[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 143 (Thursday, September 14, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S13579-S13581]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                               CHILD CARE

  Mr. DODD. Madam President, I will take advantage of this time while 
we are waiting here. Let me explain. People are wondering what is going 
on--I have a podium in front of me and papers in front of me. I am 
prepared at some point to offer an amendment on child care. We had one 
vote already several days ago and made an effort here to try to come to 
some accommodation, a compromise position on child care. That may still 
happen. I was hopeful that the arrangement put together would work--and 
it may still work.
  I am prepared to offer the amendment. I have been here on the floor 
now for virtually the last 2\1/2\, 3 days, trying to find a compromise. 
I am trying hard to find a welfare reform package I can vote for. I 
mean that very sincerely and deeply. I think the President would like 
to have a bill he could sign. And largely what happens, I suppose, in 
the next couple of hours might determine whether or not we will have a 
bipartisan bill.
  My own view, Madam President--I will not take a lot of time here 
because people have heard this debate on numerous occasions in days 
past, weeks past, months past. Senator Hatch of Utah and I offered, 
back some 6 or 7 years ago, the child care and development block grant 
bill, which became the law of the land in 1990. Five years ago, we 
provided child care assistance to people in the country, particularly 
to the working poor families to keep them off welfare and allow them to 
work. It allowed them to get some child care assistance--it does not 
take care of everybody--it provides some help to some people. There are 
long waiting lists in many States for this assistance. In fact, I 
recall now--having recited these statistics so many times, I can almost 
call them State by State.
  As the presiding officer is from the great State of Texas, I think 
the waiting list in Texas is about 20,000 people. In the State of 
Georgia, it is 41,000 people. The numbers are in that range. And the 36 
States that keep data on child care slots--not every State keeps 
waiting lists--but 36 States tell us that they have long lists. There 
is a tremendous need and demand out there.
  Again, I think the central point of the Dole welfare reform bill is, 
of course, to get people from welfare to work. And again I think most 
people accept the fact that 60 percent of the people on welfare have 
children under the age of 5. Of the 14 million people on welfare, 5 
million are adults, 9 million or 10 million are children. So what we 
are talking about here is a simple enough notion; that is, to provide 
some sort of a safe setting for children as we move their parent or 
parents into the work force.
  To do that requires resources. We are told by the Department of 
Health and Human Services that to fill the 165-percent increase in 
demand that would occur as a result of the bill that the majority 
leader has presented to us, it would require some $6 billion over 5 
years to accommodate that demand.
  I offered an amendment in that amount a few days ago. It failed by a 
single vote here. Then, over the last 2\1/2\ days, in consultations 
with interested parties here--and I will not go into names of people--
we were able to work out a compromise, a bipartisan compromise, on the 
issue. The compromise 

[[Page S 13580]]
reduced the $6 billion by several billions of dollars, which would mean 
that we would not meet the full demand, based on the assessments that 
had been made, but would provide a pool of money for States. This would 
mean that Connecticut, Texas, New York, and other States would have a 
pool of resources to assist in the very legitimate issue of how you 
move people from welfare to work.
  Now, the bill requires that we move 25 percent of all welfare 
recipients to work in the first 2 years, and 50 percent by the year 
2000. That will place great demands on States to make that transition. 
If they cannot meet the demands, of course, they face penalties in the 
bill. It probably would be less expensive for most States to pay the 
penalty than actually to comply with the law. I made that rough 
calculation. I think it is a common interest of ours to achieve 
compliance with the requirements.
  To achieve compliance, you need to have some training for these 
people. But most people would agree, if you had to pick one issue, one 
issue that is critical for moving welfare recipients to work, it is 
child care. Every survey of people on public assistance, that asks what 
are the greatest obstacles to moving from welfare to work, cite as the 
number one obstacle the lack of child care. In every survey that I have 
seen in the last decade or more, that is the single most important 
issue, and I think with complete justification. You need not have ever 
been on public assistance or even have had family members on assistance 
to understand this issue. Anyone with young children, regardless of 
their economic status, who works or desires to work, understands 
completely the anxiety that another person would feel when going to 
work without some safe, adequate place to leave their children. It is 
just unrealistic to assume that you can reasonably move someone from 
welfare to work without accommodating that need.
  Now, it can be accommodated in a variety of ways. No one is arguing 
that if there are grandparents or aunts or uncles or older children--
there may be a variety of ways to reach that need. I think most would 
agree that those arrangements will not work in every case. You are 
going to have to have some other system in place. If it were not true, 
then you would not have the waiting lists I described already with 
literally thousands of children on those waiting lists to find an 
adequate child-care place.
  So, Madam President, I will, at an appropriate time, offer, or try to 
offer, an amendment on this issue. It may be defeated. I hope it will 
not. I made an honest and sincere effort to compromise, as I believe 
the very rationale for this institution is to bring people of different 
points of view together and try to find some common ground on issues.
  I really know of no one arguing, no one saying we should not do 
anything about child care. Most people agree we should do something 
about it. It is how we do it and what means we use. I have tried to 
come up with an answer here that would accommodate the Governors, the 
needs of the States, and obviously the very people that we are going to 
be asking to make that transition in the law.
  So, I will offer the amendment at an appropriate time. If it is 
defeated, we will move on, I guess, to other amendments. I hope that 
will be the case, that we will not be talking about pulling down the 
bill or other suggestions that may be made. It is a difficult issue. 
The Senator from New York knows better than all of us put together, as 
he has talked about so eloquently on numerous occasions,
 dismantling 60 years of social policy in a matter of hours.

  So the fact that this is taking a little longer may be troublesome to 
some people. Frankly, were it to be done in haste, it would even be, I 
think, more dangerous. I am hopeful that we can adopt an amendment in 
this area. I would like to be a part of an agreement. That is my 
desire. That has been my intention. There is no other purpose behind 
this.
  I have been involved in the issue of child care for more than 10 
years. Going back to the 1980's, I felt it was a legitimate issue that 
needed to be raised for a whole host of reasons. In the midst of this 
debate, it is a critical issue. In the absence of it, it is impossible 
to call this reform in any way. We should not literally turn our back 
on the needs of these 10 million children out there.
  As I said a moment ago, of the 14 million people in this country on 
welfare, with all of the rhetoric and language we use in the most 
virulent terms to describe them, we should remind ourselves that 10 
million of the 14 million we are talking about are infants and 
children, who in most cases, through no fault of their own, as the 
Senator from New York pointed out, are in this world.
  The question becomes, if no one else will help try and take care of 
them, shouldn't someone? And if that someone has to be us, I do not 
know any reason why we should shrink from that responsibility as we try 
to break this cycle.
  I see my colleague from New York.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Madam President, may I simply endorse everything the 
Senator has said, and add a further point. We have a choice in this 
legislation. We can have child care or we can have orphanages. I think 
child care is the least expensive option, but you do not know how bad 
an orphanage might be.
  We are not just at the end of 60 years of social policy. A century 
ago, in response to the matter of sending half-orphans, as they were 
known, to orphanages that some 40 States, beginning in Wisconsin, began 
mothers' pensions. The States found it difficult to maintain them in 
the midst of the Depression, and they were incorporated into the Social 
Security Act as aid to dependent children.
  That is the issue before us, as best one can tell, although one can 
never tell the future.
  I thank the Senator from Connecticut. I see the distinguished 
Republican leader.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
  Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I want to take a moment of the Senate's 
time, first of all, to commend my friend and colleague for the efforts 
that have been made over the period of the past 2 days. I welcome the 
opportunity to cosponsor the amendment; I welcome the chance to join 
with others in cosponsoring this amendment.
  When you look over the record and realize that this initial 
amendment, which was the $11 billion over 5 years, just failed by two 
votes, the efforts by Senator Dodd to cut that back by several billions 
of dollars in an attempt to try and reach out and make this a 
bipartisan effort is really in the tradition of this body.
  It is troublesome to many who recognize that under the Dole proposal 
there is not a single cent dedicated to child care, not a single cent 
that is actually dedicated.
  So we have seen a significant reduction in the proposal and a very 
extended effort to try and incorporate many of our friends and 
colleagues on the other side who, over a long period of their own 
careers, have been absolutely committed to child care and who are 
committed to child care at this time.
  I want to indicate to our friends and colleagues, really on both 
sides, that his efforts to try and ensure this was going to be a 
bipartisan effort and consistent with the exigencies of the budget 
consideration has been absolutely an honorable effort and in the best 
traditions of the Senate.
  Let me just say, I look forward to supporting that proposal because I 
do think that upon reflection, in spite of what is talked about in the 
back rooms about whether I will vote or whether I will not, that when 
people are faced with this issue of trying to take a small but 
meaningful step forward on child care will recognize the importance of 
their vote in a very significant piece of legislation and will 
ultimately support the Dodd proposal. That would certainly be my hope, 
so that we could move on to some of the other issues.
  Finally, Madam President, I do not think there is any Member of this 
body who has children--and so many of us are blessed to have them--who 
would possibly think of starting a day without knowing their 
whereabouts and knowing about their safety and knowing about their 
security, knowing about their well-being. 

[[Page S 13581]]

  I think all of us in this body are fortunate enough to have a day-
care center that was developed in a bipartisan way in the Congress. We 
have the kind of day care available for employees of the Senate that we 
are denying to so many others who are attempting to work for a great 
deal less than we are receiving, in terms of salaries, trying to make 
ends meet.
  We hear a great deal, as we did in the early part of the year, 
Washington does not get it because the laws we pass we do not apply to 
ourselves. Remember that? We went through a whole discussion and debate 
about that. And we should apply the laws that we pass for others to 
ourselves.
  But the other shoe fits, too, and that is what we do for ourselves we 
might think about doing for others. What we have done is afforded the 
child care program, and now we are being asked to try and move people 
off welfare and basically avoid the fundamental commitment of trying to 
provide some child care to those individuals.
  As Senator Dodd and Senator Moynihan understand very completely, that 
program just will not work. That just will not work. The idea that you 
are going to be able to take these resources, which is flat funding 
over a period of time, when about 85 percent of those resources are 
being used for benefits, and think that you are going to be able to 
scrape some funding out for child care, I think, does not hold water.
  We have seen very little indication, given what has happened in the 
States, as the Senators from Connecticut and New York have pointed out, 
that is happening today and why we ought to expect it to happen in the 
future.
  So, Mr. President, this is really about the priority of children. 
Every day so many speeches are made about children and about the most 
vulnerable. We have an opportunity to address those needs with the Dodd 
amendment. I think all of us should be impressed by the seriousness of 
the redressing of this issue.
  It has been as a result of a long, painstaking, tireless effort by 
the sponsor of this amendment to try and broaden out and to work this 
process in a way that would have bipartisan support and would make a 
very important and significant improvement in the legislation. I am 
hopeful that when it is offered, that it will succeed. I think this 
will certainly be one of the most important votes that we will have in 
this session.
  Mr. SANTORUM addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Abraham). The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I have heard some speeches on the floor 
of the Senate and this ranks right up there. I do not know how you 
say--when the leader here is negotiating, in good faith, to in fact add 
more money into the child care fund--that somehow or another we are 
denying the fact that we need child care, and have Members on the other 
side who insist on having their name sketched next to the child care 
money, to throw out an agreement to do just that. I think that is not 
cooperation by any stretch of the imagination.
  To also suggest that somehow we provide day care for workers here in 
the U.S. Congress and that we are not willing to do so in the welfare 
bill--maybe the Senator does not know it, but the people who have 
children in day care pay for that with the hard-earned dollars that 
they work for.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. SANTORUM. No, I will not yield. They work for it with their hard-
earned dollars. What you are suggesting is to give money to people to 
go to work, to give them child care to go to work.
  Mr. DODD. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. SANTORUM. No, I will not yield. The fact of the matter is that 
what the Senator from Connecticut is doing is trying to block an 
agreement from happening by insisting on an amendment on day care, 
which we are willing to sit--and have been for hours--and try to put 
together.
  I am hopeful that we can get through the partisanship on this and 
move forward in a bipartisan way. And I know there are many Members on 
the other side of the aisle that want to work in a bipartisan fashion 
to get this bill through, to get day care money funded, because it is a 
sincere interest, I know, of the leader and of other Members on our 
side to get this legislation through with additional day care funds.
  Mr. DODD. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. SANTORUM. We will and have been working. I object to the fact 
that the Senator from Massachusetts stands up and says we are giving 
free day care here in the Congress, and we are providing it for our 
folks when, in fact, they pay for that day care, and that we are 
unwilling to give it to people on welfare, when, in fact, we are going 
to be giving day care to people on welfare.
  I just think you are mixing who is paying for what. The fact of the 
matter is, people working here paying for their day care are paying 
taxes to subsidize the people that we want to provide day care for 
under the welfare bill. Let us get it straight.
  I am willing, as other Members on this side are, to put some more 
money in for day care so that people can get off of welfare. But do not 
try to suggest that somehow we are providing perks to Members here that 
we are unwilling to give on welfare. Exactly the opposite is the truth.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. DOLE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.

                          ____________________