[Pages S3324-S3335]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY AND INDIVIDUAL DEVELOPMENT FOR EVERYONE ACT

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

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

Pending:

Grassley (for Snowe) amendment No. 2937, to provide
additional funding for child care.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Enzi). Under the previous order, the time
until 12:15 p.m. shall be equally divided between the two leaders or
their designees.
The Senator from Utah is recognized.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today in support of H.R. 4, the
Personal Responsibility and Individual Development for Everyone Act,
called the PRIDE Act.
Throughout our Nation's history, we have seen wonderful examples of
individuals, with a little drive and ambition, seizing one of the
abundant opportunities this great Nation has to offer, and move,
literally, from nothing in their pockets to a lifetime of incredible
success.
That being said, up until 1996, this notion of America being ``the
land of opportunity'' was nearly unknown to millions of welfare
recipients who were bogged down by the stifling, cash assistance
welfare system our Nation had embraced for over 100 years.
With the enactment of the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
legislation--we call it TANF--in 1996, that all changed. We offered
individuals who had previously been shut out of the American dream the
opportunity to eliminate poverty and move their families toward the
empowering goal of self-sufficiency.
Welfare reform has been one of the most successful social policy
reforms in U.S. history. We have seen millions of people focus their
energies and efforts on their responsibilities and acquiring an
attitude of providing for themselves. They have learned it by daily
practice.
Nearly 3 million families have been lifted out of poverty. Employment
by mothers most at risk to go on welfare has risen by 40 percent since
1995. Each of us in this body is encouraged to see the profound,
positive effects TANF has had on the lives of those who require
temporary assistance.
Caseloads are down 58 percent, and assistance recipients are working
more than ever before. Thus, these hard-working people are leading
themselves back to self-sufficiency.
As the Department of Health and Human Services has reported, welfare
caseload reductions are primarily a result of implementing the welfare
reforms contained in the original TANF legislation--and not merely due
to the robust economy of the late 1990s.
I think we also need to recognize that the States themselves have
held the key to the success of these programs by taking advantage of
the flexibility built into the original TANF legislation.
Many States throughout the Nation have offered welfare plans
and created specific, effective programs that are working well with
their constituencies. The States' work has been well documented, as
many States have reported caseload declines of over 70 percent since
1996.

TANF funds transferred by the States and used for childcare funding
have also been an enormously positive development, and States are
matching Federal spending in the area of childcare.
This is creating a good foundation where working parents can go back
to work knowing that their children are being well cared for. I need
only look to my home State of Utah to see the successes of the 1996
TANF law.
Since August of 1996, TANF rolls have decreased over 45 percent,
while the quality and professional attention given to recipients has
been steadily going up.
Utah has been a pioneer State in the development of personal, value-
added attention and planning for those who are receiving assistance.
Universal engagement of every assistance recipient is a necessity, and
I applaud my home State of Utah for leading the way in this area. I
also thank Chairman Grassley for putting the provision in the bill.
My home State has also pioneered work in the promotion of marriage
and family formation. Under then-Governor Michael Leavitt, Utah was the
first State in the Nation to form a commission on marriage, which was
charged with the overreaching goal of strengthening marriages in Utah.
I am pleased to see this bill includes $200 million in matching grants
for States to provide marriage promotion and responsible fatherhood
programs.
The marriage unit is the most fundamental in society. If the bond of
marriage weakens, so does our society, including the rising generation.
It is widely recognized that a healthy, loving marriage between a man
and a woman not only provides great personal happiness, it also creates
the safest place for children to thrive and benefit from the full
emotional, moral, and educational benefits that two married parents can
provide.
I also commend President Bush for his commitment and efforts to
strengthen healthy marriages.
Let me turn to another important component of the bill, the family
self-sufficiency plan. Under current law, States are under no
obligation to understand and assess the circumstances of each recipient
receiving assistance. However, under the universal engagement
provisions of this bill, it will be incumbent upon each State to meet
with each recipient and create a plan, using all the support tools
available to the State, to help the recipient achieve self-sufficiency.
This is a very important measure because it seeks to give each and
every recipient a roadmap toward independence and success--a light at
the end of the tunnel. It also signals to States that all TANF families
deserve a chance to become self-sufficient and no one can be left to
fall through the cracks in the system.
In Utah, I have seen that many of these parents, hard-working people,
young and old, end up finding great self satisfaction in giving their
gift of skill at work, at giving themselves to a task at hand so
thoroughly that they have a meaningful relationship with their work. I
think we will all agree that sometimes it is not easy to dive into your
work with enthusiasm, but sometimes it is necessary and appropriate.
That is why it is so important that the work requirements are
increased in this bill. The core work requirement is increased from 20
hours per week to 24 hours per week. Total hours required for a State
to receive full credit increases from 30 hours per week to 34 hours per
week for single-parent families. These are sensible, reasonable
requirements.
Two-parent families will be required to work 39 hours per week, or 55
hours per week if they receive subsidized childcare. States will
receive partial credit if individuals work 20 hours per

[[Page S3325]]

week, and extra credit if they work more than 34 hours per week.
Current law provides full credit only at 30 hours.
Again, these changes in the current law will help us make real
progress.
It seems obvious that the more a person sets goals and takes
responsibility for the career they want, the more they will be able to
decide if a particular job fits into the scheme of their life. The
harder they work--that is, the more hours they work--the more they
understand why they are working at a particular job and how their hard
work will benefit their individual families.
I believe the most important new provision in this bill is the
establishment of a meaningful State participation rate. For years now,
States have had no reason to actively recruit adults into industrious
work and work-related activities. Under this bill, States would be
required to have 70 percent of their caseload involved in approved work
activities by the year 2008. This would require States to significantly
ramp up their efforts to engage a much greater number of families in
activities that count toward the work participation rate.
Right now, the majority of adults receiving assistance are reporting
zero hours of activity. It is time we recognize that with an effective
participation rate, and by the elimination of the caseload reduction
credit in the 1996 welfare law, we will encourage people to commit to
careers, to goals, to real recovery.
Another striking result I would like to note has been the effect of
welfare reform on African-American children. For the 25 years before
welfare reform, before the TANF bill in 1996, the percentage of
African-American children living in poverty remained virtually
unchanged. But since welfare reform, the poverty rate among those
children has dropped from 41.5 percent in 1995 to 32.1 percent in
2002--still way too high, but it has been a definite, dramatic drop,
and TANF deserves most of the credit for that situation. About 1
million African-American children--roughly the entire population of
Dallas, Detroit, or San Diego--are no longer in poverty because of
welfare reform.
There is still much to be done. Currently, 58 percent of those on
welfare are not working or training to work, and 2 million families
remain completely dependent on welfare for their survival. The full
potential of this legislation has not been realized because of lax
enforcement and efforts to undermine the principles and goals of
reform. Let's look at this.
Among poor families with children, one-quarter to one-third do not
work at all. The rest work sometimes, but not full time or year-round.
Only a fourth of poor families have full-time employment, and by that
I mean 40 hours a week throughout the year. Because of this low rate,
many remain poor.
Overall, among all poor families with children, most adults work only
16 hours a week whether the economy is good or bad. If all poor
families with children had just one full-time adult employed year-round
40 hours a week, America's child poverty rate would drop dramatically.
Many poor families would immediately be lifted out of poverty.
Last September, with my support, the Finance Committee reported this
bill to reauthorize TANF and other programs for the next 5 years and to
strengthen welfare reform further. This would greatly increase work
requirements for working families so that 70 percent are participating
in work or job preparation activities by fiscal year 2008.
All recipients should work full time either in a job or in programs
designed to help them achieve independence. A 4-week cushion is
included for vacation and sick leave, simulating a typical work
schedule in the United States. And the plan makes special
accommodations for parents with infants and individuals who need
substance abuse treatment, rehabilitation, or special training.
One area of concern for me, and the citizens of Utah, is the
difficulty many recipients will have in meeting the work requirement
when they are unable to defeat an addictive drug habit or suffer from a
devastating disability. I suspect many of those individuals who remain
on welfare are those with drug dependencies or other ailments that are
difficult to treat.

Under the current bill, only 3 months of rehabilitation services may
be counted as an acceptable activity. In the Finance Committee, I
offered an amendment that was adopted that extends this credit an
additional 3 months as long as the State deems it necessary and the
recipient is engaged in increasing amounts of work or job-readiness
activity. I hope my colleagues agree with me that this is the right way
to help these individuals get free of dependency and find meaningful
employment.
Another amendment of mine that was included in the committee bill
established a pre-sanction review. Families in Utah who are in need of
services, such as substance abuse treatment, must receive the
assistance they need to overcome barriers to employment. This is why I
believe States must conduct a pre-sanction review before taking action
against parents who are considered noncompliant. It does not seem fair
that a parent is subjected to sanctions and case closures because of
their State's limited substance abuse treatment capacity. If substance
abuse treatment services are not available to the parent, States should
refrain from sanctions or case closures.
The review established by my amendment requires States to review a
recipient's self-sufficiency plan and consult with the recipient before
enforcing any sanctions or taking away the recipient's cash assistance
or welfare services. This provision is necessary to give recipients
with significant barriers to work, such as a disability or a drug
dependency, a real chance to meet the State's requirements prior to
having their assistance taken away.
Another important area I would like to discuss is childcare. We all
now agree that childcare is an essential part of encouraging people to
work. I am pleased to see that this bill includes an additional $1
billion in funding for childcare. Even so, I think we need to go a step
further. And I compliment, in particular, the distinguished Senator
from Maine, Ms. Snowe, and the distinguished Senator from Connecticut,
Mr. Dodd, with whom years ago I worked to pass the first childcare bill
in history. He has kept at it and kept on it, and I personally respect
and appreciate it. Of course, I am a cosponsor of this amendment as
well. There are countless examples of how our country benefits from
programs that allow hard-working parents to stay employed, and we need
to support the efforts of working families by finding ways to help with
childcare assistance. Parents need to know they have access to quality
childcare.
I would like to make it clear that with the current budget situation,
I am not advocating for large increases in Federal discretionary
spending. I am very concerned about the fact that the Federal
Government is running a deficit and that our Federal debt is
accumulating. High deficits and a mountain of Federal debt represent
real obligations that hurt our economic security, both now and in the
future, and hurt every person we are trying to help here.
That being said, I recognize the very real and pressing need for
improved childcare services. The 1990 childcare law Senator Dodd and I
helped get passed was one of our most important initiatives, and
certainly I think each of us claims and feels it was each of our
important initiatives. I was pleased to join Senator Dodd in that
effort.
It is clear to me after much study that the funding contained in the
finance bill is simply not adequate. I am supportive of increasing that
funding even more, provided they are accompanied by responsible offsets
to hold down the costs and, in this case, this amendment will.
We should recognize that many assistance recipients across our
country will struggle to meet the requirement for increased work hours
if they are not able to find and use quality childcare services. While
we are trying to get people to work, we ought to try to help their
children in the process. Funding for childcare should go hand in hand
with an increase in the work requirement. I and others--Senator Snowe
in particular--have fought very hard for that in the Finance Committee.
We cannot expect these mothers and fathers to feel comfortable

[[Page S3326]]

leaving children alone or in the care of someone who is not competent
in order to meet a higher work requirement standard.
A question we often ask ourselves is, ``Is this a perfect bill?'' I
would have to say my answer to that question would be ``no.'' But I am
sure there are many on both sides who would like to change it one way
or the other. Most people have to admit this represents a compromise of
many competing interests. If I had written the bill, I surely would
have done some things differently. But I think Senator Grassley and
Senator Baucus have done a terrific job on this bill under the
circumstances. These types of bills are always hard fought. This is a
good one with sensible, reasonable compromises.
In closing, I want to again personally recognize the substantial work
of Chairman Grassley, the Democratic leader on the committee, Senator
Baucus, and the Senate leadership for bringing this very important bill
to the floor.
Over the last 2 years, it has been my pleasure to work with many of
my esteemed colleagues on the Finance Committee from both parties to
create an effective welfare reauthorization bill. I also thank Becky
Shipp, who now serves on the Finance Committee, for her tireless work
over the past 18 months and prior to that to help craft a welfare bill
that will improve the lives of many Americans.
My own staff, headed by Jace Johnson and Jenny George, has done a
terrific job.
These people did superior work for me and the people of Utah for
almost 10 years and I was very fortunate to have Becky and now Jace, as
members of my staff.
In closing, let there be no misunderstanding as to what this bill
does. It strengthens and improves the current welfare laws and gives
poor families a realistic chance at achieving self-fulfillment.
The most generous behavior Americans could choose is taking
responsibility for ourselves, our thoughts, our actions, and our needs.
The most beneficial act we in Congress can perform is to allow those
less fortunate to succeed and to help them meet their responsibilities
for themselves, their families, and their communities. I urge my
colleagues to support this legislation because I am confident this
bill, when passed, will benefit the entire country.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the final 4 minutes prior
to the 12:15 p.m. vote be equally divided between Senators Dodd and
Snowe, with Senator Dodd in control of the first 2 minutes and Senator
Snowe in control of the final 2 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. CARPER. Reserving the right to object. I request, if I could, of
the Senator from Utah--I understand under a previous unanimous consent
agreement yesterday I would have 10 minutes to speak. Is that right? I
want to make sure I still have my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I may be allowed to
speak for up to 12 minutes under the time under the control of the
Democratic side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Delaware for
graciously allowing me to take a few minutes here to speak on the
amendment I am offering along with my colleague from Maine, Senator
Snowe. I thank her at the outset for her eloquent comments yesterday
about the importance of this amendment and her kind comments about the
Senator from Connecticut as well.
Let me also very quickly, while he is still here with us on the
floor, commend my good friend from Utah. I remember with fondness,
going back almost 15 or 16 years ago, when we offered the very first
effort to include as part of our efforts on behalf of working families
of this country a childcare proposal. That never would have happened
without the tremendous leadership of the Senator from Utah, who was
pretty much alone, I might say, in those days, in advocating this
important initiative on the part of the Federal Government to try to do
something to help these families who were trying to stay on the work
rolls.
I would be remiss in any discussion about a childcare proposal not to
reference the incredible work of the Senator from Utah. Again, I thank
him for his leadership and I thank him as well for his cosponsorship of
this amendment we are offering today.
Mr. HATCH. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. DODD. I am happy to yield.
Mr. HATCH. I thank my colleague for his kind remarks and mention that
bill would never have occurred without the strength and character he
demonstrated, helping to bring it forth. It was a tough time. We had to
battle many forces. But in the end, this childcare bill has done an
awful lot of good for people in this country. I want to express my
respect for my colleague and thank him for yielding.
Mr. DODD. I thank my colleague.
The whole goal, of course, of the underlying bill before us is to
move families from welfare to work. That has been the goal of those who
initiated this proposal some time ago. Of course, many of us ask the
question how in good conscience we could do that, turn our backs on
those who are doing what we asked them to do, and that is to leave the
dependency of welfare and to enter the workforce. Yet without the
adoption of the Snowe-Dodd amendment, it is quite clear some 450,000 to
500,000 children who are presently receiving childcare assistance would
have to be dropped from receiving childcare assistance. I don't think
any of us want to be a party to that at all.
Let me further point this out to my colleagues as a backdrop of why
the Snowe-Dodd amendment is so critically important. Between 1994 up to
2001, we have seen employment by families headed by single mothers soar
from 61 percent to now about 75 percent of single parents with children
who are in the workforce. Among low-income mothers with children under
the age 6, who have the greatest childcare costs and needs, employment
has risen from 44 percent in 1996 to about 60 percent in the year 2000.
Let me further point out there are 7 million children every day who
go home from school alone, without any kind of afterschool or childcare
assistance. These are children aged, some of them, between 6 and 7
years of age.
I don't have to say much more to make the case about the importance
of doing what we can here to see to it we have the necessary childcare
assistance that working families, poor working families are going to
need.
What is presently occurring across the country is States cannot pick
up the slack in the current bill. In the year 2003 alone, facing the
worst State economies since World War II, 16 States have reduced
eligibility levels so that fewer children will qualify for assistance.
About 600,000 children in 24 States were put on waiting lists. Nearly
every State made other changes in their childcare programs, such as
reducing subsidies, increasing parent copays, cutting or eliminating
afterschool programs, or shutting off assistance to families not on
welfare--working poor families. States even made cuts in childcare
quality investments such as reducing safety inspections.

In my own State of Connecticut, last week the State legislature
recommended cutting another $20 million for the States Care4Kids
childcare program. I say another $20 million because this is the most
recent cut enacted in my State. The program will have gone from $121.5
million in fiscal year 2002 down to $70 million for next year.
In the meantime, of course, costs for childcare have continued to
rise. Although the economy seems to be improving, not just Connecticut,
but many States continue to face very tough budget decisions.
On this chart, every one of these little figures represents 2,000
children on a wait list across the country. I will not go through the
entire list, but just to get some idea of what I am talking about, in
Alabama, 16,700; Arizona, 8,000; California, 280,000; Florida 48,800;
here in the District of Columbia, 1,400. In my State of Connecticut,
15,000 children are on wait lists; in Georgia, 30,000. It goes on.
These are 24 States that keep lists. Other States don't keep waiting
lists at all because frankly they don't want to know the numbers, and I
don't blame them, because they are struggling across the country with
the numbers of children who are qualified and would be eligible for
childcare assistance but can't get it. These are

[[Page S3327]]

the children on the wait list who presently need it.
Imagine, if you are not a parent of a young child yourself,
colleagues, you may have children who are parents. Ask them, ask people
in your office, what it is like today if you are going to work, you
have a young child, and you are asked to pay $4,000 to $6,000 to $8,000
to $10,000 a year for childcare assistance.
Our staffs are pretty well taken care of. We have childcare centers
for Senate employees. We have childcare centers around Capitol Hill and
other places. But if you are a working parent holding down a job and
you don't have those kinds of incomes and revenues, you have some idea
of what it must be. Data from the Child Care Bureau shows 21 percent of
childcare recipients receive TANF funds. This means nearly 80 percent
of childcare funds are used to help working poor families. If childcare
funds are not increased, the working poor will be cast aside so States
have sufficient funds to help the welfare poor.
We ought not rob Peter to pay Paul. Both need our help--those on
welfare moving to work and those who have moved from welfare to work
but are just barely hanging on. If we deprive them of this additional
assistance they fall right back. What good is that, in the welfare
reform bill, where our underlying goal is to move people from welfare
to work, not only temporarily but permanently, if we can?
The level of funding in the Finance Committee bill which provides an
increase of $200 million a year, in our view--Senator Snowe and myself
and others who are cosponsoring this amendment--is woefully
insufficient. The Congressional Budget Office estimates it would cost
about $1.5 billion in additional childcare money to meet the work
requirements under the Senate welfare bill. But that is not the full
story.
The Congressional Budget Office also estimates even if there were no
increase in the work requirements in this bill--of course, there are
additional work requirements--it would cost an additional $4.5 billion
over the next 5 years to maintain assistance for the 2 million children
who currently receive help for childcare. A subsidy provided for the
family today would simply not cover the cost 5 years from now. Again,
you don't have to have a Ph.D. in economics to understand that.
To do otherwise is to shift costs to States or the parents, neither
of whom are in a position to pick up the slack for the Federal
Government.
Let me put this chart up as well. It will give you some sense of what
I am talking about. You may not be able to see this very clearly. Every
single one of the X's in every one of these States all across the
country indicates the State has cut back in one way or another in terms
of childcare assistance.
As I mentioned earlier, 24 States have a waiting list for childcare.
Other States do not have a waiting list--not because they do not need
assistance, but because they do not want to keep those waiting lists.
It is good news that welfare caseloads are down, although I
understand the caseloads in a number of States have actually gone up. A
reduced caseload does not mean a reduction in the need for childcare
for low-income working families. What we know from studies about
families leaving welfare is they are leaving welfare for low-wage jobs.
They have left the ranks of the welfare poor to join the ranks of the
working poor. Their need for childcare assistance has not changed. In
fact, it may have gone up. Many State administrators believe the
availability of childcare is one of the chief reasons welfare caseloads
have declined.
Nevertheless, the purpose of childcare funding is to assist low-
income families regardless of whether they receive welfare. Childcare
can easily cost between $4,000 and $10,000 a year for one child, more
than the cost of public college tuition in nearly every State.
Therefore, the fact that welfare rolls have been declining is
irrelevant to whether families need childcare assistance.
Nearly one-quarter of the TANF funds used to support childcare
assistance is either transferred from TANF to childcare or spent
directly on childcare. But estimates show that States are expected to
spend a declining percentage of TANF funds on childcare as work
requirements increase and TANF reserve funds from early years of the
program are exhausted. In fact, most States, including my own of
Connecticut, have exhausted their TANF reserve funds, or have nearly
exhausted them.
States simply are not awash in TANF money. If they were, they would
not be slashing childcare funding. Yet nearly every State has made cuts
in childcare assistance. Let us be very clear. The promise made in 1996
when four separate childcare programs were consolidated as part of
welfare reform was this would be a simpler program to administer, and
childcare assistance would no longer be tied to welfare. Childcare
assistance would be available for low-wage families regardless of
welfare receipt. Now it appears that lacking sufficient funds, States
such as my own are shutting off assistance to the working poor.
My colleagues are telling these families: Work your way off welfare,
but once you are off, that is it. They are among the working poor. They
are no longer a concern to many of my colleagues here. I disagree.
I thank Senator Grassley and Senator Baucus, the chair and ranking
Democrat of this committee, along with Senator Hatch and others for
understanding this basic concept. Working poor families need this help
or they will fall back into a dependency role.
If we do not adopt this amendment, as I mentioned, some 450,000 kids
of the 2 million presently being served could lose childcare
assistance.
I mentioned as well how single working mothers and their employment
force has actually gone up to 75 percent and the poorest families
actually have gone up almost 20 percent in the last 4 or 5 years. These
mothers need childcare assistance. They don't have alternatives. They
are single parents. They do not live necessarily in the old
neighborhoods where there was someone next door or down the block or on
the neighboring farm who would take care of them. They need this kind
of help.
I know my time has expired. Let me say this is not only my view.
There is a list of organizations which I ask unanimous consent to be
printed in the Record, beginning with the National Governors
Association, all of whom, regardless of political persuasion or
ideology, urge support for our amendment. They understand these
families need our support. I ask unanimous consent that the list be
printed in the Record, along with letters of endorsement.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Snowe-Dodd Amendment Groups Supporting $6 Billion for Child Care

National Governors Association, American Public Human
Services Association, National Conference of State
Legislatures, National AfterSchool Association, Big Brothers
Big Sisters of America, Easter Seals, National Women's Law
Center, Children's Defense Fund, Generations United, National
Association for the Education of Young Children, Center for
Law and Social Policy, Fight Crime: Invest in Kids, National
Association of Child Care Resource and Referral Agencies,
National Collaboration for Youth, I Am Your Child Foundation.
Girls Incorporated, National Crime Prevention Council,
National Institute for Out-of-School Time, United Way of
America, YWCA, Campfires USA, AED Center for Youth
Development and Policy, Adapted Physical Activity Council,
Alexander Graham Bell Association for the Deaf and Hard of
Hearing, American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry.
American Association on Mental Retardation, American Dance
Therapy Association, American Foundation of the Blind,
American Music Therapy Association, American Occupation
Therapy Association, Association for Maternal and Child
Health Programs, Association of University Centers on
Disabilities.
Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, Council of Parent
Advocates and Attorneys, Division of Early Childhood of the
Council for Exceptional Children, Epilepsy Foundation,
Federal of Families for Children's Mental Health, Helen
Keller National Center, IDEA Infant and Toddler Coordinators
Association, International Dyslexia Association.
Learning Disabilities Association of America, National
Association of Protection and Advocacy Systems, National
Association of School Psychologists, National Association of
Social Workers, National Coalition on Deaf-Blindness,
National Consortium for Physical Education and Recreation for
Individuals with Disabilities, Research Institute for
Independent Living.
School Social Workers Association of America, Spina Bifida
Association of America, TASH, The Arc of the United States,

[[Page S3328]]

United Cerebral Palsy, USAction, US Action Education Fund,
Volunteers of America, Youth Service America, 4 Counties for
Kids (IL), Akron After-School (OH).
Arizona School-Age Coalition, Arizona State University,
California School Age Coalition, Campfire USA First Texas
Council, Circle ``C'' Ranch Academy (Tampa, FL), Columbia
Heights Youth Club, Connecticut After-School Alliance,
Connecticut School-Age Care Alliance, Flood Brook Community
Collaborative (S. Londonderry, VT), Florida School-Age Child
Care Coalition, Georgia School-Age Care Association, Heads Up
(DC).
Illinois School-Age Care Network, Nebraska School-Age Care
Alliance, Newport Enrichment Team (Newport, NH), New York
State School-Age Care Coalition, North Shore Community
College School-Age Child Care Certificate Program (MA),
R'Club Child Care, Inc. (St. Petersburg, FL), Safe Harbor
After-School (Michigan City, IN), Safe Haven After-School
Program (Fresno, CA).
Southwest Community Network, Texas Afterschool Association,
Texas Afterschool Network, The After-School Corporation (NY),
United People Who Care Organization, Inc. (AZ), University
Outreach Services, Shawnee State University (OR).
Utah School Age Care Alliance, Yuma School District #1,
Discovery Clubs (AZ), Wings Afterschool Program (Whitingham,
VT), Results, Inc., Voices for Utah Children, Voices for
Children of San Antonio, Pennsylvania Partnership for
Children, Wisconsin Council on Children and Families.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, Senator Snowe, cosponsors of this amendment,
and myself, believe the amendment deserves support. We urge adoption of
it.
I thank my colleagues for listening.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I might
consume.
I am going to vote yes on the amendment of the Senator from Maine.
There are several reasons.
I have already stated yesterday in remarks that I believe the next
phase of welfare reform must focus on strengthening work and
opportunities for people to move from welfare to work. Of course, work
is the key to self-sufficiency. Hence, this bill; this bill strengthens
work. It would increase the participation rate requirement for States
as well as increase the standard hours for individuals.
The typical welfare adult case is usually a single mother with a
young child, many of whom lack even a high school degree. These are
women who work more often than not. These women more often than not
have families in crisis. They can't find a way to make their lives
work. They need help.
If we are asking these women to go to work and to move from part-time
to full-time work, if that is the case for some, childcare is an
integral part of ensuring they can successfully meet the challenge
required by law--a challenge that is good for society. Moving people
out of welfare into the world of work is the only way they can move up
the economic ladder. A life of welfare is a life of poverty.
Lack of good, affordable childcare is often a barrier to succeeding
in the workplace. I am committed to doing everything I can to help
these families succeed in work. That is good for the taxpayer as well
as for the families. I have come to the conclusion that increasing
funding for childcare is a key to accomplishing that goal.
As we know, States are facing budget deficits and childcare funding
in those States has been frozen. Certainly in the context of a debate
over welfare reform and progress, we should be mindful that States have
spent resources to provide childcare to families attempting a
transition from welfare to work.
I believe in the context of the debate over welfare reform we should
consider whether it is important that we provide a level of funding
sufficient so States can maintain the childcare supporting services
they have been providing to welfare recipients and low-income families.
I have concluded it is important to continue those services. I
recognize in order to do that, we need to provide additional resources
in the specific area of childcare.
If we were merely to increase childcare funding at a rate to keep up
with inflation on the current level of spending, we would increase it
by about $1.5 billion. If we include the $1 billion already in the bill
before the Senate as it was reported out of committee and adjust that
for inflation as well as including what the Congressional Budget Office
estimates are the childcare costs associated with increasing the work
requirement, we are close to $3.3 billion in additional childcare
costs. This is what we know. We know we need at least $3.3 billion to
meet the challenge of childcare. Now we have heard we need anywhere
from $4 billion to $5 billion for States to continue providing services
related to childcare.
I don't think we know for sure the exact increase of childcare
funding we need to maintain the current level of services. However, I
do think we need to assume there is a need, and an increasing need.

I do not believe $6 billion over 5 years is an unreasonable increase
in childcare funding, given the increase in the work requirements, the
current State budget situation, and the importance of maintaining at
the very least the current level of childcare support available to low-
income families.
Therefore, I will vote for the Snowe amendment. I ask my colleagues
to do likewise.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
The Senator from Delaware.
Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I want to say how gratified I am to hear
Senator Grassley. I was very much encouraged to hear the comments of
Senator Hatch.
As I see, we have been joined on the floor by Senator Snowe of Maine,
the author of this amendment, and by Senator Dodd, who spoke just a few
minutes ago.
I want to express to them my heartfelt thanks for their leadership in
bringing this issue before us, and for working to build consensus
around this amendment.
I strongly support this. In explaining that support, I go a long way
back in time, back to 1936. In 1936, we did not have a welfare program
at the Federal level in this country. In 1936, we adopted something
after the encouragement of FDR that largely provided cash assistance to
widows with children. Over the years, from 1936 through World War II
and into the 1980s and 1990s, welfare changed.
By 1996, when welfare reform was adopted, widows and children were
eligible for cash assistance on AFDC, Aid to Families with Dependent
Children. A lot of the people receiving AFDC had children. For the most
part, they were not widows. For the most part, they had never been
married.
Despite the best of intentions, what we created after 1936 was a
program that encouraged many women to have children, oftentimes at a
young age; encouraged men to impregnate them; and encouraged the men to
walk away from the children they helped to create as if they had
nothing to do with it.
That is not to say welfare as we knew it did not do a lot of good. It
did. But it also caught a lot of people in quicksand from which they
found it difficult to escape.
Members may recall the debate back in the 1990s. Bill Clinton, when
he ran for President, said we need to change welfare as we know it. One
of the reasons is, in the early 1990s, a lot of people were better off
on welfare than they were working.
For the folks who went to work, who got off of welfare, here is what
they gained: They gained the right to pay taxes, State income taxes,
Federal income taxes, Social Security taxes.
Here is what they lost: They may lose their health care, their
Medicaid health care; they may lose food stamp eligibility; they may
lose assisted housing; they have to figure out how to pay for
transportation to get to a job; and they will have to figure out how to
pay for childcare.
That all changed effectively in 1996. A lot of Governors were
involved, including some who serve here today: Governors Voinovich,
Allen, myself, and Evan Bayh of Indiana worked with a whole lot of
other Governors, including John Engler of Michigan, to provide
unanimity on the part of the States and the National Governors
Association, who said we have to change this system. People ought to be
better off when they go to work than when they are on welfare.
When we created the block grant approach, Temporary Assistance for
Needy Families, we said States have some flexibility in using that
money that is allocated to them. They can use it for cash assistance,
they can use it for childcare, they can use it for transportation
assistance, they can use it for medical assistance, as well.
Interestingly enough, as the welfare rolls

[[Page S3329]]

dropped--and they are down by half--the amount of money spent out of
the Temporary Assistance for Needy Family fund is now less than half of
that which is spent. We spend a lot more money collectively on
childcare, transportation assistance, and medical assistance. Not
everyone who is off welfare is better off, but a whole lot of people
are.
Fast forward today to 2004, 8 years after the adoption of the welfare
reform. We heard Senator Dodd go through the numbers and explain why we
need to provide this additional money. Let me reiterate a couple of
points. Almost half the States have a waiting list today for families
who are eligible under the criteria of those States. They are eligible
for childcare assistance. But the States cannot provide it.

California has over a quarter of a million people on the waiting
list. In Virginia, there are 7,000. Again, they are eligible under the
State's definition, the State's requirement for childcare, but the
States cannot make good on it.
Last year, the States had a collective shortfall in their budgets of
about $80 billion. It is not a whole lot better this year. It will not
be a whole lot better next year.
Along the way, the States have been changing their criteria for
eligibility. A couple of examples include Ohio, Nebraska, and Kentucky.
Now if you make more than $23,000 and you have a family of three
people, you are not eligible for childcare anymore. If you make more
than $19,100 in Indiana, you are not eligible for childcare assistance
if you have a family of three. In Nebraska, if you make more than
$18,800 and you are a family of three, you are no longer eligible for
childcare.
From my own experience as Governor of my State, there are four things
needed in order to help people move off of welfare, and to stay off of
welfare. One is a job. Second is a way to get to the job. Third is help
with health care, children's care and their own. Last is help with
childcare. If you do not have those four things--a job, a way to get to
the job, help with health care, and childcare--people will not make a
transition to work and remain working.
My friends, there are still some provisions in this bill over which
we will probably have differences. This is one over which there should
be no difference. This is a point on which Democrats and Republicans
ought to agree. I am encouraged. We have a great opportunity for
consensus on this bill. A big part of reaching a consensus enables us
to pass this legislation, and to agree on this amendment. If we do, my
hope is we can work out some of the more difficult amendments and get
to a position where we can vote on final passage today.
Remember the old saying: If it ain't broke, don't fix it. On welfare
reform, a lot of skeptics in 1996 said this will not work; we will
throw people to the lions, and we will make things worse. For the most
part, those fears have been unfounded. For the most part, people are
better off. In million of homes today, someone is waking up and going
to work. Their children have seen them go to work. If we provide good
childcare for their children, we reverse the likelihood their children
will end up in a welfare situation.
Chris Dodd knows this better than I do. For a child who has good
reading skills, the parents have read to them. They had quality
prekindergarten training. When they go into first grade they have a
15,000-word surplus compared to those kids who have not had those
things. Those kids will walk into the first grade with a 15,000-word or
more word deficit.
We learn, as human beings, about half of what we will learn by the
time we are 6. To the extent that we have kids who are in the home of
somebody who is trying to hold things together, working minimum-wage
jobs, they are not getting the kind of nurturing, whether at home or
through a quality pre-K program, we raise the likelihood they
themselves will end up entering school behind, falling further behind,
and we raise the prospect, the likelihood they, too, will end up in a
life of dependency.

It does not have to happen. I am very much encouraged if we pass this
legislation today a lot of childcare providers will have the money they
need to provide quality care. A lot of families ending up on the
waiting lists will find the waiting lists reduced, and a lot of
children who do not have a successful time of it when they get to
kindergarten and first grade will have a better time of it.
Mr. DODD. I thank my Senator for his statement in support. As a
former Governor, of course, he understands these issues from a State
perspective, as well as cutbacks.
I am particularly grateful for the mention of the gap that exists
between the poorest children in this country and those who come from
the more affluent families. The slight correction I make--even his
number is startling--but the average middle class child is exposed to
about 500,000 words by kindergarten; an economically disadvantaged
child is exposed to half as many, at best.
To put it in perspective. In a childcare setting where children, in
the absence of parents who are working, can actually be in a place
where they can learn, you may not close that gap entirely, but the gap
of more than 100,000 words between those two children ought to startle
every single American.
I thank my colleague for raising that issue.
Mr. CARPER. Whether the deficit is 100,000 or 15,000 words, it is too
much.
The good news is this: We can do something about it. We can do
something about it today. We can do something about it in 25 minutes
when we vote on the Snowe-Dodd amendment. That is what we need to do.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, unless the Senator from Alabama wishes to
proceed, I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. Kohl.
Mr. SESSIONS. That will be fine. The Senator from Wisconsin was here
before I was.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from
Wisconsin.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Montana.
Mr. President, I rise today in support of the amendment offered by
Senators Snowe and Dodd to provide an additional $6 billion in
childcare funding. The amendment is essential to guaranteeing the
safety and health of the children of working families, and if it fails
I cannot support the underlying bill.
I say that as a strong supporter of positive welfare reform.
Wisconsin led the Nation in developing programs to move families off
welfare and into employment long before Congress enacted the 1996
welfare reform bill, for which I voted. But the great success Wisconsin
has seen would not have been possible without the vital work supports
offered to welfare families--families that could not have become self-
sufficient without help with childcare, health care, and food stamps.
Across our country, wherever you find stable and safe childcare
available and affordable, you see parents moving off the welfare rolls
and into jobs. Unfortunately, quality childcare is out of reach for too
many working families today.
According to recent data, the average fee in Wisconsin for full-time
care can surpass $7,000 a year--a small fortune to a single parent
working at or near minimum wage. The Snowe-Dodd amendment, combined
with the funding in the underlying bill, would send an additional $124
million in childcare funding to Wisconsin to help those working parents
afford the care their children deserve. That translates into thousands
more parents able to work, and thousands more children able to spend
their days in a healthy, safe environment. The story is the same in all
50 States.
With the addition of the Snowe-Dodd amendment, the Senate can be
proud of a welfare bill that lives up to its name--a bill that truly
works for the welfare of struggling parents and, more importantly,
their children. The Snowe-Dodd amendment builds on the childcare
funding already in the bill as well as other important provisions to
make sure working families receive the support they need and deserve.
One such provision, sponsored by Senator Snowe and myself, would free
child support payments from State and Federal red tape and send it
straight to

[[Page S3330]]

the children for whom it is intended. Under current law, Federal and
State governments can hold onto childcare payments in order to offset
welfare expenses. Our provision gives State options and incentives to
deliver child support directly to families. Wisconsin has been doing
this since 1997, with great results. Fathers are more apt to pay--and
pay more--when they know their children are on the receiving end
instead of the Government. And there are no added costs to States, as
families that receive child support have more of their own income and
are less likely to need other public assistance.
Childcare funding and child support are two simple steps towards
ensuring families a smoother path towards self-sufficiency--and that is
what a reformed, a compassionate, and an effective welfare system is
supposed to be about. With the addition of the Snowe-Dodd amendment,
the Senate's welfare bill will go a long way toward creating such a
system.
Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of the House welfare bill. The
draconian penalties it includes would do little to help families move
off of welfare and into employment. In addition, the House bill does
away with protections for mothers with children under 6--a disturbing
policy decision with long-run implications for the future of the
infants and toddlers it targets.
I urge my colleagues who take this bill to conference to reject the
approach taken by the House. Families struggling to make a decent
living for their children need a hand up--not a slap down. There is no
sense in punishing parents and children for being poor. I also urge the
Senate to overwhelmingly accept the Snowe-Dodd amendment today--and say
yes to a healthy future for our Nation's most unfortunate children.
Mr. President, I thank Senator Dodd and Senator Baucus and yield the
floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I yield myself 6 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I am inclined to want to say: Here we go
again. We have a good bill, founded on, and built upon, a welfare
reform bill that passed a number of years ago that has had
extraordinary success. We now have about half as many people in America
on welfare as there were before.
I guess the average American would think we have saved money, but, of
course, that is not so. The way we give money to the States,
fundamentally, is they get the same amount of money, no matter how many
people are on the rolls, and they get to focus that money more on the
people who are on welfare. And we have not saved money.
In addition, we have come up with a new welfare reform bill that I
believe does a lot of good things. It will encourage work. It will
encourage family formation. It will encourage stable family units and
be positive in a number of different ways. So I think it is a good
bill.
But even though the number of people on welfare is down, even though
that number has continued to drop during the times of economic activity
that we have seen in the recent past, we are not saving any money.
The bill itself, the fundamental bill, has a $1 billion increase in
funding. And now, on top of that, we have a $6 billion childcare
program added on top.
Now, having served on the Budget Committee, as I know the Presiding
Officer has, we wrestled hard with these numbers. We wrestled hard with
these numbers, and we criticized ourselves, and we told ourselves--over
and over again--we have to start restraining what we do in terms of
spending.
We have had people on the other side complain mightily about budget
deficits over and over again. Oh, they are concerned about our budget
deficits. But when we have a bill to add a huge new spending program to
a welfare bill that, truthfully, ought to come in flat, at least, if
not reducing the amount of welfare--since we have half as many people
on welfare as we used to have--we now tack on to that $1 billion
fundamental welfare reform a $6 billion childcare reform.
To my knowledge--I am on the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions
Committee--we have not discussed childcare in our committee. I do not
believe there has been any formal or thorough hearings in the Finance
Committee. Just boom, right on top of this bill, $6 billion. Sock it to
the taxpayer.
Oh, they say it is going to be paid for by Customs user fees. Every
bill that comes through here that is unfunded they say it is going to
be paid for by Customs user fees. Surely, we will have some revenue
come out of Customs user fees, but it is just revenue, just money that
is coming into our Government when we are in a time of substantial
deficit.
So we are going to spend that, not to fund programs we have out there
now that need it, but we are going to spend that new money, they tell
us, in this bill on an entirely new childcare program.
Let me show this chart. This chart gives an indication that this
Congress has not been insensitive to childcare in America. And let me
say this, something we do not think about: We have fought in this
Congress, and we need to reauthorize this year, the child tax credit,
which provides $1,000 per year for every child in America so families
can use that money for childcare or anything else they need--$1,000 per
child. For a three-child family, $3,000. They have that money they can
utilize as they choose.

Not only that, we are reducing the marriage penalty. When people get
married, they pay more taxes. Not only that, we have reduced the 15-
percent bracket, or expanded the 10-percent bracket, so that more
people will be paying income tax rates at 10 percent rather than 15
percent. It is a substantial reduction for them, a one-third reduction
in the amount of income tax lower income working Americans will be
paying.
Those are good things we have done without any bureaucracy or
anything of that nature.
Look at this chart. This shows the various childcare programs we have
in America. Total childcare spending, Federal and State--about $6
billion of it is State--$23 billion per year. Now, I am telling you,
that is a major commitment by this Congress and the American people to
deal with childcare.
But there is a limit to what we do here. We have reduced people on
welfare by 50 percent. Are we saving any money for the taxpayers? No.
We are adding a $1 billion increase in this bill to help that remaining
50 percent to be positive contributors, to have education and training
and jobs and other assets and childcare.
As a matter of fact, this welfare reform bill will unlock $2 billion
that is sitting out there right now. This $2 billion, because of the
regulations, is not being able to be utilized. That $2 billion, when it
is unlocked, will be available for childcare or whatever the State
managers of these programs deem to use it for.
I wish we had the money to fund everybody who wanted to have
childcare, to just let them have it. I wish we had the money. I wish we
had the money to do a lot of things around here, but we are in a period
of deficit. We need to maintain integrity in spending.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used his time.
Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I consume.
Clearly, to make welfare work, there has to be adequate childcare
support. It is a no-brainer. I appreciate Senator Grassley's efforts to
help improve this bill. I appreciate, therefore, even more the
amendment offered by the Senators from Connecticut and Maine to provide
for adequate childcare funding. I further appreciate the support of
this amendment by the chairman of the committee, Senator Grassley. It
is another example of his doing what is right. There are a lot of
politics around here. Clearly, what is right is to make sure our kids
get enough childcare support.
There are 2 million children today who currently benefit from Federal
childcare. Maintaining that current level will take $4.5 billion over
the next 5 years. We also need another $1.5 billion just to cover the
cost of the new work requirements in the Senate bill. In total, we need
$5 billion more than this bill requires. Therefore, the

[[Page S3331]]

amendment pending is one that must be passed.
In Montana, more than 10,000 children receive childcare assistance,
but that is only one-tenth of the number of children who are eligible
for childcare assistance. I believe with passage of this amendment, we
will be able to raise that one-tenth to a much higher level.
I remember when I walked across the State of Montana, I met a lady
who must have been 19, 20 years old, near Bozeman. She told me she was
trying her level best, emphatically, to stay off welfare. She was a
single mom. She had one child. She had a very low-paying job. She was a
very adroit woman. She looked like she had a lot on the ball. But she
was determined to stay off welfare. She slept on her parents' sofa so
she didn't have to pay for a room, and someone else took care of her
child during part of the day. But then she figured out that her
childcare cost her 30 to 40 percent of her total wages. She couldn't do
it. She was so upset that she had to go back on welfare. Why? Because
the wages she was receiving were not enough and her childcare was
costing way too much.
Based upon that one example alone, I personally know how valuable
this is. Childcare is critical to help keep people off of welfare, to
help keep people working. It is an investment in our future. Who knows,
some of these children might be future Nobel Prize winners, future
inventors or poets or authors. These are our kids. It is a no-brainer
for passage of the amendment. I urge a very large vote.
How much time remains on our side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Three minutes 15 seconds.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from New
Mexico.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague for yielding me the
time.
I strongly support this amendment and believe it is an essential part
of any TANF reauthorization. If we were to defeat this amendment, we
would probably have to conclude that we are better off under current
law than under the bill that has been reported out of the Finance
Committee. Many of my colleagues believe we should have done more for
childcare in the legislation we were considering in the Finance
Committee, but it was determined at that time that our best opportunity
to get the support we needed was to follow the lead of the two sponsors
of this amendment, Senator Snowe, in particular, in the committee and
Senator Dodd here on the floor, to be sure that this legislation got
enacted.
The truth is, the underlying bill imposes greater work requirements
on low-income mothers and puts them in an impossible situation if we
don't continue to provide the childcare assistance they need. It is
also clear that if we take the level of funding of childcare that is
provided for in the bill without this amendment, we will see childcare
assistance denied to hundreds of thousands of working poor families.
This is essential legislation. I strongly support it. I urge my
colleagues to support this amendment. With this amendment, we can move
ahead with consideration of other amendments and hopefully wind up with
reauthorized TANF legislation that we can all support.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I yield myself the remaining time and ask
unanimous consent to add the following Senators as cosponsors of the
amendment: Senators Dayton, DeWine, Corzine, and Harkin.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise to make a few comments regarding
this amendment before the final vote.
First, I thank Chairman Grassley for his extraordinary leadership and
his commitment to ensuring that this legislation gets completed this
year, as should be done given all the temporary extensions, but also
for his support of the pending amendment to increase childcare support
by more than $6 billion.
I also thank Senator Dodd, who has provided exemplary advocacy and
leadership on behalf of families and children. I appreciate his
reaching across the political aisle to forge and craft this bipartisan
amendment, along with Senator Carper, who approached me some time ago
as well, because of his leadership previously as Governor and now in
the Senate on the importance and value of providing the necessary child
support in order to make sure we improve the well-being and quality of
life for families and children as we transition off this entire welfare
system. And I thank other cosponsors such as Senator Bingaman and all
of the Senators who have chosen to cosponsor this amendment across the
political aisle. I truly appreciate it. It will give breadth and depth
to the reauthorization of this welfare reauthorization.
This amendment is a recognition of reality. If we want the nearly 5
million people who currently are on the caseload to transition and
remain off welfare, we clearly have to provide them affordable, quality
childcare assistance. In fact, one of the major pillars in the 1996
landmark legislation was to ensure that we create the necessary support
systems so that full-time employment would become accessible.
We created the childcare development block grant for families who are
on welfare, those transitioning off welfare, low-income families who
are not on welfare for whom this assistance could make all the
difference. Yet today only one in seven children--only 15 percent--in
America who are eligible for Federal support are actually receiving it.
More significantly, in 2003, every State in America has reduced their
childcare support because of the tremendous financial constraints they
are confronting. Not only that, there are 16 States that are reducing
the eligibility levels. Therefore, fewer children will be eligible for
childcare assistance.
There can be no question about the impact of the value of childcare
in America. According to a 2002 study, 82 percent of former welfare
recipients who receive childcare assistance are more likely than those
who do not to have employment for 2 years after being off welfare. That
is critically important because it underscores the value of providing
this type of support.
Currently there are 2 million children receiving a childcare subsidy,
which is only a fraction of those children who are eligible. CBO
estimates that it will require $4.5 billion to ensure all 2 million
children receive the current level of support over the next 5 years.
Yet the underlying bill only includes $1 billion that will cover
approximately the increased cost to childcare as a result of the
expanded work requirements. So if we do nothing more than the
underlying bill, there is the potential of 400,000 children who will
lose childcare support if we do not pass this amendment today.
Now, some people say, you know, we are doing enough. Well, you ask
the 605,000 children in America who are on waiting lists. There are not
waiting lists in every State. Some States don't keep waiting lists, and
the reason is because they know they cannot fulfill the burgeoning
demand for childcare and will create expectations they cannot fulfill.
This amendment becomes critically important to the well-being of
families and children. It is a recognition of reality. The reality is,
if we want families to leave welfare, stay off welfare, then let's give
them the support they need by passing this amendment. The reality is
that children need the quality daycare while their parents are working
to improve themselves and their families. We don't want to create
untenable situations that require families to make untenable choices.
I urge adoption of this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana is recognized.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I yield the remainder of our time to the
Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, very quickly, I thank the chairman and
ranking member of the Finance Committee for their leadership on this
issue. Once again, I am deeply pleased to be joining Senator Snowe. She
has worked tirelessly on behalf of children and the issue of childcare
during our joint service in the Senate. I also thank Senator Hatch and
others. I go back a long way with Senator Hatch. It was almost 15 years
ago, in 1990, when we passed the first Childcare and Development Block
Grant, CCDBG.
In 1996, we consolidated 4 separate childcare programs and included
them in the welfare reform package. I have a

[[Page S3332]]

couple of quick points to make. Federal funds presently have been
frozen for 3 years on childcare. The costs are obviously going up.
Senator Snowe pointed out we have 400,000 to 450,000 children who will
be dropped from child care assistance if this amendment is not
included. At least 600,000 children are on waiting lists in the 24
States that keep them. For the remaining States, obviously, there are
many eligible children not receiving child care help.
The Governors want this. They have been asking for it. They are
cutting back themselves. Every State has cut back in one way or another
on childcare assistance programs. Seven million children every day go
home from school to an empty house, with no kind of afterschool program
and care. I don't think any of us want to see that perpetuated.
This amendment is paid for by extending Customs user fees which are
scheduled to expire. We are not asking anyone to add to the deficit at
all. This is an existing program. There is nothing new about it. It was
crafted 15 years ago and part of a consolidation of child care programs
in 1996, so it is not a new program. The amendment is paid for and it
is absolutely critical.
The underlying bill says, let's get people off of welfare and to
work. We have expanded some of the work requirements here. You must
have additional childcare support, or working poor families will slip
back into dependency. No Member wants to be part of a solution that
would require that to happen with too many families out there making a
tremendous effort to stay employed and independent.
Senator Snowe and I graciously ask for your continuing support of
this very important program. We urge adoption of this amendment.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today in support of this amendment
to increase the amount of mandatory childcare funding available to
States.
Many of us understand that child care is an essential part of
encouraging people to work. I have long believed that parents who are
concerned about their children's well-being cannot be effective,
dependable employees. Unfortunately, the data are clear; the need for
affordable child care in this country is rapidly increasing and the
Federal funds available to help poor families have deteriorated
significantly due to flat funding and inflation. Without dramatic
funding increases, over 600,000 poor parents will face tough decisions
about what to do with their children while they are working to keep the
family out of poverty. I am concerned about this statistic.
I sincerely believe it is the right thing to do to require families
receiving Federal assistance to work more hours to ensure they can
become self-sufficient. That is one of the many reasons I am supportive
of this bill, H.R. 4. However, requiring more hours of work from poor
parents inevitably leads to an even greater demand in childcare funding
because parents must be out of the home for longer periods of time. In
many respects this is a healthy development for the family. But the $1
billion increase in childcare funding provided by this bill is simply
not adequate to meet this increased work requirement; therefore, I
think we need to go a step further. That is why I support this
important amendment to increase child care funding by $6 billion over
the next 5 years.
I would like to make it clear that I certainly understand the budget
shortfalls this country is facing. While I believe much good can be
done by increasing child care funding, I would not be supportive of
this amendment if it were not 100 percent deficit neutral. I am pleased
to see this amendment is offset by increases in customs user fees and
does not add to the budget shortfalls we are currently experiencing.
High deficits and the mountain of Federal debt represent real
obligations that hurt our economic security, both now and in the
future. Therefore, as long as we have a viable offset for childcare
funding increases, I am supportive.
With that understanding, I encourage my Senate colleagues to support
this amendment and provide these necessary childcare funds to families.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I add my strong support for the Snowe/Dodd
amendment to add $6 billion in childcare funding in the TANF bill. This
will allow for urgently needed improvements to access and the quality
of childcare.
Back in 1996, Congress passed a tough welfare reform bill that
demanded personal responsibility. I supported that bill. It said that
if you are on welfare and you can work, you must work. Our reform has
had some substantial successes, but now is not the time for a victory
lap. I am particularly concerned that this bill does not provide
adequate funding to address what we all know is one of the major
barriers to employment--childcare.
If we are going to demand personal responsibility from every
American, I believe the Government has a responsibility to every
American.
If we are going to help struggling low-income families and those
trying to leave welfare over the long term, we have a responsibility to
provide those families with access to affordable, high quality
childcare. Nationwide only one in eight kids eligible for childcare
assistance actually receives it. In Iowa the story is worse, only 1 out
of 12 actually receives assistance. Parents cannot work if they cannot
afford decent childcare. But the sad reality is that many are forced,
too often, to leave their kids in substandard care--or no care at all.
In Iowa nearly two-thirds of mothers with kids under age six are in
the workforce. That is the second highest in the Nation. This means
that children in Iowa spend a large percentage of their formative years
in childcare. Unfortunately the availability of quality daycare has not
kept pace with the demand of daycare. I have heard countless stories of
families who tell me they had to leave their kids in substandard care
because they could not find quality care or because they could not
afford better care. One woman told me that she knew her kids were in
front of the TV most of the day, but that was the only option she had.
She had to go to work. These stories are just devastating.
Even when a family can find childcare, it is often too expensive.
Low-income working families often spend almost 50 percent of their
paychecks on childcare. Meanwhile, higher income families spent only 6
percent.
In my State of Iowa, the average cost of childcare in rural areas is
almost $6,000 a year. And that is just for one child. The average wage
of someone on TANF is only $7.28. So if we do the math, someone making
slightly more than minimum wage working 40 hours a week is spending
almost half of their earnings on childcare. One single mom struggling
to get off welfare in Iowa told me that she spends 45 percent of her
income to meet the childcare costs for her two children--and she has to
work a second job at night so they can survive. Her total yearly
childcare for two kids is $12,000.

And regardless of income, parents worry about the quality of
childcare. In Iowa the majority of growth has been in nonregistered,
unregulated care as opposed to registered and accredited centers.
Nationwide there is also a major shortage of quality childcare for
children in rural areas, for children with special needs, and for
infants and toddlers. In fact, in a recent Midwest study, Iowa ranked
the lowest in providing quality care for infants and toddlers. This is
alarming, because the years through age three are a critical time for
brain development and emotional development. This is when a child lays
the foundation--or fails to lay the foundation--for later success in
school and life.
Data from the National Academy of Sciences shows that the first 3
years of a child's life are the most important--80 percent of brain
development occurs before the child's third birthday. Children who do
not have rich, enjoyable, emotionally, and intellectually stimulating
learning experiences during these important years can be stunted for
life.
In fact, more than a dozen years ago, in 1991, the Committee for
Economic Development, made up of business leaders, found that investing
in quality childcare and other early interventions was critical to
securing this Nation's economic future. CED urged Federal policy makers
to view education as a process that begins at birth.
We also know that good childcare prevents later crime and violence. I
request unanimous consent that this op-ed, written by the Des Moines
chief of police, be included in the Record.

[[Page S3333]]

Chief McCarthy says that ``my law enforcement experience has taught
me that by giving children the right start in life through programs
such as pre-K and childcare, we can dramatically reduce the chances of
you or someone you love becoming the victim of violence.''
Yet despite all that we know about how important good quality
childcare is, we fail to support our highly skilled childcare
providers. In fact, we are paying them less than bus drivers, barbers
and janitors. I think it is time that changed. The average childcare
worker's salary in Iowa is $14,100, well below the national average.
There is also a 50 percent turnover rate for childcare providers. This
is particularly harmful as stable, consistent relationships are
essential to healthy development.
Recognizing the inadequacy in quality as chairman of Labor, Health
and Human Services Subcommittee of Appropriations, I began funding an
additional $200 million in CCDBG to improve quality, with targeted
funding directed to infant and toddler needs.
The Dodd/Snow amendment will bring us a step closer to the day when
all young children have the opportunities and supports they need to
embark on a lifetime of learning.
We talk a lot in this country about budget deficits, economic
prosperity and how as a nation we have to prioritize. One of our
priorities surely must be to strengthen families, encourage work, and
provide decent childcare. I understand that many of my colleagues have
concerns with the cost of this amendment. Well if we can find trillions
of dollars for tax cuts, hundreds of billion of dollars for a
prescription drug give-away to big pharmaceutical companies and HMOs,
and tens of billions of dollars for a trip to Mars, then surely we can
make key investments in programs like CCDBG. I urge my colleagues to
strongly support the Snowe/Dodd amendment.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Snowe-Dodd
amendment to increase funding for child care by $6 billion. We know
that high-quality child care makes a real difference for children and
their families. It allows parents to work, and at the same time it
gives children a safe and productive place to learn.
Today the need for child care is growing, but government support is
not. In fact, because of the slow economy and State budget problems,
many States are cutting back on their support of child care. This is
having an especially painful impact on low-income families--the very
families that are helped the most by child care. These are also the
same families that will need more help because of the work requirements
in the underlying bill. That is why we need to pass this amendment.
The Snowe-Dodd amendment will increase funding for the Child Care
Development Block Grant by $6 billion. Without this amendment, about
430,000 children will lose their child care assistance over the next 3
years. This amendment will make a real difference for families in every
state. In my own home state of Washington, this amendment will mean
nearly $140 million in increased child care funding for Washington
families.
Over the years, I have fought on this floor to increase child care
funding, so I don't need to spend a lot of time reviewing what the
research shows us. We know that safe, quality child care helps children
start school ready to learn and keeps children safe while their parents
work. Studies show that quality makes a real difference. Children in
poor-quality child care have been found to lag behind in language and
reading skills and to display more aggression. On the other hand,
children in high-quality child care have greater math, thinking and
attention skills. They also have fewer behavior problems than children
in lower-quality care.
The benefits of high quality child care are not in question; the only
question is how many families can afford it? Full-day child care easily
costs from $4,000 to $10,000 a year. That is at least as much as
college tuition at a public university, and it's more than many
families can afford. For example, if both parents work full-time for
minimum wage, they only make $21,400 a year. Child care would be one-
quarter to one-half of their income. Clearly, they need help.
Today, nearly 16 million children under age 13--who are living in
low-income families--are likely to need child care. But out of those 16
million, only one in seven low-income children receive the federal
child care assistance for which they are eligible.
Even worse, the need for child care is increasing because of our high
unemployment rate and because of the increased work requirements in the
underlying bill. Many out-of-work parents are looking for jobs, and
they need child care to be able to look for a job. If this amendment
fails and the underlying bill passes, about 430,000 children will lose
their child care assistance by fiscal year 2008. Without this
amendment, fewer and fewer children will get the child care they need.
Because of inflation alone, States will need $5 billion over the next 5
years just to keep serving the same number of children. And that
assumes that TANF funds will be available and that State budgets won't
be cut.
We already know that States are cutting back on child care funding
because of their budget shortfalls. In 2000, States spent $3.8 billion
in TANF funds for child care programs. By 2002, State spending had
dropped to $3.5 billion. Many States have growing numbers of low-income
families on waiting lists. Some States are turning low-income families
away unless those families receive TANF, are moving out of TANF, or
have other special circumstances. Other States have altered eligibility
requirements so that only the very poor receive assistance. And some
States have raised copayments. According to the General Accounting
Office, 23 States have changed their child care policies since 2001 in
ways that limit access for families, shutting the door on opportunities
for parents to work.
My own State of Washington has lowered the eligibility standard for
child care subsidies from 225 percent to 200 percent of poverty.
Washington State also increased monthly co-payments for families. In
2000, 54,000 children in Washington received subsidized child care. By
2001, the number had dropped to 51,200. As I mentioned earlier, this
amendment will mean nearly $140 million in increased child care funding
for Washington families. That help is desperately needed.
Today we are considering a welfare reauthorization bill that is
supposed to help struggling families become self-sufficient. I do not
believe we can have a meaningful conversation about getting parents
into jobs unless families have access to safe, quality child care. I
urge my colleagues to support the Snowe-Dodd amendment to increase
child care funding by $6 billion.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the
bipartisan childcare amendment being offered today. This amendment
would provide reasonable and necessary increases in funding to the
Child Care Development Block Grant.
The underlying bill only provides increases of $200 million per year
for 5 years for childcare. Unfortunately, this level of funding fails
to support low-income families who are trying to become independent and
self-sufficient. First, the underlying bill imposes more rigorous work
requirements on TANF mothers without providing enough resources for
essential childcare support. In addition, the level of funding in the
underlying bill is so inadequate that it will result in the loss of
childcare funding for hundreds of thousands of working poor families.
The cost of quality childcare in this country can exceed $10,000 per
year, thus rendering quality childcare out of reach for too many low-
income working families.
I strongly support this amendment. This amendment would provide the
necessary funds to support the work requirements of TANF recipients as
well as the efforts of low-income working families--parents trying to
stay off welfare. It would provide sufficient resources to, at the very
least, maintain the number of childcare slots available to working
families. And, it would provide families with opportunities for quality
childcare.
The availability of childcare assistance through the Child Care
Development Block Grant, CCDBG, played an essential role in the decline
of welfare caseloads around the country throughout the 1990s. Both the
Federal Government and the States dramatically increased spending for
child care after passage of welfare reform in 1996. The

[[Page S3334]]

bulk of the increases, however, came from the Federal Government. By
2002, the Federal Government appropriated approximately $4.8 billion
for childcare in both discretionary and mandatory spending. States also
saw record declines in TANF caseloads, and thus were able to use the
flexible TANF dollars for childcare assistance.
The number of employed single mothers dramatically increased from 6.4
million in 1996 to 7.3 million in 2001. And, employment rates among
low-income mothers with young children increased from 44 percent in
1996 to 59 percent in 2000. The number of children receiving childcare
services through CCDBG doubled during this period from 1 million to
approximately 2 million children.
Further, research shows that the availability of childcare subsidies
leads to more work, higher earnings, and a greater likelihood of
remaining off welfare. A recent study found that single mothers with
young children who receive childcare assistance are 40 percent more
likely to still be employed after 2 years than mothers who do not
receive such assistance. And, the numbers only increase for mothers who
were former welfare recipients. According to the data, former welfare
recipients with young children who receive childcare assistance are 82
percent more likely to remain employed after 2 years. The evidence
shows that our childcare policies work; childcare assistance helps low-
income working mothers move from welfare to work.
Our commitment to childcare, however, has waned. The Federal
contribution to childcare has remained frozen since 2002. And as a
result of severe budget crises facing our States, the state
contribution to childcare has significantly diminished. The use of TANF
dollars for childcare has declined since 2001. Moreover, states have
had to close budget gaps cumulatively totaling $200 billion since FY
2001, and many States have cut assistance to childcare to close the
budget gaps. According to the General Accounting Office, nearly one
half of all States have made policy changes that reduce the
availability of childcare subsidies, and 11 other States are proposing
changes that will reduce current levels of spending on childcare.
According to the Congressional Budget Office, it will cost
approximately $4.5 billion in Federal funding just to maintain the
current number of childcare slots for the next 5 years. If this
amendment fails, it is estimated that more than 400,000 children would
lose their childcare assistance.
Although CCDBG serves approximately 2 million children nationwide, we
are only providing childcare to 12 percent of the eligible population.
Further, due to State cuts, we are already seeing States reducing
eligibility, lowering income limits, increasing waiting lists, lowering
provider reimbursement rates, and increasing parent copayments.
For example, 15 States and the District of Columbia have reduced
their eligibility limits, either lowering the eligibility cutoff based
on poverty or restricting eligibility to TANF-only families. New Mexico
has lowered eligibility for childcare, making the income cutoff lower
than it was in 2000. These policy changes, of course, do not mean that
low-income families are any less in need of childcare. It just means
that without the childcare subsidy, it will be that much harder to
afford quality childcare.
In New Mexico, there are almost 100,000 children in low-income
families with all parents in the workforce. A family of three earning
more than $22,890 a year cannot qualify for childcare assistance in New
Mexico, but at this income level they would be struggling just to cover
their basic expenses. In Albuquerque, for example, annual costs for
decent housing, $7,008; food, $4,212; transportation, $1,932; health
care, $3,060; and other necessities such as telephone service,
clothing, and household items, $3,480 alone would total $19,692,
according to a study of basic family budgets. Paying for average-priced
center care for an infant and a preschooler, $10,408, would put this
family $7,210 over budget.
The cost of quality childcare is simply out of reach for too many
working families. The quality of childcare has a significant effect on
children's health and development and their readiness for school.
Studies show that children who have traditionally been at risk of not
doing well in school are affected more by the quality of care than
other children. These children are more sensitive to the negative
effects of poor childcare and receive greater benefits from higher
quality care. Evidence demonstrates that children who attend higher
quality childcare perform better on measures of cognitive development,
such as math and language skills, as well as on behavioral development,
such as thinking and attention, interactions with peers, and behavior
skills. Yet, while low-income children are at greater risk, they are
less likely to be able to access high-quality childcare.
Without adequate increases in funding for childcare, we are forcing
our low-income mothers into impossible situations. This bill requires
TANF recipients to work, yet fails to provide adequate childcare to
support their efforts. The bill also fails to provide sufficient
childcare funding to maintain childcare assistance for hundreds of
thousands of working poor families. How can we expect low-income
families to maintain independence and self-sufficiency, if we fail to
provide them with the necessary supports--or worse, we take them away.
For nearly 30 years, the evidence has been telling us that quality
early care and education makes all the difference in the world in a
child's readiness for school. Yet by failing to make quality childcare
accessible to low-income families, we continue to wonder why all of our
children are not academically successful. Without adequate funding for
childcare, we continue to leave hundreds of thousands of children
behind.
I urge my colleagues to support this vital amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from
Maine has the last minute and a half.
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I thank, again, Senator Dodd for his being
a champion over the years on behalf of children and families, and for
making it possible that we are in the position of offering this
amendment. I also thank the cosponsors and Chairman Grassley for
honoring his promise that we have a priority position in offering this
amendment.
Ultimately, this amendment will determine whether families on welfare
and their children will be able to achieve self-sufficiency, which was
the goal of the Welfare Reform Act in 1996. That was an unprecedented
success. This amendment will help build upon that success and help
families to achieve the economic independence they and their families
deserve.
Mr. President, I urge adoption of this amendment and I yield back the
remainder of our time.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, have the yeas and nays been requested?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. They have not.
Mr. DODD. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a
sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. McCONNELL. I announce that the Senator from New Mexico (Mr.
Domenici) is necessarily absent.
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry)
is necessarily absent.
I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would vote ``yea.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 78, nays 20, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 64 Leg.]

YEAS--78

Akaka
Alexander
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Breaux
Brownback
Bunning
Byrd
Campbell
Cantwell
Carper
Chafee
Clinton
Cochran
Coleman
Collins
Conrad
Corzine
Daschle
Dayton
DeWine
Dodd
Dole
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Feingold
Feinstein
Fitzgerald
Frist
Graham (FL)
Graham (SC)
Grassley
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Hollings
Hutchison
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln

[[Page S3335]]

Lugar
McCain
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Roberts
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Schumer
Shelby
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Stevens
Talent
Voinovich
Warner
Wyden

NAYS--20

Allard
Allen
Burns
Chambliss
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
Ensign
Enzi
Gregg
Inhofe
Kyl
Lott
McConnell
Miller
Nickles
Santorum
Sessions
Sununu
Thomas

NOT VOTING--2

Domenici
Kerry

The amendment (No. 2937) was agreed to.

____________________