[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 44 (Thursday, April 1, 2004)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3529-S3538]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY AND INDIVIDUAL DEVELOPMENT FOR EVERYONE ACT

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of H.R. 4, which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 4) to reauthorize and improve the program of 
     block grants to the States for temporary assistance for needy 
     families, improve access to quality child care, and for other 
     purposes.

  Pending:

       Boxer/Kennedy amendment No. 2945, to amend the Fair Labor 
     Standards Act of 1938 to provide for an increase in the 
     Federal minimum wage.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will be 60 
minutes equally divided between the chairman and ranking member of the 
Finance Committee.
  The Senator from Rhode Island is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment offered 
by Senators Boxer and Kennedy to raise the minimum wage.
  The last time we increased the minimum wage was in 1997, and workers 
have already lost all of those gains of that increase. To have the 
purchasing power the minimum wage had in 1968, the minimum wage would 
have to be more than $8 an hour, not the $5.15 today.
  In 1968, we could afford it. In 1968, we could provide the wages that 
would enable Americans to save for homes, to purchase homes, to save 
for college education, and to educate young people. Today, working 
Americans do not have that opportunity because the minimum wage is not 
sufficient to support a family and support the aspirations that all 
Americans have to better themselves and their children.
  Indeed, what is very startling is if we had increased the minimum 
wage at the same rate CEO compensation had increased, the minimum wage 
today would be $22 an hour. In fact, it raises the fundamental question 
we will address over many months and years ahead, which is whether the 
rest of the world is going to become like the United States with a 
strong middle class with opportunities to move forward or will we 
become more like the rest of the world with a huge divergence between 
the very wealthy and those who are working for very little.
  I believe we have to have a society that continues to produce a 
strong middle class, that continues to make work something that allows 
an individual to provide for their families and to aspire to all of the 
dreams of American home ownership, education for their children, and a 
comfortable and secure retirement.
  Indeed, the fact that the minimum wage has relatively decreased has 
contributed to a doubling of poverty. A minimum wage earner for a 
family of three who works 40 hours a week 52 weeks a year earns 
$10,700. That is $4,500 below the poverty line. Today, if you are 
working 40 hours a week for minimum wage, you are in poverty.
  The proposed increase would bring the minimum wage to $7 an hour, and 
even this modest increase would only raise the annual salary of 
families to about $14,000.
  It is not sufficient to replace what people had in 1968. It is not 
sufficient to ensure all families are above poverty. But increasing the 
minimum wage will at least give more opportunity, more hope, and more 
sustenance to the families in America.
  Today, one in five children lives below the poverty line in our 
Nation. This is the richest Nation in the world. That poverty has an 
effect on them; indeed, in the long run, it has an effect on everyone. 
There is an adage: You can pay now or you can pay later. We are not 
paying now and we will pay later. We pay later in terms of children who 
do not have the educational skills or the health to become the most 
constructive workers in our society they could become. In fact, some of 
them, unfortunately, wander into crime and other areas which cost us 
immensely. We have to be able to ensure people can afford to live in 
this country.
  One of the other aspects of the minimum wage is a family earning a 
minimum wage in this country cannot effectively afford a two-bedroom 
apartment in any of the major metropolitan areas and in many rural 
areas. That is unfortunate. Without proper housing,

[[Page S3530]]

how can one ensure family stability and the opportunity to move up in 
society?
  We all understand and we all praise the hard-working Americans who, 
day in and day out, go to their jobs and labor for their families and 
communities. But too many of them are working at wages that do not 
reward this great effort. We can do something and should do something 
about that by increasing the minimum wage.
  We should recognize and understand by increasing the minimum wage, we 
are not likely to have any negative impact on our economy. In fact, we 
will probably stimulate our economic activity. In the 7 years after the 
last minimum wage increase was enacted, there were nearly 11 million 
new jobs added at the pace of 218,000 jobs per month. There was no 
break in employment because the minimum wage went up. There were more 
Americans with more disposable income, buying more goods and services 
in our economy.
  Most people, through my experience, who are working in jobs that pay 
the minimum wage or slightly above the minimum wage, tend to spend a 
good deal of their income on taking care of children, on taking care of 
their rent, on taking care of things that put money into our economy 
today.
  We have to do this. Indeed, it would benefit our economy, not just 
those recipients of increased wages.
  There are about 7 million workers and a third of working women who 
will benefit. I hope we can move forward and ensure this minimum wage 
is increased.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, we are facing a filibuster on an amendment 
I offered with Senator Kennedy, with great support across the board. I 
thank Senator Reed for his support of this very simple amendment.
  We are facing a filibuster on whether we can vote on raising the 
minimum wage. I cannot think of a more cruel filibuster in my life. Why 
on Earth would anyone, Republican or Democrat, try to block a vote on 
this very important matter? I hear all about compassionate 
conservatism. Fine. Show it to me. Where is it?
  People at the minimum wage have been stuck there for 7 years. That is 
how long it has been since we raised it. Give us a chance to have an 
up-or-down vote on raising the minimum wage. I ask my colleagues to try 
and live on $10,800 a year. Think about your rent or your mortgage 
payment. If it is $800 a month, that is it. You use up all of your 
money.
  Some Members say we are trying to raise it way out of proportion. We 
are not. It is a rather modest increase, from $5.15 to $7 an hour.
  I will show a few charts that tell the story better. People who work 
at the minimum wage are working well below the poverty line. This red 
line on this chart is the poverty line for a family of three. A family 
of three is way below the poverty line. They are headed straight down, 
as shown on this chart. I do not understand why we want to keep people 
below the poverty line.
  Nearly three-quarters of minimum wage workers are adults. We are not 
talking about kids. When I was a kid, I used to work at the minimum 
wage. Fine. It was great. I made 50 cents an hour. That gives away my 
age. Imagine if those Members of the Senator were still in the Senate. 
We would still have a minimum wage of 50 cents an hour. My goodness, we 
need to raise the minimum wage.
  Seventy-two percent are adults. How can we look at these people and 
tell them they do not deserve an increase? By the way, they will still 
be below poverty even after we raise them to $7.
  Every day we delay, minimum wage workers fall further behind. All the 
gains of the 1996 minimum wage increase have been lost already. The 
time is long overdue that we raise the minimum wage.
  People are working hard but losing ground. The real value of the 
minimum wage: Today it is worth $4.98. That is what hard-working people 
are getting, $10,800 a year for a family of three. With our minimum 
wage increase, there would be a $3,800 yearly increase in wages. That 
would pay far more than 2 years of childcare.
  We talk about how important this welfare bill is. As a matter of 
fact, my friend from Pennsylvania had a chart showing how wonderful it 
has been that children have been lifted out of poverty. Of course, we 
are seeing now an increase in poverty. During the Clinton years, that 
was true. There were so many jobs, 22 million jobs created, compared to 
3 million jobs lost under Bush. Kids were lifted out of poverty.
  This minimum wage increase would give children more childcare. That 
is important. It provides 2 years of health care; provides full tuition 
for a community college degree; provides a year and a half of heat and 
electricity; provides more than a year of groceries; provides more than 
9 months of rent.
  When we give to people at the lower echelon an increase in the 
minimum wage, they will spend it, and that will fuel our economic 
recovery. I ask our friends on the other side, Why are you opposing us?
  We will look at which Presidents have signed minimum wage increases 
into law: FDR, Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower, Republican; John 
Kennedy, Democrat; Lyndon Johnson, Democrat; Gerald Ford, Republican; 
James Carter, Democrat; George H.W. Bush, Republican; William Clinton, 
Democrat.
  The people who are trying to stop an increase in the minimum wage are 
going against a whole array of Democratic and Republican Presidents. 
Our increase is quite modest as shown by my chart.
  American families are suffering since the Bush administration took 
hold. Look what has happened: 13 million children hungry; 8 million 
Americans unemployed; 8 million workers losing overtime. That is what 
they want to do. There are 7 million low-wage workers, some waiting 7 
years for a minimum wage increase. All we want is an up-or-down vote. 
They are filibustering it. There are 3 million more Americans in 
poverty since President Bush took office and 90,000 workers a week 
losing unemployment benefits.
  I hope compassionate Senators on both sides of the aisle, I hope 
savvy Senators on both sides of the aisle, will definitely allow a vote 
on this very simple proposition. Seven years ago we raised the minimum 
wage. It is time to do it again.
  Take it to the people in your States. Ask them how they feel. The 
polls are overwhelming. More than 70 percent of the people want to see 
an increase in the minimum wage. Yet in this Chamber, one would think 
we are asking for something that makes no sense. We want to get people 
off of welfare. That is the point of the underlying bill. Let's get 
them into work that pays.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I retain the remainder of our time on this 
side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I would ask the Senator from California--she suggested we are not 
going to allow a vote. I would be very happy to allow a vote. We 
suggested we would be happy to give a vote on the issue of minimum 
wage. But I think it is important, if we are going to give a vote on a 
``message amendment''--that is the term that has been used by Members 
on your side of the aisle, a message amendment--we would be happy to 
give you a vote on your message amendment in exchange for you giving us 
a vote on something that is actually going to help people in poverty; 
that is, passage of this bill and going to conference. In fact, we have 
offered to the Democratic leader that in exchange for a vote on your 
message amendment, you allow us to pass and go to conference on a bill 
that is actually going to help low-income people get out of poverty.
  So I would be happy to offer, as I did yesterday, a unanimous consent 
request to give you a vote on your amendment, in exchange for you 
allowing us to have a vote on passage, at a time certain, and a 
commitment to go to conference on this legislation.
  I ask the Senator: Would you agree to such a proposal?
  Mrs. BOXER. Thank you very much for asking. We are ready to vote on 
the minimum wage right now. We do not need any more debate time.
  Mr. SANTORUM. I would be happy to----
  Mrs. BOXER. The message we are sending is to the people in America

[[Page S3531]]

who need to have an increase. That is the message. We want to have that 
vote.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Reclaiming my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania has the floor.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we have a 
vote on the minimum wage Boxer amendment, followed by a vote on the 
McConnell amendment on minimum wage, and then a vote on passage of the 
welfare reform bill, with the appointment of conferees, three 
Republicans and two Democrats. And then, on top of that, let's get 
everything done. Let's move, then, to the FSC/ETI bill, have a 
commitment to pass that bill by Thursday of next week, and a final 
vote, let's say, at 5 o'clock on Thursday.
  So if you are committed to getting things done and helping 
manufacturing jobs, and you are committed to helping get welfare reform 
done, I offer that as a unanimous consent request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mrs. BOXER. Reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. I say to my friend, there are a series of amendments that 
are important to the working people of this country. Overtime--the Bush 
administration is trying to take away overtime--we want a vote on that. 
The unemployment insurance, which has run out for millions of 
Americans, we want a vote on that. There are a series of amendments 
that deal with making lives better for the people.

  Mr. SANTORUM addressed the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator object?
  Mrs. BOXER. This Senate is not the House. We are Senators. We are 
free to offer amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator object?
  Mrs. BOXER. I absolutely would agree if he would modify his request. 
We can agree on time agreements for these and keep it open for the rest 
of the amendments, and then we will agree.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator object?
  Mrs. BOXER. I object, as he has done it. But I will agree to modify 
it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Senator Frist has offered to the Democratic leader a 
vote on all three of the amendments that the Senator from California 
asked for; that is, minimum wage, the issue of overtime, as well as the 
issue of unemployment insurance. We have agreed to votes on all three 
of those amendments, in exchange for votes on two things we would like 
to do; that is, pass a welfare reform bill that is actually going to 
help reduce poverty in America, help stabilize and build families, 
reconnect fathers with their children, and to pass a JOBS Act otherwise 
known as the FSC bill, which will help manufacturers compete in the 
international marketplace, save jobs, and create new jobs, and avoid 
harmful tariffs which are now in the process of being assessed against 
American workers by the European Union.
  We have agreed to pay a ransom, to get two victims returned. The 
victims of the filibuster are the victim of welfare and the JOBS Act to 
help create manufacturing jobs. But we are not going to pay a ransom 
and not get a victim back. We are not going to pay a ransom to have 
votes on theme or message amendments and not get back for the American 
public two things that are absolutely necessary to help alleviate 
poverty and create jobs. This is not just going to be a political 
exercise.
  The leader and the Republicans want to get things done. We are not 
here to message for Presidential politics. We are here because we want 
to do a job for the American people. We have a welfare bill that has 
worked--the 1996 welfare bill.
  I will quote--by the way, not a Republican--June O'Neill, who was at 
the Congressional Budget Office, who said:

       Politicians and experts from the left and the right 
     acknowledge that welfare reform has succeeded beyond the most 
     optimistic expectations.

  The 1996 Welfare Act, which Members on the other side of the aisle 
say: ``We are not trying to block. Oh, yes, we'll eventually get to 
it''--they say they are not trying to block it, so what do they do? 
Right out of the box, they offer an amendment and say: You either give 
us a vote on this amendment or we can't move forward on the bill.
  They did not wait until we worked our will, until we had several 
amendments we were trying to work through. There are supposedly 30 
germane amendments on the other side of the aisle. They did not wait to 
offer their 30 germane amendments. They did not work through the 
process.
  Right out of the box comes an amendment that has nothing to do with 
welfare, that we said, from the very beginning, if you offer this 
amendment, then we will be happy to vote on it in exchange for a 
commitment to finish this bill. But no. No. We have to get our message 
amendments out. Why? Because I believe there are many on the other side 
of the aisle who do not want a welfare bill, who want message 
amendments instead of improving a bill that we know works for the 
American public.

  Now, why would I say that? Well, let's listen to the Senator from 
Massachusetts, 8 years ago, on the floor of the Senate, dealing with 
this first welfare bill that we are trying to reauthorize and modestly 
improve. I underscore modest. This is not a major revamp of welfare in 
this bill. There are some modest improvements, tinkering, because we 
know what is out there is working. We want to make sure what has been 
put in place stays in place and make some minor tinkering to try to 
improve it. That is why this bill came out of the committee in a 
bipartisan basis, because these are not major changes. These are minor 
changes which amplify what we know has already been working out among 
the States.
  But what did the Senator from Massachusetts say about this bill in 
1996, which he voted against?

       These provisions are a direct assault on children and have 
     nothing at all to do with meaningful reform.

  Let's see if they had anything to do with a direct assault on 
children. Children in America who were at the highest poverty rates, 
when this bill passed, were African-American children. Let's see if 
Senator Kennedy's assault, as he termed it, came to be. No. Wrong. The 
assault was on poverty, not on children. The assault that Senator 
Kennedy foretold never happened. Over 40 percent of poverty was among 
African-American children in 1996. Now the rate of poverty among 
African-American children is the lowest ever recorded--the lowest ever 
recorded. Why? Because this bill works. Why? Because requiring work 
works. That is what this bill did. And that is what Senator Kennedy was 
vehemently against--vehemently against.
  He goes on to say:

       Here we are talking about American children living in 
     poverty, the innocent victims of fate.

  ``[T]he innocent victims of fate.''

       If this bill passes, they will be the innocent victims of 
     their own Government.

  Let me change that around. For 30 years, African-American children in 
poverty were the innocent victims of their Government, in programs 
created by the Senator from Massachusetts, which locked them in 
poverty. And we have the courage on this floor to say: Stop this 
``compassion'' that is killing America's children. We stood up and 
said, just because you are poor, you are not disabled, that we do not 
have a prejudice against you because you are poor, but we believe you 
can achieve just like the rest of Americans, if given the chance.
  So we passed a bill that fundamentally changed the structure that the 
Senator from California and the Senator from Massachusetts, and far too 
many others, believed was the best for children--well-meaning but very 
wrong.
  Instead of admitting this is the proper course, they now offer an 
extraneous amendment, having nothing to do with welfare, to block this 
hugely successful program in helping millions of families--millions of 
families--get off of welfare. How many millions? Two point eight 
million families. So 2.8 million families who used to get a welfare 
check now bring home a paycheck.
  You ask, How big a difference is that in our world? I will give you a 
story of a young lady who told her story. She works for CVS. She had 
been on welfare for many years. She said after she

[[Page S3532]]

had her first week of work and got her first paycheck, all of the 
children piled into her car and wanted to go to the store. Why? They 
wanted to go to the store because they wanted to go through the 
checkout line and have their mom pay with cash instead of food stamps. 
They wanted not to feel looked at as someone who was using the person 
behind them and their money to help pay for their food, but they had 
earned it themselves.
  You don't think that has an impact on a little child's life? You 
don't think that being dependent upon the Government has an impact on 
the psychology of little children who grow up in that environment? Do 
you think we are doing people a favor by saying, We will take care of 
you?
  If we don't pass this welfare reform bill today, the majority of 
Americans on welfare will no longer have a work requirement. If we 
don't pass a welfare reform bill, a majority of Americans on welfare 
will be in the old welfare system prior to the reform in 1996.
  You say, well, this bill doesn't really make any difference? It makes 
a huge difference because the incentives will not be there anymore. I 
can't tell you the number of welfare mothers I have talked to. As I 
mentioned before, we have employed nine in my State office. I have 
worked personally, hand in hand, in trying to deal with the 
difficulties of taking people from welfare to work. It makes an 
enormous difference in their lives. They have said to me, one after 
another: I probably would not be where I am today had welfare reform 
not passed and the Government changed their expectation of me. I had to 
look at myself differently. It forced me to do something I never had 
the courage to do because to get that first job is scary.
  It is a frightening thing, if you have very little skills, to go out 
and hold yourself up to failure. Let's be honest. Remember your first 
job. You knew nothing about what it meant to work. You knew nothing. 
How did you sign up? Where did you get your paycheck? What timecard did 
you fill out? There are so many things in the world of work that you 
have no concept of if you have no experience in it. That first job can 
be frightening, particularly if you are unskilled. Taking that first 
step or staying at home and letting the Government send you a check, 
that is an option that far too many people took.
  Well, we didn't allow that in this bill. And it was not cruel. It was 
a step in the right direction for 2.8 million families, 2.3 million 
children out of poverty, 700,000 African-American children out of 
poverty. And we are blocking a bill that would make this a reality for 
future generations of people who may have to go through the welfare 
system?
  I yield the floor to the Senator from Iowa. I thank the chairman for 
his tremendous effort in bringing this bill to the floor and fighting 
to get it through cloture and on to passage and to reality. He has been 
a warrior for children on this issue. I thank him for his work.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I thank the Senator from Pennsylvania for managing the bill while I 
had to be in a conference to work out compromises on the pension bill. 
But more importantly, going back to his days in the House of 
Representatives, he has been a trailblazer in the cause of moving 
people from welfare to work so that those people have an opportunity to 
move themselves up the ladder.
  Families on welfare and low-income families need childcare, and they 
need it now. This bill will help do that. If Democrats obstruct passage 
of this welfare bill, we risk losing a significant opportunity to 
substantially increase childcare funding for welfare families as well 
as for poor working families. If we simply continue the level of 
childcare funding under current law, hundreds of thousands of children 
and working families will lose their childcare. Estimates have been 
made that nearly 225,000 children could lose childcare assistance by 
the year 2006, and more than 360,000 children could lose it by the year 
2008.
  Is that what the Democrats want? Is that what they stand for in their 
vote against cloture on this legislation? That is playing politics on 
the welfare bill, and playing politics will not get this bill passed.
  This bill is good policy. Democrats know that. And good policy is 
good politics.
  Let me be clear: If Democrats succeed in their efforts to derail 
consideration of the welfare bill, hundreds of thousands of children 
will lose childcare. In other words, in order to score political 
points, Democrats are leaving poor children and their working single 
moms out in the cold. Without additional childcare resources, many 
States will be forced to make painful childcare cuts or institute 
waiting lists or increase copays.
  If childcare funds are not available, low-income families, working 
families trying to do the right thing will be unable to help pay for 
childcare. Children work; children suffer. Or else children don't 
suffer and parents don't work.
  Under this situation, they would be forced to resort to inadequate, 
unstable, probably unsafe childcare arrangements, or even be forced to 
give up their jobs and return to welfare, all so that political points 
can be made. That doesn't make sense to me, especially for a party that 
brags about putting the care of the people in need uppermost in their 
platform.
  I think that is shameful. Democrats ought to be ashamed of themselves 
for making political hay on the backs of these low-income people.
  In addition to the loss of childcare funding increases, if we are not 
able to enact this legislation--and you have to have cloture to get to 
finality, or else you have to have an agreement on the number of 
amendments and their germaneness to move ahead. So without one or the 
other, we are not able to enact welfare reform. In addition, we would 
also fail to make needed improvements to child support enforcement 
programs. We would fail to provide transitional medical assistance for 
5 years as well as give States access to the contingency funds they 
have not been able to use because we liberalized States' access to 
those contingency funds. We leave States in the dark about what a 
reauthorization bill next year would look like. Why leave 50 State 
legislatures in a lurch when if we acted, they can put their State 
programs in place and move on with certainty?
  When this is all added together--and there are a lot of other things 
we could say--it is an extraordinarily irresponsible policy that ends 
up with the lack of finality on the part of this Senate on welfare 
reform.

  But then maybe welfare reform has never been a priority for 
Democrats. In the 107th Congress, even though my friend, Senator 
Baucus, reported a bill out of committee with $5.5 billion for 
childcare, welfare never made it to the floor of the Senate. This year, 
the Senate Finance Committee reported out a bill with significant 
Democratic priorities in it, but no Democrat voted for it.
  Our Republican leader, Senator Frist, gave us a week out of a very 
crowded legislative schedule because welfare reform--taking care of the 
needs of the poor, the needs of children--is high on the agenda of 
Senator Frist. But it also has to be worked in with a very crowded 
legislative schedule. But he gave us time. He has many Members and many 
committee chairmen besides this Senator pressuring him for floor time 
to take up their bills, to consider legislation; yet, this had the high 
priority of our Republican leader.
  We passed the bipartisan and Republican-sponsored Snowe amendment, 
increasing childcare by $6 billion, and still it looks like Democrats 
are prepared to block action on this bill, this bill that helps poor 
people, because they have an agenda that somehow outranks welfare. 
Obviously, their agenda is to make political points. I am sad to say 
that ultimately children and their working moms are the ones who will 
pay the price for this political grandstanding.
  I hope we can do better by them, Mr. President. I have worked hard so 
that we could in fact do better for these people. It would be a shame 
if we are prevented from passing a bill that would genuinely help those 
in need just so the other side can score political points, or at least 
what they perceive to be political points.
  The question is whether the Democrats will be held accountable if 
they

[[Page S3533]]

succeed in killing welfare reform and killing an additional $7 billion 
for childcare. This issue is not about a vote on minimum wage. 
Republicans are willing to take a vote on minimum wage. As my colleague 
from Missouri, Senator Talent, said yesterday, ``We are willing to pay 
the ransom. We just need some assurances that we get the victim back.'' 
We need to know we can pass this bill and get it to conference. That is 
the issue over which Democrats are obstructing.
  It is very unprecedented that Democrats are objecting to appointing 
conferees. Let me say that more broadly. It is almost unprecedented for 
the legislative process not to work the way the Constitution writers 
intended, and that is you get to a point where you work out compromises 
between the other body and this one, and that takes a conference 
committee to do it. If you want a product instead of politics, you go 
to conference. That begs the point, are we ever, then, going to be able 
to pass anything around here? In order to get a bill enacted, it has to 
pass both bodies.
  We have $7 billion in childcare on the table right here. In order to 
score political points, Democrats are going to leave this banquet that 
is out there for people in need.
  Again, the issue is not about getting a vote on minimum wage. 
Republicans are willing to take a vote on minimum wage. The issue is 
about getting a bill done, reaching finality. Democrats are preventing 
us from getting a welfare bill through the legislative process. I hope 
they have a surprise for this Senator and that we get cloture, and that 
they deliver to the people what they promised. This is very unfortunate 
for our country and for families who could have benefited from the bill 
that it looks like Democrats are going to kill today.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
  The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Almost 18 minutes under Senator Baucus's time.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Chair. I ask the Chair to remind me when I 
have a minute and a half left.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will do so.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, we are voting at noontime today on a 
cloture motion, and those, obviously, in the Senate understand what 
this is all about. Before the Senate at the present time is a proposal 
offered by the Senator from California and myself to increase the 
minimum wage up to $7 in just over a 2-year period. The minimum wage 
has not been increased for the last 7 years. Now we find the minimum 
wage purchasing power is at an all-time low.
  Now, those on the other side--we just heard from my friend Senator 
Grassley--are saying we are somehow stalling this legislation. We are 
not. When this amendment was offered, the Senator from California and 
myself agreed to a 20-minute time limitation so we could move ahead 
with the rest of the debate on the TANF reauthorization. That was 
objected to. And then the majority leader put down a cloture motion.
  I welcome the opportunity to speak on the minimum wage because there 
is so much to say about it, about the people who are experiencing it 
and the impact of our failure to increase the minimum wage, 
particularly the impact on children. We have not had an opportunity to 
have a vote in the Senate for the last 7 years on this. It is time that 
we do. We are being precluded from doing so because of the 
parliamentary maneuvers of the majority to deny the Senate of the 
United States a vote up or down on whether we think some of the hardest 
working Americans ought to have an increase in the minimum wage.
  The Republicans are so frightened about voting on this, so they do 
the parliamentary tricks in order to try to deny the Senate an 
opportunity to vote on the minimum wage. Well, it is beyond me why they 
don't want to take the hard vote. Why not go back to your constituents 
and say, I am for this or against it. If you are against it, explain 
why. But we are being denied. It is not just denying the sponsors; they 
are denying over 7 million hard-working Americans the opportunity to 
get an increase in their pay.
  As I pointed out in the beginning, the purchasing power of the 
minimum wage now, at the end of this year, will be near an all-time low 
since it passed in 1938. We have a chance to do something about it and 
do something now.
  A quick response to my colleagues on the other side regarding the 
whole question of how increasing the minimum wage isn't really related 
to getting people off welfare into jobs. Well, it is difficult for 
people who have listened to the debate to accept that, particularly 
when the Secretary of HHS himself said this in comment to the 
underlying program, TANF:

       This administration recognizes that the only way to escape 
     poverty is through work, and that is why we have made work 
     and jobs that will pay at least the minimum wage . . .

  Do you hear that? Secretary Thompson said this:

     . . . the centerpiece of the reauthorization proposal for the 
     TANF program.

  Still our Republican friends say our amendment is not related to 
this. Of course it is. The President's spokesman indicated that. Still 
we are unable to get this.
  Mr. President, I have stated who these people are who are earning the 
minimum wage. They are men and women of pride and dignity. They deal 
with tough jobs--cleaning out buildings of our country, all over our 
Nation. They work in schools as assistant teachers. They work in 
nursing homes providing help and assistance for our senior citizens.
  Let me read one short story which is typical about a minimum wage 
worker. The name of this person is Fannie:

       She weighs bunches of purple grapes or rings up fat chicken 
     legs at the supermarket where she works, Fannie Payne cannot 
     keep from daydreaming.
       ``It's difficult to work at a grocery store all day, 
     looking at all the food I can't buy,'' Mrs. Payne said. ``So 
     I imagine filling up my cart with one of those big orders and 
     bringing home enough for all my kids.''
       Instead, she said that she and her husband, Michael, a 
     factory worker, routinely go without dinner to make sure 
     their four children have enough to eat. They visit a private 
     hunger center monthly for three days' worth of free 
     groceries, to help stretch the $60 a week they spend on food.
       ``We're behind on all our bills,'' Mrs. Payne said. ``We 
     don't pay electricity until they threaten a cut-off. To be 
     honest, I'm behind two months on the mortgage--that's $600 a 
     month.''

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I yield myself 5 more minutes from Senator Baucus's 
time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KENNEDY. She continues:

       ``We owe $800 on the water bill and $500 for heat.''

  These are the real workers who are going to benefit from an increase 
in the minimum wage.
  What has happened over the last 3 years? We have seen the number of 
Americans who are living in poverty grow from 3l million up to more 
than 34 million. These are 3 million Americans who are living in 
poverty, including hundreds of thousands of children, in the richest 
country in the world, who are living in poverty and, in so many 
instances, in hunger in the United States of America.
  This is what the 2003 survey by the U.S. Conference of Mayors that 
looked at hunger found. These are mayors, Republicans and Democrats: 39 
percent of the adults requesting food assistance were employed. Why? 
Because the minimum wage cannot provide sufficient income. These are 
hard-working individuals trying to look out after their families and 
feed them, and they cannot make enough to provide food for their 
families.
  No. 2, a leading cause of hunger was low-paying jobs. We have a 
chance to do something about that by increasing the minimum wage. This 
is what the mayors from all over the country, Republican and Democrat, 
say, that a leading cause of hunger is low-paying jobs.
  Emergency food assistance increased by 14 percent just this last 
year.
  Fifty-nine percent of those requesting food assistance were members 
of families, with children and elderly parents. This is what is going 
on in this country. We can make a difference.
  Finally, one of the major recommendations they make is raising the 
Federal minimum wage as a way

[[Page S3534]]

the Federal Government could help alleviate hunger. Do we hear that? 
That is the recommendation of the mayors of this country.
  Look at what happened in a study the National Urban League did on the 
issue of minimum wage. They say:

       Minimum wage workers are too often presented as teenagers 
     or wives in the middle class. Yet the clear implication of 
     this study is that the proposed increase in the minimum wage 
     from $5.15 to $6.65 an hour, or to $7 an hour in the case 
     today, would move 1.4 million American households to the 
     level of being food secure, having enough money to buy 
     nutritious, safe food for their families.

  It continues:

       The increase in the minimum wage lessens hunger in all 
     households, but particularly in low-income households and in 
     those households in which the householder was less educated, 
     in African, Hispanic, or single parents.

  This is what is happening. There is an increased number of those who 
are living in poverty and an increase in the number of children living 
in poverty.
  Look at the impact of hunger, the consequences of hunger and food 
insecurity on children. This is the Heller study, June of 2002:

       Elementary-school children from food-insufficient families 
     were more likely to have repeated a grade in school in both a 
     national sample of elementary-school children and a study of 
     low-income families from the Pittsburgh area.
       Hungry and at-risk for hunger children from 4 inner-city 
     schools in Philadelphia and Baltimore were absent from school 
     more days than other children and also had higher rates of 
     tardiness. A similar finding with respect to missing school 
     was found in a multi-state survey of low income households.

  These are the studies. Children are going hungry in America. This 
proposal is not going to answer all the problems, but it will help 7 
million Americans. That is something worthy of this body this day. But 
we are going to be denied by our Republicans the opportunity of even 
voting on this amendment.
  As I have said often, this is a women's issue because the great 
majority of individuals who receive the minimum wage are women. This is 
a children's issue because a great majority of those women have 
children. It is a women and children's issue. This is a family issue 
affecting women and children. This is a civil rights issue because so 
many of these men and women are of color. And finally, this is a 
fairness issue because people in the United States of America 
understand fairness, and they believe if you work 40 hours a week, 52 
weeks a year, you should not have to live in poverty.
  Let's vote up or down, at least have the courage of convictions on 
the other side and give us a chance and give these 7 million Americans 
who deserves an increase in the minimum wage an opportunity to have 
some hope at the end of the day because the Senate did the right thing.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, yesterday I asked unanimous consent to 
have printed in the Record a letter to myself and Senator Baucus signed 
by 41 Democrat Senators. However, at the time of printing it was 
missing its second page. I again ask unanimous consent that the letter 
be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                                   Washington, DC.
     Hon. Chuck Grassley, Chairman,
     Hon. Max Baucus, Ranking Member,
     Senate Committee on Finance, Dirksen Senate Office Building, 
         U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman and Senator Baucus: We believe 
     reauthorizing the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families 
     (TANF) program is an important item on the congressional 
     agenda for this year. The Personal Responsibility and Work 
     Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA) made dramatic 
     changes in our Nation's welfare laws that have had a profound 
     impact on disadvantaged families. We agree with the President 
     that the main goal of welfare programs should be to 
     strengthen families and support self-sufficiency. We would 
     like to work with you to build on the strengths of the new 
     system, as well as address areas where the new law falls 
     short.
       We are encouraged by the number of families who have moved 
     successfully from welfare to work. However, 33 million 
     Americans still live in poverty. The current economic 
     downturn has led to increases in both unemployment and, more 
     recently in many States, the welfare caseload. Today, almost 
     every State in the Nation faces a fiscal crisis. Under these 
     circumstances, a concerted, bipartisan effort is necessary to 
     preserve the progress we have seen so far, as well as 
     encourage States to help more families become independent.
       We strongly support several of the concepts the President 
     has outlined, if designed and implemented appropriately. 
     ``Universal engagement'' of welfare recipients would help 
     make sure each family's specific circumstances are considered 
     and addressed. Ending the current ``caseload reduction 
     credit,'' which gives States credit for people who are not 
     working, and replacing it with an ``employment credit,'' 
     would provide stronger incentives for States to move families 
     not only off of welfare but into jobs. Similarly, bipartisan 
     proposals to strengthen child support would encourage better 
     relations between non-custodial parents and their children, 
     and help families stay off welfare. We would like to work 
     with you to make sure all States can participate and that 
     families receive the child support they are owed. We also 
     agree that transitional Medicaid benefits should be extended 
     so parents who leave welfare will know their children will 
     have health care as their families make the transition to 
     work.
       We are concerned, however, that the administration's 
     proposals lack several key reforms that will help more 
     families achieve self-sufficiency. We believe reauthorization 
     should include four important components to achieve this 
     goal.
       First, to be successful, a work-oriented welfare program 
     must demonstrate that work will be fairly rewarded, and that 
     families will be better off if they play by the rules. We 
     must make sure states can provide critical work supports, 
     especially quality child care. Child care assistance is 
     essential if parents are to get a job and stay employed.
       A significant increase in funding for child care is needed 
     not only to support the current level of child care provided 
     to low-income working families, but also to improve the 
     quality of care provided and cover the millions of eligible 
     children currently without assistance. We know there are 
     significant additional costs associated with increases in 
     work requirements. Any welfare reform bill must include 
     sufficient funding to ensure that we are not cutting child 
     care services currently provided to low-income working 
     families in order to pay for child care for families 
     receiving TANF cash assistance. In addition, funding must be 
     provided to improve the quality of child care to ensure that 
     low-income children enter kindergarten ready to learn, as 
     well as to increase access for the millions of families who 
     are eligible but currently receive no child care assistance.
       This investment is even more important because of the 
     states' fiscal crises. At least 13 states cut their 
     investments in child care in 2002 because of budget 
     pressures, and more are likely to be forced to do so this 
     year or even next year. In this climate, it is not realistic 
     to rely on states to restore these needed funds, or fill in 
     gaps left by federal policies. Failure to strengthen the 
     federal investment in child care will have dire consequences 
     for many low-income families that are trying to succeed in 
     the workplace. We are pleased that the Senate Budget 
     Resolution rejects the President's proposal to freeze child 
     care funding, but we are still concerned that the proposed 
     funding will not sustain current levels of support, let alone 
     improve the quality of care or allow for increased work 
     requirements.
       Second, we must recognize the role legal immigrant families 
     play in our economy. Most legal immigrants came to this 
     country to find work; they contribute economically to their 
     communities and play important roles in the labor force. 
     Because of language and other barriers, many must take lower 
     paying jobs and thus can be buffeted by economic dislocation. 
     At their annual winter meeting, the nation's governors 
     reiterated that immigration, which is controlled by the 
     federal government, creates demands at the state level for 
     education, job training, social and health services, and 
     other assistance that is necessary to help immigrants 
     integrate into our communities and become self-sufficient 
     members of society. Currently, 31 states use their own funds, 
     without federal support, to provide TANF benefits and 
     services or health assistance to legal immigrants, and other 
     states often absorb emergency health care costs for these 
     families. Giving states the options to use federal funds for 
     benefits and services to legal immigrants is an issue of 
     fundamental fairness, and it would provide needed fiscal 
     relief for states.
       Third, states need more flexibility to make sure workers 
     have the skills to succeed in the workplace. At a minimum, we 
     support the provisions included in the bill reported by the 
     Finance Committee last year. Full-time, work-related 
     vocational training and education, post-secondary education, 
     basic adult education, work-study, and other similar 
     activities can lead to better jobs, more opportunities for 
     advancement, increased family incomes, and a more competitive 
     workforce. We should not arbitrarily limit states' ability to 
     support these activities, since they provide a true ``ticket 
     to independence.''
       Fourth, we support state and local innovation, but will not 
     support a ``superwaiver'' that merely shifts resources from 
     one pot to another and eliminates basic protections for 
     families, while bypassing Congressional oversight. A broad, 
     vague superwaiver is no substitute for providing states with 
     the flexibility within TANF to craft welfare-to-work programs 
     that meet the particular needs of their state economies and 
     the families they serve.

[[Page S3535]]

       Finally, we would like to express concern over 
     Administration and House proposals to significantly increase 
     work participation standards and work hours, without 
     flexibility and adequate increases in work supports. We agree 
     that TANF recipients should be engaged in work activities 
     that will help them to ultimately become self-sufficient. 
     However, we feel strongly that we should not impose rigid 
     requirements that would undermine successful state programs, 
     or reduce states' flexibility, which allows them to consider 
     and address the individual needs of participating families, 
     including disabilities and other barriers to employment.
       We would also like to point out that states have been 
     successful in reducing their cash assistance caseloads 
     because they have taken advantage of the flexibility in TANF 
     to support low-income working families, including not only 
     those receiving cash assistance, but also those who have left 
     welfare or those who are at risk of needing welfare. These 
     innovative efforts are already in danger because of the 
     states' fiscal crises; increasing work participation 
     requirements threatens the success of these programs by 
     significantly reducing the help available to support low-
     income working families for child care, and other key 
     services. We believe this would be a major step in the wrong 
     direction.
       We would also like to correct the perception that states 
     can support higher work participation standards without 
     additional resources. An argument has been made that states 
     have more resources per TANF family than they had in 1996. 
     This claim is misleading for several reasons. This line of 
     reasoning assumes that non-TANF Child Care and Development 
     Block grants (CCDBG), which support many low-income working 
     families, are used only to support families receiving TANF 
     cash assistance. In fact, the statute specifically states 
     that CCDBG funds are to be used not only for families 
     receiving assistance, but also for, ``families who are 
     attempting through work activities to transition off of such 
     assistance program, and families who are at risk of becoming 
     dependent on such assistance program.'' (PRWORA, Section 
     603).
       The Administration's figures also assume that all TANF 
     resources are used to support only families receiving 
     assistance. But states have been successful in reducing their 
     cash assistance caseloads because they have taken advantage 
     of the flexibility in TANF to support low-income working 
     families, including those who have left welfare or those who 
     are at risk of needing welfare. The General Accounting Office 
     reported in April 2002 that ``at least 46 percent more 
     families than are counted in the reported TANF caseload are 
     receiving services funded, at least in part, with TANF/MOE 
     funds.''
       The President has said, ``It is not yet a post-poverty 
     America.'' If we are to reach this goal, we must maintain 
     strong federal and state support for welfare reform, so that 
     families can escape the ravages of poverty and become self-
     sufficient. We look forward to working with you on a 
     bipartisan basis to achieve these important goals.
           Sincerely,
         Tom Daschle, Bob Graham, Jay Rockefeller, Blanche L. 
           Lincoln, John F. Kerry, John Breaux, Edward M. Kennedy, 
           Jeff Bingaman, Hillary Rodham Clinton, Patty Murray, 
           Jon S. Corzine, Barbara A. Mikulski, Maria Cantwell, 
           Chuck Schumer.
         Frank R. Lautenberg, Herb Kohl, Tom Harkin, Daniel K. 
           Akaka, Russell D. Feingold, Byron L. Dorgan, Mary L. 
           Landrieu, Paul Sarbanes, Dianne Feinstein, Joe 
           Lieberman, Tim Johnson, Barbara Boxer, Dick Durbin, 
           John Edwards.
         Carl Levin, Daniel Inouye, Debbie Stabenow, Harry Reid, 
           Jim Jeffords, Chris Dodd, Ron Wyden, Patrick Leahy, 
           Mark Pryor, Fritz Hollings, Jack Reed, Kent Conrad, Joe 
           Biden.

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Seven minutes forty seconds.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, if you could tell me when I have used 3 
minutes, I would appreciate it. I want to leave some time for the 
distinguished manager of the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority leader.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, this issue is very important. If we 
really want to help people move from welfare to work, we ought to 
increase the minimum wage.
  First, I wish to identify myself with the distinguished Senator from 
Massachusetts and what he just said about the importance of the minimum 
wage issue, but I want to talk more to the procedural question.
  In 1995, when we debated welfare reform the first time, the Senate 
had 40 rollcall votes--40 rollcall votes. The next year when we dealt 
with it a second time, because the bill had been vetoed, the Senate had 
30 rollcall votes, even under reconciliation. So we have had 70 
rollcall votes in the consideration of this bill on two occasions in 
fewer than 10 years.
  We have had one vote--one vote--on this bill so far. It was a good 
vote. I am very appreciative of the commitment made on a bipartisan 
basis to childcare. But the real question is, Can you have the kind of 
debate that has been experienced in the past, that should be 
anticipated now with the benefit of one vote?
  I have offered the distinguished majority leader that we could work 
through the remaining amendments and finish this bill before we leave 
next week. I have offered that consistently through the last several 
days in the hope we could reach some agreement. I am very disappointed 
that we have not been able to find some way with which to resolve just 
the procedural differences. A vote on minimum wage, a vote on the 
unemployment compensation, a vote on relevant amendments to the welfare 
bill is not too much to ask and, indeed, that has been the practice of 
the Senate.
  We are willing to work. This is not a question about whether we 
support welfare reform. We will get an overwhelmingly bipartisan vote 
on welfare reform, as we should. This is not a question of whether we 
should have anything less than an opportunity to debate issues that are 
directly relevant to people's lives as they try to cope with the 
extraordinary financial pressures they feel trying to get off welfare. 
We are hopeful we can do that.
  We are hopeful we can work with our Republican colleagues and figure 
out ways to deal with these relevant amendments and these amendments 
about which our Democratic caucus feel very strongly.
  We will oppose cloture today but in no way, shape, or form is it an 
indication of our lack of willingness to work to finish the legislation 
itself. Give us a chance to do what we have done twice before on this 
bill. Give us a chance to vote on amendments that are critical to a 
good and full debate about the direction we ought to take with regard 
to this bill, and you will have closure on it at a time in the not too 
distant future.
  I hope my colleagues will work with us to make that happen.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, what the Democratic leader has just 
suggested is allowing us to vote on welfare reform, but what the 
Democratic leader has insistently refused to do is to allow that bill 
to go to conference. Of course, a bill passage means nothing unless 
there can be a final resolution on that legislation. So what we are 
being told is they will give us an apparent victory of passing 
legislation with no end in sight. The idea that somehow or another we 
are going to have a final resolution--I think the words of the Senator 
from South Dakota were ``final resolution''--is simply not accurate. 
Passing a bill that has already been passed by the House gets basically 
put in limbo until we go to conference.
  The Democratic leader has been very clear about not moving this bill 
to conference. So let's be perfectly clear, we are absolutely ready--in 
fact, I will offer a unanimous consent. We are absolutely ready to give 
votes on issues of importance to the Democrats and, as I said before, 
we are willing to pay a ransom. But we want to make sure we get our 
victims back, and the victims in this case are the welfare reform bill 
and FSC/ETI.
  We want to make sure they have a chance of becoming law, not put in 
the bin of bills that have yet to go to conference because of some 
concern about fairness in conferences.
  I ask unanimous consent that at a time determined by the majority 
leader, after consultation with the Democratic leader, the Senate 
proceed to back-to-back votes, first, in relation to a public minimum 
wage amendment, to be followed by a vote on or in relation to the Boxer 
amendment with no second-degrees in order to either amendment; provided 
further that the bill be limited to germane amendments, and at 9:30 on 
Friday, April 2, the substitute amendment be agreed to, the bill be 
read a third time, and the Senate proceed to a vote on passage of the 
bill with no intervening action. Finally, I ask unanimous consent that 
following the passage of the bill, the Senate insist on its amendments, 
request a conference with the House, and the Chair be authorized to 
appoint conferees on the part of the Senate.
  I will explain what I have requested, and that is that we give a vote 
up or

[[Page S3536]]

down, which has not been allowed on a whole host of judges on this 
side, on the issue the Democrats say is the important issue of the day, 
in exchange for all the germane amendments the Democrats would like to 
offer between now and tomorrow morning. And if they would like a little 
bit more time tomorrow, we would be happy to do that, but passage and 
conference, that is what this request asks.
  Historically in the Senate, when we passed a bill we automatically 
went to conference. That has changed. So now we have to specifically 
include to do so in the unanimous consent or we do not get to 
conference.
  I ask unanimous consent according to what I just read.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Graham of South Carolina). Is there 
objection?
  Mr. DASCHLE. Reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority leader.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I simply say that on 21 occasions now when we have 
completed our work on a bill, we have done what is actually the normal 
process. We have--
  Mr. SANTORUM addressed the Chair.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I am reserving the right to object, and I assume I have 
the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania has the floor. 
There is no right to reserve the right to object.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I am happy to let the Senator from South 
Dakota talk on his time since my time is limited. If he would not mind 
taking his time, he could reserve the right to object.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I simply reserve the right to object and 
ask consent that the bill be sent to the House once it has been 
completed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I object to that modification because 
what the Senator from South Dakota has just said is, no, I will not let 
the bill go to conference. That is what sending the bill back to the 
House means, which means, no; no conference.
  As we all understand, without conference we do not get closure. 
Without closure, we do not get a bill and we do not help millions of 
Americans get out of poverty. What we are playing is politics.
  I commend to my colleagues a Brookings Institution Policy Brief of 
September 2003 ``Welfare Reform & Beyond #28.''
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have several articles 
printed in the Record.
   There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                [From the New York Post, Apr. 14, 2003]

    Welfare Reform Works, Yet Pols Seek Rollback in N.Y.C. and U.S.

                           (By June O'Neill)

        Politicians and experts from the left and the right 
     acknowledge that welfare reform has succeeded beyond the most 
     optimistic expectations. Yet the reforms are nonetheless 
     under political siege: Reauthorization of the major welfare-
     reform law is now nearly a year overdue and seems mired in 
     Capitol Hill politics. And last week the City Council gutted 
     the welfare-to-work policies that made New York City one of 
     the brightest examples of reform's success.
        One can only hope that Congress will listen to the message 
     of a large body of research that the council totally 
     disregarded--and pass a bill that retains the emphasis on 
     work that has served us so well.
        In 1995 and '96, many in the policy community predicted 
     disaster--children crushed by poverty and neglect--if work-
     oriented reform were approved. Instead, as documented in the 
     recent Manhattan Institute report I wrote with Anne Hill, the 
     poverty rate for single mothers, the major group affected by 
     welfare reform, has fallen by a record amount, from 40 
     percent to 32 percent between reform's passage in 1996 and 
     2001.
        Underlying this drop in poverty was a dramatic rise in the 
     employment of single mothers and an earnings gain large 
     enough to more than offset the decline in welfare benefits: 
     Single mothers saw their incomes rise by more than 20 percent 
     over the same period.
        As to the children, a recent study by Northwestern 
     University's Lindsay Chase-Lansdale and others found that 
     mothers' transitions off welfare and into employment were not 
     associated with negative outcomes for their preschool or 
     young adolescent children.
        New York City was perhaps the ultimate testing ground for 
     reform. In 1996, prior to passage of the reform law, 10 
     percent of the city's population was receiving welfare 
     benefits, compared to only 3 percent in the rest of the state 
     and 5 percent nationwide. Moreover, that number had 
     fluctuated little in decades. But by December 2002, the city 
     welfare rolls had dropped 55 percent, even including those 
     getting state and city rather than federal aid. And the 
     number of recipients continued to fall despite the painful 
     2001-2002 recession.
        What happened to the people who left welfare? A 1997 
     Columbia University study predicted that 500,000 single 
     mothers would be forced into poverty within five years. That 
     prediction proved totally wrong: The poverty rate among the 
     city's single mothers fell by more than a fifth, from 52 
     percent to 40 percent. Far from ending up helpless and in 
     deprivation, single mothers moved into the workplace in 
     record numbers.
        Some have tried to explain away these positive 
     developments by claiming that they were caused by the 1990s 
     economic boom. That explanation fails under scrutiny. In our 
     Manhattan Institute report, we find that welfare reform can 
     account for more than 40 percent of the rise in single-mother 
     employment between 1996 and 2001; the boom was responsible 
     for less than 10 percent.
        Of course, it is always difficult to separate out 
     statistically the net effects of different variables when 
     both are changing. However, our formal statistical analysis 
     is bolstered by historical observations which clearly show 
     that both the welfare and work participation of single 
     mothers in the pre-reform period was only weakly responsive 
     to the ups and downs of the business cycle. This explains why 
     welfare rolls have not risen much during the recent recession 
     and in many places have continued to decline.
        In other words, single mothers didn't leave welfare for 
     work because a good economy pulled them in. They left because 
     welfare reform changed the incentives single mothers face, 
     making work a much better option for them in the short and 
     long-terms.
        Before reform, welfare was a long-term entitlement to a 
     guaranteed income--cash, food stamps and medical benefits, 
     and often subsidized housing, too. This income was a limited 
     one, but it was given without any work requirement. So a 
     woman on welfare, particularly one with school-age children, 
     also gained something everyone values--lots of time to spend 
     on activities of her choosing.
        Welfare reform changed all that. Strict work requirements 
     sharply curtailed discretionary time. The five-year time 
     limit meant that long-term welfare support was no longer an 
     option. Faced with a dramatic shift in incentives, some women 
     who would have gone on welfare did not do so, while many on 
     welfare chose to leave welfare much sooner than they would 
     have.
        The commitment to join the workforce has given single 
     mothers the impetus to gain the skills and experience 
     essential to improving their lives. Indeed, my recent 
     research shows that women did better economically the longer 
     they stayed off welfare and in the workforce. Poverty rates 
     dropped 50 percent for women who did these things for four 
     years.
        Why? Each year in the workforce brings additional money--
     their hourly pay rose about 2 percent (after inflation) per 
     year worked, 3 percent if they stayed with one employer for 
     that time--enabling many to raise themselves out of poverty.
        Welfare reform succeeded because it made going to work 
     more attractive than going on welfare. Reauthorization of 
     reform is being held up and threatened by the failure of many 
     in Congress to recognize this point.
        Some would tie reauthorization to an increase in the 
     ability of single mothers to substitute education and 
     training programs for work experience. Such proposals sound 
     good--and typically were the centerpiece of the failed 
     welfare initiatives of the past--but they fly in the face of 
     what we know about why welfare reform worked, in New York 
     City and throughout the country.
                                  ____


                (From the New York Times, Mar. 6, 2004)

                     There's More Welfare to Reform

                        (By Douglas J. Basharov)

       When the landmark 1996 welfare reform law came up for 
     reauthorization in 2002, easy approval was expected. After 
     all, the legislation was popular, it had originally passed 
     with significant bipartisan support and, well, it was 
     working, with the number of people on welfare down an 
     astonishing 60 percent since states started putting reforms 
     in place.
       But instead of sailing through Congress, the 
     reauthorization effort became trapped in a political tug of 
     war between Republicans (who wanted tougher work requirements 
     added to the law) and Democrats (who wanted increased federal 
     money for child care). Instead of reauthorizing the law, 
     Congress has simply extended it several times, and now it 
     looks as if there will be yet another extension. That's a 
     shame--because the legislation needs to be updated now.
       Despite the law's success in getting people to join the 
     work force, roughly two million families remain on welfare, 
     many headed by single mothers who are unable to get--or 
     keep--a job because of limited education and skills.
       The Bush administration's reauthorization proposal focused 
     on these mothers. Because few states had made a concerted 
     effort to move them into programs that build specific job 
     skills, the administration called for states to adopt tougher 
     work and training requirements. Under the proposal, states 
     would have to put 70 percent of their adult recipients in 
     these designated activities for 40 hours a week.

[[Page S3537]]

       The administration's proposal was not quite as tough as it 
     seemed. It had a number of participation exemptions. What's 
     more, as the bill moved through the legislative process, it 
     was watered down in order to win support from moderates on 
     both sides of the aisle.
       But the administration was reluctant to broadcast the 
     legislation's softer side--doing so might undermine its pro-
     work rhetoric. That silence played into the hands of 
     Democrats. If the Republicans wanted welfare mothers to work 
     more, they argued, there should be a parallel increase in 
     child care financing.
       The Democrats had a point. But their demand for as much as 
     $10 billion in additional child care aid went far beyond the 
     needs of welfare families. It would have covered families 
     that had never been on welfare--and were in no danger of 
     needing it. Over time, the Democrats lowered their demands; 
     at this point, they would probably settle for about $6 
     billion over five years, which is still more than what is 
     needed to carry out the administration's plan.
       For the past two years, the administration has rejected 
     such large spending increases and, given the criticism 
     President Bush is receiving for the growing federal deficit, 
     it seems unlikely that he will give the Democrats what they 
     want. The Democrats' position likewise seems to be hardening. 
     They are now talking about waiting for a President John Kerry 
     to reauthorize welfare reform.
       The stalemate is doubly painful because there are clear 
     grounds for compromise. Republican modifications have 
     resulted in work requirements that, if clarified, would enjoy 
     wide support. Democrats know that reauthorizing the 
     legislation now will ensure that states get modest but still 
     substantial increases in child care money. Another year's 
     wait would keep the states at 2002 financing levels, 
     something that has so far cost them $400 million.
       Further delay would also forestall desperately needed 
     changes to the legislation. States have to be encouraged to 
     address the needs of the hardest-to-employ welfare recipients 
     by toughening participation requirements. Judging by the 
     experience of the states that have had the most success 
     moving these mothers into employment, we should require 50 
     percent of a state's welfare recipients to spend 24 hours a 
     week in required activities--perhaps 32 hours a week for 
     mothers with no children under the age of 6. States should be 
     given greater flexibility in how they reach this level, so 
     long as at least 10 percent of their welfare recipients are 
     in mandatory community service or on-the-job training 
     programs. (A separate exemption of up to 15 percent would be 
     needed for the disabled.)
       To cover additional child care and administrative costs, a 
     formula should be established that ties payments to the 
     states to increases in participation. The question of whether 
     there should be more federal aid for child care should be 
     reviewed on its own merits, not under the guise of welfare 
     reform.
       This kind of bipartisan compromise is never easy in an 
     election season. But two million American families are still 
     trapped on welfare. Can we really afford to wait another 
     year?
                                  ____


                (From the Washington Post, Aug. 5, 2003)

                        Work: The Key to Welfare

                   (By Brian Riedl and Robert Rector)

       Should Congress make work requirements for welfare 
     recipients stricter? That's what would happen under a bill 
     the House of Representatives has passed. It would require 
     more recipients to work 40 hours a week instead of the 
     current 30 and stop vocational training from counting as 
     ``work.''
       Bad idea, the critics say. They claim that education and 
     training programs lead to successful high-paying careers, 
     while putting welfare recipients to work immediately traps 
     them in low-paying, dead-end jobs.
       Wrong.
       Welfare recipients assigned to immediate work see their 
     earnings increase more than twice as fast over the following 
     five years as those first placed in education-based programs, 
     according to calculations we made using data from the 
     Manpower Demonstration Research Corp., a New York-based 
     nonprofit group. In fact, most government-run job training 
     programs barely raise hourly wage rates at all, a report 
     commissioned by the U.S. Labor Department reveals.
       If the goal of welfare reform is to raise earnings while 
     reducing dependency, then quickly moving welfare recipients 
     into real jobs is the answer. Prolonged classroom training 
     tends to be the dead end.
       Before the 1996 welfare reforms, the Aid to Families with 
     Dependent Children (AFDC) safety net was just that--a net not 
     only catching but also trapping nearly all who fell into it. 
     Welfare reform replaced AFDC with a program called Temporary 
     Assistance to Needy Families (TANF). This program was 
     designed not as a net but as a trampoline, springing families 
     back up to self-sufficiency by placing adults in permanent 
     jobs.
       The undeniable success of this approach is demonstrated by 
     the more than 5 million people (including 3 million children) 
     who have risen out of poverty since the law was enacted. 
     After remaining static for nearly a quarter-century, the 
     poverty rate of black children has dropped by a third and is 
     now at the lowest point in U.S. history. The poverty rate for 
     single mothers has plummeted in a similar manner since 1996; 
     it, too, is at the lowest point in national history.
       But welfare reform wasn't perfect. Today less than half of 
     TANF adult recipients are employed or preparing for 
     employment in any way. Most remain idle and continue to 
     collect welfare checks.
       President Bush and his congressional allies want to 
     strengthen welfare reform by increasing the TANF work-
     participation rate to 70 percent; opponents seem content 
     excluding millions of families from working or even preparing 
     to work. Yet those who would enact legislation that leaves 
     hundreds of thousands of welfare recipients in idle 
     dependence are clearly harming those they wish to help.
       And those who believe welfare recipients are better served 
     by education and training programs are ignoring the skills 
     that would help these poor adults the most. A study conducted 
     by the Washington-based Urban Institute shows that employers 
     consider a positive attitude, reliability, work ethic and 
     punctuality the most important traits they look for when 
     hiring for entry-level positions. These traits can't be 
     taught in a classroom, or as part of a training program--they 
     are acquired through firsthand work experience. Not 
     surprisingly, the same employers consider job training the 
     least important qualification.
       Unlike those stuck in a classroom or government-run job-
     training office, individuals placed in immediate work gain 
     real-world experience mastering job duties. As they build 
     work records, more job options and higher earnings become 
     available. In the meantime, even minimum-wage parents can use 
     the earned income tax credit, food stamps, Medicaid, the 
     Child Care Development Fund and the school lunch program to 
     raise their total income to two-thirds above the federal 
     poverty line.
       Some critics insist that all employable adults have already 
     left welfare, leaving only individuals with insurmountable 
     personal barriers to work. Not true. Urban Institute data 
     reveal the current welfare recipients are no less work-ready 
     than those who have left welfare. In fact, a substantial 
     number of them aren't classified as having any barriers to 
     work. And most of those with such barriers as a lack of 
     transportation, a slight disability or an inability to speak 
     English can, in fact, land jobs. But their chances of doing 
     so are much better if we insist on immediate work.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the unanimous request of 
the Senator from Pennsylvania?
  Mr. DASCHLE. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
  The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise to oppose the pending motion to 
invoke cloture. We are here today because the majority chooses not to 
allow a vote on a minimum wage. It is that simple.
  That is wrong. It is wrong because the millions of hard-working 
Americans making the minimum wage deserve a raise. It is wrong because 
the Senators from California and Massachusetts also deserve to get a 
vote on their amendment. It is not right that a person who has a full-
time job at minimum wage still has to live in poverty, but that is 
where we are today in America.
  For a family of three, let's say a mom and two kids, the gap between 
the poverty line and the minimum wage is $3,681. That is right, a 
family would need $3,681 more just to get up to the poverty level, and 
that is before taking into account the cost of child care, which is a 
big factor, or the cost of gasoline for the car--we know how much 
gasoline prices are rising--or the cost of clothes for a job. Often a 
person has to buy separate clothes for a job.
  If we want people to be able to move off welfare and into work--and 
that is what we want, people off welfare into work--we have to make 
sure the work they get pays enough so they can get off welfare and lift 
them out of poverty. That is what we have to do, and that is why 
increasing the minimum wage is so important.
  Most people who are on welfare will say they want to get off welfare; 
they do not like it; they hate it. That is what they tell me. I have 
talked to a lot of people on welfare. One of the main reasons they will 
say it is so difficult to get off welfare is because the job that pays 
at minimum wage does not pay enough for them to get by. I have heard 
that countless times. They are working full time but they cannot make 
ends meet. We need to raise the minimum wage to help people get off 
welfare.
  The vote today is also about another point. The Senators from 
California and Massachusetts deserve at least to have a vote on their 
amendment. They are willing to enter into a short time agreement. They 
are not delaying. They say, sure, let's have a vote on

[[Page S3538]]

their amendment, with a short time agreement. They are not delaying. It 
is the other side which is preventing them from having a vote.
  We on this side of the aisle do not wish to delay this bill. We are 
willing to work to get a finite list of amendments. We are willing to 
enter into a time agreement on amendments. We are not asking for 
anything out of the ordinary.
  I remind my colleagues that during the 13-day period for which the 
Senate considered the basic bill, the 1995 welfare bill, September 7 to 
September 19 of 1995, the Senate conducted 43 rollcall votes on 
amendments. So far this year we have conducted one, and yet there is a 
cloture motion to try to stop debate. That is not the way to legislate. 
We are not asking for anything out of the ordinary. We merely ask that 
Senators be able to offer amendments and get votes on their amendments.
  We have time agreements, we have lists, and so forth. That is what 
this debate is about. I urge my colleagues to uphold the rights of 
Senators. I urge Senators to vote to increase the minimum wage. I urge 
Senators to oppose cloture.

  How much time does each side have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Ten seconds.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I yield back the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I reiterate that we are perfectly 
willing to give up-or-down votes for a chance to pass this bill. I have 
asked unanimous consent and the other side has said no.
  I have heard so much about everyone having a right to get up-or-down 
votes. We have had a debate on the floor of the Senate for a year and a 
half about up-or-down votes on Federal judges. So maybe we can exchange 
up-or-down votes.
  I ask unanimous consent that we have an up-or-down vote on the Boxer-
Kennedy amendment, followed by a vote on a McConnell relevant amendment 
dealing with minimum wage, in exchange for a vote on Calendar No. 169, 
Carolyn Kuhl, of California, to be a judge on the Ninth Circuit Court 
of Appeals, and Calendar No. 455, Janice Rogers Brown to be United 
States Circuit Judge for the District of Columbia.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. BAUCUS. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
  Mr. SANTORUM. So we understand up-or-down votes only apply to their 
amendments and the things they want to do, not what Republicans want to 
do.
  We need closure and we are not getting it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, the clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant journal clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                      Senator Byrd's 17,000th Vote

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I would inform my colleagues that with 
this vote we will witness history. Senator Byrd will have cast his 
17,000th vote. No Senator in all of history will have done that. I will 
have more to say about that after the vote.
  I yield the floor.


                             Cloture Motion

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, pursuant to rule 
XXII, the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture.
   The assistant journal 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.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call has been waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the 
pending committee substitute amendment to 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 childcare, and 
for other purposes, shall be brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
   Mr. McCONNELL. I announce that the Senator from Alaska (Ms. 
Murkowski) is necessarily absent.
   Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) 
is necessarily absent.
   I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would vote ``nay.''
   The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
   The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 51, nays 47, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 65 Leg.]

                                YEAS--51

     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Graham (SC)
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Miller
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Voinovich
     Warner

                                NAYS--47

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Clinton
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Daschle
     Dayton
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham (FL)
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Stabenow
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Kerry
     Murkowski
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 51, the nays are 
47. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
  Mr. FRIST. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.

                          ____________________