[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 10]
[Senate]
[Pages 14435-14442]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[[Page 14435]]

NOMINATION OF WADE F. HORN, OF MARYLAND, TO BE ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR 
        FAMILY SUPPORT, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the nomination.
  The assistant legislative clerk read the nomination of Wade F. Horn, 
of Maryland, to be Assistant Secretary for Family Support, Department 
of Health and Human Services.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Johnson). The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, again, for the sake of my colleagues' 
schedules, I do not think this will take that much time. I know there 
are some Senators who want to speak. I think it is a relatively 
noncontroversial nomination. I certainly do not need 2 hours.
  I do want to speak on the nomination of Dr. Wade Horn to the position 
of Assistant Secretary for Family Support at the Department of Health 
and Human Services.
  This is a very important position. Once confirmed for this position, 
Dr. Horn is going to have authority over the administration of the 
Federal welfare, child care, child welfare, foster care, and adoption 
programs. He is going to have considerable influence in the upcoming 
reauthorization of the so-called welfare reform legislation.
  These are issues that all of us care about. But, as my colleagues 
know, much of my own background, in addition to teaching, was community 
organizing. Most of that was with poor people. And much of that was 
with single-parent families, almost always women, sometimes men. 
Unfortunately, when marriages dissolve, or when it comes to the 
responsibility of raising children, it disproportionately falls on the 
shoulders of women.
  I have devoted a lot of time to these issues. I really believe that, 
for me, if I have a passion, it is around the central idea that every 
child in our country should have the same opportunity to reach her or 
his full potential. That is what I believe. I suppose all of us do. 
Maybe people have different ideas how we realize that goal, but, for 
me, that is the core value that informs me as a Senator. And I am for 
everything--public sector, private sector--that makes that more likely, 
more possible, and I am opposed to whatever makes it less possible.
  In my opinion, Dr. Horn's views about the causes of the circumstances 
of these families--especially single-parent families, almost always 
headed by women--as well as a number of his stated proposals as to how 
to address these circumstances make him not the right choice to serve 
in this position. I do not think he is the right person for this job.
  I hasten to add that I have met with him. I am sure that this 
discussion in the Senate Chamber is of great interest to Dr. Horn. As I 
say, I have met with him. He was more than obliging to come by. I 
thought we had a very good discussion. And I do not say that as a 
cliche. He responded in writing to a number of questions I sent to him 
following the conversation.
  I think he feels just as strongly about these issues as I do. I think 
he would fight against any policy he thought would be harmful to low-
income families, especially poor children. I do not want to caricature 
him. We have an honest but fundamental disagreement about the best way 
to move families in this country from poverty to self-sufficiency.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter and 
the signatures of more than 90 organizations that oppose this 
nomination.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                                    June 14, 2001.
       Dear Senator: We are writing to urge your opposition to the 
     nomination of Wade Horn as Assistant Secretary for Family 
     Support at the Department of Health and Human Services. We 
     ask that you investigate the writings and philosophy of Mr. 
     Horn and that you question him thoroughly when he comes 
     before the Senate Finance Committee for confirmation.
       The HHS Assistant Secretary for Family Support, the 
     country's top family policy post, will be making important 
     decisions and recommendations on many critical public 
     programs which serve predominantly lower income children and 
     families, including welfare, childcare, child welfare, child 
     support, adoption, foster care, child abuse and domestic 
     violence. The person who holds this job will also influence 
     the Administration's positions and activities dealing with 
     next year's reauthorization of the Temporary Assistance to 
     Needy Families (TANF) programs. This person must be able to 
     understand and promote the needs of ALL families in our 
     society.
       Wade Horn wants the government to promote marriage by 
     penalizing families where the parents divorce, separate, or 
     do not marry. He also wants the government to tell unmarried 
     mothers to surrender their children for adoption. There is 
     very little ``support'' for families in these sentiments.
       With Wade Horn as Assistant Secretary for Family Support, 
     we fear a Department of Health and Human Services that will 
     penalize, and promote discrimination against, families headed 
     by a divorced. Separated, or never-married parent or where 
     both parents live in the home but are not married. Horn has 
     written that single parent families should be denied public 
     benefits whose supply is limited--such as public housing, 
     Head Start, and child care--unless all married couples have 
     been served first. Horn has written that cohabiting parent 
     families should be denied any welfare benefits at all, and 
     kept at the end of the waiting list for other benefit 
     programs.
       Due to divorce, separation, death, abandonment or their 
     parent's never-married status, more than half the children 
     growing up today will spend some of their childhood in a 
     single-parent family. An increasing number of children live 
     in two parent families where the parents delay marriage, 
     choose not to marry or are prevented by law from marrying. 
     Horn advocates penalizing all these children.
       By supporting Wade Horn's nomination as Assistant Secretary 
     for Family Support at the Department of Health and Human 
     Services, President Bush's campaign call to ``Leave No Child 
     Behind'' rings hollow. If the President's true intention is 
     to support all of America's families and children, rather 
     than judging and penalizing many, he should appoint an 
     individual who can work with Congress, our states and our own 
     dedicated organizations to ensure that we will be more--not 
     less--compassionate when dealing with our children and 
     families living at or near poverty.
           Sincerely,

     Abortion Access Project
     ACORN
     AIDS Action Committee
     Alternatives to Marriage Project
     American Ethical Union
     Applied Research Center
     Arizona Coalition Against Domestic Violence
     Association of Reproductive Health Professionals
     Boston Coalition of Black Women
     Boston Women's Health Book Collective
     Business and Professional Women/USA
     Center for Community Change
     Center for Reproductive Law and Policy
     Center for Third World Organizing
     Center for Women Policy Studies
     Center on Fathers, Families and Public Policy
     Chicago Jobs Council
     Chicago Metropolitan Battered Women's Network
     Children's Foundation
     Choice USA
     Coalition Against Poverty
     Coalition for Ethical Welfare Reform
     Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights
     Coalition of Labor Union Women
     Colorado Center on Law and Policy
     Communications Workers of America
     Community Voices Heard
     Democrats.com
     Displaced Homemakers Network of New Jersey
     Empire State Pride Agenda
     EMPOWER,
     Family Economic Initiative
     Family Planning Advocates of New York State
     Feminist Majority
     Finding Common Ground Project at Columbia University
     Grassroots Organizing for Welfare Leadership (GROWL)
     Hawaii Coalition for the Prevention of Sexual Assault
     Hawaii State Coalition Against Domestic Violence
     Hesed House
     inMotion, Inc.
     Institute for Wisconsin's Future
     Iowa Coalition Against Domestic Violence
     Jewish Women International
     Los Angeles Coalition to End Hunger & Homelessness
     Make the Road by Walking
     Massachusetts Welfare Rights Union
     McAuley Institute
     Men for Gender Justice
     MOTHERS Now
     National Association for the Advancement of Colored People 
         (NAACP)
     National Association of Commissions for Women
     National Black Women's Health Project
     National Center on Poverty Law

[[Page 14436]]

     National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs
     National Employment Law Project
     National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association
     National Gay and Lesbian Task Force
     National Organization for Women (NOW)
     National Women's Conference
     National Women's Political Caucus
     New York City Gay & Lesbian Anti-Violence Project
     9to5, National Association of Working Women
     Nontraditional Employment For Women
     North Carolina Coalition Against Domestic Violence
     Northeast Missouri Client Council for Human Needs
     Northeast Washington Rural Resources Dev. Assoc
     NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund
     PADS, Inc
     Pennsylvania Lesbian and Gay Task Force
     People United for Families
     Planned Parenthood of New York City
     Poor People's United Front
     Progressive Challenge Project, Institute for Policy Studies
     Public Justice Center
     Rural Law Center
     Sociologists for Women in Society
     Survivors Inc.
     Texas Council on Family Violence
     Unitarian Universalist Service Committee
     Voters For Choice Action Fund
     WEEL (Working for Equality and Economic Liberation)
     Welfare, Education, Training Access Coalition
     Welfare Law Center
     Welfare Made a Difference Campaign
     Welfare Rights Organizing Coalition
     Welfare Warriors
     Women's Center at the University of Oregon
     Women's Committee Of 100
     Women Employed
     Women's Environment and Development Organization
     Women's Housing and Economic Development
     Women's Institute for Freedom of the Press
     Women's Institute for Leadership Development
     Women's Law Project

  Mr. WELLSTONE. A lot of the organizations listed include women and 
children organizations and, in particular, organizations that do the 
down-in-the-trenches work dealing with domestic violence. That is what 
I want to talk about. It does not get discussed enough.
  In this disagreement, I want to address, in particular, Dr. Horn's 
focus on ``marriage promotion and responsible fatherhood policies.'' He 
is a prominent advocate of ``marriage promotion and responsible 
fatherhood.'' Some of these ideas are going to be central to the 
reauthorization of welfare ``reform'' next year.
  Again, I always put ``reform'' in quotes. Just as single moms were 
the focus in 1996, single dads could very well be in the spotlight next 
year. I do not think that, in itself, is a bad thing. I doubt whether 
there is anyone among us who would argue against the importance of 
where fathers fit in with families, about the importance of investing 
in the needs of low-income men, just as we should be concerned about 
the needs of low-income women.
  The question is, what kind of investments we should make, and how can 
we best serve the needs of low-income adults, men and women, and also 
their children?
  Dr. Horn most recently was president of the National Fatherhood 
Institute which was created in 1994 ``to counter the growing problem of 
fatherlessness by stimulating a broad-based social movement to restore 
responsible fatherhood as a national priority.''
  I believe in the importance of responsible fatherhood. Having three 
grown children and six grandchildren, I certainly believe in it. I am 
not here to speak against responsible fatherhood.
  He also sat on the board of Marriage Savers, which is a Maryland-
based group promoting community marriage covenants that are designed to 
make divorces more difficult to obtain. Dr. Horn has in the past urged 
States to take advantage of opportunities created by welfare reform to 
address what many cultural conservatives consider to be the root of 
society's social ills today, the decline of the traditional family.
  In 1997, he wrote a report, along with Andrew Bush, director of the 
Hudson Institute's Welfare Policy Center. Dr. Horn recommended that 
States basically--I have to use this word-- ``discriminate'' against 
single-parent families by establishing ``explicit preferential 
treatment for marriage in the distribution of discretionary benefits 
such as public housing and Head Start slots.''
  Now, although he has distanced himself from this suggestion, as 
recently as June of this year, Dr. Horn has continued to advocate for 
policies that would provide financial incentives for marriage.
  Let me go back to 1997. I know this is not the issue that carries the 
most weight in the Senate Chamber. I am not trying to be self-
righteous. There is a reason why so many organizations and so many 
people around the country work in this area. The notion of women being 
battered at home and what the children see, that is just not so much on 
our radar screen, although a woman is battered every 15 seconds of 
every day in America. When you start making an argument that for Head 
Start or public housing the way that you are going to encourage 
marriage is to give preferential treatment to those who are married, 
what you do is you put poor women in a situation where they dare not 
leave a home which is so dangerous for them and their children because 
then they may not have any Head Start benefits for their child or they 
may not be in line to get the housing they need. Why in the world would 
anyone ever want to advocate such policies?
  I am sorry. A lot of this discussion today on my part will be low key 
for me, but not this part of the discussion. I know that Senators don't 
think about this, but just think about the harshness of these kinds of 
proposals. Dr. Horn, I hope, is going through some rethinking on this 
question as well. I think he is, from the discussion we had. But it 
concerns me for anyone as recently as 4 years ago to advocate that for 
low-income families, you give preferential treatment to those who are 
married so that single-parent homes headed by women, almost always, are 
put at a disadvantage. Then we are going to make it hard for this woman 
to get out of this situation. Sometimes you don't want women to stay in 
the homes. Sometimes you don't want them to stay in the marriages 
because they are hellish situations. Somebody has to say that in the 
Senate.
  The only reason I am speaking today, after having already testified 
to the goodwill of Dr. Horn as a person, is because I am going to stay 
so close to his work, and I am going to insist that not one proposal 
come from this administration that puts some of these women and these 
children in jeopardy. This problem of violence in homes is a real 
problem in our country.
  In a recent article, entitled ``Wedding Bell Blues, Marriage and 
Welfare Reform,'' Dr. Horn suggested that Congress could mandate that 
States implement policies such as West Virginia's current practice. 
That is, you provide a cash bonus to single mothers on welfare who 
marry their child's biological father, or perhaps, he has suggested, 
Congress could provide a $5,000 cash payment to a woman at risk of 
bearing a child out of wedlock, if she bears her first child within 
marriage, to be disbursed in $1,000 annual payments over 5 years as 
long as she remains married.
  Again, I know if these proposals are made within the framework of 
promoting responsible fatherhood or promoting intact families or being 
opposed to divorce, it may sound attractive. But again, think about the 
ways in which these proposals can be in some circumstances actually 
dangerous to the well-being of many low-income women and children. 
Somebody in the Senate has to advocate this position.
  My wife Sheila--more Sheila than I--has spent years now working on 
domestic violence issues. There is no doubt in my mind, none, that 
policies that tie financial incentives to getting married or staying 
married will result in increased incidents of domestic violence. Think 
about it for a moment. If a low-income woman is faced with a choice of 
receiving $1,000 a year, especially a woman who with her children is 
living in extreme poverty, or leaving a situation where she has been 
abused, what is she likely to do? What kind of incentive have you built 
into public policy?
  You have built in an incentive which says to this woman: You need to 
stay

[[Page 14437]]

at home. You need to marry this man. You need to stay married to this 
man. What if this man has battered her over and over and over again?
  How can so many Senators who supported the Violence Against Women 
Act, where we finally have begun to address this issue, now not express 
concern about these kinds of proposals?
  By the way, if we can afford to give families with children an extra 
thousand dollars a year, then by what logic can we possibly suggest 
that other families with children should be made poor simply because 
their parents are unmarried? Think about it for a moment. Why should a 
child, no fault of his own or her own, just because that child is the 
daughter or son, little daughter or son, of a single parent, a family 
where the parents are not together, be penalized? This is nonsensical. 
These are rather perverse priorities or incentives built into public 
policy.
  When considering marriage as a solution for poverty, we need to face 
the reality that violence against women is a significant cause of 
women's poverty. Domestic violence makes women poor, and it keeps them 
poor. The majority of battered women attempt to flee their abusers, but 
many of them end up on welfare or they end up homeless. Study after 
study demonstrates that a large proportion of the welfare caseload, 
consistently between 15 and 25 percent, consists of current victims of 
serious domestic violence. Between one-half and two-thirds of the women 
on welfare have suffered domestic violence or abuse at some time in 
their adult lives. Over 50 percent of homeless women and children cite 
domestic violence as the reason they are homeless.
  Please understand, whether it be preferential treatment for Head 
Start or affordable housing, or whether it be bonuses that reward women 
for staying in a marriage, let's not put low-income women in a position 
where they are in a very dangerous home, they are being battered, and 
quite often their children are battered as well.
  Their children witness the violence not in the movie, not on 
television, but in their own living rooms. The children can't do as 
well in school. Don't create a set of financial incentives that are 
going to make it harder for these women and these children to be able 
to leave these circumstances. That is what I am saying today. These are 
my concerns. That is why you have close to 90 organizations--by the 
way, hardly any of them would have any clout--that have real concerns 
about this. For these women and children, the cost of freedom and 
safety has been poverty. Marriage is not the solution to their economic 
insecurity.
  By the way, do you know that one of the problems is, even if these 
women leave and they go to shelters--as my colleague from Nevada said 
earlier today, in many of our States we have more animal shelters than 
we have shelters for women and children who experience violence. How 
about that? Then, if they are in a shelter, there is no affordable 
housing to go to. As opposed to making proposals, which Dr. Horn has 
made, that talk about all these bonuses and ways of promoting marriage, 
why don't we, instead, put the emphasis on responsible fathers?
  Don Frazier, who was mayor and a great representative of the House of 
Representatives, did a lot of that in Minnesota. We should do more. But 
if we have this kind of money, why don't we put it into affordable 
housing?
  Marriage is not the solution to their economic insecurity. For some 
of these women--can I say this one time in this Chamber? For some of 
these women, marriage could even mean death. I am sorry. I am going to 
say it again. That is true. I feel strongly about this. I know what the 
reality is, from what I have seen with my own eyes from the work Sheila 
and I have done with women who have been faced with violence in their 
homes. For some of these women, not only is marriage not the answer to 
their economic insecurity, for some of them marriage could even mean 
death. It will undoubtedly mean economic dependence on the abuser. Many 
battered women are economically dependent on their abusers. Between 
one-third and almost 50 percent of abused women, surveyed in five 
studies, said their partner prevented them from working entirely. In 
fact, we introduced legislation today--Senator Murray, Senator Dodd, 
Senator Schumer were a part of this--in which we said--and we had 
people from the business community and the labor community testify--
part of the problem is a lot of women, when they try to leave and work, 
the abuser, the stalker, comes to work, threatens them, comes into the 
office and makes a scene, and guess what happens. The employers let the 
women go. They say we can't take this any longer, and then she loses 
her job.
  Of the 96 percent of women who report they experienced problems due 
to domestic violence, 70 percent have been harassed at work, 50 percent 
have lost 3 days of work a month as a result of abuse, and 25 percent 
have lost at least 1 job due to domestic violence.
  Do you want to put these women in a situation where they have to stay 
in these marriages? Marriage is not always the answer, colleagues. I 
have been married 37 years--maybe closer to 38 years. It has been the 
best thing that ever happened to me. God, I will sound corny. I am most 
religious in my thinking about having met Sheila when we were 16. It is 
the best thing that ever could have happened to me. I am not just 
saying some trumped up thing on the floor of the Senate. But marriage 
is not always the answer or the alternative to poverty for many of 
these women and children.
  Dr. Horn has not shown the understanding and sensitivity to these 
questions he needs to show. He is a good person. He will be nominated. 
I already said that. But I at least want to speak about my concerns.
  The Congress has recently recognized that domestic violence is a 
serious national problem. We have the Violence Against Women Act and 
other legislation, and it seems to me that we ought to at least be very 
sensitive to these concerns.
  Dr. Horn and others in the responsible fatherhood movement argue that 
many of our most pressing social problems--school violence, teen 
pregnancy, and substance abuse, to name a few--can be directly related 
to the absence of fathers in the lives of their children.
  David Blankenhorn of the Institute for American Values has gone so 
far as to suggest that fatherlessness is ``the engine that drives our 
most pressing social problems.'' And topping the list of concerns, of 
course, is child poverty. For many of these advocates, the solution to 
ending child poverty is clear: marriage. They argue that what we really 
need to do is to teach low-income men to properly value marriage and 
family, based on the presumption that low-income men don't.
  Can I also say this at the risk of annoying some colleagues? You know 
what. I am over and over again struck by the fact that too many 
Senators seem to know so much about the values of poor people, but they 
have never spent any time with any of them. It is like I don't know 
where our understanding of the values of people and how they live their 
lives comes from. It is certainly not based upon a lot of experience. I 
believe it is incorrect to presume that low-income men somehow value 
marriage and fatherhood less than other men. In fact, there is 
considerable evidence that low-income men value marriage and fatherhood 
just as much as you do, Mr. President, and as much as I do. But these 
advocates look at the data indicating a correlation between child 
poverty and single parenthood, and rather than consider the fact that 
all too often it is the poverty that leads to the single parenthood, 
not single parenthood that leads to the poverty, they argue that 
marriage is the way to eliminate the poverty. That is what I am worried 
about with Dr. Horn because he is going to be in a key position.
  Here is the way one low-income mother put it to me, and thank God for 
her wisdom:

       They can marry off everybody in my neighborhood, but then 
     all we'll have is two poor people married to each other.

  This is what is really at the heart of the matter. You don't end 
poverty by simply promoting marriage. In fact, you probably promote 
more successful

[[Page 14438]]

marriages if that is your goal. And do you know what. I think that is 
our goal. Let me state as a given that every Senator, or almost every 
Senator wants to promote more successful marriages. One of the ways is 
by ending poverty.
  My colleague from Indiana will speak for Dr. Horn. I made it clear 
that I met him. He cares as much as I do. It is an honest disagreement. 
I made the argument, I say to Senator Bayh from Indiana--and we will 
voice vote this with overwhelming support. I needed to come to the 
floor because some of Dr. Horn's advocacy of preferential treatment for 
Head Start and affordable housing for two-parent, married households, 
and arguments that you want to have bonuses for people to get married 
and stay married--I made the argument that the implications of this, 
when it comes to violence in homes, is grim and harsh. You don't want 
some of these women to be in a position of feeling as if they can't 
leave a home where they are being battered and their children are being 
battered. That is what some of these proposals do.
  As to some of his ideas, he said, ``I no longer necessarily believe 
all of this.'' But I have said some of these arguments about promoting 
marriage are fine; I am for it. But for some women this is not the 
answer.
  You don't want to have financial incentives, or disincentives, if you 
will, that put women in a position where the choice is, Do I stay in 
this home where I am being battered, my child can be battered, or my 
child witnesses this violence, or if I leave then no longer will I get 
a Head Start benefit, or I will lose my bonus I have received for being 
in this marriage or I will not be able to get affordable housing.
  That is one of the things that concerns me the most, I say to two 
good colleagues. One of the reasons we have so many of these 
organizations in the trenches working in domestic violence expressing 
this concern is because of this argument. Someone needs to say it 
because Dr. Horn will be in this position, and then we will work with 
him.
  I am all for promoting responsible fatherhood and marriage, but I do 
not want to do it in such a way that we end up--I said this before my 
colleagues came--for some of these women, marriage is death. That is 
right. For some of these women, staying in a marriage means they will 
lose their lives. I do not want public policy or social policy that 
makes it more difficult for them to leave these homes which are not 
safe homes, where they should leave these homes. That is part of what 
this debate is about.
  In just the few minutes I have left, the other part of the argument I 
want to make is if, in fact, you want to promote successful marriages, 
especially if you are talking about the low- and moderate-income 
community, one of the ways to do it is to focus on some of these 
economic issues. There is a whole world of problems out there, such as 
unemployment, not having a living-wage job, drug and alcohol addiction, 
depression and mental illness, poor education, jail time, hunger and 
homelessness, and, in all due respect, quite often these are the 
reasons that marriages do break up.
  Unless we talk about marriages and responsible fatherhood in the 
context of also dealing with these very tough problems that rip 
families apart, I do not think we go very far, and I will insist all of 
them be considered.
  Frankly, it is not necessarily his fault, but I do not hear much from 
this administration in terms of being willing to invest some of the 
resources in any number of these different areas.
  We had a proposal in Minnesota. I said ``had.'' It was the Minnesota 
Family Investment Program. It was a pilot program. Too bad, because 
from my point of view, this is welfare reform. Two former Governors did 
a great job saying we are going to put a lot of money into childcare, 
into job training skills development, into making sure these families 
do not lose their medical care, and we are going to put a lot of money 
into significant income to disregard when they made more money, they 
then lost, dollar for dollar, what they were making.
  Studies compared former AFDC recipients to those on MFIP and found 
MFIP individuals were 40 percent more likely to stay married and 50 
percent less likely to be divorced after 5 years. There you have it. 
That is part of what we need to do.
  Mr. President, do you know what. That is not what we are doing in a 
lot of this so-called welfare reform. As a matter of fact, finally I 
got the Food and Nutrition Service study the other day. I said to them: 
Tell me what is going on with food stamps. Why have we had a 30-
percent-plus decline in food stamp participation post 1996? They said: 
In some cases, people are working and maker better income. In most 
cases, they are not, but they do not know they are eligible any longer.
  There were cuts in food stamp benefits, massive cuts in benefits to 
legal immigrants. Frankly, Families USA points out there are some 
660,000 people who no longer have medical assistance because of the 
welfare bill. In too many cases, people have dropped out.
  Berkeley and Harvard did a study of the childcare situation and found 
that many of these kids were in dangerous situations or in front of a 
TV, and it would not surprise anyone if they came to kindergarten way 
behind.
  I am for promoting families, responsible fatherhood, and I want these 
children to have as much a chance as other children, and I want to know 
from where the commitment comes.
  Marriage is not, in and of itself, the way to address the root causes 
of poverty, and it is no reliable long-term solution to poverty, 
particularly poverty among women and children, and, in general, two 
incomes are better than one. It is far better to have two parents in 
the household, but that fact is not sufficient to support an argument 
that marriage will lead to an end of family poverty.
  There are many reasons that women, more often than men, experience an 
economic downfall outside of marriage: Discrimination in the labor 
market; lack of quality, affordable accessible childcare; domestic 
violence; and I also say to my colleagues--Senator Reid said it 
earlier--in many States there are more animal shelters than shelters 
for women who come out of these very dangerous homes.
  Moreover, the tragedy of it is, after they get out of shelters, there 
is no affordable housing. As a matter of fact, this is going to become 
a front-burner issue for us because we are not doing anything by way of 
getting resources back to State and local communities, and it is a huge 
crisis. It is not surprising that the other day there was a report that 
came out in the Washington Post pointing out the issue really is not 
poverty, the issue is we have to double the official definition of 
poverty, which is around $17,000. If you want to be realistic of what 
it takes for a family to make it, there are many families with incomes 
under $40,000 who are having a heck of a time making it, and one of the 
reasons is the cost of housing.
  If you do not address these factors that keep women from being 
economically self-sufficient, then your marriage and family formation 
advocates are merely proposing to shift the woman's dependence from the 
welfare system to marriage. You see what I am saying? There is a 
missing piece here, I say to Dr. Horn and others.
  Some women should not be dependent on their marriage. They should get 
out of their marriage. They should not be there. They should get out of 
these homes with their children because if they stay, they are going to 
be murdered and their children--talk about posttraumatic stress 
syndrome. What do my colleagues think it would be like to be a little 
child? I have been with them. I met with some of these families and 
have seen a mother who has been beaten up over and over, day after day. 
What do my colleagues think that does to children?
  With domestic violence and divorce at the current rates, marriage 
will never be the sole answer. The solution is not, as Dr. Horn and 
others suggest, to interfere with the privacy rights of poor women but, 
rather, let's focus on economic self-sufficiency.
  Congress should not use women's economic vulnerability as an 
opportunity to control their decisions regarding their marriage or, for 
that matter,

[[Page 14439]]

childbearing. Fighting poverty and promoting family well-being will 
depend on positive Government support, for policies that support low-
income parents in their struggle to obtain good jobs so that they can 
have a decent standard of living, so they can give their children the 
care they know their children need and deserve. That is what it ought 
to be about.
  I disagree with Dr. Horn on this policy, but colleagues and the 
public should be further aware that certain recent statements and 
writings by the nominee signal that basic views which underlie his 
policy positions I think are a little bit over the top.
  I have already talked about how I like him, I say to both colleagues 
because I know they know him. I will give a couple examples.
  Dr. Horn has recently written, for example, that females raised by 
single mothers ``have a tendency toward early and promiscuous sexual 
activity.'' That material was given to me by advocate organizations. 
That is in direct quotes. From where in the world does that come? Where 
is the evidence for that?
  He recently wrote that males raised by single mothers have ``an 
obsessive need to prove their masculinity.'' He reportedly has linked 
single mothering or father absence to acts of violence carried out by 
males, such as the shootings at Columbine High, although, by the way, 
in that case, the families were intact. These were not single-parent 
families. This is not an attack on character.
  I want Dr. Horn to know he is going to be nominated on a voice vote. 
He will be supported. That is fine. But I want to be on record saying I 
don't think he is the right choice. I certainly want to question some 
of the statements he has made and, more importantly, some of the 
positions he has taken. He will be the one in the middle of the welfare 
reform. He will be the one dealing with a lot of the policy that 
affects low- and moderate-income families.
  Ninety organizations have urged the Senate Committee on Finance to 
oppose his nomination. A majority of them are organizations that deal 
with domestic violence. That is where the real fear is. I have heard 
from too many people whose opinions I respect and whose judgments I 
value, starting with my wife Sheila, to allow the nomination to pass 
silently. Dr. Horn will be confirmed, but I felt compelled to raise 
these issues and concerns about some of the policies I think he is 
likely to promote as Assistant Secretary for Family Support. I hope he 
proves me wrong; he may very well.
  I hope he will use the occasion of this appointment to reconsider 
some of his views--not all; he is entitled to many of his views. The 
issues are too important and too many lives are affected to not speak 
out. I hope Dr. Horn and others at Health and Human Services, as well 
as colleagues in the Senate, will carefully consider the implications 
of policies that we all propose that affect low-income families.
  I said earlier, and I meant it as a criticism of Senators on both 
sides of the aisle, although we cannot generalize, I am always amazed 
we infer the values of people. We seem to know so much about the values 
of people and how they live their lives, especially low-income people--
that fathers do not respect fatherhood or the pathology of their 
lives--when hardly any Members spend any time with them. Dr. Horn is an 
example of someone who has inferred people's values, which can be 
downright dangerous, especially when we are talking about violence in 
homes today.
  What we really need to do is to support these women and children. 
Therefore, I hope the Senators, as we go forward with the welfare 
reauthorization bill and we make policy that affects directly the lives 
of poor people in this country, will make it our business to be very 
careful. They are not on the Senate floor, they have very little clout, 
and in too many ways they are right out of Michael Harrington's ``The 
Other America.'' They are invisible and without a very strong voice. 
There are helpful organizations, thank God, such as the Children's 
Defense Fund, but not enough.
  I wish Dr. Horn the very best. We will work together. But I want Dr. 
Horn to know I have a lot of concerns which I have discussed today. I 
am not speaking for myself, but for a lot of people in the country, 
especially those down in the trenches doing the work, dealing with the 
violence in families, trying to protect women and children, to make 
sure they can rebuild their lives.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. BAYH. Before my colleague from Minnesota leaves the floor, I 
express my appreciation to him and compliment him for the passion he 
brings to the cause of helping those less fortunate in our society. 
There is no Member of this body who feels more strongly about 
empowering those who need opportunity in our country than Senator 
Wellstone. For that, I compliment the Senator and thank him for being 
such a valuable Member of this body.
  I also say, before the Senator leaves the floor, I find myself in 
strong agreement with his sentiments about the rights of women, 
particularly that they are not given incentives to stay out of 
relationships that are abusive, or assisting or providing incentives 
for men with a proven record of abuse from entering family 
relationships where they do not belong.
  I am not familiar with all of the statements he has made, but I can 
say from my own experience with Dr. Horn that it is my understanding he 
has distanced himself from several of these controversial statements. I 
can say from my personal experience with him in working on the 
Responsible Fatherhood Act that he has shown a great willingness to 
ensure that abusive men are not reinserted into family situations and, 
in fact, women are protected, as they should be. We should insist upon 
this, even as we try to promote men living up to their responsibility 
and doing right by not only their children but the mothers of their 
children.
  We had a recent conference at the Thurgood Marshall Center in 
Washington, DC, a lower income area, and we were heartened to see 
representatives from many organizations representing low-income 
America. I am glad the Responsible Fatherhood Act has been advocated by 
the Black Caucus.
  From my experience, Dr. Horn has shown great empathy toward the cause 
of helping children with a less fortunate background. I know it is 
entirely appropriate that the Senator comes to the floor and expresses 
his concerns. I thank him, before he gets on with his busy schedule, 
for his championing of the cause of the less fortunate, to express 
strong support for his dedication, particularly ensuring that women are 
not placed in abusive situations but, in fact, are protected from 
abusive men who would do them or their children harm. I express those 
sentiments before the Senator has to leave.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Senator from Indiana for his graciousness. 
I think the statement he just made, especially dealing with violence in 
homes, is extremely important. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I rise to express my strong support for the 
nomination of Wade Horn to be Assistant Secretary of HHS for Family 
Support. I am confident that he will do an outstanding job in 
discharging his duties for all Americans.
  I have known Dr. Horn personally since 1996 when I had the privilege 
as Governor of our State of holding one of the first conferences in the 
country on the importance of promoting more responsible fatherhood on 
the part of many men.
  The vast majority of men in our society, when they bring children 
into the world, do the right thing by supporting children economically, 
emotionally and economically, and supporting the mothers. Regrettably, 
in recent years, in the last decade or so, we began the alarming trend 
of many men walking away from responsibilities, financial and 
otherwise, with great detriment to the children and the mothers of 
those children and, because of that, the society and taxpayers, as 
well.
  Wade Horn worked with us not only in that conference but in 
fashioning

[[Page 14440]]

legislation in the Halls of Congress to do something about this 
epidemic of fatherlessness that harms our society in so many important 
ways. He understands that a child growing up without the involvement of 
a father, emotionally or financially, is five times more likely to live 
in poverty, twice as likely to be involved with drugs or alcohol abuse, 
twice as likely to commit a crime of violence, twice as likely for a 
young girl to be involved with teen pregnancy, and much more likely to 
get involved in a variety of situations that will harm a youngster 
throughout the course of his or her lifetime.
  Wade Horn is committed to doing something about this phenomenon, and 
thereby strengthening families and helping children. He understands 
this effort is not only good for America's children; it is good for 
taxpayers, as well.
  Many of the issues we debate in this Chamber, many of the initiatives 
we pursue to try to help America really deal with the manifestations of 
what are actually deeper underlying problems. If we are going to get at 
the root causes of the problems that afflict too many of America's 
children, we have to deal with them where they begin, the breakdown of 
the American family, and, in particular, too many men bringing children 
into the world and walking away, leaving women and taxpayers to try to 
pick up the pieces by themselves. That is not right. We spend hundreds 
of billions of dollars each and every year to try to overcome the 
consequences of irresponsible fathers not living up to their 
obligations.
  Wade Horn understands that if we are going to do right by those kids 
and do right by our citizens who are picking up the tab, we need to do 
something about this problem. So he has committed much of his life to 
doing exactly that.
  He also understands that this effort will be good for women. Women 
are doing heroic work, particularly single mothers, to try to pick up 
the pieces when men bring kids in the world and walk away.
  It is not right that those women should labor without the emotional 
support and the financial support to which they are entitled. Our 
responsible fatherhood initiative is designed to help children, help 
taxpayers, and help women as well.
  As I mentioned before our colleague, Senator Wellstone, had to leave 
the floor, we reached out to many women's organizations to make sure 
this effort is done in a way that is sensitive to the concerns of women 
who have experienced the horror of being battered or abused by a spouse 
or male companion. We want to make sure that is not the case; that, in 
fact, we protect women and children from the consequences of that type 
of behavior.
  Wade Horn has been involved in that effort to make sure we pursue 
strengthening families to help women and children with legitimate and 
important concerns and take into account the scourge of domestic 
violence that is unfortunately all too frequent in society today.
  Mr. Horn, when he is confirmed, will be in a position to be 
intimately involved in the next generation of welfare reform that we 
will undertake this year and next. Because of his lengthy experience 
laboring in these vineyards, I think he is ideally suited to this task.
  Let me offer a very brief recitation of some of Dr. Horn's 
experience. From 1989 to 1993, Dr. Horn was Commissioner for Children, 
Youth and Families, and Chief of the Children's Bureau within the U.S. 
Department of Health and Human Services. Dr. Horn also served as a 
Presidential appointee to the National Commission on Children from 1990 
to 1993, a member of the National Commission on Childhood Disability 
from 1994 to 1995, and a member of the U.S. Advisory Board on Welfare 
Indicators from 1996 to 1997.
  Prior to these appointments, Dr. Horn was the director of outpatient 
psychological services at the Children's Hospital, National Medical 
Center here in Washington, DC, and an associate professor of psychiatry 
and behavioral sciences at George Washington University.
  Currently, Dr. Horn is also an adjunct faculty at Georgetown 
University's Public Policy Institute, and an affiliate scholar with the 
Hudson Institute.
  Simply put, if I could just summarize, I have known Dr. Horn now for 
several years. I know of no more decent, more compassionate individual. 
I know of no one who cares about the cause of helping children more 
than Wade Horn, or the cause of strengthening America's families and 
that is what this really comes down to. Whether it is within the bonds 
of marriage or outside, this all comes down to the cause of helping 
children, and in so doing not only helping those little ones but 
helping society as a whole.
  In conclusion, let me just say among his many other attributes, Wade 
Horn is an author. He authored a book after his own experience with 
cancer and wrote very eloquently in that book about the emotions that 
he experienced when he was sick, fighting cancer, seeing his own little 
girls come to his bedside.
  I know, based upon that personal experience and his many years of 
efforts in the vineyards of good public policy, there is no one who 
will bring a deeper, more heartfelt conviction to the cause of helping 
children, helping women, strengthening families, and strengthening 
America than Dr. Horn. I respectfully urge my colleagues to vote in 
support of his confirmation.
  Before, I yield the floor, I would also like to say how much I 
respect my colleague from Delaware. I thank Senator Carper for his 
efforts on behalf of the Responsible Fatherhood Act. Perhaps it is not 
a coincidence that Senator Carper and I are both former Governors and 
have personally been in a position of actually implementing welfare 
reform, not simply enacting it into law.
  For that reason, I salute my dear friend and colleague, Senator 
Carper, and thank him for his presence as well today.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, let me say while Senator Bayh is still 
here, we have not only been Senators together, as he said, we have been 
Governors together. We were also fathers of young boys, his a few years 
younger than mine.
  He believes, as I believe, and certainly as Wade Horn believes, while 
emphasizing the importance of fathers and fatherhood, we have no 
intention, no need, no interest in diminishing the importance of the 
role of mothers. Every child deserves not just one loving, nurturing, 
caring parent but two. To the extent that we as a society can encourage 
men to live up to the responsibilities of the children they father and 
bring into this world, those children will be better for it and so will 
our country.
  I say a special thanks to Senator Bayh, for his leadership on this 
issue. I am delighted to be able to support these efforts.
  Senator Bayh has known Wade Horn for a half dozen or so years. So 
have I. I have known him through our work with the National Governors' 
Association where he came from time to time, at our invitation, to 
speak on fatherhood. I have known him through his role in cohosting the 
National Summit on Fatherhood, where I have had the opportunity to 
participate. I have invited him to my home State of Delaware to speak 
at our Governor's prayer breakfast, to focus on fatherhood and the 
importance of fathers in our lives.
  I also know him, having hosted him in our Governors house, having 
spent time with him and his wife there. I met his children, his 
daughters. I have some idea, not just what the author is like, not just 
what the speaker is like, not just what the policymaker is like, but I 
feel as if I know him a little bit as a human being. I have seen him in 
the role of devoted husband and loving father as well.
  Senator Wellstone said, before he finished his remarks--and I 
appreciated the concerns he expressed--and I think this is a quote, 
``Dr. Horn will be in this position and we will have the opportunity to 
work with him.'' I hope he is right. I believe Senator Wellstone is 
right in that.
  Based on my experience from the last 6 years of knowing Wade Horn and 
his

[[Page 14441]]

family, I believe we will appreciate the opportunity to work with him. 
I feel confident those who question his nomination will come, in the 
end, to be glad that he was nominated and that we voted to confirm him.
  I know others have gone back and looked at the words that have been 
attributed to Dr. Horn in the past. They could do that for me or the 
Presiding Officer or for any of us and have it appear we say things 
that, taken out of context, we may not have really said or intended to 
say. I have never heard Wade Horn speak about compelling women to 
remain in an abusive relationship or threatening relationships. I have 
heard him say that too many men fall short in meeting their obligations 
to the children they father and to the women who bear those children.
  I have never heard Wade Horn disparage single moms for the work that 
they do in raising children. I have heard him speak of the need for 
young girls to see, in their own lives, a father who treats a mother in 
a way that that young girl herself would want to be treated by her 
husband someday. I have heard him say there are young boys in this 
country who need to see how a man treats his wife so that young boy 
will know how he should treat his wife someday, when he has grown.
  I have never heard Wade Horn say that children raised by single moms 
routinely turn out badly. I have heard him say that all children 
deserve to be raised by two loving, caring, nurturing parents, and that 
includes their fathers.
  I have heard it said that as to 16-year-old girls who become 
pregnant, drop out of school, never marry the father of the children 
that they bear, 80 percent of them--80 percent of those women and their 
families will live in poverty at some point in time. As to the 16-year-
old girl who does not become pregnant, does not drop out of school, 
graduates from school, waits until the age of 20 to have a child and 
marries the father of that child, there is an 8-percent likelihood that 
family will live in poverty--80 percent on the one hand, 8 percent on 
the other hand.
  I cannot stand here today and vouch for those numbers. But if they 
are even close, I think they serve to underscore for us the need for 
fathers, for men who father children, to take seriously their 
obligation to the children they father and to the women who bear them.
  I believe Wade Horn will serve in this capacity doing a number of 
good things for the families of our country, men and women, boys and 
girls. But I think he is going to be a good voice, a recurring voice, 
one we need to hear, that says: Fathers are not dispensable. They are 
as important today as they were 100 years ago or 200 years ago. We need 
to remember that, those of us who are fathers and those of us who 
someday will be.
  I am pleased to rise today in support of this nomination, and I hope 
it will receive ringing endorsement from this body.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. KOHL. Madam President, I rise today to add my voice in support of 
the nomination of Wade Horn to serve as Assistant Secretary for Family 
Support at the Department of Health and Human Services.
  I have had the pleasure of working with Wade Horn over the past few 
years on an issue that is vitally important to both of us--making sure 
that children receive the child support money they are owed. This has 
been a very positive and productive working experience. Dr. Horn and I 
share the goal of changing the current child support distribution 
system, which harms children by allowing States and the Federal 
Government to keep their child support money instead of distributing it 
to the kids who need it. Through his experience, Wade Horn recognizes 
that fathers pay more child support when they know their children will 
actually receive their money and benefit from it. He understands that 
the route to responsible fatherhood means we have to remove government-
created barriers that actually discourage fathers from paying child 
support, and create more incentives for fathers to become actively 
involved in their children's lives.
  I have greatly appreciated Wade Horn's commitment to changing the 
child support distribution system. His suggestions, input and advocacy 
have helped move this issue forward during the past several years, and 
I look forward to working with him to pass this vital legislation once 
he is confirmed. Together, I am hopeful that he and Secretary Thompson, 
who is also a tremendous advocate of child support distribution reform 
in his own right, will make this a top priority in the Bush 
Administration so that children get the support they are owed and need.
  As President of the National Fatherhood Initiative, Dr. Horn 
understands that fathers, mothers and children often need support and 
help to maintain a strong and stable family life. His organization's 
goal has been to encourage fathers to become positive role models for 
their children and become fully involved in their lives. He has worked 
to encourage greater support services and assistance for low-income 
fathers so they can actively and responsibly participate in their 
children's upbringing. Not only do their children benefit from their 
support and involvement, but all of society reaps the benefits of 
having stronger families.
  I realize that some have raised concerns about views Dr. Horn has 
expressed in the past regarding government support for single-parent 
families. It is my understanding that he has reconsidered many of those 
views and has committed to serving all families who need support and 
assistance. I believe this is critical; our nation must address a 
variety of issues to help working families of all shapes and sizes, and 
I look forward to working with him on a range of issues important to 
families--including increasing funding for Child Care, Head Start, and 
continuing to provide support for families making the transition from 
welfare to work. These will not be easy tasks, but I am hopeful that 
Wade Horn will take a thoughtful, balanced approach to addressing these 
matters. I urge my colleagues to support his nomination.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Madam President, I am proud to support the 
nomination of Dr. Wade Horn to be the Assistant Secretary for Family 
Support at the Department of Health and Human Services. As chairman of 
the National Commission on Children, I had a unique opportunity to work 
closely with Wade Horn. From that experience, I know how deeply Wade 
cares about children and families. I know that Wade is willing to 
listen to diverse views and find common ground, which will be key to 
his success in this important position.
  On the Children's Commission, committed advocates representing both 
the liberal and conservative policy views came together to learn about 
child development and we struggled to find bipartisan policy 
initiatives to help children and their families. Our process was 
intense, but it led to a bold, bipartisan report full of 
recommendations to change policy to support children. Throughout that 
process, I witnessed how Wade Horn was willing to take risks for the 
right reasons.
  I am proud to say that the Children's Commission report has been a 
guidebook for my legislative initiatives on children's policy. While 
there is much more to do on children's issues, we are making real 
progress. The Children Commission that Dr. Horn and I supported in 1991 
called for a refundable child tax credit and an improved Earned Income 
Tax Credit. Our report recommended changing the welfare system, then 
known as Aid to Families with Dependent Children. It stressed the 
importance of child support enforcement. It called for education reform 
with a greater emphasis on local schools. And it even had a 
controversial chapter called ``Creating a Moral Climate for Children,'' 
which challenged public officials, the media, the entertainment 
industry, and individuals to serve as role models for children.
  Many of our recommendations from the Children's Commission have 
become public policy, and I continue to build on this foundation.
  While Dr. Horn and I do not agree on every issue, we do strongly 
agree about

[[Page 14442]]

the importance of supporting children and families. We agree on the 
importance of bipartisanship on children's issues, especially in the 
area of child welfare and adoption. We agree about the importance of 
direct and honest communication and cooperation between Congress and 
the Department of Health and Human Services.
  Because I have worked with Dr. Wade Horn on the Children's Commission 
and during his previous position in the first Bush administration, I am 
confident that he will be a committed leader on children's issues in 
this administration. I look forward to working with him, including on 
the reauthorization of the Safe and Stable Families Program this year.
  Mr. REID. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, what is the pending business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending business is the nomination of Wade 
Horn.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak on the 
pending business for up to 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I want to speak on behalf of the 
nominee to be Assistant Secretary for Children and Families at the 
Department of Health and Human Services, Dr. Wade Horn.
  I got to know Dr. Horn while working with him on several fatherhood 
initiatives. He has been an outstanding leader in the fatherhood 
movement. And I am confident that he will serve with distinction in the 
position to which he has been nominated.
  Dr. Horn is a dedicated public servant, a distinguished child 
psychologist, a skilled administrator, and an excellent choice to lead 
the Administration for Children and Families--a key and critical 
position for the administration.
  Dr. Horn is a highly respected child psychiatrist, with a proven 
record of both competence and integrity. He has consistently 
demonstrated his deep commitment to increasing the well-being, 
strength, and stability of families and children in general, and at-
risk children in particular.
  It bears mention that Dr. Horn was previously confirmed by the Senate 
11 years ago for the position of commissioner of the Administration for 
Children, Youth and Families. As the Commissioner for the Children, 
Youth and Families Administration, Dr. Horn administered numerous 
programs serving children and families, including Head Start, foster 
care and adoption assistance, the National Center on Child Abuse and 
Neglect, runaway and homeless youth shelters, and various anti-drug 
programs.
  Since leaving the Department of Health and Human Services, Dr. Horn 
has served as the President of the National Fatherhood Initiative--
where I really got to know him--a nonpartisan initiative which has 
drawn the support and involvement of several Senators from both sides 
of the aisle, including myself, Senator Lieberman, Senator Carper, and 
Senator Bayh. As the President of the Fatherhood Initiative, Dr. Horn 
has been at the forefront of the effort to encourages fathers to become 
more involved in the lives of their children and families. The 
Fatherhood Initiative has conducted both national forums and targeted 
outreach programs to at-risk families to encourage increased 
responsibility, affection, support, and involvement of fathers 
something we desperately need in their country. He has also authored 
regular columns dispensing advice to parents on how to raise healthier, 
happier, and more secure children, which have helped and encouraged 
literally thousands of families across the country.
  One of the criticisms leveled against Dr. Horn is that he has sat on 
the board of Marriage Savers, and has been involved in marriage 
promotion programs. Why this is a criticism, I am not sure. Dr. Horn 
would never, has never advocated that anyone stay in an abusive 
marriage. No one believes this, despite inferences to the contrary on 
the floor of this Senate. What he has done is worked with groups that 
work with couples who want to strengthen their marriage and their 
family. And I would think that working towards strengthening marriage 
in our country--which has, let me note, a divorce rate near 50 
percent--would be regarded as a positive qualification, not grounds for 
criticism.
  We have Marriage Savers programs in Kansas. In two counties in the 
State of Kansas, Marriage Savers programs have helped to reduce divorce 
rates by over thirty percent in that area. This is a great achievement, 
not a questionable activity. That Dr. Horn's involvement with Marriage 
Savers--a group dedicated to working with individuals who have 
requested assistance in strengthening their marriage--would somehow be 
cited as a red flag in Dr. Horn's record is utterly baffling.
  Dr. Horn has never advocated that women stay in abusive situations. 
He is saying that in marriages where children are involved, it is a 
good thing for a married couple to try to work through their problems.
  With the background, temperment, and record that Dr. Horn has, it is 
difficult to understand why this nomination should have generated any 
debate at all. I don't think that anyone can credibly raise a question 
about Dr. Horn's qualifications for the job. I look forward to the 
confirmation of Dr. Horn to the position of Assistant Secretary for 
Children and Families at the Department of Health and Human Services, 
and I wish him the best in this capacity.
  Finally, I note that this is an extraordinarily qualified nominee to 
this position. He is a person who has worked in this field virtually 
his entire life, who has worked successfully in this field and in an 
area of endeavor in which we need a lot of help. Our children and 
families are suffering in this country. Dr. Horn has worked himself, 
personally and directly, to put families back together. That is 
something we should be applauding, not questioning or condemning.
  I strongly support the nomination of Dr. Wade Horn to this position 
within the Department of Health and Human Services.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Stabenow). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, on behalf of Senator Wellstone, I yield 
back his time on the Horn nomination.
  Madam President, is there further time on the other side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 2\1/2\ minutes remaining.

                          ____________________