Robert Dole

Mr. DOLE

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

Mr. DOLE. At this time, I have consent to modify my amendment. I send that modification to the desk.

Mr. DOLE. I will briefly explain the first modification which provides no additional cash assistance for children born of families receiving assistance. States may provide vouchers in lieu of cash assistance, and they may be used to pay for particular goods and services suitable for the care of the child involved. The second one provides a bonus to States reducing out-of-wedlock births. Third is a maintenance of effort. We are still trying to reconcile that with the distinguished Senator from Rhode Island. He just offered an amendment. We have a little different amendment. We are very close to an agreement. Maybe we can agree on something by Monday. The fourth would be a work family provision relating to child care. States cannot sanction a single custodial parent for failure to work if the parent shows a demonstrated need for child care and the States define what constitutes demonstrated need. No. 5, services provided by charitable, religious, or private organizations, limitation on the use of funds for certain purposes-- just a modification of the current provision, and a modification of the supplemental growth fund. And finally, a performance bonus fund that provides additional money for States that exceed performance goals. These are modifications to the amendment. There will still be other amendments. I ask unanimous consent to have this printed in the Record.

Mr. DOLE. I say to my colleagues I think we are making progress. We have had five votes today. We have been able to dispose of other amendments. Members are offering their amendments to be considered and they still have until 5:00 p.m. to do so. In light of this agreement, in lining up the three rollcall votes beginning at 5 p.m. on Monday, there will be no further votes today. Members are reminded if you intend to offer an amendment to this bill, those amendments must be offered by 5 p.m. this evening. Amendment No. 2280, as Further Modified

Mr. DOLE. And that the first vote be for 15 minutes and the other two or any other subsequent votes be limited to 10 minutes.

Mr. DOLE. There may be other amendments. Senator Hatch is here, Senator Chafee is here, both members of the Finance Committee, the distinguished Senator from New York, ranking member on the committee is here. If there are some amendments that can be taken, I assume we would be open for business for a while. Otherwise, as I indicated, there are no further votes today. There may be additional debate, and Members are reminded of the 5 o'clock deadline. In my view, I do not see why we cannot complete action on this bill by Wednesday or perhaps early Thursday because we would like to do the State, Justice Department appropriations bill on Thursday and Friday. We have done seven appropriations bills. That gives us No. 8. That would leave five to do before the end of this month. The only one available to us next week will be State, Justice, Commerce appropriations bill. The others come out the following week. I do not think it will be necessary because I think we have had good cooperation--we would rather not file cloture. We like to have a good debate and let everybody have a chance to debate their amendments up or down and then have a vote on final passage. Of course, if there should be some effort to frustrate the process, then it would be my suggestion we wrap all this up and put it in reconciliation. Welfare reform is very important, and if we are frustrated here, we will try to do it in another way. So far, we have had good cooperation on both sides. Members have been offering amendments. We have had good debates. I think we are making progress.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I think that answers any questions anybody may have had.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I move the Senate stand in recess until 6 p.m.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. If the Senator from Nevada will yield further, I make the same request. This is normally the late evening, Thursday evening, and we have not announced any votes this evening but we are prepared to do that if we can have the cooperation of Members, if they just come to the floor, debate the amendment, with the exception of the amendment of the Senator from New York, and then we can agree to vote on those tomorrow morning. Following the votes, we would take up the amendment of the Senator from New York [Mr. Moynihan], with 1\1/2\ hours equally divided for debate. So we will put out a hotline on this side, and this is the time to offer amendments. We had 70-some on our list. You have, say, 150. If there are 200 amendments out there, there ought to be somebody willing to come to the floor at 6:20 on a Thursday evening--it is not even dark outside--and offer some amendments. We are prepared to do business. I know the Presiding Officer is very pleased to be here, and we will do our best. I thank my colleague. Mr. REID addressed the Chair.

Mr. DOLE. That is correct. I know Members are going to want to be leaving fairly early tomorrow afternoon. It is not going to be possible unless they are willing to come to the floor tonight and debate the amendments and have the votes tomorrow morning. We are searching on our side if we can ask the leader to search on his side. [[Page S 12805]]

Mr. DOLE. I have no objection to that.

Mr. DOLE. There may be an objection. We are still looking for additional amendments to be taken up this evening. We have agreed to amendments on either side. I know the distinguished manager on the other side does not wish to offer his amendment this evening. We can lay it down. I think that would take an hour, or 45 minutes, tomorrow.

Mr. DOLE. We will have an agreement to have that vote tomorrow morning at 9:30 unless it can be accepted. I understand there is no objection on the Democratic side.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, if we could ask for the yeas and nays on the Brown amendment.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I wonder if we might be able to get the yeas and nays on the Brown amendment. We will set that vote for tomorrow morning.

Mr. DOLE

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

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

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

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I will just take a minute or two. I think Senator McCain wanted to say a word. I think the Bob Packwood we heard today is the Bob Packwood that many of us have known over the years. I remember in 1968, Bob Packwood calling me. We were both running for the Senate for the first time. He called me, I think, late at night or early in the morning. We talked about each winning, about coming to the U.S. Senate. I came from the House. He came from State political office. We ended up on the same committee, the Finance Committee--a very important committee. It had a number of outstanding chairmen--Senator Long was there for a long time, and I was there for a short time; then Senator Bentsen, Senator Moynihan, and Senator Packwood. I want to underscore what the senior Senator from Oregon just stated. I do not know of anybody who is a quicker study and can explain in detail so that I can understand it, and others can understand it-- whether it is Medicare, Medicaid, welfare, capital gains, whatever it is--anything in the jurisdiction of the Finance Committee. I believe my colleagues on either side of the aisle will acknowledge that Bob Packwood has no peer. I can think of many, many times when he was able to bring us together. I am not talking about bringing together Republicans, but Democrats and Republicans, because of his explanations and illustration of forceful arguments. And he knew the issue. We have served together, not always agreeing on every issue, but serving together over the years and have been good friends over the years. I know some may be pleased today, and some may not be pleased. But I believe that Senator Packwood when he said duty, honor, and country means precisely that. He has great respect for the Senate and has always had great respect for the Senate. As soon as there was this report from the Ethics Committee yesterday there were all kinds of questions and speculation about what will happen now? I believe Senator Packwood has made the right decision. I believe that a protracted debate in the Senate may not have changed anything. I must say I think it is very severe punishment. I remember one case here where a Senator, charged with certain things, came to the Senate floor 6 months after it was reported by the Ethics Committee, but not after a trial and not after conviction on three counts. Having said that, I think Senator Packwood has made the correct decision. It is not easy. It has not been easy. It is always easy when you are criticizing, but it is not as easy when you are taking it. We all know that. We have been on both sides. But I must say that I have watched Senator Packwood the last 24 hours and wondered myself how he was able to carry on. But then, again, I know Bob Packwood. This is not the end of Bob Packwood's career. He will continue to make a difference in the lives of many, many Americans. He only cited a few things. We can cite pages and pages of legislation that bears his name or bears his name along with colleagues on the other side, bipartisan, nonpartisan, in some cases partisan. He is a hard worker--nobody ever suggested otherwise--loyal to his party, loyal to his constituents, and loyal to his leaders. So I would just say that obviously he deserves some time to get everything in order. It takes a little while around here to do things. I am not certain. He did not state an effective date. But I guess my colleagues would say some reasonable time would be allowed--even by the sharpest critics. I look at the legislative record of Senator Packwood and add it all up. And I think about the many times he stood on this floor in this place, right here, offering amendments or debating amendments that affected somebody somewhere, some child or children or homeless, or whatever it might be, whatever the issue might be. I would just say he has been an outstanding legislator, an outstanding U.S. Senator, and someone whose legacy will be around for a long, long time, and a friend of mine. Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Oregon, Senator Packwood, be recognized for 10 minutes.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, what is the pending business?

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

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I want to thank all my colleagues for their work, and my friend from New York, Senator Moynihan, chairman of our committee, Senator Packwood, the Senator from Pennsylvania, Senator Santorum, who spent a lot of work on the floor just in the past few days and who has done a great job helping us a lot in the conferences that we have had in an effort to resolve some of the differences on our side. I am prepared to say I think most of the differences have been resolved on our side because we have tried to base our bill on three principles: Creating a real work requirement, returning authority to the States, and restraining welfare spending. These principles are key to reaching our goal of dramatic reform that provides work, hope, and opportunity to Americans in need. The amendment before us proposed by the Democratic leader fails to meet these principles. The Democrats call it Work First, but in fact, it is ``weak first''--weak on work, weak on limiting welfare dependency, weak on State innovation, weak on savings, weak on real reform. real work requirement Let me just say, any bill that comes before us that is going to pass the Congress and, hopefully, any bill signed by the President is going to have a real work requirement in it which requires able-bodied welfare recipients to find a job, not stay at home and not stay in a training program forever, because when it comes to escaping poverty we know the old American work ethic is true. Work works. And States, not the Federal Government, must provide the work requirements. However, we must hold them accountable. Our bill requires--and even there are some on our side who think our bill does not go far enough, but our bill requires 50 percent of all welfare recipients to engage in work in fiscal year 2000. And that is a fairly high barrier to cross when you consider the young people and elderly and disabled unable to work. Our colleagues on the other side put a number of loopholes ahead of real work. The Federal Government would exempt 25 percent of all welfare participants and only 50 percent of the remaining 75 percent of the welfare caseload would be expected to work by fiscal year 2000. The bottom line is the Democrats' plan requires only 37 percent of able- bodied recipients to work in fiscal year 2000. By comparison, the Republican plan requires 50 percent of all welfare recipients to work in fiscal year 2000. We leave the business of exemptions to the people who know best, the closest to the problem. That is the States, the Governors, the State legislators. We believe States should design and run their own work program. And one thing is certain about welfare reform. No Federal bureaucrat will ever come up with a blanket program which works equally well in all 50 States. Through block grants to States and not waivers, the Federal Government can provide resources to fight poverty without imposing the rules and regulations that ban innovation. [[Page S 12795]] I am reminded of a statement by the distinguished Governor of Wisconsin, Governor Thompson, when he was speaking with seven or eight of our colleagues in my office here, oh, maybe 4 or 5 weeks ago, and some were insisting that we continue to add strings. Whether they are conservative strings, they are strings. And the Governor said, I think maybe in a little bit of frustration, that he was also an elected official; he was elected by the same kind of people we are, and that nobody in the State of Wisconsin was going to go without food or medical care. We have to give the Governors credit for some integrity and ability and a willingness to do the right thing when it comes to welfare. And I think that is generally the case, whether it is a Democrat or Republican Governor, a Democrat or Republican State legislature; they are closer to the people. We have not tried this. There probably will be some horror stories. There always are going to be a few cases where maybe a few things will go awry, but they go awry now. We give the States broad latitude to adopt the programs to meet the varied needs of their low-income citizens. The other bill does not allow States to take over welfare programs. It replaces one set of Federal rules and regulations with new ones, and States that want to innovate must continue to come to Washington, ask for a waiver, wait, wait, wait, and finally get a waiver. We do not think that should be necessary. We believe States ought to be able to innovate; there ought to be a lot of flexibility. And I tell you that we have confidence in the Governors, again, in both parties. Local welfare administrators and caseworkers must get recipients off welfare and into the workplace. To encourage results, the Republican bill imposes a State penalty for failure to meet participation rates. There would be a 5-percent reduction in the State's annual grant. Under the Democrats' bill, a first-time State failure to meet the participation rate would simply require the HHS Secretary to make recommendations to the States for improving them. The local welfare administrators and caseworkers need to focus on getting welfare recipients into the mainstream and not focus on unnecessary Federal bureaucracy and regulations. Therefore, the Republican bill delivers welfare dollars to the States directly from the Treasury and reduces the Federal welfare bureaucracy. Able-bodied recipients must work to support themselves and their families. To accomplish this, we require recipients to work as soon as the State determines that they are work ready or within 2 years, whichever is earlier. Moreover, our bill imposes a real 5-year lifetime limit on receiving welfare benefits. Our colleagues on the other side have a work ready provision with many exemptions. Moreover, their bill fails to impose real lifetime limits on welfare benefits by offering even more loopholes. For example, a welfare recipient who has three children while on welfare can get up to 7 years of benefits before reaching the 5-year limit. Even then, that recipient would still remain on the welfare rolls entitled to certain benefits and receiving vouchers, without a time limit, in place of cash benefits. The Democrat bill even provides exceptions to these weak time limits, turning major cities into welfare magnets. If a welfare recipient lives in an area with an unemployment rate exceeding 8 percent, none of the time spent on welfare counts toward the so-called 5-year limit. That would turn cities that have relatively high unemployment rates like New York, Los Angeles, Washington, Philadelphia, Detroit, and many others into time-limit-free zones. But I think the most important thing is that we want to return authority to the States. And we believe there is an opportunity to do that. We want to give the States the flexibility. The Governors want that. Republican Governors want that, and I think many Democratic Governors want that. And that is why the majority of the Nation's Governors on the Republican side want that. I noticed Governor Wilson yesterday disagreed with our bill. He was not at the Governors' meeting. Had he been there, I think he might have endorsed it. I have written him a letter to explain the bill so he will better understand it because he has it all confused with some of the others. But I think 28 or 30 of the Governors, with the exception of Governor Wilson, support our bill, and we believe it is a step in the right direction. I hope that after the bill of the distinguished leader on the other side, Senator Daschle, is disposed of, we can then start debate and finish action on this bill no later than 5 o'clock Wednesday. We believe there will be amendments on each side. We have some amendments we cannot work out. The ones we cannot work out we will bring up and have a vote and determine what happens. So it seems to me that we are on the right track. The Republican leadership plan eliminates the individual entitlement and replaces it with a capped block grant of $16.8 billion a year. I would say, finally, the Democrat plan proposes to replace AFDC with a bigger, more expensive package of entitlements costing the taxpayers over $14 billion more than AFDC over the next 7 years, including subsidies to families with incomes as high as $45,000 per year. The Republican bill no longer will continue the burdensome rules and requirements that accompany the old jobs program. The Work Opportunity Act repeals the jobs program and lets the States design real work programs. The Democrat plan keeps many provisions of AFDC and the jobs program as a Federal entitlement and renames it the ``Work First Employment Block Grant.'' restrain welfare spending No program with an unlimited budget will ever be made to work effectively and efficiently. Therefore we must put a cap on welfare spending. The Republican bill saves $70 billion over 7 years. The Democrat bill saves only $21.6 billion over the same period of time. Mr. President, because it is weak on work, weak on limiting welfare dependency, weak on State innovation, weak on savings, weak on real reform, the Democrat bill fails the test to real reform. I urge my colleagues to vote against it. So I think overall, although I know there is a desire of everybody in this body to do something about welfare, we know it has failed. Notwithstanding the best efforts of many to make it work, it has not worked, and it is time that we take a hard look at dramatic reform. That is precisely what we intend to do. The Work Opportunity Act of 1995, in my view, is a step in that direction. I will indicate to my colleagues that following the vote on the Democratic substitute, we will ask consent at that time that all amendments that people might offer, they notify the managers today and then, if we can get the consent, those amendments would have to be offered by 2 o'clock tomorrow. I have had a discussion about this with the Democratic leader, Senator Daschle. I have not made the request yet, but I do not believe he disagrees with our intent. Our intent is to move as quickly as we can to complete action, giving everybody all the time they want for debate, offer the amendments they wish to offer, but, hopefully, conclude action on next Wednesday afternoon. I would say that initially we had about 70 amendments on this side of the aisle. In my view, that would have probably boiled down to about 10 or 12 amendments that may require rollcall votes. I am not certain the number of amendments on the other side. But it is my hope that we can reach some agreement so it would not be necessary to file cloture, that we go ahead and debate the bill, then finish the bill at the earliest possible time and go on to something else. I yield back the remainder of my time.

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

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I mention as an aside and not part of the statement that my colleague from Maryland, Senator Mikulski, is calling me every 5 minutes, 10 minutes. We are going to try to arrange so that the people who want to be at that game can catch the 5:30 train. There are Members of the Senate and others who want to attend that game, so we are trying to work out some agreement for the Democratic leader where either we could have debate on welfare reform for those who would be watching it on television, or maybe take up a nomination that has been pending for some time and some of my colleagues on the other side would like to take up. I thank the managers. I suggest the absence of a quorum.