Congressional Record, Volume 150 Issue 44 (Thursday, April 1, 2004)

[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.

____________________