Don Nickles

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I will just make a brief statement, not necessarily continue the colloquy. I appreciate the commitment of my friend and colleague from Illinois. Just a couple of comments pertaining to this amendment. This second amendment we have been discussing is rather small. It says we would have a $25 million pilot program to continue a program we already have and quadruple its costs or multiply it by five. That is directly contrary to what we are trying to do in this bill. As I mentioned before, according to CRS we have 154--I put this in the Record earlier today--Federal job training programs, some of which--and I know my colleague from New York is the author and sponsor of some-- some of which have probably done some good. A whole lot of them probably have not. And so to think that we have 155 and my colleague from Illinois has picked out one----

Mr. NICKLES. Will the Senator yield on that?

Mr. NICKLES. Just for my colleagues' information, according to [[Page S 12822]] CRS, we have 154--I have heard now 155--various employment and training programs. This is one program that you would like to maybe take out of the block grants and increase its funding by fivefold. Is that correct?

Mr. NICKLES. How much are we appropriating for that program at this point?

Mr. NICKLES. That is a program we have ongoing now.

Mr. NICKLES. I will be happy to review it. I appreciate my colleague. I just looked at the other amendment. She has one amendment that says you want to have a pilot program and you wanted to authorize $25 million for the job opportunities for certain low-income individuals. Is that correct?

Mr. NICKLES. I wanted to make sure, though, that we understood. Because this has a benefit, it would not have been provided under the Daschle substitute.

Mr. NICKLES. The Senator also mentions that she did not want to have unfunded mandates in one of the other amendments but this would be-- correct me, if I am wrong, you do not fund this program. You just mandate that the States after 5 years would have to provide a voucher program to provide assistance even though we do not give them any money?

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question? I compliment my colleague, one, for her interest in her State, her constituents, and also for the fact that she has I think four or five amendments, and she was waiting to offer those tonight and discuss those. I have not had a chance to review all of them. I have looked at a couple of them. I know my colleague from Pennsylvania has an amendment he wishes to offer. We may have other amendments. So I will be very brief. I will review these amendments a little more in detail over the night and talk about them possibly tomorrow. But the first amendment that the Senator has is a big one. It is an important one. Our colleague should be able to understand it. So I ask this question: I am reading under ``eligibility.'' This is talking about the underlying bill. But also I might mention under the Daschle bill, there was a time limit for welfare payments from the Federal Government, 5 years. Under the amendment of the Senator from Illinois, it says after the 5 years should expire and a welfare recipient still has a dependent child, the State would be mandated to provide a voucher program to provide assistance to the minor child. Is that correct?

Mr. NICKLES. I appreciate the Senator offering her amendments tonight. Would the Senator please give us a copy of the amendments? I have a copy of your first amendment and comments or questions I might ask. If the Senator would like to go ahead, if we could have copies of both the second and third amendments, that would help.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I thank my friend and my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. I announce that there will be no further rollcall votes until morning. There will be votes tomorrow morning, votes starting at 9:30. We may have as many as three or four amendments we will be voting on, for Senators' information, so we ask them to be prompt. Again, no more votes tonight. We will stay here for some additional time if Senators have additional amendments they wish to have considered. We will be happy to consider those. We have taken up a lot and we are setting those aside and so I think we are making some good progress on the bill. Again, no further rollcall votes tonight, and we will have rollcall votes stacked tomorrow morning beginning at 9:30. I thank my friend and colleague from Illinois for allowing me to interrupt.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I make a unanimous consent agreement request. I ask unanimous consent that all amendments to H.R. 4 must be offered by 5 p.m. tomorrow; that if cloture is filed in relation to H.R. 4 or an amendment thereto that the vote not [[Page S 12819]] occur on that cloture motion prior to 6 p.m. on Wednesday, September 13; that no amendment be given more than 4 hours equally divided; and the two leaders have up to 10 relevant amendments that would not have to be offered by 5 p.m. tomorrow.

Mr. NICKLES. I compliment my colleague from California for offering the amendment tonight. I appreciate that. I am interested in the amendment. It looks good from what I have seen. I will study it further and see if we can support it.

Mr. NICKLES. But if the father is delinquent, if the father is not available or unable to pay, for whatever reason, unemployed, you name it, then the parents of the absentee father in this case would be liable?

Mr. NICKLES. The primary responsibility would still be the father.

Mr. NICKLES. Let me talk out loud or think out loud. So if you have a teenage mother, if you have in this case an unmarried single mother, and if there is a court order placed against the father for child support, if that is not collectible from the father, then the parents of the father in this case would be liable for the child support?

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, while my colleague from California is here, I have not had a chance to totally review her second amendment. I am very interested in this amendment. It is a tough amendment. If I understand it correctly, if my colleague from California will correct me if I misunderstood her statement, but the Senator's amendment would basically, if you have a minor with a child, a single parent--the paternal grandparents would be liable for what expense?

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I thank my colleague. Senator Dole's proposal, I believe, is directed toward States that have significant increases in growth in poverty. And my guess is--I have not studied these charts--but he talks about the growth funds for States that have significant increases in poverty. Yours maybe is a little broader distribution. I will tell my colleagues that there is a dispute on both sides of the aisle. This is probably not a partisan amendment as such because people wrestle with distribution formulas, and trying to come up with most equitable formula is not always the easiest thing to do, particularly if they have a lot of inequities in past distribution formulas which we have had with different programs. But I, again, want to thank the Senator from California for offering her amendment and sending it to the desk. Does the Senator also have another amendment?

Mr. NICKLES. Let me further try to clarify so I will know and maybe just help us tomorrow when we are considering these amendments. Under the proposal of the Senator from California, it benefits 27 States. You do not change the amount of money. So you spread it out over a few more States. Senator Dole's proposal would have additional for the growth States that have large increases in poverty. It would benefit 19 States. So presumably they would do a little bit better. So you are dividing up the same amount of money as compared to your growth proposal. We will have charts to make an analysis or comparison under both proposals.

Mr. NICKLES. The Senator's amendment is allocating the money set aside for growth States, and under her proposed distribution it would increase benefits under that portion of the fund to 27 States as compared to 10 States. In other words, under the Dole proposal.

Mr. NICKLES. If my colleague will yield further, she has 27 States that would presumably do better under the great portion of the bill, not the entire bill.

Mr. NICKLES. I have a couple of charts. I want to make sure. I will confer with my colleague and friend.

Mr. NICKLES. The information that the Senator handed out, the distribution formula that she is recommending and the impact on the States is on actually the second page of the handout but recorded as page 4. Is that correct?

Mr. NICKLES. Welfare population being defined as welfare children, or just total welfare population of the States.

Mr. NICKLES. The amendment is directed toward States that have increases in welfare population.