[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 119 (Tuesday, September 28, 2004)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9763-S9766]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                             WELFARE REFORM

  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I will be offering a unanimous consent 
request to try to move forward on welfare reform and try to move this 
vitally important issue that affects millions of Americans out of the 
Senate and toward passage of an extension. Today, the House is going to 
pass an extension, and I hope we will also.
  I think it is unfortunate that we are left in the position that we 
are not able to pass a welfare reform bill in the Senate, in spite of 
the fact that an amendment on the underlying bill passed $1.2 billion 
in new daycare spending. That has always been the mantra of those who 
oppose welfare reform and work requirements, that there wasn't enough 
money for daycare. Yet $1.2 billion was added to the welfare bill, and 
we had attempt after attempt to move that bill to conference. So far, 
we have not been able to do so. As a result, we are here for another 
extension.
  We have had several extensions over the last 2 years. The problem 
with these extensions--let me make this point--is that the current 
welfare system was put into place in 1996. It had very tough work 
requirements. It had work requirements that were tied to

[[Page S9764]]

caseload reduction. What happened is we have had such a successful 
program over the last 8 years that almost all of the States have met 
their caseload reduction and therefore no longer have work 
requirements.
  So what we are seeing is that gradually, slowly, a lot of these 
States that have reduced their caseload are falling back under work 
requirement--not requiring work and not requiring the transformative 
value that this new welfare system that was put into place in 1996 has 
given to millions of women and children in poverty over the last 8 
years. If we just continue the 1996 bill, which was great in its time--
it achieved what it wanted to achieve and needed to achieve. Now we 
need to ratchet it up to make sure the work requirement is maintained 
and that we are still moving people out of poverty into work. So this 
extension I am going to offer does not accomplish that. That is 
disappointing.

  I hope to later on maybe offer an opportunity to go to conference, 
but for now, I want to offer a unanimous consent request to extend the 
current welfare bill for another 6 months and add two minor provisions 
that the Senator from Indiana, Mr. Bayh, and I have been working on now 
for quite some time in a bipartisan fashion.
  The two provisions deal with fatherhood, money that was not provided 
in the 1996 Welfare Act to encourage responsible fatherhood. There is 
$100 million for that provision and also $200 million to do a whole 
variety of things to try to educate and encourage responsible marriage, 
if you will; responsible fatherhood, responsible marriage, encourage 
fathers and mothers who are having children outside of wedlock.
  Let me give at least one example of how this money could be used. 
There was a study done at Princeton University which said that when a 
mother would apply for welfare with a child born out of wedlock, 80 
percent of the mothers who applied for welfare in this study, done by a 
liberal professor from Princeton, said they were in a relationship with 
the father of the child. When the father of the child was asked, 80 
percent said they were interested in marriage. So we have a mother and 
a father who in 80 percent of these cases that were studied said they 
were in a relationship at the time that welfare was applied for, which 
is certainly after the child's birth, and they were interested in 
marriage. Yet within a year's time, less than 10 percent of those 
couples were together.
  The point here is that Government does nothing, other than attach the 
father's wages for child support, to encourage that relationship or 
help that relationship prosper. All we are interested in is getting the 
money out of the hide of the father, which is not necessarily what 
nurtures a relationship.
  All we are suggesting is that if a mother and a father come in and 
say, yes, we are in a relationship, and, yes, we are interested in 
marriage at the time we are having this child, cannot the Government do 
something to help that situation? It is a very difficult time in these 
two young people's lives. They are going through a lot of stresses and 
strains. It is hard enough to have a child when you are married, much 
less when you are not married, and the difficulties associated with 
that. Could we pay for counseling? Could we pay for a faith-based 
organization to bring them in and help them get through these difficult 
times to nurture this relationship so the child of these two parents 
could have an opportunity to have a mother and a father in the home in 
a stable relationship?
  If we look at the benefits of marriage, they are overwhelming. Social 
scientist after social scientist has come in to testify before the 
Finance Committee in a hearing earlier this year from the left and the 
right and they said: There is no argument here, marriage is beneficial 
for children.
  It is beneficial for children because they have better school 
performance and there are fewer dropouts, fewer emotional and behavior 
problems, less substance abuse, less abuse and neglect, less criminal 
activity, fewer out-of-wedlock births. Everything we look at, marriage 
is a benefit to children. Why is the Government neutral on marriage? 
Why, if a couple is interested in marriage, can't we at least provide 
them some of the resources they need to build that relationship instead 
of just saying: Here is childcare dollars; if you want to get married, 
that is fine, we don't really care one way or the other; here are your 
childcare dollars and here are your whatever other dollars and that is 
all we care about. That is a short-term help for moms and children, but 
to have a stable, loving father and mother relationship is the best 
long-term help we can provide. But we do nothing. We are silent.

  What we are proposing here is to try to do something to provide some 
resources through responsible fatherhood programs to--in this case, 
these programs are trying to bring in fathers who have not been 
involved in their children's lives--find mentoring programs and other 
programs funded through the nonprofit arena to help bring fathers back 
into the lives of their children. Children need moms and dads, and 
responsible mothers and responsible fathers are optimal. Senator Bayh 
has been a leader on this issue, along with Senator Domenici. I have 
worked also to try to get more responsible fathers back into the lives 
of their children.
  Look at the statistics when it comes to fathers involved in 
children's lives: A child is two times more likely to abuse drugs if 
the father is not in the home, two times more likely to be abused if 
the father is not in the home, two times more likely to be involved in 
crime, three times more likely to fail in school, three times more 
likely to commit suicide, and five times more likely to be in poverty. 
That is what fatherlessness does to children.
  This extension I am asking for is a straight extension, no other 
changes, simply two modifications: One, $100 million to help bring 
fathers back into the lives of these children to help improve some of 
these horrendous statistics we see here, and, two, to simply have some 
support where Government is no longer neutral, I would argue even 
against by enabling, if you will--I won't say survival because it is 
beyond that--but enabling women and children to go forward without 
fathers. You can make an argument it is beyond neutral, that we are 
empowering through Government money mothers not to need fathers as much 
as they did before all these programs were out here.
  What we are saying is let's at least, if they express an interest in 
marriage, see if we can help them through this process. It is a 
straight extension, plus $100 million for fatherhood and $200 million 
for marriage programs.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the 
immediate consideration of Calendar No. 714, S. 2830; that the bill be 
read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be laid upon 
the table, and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in 
the Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, we on this 
side note the intentions of the Senator from Pennsylvania. The two 
programs he talks about extending certainly have merit. I think if we 
had the opportunity to discuss them, offer amendments, and debate them, 
we could complete that very quickly.
  The problem is that during the consideration of the welfare bill in 
March, the Senate passed a bipartisan amendment by a vote of 78 to 20 
to put in $6 billion in childcare funding. It is my understanding the 
amendment my friend from Pennsylvania offers does not include that.
  My question is, why should we create two new programs untested--but 
they appear to have some merit--without extending additional resources 
for childcare, something we know the Senate agrees to and we know 
parents need to succeed in the workplace?
  I ask my friend, will the Senator modify his request to include the 
Snowe-Dodd amendment? If this were done, I think we could move forward 
on this very quickly.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I would be willing to offer another 
unanimous consent request to take care of the very issue the Senator 
from Nevada has mentioned, which is I will offer another unanimous 
consent request to simply go to conference on the bill that is still 
pending in the Senate that has the $1.2 billion in the Dodd-Snowe 
amendment and send it to conference, and let's get this bill done.

[[Page S9765]]

  So I am willing to go to conference on that bill. In fact, if we can 
first dispense with this first unanimous consent request, I would be 
happy to offer a second one.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the first unanimous 
consent request?
  Mr. REID. To the second?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. To the first.
  Mr. REID. To the first? Yes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. An objection is heard.
  Mr. SANTORUM. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the 
immediate consideration of Calendar No. 305, H.R. 4; the committee 
substitute be agreed to; the bill, as amended, be read a third time and 
passed; and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table. I further 
ask consent that the Senate insist upon its amendment, request a 
conference with the House, and the Chair be authorized to appoint 
conferees.
  This is the welfare bill the Senator from Nevada described, the bill 
with $1.2 billion in new child care funding per year in mandatory 
spending. We have had this thing bound up in the Senate. The Senator 
asked would I be willing to amend my request. I have, in essence, done 
that.
  Now we can send this bill to conference. We can start working on it 
with the House and maybe we can get a new welfare bill instead of 
having an extension, which I would agree with the Senator from Nevada 
is not adequate because, in the eyes of the Senator, it does not 
provide enough daycare money. I would say it is not adequate because it 
does not require work anymore. Most States in the country now do not 
have to have work requirements because of the way the 1996 law was 
written.
  I agree with the Senator, this is the better solution. So I ask that 
unanimous consent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. REID. I did not quite get what the unanimous consent was.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I would be happy to read it again, but 
in essence it is to take the bill on the calendar now, which has the 
Snowe-Dodd amendment in it.
  Mr. REID. H.R. 4?
  Mr. SANTORUM. H.R. 4. And send it to conference and ask for a 
conference with the House.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, we have the 
timeline on this bill so it is unnecessary to go through it. I ask 
unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record as to what has 
happened.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                        Bill Summary and Status


                       H.R. 4--welfare extension

       2/13/2003, 2:35 p.m.: H. Amdt. 2--On agreeing to the 
     Kucinich amendment (A001) Failed by recorded vote: 124-300 
     (Roll No. 27).
       2/13/2003, 2:38 p.m.: H. Amdt. 3--Amendment (A002) in the 
     nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Cardin (consideration: 
     CF H530--546, H547-550; text: CR H530-542. Amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute sought to expand state flexibility to 
     provide training and education, increase to 70 percent the 
     number that are required to be engaged in work related 
     activities, provide states with an employment credit, 
     maintain the current participation requirement, maintain the 
     time limit on Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) 
     benefits, increase child care funding by $11 billion over the 
     next 5 years, and remove barriers to serving legal 
     immigrants.
       2/13/2003, 3:49 p.m.: H. Amdt. 3--On agreeing to the Cardin 
     amendment (A002) Failed by recorded vote: 197-225 (Roll No. 
     28).
       2/13/2003, 3:50 p.m.: Mr. Cardin moved to recommit with 
     instructions to Ways and Means (consideration: CR H550-552; 
     text: CR H550).
       2/13/2003, 4:15 p.m.: On motion to recommit with 
     instructions Failed by the Yeas and Nays: 197-221 (Roll No. 
     29).
       2/13/2003, 4:21 p.m.: On passage Passed by the Yeas and 
     Nays: 230-192 (Roll No. 30) (text: CR H499-513).
       2/13/2003, 4:21 p.m.: Motion to reconsider laid on the 
     table Agreed to without objection.
       2/13/2003: Received in the Senate and Read twice and 
     referred to the Committee on Finance.
       9/10/2003: Committee on Finance. Ordered to be reported 
     with an amendment in the nature of a substitute favorably 
     (Markup report: National Journal, CQ).
       10/3/2003: Committee on Finance. Reported by Senator 
     Grassley with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. 
     With written report No. 108-162. Minority views filed.
       10/3/2003: Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under 
     General Orders. Calendar No. 305.
       3/29/2004: Measure laid before Senate (consideration: CR 
     S3219-3254, S3256-3278; text of measure as reported in 
     Senate: CR S3219-3254).
       3/29/2004: S. Amdt. 2937--Amendment SA 2937 proposed by 
     Senator Grassley for Senator Snowe (consideration: CR S3260, 
     S3273-3274). To provide additional funding for child care.
       3/30/2004: Considered by Senate (consideration: CR S3324-
     3345).
       3/30/2004: S. Amdt. 2937--Considered by Senate 
     (consideration: SR S3324, S3334-3335).
       3/30/2004: S. Amdt. 2937--Amendment SA 2937 agreed to in 
     Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 78-20. Record Vote No. 64.
       3/30/2004: S. Amdt. 2945--Amendment SA 2945 proposed by 
     Senator Boxer (consideration: CR S3336-3345; text: CR S3336). 
     To amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to provide for 
     an increase in the Federal minimum wage.
       3/30/2004: Cloture motion on the committee substitute 
     amendment presented in Senate (consideration: CR S3359; text: 
     CR S3359).
       3/31/2004: Considered by Senate (consideration: CR S3407-
     3448).
       3/31/2004: S. Amdt. 2945--Considered by Senate 
     (consideration: CR S3407).
       4/1/2004: Considered by Senate (consideration: CR S3529-
     3538, S3544-3557).
       4/1/2004: S. Amdt. 2945--Considered by Senate 
     (consideration: CR S3529).
       4/1/2004: Cloture motion on the committee substitute 
     amendment not invoked in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 51-47. 
     Record Vote No. 65 (consideration: CR S3538).

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, at the time the debate was going forward on 
this most important bill, an amendment was offered by the Senator from 
California dealing with minimum wage. Immediately, cloture was filed. 
Cloture was not invoked.
  We would have no problem going forward with the bill prior to going 
to conference, assuming the Senate seeks to resume H.R. 4 in the status 
it was when it was pulled from the floor which is, of course, the 
pendency of the Boxer amendment. So I ask my friend, the distinguished 
Senator from Pennsylvania, to modify his unanimous consent to allow us 
to proceed with H.R. 4 on the floor with the Boxer amendment pending.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SANTORUM. I say to the Senator from Nevada that on March 30, I 
did that. I actually proposed the unanimous consent to allow a vote in 
relation to the Boxer amendment, with a substitute offered by Senator 
McConnell on the issue of minimum wage, which I know was an important 
issue at the time of this discussion. I offered that unanimous consent 
so we could move forward and dispose of those two amendments and then 
move the bill to conference, and that was objected to.
  There was objection to the extension with some minor modifications to 
help marriage and fatherhood. There was an objection to a unanimous 
consent that puts $1.2 billion into new child care funding to go to 
conference. We have seen objections--I suspect this will be objected to 
again, if I would offer it, which is an opportunity to have a vote on 
minimum wage up or down, and a vote on our minimum wage proposal up or 
down, and then send it to conference.
  I do not know how many times one has to say no to get the idea that 
maybe there is something other than trying to get votes on issues that 
are of concern to the minority, that there might be some underlying 
concern about having an extension of the welfare bill or a modification 
to it, and I think that is probably where we are.
  It is unfortunate because it is important to reestablish work 
requirements. It is important to give people the best opportunity to 
succeed in America. We have seen, for example, in this country, as a 
result of welfare reform which passed in 1996, the lowest rate of black 
poverty in the history of the country, lowest ever as a result of 
requiring work and changing the dynamic in low-income families in 
America. So we have shown success.
  It is unfortunate we are not going to be able to continue that 
success as a result of the blocking maneuvers on the side of the 
Democrats.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the Senator's unanimous 
consent?
  Mr. REID. I have a modification of the request pending.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the modification?
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I object to the modification.

[[Page S9766]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
  Mr. REID. I object to the underlying request and ask the Senator to 
allow a clean extension for 6 months of this most important 
legislation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I will object for the moment. I 
understand the House is working on an extension right now. We may agree 
later today. Certainly, we need to do an extension and I will check 
with the leader on that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
  The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, prior to my distinguished friend, the 
Senator from Kentucky, taking the floor, I inquire as to how much time 
is remaining with the majority?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 13 minutes.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, if I could on behalf of Senator Daschle 
yield 15 minutes when our time comes to Senator Kennedy, 5 minutes to 
Senator Durbin, and 5 minutes to Senator Feingold.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  The Senator from Kentucky.

                          ____________________