Don Nickles

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, with some reluctance, I rise in opposition to the amendment of my friend and colleague, Senator Domenici. First, let me make sure everyone is clear in what we have in the Dole amendment. The Dole language does not tie the hands of Governors to spend their own dollars. They can give cash benefits using their own money. If the states want to give additional cash assistance to welfare recipients who have additional children while on welfare, they could do so. In addition, the state can even use Federal dollars to provide vouchers or noncash assistance. So I think maybe there might have been some understanding as to what is actually in the proposal before us. The Dole amendment says that there will be no additional Federal cash benefits given to welfare mothers if they have additional children. In other words, we want to take the financial cash incentive away from welfare mothers for having additional children. Senator Faircloth mentioned, I think, the only real experiment we have had on the family cap is in New Jersey. Let us just look at the New Jersey experiment. I am not an expert on this case, but there has been significant homework done on New Jersey in a recent report by the Heritage Foundation: ``The Impact of New Jersey's Family Cap on Out-of- Wedlock Births and Abortions.'' First, let me mention, I compliment my friend and colleague from North Carolina, Senator Faircloth, because he has mentioned repeatedly that illegitimacy and out-of-wedlock births are a big part of our welfare problem, and he is right. I want to compliment my friend and colleague from New Mexico, because he also decried the facts of family breakup and the fact that so many kids are born out of wedlock. I happen to agree with him. It is a staggering statistic when you find out that over one-third of America's babies today are born in a single-parent home. They do not have the luxury of having a father and a mother. Those kids, those newborn babies are starting life at a significant disadvantage. The probability that they end up in welfare, the probability that they end up in crime or some other environment is much, much greater than those babies who are fortunate enough to be born into a family with both a father and a mother. So we need to reduce the incidence of children born out of wedlock. I do not think there is any doubt and I do not think anyone would contest that fact. If one looks at the crime statistics clearly that is true. Would we make a difference if we say under this legislation we are going to take away the cash incentive for welfare mothers who have additional children? New Jersey tried it. What have been the results? I will read from the Heritage Foundation's report. It is dated September 6, 1995: New Jersey is the only State in the Nation that instituted a family cap policy: denying an increase in cash welfare benefits to mothers having additional children while already receiving welfare. The evidence currently available from New Jersey indicates that the family cap has resulted in a decline in births to women on AFDC but not an increase in the abortion rate. I will highlight a couple of other points that are in the report. It says: The cap appears to have caused an average decrease of 134 births per month, or 10 percent. So it has reduced the number of children born to welfare mothers. Has that caused a corresponding increase in abortion? I happen to agree with my colleague from New Mexico, I do not want that to happen. I think that would be a terrible result if it does. I will read from the report: There has been a concern that family cap in national welfare reform legislation would reduce out-of-wedlock births by increasing abortions. However, the data currently available from New Jersey indicate that while the establishment of the family cap was followed by a clear and significant decrease in the number of births to welfare mothers, it did not result in any significant increase in the rate of abortions among these women. I will just read one additional line: The difference between pre- and post-cap abortion rate is extremely small and not statistically significant. Overall, the available data indicate the family cap did not cause an increase in either the abortion rate or the number of abortions. Again, I am not an expert in that. I do have confidence in the Heritage Foundation. I think they are a very reputable group. I read portions of this study into the Record for my colleagues' information. Again, let me repeat what we have in the underlying Dole bill. It says that no Federal cash benefits would be given to welfare mothers if they have additional children. It does not prohibit States from giving additional cash if they want to do so with their own money. The States can do so if they want to do it. States are given a block grant. With that Federal money, they can use some of that money to provide noncash benefits. Maybe those benefits would be in the form of food supplements, maybe in the form of additional medical care, maybe in the form of day care assistance, whatever. The State would have the option to do what they want with the vouchers but not cash; in other words, trying to take the additional cash incentive out of welfare. I think the Dole compromise is a good one. Again, I want to compliment my friend and colleague from North Carolina and also Senator Dole for this provision and compliment as well my friend and colleague from New Mexico, because I understand his sincerity, I understand his conviction about not wanting to increase the number of abortions, and I appreciate that. But I hope, in the final analysis, that his amendment will not be agreed to. Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I will just respond to my colleague, I know Senator DeWine wishes to discuss his amendment. He also wishes to discuss the amendment of the Senator from New Mexico briefly. I am not sure if Senator Faircloth wanted to discuss his amendment tonight.

Mr. NICKLES. And I think Senator Daschle has two amendments, and he may wish to discuss his briefly as well.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I appreciate my friend and colleague, Senator Daschle, for sending his two amendments. I know Senator DeWine has an amendment. Let me make a couple of brief comments concerning both Daschle amendments. One concerning the 3-percent set aside for Indian tribes--I might mention that for Indian welfare programs under the Dole bill we have a provision but it would be allocated strictly on the ratio of AFDC numbers. I am not sure exactly what the number is. I think it is something like not 3 percent but more like 1.7 percent. I will have that figure more accurately in the morning. So we are talking about a lot of money. I will certainly concur with the gist of my colleague's amendment, that we have a lot of Indian welfare programs that are not working. I am not sure that money is necessarily the answer. My State happens to have more Indian population than any State in the Nation. I have seen a lot of Indian welfare programs that have not worked, again not necessarily because of a lack of money. But I will try to have those facts and statistics for tomorrow for debate. Also, I would like to make a brief comment concerning the first amendment. That is the amendment calling for setting aside and appropriating money for contingency funds, that contingency fund being in the form of a grant, not in the form of a loan. Under the Dole provision, we have over $1 billion set aside for loans that the States could borrow from but they would have to pay it back within 3 years. Under the Daschle amendment it would appropriate $5 billion over 7 years for a contingency fund that says to States, if you have a higher unemployment rate than you did in 1994, you could qualify, and, if you have more children receiving food stamps than you did in 1994, you could qualify, and, if you are spending at least as much money as you are spending in 1994. In other words, a 100-percent maintenance of effort. Then you could qualify. So it is kind of an idea that here is more money for more welfare. I do not see that as reform. I understand the States might have some problem. It was also said that there would be distributed in the same formula that we do with Medicaid, match their rates; therefore, for every dollar they spent the State would spend three. They would have an additional dollar grant from the Federal Government, almost an incentive for the State to spend more money on welfare. I am afraid that might increase our dependency on welfare, and maintain welfare as a life cycle, not reverse it. Many of us are trying to reverse that. We are trying to break the welfare cycle, and reduce welfare dependency. Mr. President, I know my friend and colleague from Ohio is supposed to preside over the floor, and I also know that he has an amendment that he wishes to discuss briefly. Looking at the list, I also see that Senator Faircloth is on the floor and he has an amendment. I believe Senator Boxer has an amendment; all of which we are trying to have discussed this evening so we can have them voted on tomorrow. So I will yield the floor in anticipation of the Senator from Ohio who will bring up his amendment. Mr. DeWINE addressed the Chair.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I believe the Senator from North Carolina will be next in line according to the unanimous-consent agreement. Amendment No. 2608 Mr. FAIRCLOTH addressed the Chair.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I thank both our colleagues from New York for their statements. I note the Senator from Florida, Senator Graham, wishes to make a statement. I will just mention to my colleague, Senator Domenici, has an important amendment he is prepared to discuss. And we have several other amendments we are supposed to, basically, debate tonight and hopefully have for consideration and vote tomorrow. So it is my hope we can conclude Senator Graham's debate with this amendment, take up Senator Domenici's amendment, and then I know Senator Daschle has two amendments, Senator DeWine has an amendment, Senator Mikulski, Senator Faircloth, and Senator Boxer, that we would also like discuss this evening and have ready for a vote tomorrow. We still have a lot of work to do tonight and it is my hope maybe we can move forward with this debate as expeditiously as possible.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I appreciate the Senator from North Carolina for his amendment and also for his bringing it at this late hour, as well as the Presiding Officer of the Senate for his offering his amendment. I congratulate both Senators for the work they are doing and compliment them for their initiatives. I believe that the last amendment that will be discussed tonight in the Senate is the amendment to be offered by the Senator from California, Senator Boxer. Mrs. BOXER addressed the Chair.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, we have had an excellent debate. I know my colleague from New York wishes to address this amendment, as well. I wish to compliment the parties on both sides of this debate. I think it has been an excellent debate. I note that my friend and colleague from New Mexico is here. He has an amendment. The majority leader has indicated to us that he would like to dispose of that tonight. My guess is that it is a very important amendment dealing with family caps. We will have some good debate on that, as well. I urge my colleagues to try and conclude debate on the Graham-Bumpers amendment as soon as possible so we can go on to debate the Domenici amendment. Mr. D'AMATO addressed the Chair.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment of my friend and colleague from Louisiana, Senator Breaux. I think if we adopt the so-called Breaux amendment, we are preserving welfare as we know it. President Clinton said we want to end welfare as we know it, and I happen to agree with that line. But if we maintain or if we adopt this maintenance of effort, as Senator Breaux has proposed--he has two amendments, one at 100 percent and one at 90 percent--if we adopt either of those amendments, we are basically telling the States: ``We don't care if you make significant welfare reductions, you have to keep spending the money anyway.'' So, there is no incentive to have any reduction of welfare rolls; certainly, if you had the 100-percent maintenance of efforts. ``States, no matter what you do, if you have significant reductions, you spend the money anyway.'' That is kind of like ``in your face, big Government, we know best; Washington, DC is going to micromanage these programs anyway. Oh, yeah, we'll give money to a block grant, but if you have real success, you have to spend the money.'' I think that is so counter to what we are trying to do that I just hope that our colleagues will not concur with this amendment. This is a very important amendment. I just look at the State of Wisconsin. Currently, they are saving $16 million a month in State and Federal spending. [[Page S 13330]] Between January 1987 and December 1994, they experienced a 25-percent reduction in their AFDC caseload. My compliments to them. I wish more States would do more innovative things to reduce their welfare caseload. This amendment of my colleague, Senator Breaux, says, ``States, even if you do that, if you have phenomenal success, you still have to spend the money. You have to spend as much money as you did,'' and the year that they picked, using the year of 1994, it was an all-time high for AFDC caseload. Between May 1994 and May 1995, nationally there was a reduction of 520,000 recipients on AFDC. So, he happens to pick the highest caseload year as the base and then says, ``States, you have to maintain a level at either 90 percent or 100 percent of that level. You have to spend the money. You can't enjoy the benefits and allow your constituents to maybe have more money for education, roads or highways, even if you reduce your welfare caseload.'' In other words, let us make sure we keep rolling out the State money. I think that is a serious mistake. We will be voting on this, I believe, shortly after the policy luncheons. I urge my colleagues to vote no on the Breaux amendment. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, first I would like to compliment my colleague and friend from Iowa for his work on AmeriCorps. I hope that the American people realize, according to the General Accounting Office, that the cost per beneficiary is $27,000. The Senator from Iowa has been very diligent in trying to awaken America to this enormously expensive program. It is a new program. I understand it is one of President Clinton's favorite programs, but it is enormously expensive-- enormously expensive. So I compliment my colleague from Iowa for bringing it to the attention of this country, and, hopefully, we can stop wasting taxpayers' money and maybe do a better job either through the student loan program or Pell grants and help lots of people go to school and obtain a college education instead of a few select receiving benefits in the $20,000-to-$30,000 category.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I again appreciate my colleague's initiative, her commitment to her cause. I will just state that this Senator is going to vote against it, and this will probably be one we will have a rollcall vote on tomorrow. It does increase the authorization of this program by fivefold. One may not call it a jobs program. I would have to look and see if it was included on the list according to CRS as a Federal employment and/or job training program. Maybe it is a lending program. I am not sure it belongs--if it is a lending program and financing program, maybe it should or should not be in this bill. I do not know that I want to multiply programs by that kind of multiplier at this point. The overall scope of this bill says we are going to be saving--if we pass this bill, we are going to be saving $70 billion. Now, we are talking about big money. I will go back to the amendment that our colleague from Illinois raised before, but I wish to be really brief because I know our colleague from Pennsylvania has an amendment. But the initial amendment is a very big amendment. And I will have to compare it--and I appreciate her statement that it was in the Daschle substitute, but as I understand it, it is a bill that would basically waive the 5-year requirement or time limit. President Clinton said that he wanted to have a time limit, and we are talking about Federal payments--have a time limit on how long an individual or family can receive money from the Federal Government. If we are to end welfare as we know it, we are going to have to have some limitations. As I read the first amendment, as long as there is a dependent minor child, you would continue to have assistance. Now, the assistance from the Federal Government would be terminated after 5 years, cash assistance. Under the Senator's amendment, the State would provide vouchers for supplemental assistance. That is an unfunded mandate. Maybe the States could take it from other savings in the program. I will try to study that a little more. But the essence of it is the family can be on welfare forever if they continue to have children. And that is not the thrust of what we are trying to do in the bill which is to have real incentive to get off welfare, to break the welfare dependency cycle and to make some improvements. I do appreciate my colleague's introduction of the amendments and her statements and also her dedication to some of the things she is trying to do. But at least as far as this Senator is concerned, I do not think we will be, at least I will not be able to accept the first amendment as well. I will look at the other couple of amendments that our colleague introduced and will consider those. So again I would like to inform my colleagues tomorrow morning at 9:30 my guess is we will have several rollcall votes. And again I thank my colleague from Illinois for introducing her amendments.

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

Mr. NICKLES. I appreciate my colleague from California doing that. Mr. President, I know of no other Senators having amendments, and my colleague from New York as well. I suggest the absence of a quorum. It will be my intention that the Senate stand in recess until tomorrow morning shortly. But I will withhold for that for the moment. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I will be happy to respond to my colleague from California. Certainly she has a right to request the yeas and nays. I will support that effort. I have a couple of comments. I had not seen the amendment. I may well support the thrust of it. Others may as well. We are going to have a couple of rollcall votes in the morning and then have some debate over Senator Moynihan's proposal, have the rollcall vote on his, and we may have several other rollcall votes. It will certainly be the Senator's opportunity, if she wishes to ask for the yeas and nays tomorrow. And that will also give her the opportunity to modify the amendment if it would make it more agreeable and more acceptable. That would be my recommendation. But, certainly, if she wishes to ask for the yeas and nays tonight she has that opportunity.

Mr. NICKLES. I am happy to have the Senator's amendment. I have not seen it before. I will be happy to review it and we will take it up tomorrow morning.

Mr. NICKLES. I will review that.

Mr. NICKLES. If an immigrant comes into the country and goes through the processes to be a naturalized U.S. citizen, they are required now to have a sponsor, a sponsor that states that they will make sure that they will not be a ward of the Government for some period of time. Does the Senator know what that period would be?

Mr. NICKLES. I will be brief. I think I understand the amendment. The Senator is saying that immigrants to the country should be able to receive welfare benefits just as any other citizen can, is that correct?

Mr. NICKLES. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I wish to compliment my colleague from Pennsylvania. I think this is an excellent amendment. It is kind of bothersome to think that there might be thousands of fleeing felons receiving welfare, and maybe because there is a lack of coordination between law enforcement and welfare agencies and offices, they are able to get away with it. I do not doubt my colleague's homework. It is probably quite accurate. To think that that is happening, it needs to be stopped. His amendment would go a long way toward stopping it. I ask unanimous consent to be added as a cosponsor, and I hope my colleagues support it.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before [[Page S 12872]] the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess as under the previous order.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. For the information of all Senators, the Senate will resume consideration of welfare reform bill tomorrow morning with two consecutive rollcall votes beginning at 9:30 a.m. Senators should also expect further rollcall votes throughout Friday's session of the Senate. Also, as a reminder, under the previous consent agreement all Senators will have until 5 p.m. tomorrow to offer their amendments to the welfare reform bill.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today it stand in recess until the hour of 9:15 a.m. on Friday, September 8, 1995, and that following the prayer the Journal of proceedings be deemed approved to date and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day; that the Senate then immediately resume consideration of H.R. 4, the welfare reform bill, and that Senator Santorum be recognized for up to five minutes for debate in relationship to his amendment; further, that at the hour of 9:30 a.m. the Senate proceed to a vote on or in relation to the Brown amendment, numbered 2465, to be immediately followed by a vote on or in relation to the Santorum amendment numbered 2477. I further ask unanimous consent further that when the Senate resumes consideration of the Moynihan amendment, numbered 2466, there be 90 minutes of debate equally divided between the two managers; and I further ask unanimous consent that the majority leader will have until the beginning of the first rollcall vote on Friday to modify his amendment.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Subcommittee on Energy Production and Regulation to consider S. 1014, to improve the management of royalties from Federal and Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas leases, and for other purposes, and S. 1012, to extend time for construction of certain FERC- licensed hydro projects. The hearing will take place Thursday, September 14, 1995, at 3 p.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. Those wishing to testify or who wish to submit written statements should write to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC 20510. For further information regarding S. 1014, please call Michael Poling at (202) 224-8276 or Judy Brown at 224-7556, and regarding S. 1012, please call Howard Useem at (202) 224- 6567 or Judy Brown at 224-7556.

Mr. NICKLES

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