Welfare Reform

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD
SENATE
Sept. 28, 2004

WELFARE REFORM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I will be offering a unanimous consent request to try to move forward on welfare reform and try to move this vitally important issue that affects millions of Americans out of the Senate and toward passage of an extension. Today, the House is going to pass an extension, and I hope we will also.

I think it is unfortunate that we are left in the position that we are not able to pass a welfare reform bill in the Senate, in spite of the fact that an amendment on the underlying bill passed $1.2 billion in new daycare spending. That has always been the mantra of those who oppose welfare reform and work requirements, that there wasn't enough money for daycare. Yet $1.2 billion was added to the welfare bill, and we had attempt after attempt to move that bill to conference. So far, we have not been able to do so. As a result, we are here for another extension.

We have had several extensions over the last 2 years. The problem with these extensions-let me make this point-is that the current welfare system was put into place in 1996. It had very tough work requirements. It had work requirements that were tied to caseload reduction. What happened is we have had such a successful program over the last 8 years that almost all of the States have met their caseload reduction and therefore no longer have work requirements.

So what we are seeing is that gradually, slowly, a lot of these States that have reduced their caseload are falling back under work requirement-not requiring work and not requiring the transformative value that this new welfare system that was put into place in 1996 has given to millions of women and children in poverty over the last 8 years. If we just continue the 1996 bill, which was great in its time-it achieved what it wanted to achieve and needed to achieve. Now we need to ratchet it up to make sure the work requirement is maintained and that we are still moving people out of poverty into work. So this extension I am going to offer does not accomplish that. That is disappointing.

I hope to later on maybe offer an opportunity to go to conference, but for now, I want to offer a unanimous consent request to extend the current welfare bill for another 6 months and add two minor provisions that the Senator from Indiana, Mr. Bayh, and I have been working on now for quite some time in a bipartisan fashion.

The two provisions deal with fatherhood, money that was not provided in the 1996 Welfare Act to encourage responsible fatherhood. There is $100 million for that provision and also $200 million to do a whole variety of things to try to educate and encourage responsible marriage, if you will; responsible fatherhood, responsible marriage, encourage fathers and mothers who are having children outside of wedlock.

Let me give at least one example of how this money could be used. There was a study done at Princeton University which said that when a mother would apply for welfare with a child born out of wedlock, 80 percent of the mothers who applied for welfare in this study, done by a liberal professor from Princeton, said they were in a relationship with the father of the child. When the father of the child was asked, 80 percent said they were interested in marriage. So we have a mother and a father who in 80 percent of these cases that were studied said they were in a relationship at the time that welfare was applied for, which is certainly after the child's birth, and they were interested in marriage. Yet within a year's time, less than 10 percent of those couples were together.

The point here is that Government does nothing, other than attach the father's wages for child support, to encourage that relationship or help that relationship prosper. All we are interested in is getting the money out of the hide of the father, which is not necessarily what nurtures a relationship.

All we are suggesting is that if a mother and a father come in and say, yes, we are in a relationship, and, yes, we are interested in marriage at the time we are having this child, cannot the Government do something to help that situation? It is a very difficult time in these two young people's lives. They are going through a lot of stresses and strains. It is hard enough to have a child when you are married, much less when you are not married, and the difficulties associated with that. Could we pay for counseling? Could we pay for a faith-based organization to bring them in and help them get through these difficult times to nurture this relationship so the child of these two parents could have an opportunity to have a mother and a father in the home in a stable relationship?

If we look at the benefits of marriage, they are overwhelming. Social scientist after social scientist has come in to testify before the Finance Committee in a hearing earlier this year from the left and the right and they said: There is no argument here, marriage is beneficial for children.

It is beneficial for children because they have better school performance and there are fewer dropouts, fewer emotional and behavior problems, less substance abuse, less abuse and neglect, less criminal activity, fewer out-of-wedlock births. Everything we look at, marriage is a benefit to children. Why is the Government neutral on marriage? Why, if a couple is interested in marriage, can't we at least provide them some of the resources they need to build that relationship instead of just saying: Here is childcare dollars; if you want to get married, that is fine, we don't really care one way or the other; here are your childcare dollars and here are your whatever other dollars and that is all we care about. That is a short-term help for moms and children, but to have a stable, loving father and mother relationship is the best long-term help we can provide. But we do nothing. We are silent.

What we are proposing here is to try to do something to provide some resources through responsible fatherhood programs to-in this case, these programs are trying to bring in fathers who have not been involved in their children's lives-find mentoring programs and other programs funded through the nonprofit arena to help bring fathers back into the lives of their children. Children need moms and dads, and responsible mothers and responsible fathers are optimal. Senator Bayh has been a leader on this issue, along with Senator Domenici. I have worked also to try to get more responsible fathers back into the lives of their children.

Look at the statistics when it comes to fathers involved in children's lives: A child is two times more likely to abuse drugs if the father is not in the home, two times more likely to be abused if the father is not in the home, two times more likely to be involved in crime, three times more likely to fail in school, three times more likely to commit suicide, and five times more likely to be in poverty. That is what fatherlessness does to children.

This extension I am asking for is a straight extension, no other changes, simply two modifications: One, $100 million to help bring fathers back into the lives of these children to help improve some of these horrendous statistics we see here, and, two, to simply have some support where Government is no longer neutral, I would argue even against by enabling, if you will-I won't say survival because it is beyond that-but enabling women and children to go forward without fathers. You can make an argument it is beyond neutral, that we are empowering through Government money mothers not to need fathers as much as they did before all these programs were out here.

What we are saying is let's at least, if they express an interest in marriage, see if we can help them through this process. It is a straight extension, plus $100 million for fatherhood and $200 million for marriage programs.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 714, S. 2830; that the bill be read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the RECORD.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?