[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 105 (Wednesday, July 25, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8182-S8190]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
NOMINATION OF WADE F. HORN, OF MARYLAND, TO BE ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR
FAMILY SUPPORT, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the nomination.
The assistant legislative clerk read the nomination of Wade F. Horn,
of Maryland, to be Assistant Secretary for Family Support, Department
of Health and Human Services.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Johnson). The Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, again, for the sake of my colleagues'
schedules, I do not think this will take that much time. I know there
are some Senators who want to speak. I think it is a relatively
noncontroversial nomination. I certainly do not need 2 hours.
I do want to speak on the nomination of Dr. Wade Horn to the position
of Assistant Secretary for Family Support at the Department of Health
and Human Services.
This is a very important position. Once confirmed for this position,
Dr.
[[Page S8183]]
Horn is going to have authority over the administration of the Federal
welfare, child care, child welfare, foster care, and adoption programs.
He is going to have considerable influence in the upcoming
reauthorization of the so-called welfare reform legislation.
These are issues that all of us care about. But, as my colleagues
know, much of my own background, in addition to teaching, was community
organizing. Most of that was with poor people. And much of that was
with single-parent families, almost always women, sometimes men.
Unfortunately, when marriages dissolve, or when it comes to the
responsibility of raising children, it disproportionately falls on the
shoulders of women.
I have devoted a lot of time to these issues. I really believe that,
for me, if I have a passion, it is around the central idea that every
child in our country should have the same opportunity to reach her or
his full potential. That is what I believe. I suppose all of us do.
Maybe people have different ideas how we realize that goal, but, for
me, that is the core value that informs me as a Senator. And I am for
everything--public sector, private sector--that makes that more likely,
more possible, and I am opposed to whatever makes it less possible.
In my opinion, Dr. Horn's views about the causes of the circumstances
of these families--especially single-parent families, almost always
headed by women--as well as a number of his stated proposals as to how
to address these circumstances make him not the right choice to serve
in this position. I do not think he is the right person for this job.
I hasten to add that I have met with him. I am sure that this
discussion in the Senate Chamber is of great interest to Dr. Horn. As I
say, I have met with him. He was more than obliging to come by. I
thought we had a very good discussion. And I do not say that as a
cliche. He responded in writing to a number of questions I sent to him
following the conversation.
I think he feels just as strongly about these issues as I do. I think
he would fight against any policy he thought would be harmful to low-
income families, especially poor children. I do not want to caricature
him. We have an honest but fundamental disagreement about the best way
to move families in this country from poverty to self-sufficiency.
I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter and
the signatures of more than 90 organizations that oppose this
nomination.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
June 14, 2001.
Dear Senator: We are writing to urge your opposition to the
nomination of Wade Horn as Assistant Secretary for Family
Support at the Department of Health and Human Services. We
ask that you investigate the writings and philosophy of Mr.
Horn and that you question him thoroughly when he comes
before the Senate Finance Committee for confirmation.
The HHS Assistant Secretary for Family Support, the
country's top family policy post, will be making important
decisions and recommendations on many critical public
programs which serve predominantly lower income children and
families, including welfare, childcare, child welfare, child
support, adoption, foster care, child abuse and domestic
violence. The person who holds this job will also influence
the Administration's positions and activities dealing with
next year's reauthorization of the Temporary Assistance to
Needy Families (TANF) programs. This person must be able to
understand and promote the needs of ALL families in our
society.
Wade Horn wants the government to promote marriage by
penalizing families where the parents divorce, separate, or
do not marry. He also wants the government to tell unmarried
mothers to surrender their children for adoption. There is
very little ``support'' for families in these sentiments.
With Wade Horn as Assistant Secretary for Family Support,
we fear a Department of Health and Human Services that will
penalize, and promote discrimination against, families headed
by a divorced. Separated, or never-married parent or where
both parents live in the home but are not married. Horn has
written that single parent families should be denied public
benefits whose supply is limited--such as public housing,
Head Start, and child care--unless all married couples have
been served first. Horn has written that cohabiting parent
families should be denied any welfare benefits at all, and
kept at the end of the waiting list for other benefit
programs.
Due to divorce, separation, death, abandonment or their
parent's never-married status, more than half the children
growing up today will spend some of their childhood in a
single-parent family. An increasing number of children live
in two parent families where the parents delay marriage,
choose not to marry or are prevented by law from marrying.
Horn advocates penalizing all these children.
By supporting Wade Horn's nomination as Assistant Secretary
for Family Support at the Department of health and Human
Services, president Bush's campaign call to ``Leave No Child
Behind'' rings hollow. If the President's true intention is
to support all of America's families and children, rather
than judging and penalizing many, he should appoint an
individual who can work with Congress, our states and our own
dedicated organizations to ensure that we will be more--not
less--compassionate when dealing with our children and
families living at or near poverty.
Sincerely,
Abortion Access Project
ACORN
AIDS Action Committee
Alternatives to Marriage Project
American Ethical Union
Applied Research Center
Arizona Coalition Against domestic Violence
Association of Reproductive Health Professionals
Boston Coalition of Black Women
Boston Women's Health Book Collective
Business and Professional Women/USA
Center for Community Change
Center for Reproductive Law and Policy
Center for Third World Organizing
Center for Women Policy Studies
Center on Fathers, Families and Public Policy
Chicago Jobs Council
Chicago Metropolitan Battered Women's Network
Children's Foundation
Choice USA
Coalition Against Poverty
Coalition for Ethical Welfare Reform
Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights
Coalition of Labor Union Women
Colorado Center on Law and Policy
Communications Workers of America
Community Voices Heard
Democrats.com
Displaced Homemakers Network of New Jersey
Empire State Pride Agenda
EMPOWER,
Family Economic Initiative
Family Planning Advocates of New York State
Feminist Majority
Finding Common Ground Project at Columbia University
Grassroots Organizing for Welfare Leadership (GROWL)
Hawaii Coalition for the Prevention of Sexual Assault
Hawaii State Coalition Against Domestic Violence
Hesed House
inMotion, Inc.
Institute for Wisconsin's Future
Iowa Coalition Against Domestic Violence
Jewish Women International
Los Angeles Coalition to End Hunger & Homelessness
Make the Road by Walking
Massachusetts Welfare Rights Union
McAuley Institute
Men for Gender Justice
MOTHERS Now
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People
(NAACP)
National Association of Commissions for Women
National Black Women's Health Project
National Center on Poverty Law
National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs
National Employment Law Project
National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association
National Gay and Lesbian Task Force
National Organization for Women (NOW)
National Women's Conference
National Women's Political Caucus
New York City Gay & Lesbian Anti-Violence Project
9to5, National Association of Working Women
Nontraditional Employment For Women
North Carolina Coalition Against Domestic Violence
Northeast Missouri Client Council for Human Needs
Northeast Washington Rural Resources Dev. Assoc
NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund
PADS, Inc
Pennsylvania Lesbian and Gay Task Force
People United for Families
Planned Parenthood of New York City
Poor People's United Front
Progressive Challenge Project, Institute for Policy Studies
Public Justice Center
Rural Law Center
Sociologists for Women in Society
Survivors Inc.
Texas Council on Family Violence
Unitarian Universalist Service Committee
Voters For Choice Action Fund
WEEL (Working for Equality and Economic Liberation)
Welfare, Education, Training Access Coalition
Welfare Law Center
Welfare Made a Difference Campaign
Welfare Rights Organizing Coalition
Welfare Warriors
Women's Center at the University of Oregon
[[Page S8184]]
Women's Committee Of 100
Women Employed
Women's Environment and Development Organization
Women's Housing and Economic Development
Women's Institute for Freedom of the Press
Women's Institute for Leadership Development
Women's Law Project
Mr. WELLSTONE. A lot of the organizations listed include women and
children organizations and, in particular, organizations that do the
down-in-the-trenches work dealing with domestic violence. That is what
I want to talk about. It does not get discussed enough.
In this disagreement, I want to address, in particular, Dr. Horn's
focus on ``marriage promotion and responsible fatherhood policies.'' He
is a prominent advocate of ``marriage promotion and responsible
fatherhood.'' Some of these ideas are going to be central to the
reauthorization of welfare ``reform'' next year.
Again, I always put ``reform'' in quotes. Just as single moms were
the focus in 1996, single dads could very well be in the spotlight next
year. I do not think that, in itself, is a bad thing. I doubt whether
there is anyone among us who would argue against the importance of
where fathers fit in with families, about the importance of investing
in the needs of low-income men, just as we should be concerned about
the needs of low-income women.
The question is, what kind of investments we should make, and how can
we best serve the needs of low-income adults, men and women, and also
their children?
Dr. Horn most recently was president of the National Fatherhood
Institute which was created in 1994 ``to counter the growing problem of
fatherlessness by stimulating a broad-based social movement to restore
responsible fatherhood as a national priority.''
I believe in the importance of responsible fatherhood. Having three
grown children and six grandchildren, I certainly believe in it. I am
not here to speak against responsible fatherhood.
He also sat on the board of Marriage Savers, which is a Maryland-
based group promoting community marriage covenants that are designed to
make divorces more difficult to obtain. Dr. Horn has in the past urged
States to take advantage of opportunities created by welfare reform to
address what many cultural conservatives consider to be the root of
society's social ills today, the decline of the traditional family.
In 1997, he wrote a report, along with Andrew Bush, director of the
Hudson Institute's Welfare Policy Center. Dr. Horn recommended that
States basically--I have to use this word-- ``discriminate'' against
single-parent families by establishing ``explicit preferential
treatment for marriage in the distribution of discretionary benefits
such as public housing and Head Start slots.''
Now, although he has distanced himself from this suggestion, as
recently as June of this year, Dr. Horn has continued to advocate for
policies that would provide financial incentives for marriage.
Let me go back to 1997. I know this is not the issue that carries the
most weight in the Senate Chamber. I am not trying to be self-
righteous. There is a reason why so many organizations and so many
people around the country work in this area. The notion of women being
battered at home and what the children see, that is just not so much on
our radar screen, although a woman is battered every 15 seconds of
every day in America. When you start making an argument that for Head
Start or public housing the way that you are going to encourage
marriage is to give preferential treatment to those who are married,
what you do is you put poor women in a situation where they dare not
leave a home which is so dangerous for them and their children because
then they may not have any Head Start benefits for their child or they
may not be in line to get the housing they need. Why in the world would
anyone ever want to advocate such policies?
I am sorry. A lot of this discussion today on my part will be low key
for me, but not this part of the discussion. I know that Senators don't
think about this, but just think about the harshness of these kinds of
proposals. Dr. Horn, I hope, is going through some rethinking on this
question as well. I think he is, from the discussion we had. But it
concerns me for anyone as recently as 4 years ago to advocate that for
low-income families, you give preferential treatment to those who are
married so that single-parent homes headed by women, almost always, are
put at a disadvantage. Then we are going to make it hard for this woman
to get out of this situation. Sometimes you don't want women to stay in
the homes. Sometimes you don't want them to stay in the marriages
because they are hellish situations. Somebody has to say that in the
Senate.
The only reason I am speaking today, after having already testified
to the goodwill of Dr. Horn as a person, is because I am going to stay
so close to his work, and I am going to insist that not one proposal
come from this administration that puts some of these women and these
children in jeopardy. This problem of violence in homes is a real
problem in our country.
In a recent article, entitled ``Wedding Bell Blues, Marriage and
Welfare Reform,'' Dr. Horn suggested that Congress could mandate that
States implement policies such as West Virginia's current practice.
That is, you provide a cash bonus to single mothers on welfare who
marry their child's biological father, or perhaps, he has suggested,
Congress could provide a $5,000 cash payment to a woman at risk of
bearing a child out of wedlock, if she bears her first child within
marriage, to be disbursed in $1,000 annual payments over 5 years as
long as she remains married.
Again, I know if these proposals are made within the framework of
promoting responsible fatherhood or promoting intact families or being
opposed to divorce, it may sound attractive. But again, think about the
ways in which these proposals can be in some circumstances actually
dangerous to the well-being of many low-income women and children.
Somebody in the Senate has to advocate this position.
My wife Sheila--more Sheila than I--has spent years now working on
domestic violence issues. There is no doubt in my mind, none, that
policies that tie financial incentives to getting married or staying
married will result in increased incidents of domestic violence. Think
about it for a moment. If a low-income woman is faced with a choice of
receiving $1,000 a year, especially a woman who with her children is
living in extreme poverty, or leaving a situation where she has been
abused, what is she likely to do? What kind of incentive have you built
into public policy?
You have built in an incentive which says to this woman: You need to
stay at home. You need to marry this man. You need to stay married to
this man. What if this man has battered her over and over and over
again?
How can so many Senators who supported the Violence Against Women
Act, where we finally have begun to address this issue, now not express
concern about these kinds of proposals?
By the way, if we can afford to give families with children an extra
thousand dollars a year, then by what logic can we possibly suggest
that other families with children should be made poor simply because
their parents are unmarried? Think about it for a moment. Why should a
child, no fault of his own or her own, just because that child is the
daughter or son, little daughter or son, of a single parent, a family
where the parents are not together, be penalized? This is nonsensical.
These are rather perverse priorities or incentives built into public
policy.
When considering marriage as a solution for poverty, we need to face
the reality that violence against women is a significant cause of
women's poverty. Domestic violence makes women poor, and it keeps them
poor. The majority of battered women attempt to flee their abusers, but
many of them end up on welfare or they end up homeless. Study after
study demonstrates that a large proportion of the welfare caseload,
consistently between 15 and 25 percent, consists of current victims of
serious domestic violence. Between one-half and two-thirds of the women
on welfare have suffered domestic violence or abuse at some time in
their adult lives. Over 50 percent of homeless women and children cite
domestic violence as the reason they are homeless.
Please understand, whether it be preferential treatment for Head
Start
[[Page S8185]]
or affordable housing, or whether it be bonuses that reward women for
staying in a marriage, let's not put low-income women in a position
where they are in a very dangerous home, they are being battered, and
quite often their children are battered as well.
Their children witness the violence not in the movie, not on
television, but in their own living rooms. The children can't do as
well in school. Don't create a set of financial incentives that are
going to make it harder for these women and these children to be able
to leave these circumstances. That is what I am saying today. These are
my concerns. That is why you have close to 90 organizations--by the
way, hardly any of them would have any clout--that have real concerns
about this. For these women and children, the cost of freedom and
safety has been poverty. Marriage is not the solution to their economic
insecurity.
By the way, do you know that one of the problems is, even if these
women leave and they go to shelters--as my colleague from Nevada said
earlier today, in many of our States we have more animal shelters than
we have shelters for women and children who experience violence. How
about that? Then, if they are in a shelter, there is no affordable
housing to go to. As opposed to making proposals, which Dr. Horn has
made, that talk about all these bonuses and ways of promoting marriage,
why don't we, instead, put the emphasis on responsible fathers?
Don Frazier, who was mayor and a great representative of the House of
Representatives, did a lot of that in Minnesota. We should do more. But
if we have this kind of money, why don't we put it into affordable
housing?
Marriage is not the solution to their economic insecurity. For some
of these women--can I say this one time in this Chamber? For some of
these women, marriage could even mean death. I am sorry. I am going to
say it again. That is true. I feel strongly about this. I know what the
reality is, from what I have seen with my own eyes from the work Sheila
and I have done with women who have been faced with violence in their
homes. For some of these women, not only is marriage not the answer to
their economic insecurity, for some of them marriage could even mean
death. It will undoubtedly mean economic dependence on the abuser. Many
battered women are economically dependent on their abusers. Between
one-third and almost 50 percent of abused women, surveyed in five
studies, said their partner prevented them from working entirely. In
fact, we introduced legislation today--Senator Murray, Senator Dodd,
Senator Schumer were a part of this--in which we said--and we had
people from the business community and the labor community testify--
part of the problem is a lot of women, when they try to leave and work,
the abuser, the stalker, comes to work, threatens them, comes into the
office and makes a scene, and guess what happens. The employers let the
women go. They say we can't take this any longer, and then she loses
her job.
Of the 96 percent of women who report they experienced problems due
to domestic violence, 70 percent have been harassed at work, 50 percent
have lost 3 days of work a month as a result of abuse, and 25 percent
have lost at least 1 job due to domestic violence.
Do you want to put these women in a situation where they have to stay
in these marriages? Marriage is not always the answer, colleagues. I
have been married 37 years--maybe closer to 38 years. It has been the
best thing that ever happened to me. God, I will sound corny. I am most
religious in my thinking about having met Sheila when we were 16. It is
the best thing that ever could have happened to me. I am not just
saying some trumped up thing on the floor of the Senate. But marriage
is not always the answer or the alternative to poverty for many of
these women and children.
Dr. Horn has not shown the understanding and sensitivity to these
questions he needs to show. He is a good person. He will be nominated.
I already said that. But I at least want to speak about my concerns.
The Congress has recently recognized that domestic violence is a
serious national problem. We have the Violence Against Women Act and
other legislation, and it seems to me that we ought to at least be very
sensitive to these concerns.
Dr. Horn and others in the responsible fatherhood movement argue that
many of our most pressing social problems--school violence, teen
pregnancy, and substance abuse, to name a few--can be directly related
to the absence of fathers in the lives of their children.
David Blankenhorn of the Institute for American Values has gone so
far as to suggest that fatherlessness is ``the engine that drives our
most pressing social problems.'' And topping the list of concerns, of
course, is child poverty. For many of these advocates, the solution to
ending child poverty is clear: marriage. They argue that what we really
need to do is to teach low-income men to properly value marriage and
family, based on the presumption that low-income men don't.
Can I also say this at the risk of annoying some colleagues? You know
what. I am over and over again struck by the fact that too many
Senators seem to know so much about the values of poor people, but they
have never spent any time with any of them. It is like I don't know
where our understanding of the values of people and how they live their
lives comes from. It is certainly not based upon a lot of experience. I
believe it is incorrect to presume that low-income men somehow value
marriage and fatherhood less than other men. In fact, there is
considerable evidence that low-income men value marriage and fatherhood
just as much as you do, Mr. President, and as much as I do. But these
advocates look at the data indicating a correlation between child
poverty and single parenthood, and rather than consider the fact that
all too often it is the poverty that leads to the single parenthood,
not single parenthood that leads to the poverty, they argue that
marriage is the way to eliminate the poverty. That is what I am worried
about with Dr. Horn because he is going to be in a key position.
Here is the way one low-income mother put it to me, and thank God for
her wisdom:
They can marry off everybody in my neighborhood, but then
all we'll have is two poor people married to each other.
This is what is really at the heart of the matter. You don't end
poverty by simply promoting marriage. In fact, you probably promote
more successful marriages if that is your goal. And do you know what. I
think that is our goal. Let me state as a given that every Senator, or
almost every Senator wants to promote more successful marriages. One of
the ways is by ending poverty.
My colleague from Indiana will speak for Dr. Horn. I made it clear
that I met him. He cares as much as I do. It is an honest disagreement.
I made the argument, I say to Senator Bayh from Indiana--and we will
voice vote this with overwhelming support. I needed to come to the
floor because some of Dr. Horn's advocacy of preferential treatment for
Head Start and affordable housing for two-parent, married households,
and arguments that you want to have bonuses for people to get married
and stay married--I made the argument that the implications of this,
when it comes to violence in homes, is grim and harsh. You don't want
some of these women to be in a position of feeling as if they can't
leave a home where they are being battered and their children are being
battered. That is what some of these proposals do.
As to some of his ideas, he said, ``I no longer necessarily believe
all of this.'' But I have said some of these arguments about promoting
marriage are fine; I am for it. But for some women this is not the
answer.
You don't want to have financial incentives, or disincentives, if you
will, that put women in a position where the choice is, Do I stay in
this home where I am being battered, my child can be battered, or my
child witnesses this violence, or if I leave then no longer will I get
a Head Start benefit, or I will lose my bonus I have received for being
in this marriage or I will not be able to get affordable housing.
That is one of the things that concerns me the most, I say to two
good colleagues. One of the reasons we have so many of these
organizations in the trenches working in domestic violence expressing
this concern is because of this argument. Someone needs to say it
because Dr. Horn will be in this position, and then we will work with
him.
I am all for promoting responsible fatherhood and marriage, but I do
not
[[Page S8186]]
want to do it in such a way that we end up--I said this before my
colleagues came--for some of these women, marriage is death. That is
right. For some of these women, staying in a marriage means they will
lose their lives. I do not want public policy or social policy that
makes it more difficult for them to leave these homes which are not
safe homes, where they should leave these homes. That is part of what
this debate is about.
In just the few minutes I have left, the other part of the argument I
want to make is if, in fact, you want to promote successful marriages,
especially if you are talking about the low- and moderate-income
community, one of the ways to do it is to focus on some of these
economic issues. There is a whole world of problems out there, such as
unemployment, not having a living-wage job, drug and alcohol addiction,
depression and mental illness, poor education, jail time, hunger and
homelessness, and, in all due respect, quite often these are the
reasons that marriages do break up.
Unless we talk about marriages and responsible fatherhood in the
context of also dealing with these very tough problems that rip
families apart, I do not think we go very far, and I will insist all of
them be considered.
Frankly, it is not necessarily his fault, but I do not hear much from
this administration in terms of being willing to invest some of the
resources in any number of these different areas.
We had a proposal in Minnesota. I said ``had.'' It was the Minnesota
Family Investment Program. It was a pilot program. Too bad, because
from my point of view, this is welfare reform. Two former Governors did
a great job saying we are going to put a lot of money into childcare,
into job training skills development, into making sure these families
do not lose their medical care, and we are going to put a lot of money
into significant income to disregard when they made more money, they
then lost, dollar for dollar, what they were making.
Studies compared former AFDC recipients to those on MFIP and found
MFIP individuals were 40 percent more likely to stay married and 50
percent less likely to be divorced after 5 years. There you have it.
That is part of what we need to do.
Mr. President, do you know what. That is not what we are doing in a
lot of this so-called welfare reform. As a matter of fact, finally I
got the Food and Nutrition Service study the other day. I said to them:
Tell me what is going on with food stamps. Why have we had a 30-
percent-plus decline in food stamp participation post 1996? They said:
In some cases, people are working and maker better income. In most
cases, they are not, but they do not know they are eligible any longer.
There were cuts in food stamp benefits, massive cuts in benefits to
legal immigrants. Frankly, Families USA points out there are some
660,000 people who no longer have medical assistance because of the
welfare bill. In too many cases, people have dropped out.
Berkeley and Harvard did a study of the childcare situation and found
that many of these kids were in dangerous situations or in front of a
TV, and it would not surprise anyone if they came to kindergarten way
behind.
I am for promoting families, responsible fatherhood, and I want these
children to have as much a chance as other children, and I want to know
from where the commitment comes.
Marriage is not, in and of itself, the way to address the root causes
of poverty, and it is no reliable long-term solution to poverty,
particularly poverty among women and children, and, in general, two
incomes are better than one. It is far better to have two parents in
the household, but that fact is not sufficient to support an argument
that marriage will lead to an end of family poverty.
There are many reasons that women, more often than men, experience an
economic downfall outside of marriage: Discrimination in the labor
market; lack of quality, affordable accessible childcare; domestic
violence; and I also say to my colleagues--Senator Reid said it
earlier--in many States there are more animal shelters than shelters
for women who come out of these very dangerous homes.
Moreover, the tragedy of it is, after they get out of shelters, there
is no affordable housing. As a matter of fact, this is going to become
a front-burner issue for us because we are not doing anything by way of
getting resources back to State and local communities, and it is a huge
crisis. It is not surprising that the other day there was a report that
came out in the Washington Post pointing out the issue really is not
poverty, the issue is we have to double the official definition of
poverty, which is around $17,000. If you want to be realistic of what
it takes for a family to make it, there are many families with incomes
under $40,000 who are having a heck of a time making it, and one of the
reasons is the cost of housing.
If you do not address these factors that keep women from being
economically self-sufficient, then your marriage and family formation
advocates are merely proposing to shift the woman's dependence from the
welfare system to marriage. You see what I am saying? There is a
missing piece here, I say to Dr. Horn and others.
Some women should not be dependent on their marriage. They should get
out of their marriage. They should not be there. They should get out of
these homes with their children because if they stay, they are going to
be murdered and their children--talk about posttraumatic stress
syndrome. What do my colleagues think it would be like to be a little
child? I have been with them. I met with some of these families and
have seen a mother who has been beaten up over and over, day after day.
What do my colleagues think that does to children?
With domestic violence and divorce at the current rates, marriage
will never be the sole answer. The solution is not, as Dr. Horn and
others suggest, to interfere with the privacy rights of poor women but,
rather, let's focus on economic self-sufficiency.
Congress should not use women's economic vulnerability as an
opportunity to control their decisions regarding their marriage or, for
that matter, childbearing. Fighting poverty and promoting family well-
being will depend on positive Government support, for policies that
support low-income parents in their struggle to obtain good jobs so
that they can have a decent standard of living, so they can give their
children the care they know their children need and deserve. That is
what it ought to be about.
I disagree with Dr. Horn on this policy, but colleagues and the
public should be further aware that certain recent statements and
writings by the nominee signal that basic views which underlie his
policy positions I think are a little bit over the top.
I have already talked about how I like him, I say to both colleagues
because I know they know him. I will give a couple examples.
Dr. Horn has recently written, for example, that females raised by
single mothers ``have a tendency toward early and promiscuous sexual
activity.'' That material was given to me by advocate organizations.
That is in direct quotes. From where in the world does that come? Where
is the evidence for that?
He recently wrote that males raised by single mothers have ``an
obsessive need to prove their masculinity.'' He reportedly has linked
single mothering or father absence to acts of violence carried out by
males, such as the shootings at Columbine High, although, by the way,
in that case, the families were intact. These were not single-parent
families. This is not an attack on character.
I want Dr. Horn to know he is going to be nominated on a voice vote.
He will be supported. That is fine. But I want to be on record saying I
don't think he is the right choice. I certainly want to question some
of the statements he has made and, more importantly, some of the
positions he has taken. He will be the one in the middle of the welfare
reform. He will be the one dealing with a lot of the policy that
affects low- and moderate-income families.
Ninety organizations have urged the Senate Committee on Finance to
oppose his nomination. A majority of them are organizations that deal
with domestic violence. That is where the real fear is. I have heard
from too many people whose opinions I respect and whose judgments I
value, starting with my wife Sheila, to allow the nomination to pass
silently. Dr. Horn will be confirmed, but I felt compelled to
[[Page S8187]]
raise these issues and concerns about some of the policies I think he
is likely to promote as Assistant Secretary for Family Support. I hope
he proves me wrong; he may very well.
I hope he will use the occasion of this appointment to reconsider
some of his views--not all; he is entitled to many of his views. The
issues are too important and too many lives are affected to not speak
out. I hope Dr. Horn and others at Health and Human Services, as well
as colleagues in the Senate, will carefully consider the implications
of policies that we all propose that affect low-income families.
I said earlier, and I meant it as a criticism of Senators on both
sides of the aisle, although we cannot generalize, I am always amazed
we infer the values of people. We seem to know so much about the values
of people and how they live their lives, especially low-income people--
that fathers do not respect fatherhood or the pathology of their
lives--when hardly any Members spend any time with them. Dr. Horn is an
example of someone who has inferred people's values, which can be
downright dangerous, especially when we are talking about violence in
homes today.
What we really need to do is to support these women and children.
Therefore, I hope the Senators, as we go forward with the welfare
reauthorization bill and we make policy that affects directly the lives
of poor people in this country, will make it our business to be very
careful. They are not on the Senate floor, they have very little clout,
and in too many ways they are right out of Michael Harrington's ``The
Other America.'' They are invisible and without a very strong voice.
There are helpful organizations, thank God, such as the Children's
Defense Fund, but not enough.
I wish Dr. Horn the very best. We will work together. But I want Dr.
Horn to know I have a lot of concerns which I have discussed today. I
am not speaking for myself, but for a lot of people in the country,
especially those down in the trenches doing the work, dealing with the
violence in families, trying to protect women and children, to make
sure they can rebuild their lives.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
Mr. BAYH. Before my colleague from Minnesota leaves the floor, I
express my appreciation to him and compliment him for the passion he
brings to the cause of helping those less fortunate in our society.
There is no Member of this body who feels more strongly about
empowering those who need opportunity in our country than Senator
Wellstone. For that, I compliment the Senator and thank him for being
such a valuable Member of this body.
I also say, before the Senator leaves the floor, I find myself in
strong agreement with his sentiments about the rights of women,
particularly that they are not given incentives to stay out of
relationships that are abusive, or assisting or providing incentives
for men with a proven record of abuse from entering family
relationships where they do not belong.
I am not familiar with all of the statements he has made, but I can
say from my own experience with Dr. Horn that it is my understanding he
has distanced himself from several of these controversial statements. I
can say from my personal experience with him in working on the
Responsible Fatherhood Act that he has shown a great willingness to
ensure that abusive men are not reinserted into family situations and,
in fact, women are protected, as they should be. We should insist upon
this, even as we try to promote men living up to their responsibility
and doing right by not only their children but the mothers of their
children.
We had a recent conference at the Thurgood Marshall Center in
Washington, DC, a lower income area, and we were heartened to see
representatives from many organizations representing low-income
America. I am glad the Responsible Fatherhood Act has been advocated by
the Black Caucus.
From my experience, Dr. Horn has shown great empathy toward the cause
of helping children with a less fortunate background. I know it is
entirely appropriate that the Senator comes to the floor and expresses
his concerns. I thank him, before he gets on with his busy schedule,
for his championing of the cause of the less fortunate, to express
strong support for his dedication, particularly ensuring that women are
not placed in abusive situations but, in fact, are protected from
abusive men who would do them or their children harm. I express those
sentiments before the Senator has to leave.
Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Senator from Indiana for his graciousness.
I think the statement he just made, especially dealing with violence in
homes, is extremely important. I thank the Senator.
Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I rise to express my strong support for the
nomination of Wade Horn to be Assistant Secretary of HHS for Family
Support. I am confident that he will do an outstanding job in
discharging his duties for all Americans.
I have known Dr. Horn personally since 1996 when I had the privilege
as Governor of our State of holding one of the first conferences in the
country on the importance of promoting more responsible fatherhood on
the part of many men.
The vast majority of men in our society, when they bring children
into the world, do the right thing by supporting children economically,
emotionally and economically, and supporting the mothers. Regrettably,
in recent years, in the last decade or so, we began the alarming trend
of many men walking away from responsibilities, financial and
otherwise, with great detriment to the children and the mothers of
those children and, because of that, the society and taxpayers, as
well.
Wade Horn worked with us not only in that conference but in
fashioning legislation in the Halls of Congress to do something about
this epidemic of fatherlessness that harms our society in so many
important ways. He understands that a child growing up without the
involvement of a father, emotionally or financially, is five times more
likely to live in poverty, twice as likely to be involved with drugs or
alcohol abuse, twice as likely to commit a crime of violence, twice as
likely for a young girl to be involved with teen pregnancy, and much
more likely to get involved in a variety of situations that will harm a
youngster throughout the course of his or her lifetime.
Wade Horn is committed to doing something about this phenomenon, and
thereby strengthening families and helping children. He understands
this effort is not only good for America's children; it is good for
taxpayers, as well.
Many of the issues we debate in this Chamber, many of the initiatives
we pursue to try to help America really deal with the manifestations of
what are actually deeper underlying problems. If we are going to get at
the root causes of the problems that afflict too many of America's
children, we have to deal with them where they begin, the breakdown of
the American family, and, in particular, too many men bringing children
into the world and walking away, leaving women and taxpayers to try to
pick up the pieces by themselves. That is not right. We spend hundreds
of billions of dollars each and every year to try to overcome the
consequences of irresponsible fathers not living up to their
obligations.
Wade Horn understands that if we are going to do right by those kids
and do right by our citizens who are picking up the tab, we need to do
something about this problem. So he has committed much of his life to
doing exactly that.
He also understands that this effort will be good for women. Women
are doing heroic work, particularly single mothers, to try to pick up
the pieces when men bring kids in the world and walk away.
It is not right that those women should labor without the emotional
support and the financial support to which they are entitled. Our
responsible fatherhood initiative is designed to help children, help
taxpayers, and help women as well.
As I mentioned before our colleague, Senator Wellstone, had to leave
the floor, we reached out to many women's organizations to make sure
this effort is done in a way that is sensitive to the concerns of women
who have experienced the horror of being battered or abused by a spouse
or male companion. We want to make sure that is not the case; that, in
fact, we protect women
[[Page S8188]]
and children from the consequences of that type of behavior.
Wade Horn has been involved in that effort to make sure we pursue
strengthening families to help women and children with legitimate and
important concerns and take into account the scourge of domestic
violence that is unfortunately all too frequent in society today.
Mr. Horn, when he is confirmed, will be in a position to be
intimately involved in the next generation of welfare reform that we
will undertake this year and next. Because of his lengthy experience
laboring in these vineyards, I think he is ideally suited to this task.
Let me offer a very brief recitation of some of Dr. Horn's
experience. From 1989 to 1993, Dr. Horn was Commissioner for Children,
Youth and Families, and Chief of the Children's Bureau within the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services. Dr. Horn also served as a
Presidential appointee to the National Commission on Children from 1990
to 1993, a member of the National Commission on Childhood Disability
from 1994 to 1995, and a member of the U.S. Advisory Board on Welfare
Indicators from 1996 to 1997.
Prior to these appointments, Dr. Horn was the director of outpatient
psychological services at the Children's Hospital, National Medical
Center here in Washington, DC, and an associate professor of psychiatry
and behavioral sciences at George Washington University.
Currently, Dr. Horn is also an adjunct faculty at Georgetown
University's Public Policy Institute, and an affiliate scholar with the
Hudson Institute.
Simply put, if I could just summarize, I have known Dr. Horn now for
several years. I know of no more decent, more compassionate individual.
I know of no one who cares about the cause of helping children more
than Wade Horn, or the cause of strengthening America's families and
that is what this really comes down to. Whether it is within the bonds
of marriage or outside, this all comes down to the cause of helping
children, and in so doing not only helping those little ones but
helping society as a whole.
In conclusion, let me just say among his many other attributes, Wade
Horn is an author. He authored a book after his own experience with
cancer and wrote very eloquently in that book about the emotions that
he experienced when he was sick, fighting cancer, seeing his own little
girls come to his bedside.
I know, based upon that personal experience and his many years of
efforts in the vineyards of good public policy, there is no one who
will bring a deeper, more heartfelt conviction to the cause of helping
children, helping women, strengthening families, and strengthening
America than Dr. Horn. I respectfully urge my colleagues to vote in
support of his confirmation.
Before, I yield the floor, I would also like to say how much
I respect my colleague from Delaware. I thank Senator Carper for his
efforts on behalf of the Responsible Fatherhood Act. Perhaps it is not
a coincidence that Senator Carper and I are both former Governors and
have personally been in a position of actually implementing welfare
reform, not simply enacting it into law.
For that reason, I salute my dear friend and colleague, Senator
Carper, and thank him for his presence as well today.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, let me say while Senator Bayh is still
here, we have not only been Senators together, as he said, we have been
Governors together. We were also fathers of young boys, his a few years
younger than mine.
He believes, as I believe, and certainly as Wade Horn believes, while
emphasizing the importance of fathers and fatherhood, we have no
intention, no need, no interest in diminishing the importance of the
role of mothers. Every child deserves not just one loving, nurturing,
caring parent but two. To the extent that we as a society can encourage
men to live up to the responsibilities of the children they father and
bring into this world, those children will be better for it and so will
our country.
I say a special thanks to Senator Bayh, for his leadership on this
issue. I am delighted to be able to support these efforts.
Senator Bayh has known Wade Horn for a half dozen or so years. So
have I. I have known him through our work with the National Governors'
Association where he came from time to time, at our invitation, to
speak on fatherhood. I have known him through his role in cohosting the
National Summit on Fatherhood, where I have had the opportunity to
participate. I have invited him to my home State of Delaware to speak
at our Governor's prayer breakfast, to focus on fatherhood and the
importance of fathers in our lives.
I also know him, having hosted him in our Governors house, having
spent time with him and his wife there. I met his children, his
daughters. I have some idea, not just what the author is like, not just
what the speaker is like, not just what the policymaker is like, but I
feel as if I know him a little bit as a human being. I have seen him in
the role of devoted husband and loving father as well.
Senator Wellstone said, before he finished his remarks--and I
appreciated the concerns he expressed--and I think this is a quote,
``Dr. Horn will be in this position and we will have the opportunity to
work with him.'' I hope he is right. I believe Senator Wellstone is
right in that.
Based on my experience from the last 6 years of knowing Wade Horn and
his family, I believe we will appreciate the opportunity to work with
him. I feel confident those who question his nomination will come, in
the end, to be glad that he was nominated and that we voted to confirm
him.
I know others have gone back and looked at the words that have been
attributed to Dr. Horn in the past. They could do that for me or the
Presiding Officer or for any of us and have it appear we say things
that, taken out of context, we may not have really said or intended to
say. I have never heard Wade Horn speak about compelling women to
remain in an abusive relationship or threatening relationships. I have
heard him say that too many men fall short in meeting their obligations
to the children they father and to the women who bear those children.
I have never heard Wade Horn disparage single moms for the work that
they do in raising children. I have heard him speak of the need for
young girls to see, in their own lives, a father who treats a mother in
a way that that young girl herself would want to be treated by her
husband someday. I have heard him say there are young boys in this
country who need to see how a man treats his wife so that young boy
will know how he should treat his wife someday, when he has grown.
I have never heard Wade Horn say that children raised by single moms
routinely turn out badly. I have heard him say that all children
deserve to be raised by two loving, caring, nurturing parents, and that
includes their fathers.
I have heard it said that as to 16-year-old girls who become
pregnant, drop out of school, never marry the father of the children
that they bear, 80 percent of them--80 percent of those women and their
families will live in poverty at some point in time. As to the 16-year-
old girl who does not become pregnant, does not drop out of school,
graduates from school, waits until the age of 20 to have a child and
marries the father of that child, there is an 8-percent likelihood that
family will live in poverty--80 percent on the one hand, 8 percent on
the other hand.
I cannot stand here today and vouch for those numbers. But if they
are even close, I think they serve to underscore for us the need for
fathers, for men who father children, to take seriously their
obligation to the children they father and to the women who bear them.
I believe Wade Horn will serve in this capacity doing a number of
good things for the families of our country, men and women, boys and
girls. But I think he is going to be a good voice, a recurring voice,
one we need to hear, that says: Fathers are not dispensable. They are
as important today as they were 100 years ago or 200 years ago. We need
to remember that, those of us who are fathers and those of us who
someday will be.
I am pleased to rise today in support of this nomination, and I hope
it will receive ringing endorsement from this body.
[[Page S8189]]
I yield the floor.
Mr. KOHL. Madam President, I rise today to add my voice in support of
the nomination of Wade Horn to serve as Assistant Secretary for Family
Support at the Department of Health and Human Services.
I have had the pleasure of working with Wade Horn over the past few
years on an issue that is vitally important to both of us--making sure
that children receive the child support money they are owed. This has
been a very positive and productive working experience. Dr. Horn and I
share the goal of changing the current child support distribution
system, which harms children by allowing States and the Federal
Government to keep their child support money instead of distributing it
to the kids who need it. Through his experience, Wade Horn recognizes
that fathers pay more child support when they know their children will
actually receive their money and benefit from it. He understands that
the route to responsible fatherhood means we have to remove government-
created barriers that actually discourage fathers from paying child
support, and create more incentives for fathers to become actively
involved in their children's lives.
I have greatly appreciated Wade Horn's commitment to changing the
child support distribution system. His suggestions, input and advocacy
have helped move this issue forward during the past several years, and
I look forward to working with him to pass this vital legislation once
he is confirmed. Together, I am hopeful that he and Secretary Thompson,
who is also a tremendous advocate of child support distribution reform
in his own right, will make this a top priority in the Bush
Administration so that children get the support they are owed and need.
As President of the National Fatherhood Initiative, Dr. Horn
understands that fathers, mothers and children often need support and
help to maintain a strong and stable family life. His organization's
goal has been to encourage fathers to become positive role models for
their children and become fully involved in their lives. He has worked
to encourage greater support services and assistance for low-income
fathers so they can actively and responsibly participate in their
children's upbringing. Not only do their children benefit from their
support and involvement, but all of society reaps the benefits of
having stronger families.
I realize that some have raised concerns about views Dr. Horn has
expressed in the past regarding government support for single-parent
families. It is my understanding that he has reconsidered many of those
views and has committed to serving all families who need support and
assistance. I believe this is critical; our nation must address a
variety of issues to help working families of all shapes and sizes, and
I look forward to working with him on a range of issues important to
families--including increasing funding for Child Care, Head Start, and
continuing to provide support for families making the transition from
welfare to work. These will not be easy tasks, but I am hopeful that
Wade Horn will take a thoughtful, balanced approach to addressing these
matters. I urge my colleagues to support his nomination.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Madam President, I am proud to support the
nomination of Dr. Wade Horn to be the Assistant Secretary for Family
Support at the Department of Health and Human Services. As chairman of
the National Commission on Children, I had a unique opportunity to work
closely with Wade Horn. From that experience, I know how deeply Wade
cares about children and families. I know that Wade is willing to
listen to diverse views and find common ground, which will be key to
his success in this important position.
On the Children's Commission, committed advocates representing both
the liberal and conservative policy views came together to learn about
child development and we struggled to find bipartisan policy
initiatives to help children and their families. Our process was
intense, but it led to a bold, bipartisan report full of
recommendations to change policy to support children. Throughout that
process, I witnessed how Wade Horn was willing to take risks for the
right reasons.
I am proud to say that the Children's Commission report has been a
guidebook for my legislative initiatives on children's policy. While
there is much more to do on children's issues, we are making real
progress. The Children Commission that Dr. Horn and I supported in 1991
called for a refundable child tax credit and an improved Earned Income
Tax Credit. Our report recommended changing the welfare system, then
known as Aid to Families with Dependent Children. It stressed the
importance of child support enforcement. It called for education reform
with a greater emphasis on local schools. And it even had a
controversial chapter called ``Creating a Moral Climate for Children,''
which challenged public officials, the media, the entertainment
industry, and individuals to serve as role models for children.
Many of our recommendations from the Children's Commission have
become public policy, and I continue to build on this foundation.
While Dr. Horn and I do not agree on every issue, we do strongly
agree about the importance of supporting children and families. We
agree on the importance of bipartisanship on children's issues,
especially in the area of child welfare and adoption. We agree about
the importance of direct and honest communication and cooperation
between Congress and the Department of Health and Human Services.
Because I have worked with Dr. Wade Horn on the Children's Commission
and during his previous position in the first Bush administration, I am
confident that he will be a committed leader on children's issues in
this administration. I look forward to working with him, including on
the reauthorization of the Safe and Stable Families Program this year.
Mr. REID. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BROWNBACK. 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. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, what is the pending business?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending business is the nomination of Wade
Horn.
Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak on the
pending business for up to 10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I want to speak on behalf of the
nominee to be Assistant Secretary for Children and Families at the
Department of Health and Human Services, Dr. Wade Horn.
I got to know Dr. Horn while working with him on several fatherhood
initiatives. He has been an outstanding leader in the fatherhood
movement. And I am confident that he will serve with distinction in the
position to which he has been nominated.
Dr. Horn is a dedicated public servant, a distinguished child
psychologist, a skilled administrator, and an excellent choice to lead
the Administration for Children and Families--a key and critical
position for the administration.
Dr. Horn is a highly respected child psychiatrist, with a proven
record of both competence and integrity. He has consistently
demonstrated his deep commitment to increasing the well-being,
strength, and stability of families and children in general, and at-
risk children in particular.
It bears mention that Dr. Horn was previously confirmed by the Senate
11 years ago for the position of commissioner of the Administration for
Children, Youth and Families. As the Commissioner for the Children,
Youth and Families Administration, Dr. Horn administered numerous
programs serving children and families, including Head Start, foster
care and adoption assistance, the National Center on Child Abuse and
Neglect, runaway and homeless youth shelters, and various anti-drug
programs.
Since leaving the Department of Health and Human Services, Dr. Horn
has served as the President of the National Fatherhood Initiative--
where I really got to know him--a nonpartisan initiative which has
drawn the support and involvement of several Senators
[[Page S8190]]
from both sides of the aisle, including myself, Senator Lieberman,
Senator Carper, and Senator Bayh. As the President of the Fatherhood
Initiative, Dr. Horn has been at the forefront of the effort to
encourages fathers to become more involved in the lives of their
children and families. The Fatherhood Initiative has conducted both
national forums and targeted outreach programs to at-risk families to
encourage increased responsibility, affection, support, and involvement
of fathers something we desperately need in their country. He has also
authored regular columns dispensing advice to parents on how to raise
healthier, happier, and more secure children, which have helped and
encouraged literally thousands of families across the country.
One of the criticisms leveled against Dr. Horn is that he has sat on
the board of Marriage Savers, and has been involved in marriage
promotion programs. Why this is a criticism, I am not sure. Dr. Horn
would never, has never advocated that anyone stay in an abusive
marriage. No one believes this, despite inferences to the contrary on
the floor of this Senate. What he has done is worked with groups that
work with couples who want to strengthen their marriage and their
family. And I would think that working towards strengthening marriage
in our country--which has, let me note, a divorce rate near 50
percent--would be regarded as a positive qualification, not grounds for
criticism.
We have Marriage Savers programs in Kansas. In two counties in the
State of Kansas, Marriage Savers programs have helped to reduce divorce
rates by over thirty percent in that area. This is a great achievement,
not a questionable activity. That Dr. Horn's involvement with Marriage
Savers--a group dedicated to working with individuals who have
requested assistance in strengthening their marriage--would somehow be
cited as a red flag in Dr. Horn's record is utterly baffling.
Dr. Horn has never advocated that women stay in abusive situations.
He is saying that in marriages where children are involved, it is a
good thing for a married couple to try to work through their problems.
With the background, temperment, and record that Dr. Horn has, it is
difficult to understand why this nomination should have generated any
debate at all. I don't think that anyone can credibly raise a question
about Dr. Horn's qualifications for the job. I look forward to the
confirmation of Dr. Horn to the position of Assistant Secretary for
Children and Families at the Department of Health and Human Services,
and I wish him the best in this capacity.
Finally, I note that this is an extraordinarily qualified nominee to
this position. He is a person who has worked in this field virtually
his entire life, who has worked successfully in this field and in an
area of endeavor in which we need a lot of help. Our children and
families are suffering in this country. Dr. Horn has worked himself,
personally and directly, to put families back together. That is
something we should be applauding, not questioning or condemning.
I strongly support the nomination of Dr. Wade Horn to this position
within the Department of Health and Human Services.
Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the
quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Stabenow). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. REID. Madam President, on behalf of Senator Wellstone, I yield
back his time on the Horn nomination.
Madam President, is there further time on the other side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 2\1/2\ minutes remaining.
____________________