoverall, the fairness in this bill and the direction that wewin be taking today is a landmark step in recognizing thatwe can reform the welfare system while, at the same time,looking at one area of State government where I believe itis absolutely necessary that we begin to cut costs. We cansay that Pennsylvania is serious in not only reforming the


direction that we are taking our welfare program, but weare serious in changing the direction of this economy andchanging the future direction of this State.

Mr. President, I would calIon all the Members of theSenate to join me, to join my Republican colleagues, to jointhe gentleman from Venango, Senator Peterson, thechairman of our Committee on Public Health and Welfare,who has been an invaluable help to me in trying to get thisbill drafted and get it into the shape it is today. I would callon all Members on both sides of the aisle to recognize therealities, to recognize what is in this bill, to recognize whatpositives it brings for the future of Pennsylvania, and joinme, Republicans and Democrats alike, in givingoverwhelming approval to this legislation, sending it over tothe House, and sending it to Governor Casey so that he canjoin us in bringing some true reform to the welfare systemin Pennsylvania.

Thank you, Mr. President.The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair recognizes

the gentleman from Centre, Senator Corman.Senator CORMAN. Mr. President, in the debate today

we heard a lot of talk about we cannot cut welfare, that wecannot turn people loose on the street without any money,without a job opportunity, and there are not jobs there forthem.

I would like to share with the Senate today a story abouta great American from another generation who wasprobably one of many great Americans in his day, and thatis my father. My father quit school at the end of 6 years ofschooling and went out to seek his fame and fortune as afarm helper and many other small menial tasks as he triedto achieve his success in life. And when he was in his early20s, he decided it was time to go west and seek his fameand fortune, and he did and he ended up in the Pittsburgharea in Coraopolis, where we lived, and he worked in thesteel mill. And along came a thing called the Depression,and Dad was without a job. But in that generation, peoplewere not fooled by government, that government had aresponsibility to find him a job. He knew he had to dosomething himself to find a job or his family certainlywould not eat. So he answered an ad in the paper, which hefound when he got there was to sell Electroluxes. Well, mygoodness, Dad was never a salesman and he could not sellElectroluxes, he did not think, but he needed money for hisfamily, so he decided to try. And, 10 and behold, mygoodness, he became a very good salesman, and Dad saidin those days you became a good salesman because youknew when you sold that Eleetrolux that maybe that familywould not eat that night, but you knew if you did not sellthat Eleetrolux, your family definitely would not eat thatnight. So he became very good at it, and he came back tocentral Pennsylvania, back to where he grew up, to open upthe sales of Electroluxes. Things were going well and hefinally had hit his bonanza in life and along came theSecond World War. You could not get materials forEleetroluxes, and, once again, he was left holding the bag.

He could not go forth with what he had been doing verysuccessfully, and again, instead of waiting for governmentto bring him a job, he sat down and thought about what hecould do. Well, he was a salesman. If he could sell, hecould sell anything, and so he became a life insurancesalesmen and again was very successful. Eventually, whenthe pressure of working for a company got too great and hehad saved a few bucks, he bought a general insuranceagency and today we have that business.

I think about that, and he is one of many people in hisera who knew they had to do that and did it. And so Ilooked at the paper today and I looked at the Patriot, andI have a section here from the Philadelphia Inquirer, andI see thousands of job opportunities for people who wantto make themselves available for them. I see thousands ofthese jobs, and there is a variety of jobs. There are peoplewho can wash dishes, or people who can work cleaningoffices. There are people who can be long-haul truckers.There are even opportunities for attorneys, if some of youwant to take advantage. There is an advertisement here forattorneys to do various things. There are jobs formechanics. There are jobs for almost anything if someonewants to take an opportunity to avail themselves of it. Sowhen people say to me, you know, there are no jobs outthere, you cannot make these people go out on the streetand starve, I am saying, you know, it is too bad in ourgeneration that we have us in government fool people totell them they can sit at home and wait and we will find youa job. That is destroying people. We need to encouragepeople to assume that responsibility, the responsibility thatmy dad felt when he went out and did things to providemoney for his family, and we need to be telling people thatthat generation did it and we can do it. Read the paper, goout and work. You will be able to provide an opportunityfor your family as well.


Senator FUMO. Mr. President, I am very glad to seethat the Chair thinks this is a funny matter, as I assumemost Members of his party do.

Mr. President, this is a sad day in Pennsylvania. This billis going to pass. I know it, we all know it. It will pass theHouse, and we will then knock some 40,000 people fromthe very basics of life, not people who can pick up thatnewspaper, as the gentleman from Centre, Senator Corman,would have them do, and apply for a job as a mechanic, asa lawyer, or whatever else is in that newspaper. Mr.President, the saddest part about this bill is that it affectsmany, many people who cannot help themselves. There isa reason why these people were called chronically needy inthe first place.

Yesterday, a large number of people came to theCapitol. They came to my office, they went to a number ofother offices and talked to us. Some Senators did notbother to talk to them because they did not want to bebothered. I was in the midst of budget negotiations, but I

2252 LEGISLATIVE JOURNAL - SENATE ruNES,

did spend the time to speak with some of these people.And I was moved by one particular woman. She wasAfrican-American. She was 53 years old and was about tolose her job because it was being phased out. She hadalready been retrained twice, and there was no hope for herfor the future. She had already been looking for jobsthroughout the Philadelphia area and could not find one.Now, I will grant you, in that crowd, and those of you whosaw the people who were here, there were the socialworkers and some of the special interest people and someof the professionals, so to speak, who came around, but thiswoman was a real case, a real live human being who wasabout to enter what normally would have been thechronically needy, was not happy about it, was not lookingforward to getting into the system and ripping off taxpayersfor her $200 a month. She was not even enthused aboutthat, but was actually devastated about the fact that shecould not even get that kind of subsistence.

Mr. President, to quote, and not exactly because I forgetthe exact words, but to quote a one-time RepublicanSenator, infamous as we all know, Milton Street, who, backwhen Governor Thornburgh originally got the idea to startdoing this nonsense, told this Chamber that these peoplewill not starve. They will not voluntarily starve to deathbecause government will not assist them. They will rob, theywill steal, they will do harm for their very existence, not outof malice, but out of necessity. And we did not listen thenand I doubt if we are going to listen now, but the problem,Mr. President, will increase. Take a look at the cost of ourprisons back in 1983 when Governor Thornburgh initiatedThornfare, which was another welfare reform. I love theword "reform." Back then the cost of prisons was $128million a year. This year, Mr. President, the cost of prisonsis $721 million a year, an increase of $593 million, and it isgrowing. The best projected savings on Thornfare was $80million.

Mr. President, I have been to some of these prisons. Ihave seen some of the people who are incarcerated there.And believe me, there are many who should be, but Iwould submit to you that there are probably more that donot have to be. Many of them are there because of adrug-related problem, and the scourge of drugs issomething that we all live with, we all try to figure out whatto do with, and we sometimes are frustrated by it. They arenot people who are going to harm someone, but a lot ofothers are there because there was no other way of life forthem. And this is a problem that we will either address ina rational form at some point in time or we will pay a hugeprice for ignoring it. We are already paying almostthree-quarters of a billion dollars a year in prisons,operations only, not capital costs. More prisons will comeon line. Cost increases next year are projected at another$200 milJion more. Mr. President, when will we wake up?When will we take our heads out of the sand like an ostrichand stand up and do what is proper, rather than do what ispolitical? Mr. President, the false promise and the folly of

this type of welfare reform is merely pandering to thepublic on an emotional level that is, by and large, totallyuneducated on this issue.

Mr. President, the true fact is that the massive growthsin the welfare budget do not come from cash grants; theycome from medical benefits. But why is there no stampedeto cut out medical benefits? Because medical benefits workto help everybody. They help wealthy Republican doctors,they help wealthy Republican hospitals, and they help poorDemocratic minorities who are on welfare. So we will nottouch that one. Let us go get the cash grants. Sounds sexieranyway. Well, the true fact is, Mr. President, that in 198687, that budget year, cash grants from the General Fundrepresented 5.9 percent of the General Fund budget. Thisyear those same cash grants will represent 4.31 percent.And last year they were 4.82 percent. So as a factor of thegeneral budget and the money that we spend every year,cash grants have actually decreased. But let us take a lookat the medical side of the equation. In 1986-87, they were11 percent. This year they will grow to 17 percent, anincrease of 6 percent. An increase that the differential ofwhich is greater than all cash grants put together. But wedo not look at that, and maybe we should not look at that.

Mr. President, we talked about Leamfare, and I, likeSenator WilJiams, quite frankly, was equally confused at theremarks made by Mr. Marks, the only unelected Memberof this Senate, when he said he was offended by theprogram, but then voted to not do away with the program.Mr. President, Learnfare, as I said before, is an insult topoor people. And for those people who think that theycannot take care of their children when they are on welfare,take a look at John Chaney, who lived in the Bartramprojects. Bill Cosby, who was a resident of the RichardAllen projects, who makes more money I think than all ofus put together here. Lionel Simmons, an all-star basketballplayer from the Southmark housing project in my district,who gave up a lucrative contract offer so that he would notdisappoint his mother and went on to finish college.

Mr. President, do not tell me that welfare parents do notcare about their children. Do not tell me that they are notconcerned with their education. That is just another redherring that we shake out there.

Mr. President, I am also offended by the remarks thatwere made on this floor and the characterization of this asbeing the Casey cuts. Mr. President, Governor Casey didwhat he had to do when the control of this Chamberswitched. It was not Governor Casey who put this bill onthe agenda of the Committee on Public Health andWelfare. It was not Governor Casey who ran aSupplemental Calendar yesterday to move it up. It was notGovernor Casey who referred it to the Committee onAppropriations and reported it out today. It was notGovernor Casey who listed it on a Supplemental Calendarto pass it. Mr. President, all of these things were done bythe Republican Leadership in this Senate. And for many ofthem that is going to be a great battle cry when they go out


to get reelected. And they can have that blood on theirhands, and they can campaign in that fashion. But I warnyou, not only will you have on your hands the blood of thepeople whom you throw off of welfare today, chronicallyneedy people, 50, 60 years old who do not have any hopeof getting a job, not only will you have the blood on yourhands of them, you will also have on your hands the bloodof the victims of crimes that will be committed becausepeople wi)) not starve because you dictate today that you donot care about them. That blood, too, will be on yourhands. And I do not want to hear you complaining herethat we need more prisons to take care of it, because thatis wasteful spending.

Mr. President, it is a shame that today we face this pieceof legislation, and I would be remiss if I did not address thereason why. Mr. President, there is only one reason why.This Chamber right now is 26-24, and it is only that becauseof a Federal judge's fiat. The people of the Second Districtof Pennsylvania would not want this bill to pass, but yetthey are deprived of true representation and their personwho was installed here voted for the leadership thatbrought this bilJ to the Chamber. Regardless of all theantics on the votes "yes" and "no" on amendments and backand forth and all the games, the true fact of the matter isthat while this Chamber was in Democratic control, this billnever saw the light of day. This side of the aisle neverthought to do this kind of horrendous damage to humanlife and to human welfare in this Commonwealth. It wasnot until the day that the power shifted. And, as I said, formany of you that is a wonderful thing and you cancampaign on that. The sad fact of the matter is that in theSecond District of Pennsylvania there are many people whoare outraged that this bill is running and they did not havea say in their government, and that is what has allowed thisto happen today. That is what happens when you do notbring people here by the elective process.

Mr. President, I will vote "no" on this, and meaningfully"no." Mr. President, I would vote "no" on this if I were thekey vote. I doubt that I would be. And I wonder how manyover there who are voting "no" would still vote "no" if theywere the 26th vote. I do not think there would be many.Mr. President, for the good of our Commonwealth, I urgeyou to reconsider what you are about to do today. But Irecognize the political nature of this issue and that it defieslogic, it defies statistics, it defies everything. It just pandersto an emotional issue, and knowing the history of thisChamber, we will continue to pander to that emotionalissue. I wonder what we are going to do when all the cashgrants are gone. What is the next gimmick, what is the nexttrick, what is the next piece that panders to that public? Isuspect you will think of something. I hope I am not herewhen you do.

Mr. President, I urge a negative vote.Thank you.


The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair notes thepresence on the floor of Senator Heckler and Senator Punt.Their temporary Capitol leaves are cancelled.

And the question recurring,Shall the bilJ pass finally?

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair recognizesthe gentleman from Venango, Senator Peterson.

Senator PETERSON. Mr. President, I rise to supportthis bilJ tonight. A lot of hard work, a lot of thought, a lotof careful thought has gone into this measure. It did notjust happen, it was not something just pulled out of the air.I believe, as many national leaders believe and many Stateleaders across this country believe today, that our welfaresystem is a failure. It has not brought about what wethought it would. It has not been the help to the public thatwe hoped it would.

A little while ago we considered amendment No. A2582.That amendment had some language in it that I want toshare with you. It said, "Existing programs, characterized aswelfare, ADC, transitionally needy, and other sucheuphemisms are in reality a patchwork of efforts to stretch,accommodate and force fit new problems into oldproblems, without being oriented or properly targetedtowards the present existing problems." It went on to state,"The consequence, even if not the intention, has been tocreate a perpetual dependence, destructive both sociallyand economically, serving no legitimate needs or desires ofany population. This has left a smaller and smaller segmentof 'successful' citizens to pay an increasingly intolerable costof maintenance, including incarceration."

It also has given us one of the highest mass ilJegitimacyrates in the world. To me, that is the greatest problemfacing Pennsylvania and this country, mass illegitimacy.Young people having children who will never know theirfather, who will not know an aunt or an uncle because theyhave no family tree, and I think you can tag it directly toour welfare system as it exists today. There has been aconcerted effort to thoughtfully change the system. It is notjust cuts. There has been an extending of chronically needyin four or five categories. Nine months to two-parenthouseholds. It extends chronically needy status to pregnantwomen in the first and second trimesters. It extendschronically needy status to high schoolers under age 21. Itextends chronically needy status for 9 months to victims ofdomestic violence. Those are expansions of chronicallyneedy, not just cuts.

I do not understand how people can be against a 60-dayresidency rule. I have never understood why Pennsylvanians,felt they should have to pay for welfare needs across thiscountry. It happens every day. It establishes the pilotproject for finger photo, computer cross-matching, trying toget fraud out of the system. The Learnfare program thathas been so heavily discussed, it also broadens the workfare


program, which I think was a good program and had somegood effects. It gave good opportunities to people, goodwork experiences. Now it can be utilized by nonprofitentities out in our communities. And it prohibits a personfrom quitting their job and then going on welfare. Doesthat make sense that a person walks off their job onMonday morning and on Monday afternoon goes into thewelfare office and gets benefits? I do not think so, and I donot think most citizens do. It requires all recipients,something new, to enter into a contract with DPW tocooperate in providing information about eligibility,paternity, child support, and to participate in job trainingand education and workfare experiences when they areavailable. Now people have a contract. Why should they nothave a contract that if they will receive benefits, they alsohave to provide adequate information? It allows theassignment of rights for Medical Assistance recipients sothat DPW can recover payment for third-party payers andrecoup some funds that are available. It imposes criminaland civil penalties against individuals who misrepresent orfail to disclose information for eligibility. Why shouldpeople be able to cheat the system and not pay a penalty?It extends or reenacts the Employment Incentive Paymentprogram which had lapsed, one that gives tax credits toemployers to hire welfare recipients. It also authorizes ajob-creation task force. Yes, many characterize this as ameat-ax approach to welfare, which is just not true. As wasstated earlier, eight States have no general assistanceprogram. Thirty States offer no benefits to able-bodiedadults. And many States have just special programs forspecial needs, but do not have a broad-based program forwhat we are calling transitionally needy, including theDistrict of Columbia, including States like Michigan,Massachusetts, Arkansas.

I urge those tonight who are reviewing this legislation toseriously consider that we have to start changing the system.The system has failed us. It has not worked. It is notcreating positive results, and it is slowly taking awayincentives for people to work and be a productive part ofour society. Many people tonight talked about the need ofjobs in Pennsylvania, and I urge all of them to join some ofus who want to make Pennsylvania job-friendly again, wherewe have fair business taxes, where we have a timely and fairDER, where we have a Revenue Department that stopsharassing our manufacturers and forcing them to go toother States, where we have some tort reforms, which havebeen long overdue in Pennsylvania, and to make sure thateducational programs for adults are available to all ofPennsylvania, and they are not today, because our workforce has to be trained and retrained or they will not beable to get a job.

This measure tonight has been carefully thought out. Ithas been worked on by many people, and I want to thankeach and every one of them for being thoughtful andtimely. It did not just happen on a whim. This measuremakes sense. This measure moves us in a lot of the right

directions, and I think in the end it will have a positiveimpact on Pennsylvania and we should pass it this evening.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair recognizesthe gentleman from Philadelphia, Senator Williams.

Senator WILLIAMS. Mr. President, I was not going tospeak again, but I rise because in the remarks of thegentleman from Venango, Senator Peterson, he referred tomass illegitimacy and illegitimacy several times. I guesslegitimacy or illegitimacy refers to a person, that person isa child mainly, not two adults who may have engaged insexual intercourse, and so therefore that recognizes childrenas being unequal, not legal. Every movement in the last 20years has endeavored to make people equal, whether it iswomen or religious groups or whatever. We in Pennsylvaniahave also spoken in 1968 and 1978 on that measure as well,and we passed a law which then designated children bornin or out of wedlock as equal under the law, and wetherefore abolished in Pennsylvania a status of illegitimacy.We recognized children as equal under man and as equalunder God.

Having done that several years ago, Mr. President, Imust remind us and remind the gentleman that to use thatterminology as though it had any legal or other meaning isto demean once again the children of Pennsylvania, and Iwant to just recognize that we have already done that, thatwe should, in fact, carry that out. To do anything lessactually deceptively indicates what we really feel aboutpeople. What I think this proposal, House Bill No. 1392really does is says certain kinds of people just do not meananything. And that is okay. But I do not think that weought to use sexy words and all that to cover our inwardprejudices of that, whether it is against the poor orwhatever. Just what was said then connected with welfareseemed to suggest that only people who are poor havechildren without benefit of marriage. Well, I would justwant to remind the gentleman and this assembly thestatistics are staggering in this country, black and white, and .among people who have chosen to have no benefit ofmarriage and still have children and recognize that as arespectable state, and I am not evaluating that one way orthe other. That is only to say if rich people can havechildren without getting married and middle-class peoplecan too, to say that poor people have illegitimate childrenis a very sad state of affairs. I just wanted to point that outbecause if the gentleman means that only people on welfareor poor people who are born out of wedlock areillegitimate in a notion and that other people are not, thenwe do fail to recognize all the subsidies of support whichare basically welfare that business people get andmiddle-class people get, and so the spirit of this billdiscriminates, no matter what the words say.

I also wonder--I just want to speak on this--how we canspeak so eloquently about welfare fraud and yet there is$50 million that could be gotten from people in long-termcare situations who hide very assiduously, who go to lawyersto hide, their assets, and no one talks about that. There is


no aggressive plan to root out the eligibility for that. Andit is a lot of money, but no one caUs it fraud and aU that.

I mentioned these two matters just to point out that foranybody who says the offerings of this bill have anymeaning on what is right and what is wrong, to say it isreally sort of like a fakery, really, if you are talking aboutfraud for poor folks, weU, what about the rich folks whospend a lot of money to get lawyers to hide it? It is about$50 milJion a year if you are talking about your need ofmoney. Why can we talk about i1Jegitimacy, which is notrecognized in this State, in context with an issue onwelfare? So maybe it is a question of the spirit. But I dothink, Mr. President, that it is appropriate to make thosecorrections and, hopefuUy, we wiU proceed in the future,recognizing that we do not recognize inequality of childrenin this State any longer.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair recognizesthe gentlewoman from Philadelphia, Senator Jones.

Senator JONES. Mr. President, I rise to speak againstthis bill. First of all, it has the wrong name, welfare reform.The name is welfare cutoff. Before I get into my littlemessage, I would like to take this opportunity to thank mycolleagues who at least tried to stop this madness. I wouldlike to thank the Catholic Council and I would like tothank all of the statewide coalition members throughout theState of Pennsylvania who have worked diligently for thelast 3 months to try to educate people and try to educatethe Senators and House Members about the dangers of thisbiIJ.

I stand here very sad, very sad. I remember standing afew years ago to somewhat deliver this message. I am, as Ihave often told you all, a former welfare recipient, andsometimes it hurts me to have to hear the rhetoric, if youwill, for lack of a better word, or to hear some of youexpress how you feel about welfare recipients, realizing thatI was one, and none of those categories fits me. And Iknow so many other mothers and individuals on welfarewhom it does not fit. And I can teU you, I know there issome fraud in welfare. Of course there is. There are thoseof us in here, some of you commit fraud on your incometaxes as well as poor people commit fraud, but not to theextent that we want to put it, that aU welfare people arejust filthy, lazy, do not want to work and just do not doanything but feed off your little seven-tenths of 1 percentof your tax dollars. Half of you do not even know howmuch of your cash dolIar goes into a welfare check.

I think what we are doing here today--I do not thinkabout it, I know that it is wrong. But somehow, somehow,Senator WilJiams, somehow, aU of my coUeagues here,somehow I feel, I thought I would be a little sicker and mypressure would be up, but somehow God has delivered mefrom that, because I know that I have tried to do my verybest in trying to fight and hold this down and work alongwith other people and do all we could do. So I know thatI am going to sleep weU at night. I am going to be able tosleep weU. I am not going to have any unpleasant visitors

coming in. I am not going to have a conscience because Iam forcing an old woman, a woman at age 60 years old, togo out to try to find a job when I know good and well if Ihad a business, or if you had a business, rather, because Imight be a little more good-spirited, you would not hireanybody of that age. Anybody in businesswould rather haveyounger people, people who they feel can do the job. Everyone of us in this Chamber knows that jobs do not exist inthe State of Pennsylvania to accommodate all of thesepeople. And furthermore, we all know these people are notall employable. You would not hire them ifyou could. Youwould not hire welfare recipients if you could. So this is alla farce and we know it.

Everybody in here knows that you have not sat in oncommittee meetings or sat in any meetings dealing withwelfare reform. You know better than that. What we aredoing and what we have done here is to be very meanspirited, and we are saying to the working people ofPennsylvania, we do not care about you anymore. You lostyour job, your company is going south, or whatever thereason is, you do not have 26 weeks anymore, so we aregoing to give you $205 every 2 years and you had betterlike it. Is this what we think of the taxpayers of thisCommonwealth? And it is wrong to think that people havejust been on welfare all of their Jives. These people ongeneral assistance have been working people, and they areout of work. And then you say to that young man whocomes out of high school, or even probably went to collegefor a couple of years and has been back here trying to findemployment and got his 3 months on welfare, you aresaying to him, I do not care about you going to college.

See, all you think about is the bad in people. You needto start thinking there is some good in people. And thereare a lot of good people out there. There are a lot of goodyoung people out there. And I am going to tell yousomething: When they begin to travel, have gun will travel,to these counties where you live and where yourconstituents live, then you will have a different thoughtabout this whole idea of pushing people off welfare. Andthey are coming. They said it yesterday. They are going tocome and live in those nice counties where it is cool andnice, where they can rest and be homeless in your town, tryto get jobs first, and if they cannot find them, they aregoing to live in your counties. It is no more big cities,because they realize that the mayor of Philadelphia tried tohelp and you all have said that there are plenty of jobs outwhere you live, so they heard your message, and they arecoming to where you live to get those jobs that you say youhave out there.

I cannot imagine why we want to penalize with this socalled Learnfare. For the life of me, I still cannot'understand why we pay to have studies done that provideus with information that we do not even read, or else weread it and say everybody is dumb and nobody reads it, butI read it. And I know from reading this that I am proud. Iam proud of the record of AFDC recipients sending their


kids to school. That is another lie somebody cooked up,always trying to make the poorest of people look bad.

I am saying to you, if you want to do something, I havebeen here 10 years now and you have yet to come up andsit down and say, let us get some real welfare reformtogether. You have not done it. And I do not think you willdo it, because you know what? As long as you can hidebehind poor people and use poor people as scapegoats, andGod does not like it, you are going to continue doing it.And I am here to say you vote this legislation tonightbecause you are all going to do it. You are going to do itfor whatever reason you have, political, or whether youreally think deep down that people are responsible for yourlittle tax money. But it is wrong. It is wrong. And just assure as I am standing here, you are going to reap this night.You are going to reap this night that you are taking thesafety net from underneath poor people, from underneathworking people, and you are saying to poor people, we aregoing to give you this little money every 2 years. Could anyof you live on it?· Could any of your families live on it?Could any of your friends live on $205 twice every 2 years?How cruel can we get in here? I can understand it if wewere going to say, listen, we are going to give you true jobtraining, we are going to give you a job, and if you refusethis job, we are going to cut you off. I am for that. But Godknows it is wrong to cut people off, for more people in thestreet will cause more problems. We know we have allowedthese drugs to infiltrate our neighborhoods and thesepeople's minds are messed up. I talked to some of them.They are not even employable, a lot of them, because theyare messed up.

I want to thank the gentleman from Delaware, SenatorBell, over there because he saw this was wrong in 1982, andhe got up and spoke against it today. And I am going to saythis to you all: I hope we all live a long time, but I amgoing to tell you one thing I have known since I have beena young child, and my mother taught it to me, that youreap what you sow.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair recognizesthe gentleman from Chester, Senator Baker.

Senator BAKER. Mr. President, I want to make mycomments directed to one part of what the gentlewomanfrom Philadelphia, Senator Jones, has discussed, and it hascome up peripherally in comments ofothers throughout theday, and I am going to do it very briefly, and that is simplyto say that the policies that are involved in this bill are alsopolicies that are connected to other actions of the GeneralAssembly.

A Temple University study has shown thatunemployment in this State was increased by 2 percent,which is hundreds of thousands of people, by the tax bill of1991. We cannot look at welfare in isolation, and if wewant to talk about jobs, government cannot create jobs, andif we want to have jobs in Pennsylvania for those whom weare discussing, then we have to look at other policies thatwe have, such as tax policy, to decide whether or not we

want to create a Pennsylvania in which there areopportunities for those who want to work. And I agree withSenator Jones that there are a lot of people out there whowant to work. We need to create the environment throughtax policy, through regulatory policy, through our laborclimate and through a lot of other legislative concerns thatwill dovetail with welfare reform so that we can create jobsfor Pennsylvanians instead of having Pennsylvanians, ofwhatever income level, leave Pennsylvania because thereare no jobs here. I think it is a very important point, thatwe cannot look at this in isolation, because many of thepeople I heard speak here today with their concern aboutjobs were also votes for that enactment of the GeneralAssembly's tax program, which has been so deleterious tojobs in the Commonwealth.

Thank you.

LEGISLATIVE LEAVES

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair recognizesthe gentleman from Philadelphia, Senator Fumo.

Senator PUMO. Mr. President, I request temporaryCapitol leaves for Senator Belan and Senator Andrezeski.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Senator Fumo requeststemporary Capitol leaves for Senator Belan and SenatorAndrezeski. Without objection, those leaves will be granted.


Senator FISHER. Mr. President, I request a temporaryCapitol leave for Senator Rhoades.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Senator Fisher requestsa temporary leave for Senator Rhoades. Without objection,that leave will be granted.

And the question recurring,Shall the bill pass finally?

The yeas and nays were taken agreeably to theprovisions of the Constitution and were as follows, viz:

YEAS-38

Afflerbach Hart Mowery SalvatoreAndrezeski Heckler Musto ShafferArmstrong Helfrick O'Pake ShumakerBaker Holl Peterson StapletonBelan Jubelirer Porterfield StewartBortner LaValle Punt StoutBrightbill Lemmond Reibman TilghmanCorman Loeper Rhoades WagnerFisher Madigan Robbins WengerGreenleaf Mellow

NAYS-ll

Bell Fattah Lewis SchwartzBodack Furno Uncoln WilliamsDawida Jones Marks

A constitutional majority of all the Senators having voted"aye," the question was determined in the affirmative.


Ordered, That the Secretary of the Senate return saidbill to the House of Representatives with information thatthe Senate has passed the same with amendments in whichconcurrence of the House is requested.

CONSIDERATION OF CALENDAR RESUMED

mIRD CONSIDERATION CALENDAR RESUMED

BILL LAID ON THE TABLE

SB 488 (Pr. No. 2105) -- The Senate proceeded toconsideration of the bill, entitled:

An Act amending the act of March 4, 1971 (p. L. 6, No.2), entitled "Tax Reform Code of 1971," excluding transfersto family farm partnerships.

Upon motion of Senator LOEPER, and agreed to, thebill was laid on the table.

BILLS OVER IN ORDER

SB 561, SB 562, SB 660, SB 678, SB 794, SB 1009, SB1400, SB 1591, SB 1628, SB 1629, SB 1632, DB 1721, SB1728, SB 1729, DB 1777, DB 2348, DB 2467 and DB 2650-- Without objection, the bills were passed over in theirorder at the request of Senator LOEPER.

SECOND CONSIDERATION CALENDAR

BILL REREFERRED


An Act establishing a loan forgiveness program forcertain professional nurses.

Upon motion of Senator LOEPER, and agreed to, thebill was rereferred to the Committee on Appropriations.

BILL OVER IN ORDER

DB 215 -- Without objection, the bill was passed over inits order at the request of Senator LOEPER.

BILLS REREFERRED


An Act providing for the establishment of the HumanServices Development Fund and for its administration andoperation; and imposing additional powers and duties on theDepartment of Public Welfare.



An Act amending the act of October 22, 1986 (p. L.1452, No. 143), entitled "Adult Literacy Act," providing forgrants for literacy programs.


BILL OVER IN ORDER

SB 532 -- Without objection, the bill was passed over inits order at the request of Senator LOEPER.

BILL ON SECOND CONSIDERATION


An Act amending Title 18 (Crimes and Offenses) of thePennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, further providing for theoffense of rape.

Considered the second time and agreed to,Ordered, To be printed on the Calendar for third

consideration.

BILL REREFERRED

SB 673 (Pr. No. 2228) -- The Senate proceeded toconsid~rationof the bill, entitled:

An Act amending the act of April 9, 1929 (p. L. 177, No.175), entitled "The Administrative Code of 1929," providingfor Statewide elderly volunteer programs involving work withchildren.


BILLS OVER IN ORDER

SB 896, SB 1057, SB 1058, SB 1158 and SB 1159 -Without objection, the bills were passed over in their orderat the request of Senator LOEPER.

BILL REREFERRED


An Act amending the act of March 10, 1949 (P.L.30,No.14), known as the Public School Code of 1949, furtherproviding for the retention of records and for loans of certainequipment relating to nonpublic school children; providingfor access to personnel files by boards of school directors;and renaming the Thaddeus Stevens State School ofTechnology to the Thaddeus Stevens State College ofTechnology.


BILL OVER IN ORDER



BILL REREFERRED


An Act authorizing Commonwealth and municipalgovernment entities to enter into guaranteed energy savingscontracts.


BILLS OVER IN ORDER

SB 1406, SB 1526 and SB 1532 -- Without objection, thebills were passed over in their order at the request ofSenator LOEPER.

BILLS REREFERRED

SB 1542 (Pr. No. 1898) -- The Senate proceeded toconsideration of the bilJ, entitled:

An Act amending Title 34 (Game) of the PennsylvaniaConsolidated Statutes, further providing for resident licenseand fee exemptions.

Upon motion of Senator LOEPER, and agreed to, thebilJ was rereferred to the Committee on Appropriations.

SB 1543 (Pr. No. 1899) -- The Senate proceeded toconsideration of the bilJ, entitled:

An Act amending Title 30 (Fish) of the PennsylvaniaConsolidated Statutes, providing for free resident fishinglicenses to former prisoners of war.

Upon motion of Senator LOEPER, and agreed to, thebilJ was rereferred to the Committee on Appropriations.

BILLS OVER IN ORDER

SB 1569 and SB 1596 -- Without objection, the bills werepassed over in their order at the request of SenatorLOEPER.

BILL REREFERRED


An Act amending the act of November 29, 1967 (P. L.636, No. 292), entitled "Neighborhood Assistance Act,"providing for community service projects; further providingfor tax credits; and making editorial changes.


BILLS OVER IN ORDER

SB 1662, SB 1663, SB 1708, SB 1714 and SB 1727 -Without objection, the bilJs were passed over in their orderat the request of Senator LOEPER.

BILL REREFERRED


An Act amending the act of August 14, 1991 (P. L.342,No. 36), entitled "Lottery Fund Preservation Act," furtherproviding for human service shared-ride transportationservices for older adults.


BILL OVER IN ORDER


BILL REREFERRED


An Act amending the act of April 9, 1929 (p.L.177,No.175), known as The Administrative Code of 1929,imposing restrictions on the utilization of PennSERVEmoneys for certain compensation; and making a repeal.


BILL ON SECOND CONSIDERATION

nB 2032 (Pr. No. 3651) -- The Senate proceeded toconsideration of the bill, entitled:

An Act authorizing the Department of General Services,with the approval of the Governor and the Secretary ofPublic Welfare, to sell and convey to Daniel J. Kellehercertain excess land situate in the Township of Newton,Lackawanna County; authorizing the Department of GeneralServices, with the approval of the Governor, to grant andconvey tracts of land situate in East Vincent Township,Chester County, Pennsylvania; authorizing and directing theDepartment of General Services, with the approval of theGovernor and the Secretary of Public Welfare, to conveytracts of land situate in the City of Philadelphia, PhiladelphiaCounty; and making a repeal.

Considered the second time and agreed to,Ordered, To be printed on the Calendar for third

consideration.

BILL REREFERRED


An Act amending the act of January 25, 1966 (1965P.L.1546, No.541), entitled "An act providing scholarshipsand providing funds to secure Federal funds for qualifiedstudents of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania who needfinancial assistance to attend postsecondary institutions ofhigher learning, making an appropriation, and providing forthe administration of this act," further providing for theamount of scholarships and for eligibility for scholarships.



BILL OVER IN ORDER

HB 2638 -- Without objection, the bill was passed overin its order at the request of Senator LOEPER.

UNFINISHED BUSINESSREPORTS FROM COMMITTEE

Senator CORMAN, from the Committee onTransportation, reported the following bills:

SO 12 (Pr. No. 12)

An Act amending Title 75 (Vehicles) of the PennsylvaniaConsolidated Statutes, further providing for the identificationof drivers of vehicles.

SB 15 (Pr. No. 15)

An Act amending Titles 18 (Crimes and Offenses) and 75(Vehicles) of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes,providing for title washing and impersonating a notary public;further providing for tampering with odometers; andimposing penalties.

SB 386 (Pr. No. 409)

An Act amending Title 75 (Vehicles) of the PennsylvaniaConsolidated Statutes, repealing the provisions relating to aninspection advisory board.

SB 539 (Pr. No. 576)

An Act amending Title 75 (Vehicles) of the PennsylvaniaConsolidated Statutes, further establishing a duty to stopvehicles at accident scenes; and providing an exception fromthe duty for emergency vehicles.

HB 1313 (Pr. No. 3831) (Amended)

An Act amending Title 75 (Vehicles) of the PennsylvaniaConsolidated Statutes, further providing for definitions, forapplication for certificate of title, for vehicles exempt fromregistration, for registration plates for manufacturers anddealers, for use of dealer registration plates, for wild resourceconservation plates, for surrender of registration plates andcards upon suspension or revocation, for suspension ofoperating privilege for failure to respond to citation, forrevocation of habitual offender's license, for occupationallimited license, for farm vehicles and for informationconcerning drivers and vehicles; providing for secure powerof attorney; further providing for requirement for periodicinspection ofvehicles; providing for the institution of criminalproceedings by employees of the Department ofTransportation and the Department of Revenue; for widthsof motor homes and recreational trailers and furtherproviding for odometer disclosure requirements.


An Act amending Title 75 (Vehicles) of the PennsylvaniaConsolidated Statutes, further providing for revocation orsuspension of operating privilege, for revocation of habitual

offender's license and for occupational limited license; andproviding for probationary license.


An Act providing for signage near licensed limited farmwineries.

SENATE RESOLUTION

DESIGNATING JUNE 19 THROUGH 25, 1994AS ''MEN'S HEALm WEEK" IN PENNSYLVANIA

Senators PETERSON, FISHER, JUBELIRER,SCHWARTZ, CORMAN, HOLL, WENGER,SHUMAKER, WILLIAMS, MUSTO, SALVATORE,AFFLERBACH, BODACK, FATTAH, STOUT, FUMO,HART and ROBBINS, by unanimous consent, offered thefollowing resolution (Senate Resolution No. 143), which wasread, considered and adopted:

In the Senate, June 8, 1994

A RESOLUTION

Designating June 19 through 25, 1994, as "Men's HealthWeek" in Pennsylvania.

WHEREAS, Despite technological advances in medicalcare, men's lives continue to be an average of seven yearsshorter than women's; and

WHEREAS, The illness or death of a husband, father,brother or other loved one has a profound effect on the livesof others; and

WHEREAS, Testicular cancer claims the lives of 35,000men every year, most of whom could be saved through earlydetection and treatment; and

WHEREAS, Cancers of the colon and prostate can beeffectively treated if detected early but continue to be amongthe leading causes of cancer deaths among men; and

WHEREAS, Fifty-two percent of men do not exercisesufficiently, increasing the risk of chronic conditions such ashypertension, obesity and heart disease; and

WHEREAS, Seventy-eight percent of men exceed theirrecommended weight range, increasing the risk of heartdisease and other chronic disorders; and

WHEREAS, Heart disease, although largely preventablethrough healthy lifestyle practices, continues to be theleading killer in the nation and this Commonwealth; and

WHEREAS, Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancerdeaths, yet 30% of men continue to smoke, increasing theirrisk of cerebrovascular disease, chronic lung disease,cardiovascular disease and lung, larynx and other cancers;and

WHEREAS, It has been shown that 61% of menexperience great stress on a regular basis, reducing theirproductivity, immunity to disease and quality of life; and

WHEREAS, Only 40% of men report that they alwaysfollow the speed limit, and men are more than twice as likelyas women to drive after drinking, leading to an increased riskof auto accidents resulting in severe injury or death; and

WHEREAS, Lifestyle and behavior changes have beenshown to drastically improve overall health, longevity andquality of life; and


WHEREAS, Many of the leading killers of men can beavoided or treated by prevention and early detection; and

WHEREAS, Education has been shown to increase thelikelihood of men's adoption of preventative health measures.Educating men on the benefits of preventative healthmeasures and early detection will therefore lead to a greaterlikelihood of men practicing preventative health measuresand receiving early screenings; and

WHEREAS, Men are overall more likely than women toengage in activities or lifestyles that encourage disease andillness and are far less likely to visit a physician than women,resulting in men's increased suffering from some sort ofchronic disease and decreased detection of health problemsin their early stages; therefore be it

RESOLVED, That the Senate designate the week ofJune 19 through 25, 1994 as "Men's Health Week" inPennsylvania in recognition of the value of the health of themen in this Commonwealth and the importance of promotinghealthy lifestyles and regular medical exams in maintainingmen's health and quality of life; and be it further

RESOLVED, That the families, friends and physicians ofmen in this Commonwealth are urged to take this week toencourage their loved ones and patients to seek a physicalexam, including prostate, colorectal and testicular screeningsand to adopt healthy lifestyle changes.

DISCHARGE PETITIONS

The PRESIDENT pro tempore laid before the Senatethe following communications, which were read by theOerk as follows:


A PETITION

To place before the Senate the nomination of Richard J.Hodgson, as Judge, Court of Common Pleas,Montgomery County.

TO: The Presiding Officer of the Senate

WE, The undersigned members of the Senate, pursuantto section 8 (b) of Article IV of the Constitution ofPennsylvania, do hereby request that you place thenomination of Richard J. Hodgson, as Judge, Court ofCommon Pleas, Montgomery County, before the entireSenate body for a vote, the nomination not having beenvoted upon within 15 legislative days:

Michael A. O'PakeRobert J. MellowJ. William LincolnLeonard J. BodackVincent J. FumoPatrick J. StapletonJeanette F. Reibman


A PETITION

To place before the Senate the nomination of Paul H. Millin,as Judge, Court of Common Pleas, 37th Judicial District.

TO: The Presiding Officer of the Senate

WE, The undersigned members of the Senate, pursuantto section 8 (b) of Article IV of the Constitution ofPennsylvania, do hereby request that you place thenomination of Paul H. Millin, as Judge, Court of CommonPleas, 37th Judicial District, before the entire Senate bodyfor a vote, the nomination not having been voted upon within15 legislative days:

Michael A. O'PakeRobert J. MellowJ. William LincolnLeonard J. BodackVincent J. FumoPatrick J. StapletonJeanette F. Reibman

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The communicationswill be laid on the table.

CONGRATULATORY RESOLUTIONS

The PRESIDENT pro tempore laid before the Senatethe following resolutions, which were read, considered andadopted:

Congratulations of the Senate were extended to Chris D.Gay by Senator Baker.

Congratulations of the Senate were extended to thePennsylvania AFL-CIO Community Services Institute bySenator Bell.

Congratulations of the Senate were extended to SarahSiska by Senator Bodack.

Congratulations of the Senate were extended to Mr. andMrs. Ernest E. Ruby by Senator Bortner.

Congratulations of the Senate were extended to JohnFrancis Roginski, Wayne M. Wyant, Jr., and to Saint John'sCathedral of Munhall by Senator Dawida.

Congratulations of the Senate were extended to L & LDance Productions of Philadelphia by Senator Fattah.

Congratulations of the Senate were extended to JosephP. McGrath, Jr., by Senator Greenleaf.

Congratulations of the Senate were extended to Mr. andMrs. James Lemmer by Senator Hart.

Congratulations of the Senate were extended to John J.Sepcoski by Senator Lemmond and Senator Musto.

Congratulations of the Senate were extended to DavidA. Pletcher by Senator Lincoln.

Congratulations of the Senate were extended to MichaelJ. Farrer by Senator Madigan.

Congratulations of the Senate were extended to Mr. andMrs. J. Harry Mowery and to Ann Durr Lyon by SenatorMowery.

Congratulations of the Senate were extended to WalterS. Mitchell, Jr., by Senator Musto.

Congratulations of the Senate were extended to DustinE. McKinley by Senator Pecora.

Congratulations of the Senate were extended to Scott A.Stickle by Senator Peterson.


Congratulations of the Senate were extended to theMidway-Saint Clair Volunteer Fire Department ofGreensburg by Senator Porterfield.

Congratulations of the Senate were extended to Majorand Mrs. Charles H. Coles and to Robert Norman bySenator Reibman.

Congratulations ofthe Senate were extended to LeonardMiller, the Canadohta Lake Community of CrawfordCounty and to the Saegertown High School EngineeringTeam by Senator Robbins.

Congratulations of the Senate were extended to Mr. andMrs. John E. Deitz, Marcus Heller and to John Kosar bySenator Shaffer.

Congratulations of the Senate were extended toReverend Scott A. White, Sr., by Senator Shumaker.

Congratulations of the Senate were extended to the VeryReverend Theodore J. Seginak and to William M. CooperIII, by Senator Stapleton.

Congratulations of the Senate were extended to Mr. andMrs. Ralph Anderson, Mr. and Mrs. John Demchak, Mr.and Mrs. Raymond Martin, Mr. and Mrs. James A. Mounts,Mr. and Mrs. John T. Pettit, Mr. and Mrs. William A.Thomas and to Mr. and Mrs. Michael Twardon, Jr., bySenator Stout.


The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair recognizesthe presence on the floor of Senator Robbins, and hislegislative leave will be cancelled.

BILLS ON FIRST CONSIDERATION

Senator ROBBINS. Mr. President, I move that theSenate do now proceed to consideration of all bills reportedfrom committees for the first time at today's Session.

The motion was agreed to.The bills were as follows:

SO 12, 15, 386, 539, DB 1313, 1860, 1950, 2520, 2521 and2630.

And said bills having been considered for the first time,Ordered, To be printed on the Calendar for second

consideration.

COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNOR

NOMINATIONS REFERRED TO COMMITTEE

The PRESIDENT pro tempore laid before the Senatethe following communications in writing from HisExceUency, the Governor of the Commonwealth, whichwere read as foUows and referred to the Committee onRules and Executive Nominations:

MEMBER OF THE PENNSYLVANIA CANCERCONTROL, PREVENTION AND RESEARCH

ADVISORY BOARD

June 8, 1994

To the Honorable, the Senate of the Commonwealth ofPennsylvania:

In conformity with law, I have the honor hereby tonominate for the advice and consent of the Senate, JohnieM. Atkinson-Faulkerson, 2901 Raspbeny Street, Erie 16508,Erie County, Forty-ninth Senatorial District, for appointmentas a member of the Pennsylvania Cancer Control, Preventionand Research Advisory Board, to serve for a term of fouryears and until her successor is appointed and qualified, viceMary Ellen Borges, whose term expired.

ROBERT P. CASEYGovernor


ADVISORY BOARD

June 8, 1994


In conformity with law, I have the honor hereby tonominate for the advice and consent of the Senate, Nancy L.Bohnet, 42 Easton Road, Pittsburgh 15238, AlleghenyCounty, Thirty-eighth Senatorial District, for reappointmentas a member of the Pennsylvania Cancer Control, Preventionand Research Advisory Board, to serve for a term of fouryears and until her successor is appointed and qualified.



ADVISORY BOARD

June 8, 1994


In conformity with law, I have the honor hereby tonominate for the advice and. consent of the Senate, LutherW. Brady, Jr., M.D., 316 Delancey Street, Philadelphia 19106,Philadelphia County, First Senatorial District, forreappointment as a member of the Pennsylvania CancerControl, Prevention and Research Advisory Board, to servefor a term of four years and until his successor is appointedand qualified.




ADVISORY BOARD

June 8,1994


In conformity with law, I have the honor hereby tonominate for the advice and consent of the Senate, PatriciaHalpin-Murphy, 3300 West Penn Street, Philadelphia 19129,Philadelphia County, Seventh Senatorial District, forappointment as a member of the Pennsylvania CancerControl, Prevention and Research Advisory Board, to servefor a term of four years and until her successor is appointedand qualified, vice Rose S. Tucker, Nanticoke, whose termexpired.



ADVISORY BOARD

June 8, 1994


In conformity with law, I have the honor hereby tonominate for the advice and consent of the Senate, TheReverend Charles W. Quann, 6935 Anderson Street,Philadelphia 19119, Philadelphia County, Fourth SenatorialDistrict, for appointment as a member of the PennsylvaniaCancer Control, Prevention and Research Advisory Board, toserve for a term of four years and until his successor isappointed and qualified, vice Patricia M. Morley, Merion,whose term expired.


MEMBER OF THE STATE BOARDOF OPTOMETRY

June 8, 1994


In conformity with law, I have the honor hereby tonominate for the advice and consent of the Senate, PatriciaC. Jackson (Public Member), 7011 Idlewild Street, Pittsburgh15208, Allegheny County, Thirty-eighth Senatorial District,for appointment as a member of the State Board ofOptometry, to serve until January 26, 1997 and until hersuccessor is appointed and qualified, but not longer than sixmonths beyond that period, vice Lawrence A. Ceisler,Esquire, Philadelphia, resigned.


HOUSE MESSAGES

HOUSE CONCURS IN SENATE AMENDMENTSTO HOUSE BILL

The aerk ofthe House ofRepresentatives informed theSenate that the House has concurred in amendments madeby the Senate to DB 441.

DB 2198 PASSED OVER GOVERNOR'S VETO

The aerk ofthe House of Representatives presented forconcurrence bill numbered and entitled as follows, togetherwith the objections of the Governor thereto: DB 2198, withthe information that said bill had been passed by bothHouses and vetoed by His Excellency, the Governor, andhas since been reconsidered in the House ofRepresentatives and passed by the necessary two-thirdsvote, the objections of the Governor to the contrarynotwithstanding.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The bill will be laid onthe table.

BILLS INTRODUCED AND REFERRED

The PRESIDENT pro tempore laid before the Senatethe following Senate Bills numbered, entitled, and referredas follows, which were read by the aerk:

June 8,1994

Senators GREENLEAF, BELL, HOLL, HECKLER,RHOADES, SALVATORE, STEWAR~ WENGERand FISHER presented to the Chair SB 1752, entitled:An Act amending the act of May 1, 1933 (p. L. 216, No.

76), entitled "The Dental Law," regulating the practice of expanded function dental assistants; and further providing forthe powers of the State Board of Dentistry, for fees, for discipline, for penalties, for dentists' privileges, for multiplelicensure and for assignment of duties.

Which was committed to the Committee on CON-SUMER PROTECTION AND PROFESSIONALLICENSURE, June 8, 1994.

Senator SHAFFER presented to the Chair SO 1753,entitled:An Act amending the act of March 10, 1949 (P. L. 30,

No. 14), entitled "Public School Code of 1949," furtherproviding for written agreements between districts.

Which was committed to the Committee on EDUCATION, June 8, 1994.

Senator MELLOW presented to the Chair SB 1754,entitled:An Act amending the act of March 4, 1971 (P. L. 6, No.

2), entitled "Tax Reform Code of 1971," further providing forsales tax licenses, for special tax provisions for poverty, forPennsylvania S Corporations; further defining "taxable income" for corporate net income tax purposes and for the


rates of said tax; further providing for the rate of the utilitiesgross receipts tax; providing for interest on overpayments, forpayment or credit of taxes, for resettlement, appeal andreview, for refunds, for the filing of returns, for bad checks;and making repeals.

Which was committed to the Committee on FINANCE,June 8, 1994.

Senator MELLOW presented to the Chair SB 1755,entitled:An Act amending the act of March 4, 1971 (p. L. 6, No.

2), entitled "Tax Reform Code of 1971," further providing forthe bank shares tax, for the alternative bank shares tax, forthe insurance premium tax and for the prepayment of thesetaxes.

Which was committed to the Committee on FINANCE,June 8, 1994.

Senator HART presented to the Chair SB 1756,entitled:An Act amending Title 23 (Domestic Relations) of the

Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, establishing the Officeof Child Protection and a toll-free telephone number forfoster parents; and providing for training for foster parentsand for intervention by foster parents.

Which was committed to the Committee on AGINGAND YOUTH, June 8, 1994.

Senators HOLL and SCHWARTZ presented to theChair SB 1757, entitled:An Act mandating health insurance coverage for cancer

prevention and early detection programs.

Which was committed to the Committee on BANKINGAND INSURANCE, June 8, 1994.

BILLS SIGNED

The PRESIDENT pro tempore (Robert C. Jubelirer) inthe presence of the Senate signed the following bills:

DB 411, 1933 and 2066.

ADJOURNMENT

Senator LOEPER. Mr. President, I move that the Senatedo now adjourn until Monday, June 13, 1994, at 2 p.m.,Eastern Daylight Saving Time.

The motion was agreed to.The Senate adjourned at 6:18 p.m., Eastern Daylight

Saving Time.

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA LEGISLATIVE JOURNAL · 6/8/1994 · accomplished here thisday be to...

Documents

Transcript of COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA LEGISLATIVE JOURNAL · 6/8/1994 · accomplished here thisday be to...