Back to the basic point I think the Senator is making, it is that somehow if the Breaux amendment passes States will not be able to reduce the amount of money they spend on welfare. That is absolutely and clearly incorrect. States are encouraged to spend less through reforms. We just say if they are spending less than 90 percent of what they spent the year before, the Federal Government will also reduce our contribution. Does the Senator disagree that under the Republican proposal, you lock in the Federal contribution for 5 years? Even if the State has less people on welfare, saves money, the Federal Government is still required to spend 100 percent of what they spent in 1994?
John B. Breaux: “Back to the basic point I think the Senator is making, it is that somehow if the Breaux amendment passes States will not…”
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the implications of the Breaux amendment on state welfare spending during a Senate debate.
Share
More from John B. Breaux
I remember when I was in Congress when I wanted to stop something from happening, I used to offer an amendment to do a study, or maybe to do a demonstration program, hoping it never got completed.
Good morning, Mr. President and colleagues. I was very interested in listening to the distinguished Senator from Georgia and the Senator from Pennsylvania. I am trying to keep track of what he was quoting from. We decided he was quoting…
I rise to speak about the Elder Justice Act of 2004, the substitute for S. 333 as reported by the Committee on Finance. This bill is designed to greatly enhance our knowledge about elder abuse, neglect and exploitation, and how to combat…
would the Senator point out anything in the legislation before this body now that would take any action against any companies if they did not abide by what they said they were going to use it for? Do they lose their tax deduction? Is there…