John Breaux

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Will the majority leader yield?

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 2603 Mr. FAIRCLOTH addressed the Chair.

Mr. BREAUX. I thank my colleague. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the Domenici amendment. There is no disagreement in this body by either Republicans or Democrats on the question of illegitimacy. We oppose it very strongly and are looking for ways to help curtail it in this country. My State has the second highest illegitimacy rate in the country; 40 percent of all children born are illegitimate. The question is, how do you solve it? Do you solve it by punishing the children or do you solve it by requiring work requirements for the parents, by requiring them to live under adult supervision, by requiring them to take work training, by requiring them to live in a family setting? I suggest that the way to do it is by those types of requirements. Do not penalize the child. The current bill says absolutely a new child that is born will get no help. That is a mandate. It is says, well, the States have the option if they want to give a voucher they can. They do not have to. The Domenici bill changes that and the Domenici bill says that, if a child is born, we are going to look at that child as an innocent victim. And that is the proper approach. States that have had mandatory caps have not seen illegitimacy birth rates go down. But they have seen abortion rates go up. I do not think that is what this Senate wants to stand for. I urge the strong support of the Domenici amendment.

Mr. BREAUX. Will the Senator yield on that point? When we altered the 90-percent maintenance of effort, it was based on 90 percent of what the State received. So if the State received less from the Federal Government because of cutbacks or whatever reason, they would have a 90-percent requirement, to spend 90 percent of the funds that they had received. Take that into consideration.

Mr. BREAUX. The Domenici-Moynihan amendment. And I have strong support for it. [[Page S 13489]] Mr. NICKLES addressed the Chair.

Mr. BREAUX. I will be brief, Mr. President. [[Page S 13496]] We attempted, as our colleagues know, to offer an amendment that would require that States to maintain an effort of 90 percent of what they were doing in 1994 in order to assure that the States and the Federal Government had a true partnership in this effort. That amendment lost by only one vote. I think this effort of the Senator from Rhode Island, Senator Chafee, is a good effort. It is a big improvement over the current bill that is before the Senate. It is not 90 percent, but it does at least maintain an 80-percent effort on behalf of the States. That is better than the current underlying bill. The concern I have--and I ask the Senator to comment on this--is that the other body has no maintenance of effort at all in their bill and ultimately we will have to go to conference with the other body. I am concerned about the ability that the Senate will have to come out with a figure that is reasonable. I wonder if the Senator from Rhode Island could comment on whether there would be united support for the Senator's effort on behalf of his Republican colleagues, and could he shed light on what he thinks may or may not happen as a result of a conference? I conclude by saying I do congratulate him in this effort and I think it is a step in the right direction. Could he comment on what is likely to occur?

Mr. BREAUX. I thank the Senator.

Mr. BREAUX. I thank the Senator for that response. That is one of the questions I was trying to have answered. The problem I have is, under the Senator's amendment, a State--I certainly hope no State would ever do it--but under this amendment, it certainly could be possible, the State could say to that mother--more importantly, in my mind, to that child--that we are not going to give any additional assistance for your benefits, for your needs, nor are we going to give any vouchers for your needs to survive. I think that is something we, as officials who are responsible for raising the money for welfare reform, asking taxpaying citizens throughout this country to pay their taxes to try and solve this problem, that we have a responsibility to see that those funds are used properly and appropriately. One thing that I think is proper, appropriate and necessary is that we guarantee that the child is taken care of. I am concerned, in fact, I think now very clearly that under the Senator's amendment, that that is not guaranteed. The needs of the child will not be guaranteed either by a cash payment, which is very clear would be prohibited, or by the guarantee of a voucher for that child. I find that to be unacceptable. I want to do--and I will say it again--everything we can to ensure that the parent who had that child is made to be responsible, is made to find a job, enter job training, sign a contract to go to work, live in an adult-supervised home, live with a parent, find the father somewhere, no matter where he may be or what he may be doing, and say, ``You have a responsibility, and that is to the child.'' It is unacceptable to me to say that we, as Federal officials, are going to use tax dollars to try and reform this system and yet not guarantee that the child will be taken care of. That is a major defect. The Domenici amendment scares me in the sense that it clearly says that a State may deny any additional cash assistance to the child if a State so chooses to do so. I think that is less onerous than the amendment of the Senator from North Carolina. So I hope that this amendment will be rejected. I think that is a proper course. Amendment No. 2592, As Modified

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I listened to the argument for the amendment's adoption by the Senator from North Carolina. I am sorry he is not here because I really did want to ask him questions on the amendment. And at the risk of being a policy nerd, which I think I would hate to be called--I never want to have anyone use that term and apply it to me--however, I do have some questions in reading the amendment that I do not know how I am going to get an answer to unless the author is here or somebody who could respond to the author's intent. As I read the amendment that was published in the Record by the Senator from North Carolina, it said, ``A State may not use any part of the grant that they get to provide cash benefits for a child born out of wedlock to an individual who has not attained 18 years of age.'' There is an exception to that prohibition, which is my question, ``except that prohibition shall not apply to vouchers which are provided in lieu of cash benefits and which may be used only to pay for particular goods and services specified by the State and suitable for the care of the child that is involved.'' I happen to think vouchers may be a good idea. But I do not know whether the author of the amendment is requiring vouchers or not requiring vouchers. The bigger point that I would want to make in this argument is that, No. 1, the Senate has already spoken to this question. By a vote of, I think, 66-34, we adopted the Domenici amendment which addressed this question. And the Domenici amendment essentially said that a State may deny additional cash benefits for an additional child for a mother who has that additional child regardless of her age, whether she is 18 years old or 22 years old or what have you; that it would be a State decision to affirmatively deny additional assistance to that mother. My whole concern about this attack on the question of illegitimacy is that they are missing the target. They are, in fact, using a sledgehammer approach, but they are using a sledgehammer to hit the wrong person. You do not solve the problem of illegitimacy by penalizing the child. The child did not make a decision to be born. The child did not ask to be a child that is born into this world. Therefore, when you penalize the child, you are not penalizing the right person. The reason why I think that the Work First proposal that we had put together made so much sense is that we said that the teen mother, or any mother who has a child, is going to have to be responsible for having that child. They are going to have to live in a family environment with their parent, if there is one, or they are going to have to live in an adult-supervised home to get adult supervision in carrying out their responsibilities. They are going to have to sign a contract to go to work. They are going to have to start looking for a job. They are going to have to start receiving training. I suggest that is a far better way to address the question of illegitimacy, which is a rampant problem in this country. My State has the second-highest illegitimacy rate in the United States. Forty-some percent of the children born in Louisiana are illegitimate. That is something I think is a disaster already. It is not something waiting to happen. The question is, How do we solve that problem? Do we penalize the child? Do we say to the mother, ``There are not going to be any more funds to take care of the child''? Who does that hurt? It does not help the mother, it does not educate the mother, it does not train the mother, it does not teach the mother responsibility. It gives her less money, and less money for what? The child that did not ask to be born. There are potential mothers, women who are pregnant, when faced with that decision take the easy way out and decide to have an abortion. That is why all the Catholic Conferences, which feel so strongly about this, have said very eloquently they oppose this type of sledgehammer approach, because many pregnant ladies faced with that choice will decide to have an abortion because they know there will not be enough money to take care of the child when it is born. That is a very cruel proposition to a young potential mother faced with a pregnancy, many times in uncertain conditions, even if that child is wanted in the first place. Therefore, I am very strongly opposed to any efforts in trying to attack the question of illegitimacy that goes after the child. Go after the mother. Find the father, because for every child that is born, there is a father somewhere, in many cases shirking their responsibility and running away from their responsibility. So put provisions in the bill to go after the deadbeat father who is not recognizing his responsibility. Say to the mother having that child that ``You are going to have to do something different. You are going to have to live in an adult-supervised home,'' or ``You are going to have to live in your parents' home,'' or ``You are going to have to sign a contract to go to work; you are going to have to enter into an agreement in order to get the training that you are going to be able to be employable.'' [[Page S 13515]] Do everything you possibly can to the mother and the father who are responsible for the child, but heaven's sake, do not penalize the child who did not ask to be born. That is why I am so very concerned that we say there is going to be no more money for an additional child. My goodness, we are hurting the child, not the mother, not the father who we may not even know where he is. We should be exercising greater authority to try and find the people responsible for the child and do things to them, for them, with them that educate them to be better parents. I come from a State, as I said, that has the second-highest illegitimacy rate in the United States of America. I am not proud of that. I want to find a solution to that. I dare suggest this is not a solution. It is a sledgehammer approach, and we are using the sledgehammer to beat the child, and that is not right. I am glad the Senator from North Carolina is here, because I kind of like the idea of vouchers, and we talked about vouchers. I guarantee you, there are some teenage mothers who, when they do get extra cash assistance, may not use that cash assistance for the benefit of the child. They may use that cash assistance in the most despicable way. They may use it to buy things which are not necessary. They may use it to feed an alcohol abuse problem or a drug problem, because we are giving them cash for that extra child. I recognize that, and I am a little concerned about that, but I want to make sure we protect the child. The Senator in part of his amendment says that as an exception for vouchers to those mothers who have an additional child, that the vouchers would not be prohibited. The question is, I guess, there is no requirement that a voucher be issued. In other words, if that mother has an additional child, maybe the extra amount that they would normally be entitled to would be $50. Would there be a requirement in the Senator's mind that the extra money be then given to the mother in a voucher that could only be used to buy things for that child? Or does his exception in the bill have nothing to do with the requirement of a voucher? Given the choice--I want the Senator to respond if he can--but given the choice of saying to a mother that there is going to be no additional cash assistance and there is going to be no voucher either, I would prefer giving her the cash assistance in the hopes that because of the training and the requirements to live in an adult-supervised home or live with her parent or live with greater supervision, the money will, in fact, be used for the child. But if there is a requirement that they get a voucher to be used only for that child, I think that has some potential possibilities here. So if anybody can respond to my question, my specific question is, does the Senator's amendment require that an additional child would receive at least a voucher in order to pay for the cost of having that additional child or not? Will the Senator comment on that?

Mr. BREAUX. Will the Senator yield? I commend the Senator for structuring and offering remarks on this amendment. I think it is important that when we do real welfare reform we do it not just to penalize States that fail to meet certain targets and goals but actually have an incentive to do something positive instead of something negative. Instead of from Washington punishing States, if you will, that do not meet the goals, we try to get them to accomplish and meet those targets by incentives and bonuses and extra awards if, in fact, they are able to meet the targets that we set. Frankly, I think that is a far more efficient and far more appropriate method of trying to get States to meet the goals than to try to penalize them. I think this is in keeping with the partnership concept. This is not Big Brother demanding the States do something all of the time but to really say we hope they can meet these goals and, if they do, they are going to be rewarded and not just operate with a heavy hand [[Page S 13506]] by penalizing States that for various reasons cannot meet the goals we set. So I commend the Senator for recognizing this very important fact in offering what I think is a major contribution to improving the welfare reform bill.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. BREAUX. I yield to the Senator from West Virginia.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I will conclude my remarks by pointing out that for 6 years we have had a partnership between the Federal Government and the States. The House, when they took up welfare reform, said for the first time the States will have no obligation to do anything. They can spend zero dollars if they want. But the Federal Government has to continue to foot 100 percent of the bill. That is wrong. My amendment says we are going to require the States to spend 90 percent of what they were spending and the Federal Government will spend 100 percent of what it was spending. But if the States are able to reduce what they spend below 90 percent, we will also reduce the Federal contribution. If they save a dollar, we will save a dollar. That is a true partnership. They can be as inventive as they want. We hope they are. We hope they save money. But when they save money and spend more than 10 percent less than they were spending last year, the Federal Government will also reduce our contribution. The Congressional Budget Office looked at our amendment and the Congressional Budget Office said that it would save $545 billion over the next 7 years. Without my amendment being adopted, we will not see those savings implemented into law. Mr. President, $545 billion over 7 years is a significant amount of money. It maintains the partnership between the Federal Government and the States. Why should we in Washington send the money to the States if they are not going to participate? If we let the States get off the hook and we continue to send the money, that is not a true partnership and that will be contrary to the reforms that we are trying to reach. Anybody who has ever been to a conference around here knows the House has a zero requirement. If we go in with a 75 percent requirement, in all likelihood we are going to split the difference. So if all of our Republican colleagues think 75 percent is a reasonable amount to come out of a conference, I would suggest it is absolutely essential that they vote for the Breaux amendment as it currently is drafted. I yield the time.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. I would say, Mr. President, when we return after the party [[Page S 13333]] caucuses, we will be, of course, voting on this amendment. I think, from our perspective, this has been a real effort at trying to reach a bipartisan agreement. We have Republican cosponsors and we have Democratic cosponsors of this effort. It is an effort to try to achieve a partnership between the States and the Federal Government. The States should be required to participate. The Federal Government is required to participate. When savings are achieved, which they will be, both sides should benefit from those savings. When States spend less money because they have fewer people on the welfare rolls, the Federal Government should have to contribute less money, not the same amount. That is why our amendment clearly is scored by the Congressional Budget Office as saving $545 million over the next 7 years. Those are important savings. Without my amendment, they will not be achieved. I think this amendment continues the participation that we have had, allows the States to be inventive as to different types of programs they come up with, but requires them to participate. The Federal Government should not have to pay 100 percent of the cost of welfare. The States should participate, and jointly, together, we can produce a better result. With that, Mr. President, I yield the remainder of our time.

Mr. BREAUX. What do I have left? Do I have any?

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, has the Republican side yielded back their time?

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, do I understand we have an agreement that there will be 4 minutes after we return?

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

Mr. BREAUX. I am happy to yield 5 minutes to the Senator.

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Maine. Does he wish to speak in support? What time does he require?

Mr. BREAUX. I yield myself 3 minutes. We have had a lot of discussion as to the amendment that I propose which requires the State to participate and how it affects the States. I mentioned a number of Governors who have spent a great deal of time on this effort, including the former chairman of the National Governors' Association, Governor Howard Dean of Vermont. I quote him: I support the concept of State maintenance of effort as envisioned by Senator Breaux and other Senators. States should provide adequate levels of support for welfare programs to prevent a ``race to the bottom.'' The Governor of Colorado, Gov. Roy Romer: The Federal-State partnership is an essential component in a strategy designed to provide families with temporary assistance to help them achieve or regain their economic self-sufficiency. We are particularly concerned that if States reduce their commitment to these programs, then responsible States will become magnets for displaced welfare clients. These Governors are recognizing that, yes, States ought to have to be required to participate in solving welfare problems, that we should not engage in a race to the bottom as could happen if we have no requirement that the States actively participate. Equally as important, Mr. President, is the comment by the chairman of the U.S. Catholic Conference, the domestic policy chair, the Most Reverend John Ricard, auxiliary bishop of Baltimore who said: We urge you to pass genuine reform which strengthens families, encourages work, promotes responsibility, and protects vulnerable children, born and unborn, insisting that States maintain their current financial commitment in this area. Catholic Charities President, Fred Kammer, said: In exchange for Federal dollars and broad flexibility, States should be expected to maintain at least their current level of support for poor children and their families. Mr. President, I think it is very clear the distinguished Governors and other distinguished social experts in their field have recognized the importance of requiring States to continue to participate. That is, in fact, what the Breaux amendment does. We do it and at the same time save the Federal Government $545 million over the next 7 years as estimated by the Congressional Budget Office. That partnership is absolutely essential. To say the States would not have a requirement to be able to be participants in this process I think is the wrong message. I say under our amendment, States clearly would reduce the amount of money they spend, and after it is reduced by more than 10 percent, the Federal Government will be able to reduce our contribution so that there should be joint savings by people who pay Federal taxes, as well as by people who pay State taxes. It is wrong to maintain 100 percent Federal requirement as the Republican position does even if there are reductions in the amount of people on welfare and any particular State. Both sides should say the States have the flexibility to cut up to 10 percent under my amendment and still get 100 percent Federal funding. If they cut further than that, if they decide to spend more money on roads and bridges, well, then, the Federal Government ought to have the right to spend less, as well. If they do so because they reduce the number of people on welfare, we should benefit from those savings, as well. That is what a true partnership is all about. That is what the Breaux amendment tries to accomplish. And I think it is important to know there is a bipartisan effort here. This is not a party difference, it is a question of how we achieve a mutual goal of true welfare reform. I reserve the remainder of my time.

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

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I yield myself 3 minutes. Mr. President, I take this time just to try and conclude what we are trying to do with my amendment. We, in a bipartisan spirit, in joining with our Republican colleagues, offered an amendment that simply says States should be partners in welfare reform with the Federal Government; that the States should be required to help participate and help fund welfare reform; that it is not right, as the other body has done in their bill, to say the States have to put up nothing; that it becomes a 100-percent Federal burden and the Federal Government has to pay for the entire cost of welfare. That is what the bill that passed the other body says. It says there is no maintenance of effort on behalf of the States at all, and that is wrong. I think that we, in this body, clearly feel that the States should have to participate financially in helping to solve these problems. It is like we said before, if you spend somebody else's money, you can be very careless in how you spend it. Therefore, if the States are required to participate and put up some of their money, I think we will all do a better job in crafting programs that, in fact, are truly welfare reform. Our legislation says that the States should participate by putting up 90 percent of the money that they put up in 1994. The Federal Government will continue to put up 100 percent. If the States are able to reduce their caseload by welfare reform, we are very pleased with that. That is the goal. The Federal Government should participate in those savings as well as the States participate in those savings. The Republican bill, on the other hand, says we are going to continue 100 percent Federal funding for 5 years, no matter how much the State government is going to be able to reduce the people on welfare, and that is wrong. If there are savings to be made by fewer people on welfare, then the Federal Government should benefit from those savings, as should the State benefit from those savings. That is what the bill says. That is why my amendment is scored by the Congressional Budget Office to save $545 million in this program over the next 7 years. That is real savings. If you vote against the Breaux amendment, you are saying, ``I'm not interested in saving $545 million to the Federal Treasury. I do not care. It is not important.'' Well, I think it is important. That is why we have tried to craft an amendment that is balanced, that, in effect, saves Federal dollars as well as it saves State dollars. It is simply not correct to say under my amendment the States would not be able to spend less on welfare. Of course they can. We want them to spend less, but when they spend less, we want to be able to spend less as well. That is a true partnership that has been in existence for 60 years. It is incredibly wrong, in my opinion, to say for the first time we are going to put all the burden on the Federal Government to pay for the cost of welfare reform. It has to be a partnership if it is going to work. My amendment maintains that partnership and, at the same time, provides for real economic savings, savings to the Federal taxpayer to the tune of $545 million over 7 years. There is no doubt about that. It has been scored by CBO. We think it makes sense. With that, I yield back the remainder of the time on the 3 minutes.

Mr. BREAUX. I ask the Chair how much time is remaining for both sides.

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