Robert Dole

Mr. DOLE

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. DOLE. Maybe better yet, as I understand, the Nickles amendment numbered 2556, I was advised by Senator Nickles that had been worked out to the satisfaction of both sides.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, let me speak to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. I think there is a tendency for amendments offered by Democrats being voted for by Democrats, and maybe the other way, too. This amendment makes a great deal of sense, not the amendment of the Senator from Vermont but the amendment in the bill. It was worked out very carefully after a lot of consultation by a lot of people to make certain that we were not doing some of the things that have been stated here. It is up to the States; it is up to the Governors. We have talked about returning power to the Governors, power to the States. Democrat or Republican Governors--we have not made any distinction. Everybody has railed about illegitimacy. Mr. President, one out of three births is out of wedlock. This is a very important amendment. It is in the House bill. We do not see any reason it should not be in this bill. That is why we put it in the Dole amendment to start with. I would hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle would take a look at what we are trying to do. Why not reward a State? Why not reward a Governor, Governor Edgar from Illinois or Governor Thompson or Governor Romer, whoever it may be, if they can devise a plan to reduce the illegitimacy rate? That is what this amendment is all about. It is straightforward. I do not see any pitfalls described by the Senator from Wyoming or the Senator from Vermont. I hope we could defeat the amendment of the Senator from Vermont and keep this provision in the bill. I can tell you, I will be a conferee when we ever go to conference on this. This is going to be very important. If we are serious about illegitimacy, this is an opportunity to demonstrate it. It is not partisan; not Democrat, not Republican, not conservative, not anything, as far as I know, except an honest effort to deal with a very serious problem. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. I may not be duty bound to accept it. We will see what happens here. My view was we were trying to speed up the process. It is now 20 minutes of 9 o'clock. We have been working in good faith all day. I do not know who requested the vote. I wish they were there. We spent an hour on the amendment. We could have had three or four votes. We will reserve judgment on the amendment.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. I have no objection to that. That would follow disposition of the Nickles amendment, which is the last one on this list, if we do not have some agreement by then. But I would not be able to enter into a time agreement.

Mr. DOLE. Yes, I modify my request, if in fact the Senator from Connecticut, Senator Dodd, wishes to offer an amendment, he be recognized following the disposition of the Nickles amendment No. 2556.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the following amendments be in order tonight, in the following sequence, and that following the conclusion of all debate, the Senate proceed to votes on or in relation to each amendment at 10 a.m., in the order in which they were debated, that there be 10 minutes of debate equally divided in the usual form before the first vote and the debate between the remaining stacked votes be limited to 10 minutes equally divided in the usual form, and all votes in the voting sequence after the first vote be limited to the 10 minutes: Wellstone, 2584; Faircloth, 2609; Conrad, 2528; Jeffords, 2581; Dorgan 2535; McCain 2589; Exon 2525; Nickles 2556.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, my view is we are trying to reach an agreement on about four major issues. Hopefully, we will have that determined by the time we complete voting on these tomorrow. If, in fact, we can reach an agreement, I hope all the other amendments would go away, at least nearly every other amendment go away. If we cannot reach agreement, then we would have a cloture vote sometime tomorrow after consultation with the Democratic leader. It is still my hope to dispose of this bill tomorrow night because we have six appropriations bills to do. We would like to start appropriations bills on [[Page S 13525]] Friday and then complete action on the appropriations bills on the 30th of September. If we can do that, there may be an opportunity for us to have a week's recess. So I hope all of our colleagues would help us on the appropriations bills. To get to the appropriations bills, we have to finish welfare reform, and we are only going to have one cloture vote. If we do not get cloture, that is it. It will go in the reconciliation and all these amendments that are pending will be pending forever, I guess. In any event, there will be no more votes tonight and the votes will start at 10 o'clock tomorrow morning.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I will get a unanimous-consent agreement now that it has been cleared on each side. In the meantime, what is the status of amendment 2545 offered by the Senator from Iowa--the other amendment, numbered 2545?

Mr. DOLE. I would be prepared to accept that amendment No. 2545 if we vitiate the yeas and nays and have no discussions.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. DOLE. I ask the yeas and nays be vitiated.

Mr. DOLE. We could stack those votes starting at 10 o'clock tomorrow morning. Debate the amendments tonight, have the vote starting at 10 tomorrow morning, if we can work it out. If not, we will just have to stay here tonight and vote.

Mr. DOLE. We are prepared to accept the amendment.

Mr. DOLE. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 2545

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DOLE. I have been talking to the distinguished Democratic leader throughout the day. We believe there are about four or five areas if we can reach some agreement on we might wrap this bill up fairly quickly. I think they are discussing it. Staff is in my office now. I have not had a chance to get back to the Democratic leader. Hopefully, what we might be able to do tonight, if Senators Wellstone, Faircloth, Conrad, a Republican amendment and then Senator Dorgan can offer their amendments tonight.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, it is my understanding that we are making progress. [Laughter.]

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I have the greatest respect for the Senator from New Mexico, but I rise in opposition to his amendment. So let me tell you that we have been trying to craft a bill here and maintain a balance to get enough people on board to pass a very strong welfare reform bill. And I believe we are on the verge of accomplishing that. In fact, I hope we can do it by tomorrow. In fact, we need to do it by tomorrow. I understand precisely what the Domenici amendment does. It simply strikes a provision in our bill that prohibits additional cash to children born to families receiving assistance. I know the Catholic bishops feel very strongly about this, and the Catholic charities, because they deal with a lot of these families. They understand some of the problems. As I have suggested, I think our bill has structured the right balance on the important issue of out-of-wedlock births. I am committed to supporting a provision in our bill which allows States to provide vouchers in lieu of cash assistance. We think that goes a step in the direction that we think the bishops and others who support the Domenici amendment want to go. Under this provision, I believe the children in need will be provided support. They are going to have vouchers, not going to have cash but vouchers, and the important thing is that these vouchers may be used for goods and services to provide for the care of the children involved. In addition, we all know that other forms of Federal and State aid remain available. This has been one of the most difficult issues. The family cap and whether you have cash payments for teenage moms are probably the two most difficult issues we have faced, two of the most difficult issues we have faced in putting a welfare reform package together. I understand the concerns that Senator Domenici expressed. I have talked with the Catholic bishops. They have been in my office. I have talked with Catholic Charities. They have been in my office. But I have talked to others who feel just as strongly on the other side. I also have talked with the Governors, and they do not want any strings. They do not want conservative or liberal strings. But they know in some cases they are going to have strings. I do not know of any objection by the Governors with reference to the family cap. I think they would accept that. They may not like it, but they would accept it. So I would hope that we also give flexibility in the family cap provision. If we do not deal with out-of-wedlock births, then we are really not dealing with welfare reform. We have had a number of Governors--12 States--who have currently received waivers from the Federal Government to experiment with some version of the family cap. However, our proposal also maintains considerable flexibility for [[Page S 13488]] these States and addresses the crisis of out-of-wedlock births. The crisis in our country must be faced. Thirty percent of America's children today are born out of wedlock. And many believe we, at the Federal level, must send a clear signal. We believe the underlying proposal which is identical to the one agreed to by the House does just that. We are going to be in conference in any event. Let me emphasize again that we have tried to keep everybody together in this proposal. I am not certain what happens if this Domenici amendment is adopted. We will still have an opportunity in conference. But we have crafted a very careful bill here to respond to the needs of many. Unlike the situation of single teenage mothers in poverty, this provision mostly affects families. It seems to many of us the time has come when these families must face more directly whether they are ready to care for the children they bring into the world. That is the reason for the family cap. So somebody has to make some decision out there--the families themselves, the parents, the mother. We believe the family cap will certainly encourage someone to make that decision and that if you continue cash payments, there is no restraint at all. I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Yes. The intent of the term ``any governmental entity'' is to cover every level of government--in effect, Federal State, or local government; and, to cover every branch of government--in effect, executive, legislative, judicial, or administrative.

Mr. DOLE. That is correct.

Mr. DOLE. Yes, that is the intent.

Mr. DOLE. Yes, that is correct.