[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 141 (Tuesday, September 12, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S13329-S13333]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                      FAMILY SELF-SUFFICIENCY ACT

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.


                           Amendment No. 2488

  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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time be 
equally charged to both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BREAUX. I ask the Chair how much time is remaining for both 
sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana has 15 minutes; the 
Senator from Pennsylvania has 9 minutes.
  Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Mr. President, I take this time just to try and conclude what we are 
trying to do with my amendment.
  We, in a bipartisan spirit, in joining with our Republican 
colleagues, offered an amendment that simply says States should be 
partners in welfare reform with the Federal Government; that the States 
should be required to help participate and help fund welfare reform; 
that it is not right, as the other body has done in their bill, to say 
the States have to put up nothing; that it becomes a 100-percent 
Federal burden and the Federal Government has to pay for the entire 
cost of welfare. That is what the bill that passed the other body says. 
It says there is no maintenance of effort on behalf of the States at 
all, and that is wrong.
  I think that we, in this body, clearly feel that the States should 
have to participate financially in helping to solve these problems. It 
is like we said before, if you spend somebody else's money, you can be 
very careless in how you spend it. Therefore, if the States are 
required to participate and put up some of their money, I think we will 
all do a better job in crafting programs that, in fact, are truly 
welfare reform.
  Our legislation says that the States should participate by putting up 
90 percent of the money that they put up in 1994. The Federal 
Government will continue to put up 100 percent. If the States are able 
to reduce their caseload by welfare reform, we are very pleased with 
that. That is the goal. The Federal Government should participate in 
those savings as well as the States participate in those savings.
  The Republican bill, on the other hand, says we are going to continue 
100 percent Federal funding for 5 years, no matter how much the State 
government is going to be able to reduce the people on welfare, and 
that is wrong. If there are savings to be made by fewer people on 
welfare, then the Federal Government should benefit from those savings, 
as should the State benefit from those savings.
  That is what the bill says. That is why my amendment is scored by the 
Congressional Budget Office to save $545 million in this program over 
the next 7 years. That is real savings. If you vote against the Breaux 
amendment, you are saying, ``I'm not interested in saving $545 million 
to the Federal Treasury. I do not care. It is not important.''
  Well, I think it is important. That is why we have tried to craft an 
amendment that is balanced, that, in effect, saves Federal dollars as 
well as it saves State dollars.
  It is simply not correct to say under my amendment the States would 
not be able to spend less on welfare. Of course they can. We want them 
to spend less, but when they spend less, we want to be able to spend 
less as well. That is a true partnership that has been in existence for 
60 years.
  It is incredibly wrong, in my opinion, to say for the first time we 
are going to put all the burden on the Federal Government to pay for 
the cost of welfare reform. It has to be a partnership if it is going 
to work.
  My amendment maintains that partnership and, at the same time, 
provides for real economic savings, savings to the Federal taxpayer to 
the tune of $545 million over 7 years. There is no doubt about that. It 
has been scored by CBO. We think it makes sense.
  With that, I yield back the remainder of the time on the 3 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from 
Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, the Senator from Louisiana keeps 
bringing up the point about the Federal Government contributing 100 
percent, not having the benefit of any savings. I just suggest to you 
that if what we want to accomplish here is savings in the welfare 
system, the 90-percent maintenance effort will do more to reduce those 
savings than anything we have seen produced.
  The fact of the matter is, yes, his amendment may be scored as a 
reduction in Federal outlays. But I suggest, Mr. President, if you went 
back to the Congressional Budget Office and said, ``What would be the 
increase in State spending as a result of this amendment,'' you would 
see that it would be more than offset in the reductions in Federal 
spending.
  What does that mean? That means from the average taxpayer who does 
not care whether the money is being spent on the Federal level or State 
level, they are going to pay more for welfare.
  That is the bottom line here. It is not how much the Federal 
Government saves, or how much the State government saves, or how much 
we spend and they spend, but how much the taxpayers spend on the 
program.
  I think what your amendment will do is net result in higher welfare 
expenditures. Sure, they will have to pay more State taxes or more 
money to the State than the Federal if we equal them out dollar for 
dollar in taxes.
  The fact of the matter is your amendment will cause States to spend 
even more money than what we save on the Federal side. I think that is 
clear. I think that is your concern.
  Do not try to approach this amendment that we are somehow being nice 
to taxpayers. Taxpayers pay State taxes and Federal taxes. When you 
tell them they have to pay more on the States, more than we save on 
Federal, this is not a friendly taxpayers amendment. This will cost 
more money to the average taxpayers in America, not less.
  Just because we save a few dollars, they will be more than made up by 
required increased expenditures on programs that are being dramatically 
reduced.
  I have a table that shows from just 1993 to 1994, and I say to the 
Senator from Louisiana that we have even seen more reductions in 
welfare caseload from 1994 to this year because of other programs being 
put into effect.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record this table 
showing the change in the average number of AFDC recipients from 1993 
to 1994.
  There being no objection, the table was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

      TABLE 1. CHANGE IN AVERAGE NUMBER OF AFDC RECIPIENTS: 1993-94     
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Increase 
                State                  Number of  Percentage      or    
                                         people     change     decrease 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama..............................     -7,685      -5.50   decrease. 
Alaska...............................      1,610       4.42   increase. 
Arizona..............................      4,270       2.17   increase. 
Arkansas.............................     -3,381      -4.65   decrease. 
California...........................    176,725       7.18   increase. 
Colorado.............................     -4,258      -3.45   decrease. 
Connecticut..........................      4,422       2.74   increase. 

[[Page S 13331]]
                                                                        
Delaware.............................       -184      -0.66   decrease. 
District of Columbia.................      7,247      10.86   increase. 
Florida..............................    -25,116      -3.62   decrease. 
Georgia..............................     -4,830      -1.21   decrease. 
Guam.................................      1,754      32.24   increase. 
Hawaii...............................      6,140      10.99   increase. 
Idaho................................      1,875       8.80   increase. 
Illinois.............................     23,431       3.40   increase. 
Indiana..............................      5,217       2.47   increase. 
Iowa.................................      9,189       9.09   increase. 
Kansas...............................     -1,386      -1.57   decrease. 
Kentucky.............................    -16,800      -7.47   decrease. 
Louisiana............................    -14,540      -5.53   decrease. 
Maine................................     -3,114      -4.62   decrease. 
Maryland.............................        603       0.27   increase. 
Massachusetts........................    -18,349      -5.64   decrease. 
Michigan.............................    -22,342      -3.25   decrease. 
Minnesota............................     -4,479      -2.34   decrease. 
Mississippi..........................    -13,002      -7.57   decrease. 
Missouri.............................      1,989       0.76   increase. 
Montana..............................        256       0.74   increase. 
Nebraska.............................     -2,970      -6.16   decrease. 
Nevada...............................      2,487       7.06   increase. 
New Hampshire........................        862       2.92   increase. 
New Jersey...........................    -13,974      -4.00   decrease. 
New Mexico...........................      6,856       7.19   increase. 
New York.............................     58,150       4.86   increase. 
North Carolina.......................     -2,167      -0.65   decrease. 
North Dakota.........................     -2,060     -11.12   decrease. 
Ohio.................................    -34,182      -4.76   decrease. 
Oklahoma.............................     -6,851      -4.96   decrease. 
Oregon...............................     -3,654      -3.10   decrease. 
Pennsylvania.........................     11,772       1.94   increase. 
Puerto Rico..........................     -7,539      -3.97   decrease. 
Rhode Island.........................      1,116       1.81   increase. 
South Carolina.......................     -6,932      -4.73   decrease. 
South Dakota.........................       -999      -4.97   decrease. 
Tennessee............................    -11,186      -3.60   decrease. 
Texas................................      5,882       0.75   increase. 
Utah.................................     -2,731      -5.19   decrease. 
Vermont..............................       -732      -2.56   decrease. 
Virgin Islands.......................         12       0.32   increase. 
Virginia.............................        277       0.14   increase. 
Washington...........................      3,458       1.20   increase. 
West Virginia........................     -4,681      -3.93   decrease. 
Wisconsin............................    -10,713      -4.52   decrease. 
Wyoming..............................     -1,884     -10.33   decrease. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------



  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, what it will show is that we have seen 
State after State--Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, 
Georgia, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan--many States who have 
already reduced their caseload or are in the process through welfare of 
reducing it more, and the amendment of the Senator from Louisiana will 
make them spend as much money, although they have less on the caseload.
  That just is not right. That penalizes States for doing exactly what 
they want them to do. I think it is a well-intentioned amendment. I 
understand the concern for the race to the bottom.
  But the Dole, as modified, bill provides adequate safeguards to make 
sure that States are not going to eliminate their welfare expenditures. 
I think it does so in the context of encouraging welfare reform on the 
State level.
  I reserve the remainder of my time. I suggest the absence of a 
quorum. I ask unanimous consent that the time be divided equally.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BREAUX. I yield myself 3 minutes.
  We have had a lot of discussion as to the amendment that I propose 
which requires the State to participate and how it affects the States.
  I mentioned a number of Governors who have spent a great deal of time 
on this effort, including the former chairman of the National 
Governors' Association, Governor Howard Dean of Vermont. I quote him:

       I support the concept of State maintenance of effort as 
     envisioned by Senator Breaux and other Senators. States 
     should provide adequate levels of support for welfare 
     programs to prevent a ``race to the bottom.''

  The Governor of Colorado, Gov. Roy Romer:

       The Federal-State partnership is an essential component in 
     a strategy designed to provide families with temporary 
     assistance to help them achieve or regain their economic 
     self-sufficiency. We are particularly concerned that if 
     States reduce their commitment to these programs, then 
     responsible States will become magnets for displaced welfare 
     clients.

  These Governors are recognizing that, yes, States ought to have to be 
required to participate in solving welfare problems, that we should not 
engage in a race to the bottom as could happen if we have no 
requirement that the States actively participate.
  Equally as important, Mr. President, is the comment by the chairman 
of the U.S. Catholic Conference, the domestic policy chair, the Most 
Reverend John Ricard, auxiliary bishop of Baltimore who said:

       We urge you to pass genuine reform which strengthens 
     families, encourages work, promotes responsibility, and 
     protects vulnerable children, born and unborn, insisting that 
     States maintain their current financial commitment in this 
     area.

  Catholic Charities President, Fred Kammer, said:

       In exchange for Federal dollars and broad flexibility, 
     States should be expected to maintain at least their current 
     level of support for poor children and their families.

  Mr. President, I think it is very clear the distinguished Governors 
and other distinguished social experts in their field have recognized 
the importance of requiring States to continue to participate.
  That is, in fact, what the Breaux amendment does. We do it and at the 
same time save the Federal Government $545 million over the next 7 
years as estimated by the Congressional Budget Office. That partnership 
is absolutely essential. To say the States would not have a requirement 
to be able to be participants in this process I think is the wrong 
message.
  I say under our amendment, States clearly would reduce the amount of 
money they spend, and after it is reduced by more than 10 percent, the 
Federal Government will be able to reduce our contribution so that 
there should be joint savings by people who pay Federal taxes, as well 
as by people who pay State taxes.
  It is wrong to maintain 100 percent Federal requirement as the 
Republican position does even if there are reductions in the amount of 
people on welfare and any particular State.
  Both sides should say the States have the flexibility to cut up to 10 
percent under my amendment and still get 100 percent Federal funding. 
If they cut further than that, if they decide to spend more money on 
roads and bridges, well, then, the Federal Government ought to have the 
right to spend less, as well. If they do so because they reduce the 
number of people on welfare, we should benefit from those savings, as 
well.
  That is what a true partnership is all about. That is what the Breaux 
amendment tries to accomplish. And I think it is important to know 
there is a bipartisan effort here. This is not a party difference, it 
is a question of how we achieve a mutual goal of true welfare reform.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mr. COHEN. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Maine. Does he 
wish to speak in support? What time does he require?
  Mr. COHEN. Not more than 5 minutes.
  Mr. BREAUX. I am happy to yield 5 minutes to the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Breaux 
maintenance of effort provision. While I want to let States step up to 
the plate and implement innovative welfare to work programs with the 
assistance of Federal Government--not interference--I believe a 
Federal-State partnership is a key part of successful welfare reform. 
Therefore, Congress must make a strong statement on the need for State 
investment in welfare.
  We need to encourage States to provide their own funds as a condition 
of receiving the Federal block grant. Under current law, States have an 
incentive to spend their own money on AFDC and related programs. That 
incentive is the Federal match. Fourteen States receive one Federal 
dollar for each State dollar they invest. The rest of the States 
receive more than a dollar-for-dollar match.
  Under Senator Dole's maintenance provision, States can satisfy the 
requirement by spending money on any program which is modified or 
altered in any way by the Dole bill. This would mean State spending on 
food stamps, State foster care, Head Start, or even SSI State 
supplemental benefits would satisfy the requirement in the Dole 
amendment.
  I support the Breaux amendment to require a State match, using a 
formula of a dollar for dollar to determine the Federal match for each 
welfare dollar a State spends. If a State reduces its spending below 90 
percent of its 1994 spending on AFDC and related child care programs, 
administrative costs, and job training and education funds--for each 
dollar the State spends below that threshold, the Federal grant to the 
State will be reduced by $1.
  This amendment is extremely important. It maintains an incentive for 
a 

[[Page S 13332]]
State to spend its own resources to aid its own people. Understand, 
however, that the State match does not require a State to spend money. 
If a State is successful in trimming its caseload or cutting 
administrative costs, there is no requirement that it maintain its 
spending. But if a State is going to realize savings in the welfare 
program, I think the Federal Government should share in the savings, 
too.
  Mr. President, I have listened to the debate with considerable care, 
and I must say I find myself in agreement with at least the very last 
point made by the Senator from Louisiana about the need to try to 
approach welfare reform on a bipartisan basis, because I do not think 
either Republicans or Democrats necessarily have the right solution. I 
have read a great deal by sociologists. I have listened to the 
commentators on television, those who are advocating change. There is a 
general consensus that we have to change the system, but there is no 
agreement on what those changes should be, and few are confidently 
predicting what the ultimate consequences of any reform are likely to 
be.
  It seems to me that welfare recipients generally can be divided into 
three groups. On the one hand we have people who lose their jobs after 
working years and years and are temporarily in need of assistance and 
should have that assistance. There are those at the other end of the 
spectrum that I think we all recognize that, by virtue of some 
disability or some other handicap as such, they are unable to work and 
they deserve our support and not our scorn. Then there are those in the 
middle category, people whom we feel generally should be expected to 
work, who have been caught up in a cycle of welfare over decades, if 
not generations, even though they would seem able to work. We have to 
reform the system in order to encourage, if not require, these people 
to break the cycle by entering the workforce long-term.
  So I have looked at the various proposals, and I come to the 
conclusion, after listening to my colleague from Louisiana, that there 
should be a maintenance of effort undertaken by the States. A couple of 
reasons lead me to that conclusion. On the one hand, I believe, as my 
colleague from Maine, Senator Snowe, and also my colleague from Vermont 
indicated, there is a partnership between States and the Federal 
Government. The State is under no requirement to spend $1. The State 
does not have to spend anything if they do not want to. They can decide 
they do not want to take care of welfare recipients; that those who are 
out of work, either voluntarily or involuntarily, that is not their 
problem. But States that take this view should not expect to continue 
to receive the same amount of Federal welfare dollars.
  Without a maintenance provision, some States may engage in a race to 
the bottom by setting their benefits low to discourage residents in 
States providing minimum benefits from moving to States with more 
generous benefits. This concern has been dismissed by opponents of this 
amendment but remember: For years, many conservatives have argued that 
welfare recipients moved from State to State to get generous benefits. 
In a recent survey done in Wisconsin, 20 percent of newly arrived 
Wisconsin welfare recipients admitted that they had moved to get a 
bigger check.
  We must also address the vulnerability of the new block grant program 
to cost-shifting. Increasingly, we have seen States which excel in 
shifting recipients in the general assistance and AFDC programs into 
the SSI Program, a program funded entirely by Federal dollars. By 
shifting their cases to the SSI Program, the States can be big winners: 
States are able to recoup interim general assistance payments that they 
provide to the beneficiary, from the date of application for SSI to 
determination of SSI eligibility. Even more important, States will 
avoid future costs by shifting populations to a program entirely funded 
by the Federal Government. One State contracted with a for-profit 
corporation at a cost of $2.7 million to shift cases from the State's 
disability rolls to the SSI Program. The State enjoyed net savings of 
$27 million in 1992 because of this concentrated effort to more people 
to the SSI Program.
  I predict that we will see additional cost-shifting onto the Food 
Stamp Program. Without a strong maintenance of effort provision, States 
who retain food stamps as a Federal program can do what other States 
are already doing--pay lower AFDC benefits. When that happens the 
Federal Treasury will bear the burden as the food stamp benefit 
increases because the cash benefit is low.
  We must steer away from doing anything to encourage States to make 
unreasonable cuts in their welfare spending. We do not want Federal 
programs to become a magnet for new recipients who hope that the 
Federal Government will absorb reductions by the State. This increases 
budget costs for the Federal Government. Just as important, the results 
we hope to attain through reform of welfare have only a small chance of 
being realized because we have excused the States from shared fiscal 
responsibility.
  For these and other reasons, Mr. President, I wanted to indicate I 
intend to support the Breaux amendment, and I yield the remainder of my 
time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, in the couple of minutes left before 
concluding our side of this debate, I just suggest this really boils 
down to whether you really want to see dramatic reform or not and 
whether you want to see dramatic savings in the welfare system. 
Because, if you require States to keep 90 percent of maintenance of 
effort, what you will do is create a disincentive in an approach that 
was supposed to be the maximum incentive to welfare reform; to get 
welfare savings for the taxpayer--to do both.
  I think it is pretty clear this is sort of a moderating attempt to 
try to make welfare reform not as dramatic as it could be. I think that 
is unfortunate. I think what the public has demanded on the issue of 
welfare is that you cannot go too far in trying new things to get 
people off welfare, to get people on to work, to reduce the amount of 
expenditure that we have.
  I remind all Senators that, even under the Republican plan as it 
exists today, welfare spending will go up 70 percent--70 percent--over 
the next 7 years. It was scheduled to go up 77 percent. We have it go 
up only 70 percent. That is hardly dramatic, but it is something. It is 
a start in the right direction, at least, because we believe even 
though the Federal expenditures on welfare will go up 70 percent, we 
believe State expenditures will come down and come down dramatically. 
We are willing to make that tradeoff because we believe ultimately the 
taxpayer is going to benefit more from this proposal because of lower 
State expenditures even though the Federal Government is going to 
maintain a relatively high level of expenditures.
  I am hopeful we can look to the goals of this, the Dole substitute, 
which is dramatic, ingenious, inventive reform, to get people back to 
work, all at a savings of taxpayers' dollars on the Federal level and 
even more dramatically on the State level.
  If this amendment is adopted, we will see less reform, less 
innovation, and more money spent overall on welfare. And that is not 
what the goal of this welfare reform debate should be.
  I yield the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana has 2 minutes 50 
seconds left.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, do I understand we have an agreement that 
there will be 4 minutes after we return?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, has the Republican side yielded back their 
time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. BREAUX. What do I have left? Do I have any?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. A minute and a half.
  Mr. BREAUX. I would say, Mr. President, when we return after the 
party 

[[Page S 13333]]
caucuses, we will be, of course, voting on this amendment. I think, 
from our perspective, this has been a real effort at trying to reach a 
bipartisan agreement. We have Republican cosponsors and we have 
Democratic cosponsors of this effort. It is an effort to try to achieve 
a partnership between the States and the Federal Government.
  The States should be required to participate. The Federal Government 
is required to participate. When savings are achieved, which they will 
be, both sides should benefit from those savings. When States spend 
less money because they have fewer people on the welfare rolls, the 
Federal Government should have to contribute less money, not the same 
amount. That is why our amendment clearly is scored by the 
Congressional Budget Office as saving $545 million over the next 7 
years. Those are important savings. Without my amendment, they will not 
be achieved.
  I think this amendment continues the participation that we have had, 
allows the States to be inventive as to different types of programs 
they come up with, but requires them to participate. The Federal 
Government should not have to pay 100 percent of the cost of welfare. 
The States should participate, and jointly, together, we can produce a 
better result.
  With that, Mr. President, I yield the remainder of our time.

                          ____________________