[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 42 (Tuesday, March 30, 2004)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3347-S3359]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



  While some of us in this body have not shared the administration's 
view on the war, we are united when it comes to supporting our troops. 
These young men and women from Active Duty, from the National Guard, 
and from the Reserves, are all volunteers. They exemplify the very 
essence of what it means to be patriotic.
  It is extremely important that we take action. Many in this body will 
remember that we proposed to do this last year as we were considering 
the Defense authorization bill. Our effort was not successful, although 
many Senators voted to go ahead with this legislative provision. The 
administration was not in favor, and the amendment failed.
  I am glad we are able to reintroduce it this year. I urge my 
colleagues to cosponsor this legislation and work with us to find an 
appropriate time when we can bring it up for a vote, or we can add it 
as an amendment to one of the bills that will be working its way 
through the Senate later this year.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I want to speak on the welfare reform bill.
  This has been an extraordinarily successful initiative which we began 
a few years ago. Its success is tied with the fact that States have 
been given a great deal more flexibility in the area of how they handle 
their welfare account. The fact is, we have set up as a purpose, as a 
government, that people who are on welfare will be given the 
opportunity, the skills, and the incentives to move off of welfare and 
move into a work environment, which is something that gives them 
personal credibility and personal self-respect, and at the same time 
assists us in reducing the public welfare rolls. It has been a huge and 
overwhelming success.
  One of the elements of moving off of welfare, of course, is the need 
of parents to have transitional support, especially single mothers as 
they go into the workforce while dealing with their children during the 
time they are working; in other words, some sort of childcare 
assistance.
  As part of this bill, we intend to offer an amendment for 
reauthorization of the Child Care Development Block Grant Program, 
called the Caring for Children Act of 2003.
  This amendment came out of the committee which I chair, the Health, 
Education, Labor and Pension Committee, unanimously. It came out with 
bipartisan support, obviously.
  It is an attempt to update our childcare block grant initiative and 
make it more meaningful for the issues of today. It also gives the 
dollars it needs to be effective.
  The bill will not only stress increased spending, it has $1 billion 
of new funding from the discretionary accounts.
  Earlier today, there was a vote on an initiative to add $6 billion 
over 5 years to the childcare development grant. That money would be 
mandatory, and it was not paid for; it was outside the budget. There 
was a euphemistic attempt to pay for it--a superficial attempt--
actually, what amounted to the ultimate shell game attempt as an offset 
which was cited and which has been used on, I believe, 17 different 
occasions as a claimed offset in this body.
  The real effect of the bill was to go way outside the budget and add 
a huge new tranche of dollars beyond the budget which would be fine had 
it been realistically offset. But it wasn't.
  This bill has in it a true increase which is an appropriate increase 
of $1 billion over that period of the bill. That is a significant 
infusion of new funds. Plus it addresses some of the concerns of the 
program, one of the concerns being as children are getting childcare 
they should also be getting some sort of development in the capacity of 
learning. Obviously, these are very young children. But they should 
have a learning component in their childcare experience, something that 
will put them in a position where they will be able to be at a level 
where their peers are--other young children who are receiving 
childcare.
  It has language in it which encourages the States to include a 
voluntary guideline initiative in the area of prereading and language 
skills. The absolutely critical essence of learning is language skills 
and the ability to do phonics and identify letters and be able to get 
ready for reading. This bill has in it that language.
  It also has in it a commitment to low-income parents. At least 70 
percent of these dollars has the flow-through stage, actually, to the 
parents--in many cases a single parent. So the parent is getting the 
benefits. And we aren't simply siphoning it off into the bureaucracy, 
which often happens, regrettably, through administrative overhead but, 
rather, directing this money to the hands of the parents, especially 
the low-income parent so the parent can use this to assist them in 
transitioning off the welfare rolls by taking care of their children 
during the workday.

  It gives parents a significant amount of choice. They can use 
different daycare types of facilities. Some which are faith-based are 
allowed to be used, or they can use it even if it is being provided by 
relatives and neighbors. That is important.
  Further, the bill addresses a need to make sure that States focus on 
improving the quality of childcare. This is a very significant concern 
that many of us have, which is that a lot of the childcare today is, 
unfortunately, not of a quality that gives the child the support 
services they need or the academic assistance they might need in order 
to be brought up to speed with peers who are in different childcare 
delivery systems.
  It allows States to set aside a certain percentage of the money in 
order to assess quality and try to improve quality. This gives the 
States more flexibility in this area, but it also gives them an impetus 
to go in the right direction.
  It is, therefore, a bill which does a lot of good.
  As I mentioned, it was reported out of our committee unanimously. It 
will be, hopefully, added to the base bill either by a formal vote or 
as part of the managers' amendment.
  But we have to get back to the fundamental quandary which confronts 
us today, which is that the base welfare reform bill that is pending 
before the Congress is being held up by the other side of the aisle.
  This is becoming a pattern of obstruction which we have seen 
throughout this session of the Congress, and it appears its intensity 
is actually increasing. Bills are coming to the floor

[[Page S3348]]

now which are important pieces of legislation on which there is a 
general consensus.
  As I mentioned, this language reported out of our committee to 
strengthen the block grants for childcare was reported unanimously. Yet 
these bills are being stopped dead in their tracks by the insistence of 
the other side of the aisle to put on these bills extraneous issues 
which are of a politically charged nature, the purpose of which is not 
to pass them but simply to generate a political vote which can be used 
in the coming election.
  We all do that. We all set up the political votes. But they should 
not be used as aggressively as they are today by the Democratic Party 
as a means of stopping legitimate legislation. The obstruction coming 
from the other side of the aisle is unconscionable.
  Last week, for example, a bill which would have corrected the 
problems which many of our manufacturers in this country are going to 
confront, specifically a duty that is going to be assessed on their 
goods sold overseas, a duty which could go up as high as 18 percent--
and that duty was a function of the fact we lost a World Trade court 
decision which allows this duty to go forward--that bill which would 
have corrected that, put an end to the duty and thus allow 
manufacturing jobs and service-oriented jobs in the United States to 
continue to expand and flourish, that bill was killed in this Senate 
because of extraneous issues which the other side of the aisle, the 
Democratic Party, decided they wanted to bring forward. They would not 
allow the bill to go forward without those extraneous issues being 
voted on.
  The bill had absolute consensus. There was a belief, there is a 
belief, there should be a belief, that American jobs should not be lost 
as a result of our tax laws being found illegal by a body which we 
subscribe to, the World Trade Organization, and that we should correct 
that problem, and we can correct it rather effectively, and that 
correction will save jobs in the United States. That will not happen 
now because of the obstruction coming from the other side of the aisle. 
It is one in a series of obstructions.
  Now we see the exact same thing happen in the area of welfare reform. 
Literally, in the last 5 years, there have been very few laws as 
successful that this Congress has passed as welfare reform. It was so 
successful--it was an idea put forward on this side of the aisle--once 
it passed and started to work, it was immediately adopted by the other 
side of the aisle as theirs.
  President Clinton had the right to take credit; he was President when 
the bill was passed. He was President and takes credit as one of the 
strong elements of service of his Presidency. And I am glad he takes 
credit.
  Now when we try to reauthorize and improve it significantly through 
the block grant proposal which we brought out of our bipartisan 
committee, now when we try to move the bill forward so we can continue 
with the welfare reform experience of the last few years and make sure 
that experience continues to allow people to move from public 
assistance to work and give people self-confidence, self-respect, and 
self-esteem as a result of attaining work, that bill has been stopped 
once again by the Democratic membership of this body coming forward and 
saying they want to cast a political vote on an unrelated issue.
  It is these actions that one has to question the purpose. Why, when 
bills have been agreed to which will significantly improve the 
lifestyle of Americans, the number of jobs Americans have in the case 
of the tax bill which was just stopped last week, or the number of 
people moving from welfare to work, which is getting good jobs and 
moving out of a public assistance situation and getting self-respect, 
why are these bills being stopped for purely political purposes by the 
other side of the aisle bringing forward extraneous amendments.

  It is an unconscionable action, in my opinion. It is regrettable that 
the childcare block grant proposal, the reauthorization of which came 
out of our committee unanimously and which represents a significant 
improvement, especially in this area of trying to get learning into the 
childcare experience, trying to get quality in the childcare 
experience, giving States more flexibility and putting more money into 
the program in the context of a responsible budget bill, why that would 
be stopped also is beyond me. It is not beyond me; it is fairly 
obvious. The purpose here is to make a political statement. It is a 
political statement, come heck or high water. It does not matter that 
the making of the political statement will cost people jobs and make it 
harder to move from welfare to work, creating a poorer and a less well-
financed childcare block grant program.
  It is unfortunate. It is the politics of the day. I know the American 
people do not focus too much on what we do in the Senate in the day-to-
day regime. I hope the American people take the time to learn what has 
transpired in this body in the last 6 to 8 months. The obstructionism 
on the other side of the aisle has become the cause of the day, the 
purpose of every event. This obstructionism continues and grows as we 
move closer to the election. The practical effect of this 
obstructionism coming from the other side of the aisle is that good 
things which help working Americans keep jobs, move from welfare to 
work, ensuring their kids have quality daycare, good things like that 
are being stopped as a result of this unrequited obstructionism coming 
from the other side of the aisle.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.


                            Nevada Champions

  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, my colleague from Nevada, Senator Reid, 
and I will take a couple of minutes and exercise our privileges as 
Senators to brag a little bit about our State and the recent 
accomplishments of the University of Nevada basketball team and their 
rise to the Sweet 16.
  The Nevada Wolf Pack brought a lot of pride to our State. It is not a 
school known for basketball. Certainly, they had more football success 
in the years past. However, this year they surprised many in the 
Nation. It was obviously a heart-breaking loss to Georgia Tech last 
week. But Coach Trent Johnson, the whole Wolf Pack team and all the 
people surrounded with the program deserve a lot of credit for the 
season they put together. We expect big things from them in the future.
  For a school such as the University of Nevada, a school that does not 
have the reputation of the University of Connecticut or Duke, it is 
more difficult to get the kind of players to go up to Reno to play 
basketball. They have players from Virginia City, Elko, and some of the 
other small towns around Nevada.
  Coach Johnson crafted a team providing a good lesson for all of us to 
learn. If you can work together as a team, you can achieve true 
greatness. That is what his team did this year. Earlier in the year 
they beat the University of Kansas, beat them very soundly. Then 
through the March Madness, they made it all the way through the Sweet 
16.
  It was funny to listen to the various announcers talk about our team 
and trash them, not even understanding how to pronounce ``Nevada.'' We 
do not use their pronunciation. It was funny to listen to them saying 
they did not have a chance; they did not know how to play basketball. 
Certainly the coach from the University of Nevada and the rest of the 
players proved them wrong.
  I rise today to congratulate them on a great season and look forward 
to their success.
  I also wish the Lady Rebels from the University of Nevada Las Vegas 
success tonight. They are in the WNIT championship. We have a lot to be 
proud of in our State. I join my colleague, Senator Harry Reid, in 
congratulating especially the Nevada Wolf Pack for what they have 
achieved. Hopefully, we will be able to talk about the championship the 
Lady Rebels will achieve tonight.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. I hope Senator Ensign and I are able to be on the same team 
working here in the Senate as the University of Nevada at Reno was 
during this basketball season. We strive to do that. They have set a 
good example for us and for everyone.
  We may be outnumbered in the State of Nevada. There may be a lot of 
States with more people than we have, but Senator Ensign and I realize 
every State only has two Senators. We believe as a result of that, of 
our working together, we can have the same

[[Page S3349]]

strength and power some of the more populated States have. I have 
enjoyed and appreciated working as a team with Senator Ensign during 
his tenure in the Senate.
  I also today want to extend my congratulations to Coach Trent Johnson 
and the basketball team at the University of Nevada. We have in recent 
years reached goals in our athletic programs at the University of 
Nevada, but for Coach Ault and his football team, they have been good.
  I remember going to Georgia Southern to watch UNR play them for the 
national championship, in Division II. And though we lost that game, it 
was a great thrill to reach that level, which was significant for the 
university.

  Since that time, the University of Nevada football has moved into 
Division I. Basketball has always been Division I.
  Now, many years ago, the Wolf Pack was known all over the country. It 
had, at one time, three All-Americans on its football team. We had 
Marion Motley, who is now a member of the Football Hall of Fame, who 
played football at the University of Nevada, at Reno. And we had other 
great players, Dick Trachok, Tommy Kaminer, and many others, but that 
is many years ago.
  So what Senator Ensign said about the Wolf Pack Basketball Team is 
significant. They had not been to an NCAA tournament for 19 years. They 
had never, in the history of the school, won an NCAA game.
  This year they were forecast, by all the prognosticators, to continue 
that ``never to win a game.'' The first team they played was the great 
Michigan State. They beat Michigan State. Then the prognosticators 
said: Well, that was a fluke. There is no way in the world they will 
beat the highest ranked Gonzaga team. Gonzaga, all year, had lost one 
game. That game was not close. UNR moved through there very quickly.
  Then they moved on to the Sweet Sixteen. They played Georgia Tech. 
They led Georgia Tech at half time, and it was really an exciting game. 
They lost. But other than my being disappointed because they did not go 
to the Final Four, I join my colleague in expressing my congratulations 
to this great basketball team.
  We have focused so much attention, in years past, with the UNLV 
basketball team, the Runnin' Rebels, that has overshadowed the 
accomplishments of the University of Nevada, at Reno. But that will no 
longer ever be said as a result of the great accomplishment made by 
this team.
  I want to say something about the importance of coaching. Trent 
Johnson came from Stanford. He was an assistant coach over there. He 
came 5 years ago. He accepted the challenge of being a head coach of a 
Division I school. But, frankly, the record that he was given was 
pretty dismal. The year that he took over, he looked back to see that 
the prior year they had won 8 games and lost 18. This year they won 24 
games. That is the turnaround.
  As Senator Ensign mentioned, they beat Kansas, which was ranked No. 1 
at the time. Early in the year, people knew they would be pretty good 
because they almost beat Connecticut, which, at that time, was also 
ranked No. 1.
  Few people thought they could make the strides that they did except 
their coach, Trent Johnson. He is an outstanding coach. It is my 
understanding and my hope that the people in Reno have done everything 
they can to make him happy. He is a great coach, and this record of his 
will only continue.
  I want to reflect a little bit on this team. It was led by the player 
of the year in the Western Athletic Conference, a man by the name of 
Kirk Snyder. He is a junior. If he wants to go pro, he will be drafted 
in the first round.
  During the times I have watched him during the games this year, and 
listened to the games, the sportscasters always focused on this man who 
was so good.
  They also had a point guard by the name of Todd Okeson, someone who 
is a senior, and was the sparkplug of that team. He was the point 
guard, but he also scored very well.

  There were other fine players on that team. They may not have scored 
over 20 points a game as did Kirk Snyder, but they did many other good 
things. Gary Hill-Thomas was a great defender. Kevin Pinkney was one of 
the great rebounders. And then there was a young man by the name of 
Nick Fazekas, who is almost 7 feet tall, a freshman, and has a soft 
touch. He stepped in at very crucial times during the tournament and 
made key baskets, and came to the free throw line and always came 
through.
  But we also had players from Nevada. They are not all out-of-Staters. 
For example, Sean Paul, the ``Elko Enforcer,'' comes from the town of 
Elko in northeastern Nevada. And there were other players: Jermaine 
Washington and Marcelus Kemp.
  These players have made Coach Johnson proud. I am confident that is 
one reason Coach Johnson is going to stay at the University of Nevada, 
at Reno. We want him, and I certainly hope he stays. I am confident 
that he will.
  All these players, and especially the coach, have made Nevadans 
proud.
  Sometimes when a team loses in a tournament, people say: ``Wait until 
next year.'' But I think everyone in Nevada is going to dwell on the 
fact that this team did well, and we are going to savor this remarkable 
season by UNR, and not dwell on next year.
  Senator Ensign mentioned, and I also want to mention, that we also 
have a great coach at UNLV. She coaches the UNLV Runnin' Rebels. The 
Lady Rebels are very good. They came within one point of going to the 
NCAA tournament. They are now in the National Invitation Tournament, 
and they are in the finals. They are going to play Creighton tonight 
for the National Invitation Championship. They have done great.
  I love to watch the Lady Rebels. I have gone and met with these young 
women and have spoken with the coach. So I congratulate Coach Miller 
and her Lady Rebels for the great notoriety they have focused on the 
University of Nevada Las Vegas this year and wish them well in their 
tournament game tonight.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.


                           Amendment No. 2945

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I would like to say a few words about the 
pending amendment offered by the Senators from California and 
Massachusetts; namely, the minimum wage amendment. I would like to 
point out the effect of the current minimum wage on people today, and 
particularly as to where they are with respect to poverty in America.
  Let me refer to this chart. This chart represents the relationship 
between the minimum wage and the poverty line for a family of two, 
beginning in the year 1988, and up through the year 2002.
  From this chart you can see, quite visibly, frankly--with the minimum 
wage represented in green and the poverty line being the line just 
below the blue--that as the minimum wage increased in 1989, and in a 
step sort of function up to 1998, that for a person who had a job, with 
a family of two--let's say a single mom had a full-time job but made 
the minimum wage--they were still below the Federal poverty level, 
until about 1998, and then they could just barely surpass the poverty 
level.
  I point this out because it does not seem right that a person who has 
a full-time job at a minimum wage still lives in poverty.
  Now, that is bad enough. But let me show you how much worse it gets. 
This next chart shows the relationship between the minimum wage and 
poverty for a family of three: let's say a mom and dad and a child. By 
this chart one can tell very easily that the gap between the poverty 
line and the minimum wage is much greater for a family of three than it 
even is for a family of two. In fact, if I have my numbers correct, the 
amount is about $3,681. That is the gap.
  I point out, again, for a family of three, with one breadwinner--say 
with a father who is at the minimum wage--that family of three will 
find itself, on average, over a year's time, about $3,600 of income 
less than the Federal poverty level. That family is living in poverty 
even though the breadwinner of that family is working full time.
  And it gets worse, as you might expect.
  Let's take a family of four, say a father and a mother, and two 
children. Say one parent is working full time at a minimum wage job. 
Because the increase in the minimum wage has been

[[Page S3350]]

so slow, the gap between what that family earns and the Federal poverty 
level is even greater.
  In fact, it is about twice as much, which means that a family of four 
with one wage earner at the minimum wage is earning about half of what 
the Federal poverty level is. I don't think that is right. I frankly 
don't understand why some people do not want a significant increase in 
the minimum wage.
  Let me tell you a personal story. Personal stories sometimes are out 
of context, but it meant a lot to me. One year I was walking across my 
State in Montana campaigning. To be honest, I learned an awful lot just 
by talking to people who I just happened to meet walking down the roads 
and highways and visiting in people's homes. A lot of it had to do with 
welfare. I remember talking to many people on welfare who told me they 
did not want to be on welfare. They hated it. They wanted to be off 
welfare.
  One of the main factors they mentioned to me as to why it is so 
difficult to get off of welfare is because of the minimum wage laws. 
They are working maybe at McDonald's or someplace else in a minimum 
wage job, but because the minimum wage rates were so low, they couldn't 
make ends meet.
  It is hard to know when to believe people. It is hard to know when to 
think what people say is right or not, but you have to read between the 
lines. You have to get a sense of what is going on. It was very clear 
to me that these people were speaking the truth, certainly as they 
perceived it. If there were a significant increase in their wages, they 
could then get off of welfare.
  It is tied to the earlier debate on childcare. I ran into a lot of 
women, single moms who said the same thing to me. They were really 
earnest. I wish you could have seen the expressions on their faces 
saying that they wanted to stay off of welfare.
  One young single mom explained to me that she slept on her mother's 
sofa so she could avoid having to pay for a room someplace. She had a 
minimum wage job. Her childcare expenses were so high she could not 
handle it anymore and she had to go back on to welfare. She hated it.
  In those few instances, people I talked to just by happenstance--
chance encounters--that is what they have said to me.
  We have to make judgments sometimes. One of the judgments I have made 
is that our current minimum wage is too low. For a civilized country, 
the United States of America, we can do a heck of a lot better.
  Sometimes you hear business people say it will increase their cost of 
business. It probably will slightly. But if everybody is getting paid 
more, more dollars flow into the economy. People are more likely to not 
be on welfare, and they are more likely to have a little more self-
esteem. They are more likely to be able to advance themselves. Most 
people want to advance themselves. They want a better life for their 
families and their kids. Some just find themselves caught in difficult 
situations.
  I hope people will look at these charts and see how dramatic the 
difference is between the minimum wage income on the one hand and the 
Federal poverty level on the other. The income of someone on the 
minimum wage is much below the Federal poverty level. It does not seem 
right that a person working full time, whether he or she has one child, 
or is married, or whether he or she has three in the family or four, 
should live so far below the Federal poverty level. That is not right. 
If they are going to work full time, they should be able to live 
outside of poverty.
  I urge Senators to support the amendment offered by the Senator from 
California.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. MILLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed 
to speak up to 15 minutes as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                          The 9/11 Commission

  Mr. MILLER. Mr. President, after watching the harsh acrimony 
generated by the September 11 Commission--which, let me say at the 
outset, is made up of good and able members--I have come to seriously 
question this panel's usefulness. I believe it will ultimately play a 
role in doing great harm to this country, for its unintended 
consequences, I fear, will be to energize our enemies and demoralize 
our troops.
  After being drowned in a tidal wave of all who didn't do enough 
before 9/11, I have come to believe that the Commission should issue a 
report that says: No one did enough. In the past, no one did near 
enough. And then thank everybody for serving, send them home, and let's 
get on with the job of protecting this country in the future.
  Tragically, these hearings have proved to be a very divisive 
diversion for this country. Tragically, they have devoured valuable 
time looking backward instead of looking forward. Can you imagine 
handling the attack on Pearl Harbor this way? Can you imagine Congress, 
the media, and the public standing for this kind of political 
gamesmanship and finger-pointing after that day of infamy in 1941?
  Some partisans tried that ploy, but they were soon quieted by the 
patriots who understood how important it was to get on with the war and 
take the battle to America's enemies and not dwell on what FDR knew, 
when. You see, back then the highest priority was to win a war, not to 
win an election. That is what made them the greatest generation.
  I realize that many well-meaning Americans see the hearings as 
democracy in action. Years ago when I was teaching political science, I 
probably would have had my class watching it live on television and 
using that very same phrase with them.
  There are also the not-so-well-meaning political operatives who see 
these hearings as an opportunity to score cheap points. And then there 
are the media meddlers who see this as great theater that can be played 
out on the evening news and on endless talk shows for a week or more.
  Congressional hearings have long been one of Washington's most 
entertaining pastimes. Joe McCarthy, Watergate, Iran-Contra--they all 
kept us glued to the TV and made for conversations around the water 
coolers or arguments over a beer at the corner pub.
  A congressional hearing in Washington, DC is the ultimate aphrodisiac 
for political groupies and partisan punks. But it is not the groupies, 
punks, and television-sotted American public that I am worried about. 
This latter crowd can get excited and divided over just about anything, 
whether it is some off-key wannabe dreaming of being the American idol, 
or what brainless bimbo ``The Bachelor'' or ``Average Joe'' will 
choose, or who Donald Trump will fire next week. No, it is the real 
enemies of America that I am concerned about. These evil killers who 
right now are gleefully watching the shrill partisan finger-pointing of 
these hearings and grinning like a mule eating briars.
  They see this as a major split within the great Satan, America. They 
see anger. They see division, instability, bickering, peevishness, and 
dissension. They see the President of the United States hammered 
unmercifully. They see all this, and they are greatly encouraged.
  We should not be doing anything to encourage our enemies in this 
battle between good and evil. Yet these hearings, in my opinion, are 
doing just that. We are playing with fire. We are playing directly into 
the hands of our enemy by allowing these hearings to become the great 
divider they have become.
  Dick Clarke's book and its release coinciding with these hearings 
have done this country a tremendous disservice and some day we will 
reap its whirlwind.
  Long ago, Sir Walter Scott observed that revenge is ``the sweetest 
morsel that ever was cooked in hell.''
  The vindictive Clarke has now had his revenge, but what kind of hell 
has he, his CBS publisher, and his axe-to-grind advocates unleashed?
  These hearings, coming on the heels of the election the terrorists 
influenced in Spain, bolster and energize our evil enemies as they have 
not been energized since 9/11.
  Chances are very good that these evil enemies of America will attempt 
to influence our 2004 election in a similar dramatic way as they did 
Spain's. And to think that could never be in this country is to stick 
your head in the sand.

[[Page S3351]]

  That is why the sooner we stop this endless bickering over the past 
and join together to prepare for the future, the better off this 
country will be. There are some things--whether this city believes it 
or not--that are just more important than political campaigns.
  The recent past is so ripe for political second-guessing, ``gotcha,'' 
and Monday morning quarterbacking. And it is so tempting in an election 
year. We should not allow ourselves to indulge that temptation. We 
should put our country first.
  Every administration, from Jimmy Carter to George W. Bush, bears some 
of the blame. Dick Clarke bears a big heap of it, because it was he who 
was in the catbird's seat to do something about it for more than a 
decade. Tragically, it was the decade in which we did the least.
  We did nothing after terrorists attacked the World Trade Center in 
1993, killing six and injuring more than a thousand Americans.
  We did nothing in 1996 when 16 U.S. servicemen were killed in the 
bombing of the Khobar Towers.
  When our embassies were attacked in 1998, killing 263 people, our 
only response was to fire a few missiles on an empty tent.
  Is it any wonder that after that decade of weak-willed responses to 
that murderous terror, our enemies thought we would never fight back?
  In the 1990s is when Dick Clarke should have resigned. In the 1990s 
is when he should have apologized. That is when he should have written 
his book--that is, if he really had America's best interests at heart.
  Now, I know some will say we owe it to the families to get more 
information about what happened in the past, and I can understand that. 
But no amount of finger-pointing will bring our victims back.
  So now we owe it to the future families and all of America now in 
jeopardy not to encourage more terrorists, resulting in even more 
grieving families--perhaps many times over the ones of 9/11.
  It is obvious to me that this country is rapidly dividing itself into 
two camps--the wimps and the warriors: the ones who want to argue and 
assess and appease, and the ones who want to carry this fight to our 
enemies and kill them before they kill us. In case you have not figured 
it out, I proudly belong to the latter.
  This is a time like no other time in the history of this country. 
This country is being crippled with petty partisan politics of the 
worst possible kind. In time of war, it is not just unpatriotic; it is 
stupid; it is criminal.
  So I pray that all this time, all this energy, all this talk, and all 
of the attention could be focused on the future instead of the past.

  I pray we would stop pointing fingers and assigning blame and 
wringing our hands about what happened on that day David AcUology has 
called ``the worst day in all our history'' more than 2 years ago, and 
instead, pour all our energy into how we can kill these terrorists 
before they kill us--again.
  Make no mistake about it: They are watching these hearings and they 
are scheming and smiling about the distraction and the divisiveness 
that they see in America. And while they might not know who said it 
years ago in America, they know instinctively that a house divided 
cannot stand.
  There is one other group that we should remember is listening to all 
of this--our troops.
  I was in Iraq in January. One day, when I was meeting with the 1st 
Armored Division, a unit with a proud history, known as Old Ironsides, 
we were discussing troop morale, and the commanding general said it was 
top notch.
  I turned to the division's sergeant major, the top enlisted man in 
the division, a big, burly 6-foot-3, 240 pound African American, and I 
said: ``That's good, but how do you sustain that kind of morale?''
  Without hesitation, he narrowed his eyes, and he looked at me and 
said: ``The morale will stay high just as long as these troops know the 
people back home support us.''
  Just as long as the people back home support us. What kind of message 
are these hearings and the outrageously political speeches on the floor 
of the Senate yesterday sending to the marvelous young Americans in the 
uniform of our country?
  I say: Unite America before it is too late. Put aside these petty 
partisan differences when it comes to the protection of our people. 
Argue and argue and argue, debate and debate and debate over all the 
other things, such as jobs, education, the deficit, and the 
environment; but please, please do not use the lives of Americans and 
the security of this country as a cheap-shot political talking point.
  I yield the floor.
  (Mrs. DOLE assumed the Chair.)
  Mr. ENZI. Madam President, I thank my colleague from Georgia for his 
outstanding comments. There is a war going on and he made some 
outstanding points. I have heard several of his speeches and learned a 
lot from each of them.
  I am going to speak now on, I believe, the pending amendment, the 
Boxer-Kennedy amendment. I will share my thoughts about raising the 
Federal minimum wage. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle keep 
talking about the loss of American jobs, but their actions don't match 
up to their words.
  If my colleagues are so concerned about unemployment, why would they 
do something that would eliminate jobs in this country? If my 
colleagues are so concerned about helping poor families, why would they 
do something that hurts poor families the most? Their effort to 
increase the minimum wage, while attacking the President on job 
creation, is not based on sound policy and economics.
  There is an effort underway to put a smokescreen of unrelated 
amendments that mask election year politics in misleading rhetoric. It 
is being done on the reauthorization of the welfare bill.
  It is time for us to look beyond the smokescreen and see who is 
really helped and who is really hurt by Senator Kennedy's amendment to 
raise the Federal minimum wage.
  Every student who has taken an economics course knows if you increase 
the price of something--in this case, the minimum wage job--you 
decrease the demand for those jobs. A survey of members of the American 
Economic Association revealed that 77 percent of economists believe 
that a minimum wage hike causes job loss.
  For small businesses, where most of the job creation in this country 
is generated, a minimum wage increase is particularly harmful. Having 
owned a small business in Wyoming, I can speak from personal experience 
about how detrimental a minimum wage increase would be for small 
businesses and job growth.
  I need to explain something. Very few people in the shoe business I 
was in were working at the minimum wage, which my wife and I preferred 
to call the level of minimum skills. Those are the people who first 
came in and did not have any capability in the kind of job they were 
going to be doing and we had a starting wage, a starting skills wage. 
Anybody who was in that wage more than 3 months was not paying 
attention, and that is the way with most of the businesses in this 
country.
  The minimum wage is the minimum skills wage, and it is the starting 
wage. It does have an effect on other wages as well. When we raise the 
minimum wage, then to keep the proper spread between employees of 
different skills, other jobs get raises, too. Of course, when that 
happens, there has to be a way to pay for it, and the way to pay for 
that almost always comes from raising prices. If you raise prices and 
wages, there is not much gain.
  How do I explain to my constituents, most of whom rely on small 
business for their livelihood, that Congress wants to do something that 
would foster job loss instead of job creation?
  Every day I read letters to the editors of the Wyoming newspapers. 
One appeared in the Casper Star from one of my constituents about his 
concerns in September 2002. I came across this letter again. It was 
written by Imo Harned of Douglas, WY, about the effects of a minimum 
wage increase. It is a reminder about the true cost of minimum wage 
increases.
  I ask unanimous consent to print this letter in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                       That's Like no Help at All

       Editor: I first became interested in the effects of raising 
     minimum wage in the 1960s.

[[Page S3352]]

     An employer I knew fired three men he'd employed as watchmen. 
     He remarked that it was worth something to have warm bodies 
     around, but not at 75 cents an hour. Since then I have made 
     it a habit from time to time to ask an employer if raising 
     minimum wage makes a difference to his business. No matter if 
     he pays one person or dozens, the answer is always the same. 
     ``There are X number of dollars in the budget and I can't 
     exceed that amount. If it means cutting hours or firing 
     workers, I have to do it to stay within the budget.'' 
     Personal observations show that within a week of a raise in 
     minimum wage, groceries will raise enough to absorb the 
     increase. Also, people who make more than minimum have to pay 
     the increased costs too, so it amounts to a cut in pay for 
     those who make more.
       Several years ago the Wall Street Journal did a study 
     showing that living standards have remained unchanged for 
     people earning minimum wage since that wage was 50 cents an 
     hour! The only difference was that those poor people were in 
     a higher tax bracket and had to pay more taxes.
       A person who begins working at minimum wage, who works hard 
     and earns an increase in pay should not be penalized by being 
     returned to the beginning again. Neither should anyone be 
     penalized by having to pay the increased food and utilities 
     that follow every time the minimum wage is increased.
                                              Imo Harned, Douglas.

  Mr. ENZI. Madam President, I have listened to my colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle who support a minimum wage increase. I have 
seen their charts and heard their arguments. However, none of their 
charts or arguments can refute the commonsense and real world 
observation of Imo Harned from Douglas, WY.
  Mr. Harned writes--I am quoting part of it and the whole letter is 
printed in the Record. I am sure my colleagues will want to read it:

     . . . I have made it a habit from time to time to ask an 
     employer if raising minimum wage makes a difference to his 
     business. No matter if he pays one person or dozens, the 
     answer is always the same: ``There are X number of dollars in 
     the budget and I can't exceed that amount. If it means 
     cutting hours or firing workers, I have to do it to stay 
     within the budget.'' Personal observations show that within a 
     week of a raise in minimum wage, groceries will raise enough 
     to absorb the increase. Also, people who make more than 
     minimum have to pay the increased costs, too, so it amounts 
     to a cut in pay for those who make more.

  Mr. Harned saw through the phony economics of a minimum wage 
increase. He reached the same conclusion as two Stanford economists: A 
minimum wage increase is paid for by higher prices that hurt poor 
families the most. Some argue that we need to increase the minimum wage 
to help poor families. However, the 2001 study conducted by Stanford 
University economists found that only one in four of the poorest 20 
percent of families would benefit from an increase in the minimum wage. 
Three in four of the poorest workers would be hurt by a wage hike 
because they would shoulder the costs of resulting higher prices. A 
Federal wage hike will hurt the very people the underlying welfare 
reauthorization bill is designed to help: America's poor families.
  I have held on to Mr. Harned's letter as a reminder of the dangers of 
a ``Washington knows best'' and a ``one size fits all'' mentality. An 
increase in the Federal minimum wage is a classic lesson that 
Washington does not know best and one size does not fit all.
  A Federal wage mandate does not account for the cost of living that 
varies across the country. It costs over twice as much to live in New 
York City than in Cheyenne, WY. However, a Federal minimum wage hike 
that applies coast to coast is like saying a bag of groceries in New 
York City must cost the same as a bag of groceries in Cheyenne. Local 
labor market conditions and the cost of living determines pay rates, 
not Federal minimum wage laws dictated from Washington.
  I support an increase for all wages, but that increase should be 
fueled by a strong, free market economy, not by an artificial Federal 
mandate that hurts business and workers alike. Artificial wage hikes 
drive prices up. We should not trick workers into thinking they are 
earning more when they still cannot pay the bills at the end of the 
month. We should not trick the American people into believing that the 
phony economics of a minimum wage increase will improve the standard of 
living in this country. Nor should we trick the American people into 
believing that a minimum wage increase is without cost.
  The smoke and mirrors of a minimum wage increase is not the way for 
American workers to find and keep well-paying jobs. We have to 
encourage, not discourage, job creation, and we have to equip our 
workers with the skills needed to compete in the new global economy.

  It is one of my goals to make sure that the unfilled higher paying 
jobs can be filled by Americans. I talked about the minimum wage being 
a minimum skills wage. There are higher paying jobs out there, but you 
have to have the skills for them. How do you get the skills for them? 
We have a bill. It is called the Workforce Investment Act. It 
reauthorizes the Nation's job training and employment system, and it 
updates it to the modern jobs. It allows people to be working in the 
areas of highest need in this country, instead of forcing those jobs 
overseas.
  That bill passed out of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 
Committee unanimously. We passed it on the Senate floor by unanimous 
consent last November. That means nobody wanted to amend it and nobody 
objected to what was in the bill. That is as bipartisan as you can get.
  Where is that bill now? It is languishing around here because the 
minority party will not let us get a conference committee appointed to 
resolve the differences with the House, the final step for the bill. 
The House has passed a bill. It is a little different from the Senate 
bill. But we need to meet and work out the differences and get that 
final bill.
  What does this mean in the way of jobs? Training for 900,000 jobs a 
year. That is pretty significant, training for 900,000 jobs a year. I 
kind of get the feeling we do not want to resolve that until after 
November so that it can be a part of the politics of the Presidency. 
That is wrong. It ought to be worked out now. We ought to have a 
conference committee. We ought to get it done. If we want to take care 
of jobs in this country, if we want people to be making more and to be 
making more real money, we ought to get them trained into the skilled 
positions in the jobs that are vacant in this country right now before 
we ship them over to another country. We need to have a conference 
committee. That would provide jobs. That will provide increased wages. 
That will provide real increased wages, not just inflationary wages 
that will drive up the price of all of the goods and absorb, as Mr. 
Harned said, in 1 week the amount of the raise.
  I owe Mr. Harned and all my constituents sound policy, not election 
year rhetoric. I owe it to Mr. Harned and all of my constituents to 
remove the smokescreen around the minimum wage debate and expose its 
true cost.
  The Boxer-Kennedy amendment to raise the Federal minimum wage ignores 
the true cost of a minimum wage increase on America's workers and 
businessmen.
  I hope we can put this debate, which is unrelated to the underlying 
bill, behind us. I hope we can move beyond election year theatrics and 
get to the real work of helping America's low-income families.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose the Boxer-Kennedy amendment and to 
read the letter of Mr. Harned in full.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Madam President, I appreciate the Senator from Iowa 
giving me the opportunity to sit in this august chair he so ably 
occupies on more than just a few occasions on the Senate floor where we 
seem to have Finance Committee bills on a pretty frequent basis. He 
works diligently. He has been called away to do some other things so I 
am going to take this opportunity to speak, as we are stuck on an 
amendment that is nongermane to this bill, and which was offered with 
the full knowledge that this would severely jeopardize this bill being 
moved to passage.
  Earlier today we had a good debate on daycare funding. We passed an 
amendment that added $6 billion more in daycare funding to this bill. 
Current funding for the Child Care and Development Fund is $4.8 
billion. The committee added $1 billion more. Why did we add this 
increase in funding? Because in the bill we increased the work 
requirement by 20 percent.
  Now I would make the argument we did not actually increase it by 20 
percent because we give partial credit to the States, so it is probably 
not a 20-

[[Page S3353]]

percent increase. At most, we increase the work requirement in this 
bill by 20 percent. So we also increased the daycare funding.
  Candidly, there is probably not even that much of a direct 
correlation. It is probably not even going to be required to have 20 
percent more to meet this work requirement, but we did it, anyway.
  The HELP Committee comes forward with a proposal that is $2.3 billion 
more in childcare that will be in this bill, and then today we add $6 
billion more. That is a 100-percent increase in daycare funding for a 
20-percent increase in work requirements. I am starting to rethink the 
work requirements at the rate this is costing us.
  In addition, there is almost $1.5 billion in money the States now 
hold that can only be used for cash assistance. When we passed the 1996 
welfare bill, one of the concerns on the left was this money for cash 
assistance be used for cash assistance and it is not to be taken out 
and used for other purposes. So we have a pipeline which only funds 
cash assistance.
  What we do in this bill is allow this $1.5 billion to be used for 
daycare. So it is not a $1 billion increase on top of a $2.3 billion 
increase on top of a $6 billion increase, but on top of a $1.5 billion 
increase on top of that. This is how much money we now have in this 
bill for childcare. I oppose that. I think that is an extraordinary 
expansion of a program that, while it has benefits and I certainly 
support it, and in the 1996 bill I supported the final compromise which 
added $1 billion to the daycare funding to get this bill originally 
enacted, but this is excessive and unwarranted, and I would argue not 
good policy for a variety of different reasons.
  There is some good policy in this bill, and it is being blocked. I 
think when the Senator from California offered this amendment, she 
understood what was going to happen if she offered this amendment, and 
that was this bill would be shut down, as the last bill was because of 
a blocking amendment on the JOBS bill to create more manufacturing 
jobs.
  What we would like to see done is a limitation of amendments. I would 
frankly be happy to deal with all relevant amendments to this bill, no 
limitation on any relevant amendments, but a limitation on political 
amendments. Clearly, minimum wage is a political amendment that has 
been offered numerous times in the past, always seeming to wait until 
right before election. We never see minimum wage increases offered in 
odd-numbered years. I do not know if my colleagues noticed that, but it 
seems to be offered in even-numbered years. So we have even-numbered 
election issues that are brought up by Senators Boxer and Kennedy, who 
said they would like to see this bill pass. They say they would like to 
see this extended.

  I tell my colleagues that the Senator from California in 1996 said: I 
cannot support legislation--she was referring to the 1996 welfare 
reform act--which will throw countless children into poverty. No one 
expects us to solve the welfare problem by punishing children for being 
poor. That is what she said in 1996.
  So did this bill punish children for being poor? Let us look at the 
black child poverty rate. The highest rates of poverty in America are 
among black children, at least they have been. At the time Senator 
Boxer made that statement, the poverty rate among African-American 
children was 45 percent. She said this bill will punish children by 
throwing them into poverty, will punish them because we are going to 
require their mothers to go to work, we are going to require and put 
time limits on the amount of time people can spend on welfare because 
we have an expectation that if one is able-bodied they can work, they 
should work, and it is beneficial to them and their children if they do 
work.
  So we did a whole bunch of things to create not only a stick to get 
people to work, but a lot of incentives or carrots to make work pay. We 
invested a lot of money: Daycare, yes; transportation; EIC. We can go 
on down the list. We put in a lot of incentives over the last several 
years to make work pay.
  What happened? We have the lowest rate of black child poverty ever in 
America. Now, one might ask, well, did the other side learn a lesson? 
Did they understand that actually they were wrong? I know the Senator 
from California had a picture, and I know the Senator from Illinois at 
the time, Ms. Moseley-Braun, had pictures of people in breadlines and 
people sleeping on grates. Have we now admitted this concept of work 
and the concept of time limitations was, in fact, not a punishment but 
the real punishment was locking people into dependency and poverty? 
That is punishing. That is hopelessness.
  What we provided in this bill was hope. Have they learned? Well, the 
proof is in the pudding. The Senator from California comes forward and 
offers an amendment, shuts down the bill. She will have ample 
opportunities over the next several weeks to offer an amendment on this 
issue.
  By the way, there have been ample opportunities in the past 15 months 
to offer a minimum wage increase, and yet on a bill everybody is for, 
that we want to reauthorize--they say they are not trying to block this 
bill--15 months go by in the session and we are going to offer an 
amendment to try to sink this bill.
  I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to offer germane 
amendments, to withdraw this amendment, let's get to the substance of 
this issue. This is an important battle to provide hope and opportunity 
for the poor in our society, to bring dignity into the lives of 
communities that have been struggling to make ends meet.
  Let's stick to this issue and get it done. Let's show the Senate can 
work on important issues of the day.
  One of the things I wanted to talk about--I had talked at length 
about the general welfare bill and I had mentioned the issue briefly, 
but I wanted to focus a little more attention on it, the issue the 
President proposed on marriage.
  There has been a lot of debate about marriage in America over the 
past several months. What I am talking about here is the role of the 
Government to encourage and promote healthy marriages. The President 
has a healthy and stable marriage initiative he has put forward.
  Why do we want to do this? Do we want to force people into bad 
marriages? Or bring out the shotgun again and get people to marry even 
though they may not want to? No. That is not what this is about. No one 
is suggesting or has suggested we force anybody into marriage. But here 
is what we have done. The President, and many of us who have been 
working on this issue for a long time, actually decided to look into 
the benefits of marriage to children and to women and to men in 
poverty, and determine what and if there are any benefits. Should the 
Government be neutral on this issue? Should we stay out of it? Or are 
there things we can look to that would encourage us to encourage 
marriage?
  Here are some of the benefits we have identified in looking at the 
data. Children in married homes do better in school. They drop out 
less. They have fewer emotional and behavioral problems, less substance 
abuse, less abuse or neglect, including physical abuse, less criminal 
activity, less early sexual activity, and fewer out-of-wedlock births.
  If I said I had a drug that could accomplish all these things for 
children, we would prescribe it for every child in America. Yet when we 
say we want to have a program in the welfare system where we are 
dealing with the poorest children in America who, in most cases, are in 
some of the worst neighborhoods of America, in the roughest communities 
in America, who are living in many cases in very difficult family 
situations--if we say we want to provide these benefits to them, you 
get the responses: Why do you want to force some rightwing religious 
agenda on us?
  There are actually people who are opposed to the President's 
proposals, who are opposed to the President's proposals in the face of 
the benefit to those who we hear a lot about here on the floor of the 
Senate, how we need more for children. We get a lot of proposals from 
the Senator from Massachusetts that we can help children by increasing 
the minimum wage while in fact he provides absolutely no evidence that 
is the case. In fact, when we had the discussion today, the Senator 
from Massachusetts said things were better in the 1960s and 1970s and 
1980s, when the minimum wage was high.

[[Page S3354]]

  If you go back to the previous chart on black poverty, I will tell 
you what else is high: Poverty among African-American children. So if 
there were a connection between the rate of poverty and the minimum 
wage, you would think during this time, when the value of the minimum 
wage was actually going down, black poverty would be going up. Just the 
opposite is the case. Why? Because most people who earn the minimum 
wage aren't the heads of households so there is very little connection 
between increasing the minimum wage and poverty. Why? Because poverty 
isn't about a little bit more money.
  You think: That makes no sense, Senator. Of course it is about more 
money.
  No, it is not. It is about a lot of factors. People who are poor have 
lives that are just as complicated as those of people who are not. It 
is about the status of their mothers and fathers. It is about the 
family unit around them. It is about a whole host of issues that 
determines whether they will be raised in or out of poverty. To look at 
one little factor that has no correlation with poverty is the kind of 
wrongheaded thinking we have suffered under for far too long in this 
institution.
  But in 1996 we changed it. We went to a different model in welfare. 
Now we are trying to change it again. We know that work works. We also 
know from the data families work.
  If you look at child poverty, it dramatically increases outside of 
intact marriages. If you have an intact marriage, the percent of time 
in poverty for the average child is 7 percent, if that child's parents 
are married.
  As we all know, upon divorce many women end up with the children. 
That is the case certainly the vast majority of time. Many times they 
also end up on welfare, they end up in poverty, as a result of 
separation and divorce. That is the case for children born out of 
wedlock.
  This represents children born within wedlock. Some stay, others get 
divorced.
  Here is the situation where children are born out of wedlock and the 
mother subsequently gets married. The child poverty rate is high, but 
not as high as in the case where mom never gets married. In that case, 
the percentage of time children spend in poverty is 51 percent of their 
childhood, on average.
  So we have a situation where we know marriage has a positive impact 
on poverty. Again, we want to focus on poverty and the health of 
children. The Senator from Massachusetts spoke about the minimum wage 
and how important it was, and provided no evidence as to how minimum 
wage increases would help reduce poverty among children. Let's look at 
what happens, when marriage is involved, to poverty among children. 
Married families are five times less likely to be in poverty than are 
single-parent families. Again, the poverty rate among those who are 
married: Among all, 13 percent; among single families, 35 percent of 
single-parent families in America are living in poverty.
  Shouldn't we have a program that at least suggests when a mother has 
a child and she is not married and the father is there in the hospital, 
that we simply ask the question: Are you interested in being married? 
If both say yes, refer them for counseling to a nonprofit in the 
community, maybe a faith-based organization in the community, somebody 
who is there to nurture that relationship at a very stressful time in 
their lives where, without the proper support and help--and in many 
cases in this situation you don't have a whole lot of family support, 
you certainly don't have popular culture support for fathers nurturing 
and caring for their children--can't the Government at least suggest 
when someone expresses an intent to get married they be given a little 
help in working through that process, given the demonstrable benefits 
that would accrue to them and to their children from an economic point 
of view?
  But there is more than economics. Children living with two parents 
are 44 percent less likely to be physically abused; 47 percent less 
likely to suffer physical neglect; 43 percent less likely to suffer 
emotional neglect; 55 percent less likely to suffer from some form of 
child abuse than children living with a single parent.
  There are people who will come here to the floor and say the 
Government should be neutral with respect to this. In spite of this 
rather strong statement in support of marriage being the optimal place, 
a married household being the optimal place in which to raise a child, 
they will say the Government has no business in this. Yet they will 
come here and have the Government spend billions of dollars to get 
results that are one-twentieth of what these results would be in the 
life of a child.
  We will spend billions here to reduce neglect by 2 percent, or 5 
percent. That is OK if we spend billions. That is all right. But if we 
do something as simple as to say, If you are interested in marriage, we 
will refer you to counseling because we want to actually help you, if 
you want to be married, to get married and to stay married, that is 
wrong. Spending billions of dollars on violence prevention programs, 
that is OK. But the best violence prevention program for a child is a 
healthy marriage. Spending any money on that, Well, wait, this is a 
right-wing religious attempt to influence people with a religious 
agenda. I think we all know from the debate that is going on that 
marriage is not just a religious event. It is a civil event. It is a 
public event. It is a State-sponsored event. It is one that is vitally 
important to the future of our society.
  There is another piece of legislation Senator Bayh, Senator Domenici, 
and I have been working on for quite some time. I am hopeful this will 
not be as controversial as marriage--that is, fathers should 
participate in their children's lives.
  We actually are going to have some money in this bill that will 
encourage responsible fathers. It is called the Responsible Fatherhood 
Initiative which Senator Bayh of Indiana, Senator Domenici of New 
Mexico, and I have been working on for several years. We are able to 
get some money in this bill to promote that.
  Why? I guess it is obvious. Obviously, we would like to have children 
have some presence of a father in their lives. We understand there is a 
potential benefit. We also understand there are a lot of fathers 
unfortunately who are not necessarily good fathers, who may not 
necessarily be a good influence on children's lives. But there is money 
to help those fathers become a positive influence in their lives; to 
take responsibility for not only providing for them economically, which 
all the previous welfare bills had never focused on--which is getting 
child support--but actually try to support them in ways beyond the 
paycheck they happen to bring home that day.
  Why? If you look again at the information we have been able to gather 
about the difference between children being raised with fathers' 
involvement as opposed to fathers being absent, if you have a father 
involved in your life versus if you do not have a father involved in 
your life--if you do not have a father involved, you are two times more 
likely to abuse drugs and two times more likely to be abused. Why? 
Unfortunately, in far too many relationships, the boyfriend tends to be 
the greatest abuser of the child who is not his own. You are two times 
more likely to become involved in a crime, three times more likely to 
fail in school, three times more likely to take your own life, and five 
times more likely to live in poverty.
  Again, if we had a program we were funding here in the Federal 
Government out of the Great Society program that could accomplish all 
these things, we would be pouring billions in this baby. I mean, there 
would be cries over here to say, if you have this program that can do 
all of this, then we are going to spend--you can't outbid us on this 
because we are going to go home and talk about how we are saving lives, 
reducing drug dependency, reducing abuse, reducing crime, improving 
education, and solving the poverty problem.
  But then you mention, Oh, by the way, this program has to do with 
fathers taking responsibility. No, wait a minute, we are not going to 
do that. You are messing around with families here. No. If you have a 
Government program that we can hire somebody to fill that role, fine, 
but we can't encourage fathers. Why would we want to do that? Who are 
we to be judgmental about getting fathers involved with children's 
lives? That is not the role of the Government. What is the role of

[[Page S3355]]

Government to mess around with the family?
  Because we know what works. Americans know what works. We have known 
it for 200-plus years. We know that stable families is the place which 
has the greatest opportunity to produce stable young children and 
adults. Yet somehow we can't be on the side to save the family, we 
can't be on the side of marriage and responsible fathers. At least we 
haven't been in the past.
  I am hopeful that we have an opportunity in this bill to come down on 
the side of the family, to come down on the side of mothers and fathers 
taking responsibility for their children from the very beginning. And 
the Government should be there to simply ask and encourage and provide 
support if they want to, not to force anybody into anything.
  We have an obligation if we know what works to do it. If we know what 
works and we can have some positive impact on the lives of children, 
then we have an obligation to do it. We are doing it here with a very 
small amount of money. The marriage proposal I think is $100 million 
Federal, $100 million matched by the States, and then a separate $100 
million. It is $300 million. Excuse me. It is $100 million from Federal 
and $100 million from the States over 5 years, which is $1.5 billion. I 
argue that is a fairly modest sum of money for the tremendous benefit 
that will accrue not just to the children, but which is going to accrue 
to fathers who will take responsibility for their children.
  Imagine the change in neighborhoods. Imagine the change in 
neighborhoods where 70 percent of kids, 80 percent of kids are born out 
of wedlock, and within a year 90 to 95 percent of those kids have no 
father involvement in their lives. Imagine the change in the 
neighborhood, which is permeated by single mothers and fathers who are 
attached to nothing except other irresponsible fathers--we call those 
gangs--or they are not attached to that neighborhood at all because 
they are in jail. Imagine the neighborhoods with fathers in the homes. 
Imagine the neighborhoods with role models of responsible manhood and 
fatherhood.
  I have talked to so many people who grew up in neighborhoods with 
high concentrations of fatherlessness and how they were inspired by the 
one or two fathers they knew who weren't their own, but the one or two 
men in the community who were responsible fathers who gave them hope 
and who taught them responsibility. Imagine how we could change 
neighborhoods if we simply brought mothers and fathers back together in 
those neighborhoods, and how that dynamic would change.
  Dare we come down on that side? Dare we invest in trying to change 
their pathology that has attacked so many neighborhoods in our society? 
I say yes. I say we have an obligation to do that.
  Let me get to the economics of this. Fatherhood involvement increases 
child support. The States that, unfortunately as a result of the 1996 
Wofford law, are concerned about establishing paternity and getting the 
money, I say to the States, which will be the instrument by which these 
programs will be implemented, they will have to play a part. They will 
have to put up some money to do this.
  I make the argument it is to their financial benefit to do it. Even 
though it will cost some money for the programs, I make the argument to 
the States that if you can get fathers involved in the lives of their 
children, you will not have to spend as much time chasing down fathers 
to provide child support, and in many cases not getting that child 
support, but you will have a better connection with your children which 
means a better life, and we will actually save the States some money.
  I hate to make the economic arguments to the States, but those are 
the facts. I am hopeful the States will understand this is not just 
good for their neighborhood, this is not just good for men, it is not 
just good for women and for children, and for society at large, it is 
also good for their bottom line and their ability to provide services 
to the poor.
  This is a good piece of legislation. It is not perfect. There are 
things in this bill I do not like. But we move the ball forward. We 
increase work a modest amount, a responsible amount. As someone who was 
in this chair leading the fight in 1996 for this bill and wanting the 
tough requirements on work, I am not someone who believes we need to 
dramatically increase that requirement. I know there will be an 
amendment potentially if we ever get to this bill to increase the work 
requirement to 40 hours. I will vote against that. The reason is 
because we do in this bill increase the actual work requirement from 20 
hours to 24.
  What does that mean? That means the amount of hours someone must be 
in work in order to be eligible for this program, assuming they did not 
get off the program to work themselves, they are actually on welfare 
but working, is increased from 20 to 24 hours. Then we have an 
additional 10 hours that was in the 1996 act that stays the same, an 
additional 10 hours to bring the total up to 34 hours. That 10 hours 
being sort of wraparound issues, whether it is job search or other 
types of improvement that individuals may be working on to get a better 
job, to increase their educational skills, get their GED, whatever the 
case may be.
  It is important to have a tougher work requirement to take single 
mothers out of the home for 40 hours a week, of which 16 of those hours 
will not be actually working--I don't see the benefit. What we have 
seen from all the studies is the thing that works the most is work. 
While these women--it is predominantly, overwhelmingly women--are not 
in a job outside of welfare, not on a payroll outside of welfare, they 
still are working and getting work experience.
  The additional time is well spent to actually find a job outside of 
welfare, but I don't think at least at that point in time, because of 
the transition of a 40-hour requirement, that is going to be beneficial 
in the long term for these women. I will not support that.
  I would have supported a modest increase in daycare funding. What we 
have done is fundamentally change the expectation of what daycare is. 
This is more money than people on welfare could ever hope to need when 
it comes to daycare. This is a whole other agenda trying to be advanced 
on the bill in the name of welfare to work. But it is simply universal 
daycare under a different guise. I will not support that.
  But we have a lot of steps taken in the right direction in this bill. 
I am hopeful, again, we can get bipartisan cooperation from people who 
understand the importance of this legislation in getting it passed and 
putting those work requirements back on 28 States that right now do not 
have them so we can begin the process again in turning lives around and 
improving the quality of lives of children in the poorest neighborhoods 
in our society.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                  HARRY BURK REID, MY 15TH GRANDCHILD

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I wish the people I work with in the Senate 
knew my father. My father was named Harry Reid, the same name I have. I 
always looked up to my dad. My dad was uneducated. He didn't graduate 
from eighth grade, but he was very smart. My father read a lot and he 
could do things people in college could not do.
  For example, he was a miner and he could go underground with a 
compass, come above ground and do a map. People in college cannot do 
that. He could do underground mapping. He was a carpenter. He could 
completely overhaul an engine, a valve job, the whole works. He was a 
blacksmith, hit tempered steel, all that kind of stuff. And he was a 
much bigger man than I. I always admired his physical strength. He 
could put a 50-gallon drum full of water or gas, whatever, in the back 
of a truck by himself.

  The reason I mention Harry Reid tonight, my father, is last night my 
15th grandchild was born, a little boy. As I said, I have 15 
grandchildren now. The reason I mention my father is because my son 
told me, this morning, that they have named my grandson after me. So I 
have a little grandson named Harry Reid.
  I hope, as the years go by, that little boy will look at his 
grandfather in the same way that I looked at my dad.
  I am proud of the name Harry Reid. I even sign my ``H'' like my dad 
did. My

[[Page S3356]]

dad said once he saw on a window an ``H'' like that, like I sign my 
name. So that is the way children are in looking up to their parents 
and grandparents.
  As I said, I hope I can set an example that my grandson will respect 
and admire. I know it is a burden, and I say this seriously, to have 
the name Harry Reid, because I have a lot of people who like me, but I 
have a lot of people who do not like me because of my political stands.
  But separate and apart from all that, I hope my grandson will have an 
example set by me that is one he will believe in--family and keeping 
families together--and being a young man who conducts himself in a 
proper manner, and that, hopefully, some of the things I have done and 
will do will be something he will look to as a role model that maybe he 
will adhere to.
  So I want the Record to reflect how much I appreciate my son Josh and 
his lovely wife Tamsen for giving me this great honor and to have 
someone who, through all generations of time, will be the third Harry 
Reid. I am not a junior because my dad had no middle name. And this 
little boy is not a junior, or could not be anyway, because I am not 
his father. His name is different. He has a different middle name, 
Burk, named after his other grandparents, their last name.
  So anyway, I am flattered and respectful of my son and daughter-in-
law for naming the child after me. I want the Record to reflect how 
much I love and appreciate my son Josh and all my children who have 
done so much to honor me with their exemplary lives, at least from a 
parent's perspective.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant journal clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Alexander). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                         Senator Kerry's Record

  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, we are currently discussing plans both for 
later tonight and tomorrow and the next 2 weeks. I had the opportunity 
to talk to the Democratic leader, and that discussion will go on for a 
while. While we are in, and have been in a quorum call, I wanted to 
take the opportunity to address an issue that has to do with gasoline 
prices, energy policy, something that every single American who drives 
or benefits from driving is feeling; that is, the price at the gasoline 
pump.
  The distinguished Senator from Massachusetts was in the news this 
morning expressing his concern about rising gasoline prices. He is 
right to be concerned. We are all concerned. But what he should be 
concerned about is his own dismal record in terms of addressing this 
very issue. Again and again, he has taken positions that result not in 
what Americans want--that is, lower gas prices--but again and again in 
his position as a Senator and before, he has been on the other side and 
engaged in policies and supporting policies that drive the price of 
gasoline higher and higher.
  The Senate record is familiar to most, but in 1983, when he was 
Lieutenant Governor in Massachusetts, the Dukakis-Kerry administration 
supported a $50 million gas tax hike on the citizens of Massachusetts. 
In 1993, in the Senate, he voted for the largest tax increase in 
American history, the Clinton tax bill, which increased the Federal 
gasoline tax by 4.3 cents. He also voted twice for the Clinton-Gore Btu 
tax which, had it been signed into law, would have increased gas taxes 
by another 7.5 cents per gallon.
  The following year he backed a 50-cent increase in the gas tax for 
all Americans. He wrote a letter at that time to the Boston Globe 
expressing his disappointment that a scorecard issued by a deficit 
reduction organization in Washington did not accurately reflect his 
support for this half-dollar gas tax increase.
  The list goes on. The Senator from Massachusetts also wants the 
United States to accept the Kyoto Protocol which, according to Wharton 
Economic Forecasting Associates, would raise gasoline prices an 
additional 65 cents per gallon. And just last year, Senator Kerry voted 
for climate change legislation which would have imposed a Kyoto-style 
regulation on 80 percent of the U.S. economy and would have raised 
gasoline prices by 40 cents a gallon.
  That is a little bit of the history and the background for this new 
concern about gasoline prices by the Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. 
Kerry.
  Put aside a moment the impact that these proposals would have had on 
an issue that we have talked a lot about on the floor today, and that 
is jobs and the importance of job creation. The most immediate impact, 
the most immediate result of Senator Kerry's positions would be to 
force America's consumers to pay at least a dollar more for each gallon 
of gasoline they purchase, and that is a conservative estimate.
  It is also worth noting that Senator Kerry has consistently opposed 
any increase in domestic production of energy and any proposal that 
would reduce our dependence on foreign oil. The Energy bill, which we 
all know fell two votes short in the Senate last year, is probably the 
most recent example. Senator Kerry has expressed opposition to this 
measure, although he was not present in the Senate when we cast that 
critical vote on the conference report.

  In opposing the Energy bill, Senator Kerry is opposing not just the 
creation of 800,000 new jobs, he is opposing the development of new 
domestic resources, new resources that come in the United States, 
including such things as renewable resources such as wind and solar 
energy. To that you could add clean burning ethanol, and to that you 
could add advanced coal technology or zero emission nuclear energy and, 
yes, the development of domestic oil and gas resources as well.
  I come to the floor to mention all of this, especially mentioning his 
record on the floor of the Senate, because it is simply very difficult 
to take seriously Senator Kerry when he says he is concerned about high 
gas prices and then blames others for not having addressed them. 
Throughout his career, Senator Kerry has consistently taken positions 
that will result in even higher gas prices and lower domestic supplies 
of energy and jobs lost.
  If the Senator from Massachusetts, indeed, wants to engage in a 
serious discussion about energy policy, I ask that he come back to the 
Senate and help us do what we should be doing, and that is pass an 
Energy bill which he and his party unfortunately have been blocking for 
months.
  I appreciate the opportunity to review the record since we had this 
available time. I do challenge Senator Kerry to engage in a serious 
discussion about helping us pass that very policy which we know would 
lower gasoline prices in the United States.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                         Senator Kerry's Record

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, having just heard the majority leader come 
to the floor of the Senate and discuss the record of my colleague, 
Senator John Kerry, I thought it might be useful to respond just a bit.
  This Chamber, given some of the dialog--and especially the dialog I 
heard a few minutes ago--only lacks the balloons, the buttons, and the 
brass band for being a political convention in a full-scale support of 
a candidate in a Presidential operation, a Presidential campaign.
  It is not my desire nor my intent to talk about the Presidential 
race. But when I hear people come to the floor and decide to talk about 
John Kerry's record on energy as a Member of the Senate, I think it is 
important to respond.
  There are a great many allegations being made about Senator John 
Kerry's record and many--most that I have heard recently--have been 
flat out untrue, just wrong. One of the great things about the First 
Amendment in this country is you can say whatever you want to say and, 
in politics, you can misrepresent someone's record and nobody seems to 
care very much.

[[Page S3357]]

  Let me talk for a couple of minutes about these issues. First of all, 
let's talk about the energy bill. We don't have an energy bill right 
now. Do you know why? It failed by two votes in the Senate. I voted for 
it. So did the minority leader. Do you know why it failed by two votes 
in the Senate? Because the majority leader in the U.S. House stuck a 
provision in that bill that cost him four, or five, or six votes 
against the bill in the Senate. Now I hear the majority leader of the 
U.S. House blame Senator Daschle for us not having an energy bill. I 
looked at that in the paper and I thought, what on earth can he be 
thinking about? He killed the energy bill by sticking in this insidious 
provision, a retroactive waiver on MTBE liability. He stuck that 
provision in. He demanded it. It was killed on the floor of the Senate 
by two votes.
  That bill would have passed the Senate easily without that provision 
stuck in by the majority leader of the U.S. House. So to have him talk 
about Senator Daschle as somehow holding up the energy bill in this 
country doesn't make much sense to me. It is just wrong. He is the one 
who killed that bill on the floor of the Senate with this provision 
that he inserted.
  As to the comments this evening, we have the majority leader come to 
the floor of the Senate and he seems to imply that my colleague, John 
Kerry, is against production, against conservation, against efficiency, 
against renewables. Nonsense. Absolute nonsense. I can tell you what 
Senator Kerry is for. I sat in meeting after meeting with him over 
recent years on energy policy, most of which I agree with him on. 
Sometimes we disagreed.
  I will tell you something. This is a man who is very concerned about 
energy policy in this country. When we talk about these issues, it 
seems to me it would best behoove us to talk seriously about serious 
issues.
  That has not been the case with respect to Senator Kerry's record on 
energy, as misrepresented on the floor of the Senate this evening. So 
let's talk about a couple of these issues.
  Renewable energy: Senator Kerry supports renewable energy--wind 
energy, biodiesel energy, a whole series of areas of renewable energy--
that will improve this country's energy supply and extend America's 
energy supply. He supports it.
  Efficiency titles in the Energy bill: Senator Kerry very much 
supports improved efficiency of all the appliances we use every single 
day.
  Conservation: Senator Kerry has a very strong record on conservation, 
and the same is true with respect to production.
  There has been a lot of misrepresentation. In fact, I heard some 
misrepresentation recently that Senator Kerry voted for a 50-cent-a-
gallon gas tax increase. That is totally untrue, just wrong, flat out 
wrong.
  Talk is cheap so people can come here and assert whatever they like, 
but when I hear it, I am going to come to the floor of the Senate and 
say it is not true.
  The fact is, this country chooses its leader by going to the ballot 
box, and this country is owed a serious debate about serious issues. 
Regrettably, it too seldom gets a serious debate about serious issues. 
Yes, energy is a serious issue and we have a very serious energy 
problem and we need an Energy bill passed in the U.S. Congress. Do not 
blame Democrats for the failure to pass an Energy bill. It failed in 
the Senate by two votes. It passed the House and failed in the Senate 
by two votes, and everyone here understands that at least four or five 
of those two votes that would have been used to pass that bill resulted 
in a negative vote because of what the majority leader in the House 
did. Everyone understands that. All you have to do is read a newspaper 
and you will understand that. People are concerned about the price of 
gasoline in this country, and they should be. When I say we need an 
energy policy, we are now close to 60 percent of our oil coming from 
off our shores, often from troubled parts of the world. That is 
dangerous. The fact is, our economy is reliant on energy sources from 
parts of the world that are very troubled. If we want to keep importing 
oil from Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Venezuela, and other parts of the 
world, the fact is it will injure us inevitably, it will injure our 
economy, and it will injure our opportunity to create new jobs, expand 
and provide hope and opportunity for the American people.
  We need to go much further than the kind of debate we traditionally 
held on energy issues, and that is where Senator Kerry talked about the 
future. We need to talk about issues such as hydrogen and fuel cells 
and pole-vault over some of this to talk about how we are going to 
avoid in the future putting gasoline through carburetors and being 
dependent on OPEC countries.
  Tomorrow there is a meeting of OPEC ministers. They already cut 
production and are talking about cutting production again. This country 
ought to jawbone and use the leverage we have to say we need increased 
production. We have gas prices that are going through the roof.
  I do not know what the President is going to do, whether he is going 
to involve himself and try to jawbone OPEC, but I think he should. We 
have a serious problem, and it is not just the current spike in gas 
prices. That happens. It is now happening because of a series of 
factors. One is the cutback in OPEC production. The second is an 
imbalance with respect to fuels that are coming into refineries and the 
lack of refinery capacity. There is a whole series of factors. Even as 
we address the shorter term, we have to think about the longer term.

  I will say to those who want to be critical of Senator Kerry's 
record, there is nobody in the Senate, in my judgment, who has cared 
more and worked harder for longer term solutions for an energy policy 
in this country. It does not serve the country or responsible political 
debate to come to the Senate and slap people around with bad 
information. I am sick and tired of that. If you want to turn this into 
a political convention, get some balloons, bunting, put up crepe paper, 
hire a brass band, and pretend this is a political convention. But it 
is not a political convention. This is the Chamber of the United States 
Senate, and we ought to, it seems to me, talk about what the real 
policy positions are of the respective candidates and have a 
competition of ideas.
  I, frankly, think both political parties have something good to offer 
this country, and the interaction of both parties and responsible 
debate over a long period of time strengthens our country. But I get a 
little weary of this machine that is so relentless in trying to 
misrepresent someone's position and slap that misrepresentation around 
for a while. That is not the way this Presidential campaign ought to be 
waged. It is not fair to Senator Kerry, who is not in this Chamber, for 
people to come and mischaracterize his record. I understand people have 
the right to do it. I am just saying it is not fair. So I hope as we 
begin to think through some of these issues in the future that we 
understand there is a place for a political campaign for the Presidency 
in this country. It is in Ohio, New York, Nevada, North Dakota, Texas, 
and California--all around America--and there the bands do play, and 
there the balloons are used to great effect, and people love the 
political system. That is fine. But I worry a lot about the Senate 
Chamber being used to misrepresent someone's position on an issue that 
is as important as this.
  What bothered me and persuaded me to come to the Senate floor this 
moment are two things: One is something I read in the newspaper about 2 
or 3 days ago in which the allegation by the majority leader of the 
other body was it was Senator Daschle who was holding up an Energy 
bill. Nonsense. The majority leader of the other body is the one who 
killed the Energy bill by putting in this insidious provision, a 
retroactive waiver of MTBE liability. That is a plain fact.
  Second, I heard a speech on the floor of the Senate a moment ago that 
was just a pure campaign speech that had nothing to do with the merits 
on one side. It had everything to do with misrepresenting the merits on 
the other side. That is unfair. I am going to come to the floor again 
when I hear this done.
  I hope the American people are treated to a serious debate about 
serious issues. Energy is a serious issue. John Kerry is a serious 
candidate for the Presidency, and he has strong positions, I think 
defensible positions, on energy dealing with production, conservation, 
efficiency, renewables, and more. I am sure if he were here to

[[Page S3358]]

stand up and speak in response to the majority leader, he would want to 
do that.
  I came to the floor simply to say I hope the American people are 
treated to a debate that is accurate about energy positions and energy 
policy by the two candidates. I, for one, feel very comfortable with 
the long-term view of energy policy as advocated by Senator John Kerry.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question 
through the Chair?
  Mr. DORGAN. I will be happy to yield for a question.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have not been able to hear all of the 
statement of the Senator from North Dakota, but I am sure, as always, 
it was right on the point. There is something I would like to direct in 
the form of a question to him.
  I was asked to appear on a television show this afternoon, and I was 
happy to do that. The reason I appeared on the show was to respond to 
some TV ads that are starting tomorrow where the Bush campaign is 
paying millions of dollars to run an ad around the country that is 
absolutely fabricated. The ad said Senator Kerry voted for a 50-cent-
per-gallon gas tax increase. Is the Senator aware that this statement 
is baseless, never happened, and that millions of dollars are going to 
be spent starting tomorrow saying Senator Kerry has previously in the 
Senate voted for a 50-cent-a-gallon increase in taxes for gasoline?
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I say in response to the question from the 
Senator from Nevada, I have done what little research I could, because 
I understood this ad was being set to run across the country that said 
Senator Kerry has voted for a 50-cent-a-gallon gas tax increase. My 
understanding is it is simply untrue. If somebody has evidence of which 
I am not aware, bring it to the floor. My understanding is it is not 
true.
  It is similarly not true that Senator Kerry is opposed to renewable 
fuels, opposed to conservation, opposed to increased efficiency of 
appliances which was alleged a few minutes ago on the Senate floor. 
They are not grounded in fact.
  As I said, everybody has a right to say these things. It is the 
political system. This is the floor of the Senate, and those of us who 
hear something we know is demonstrably false also have a right to come 
to the floor to say this is not the best of what this system has to 
offer the American people. This ought to be a competition of ideas of 
both sides using facts and saying here is where one stands and here is 
where the other stands, and here is why and take your pick. That is 
what the political system ought to be about.
  To the extent there are exaggerations--and there sure are in 
politics; they occur on the political stage all around the country--
that is fine as well; that is politics.
  It is a bit different especially to come to the Senate floor and 
misrepresent the record of Senator Kerry.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. REID. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2943

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I rise to discuss amendment 2943, which is 
the Cornyn-Bingaman amendment. I ask unanimous consent that Senator 
Kennedy be added as a cosponsor to that amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CORNYN. This amendment is very simple. It would correct a 
technical problem caused during the passage of the Responsibility and 
Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act in 1996. Section 411 of the welfare 
law reads that State and local governments may not use their own 
resources to provide nonemergency health services to nonqualified 
immigrants unless the State has passed new legislation authorizing such 
expenditures.
  This provision has caused quite a bit of confusion. As a matter of 
fact, when I was Attorney General of Texas I was asked to interpret 
this provision. It was during the course of that official action that I 
discovered the Federal law, because our State legislature had not 
acted, had unintended consequences. It is safe to say this provision 
has been read by State and local governments with varying 
interpretations.
  Essentially, the current law imposes a double standard on State and 
local governments. Because certain Federal public health programs are 
exempt from this requirement, identical State and local government 
health programs are not. The end result is more legal and 
administrative costs on State and local governments, even though the 
provision has no enforcement mechanism. Even without the confusion, 
section 411 makes no practical sense. We should not put up more 
roadblocks for those who want to provide preventive treatment, 
especially when it comes to potential community problems such as 
infectious diseases.
  By giving localities control over preventive services, here again at 
their own expense, not at Federal taxpayers' expense, we ensure local 
funds are spent where the people who know best believe they should be 
spent. Ultimately, this will have the effect of driving down health 
care costs by preventing treatable illnesses before they become acute 
and before they require expensive taxpayer-supported care, usually in 
an emergency room where anyone, no matter who they are, knows they can 
be treated and indeed must be treated according to a Federal mandate 
which I know is an interest of the presiding Senator, particularly 
because it is an unfunded Federal mandate.
  Our amendment would simply strike the word ``health'' from section 
411 of the welfare law. This step clarifies that State and local 
governments can use their own funds to provide health services to 
immigrants, including primary and preventive health care and infectious 
disease services, without enacting a new law. It is a commonsense step 
and one I hope my colleagues will support.
  This amendment is also widely supported by several well-respected 
national associations, including the American Hospital Association, the 
National Association of Public Hospitals and Public Health Systems, the 
National Association of Counties, and the Catholic Health Association.


                           Amendment No. 2942

  I also want to briefly discuss another amendment, No. 2942. I ask 
unanimous consent that Senator Lieberman be added as a cosponsor to 
this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CORNYN. The Senator from Connecticut has a deep understanding of 
the importance of child support enforcement, and I like me, learned 
about how critical that issue is during his service as his State's 
attorney general, as I did during my service as attorney general of my 
State.
  This amendment features two positive reforms for child support 
enforcement. It encourages States to adopt electronic payment systems 
by 2008. While States can opt out of that if they choose to, it will 
help get payments to custodial parents more quickly than is currently 
done now. It creates an option for States to centralize all child 
support payments to reduce confusion among employers who withhold child 
support payments from the wages of their employees, and it will ensure 
children get the financial support they need on time which, of course, 
is our universal goal.
  I hope my colleagues will support this second amendment as well.
  I ask unanimous consent that letters of support from each of these 
organizations be printed in the Record, and I yield the floor.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                              National Association


                                                  of Counties,

                                                   March 30, 2004.
     Hon. John Cornyn,
     Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
     Hart Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senators Cornyn and Bingaman: On behalf of the 
     National Association of Counties (NACo), I would like to 
     express our support for the Cornyn-Bingaman amendment to the 
     Personal Responsibility, Work, and Family Promotion Act of 
     2003. The amendment, as you know, would clarify that states

[[Page S3359]]

     and counties may use their own funds to provide critical 
     preventative health care services to immigrants.
       NACo is the only national organization representing county 
     governments. Many of our country's 3066 counties own and 
     operate hospitals and other health care facilities. Without 
     the passage of this amendment, county governments are placed 
     in a precarious position if they decide to provide 
     preventative care to unqualified immigrants in order to 
     protect the local community's health. As has been repeatedly 
     demonstrated, the provision of preventative care is less 
     costly over time than providing evasive services in emergency 
     rooms. However, the cost savings to preventative care are far 
     outweighed by the protection provided to the community's 
     public health as a whole.
       Counties serve as safety-net providers, ultimately 
     financing and providing care for our Medicaid ineligible and 
     un-enrolled populations. We support the ability to finance 
     this care in the most appropriate manner.
       Thank you for your leadership and efforts to ensure that 
     counties are able to protect the health of our local 
     communities. We look forward to working with you on this 
     important issue.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Larry Naake,
     Executive Director.
                                  ____

                                               The Catholic Health


                             Association of the United States,

                                    St. Louis, MO, March 30, 2004.
     Hon. John Cornyn,
     Hart Senate Office Building,
     Washington DC.
       Dear Senator Cornyn: On behalf of the Catholic Health 
     Association of the United States (CHA), the national 
     leadership organization of more then 2,000 Catholic health 
     care sponsors, systems, facilities, and related 
     organizations, I am writing in support of your efforts to 
     ensure that state and local governments have the ability to 
     use their funds to provide non-emergency health services to 
     legal and undocumented immigrants.
       Specifically, CHA supports your amendment to strike the 
     word ``health'' from Section 411 of the Personal 
     Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 
     1996 (PRWORA), which has been interpreted by some states to 
     prohibit the use of any state and local funds to provide 
     lifesaving health care to immigrants. This interpretation 
     stands in sharp contrast to the thrust of PRWORA, which 
     generally gave states greater authority to determine welfare 
     rules, and the resulting confusion has had a negative impact 
     on the health of immigrants in many states.
       By clarifying that states and local governments may use 
     their own funds to provide health services to immigrants, 
     including important preventive care, your amendment can help 
     ensure that hospitals and clinics have the clarity they need 
     to serve the best interest of all of their patients. As 
     organizations founded in a faith tradition and committed to 
     the principles of Catholic social justice teaching, Catholic 
     hospitals recognize and affirm the inherent dignity of every 
     human being. Your amendment helps to further that principle.
       Thank you again for your efforts to ensure that state and 
     local governments have the certainty they need to use their 
     own funds to provide appropriate health care to all 
     immigrants. If we can be of any assistance, please do not 
     hesitate to contact us.
           Sincerely,
                                       Rev. Michael D. Place, STD,
                            President and Chief Executive Officer.

  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I would like to commend the Senator from 
Maine, Ms. Snowe, on the passage of her amendment to increase the 
mandatory funding levels for the Child Care and Development Fund by $6 
billion over 5 years. I enthusiastically support this amendment, as it 
is designed to help so many families with young children by ensuring 
that those children are properly cared for while their parents are at 
work.
  Unfortunately, we know that more than 10 million children in the 
United States are left unsupervised after school on a regular basis. We 
know that the welfare rolls have been cut nearly 60 percent since 1996, 
and therefore, this statistic will only continue to grow as more and 
more parents work. Further, with cuts in State childcare funding, many 
working families are faced with no care for their children due to 
waiting lists and higher childcare costs.
  But, with the passage of this amendment, my home State of Ohio alone 
would receive over $34 million in additional childcare funds next 
fiscal year and more than $266 million over the next 5 years. This 
translates into more children receiving care and more parents with the 
peace of mind that their children are being properly attended to while 
they cannot be at home.
  Again, I commend Senator Snowe for her leadership on this issue.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, we are in discussion now determining the 
best pathway to completion on the underlying bill, the welfare bill, an 
important bill that I know both sides of the aisle do want to 
appropriately address, through amendments and through the debate 
process, and we are working on the best way to accomplish that.
  As I set out really 3 weeks ago, but in the early part of last week, 
we have set this week aside to address welfare and we are doing just 
that. But I really need to do everything possible to see that we do 
complete it this weekend. To help accomplish that, I will be sending a 
cloture motion to the desk on the pending committee substitute.


                             cloture motion

  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I send a cloture motion to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under 
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the substitute 
     amendment to Calendar No. 305, H.R. 4, an act to reauthorize 
     and improve the program of block grants to States for 
     temporary assistance for needy families, improve access to 
     quality child care, and for other purposes.

         Bill Frist, Charles E. Grassley, John E. Sununu, Conrad 
           Burns, Lamar Alexander, Peter G. Fitzgerald, Larry E. 
           Craig, John Cornyn, Robert F. Bennett, John Ensign, 
           Orrin G. Hatch, Mike Enzi, Mitch McConnell, Ted 
           Stevens, Norm Coleman, James M. Inhofe, Kay Bailey 
           Hutchison.

  Mr. FRIST. I ask unanimous consent the quorum under rule XXII be 
waived.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________