[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.
____________________