[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 140 (Monday, September 11, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S13178-S13182]
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.
  Mr. HATCH addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I have been listening to my colleague from 
Massachusetts very carefully, not only on the child care amendments but 
also on capital gains, on the so-called Republican amendment, and how 
Medicare is going to be so seriously hurt if the Republican approach is 
taken.
  I do not think it is a Republican approach. It is a pro-American 
approach. Right now, I do not know of anybody who does not agree that 
Medicare is in serious financial condition and faces bankruptcy early 
in the next century.
  As of next year it starts to go broke. By the year 2002 it will be 
broke, and 37 million Americans will be the losers. I do not know why 
we have to make this so partisan because I have to say the Democrats 
have basically been virtually in control of Congress for all of the 
last 40 years, every year that Medicare has been in existence. And here 
we are today with Medicare's financial crisis.
  Now, rather than complaining about efforts to try to save it, it 
seems to me they ought to pitch in and help us. The fact is, if we do 
nothing but throw authorized dollars that are not there, it is not 
going to solve the underlining problem. And under the approach that the 
House Members are taking, Medicare is going to increase 6.4 percent 
each year. Not only increase 6.4 percent, but the average payment under 
Medicare is currently $4,800 a year per senior and that will increase 
to $6,700 by the year 2002.
  Clearly, nobody is cutting Medicare. The 37 million-plus 
beneficiaries who currently are on Medicare will continue to be taken 
care of. And, the program will be there for the rest of us in the 
future. The American people understood this when they, for the first 
time in 40 years, put Republicans in control of the House of 
Representatives. The American people knew that if they kept business as 
usual by keeping Democrats in control--who believe the answer to 
everything is the Federal Government--then we would never solve 
Medicare's financial situation.
  And Medicare is soon going to be broke if it is not fixed. And the 
Medicare trustees' April 3, 1995, report on part A, the Medicare 
Hospital Insurance trust fund, under the most likely scenario, would be 
bankrupt in 7 years by the year 2002. It will begin running a deficit 
as early as October 1 of next year. The average two-income couple 
retiring in 1995, according to the Trustees Report--and four of the six 
Trustees are Clinton appointees--will receive $117,000 more in Medicare 
benefits than they paid into the Trust Fund during their working lives. 
Now, I do not have any problem with that as long as we have a fiscally 
responsible approach to solving the problems. So Congress will save 
Medicare, not by cutting it, but by slowing its rate of growth. This is 
based not on rhetoric but on the Congressional Budget Office analysis.
  The Budget resolution proposes to increase total Medicare spending 
from $181 billion in fiscal year 1995 to $276 billion in fiscal year 
2002--an increase of $96 billion or 52 percent overall.
  As I said, the Budget resolution proposes to increase the amount 
spent per beneficiary from $4,800 in fiscal year 1995 to $6,700 in 
fiscal year 2002. That is $1,900 per person on Medicare or a 40 percent 
increase over that 7-year period. Congress will increase spending over 
7 years by $355 billion more than if it were held at its current level. 
That amount of increase is equal to twice the total amount that will be 
spent on Medicare this year.
  Who is kidding whom? It is nice to get up and harangue about the fact 
that we have to restrain the growth of Medicare. It is not a cut; it is 
a reduction in growth. We cannot just assume that Medicare is going to 
continue to run off the charts at 10.4 percent every year. That is 
totally unrealistic. It would bankrupt Medicare and jeopardize the 
program for future generations.
  That is why we experienced a change in congressional leadership in 
the last election. The American people, in despair, realized that the 
only way they will get this problem under control is to get more 
moderate to conservative leadership in the Congress. That is what they 
did in voting for Republicans the last time.
  Spending, as I said, is going to increase by 6.4 percent each year 
for the next 7 years if the Republican budget resolution proposal is 
adopted. The slowed spending rate is designed to save Medicare--not to 
balance the budget or pay for tax cuts. If the budget were balanced 
today, Medicare would still be broke tomorrow. Medicare's trustees, 
three of whom are members of the Clinton Cabinet, have 

[[Page S 13179]]
made this clear, but the President refuses to admit it. And so 
apparently do others here in the Senate.
  Medicare reform is not related to Congress' promise of tax relief for 
America's middle class. Clinton's charge to the contrary is 
hypocritical. His own budget combines slow growth in Medicare spending 
with $110 billion in tax cuts. So who is kidding whom? Let us quit 
playing politics. Let us do what is right for Medicare and the American 
people. We have got to restrain the growth of this program and we have 
got to do it now. And that means, in part, some people are going to be 
means tested, and some of us are going to have to pay slightly more 
Part B premiums.
  I think President Clinton and those who support him and who are 
playing politics with this are playing politics with our senior 
citizens' health. Rather than focus on Medicare's problems, you do not 
hear any solutions from these people who have controlled Congress for 
40 years and who will control the White House for at least another 1\1/
2\ years. You do not hear any solutions from them. Rather than focus on 
Medicare's problems, its impending bankruptcy, President Clinton seems 
to want to have us focus on politics and exaggerate spending 
differences between his and the Republican's plan.
  When I hear that the Republicans want to hurt Medicare so they can 
fund their tax cuts for the wealthy, who is kidding whom? If you look 
at the Republican tax cuts, they primarily benefit the middle class. So 
let us not kid each other. And let us quit playing politics and start 
facing the facts and work together to solve this problem while, at the 
same time, developing prudent tax policy that encourages growth, 
economic development, and jobs enhancement rather than encouraging the 
growth of Federal spending.
  A comparison of CBO's estimate of Congress' plan and the President's 
own estimation by the Office of Management and Budget of his plan shows 
the spending differences to be minuscule. Medicare spending will 
increase under both the President's and Congress' plan, assuming 
Congress will pass it.
  Let us call it the Republican plan, if you want, because right now 
that is fair. However, there are going to be Democrats who support it 
who are as concerned about the future of Medicare as are Republicans 
who now know that reform is inevitable. It is apparent that Medicare 
spending cannot continue at current levels if the program is to survive 
for future generations of Americans.
  And what is this rhetoric that cutting taxes is to take care of the 
wealthy? Proposed tax cuts are based on responsible reasons just as the 
Republican Medicare reform proposals are based.
  And, in fact, President Clinton's current budget is closer to 
Congress' than it is to the first one he proposed just 4 months 
earlier. The Clinton budget would spend 7.4 percent more every year for 
the next 7 years. Congress would spend 6.4 percent.
  (Mr. DeWINE assumed the chair.)
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, also, according to the Senate Budget 
Committee, Federal benefits spending is going to grow by 6.4 percent. 
The difference between Congress' plan and the President's--1 percent--
is well less than the difference between projected spending under 
current law--CBO says 9.98 percent--and the President's plan, a 1-
percent difference. Yet, we hear this rhetoric that the Republicans are 
going to ruin Medicare and that they are going to take money away from 
the poor and give it to the rich. That is simply not true, and it is 
time for those who make those allegations to become more responsible 
and to stop misleading the American people.
  True, the Republicans restrain the growth slightly more than the 
President's proposal, and I think there is a case, a very important 
case, to be made that is an appropriate thing to do.
  The reform differences are crucial, however. Under Congress' budget, 
the problem is identified. Medicaid will be saved, and the budget will 
be balanced. That is the difference. The problem is identified, 
Medicare will be saved, and the budget will be balanced under the 
Republican approach. I should say, the Republican--with moderate/
conservative Democrats--approach to solving the problem. Reform will 
mean Medicare is not only secure for the future but strengthened with 
more choices, less waste, and less abuse.
  So I felt I had to make a few comments about this issue because of 
some of the comments made by several of my dear colleagues.
  I would like to thank the distinguished Senator from Connecticut and 
the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts, both of whom are close 
and dear friends of mine, for their kind words about my involvement in 
the enactment of the child care development block grant. I do, indeed, 
consider this landmark legislation. I was proud to have played a role 
in its passage, and I have to say that working with my friends, the 
Senators from Connecticut and Massachusetts, as well as Senator 
Mikulski from Maryland, to accomplish this legislation was certainly 
one of the highlights of my last term in the Senate.
  I agree with the thrust of the Senator's amendment in this case. I 
agree that we need more money for subsidized child care. I do not think 
anybody can disagree with that. The figures just show we need more 
money, not only to enable those on welfare to get off, but also to 
enable those who are working but have low income to stay off welfare.
  I personally believe that child care is one of the key components to 
the reduction of welfare rolls in virtually every State. These points 
are well made, they are well taken, and I do not know many Senators in 
the Senate who would disagree with them. I have to say that if the 
distinguished Senators were suggesting the mere addition of funds to 
the CCDBG, the child care development block grant, or to the child care 
carve-out that I am suggesting in title I, I think it would be a pretty 
tempting proposition. But I have several reservations about this 
approach. I am going to keep an open mind as we debate it, but I still 
have several reservations.
  First, it is a separate program, a new separate program established 
completely apart from title I. I believe we need to delineate funds for 
child care under the welfare program, and the reason we do is because 
if you just block grant them to the Governors, children do not vote and 
it becomes too easy to use those funds for other children's programs. 
That is a pretty wide array of programs, some of which may or may not 
benefit children and may or may not benefit them very much, if at all.
  So I think we do need to delineate funds, but I do not believe the 
two efforts should be so completely separated that they cannot be 
effectively coordinated. I believe this is particularly important if we 
want to reduce the strain on the CCDBG, the child care development 
block grant, to provide child care for a welfare population at the 
expense of services for the working poor.
  Second, one of the primary purposes of this block-grant approach is 
to simplify things for States. We want to spend less on bureaucracy at 
all levels and more on services at all levels. So I see no reason for a 
separate State application and a different format, which is what this 
amendment does. It just adds more bureaucracy, more Federal control, 
less money, less services, even though they are adding 6 billion new 
dollars.
  Third, while I certainly appreciate what I take to be an effort of 
flexibility, I think subsection (e) is a little too flexible. Here I 
believe it is appropriate to specify that the use of funds are 
exclusively for child care services, not for a whole host of other 
child-care-related functions performed by States and localities.
  Along this line, I would like to see some indication that parents 
will have a full array of child care options. My amendment, which we 
will take up later, states that ``eligible providers'' are centers, 
family-based or church-based.
  Then, finally, there is the dreaded ``M'' word, and that is 
``money.'' As I stated earlier, I agree that an excellent case could be 
made for child care funding. In fact, I will be using similar arguments 
about the need for child care during my presentation on my amendment to 
split child care funding out from title I funding. I hope I can deliver 
my statement with as much passion as the Senator from Connecticut and 
the Senator from Massachusetts have done, because I wholeheartedly 

[[Page S 13180]]
believe that we must enable parents to access safe, affordable child 
care.
  The problem that I have with a quarter-billion-dollar add-on in the 
first year and a ballooning of that add-on to more than $3.7 billion in 
the year 2000 is that unless the Appropriations Committee has been 
holding out on us and has a money tree somewhere that can grow an 
additional $6 billion between now and the year 2000, I just do not 
think that it is very wise or even fair to authorize this money and 
pretend that it is going to materialize. Sitting on the Finance 
Committee, I have to tell you, the Finance Committee already has to 
come up with almost $600 billion in savings over the next 5 years.
  I think an authorization should be realistic. It creates an 
expectation among the States, local governments, and potential 
recipients of this child care assistance, and we should not be 
promising that which we cannot deliver, and we cannot deliver at this 
time an additional $6 billion on top of the moneys that we have. I wish 
we could. If we could, I would certainly be in favor of doing it.
  For those who work on these very crucial money committees, like the 
Finance Committee, I have to tell you, there are a lot of programs that 
are going to have to pay their fair share. I wish they could all be 
funded to the fullest degree. It is a lot more fun to spend money than 
it is to conserve, but there comes a time in everybody's life when they 
have to conserve, where they have to live within their means, where 
they have to try and balance budgets, and this is that time. We cannot 
continue on the way we are going.
  It is not enough to believe child care is the right thing to do; we 
have to make it happen as well. I do have these problems, among others, 
with my friend's amendment today. It is a matter of great concern to 
me, because as everybody knows, I take a very strong and vital interest 
in child care and have from the beginning and would like to think I 
played a significant role in passing the Child Care Development Block 
Grant Act, which I think was long overdue.
  I suggest to my colleagues who agree with both the Senator from 
Connecticut and me that child care is an essential component of this 
bill that they will have an opportunity later on in this debate to 
support a carve-out for child care within the title I block grant.
  I have offered my amendment, and I will be bringing it up during the 
debate. I do believe that Senators will find that the Hatch child care 
amendment is more workable and more viable as an alternative in the 
overall context of this welfare reform bill.
  That is not to disparage the efforts of my friends, because like I 
say, if the moneys were there, if we had a reasonable chance of getting 
those moneys, if we really go could go out and find them somewhere, 
certainly I would be very much in favor of trying to do that.
 But I am not in favor of creating an additional program to be run by 
HHS. The purpose of this is to block grant the funds to the States and 
let the States use less bureaucracy and get the moneys to the people 
who really need them--they claim they can do it better, and I have no 
doubt about that--than if we launder it through the HHS, this humongous 
bureaucracy bank that eats it up as fast as we launder it through.

  I should say there are some differences between our amendments, and 
maybe I will speak on that later. I cannot find fault with anybody who 
feels deeply about this, arguing for this amendment. I know my friends 
from Massachusetts and Connecticut feel very deeply, as do I, about the 
whole issue of child care. We fought together on this floor for it, and 
we fought a very difficult battle, which was very costly to some of us. 
I would do it over again. But I also think we have to look at reality, 
too. I just plain do not want to start another separate child care 
program when we have one that is working very well right now, that we 
fought for and gave a lot for and have seen work well once it was 
enacted.
  Mr. President, I feel so deeply about child care issues. I feel 
deeply about the single heads of household--primarily women, who do not 
know where to turn, who really cannot work because they worry about 
their children. I worry about latchkey children, who do not have 
anybody to supervise them at home. I worry about 6- and 7-year-olds 
watching over babies. These are all important points.
  I think we should carve out and make it clear that we are going to 
protect these people who do not have votes right now, because over the 
years, as we have been concerned about our seniors--and rightly so--the 
bulk of the money is going to seniors because they vote, and the people 
who are being left out are children because they cannot vote. That is 
why I think we should have a carve-out so they have to use this money 
for child care and for the purposes of child care. But I do not think 
we should be sending messages that we have $6 billion when we do not. 
There is no real reason why we are going to have it.
  Having said that, Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum--I 
withhold that.
  Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield myself 5 minutes. I know there 
are others of our colleagues who want to speak on this issue. I want to 
respond very briefly to some comments that my friend and colleague from 
Utah made with regard to the Medicare issue.
  Of course, as the Senator from Utah knows, it is not part B of 
Medicare that is in trouble now, it is part A. That is the part of the 
Medicare system that needs focus and attention. The increase in the 
premiums that the Speaker has talked about and that is part of the 
Republican program is in the part B program. That is important to 
understand right at the outset.
  We saw earlier in the year where the Republicans in the House of 
Representatives took $87 billion over ten years out of the Medicare 
part A trust fund in order to support their tax fund program. And still 
they continue to advocate for $245 billion in tax relief, while they 
are cutting Medicare $270 billion. So while Medicare part A is the part 
that is in difficulty, it is part B that we are going to have the 
increases in. But part B is not subject to bankruptcy, from a statutory 
point of view. That is important to understand. Again, it is part B 
where we are going to see the dramatic increases. Under the Republican 
plan, individuals will have to pay an additional $442 in the year 
2002--a premium of almost $1,200 a year. These increases will cost 
individuals about $1,750 more in Medicare premiums over the life of the 
program, which means each senior couple will pay $3,500 more.
  I just say, in response to my friend and colleague, that it does very 
little good, at least to the seniors in my State, to say, well, we are 
increasing the amounts which we are expending for you in terms of 
Medicare, but we are not increasing them to the extent to cover your 
health care needs, as we have in the past. And you are going to have to 
pay some $3,500 more. Maybe the seniors in Utah have a different 
reaction than the seniors in Massachusetts. People have paid into the 
Medicare system; they are working families. Two-thirds of them are 
making less than $17,000 a year, and $3,500 is a great deal of money 
for any family, any middle-income family and any retirees. And to say 
to the seniors, well, we are raising the expenditures on Medicare, but 
not the amount to cover the same range of health care services to the 
extent of $3,500 to the seniors in my State. They say that is a cut.
  Here is the final point I will make with regard to the Medicare. 
First of all, we find that the statement the Speaker made with regard 
to a $7 a month increase in the part B premium is absolutely wrong. 
According to the Health Care Financing Administration, the monthly 
premium will go up to $96 a month in the year 2002, an increase of $37 
a month, not $7 a month.
  So it is important that seniors understand, as this debate takes 
place, what the facts are. There is going to be up to $37 a month 
increase, not $7 a month increase, in the year 2002 alone. And 
individuals will pay $1,750 more over the next 7 years of the program 
and couples will pay $3,500 more. So the argument that we will be 
raising the reimbursement falls flat to the seniors of my State that 
will be paying that much more--$3,500 more--over the next 7 years.
  Finally, it is important in health care to understand what has been 
going 

[[Page S 13181]]
on in Medicare over the last 10 years. The fact is that Medicare, per 
patient, has not increased as much as in the private sector. We 
understand that. The increases in Medicare for treatment has not 
increased as much as the cost for the treatment of those that are not 
in Medicare. The increase in the costs, therefore, are a result of the 
Congress not acting to hold costs down. And to say to our senior 
citizens that it is just too bad that you are paying more out of your 
pocket because we in Congress refuse to come to grips with the 
escalation of health care costs, I find to be an unsatisfactory way to 
approach this situation.
  Mr. President, I daresay we will have more of a chance to deal with 
and discuss the Medicare issue. I think it is obviously an overarching, 
overriding issue, because it involves the social compact which is a 
part of Social Security. Social Security and Medicare are part of one 
single contract. We heard a great deal around here about how we are not 
going to cut Social Security, but somehow that promise did not, for 
some reason, extend to Medicare. And now we have seen at the beginning 
of that debate, which will continue over the period of these next few 
weeks, serious misrepresentations in terms of the costs for our 
seniors. That is a disservice to the debate and discussion which needs 
to take place.
  So, Mr. President, finally, let me just say this regarding the 
Senator's comments on the child care proposal. As the Senator from 
Connecticut and I have stated during the course of this debate, the 
provisions in the child care and the discretionary program would not be 
law today if the Senator from Utah had not supported those provisions.
  That was at a time when we had real renewed attention and focus on 
the issues of children. It was at a time we were debating the Family 
and Medical Leave Program on which my friend and colleague, the Senator 
from Connecticut, Senator Dodd, was a leader up here, as well as on the 
child care program where, again, he, Senator Hatch, Senator Kassebaum, 
and others were the real leaders.
  When he speaks and expresses his commitment and concern, all who have 
been a part of this whole process respect that.
  The only point I make is that we are, in characterizing this 
amendment, as the Senator provides $1 billion for earmarking for the 
child care program in a way that it will work its way through the block 
grants to the States and through the State organization, we have 
accepted that same approach in terms of the Dodd-Kennedy increase in 
funding.
  We are following identically the same kind of process. The difference 
is we will meet the responsibilities to the increased demand for child 
care, we think. We all respect the approach of the Senator from Utah 
that falls far short.
  Mr. President, I see my friend here from Minnesota. I expect the 
Senator wants some time.
  How much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 21 minutes and 22 seconds.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I yield 6 minutes to the Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair. I say to my colleague from 
Massachusetts that I will not use any of this time to talk about health 
care, but I do want to associate myself with his remarks. I think we 
really will have a nationally and historically significant debate about 
Medicare and health care policy soon which will be extremely important 
for this Nation.
  I hope people throughout the country are very engaged in this debate.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be included as an 
original cosponsor of the Kennedy-Dodd bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, this amendment would provide a direct 
spending grant to States of $11 billion over the next 5 years, which is 
precisely the amount that HHS estimates the child care would cost under 
the Dole bill.
  I say to my colleague from Utah and I say to the rest of my 
colleagues, as well, that you cannot have real health care reform, as 
opposed to what I describe as reverse reform, which is what we have 
right now with the Dole bill, unless you have a commitment to family 
child care. This amendment really invests the necessary resources.
  Mr. President, there have been any number of different studies in 
Minnesota, and I cite one study by the Greater Minneapolis Day Care 
Association in 1995. I am not even going to go through all the 
statistics because sometimes I think our discussion on the floor of the 
Senate becomes too cut and dried when we just focus on statistics.
  The long and the short of the study is that there are many families, 
single-parent and two-parent families, that really are doing everything 
they can to get on their own two feet and be able to work. The problem 
is affordable child care.
  In cases of a single-parent family--and when we talk about welfare 
families, we are talking in the main about a family with a woman as a 
single parent. I wish men would accept more responsibility. I know the 
Chair agrees with me 100 percent on that. In the case of a single-
parent family welfare mom, quite often the pattern over a period of 
time is that a mother will move from welfare to workfare. But then what 
happens is the cost of child care is so prohibitively high or it is 
just so difficult to find the child care in the first place, or the 
child becomes sick for a week and the mother loses her job, you name 
it, that she has to then go back to welfare.
  I am all for the welfare reform. Guess what? It is not just Senators 
that are for the welfare reform. The citizens that are most for real 
reform as opposed to something which is punitive and degrading are the 
welfare mothers themselves, the ones who all too many Senators have 
been bashing for the last week and a half.
  Mr. President, this amendment is extremely important. If we want to 
have the reform, we have to invest the resources into affordable child 
care.
  Mr. President, I noticed there is a provision now in the Dole bill 
which I think is interesting and I think it is relatively important, 
which essentially says, as I understand it, that if, in fact, the State 
does not allocate the money or does not have the resources for the 
affordable child care for the mother, then the mother would not be 
sanctioned by not taking a job and going into the work force.
  That makes a lot of sense because these mothers, like all parents, 
are worried about their children.
  By the way, Mr. President, if we have silly cutoffs like 1 year, it 
does not make any sense. I am a father of three children, a grandfather 
of two, going to be a grandfather of three in the next month or so, and 
I can tell you that a child at 1 year and 1 week is not exactly ready 
to clean the kitchen, do the housework, stay at home alone, et cetera.
  The question is, what happens to these small children? The last thing 
in the world we want to do is punish children.
  This commitment of some resources to child care goes some way toward 
making this real welfare reform as opposed to reformatory; that is to 
say, something which is punitive and puts children in jeopardy.
  The second point I want to make, Mr. President, with this provision 
that is now in the Dole bill, is that as I see it, if this provision is 
taken seriously, what will happen is a lot of this is just going to be 
at a standstill because as a matter of fact without the commitment of 
resources for child care, and we did not have that commitment of 
resources in the Dole bill--this amendment attempts to invest those 
resources--a lot of mothers will be in a position back in our States of 
saying with the long waiting lists already for affordable child care, 
without the resources to be able to afford it, these are low-income 
women, they will be able to say we cannot go to work because we do not 
know what will happen to our children, there is no affordable child 
care for our children, in which case according to the provision in the 
bill they would not have to go into the work force.
  There is some good news to that, because I do not think we should 
coerce a mother into going into the work force. Taking care of children 
at home is very important work, whether it is a mother or a father. 
Without the child care, she cannot do it. 

[[Page S 13182]]

  On the other hand, then, the whole promise of this reform of enabling 
welfare mothers, sometimes welfare fathers, to be able to work becomes 
a promise that is never fulfilled. This amendment goes a long way 
toward enabling us to fulfill that promise.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I yield 1 minute.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, in a minute, I cannot even do justice 
to the point I will try to make.
  What has cropped up in this debate I think is a very interesting 
argument, which is all too often some of my colleagues will say, well, 
look, if you have a family with an income of $35,000, maybe two 
parents, they are paying for child care, why should we talk about 
investment of resources for affordable child care for welfare mothers?
  I do not know why we are paying off middle-income and moderate-income 
citizens versus low-income women. We should focus on what is good for 
the children.
  The fact of the matter is our country has not made a commitment to 
affordable child care. It is a shame. This is a perfect example of 
where we could allocate some of the resources at the Federal level and 
decentralize it and let all the good things happen at the community 
level, at the neighborhood level --be it for low income, moderate 
income, middle income--with some sort of sliding fee scale.
  That is really the direction we ought to go, not in the direction of 
not investing resources in child care and therefore putting mothers in 
a difficult position, and most important of all, punishing children.
  This is a very important amendment which really kind of is a litmus 
test as to whether we are serious about reform as opposed to 
reformatory.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, if I might, let me inquire how much time 
remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut has 14 minutes 
and 18 seconds.
  Mr. DODD. On the side of the Senator from Connecticut.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah has 67 minutes and 22 
seconds.
  Mr. DODD. I would just inquire of my colleague from Utah if I might 
take 5 of his minutes? I am fearful he may not be on the floor, someone 
else may come over, and we will have run out of all of our time.
  Mr. HATCH. I will be glad to yield 5 minutes to the Senator from 
Connecticut.
  Should I say a few words first? Or I will be happy to wait.
  Mr. DODD. No, go ahead.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.

                          ____________________