Wendell Ford

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, we can keep the restriction on cash assistance after 5 years, but let us not take a step backward and prohibit all forms of noncash assistance. This prohibition is aimed directly at our children, and I think it is misguided. If we want a welfare reform compromise, if we want to avoid being unnecessarily harsh on our children, if we want to maximize State flexibility, we should pass this amendment. It is supported by the National Governors' Association, and it makes the bill identical to H.R. 4, which passed the Congress last year. It does not add to the cost of the bill and it promotes State flexibility. During the conference last year, the Governors lobbied hard for this particular amendment. I know none of my colleagues take these decisions lightly, but I hope you will remember that each one of us will be forever wedded to these decisions. We are essentially providing a road map for the future, the futures of hundreds of thousands of children in this country. Make no mistake about it, 5 or 10 or 15 years from now, when these children have become young adults, you and I must take some responsibility for their successes or failures. Of course, they will have their setbacks, just like you and me. But let us assure that those setbacks are not set in motion by the decisions we make today. By passing this amendment, I believe one day each of us can look at our future parents, doctors, lawyers, farmers and teachers, taking pride in our role to assure they grew up with a safe place to sleep at night, clothes on their backs, and food in their stomachs. If we fail to pass this amendment, the children who become trapped in lives of mediocrity or fall through the cracks to obscurity will belong to us as well. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent a letter from my Governor in Kentucky, who is now part of the leadership of the National Governors' Association, supporting this amendment be printed in the Record at this point.

Mr. FORD. If I may say to my friend, Mr. President, the point of order would lie against the Breaux amendment. But in talking with the Parliamentarian and others, this particular amendment would not have a point of order against it. I hope the Senator would not do that.

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, the Catholic Conference of Kentucky has written a letter endorsing and supporting my amendment. I ask unanimous consent it be printed in the Record also.

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

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

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, this is an amendment that I think could almost be accepted. Although we could not agree on the Breaux amendment of last week regarding noncash assistance for children, I hope we can agree on this one. One of the reasons welfare reform is so complicated is that it is usually hard to separate the adults on welfare from the children. Many want to get tougher on the adults, especially those who have been on welfare for a long period of time. But I do not hear anyone who says get tougher on children. This amendment separates those issues because it is about how we as a Nation are ultimately responsible for the welfare of our children. Under the Republican bill, after 5 years, States may not use any Federal block grant money to assist families whatsoever. This applies to cash and noncash benefits as well. The current bill goes much further than H.R. 4, which passed Congress last year and was vetoed by the President. In my view, this makes the bill much tougher on children. H.R. 4 prohibited cash assistance after 5 years. It did not prohibit noncash assistance like vouchers that could be used for clothing or medicine or other needs of our children. My amendment makes this bill identical to H.R. 4 by allowing States to use Federal block grant funds to provide noncash assistance after adults on welfare have reached their 5-year limit. If you favor State flexibility, you should support this amendment. Some supporters of this bill have said State flexibility is one of their top priorities, yet on this issue the bill is less flexible than H.R. 4. We say send this welfare reform back to the States, but yet we say: States, do it the way we tell you to do it. That is not flexibility for the States. The National Governors' Association supports this amendment. This amendment does not increase the cost of the bill, nor add to the deficit. It deals with how the Federal block grant funds allocated to each State may be used. And so, Mr. President, in a letter dated June 26, 1996, the National Governors' Conference urged support for an amendment to apply the time limit in the bill only to cash assistance. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of this letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Georgia [Mr. Nunn] and the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Pryor] are necessarily absent.

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Georgia [Mr. Nunn] and the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Pryor] are necessarily absent.

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Georgia [Mr. Nunn] and the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Pryor] are necessarily absent.

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Georgia [Mr. Nunn], and the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Pryor], are necessarily absent.

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Georgia [Mr. Nunn] and the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Pryor] are necessarily absent.

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Georgia [Mr. Nunn] and the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Pryor] are necessarily absent.

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Pryor] and the Senator from Georgia [Mr. Nunn] are necessarily absent.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. FORD. Wellstone has two.

Mr. FORD. We are starting something new, and it is down a path that we are not sure how it will turn out. I think that is the Senator's point. The States will be doing this and not the Federal Government, as such, because in this legislation we would be giving block grants. I think we ought to know how that is faring out there. I remember when the States were in charge of nursing homes. Because it was so bad, the Federal Government took it over and set higher standards so we could take care of our senior citizens better. Is it not the point that we do not know what will happen? Like the Senator from Pennsylvania said, some programs may be good, some may be mediocre, some may flunk. Do we not need to know and respond, particularly for children? Is that not the point the Senator is trying to make?

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

Mr. FORD. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, we have an amendment that has been agreed to. I ask unanimous consent the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kerry], be given 60 seconds to offer his amendment and get it modified so it could be passed.

Mr. FORD. Would it be all right for Senator Breaux to go ahead with his?

Mr. FORD. Did we get the yeas and nays on the second one?

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I yield back what time we might have on this side.

Mr. FORD. He has a total substitute, so it will be a little longer, probably.

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, there is room for staff to have seats in the back. That would help some.