Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise to oppose the pending motion to invoke cloture. We are here today because the majority chooses not to allow a vote on a minimum wage. It is that simple.

That is wrong. It is wrong because the millions of hard-working Americans making the minimum wage deserve a raise. It is wrong because the Senators from California and Massachusetts also deserve to get a vote on their amendment. It is not right that a person who has a full- time job at minimum wage still has to live in poverty, but that is where we are today in America.

For a family of three, let's say a mom and two kids, the gap between the poverty line and the minimum wage is $3,681. That is right, a family would need $3,681 more just to get up to the poverty level, and that is before taking into account the cost of child care, which is a big factor, or the cost of gasoline for the car--we know how much gasoline prices are rising--or the cost of clothes for a job. Often a person has to buy separate clothes for a job.

If we want people to be able to move off welfare and into work--and that is what we want, people off welfare into work--we have to make sure the work they get pays enough so they can get off welfare and lift them out of poverty. That is what we have to do, and that is why increasing the minimum wage is so important.

Most people who are on welfare will say they want to get off welfare; they do not like it; they hate it. That is what they tell me. I have talked to a lot of people on welfare. One of the main reasons they will say it is so difficult to get off welfare is because the job that pays at minimum wage does not pay enough for them to get by. I have heard that countless times. They are working full time but they cannot make ends meet. We need to raise the minimum wage to help people get off welfare.

The vote today is also about another point. The Senators from California and Massachusetts deserve at least to have a vote on their amendment. They are willing to enter into a short time agreement. They are not delaying. They say, sure, let's have a vote on

their amendment, with a short time agreement. They are not delaying. It is the other side which is preventing them from having a vote.

We on this side of the aisle do not wish to delay this bill. We are willing to work to get a finite list of amendments. We are willing to enter into a time agreement on amendments. We are not asking for anything out of the ordinary.

I remind my colleagues that during the 13-day period for which the Senate considered the basic bill, the 1995 welfare bill, September 7 to September 19 of 1995, the Senate conducted 43 rollcall votes on amendments. So far this year we have conducted one, and yet there is a cloture motion to try to stop debate. That is not the way to legislate. We are not asking for anything out of the ordinary. We merely ask that Senators be able to offer amendments and get votes on their amendments.

We have time agreements, we have lists, and so forth. That is what this debate is about. I urge my colleagues to uphold the rights of Senators. I urge Senators to vote to increase the minimum wage. I urge Senators to oppose cloture.

How much time does each side have remaining?

I yield back the remainder of my time.

I object.

Mr. President, the great British Prime Minister William Gladstone called the U.S. Senate ``the most remarkable of all the inventions of modern politics.'' If you stop and think about that a little bit, in the political process there is probably no greater truth.

The Senate is a remarkable institution. It is unique. There is no other body, no other political body, no other democratic legislature in the world quite like the U.S. Senate. We have our unique rules and our unique procedures, which I think make it special, and which have stood the test of time and made this body the institution it is. I think it has added significantly to our country's well-being and has helped make the United States the best country in the world.

What are some of those distinctions? What are some of those qualities? One, clearly, is the right to debate. Once the Chair recognizes a Senator, that Senator can stand and talk as long as he or she wants, as long as he or she is physically able. That is a rule of the Senate. It means that if a Senator has something to say, that Senator cannot be denied the right to say whatever he or she wants to say, unless or until that Senator, for physical reasons, has to stop talking.

I think the record for standing and addressing the Senate is held by the late Senator from South Carolina, Strom Thurmond. My recollection is it was 25 hours and some minutes. He had something to say, and, my gosh, he said it. That is a distinct right in the U.S. Senate.

I do not know of any other body in the world where legislators are accorded that right, certainly not in the other body. As you know, in the other body, the standard rule is 5 minutes; that is, when any amendment or bill is up, even assuming under their rules a House Member has the opportunity to seek recognition, the basic rule is 5 minutes. In the Senate it is as long as you can possibly speak.

What is another unique right of the U.S. Senate? One other right is the right to offer any amendment on any bill at any time without notice.

Now, when you stop and think about that, on one level that sounds a little strange. That tends to make things a little disorderly, doesn't it? Yes, it does make things sometimes a little disorderly, but, nevertheless, that unique right to offer an amendment protects the minority interest; it protects an interest of a Senator who is representing some part of the country to be able to present his or her point of view, and to bring it up and have Senators act on it, to debate it, vote on it, and take action. It is very unique. It is very important. Those are two extremely important qualities that distinguish the U.S. Senate from any other legislative body in the world.

In a sense, it is that unique quality that is at the heart of this debate; that is, whether the Senate should vote on an amendment offered by the Senators from California and Massachusetts to raise the minimum wage. Senators have that right. They have the right to offer amendments. They have the right to stand up and be recognized and speak on their amendments. Senators who are opposed to the amendment have a right to stand up and oppose the amendment.

I believe that one of the best attributes--and I hope I am not ``misattributing,'' if that is a correct word, the source of this to John Locke--is the ``marketplace of ideas''--that is, the more people debate and, in good faith, talk about a subject, the more the sunshine is on that subject, the more likely it is the best result will be achieved; the more likely it is we will find the truth; we will find the right result.

It is pretty hard to find the right result to a controversial issue. Certainly raising the minimum wage has some controversy with it, without debating it. If we cannot debate it, it is fairly difficult--it is kind of hard--to know what the right result should be.

My guess is--and, frankly, I believe strongly--if we have a full and open debate on the underlying bill, the TANF bill, as well as on amendments that Senators want to legitimately offer, even if some of them may not be strictly germane, we are going to end up with a much better result, and we are going to be serving our country much better than we would if we just do not have debate on amendments or if the amendments are precluded from being brought up.

I strongly urge Senators, therefore, to think about what we are doing. It is not only the narrow subject of whether there should be a vote on the minimum wage or whether we are going to allow Senator Kennedy to have a vote on his amendment. It is a broader question: What are we all about as an institution? What are we about as the U.S. Senate? Why do we seek these offices in the first place? Why are we here?

I think I can speak for every Senator, saying that he or she ran for the Senate because we want to help make this a better place; that is, we want to help our States and help America. We profoundly believe in the democratic process. We sought election to the U.S. Senate because we knew, either directly or intuitively, it is a special place where one does have the ability to have a voice in reaching a result, and, clearly, a result that we think is better than the status quo. So I remind all my colleagues that the nature of this Senate is somewhat at stake. It is in question.

My next point is a bit difficult, perhaps, but there are some Senators who have not been here very many years, and who only know the Senate as they have seen it and have experienced it. I have been here a few years. I am in my fifth term. I have seen the Senate operate in lots of different ways.

I saw the Senate operate, a few years ago, where we had votes. We voted on subjects. We voted on amendments. I might say, the last time, in a real legitimate sense, we took up this underlying legislation, the TANF bill, I think we were on it for 12 or 13 days, and there were 43 votes.

Senators offered amendments, Senators debated amendments, and Senators voted on amendments according to what each thought was correct.

And guess what happened. Most people hailed the 1996 bill as being a great step forward in welfare reform. Everyone talks about the great strides and advances this country took as a consequence of that bill that passed, in 1996, the Welfare Reform Act. We have had a 50-percent reduction in caseloads all across the country; and in some States more than that, up to a 70 percent reduction in welfare caseloads.

We did get rid of welfare as we knew it. Both President Clinton and President Bush said we needed to get rid of

the former welfare system as we knew it. I forget exactly what the quotes were, but it happened. And I suggest it happened in part because we so solidly and so comprehensively debated welfare and welfare reform. We had 43 separate rollcall votes on that bill when we first passed it.

Contrast that with where we are today. We have had one vote. A cloture motion was filed yesterday. The point of that cloture motion clearly is to prevent a vote on the amendment offered by the Senator from Massachusetts--to prevent a vote. I do not see why we should prevent votes.

The amendment raises the minimum wage. Clearly that is related. I can't think of anything that is more related to the underlying bill. We are talking about getting people off welfare into work. Clearly, it is much easier to work if the wage that a person is paid is a wage that can allow a person to stay off of welfare.

I have met people personally who have told me they want to get off of welfare, but they can't because the minimum wage--this was several years ago--was so low. One single mother told me she couldn't because she realized childcare was taking up almost all of her income. It wouldn't work. So she had to go back on welfare, and it bothered her so much.

Clearly, this amendment is related. Clearly, Senators have the intelligence to debate the amendment. Clearly, Senators have the intelligence to know if they favor or do not favor it. Clearly, it is directly related. Even more clearly, if we respect the nature of the Senate, Senators should have a right to vote on it.

I urge all my colleagues to vote no on the cloture motion when we vote on cloture tomorrow because a ``yes'' vote would deprive Senators of the right to vote on a very significant amendment to this bill and deprive Senators the opportunity of debating and trying to find the best solution to a complex question; that is, what are the best changes we think should pass in welfare reform.

If that is not bad enough--that is, a cloture motion which is successful prevents us from voting on the Kennedy amendment--there was a proposal by the majority yesterday. Yesterday, on behalf of the majority, the Senator from Pennsylvania propounded a unanimous consent request on this bill. I will take a moment to explain the consequences of that proposal and how that proposed unanimous consent request would further undermine the fundamental rights of Senators to debate and to amend.

The proposed request had four parts: First, at a time determined by the majority leader, the Senate conduct back-to-back votes on the Republican minimum wage amendment and the Boxer amendment; that the bill then be limited to germane amendments; that at 9:30 a.m. on Thursday, the Senate proceed to vote on passage of the bill; and that the Senate request a conference with the House and the Chair and be authorized to appoint conferees on the part of the Senate.

I welcome the prospect of having side-by-side votes on the Republican minimum wage amendment and the Boxer-Kennedy minimum wage amendment. We have done that in the Senate. That is a fair way to proceed. We want to get to amendments and we want to have votes.

But the other three parts of the proposed unanimous consent request raise real problems. First, limiting amendments to only germane amendments is a very tight constraint. Senators often seek to offer amendments to a bill that are very relevant to the bill at hand but do not meet the strict standard of germaneness. Under previous majority leaders, the Senate often chose to limit amendments to relevant amendments but did not go further in limiting amendments to germane amendments. Limiting amendments to the more narrow standard of germaneness is unduly restrictive.

The proposed request sought to set a definite time to vote on passage of the bill. Setting a time for certain passage of a bill makes cloture pale by comparison. At least under cloture you get a right to vote on the amendments that are germane. But under this proposed agreement, a Senator could delay, could stand up and talk. He could use all the kinds of dilatory, delaying tactics one could use. That would prevent votes on amendments and more strict than cloture where you are entitled to a vote.

It is even more strict than reconciliation. In reconciliation, Senators can always offer amendments. Often there is not time to debate them, but they can still offer them. We then have a vote-a-thon. It is not the most illuminating practice, I grant you, but nevertheless, Senators have the right to vote.

Under this proposed consent request, Senators would not even get a right to vote on amendments that may have been brought up or to even bring up amendments.

Finally, the proposed consent agreement would seek to have the Senate go to conference on the bill. This raises probably the most problematic concern of all. If we went to conference and if the consent agreement were adopted, which would require the appointment of conferees and seeking a conference with the House, we would have to ask ourselves, what is in the House-passed bill.

Let me point out some of the provisions in the House-passed welfare reform bill. First, the House bill would impose unrealistically high work requirements on TANF recipients, much higher than under either the Senate bill or current law. Next, the House bill would provide minimum resources for childcare funding. We all know that the Senate passed an amendment which would increase childcare funding by an appropriate amount. The House has levels that are so low, according to CBO, childcare is underfunded by about $4.5 to $5 billion. We would have to work out that one, which would not be easy, particularly where the White House has issued a so-called statement of administrative practice which says not one thin dime for childcare. That would make it even more difficult for Senate conferees to work out a reasonable childcare amount, if we were to go to conference.

The House would not allow TANF recipients to continue education; that is, education they need to get and keep a good job beyond 1 year. That restrictive provision is in the House bill. Moreover, the House would provide what is called a superwaiver which would give the States extremely unprecedented broad authority to combine food stamps, Medicaid, childcare, and other programs, and use that money however they see fit, undermining the minimal safety net and low-income standards that low-income families have to rely on in their time of need.

It would also mandate full family sanctions, not just partial family. That means cutting families off of assistance if they do not comply with the rules, risking real harm to children in the absence of any fault of their own.

Finally, the House bill does not provide for legal immigrants.

The House-passed TANF bill raises serious concerns. Going to conference on such a measure would not be a simple thing. It is the position of the Democratic leader that we would have to have a number of assurances before Democrats would agree to going to conference on a matter that raised such serious concerns. That is extremely important. That is because a conference report is not subject to amendment. Let's not forget, we are in a unique situation where the same political party controls not only the White House but both bodies of Congress. Where the majority runs the conference process without substantial input from the minority, the conference process can substantially limit the rights of Senators in the minority.

Thus, the unanimous consent agreement proposed by the majority yesterday undercuts the basic rights of Senators. It would severely limit Senators' rights to offer even relevant amendments. It would seriously limit Senators' rights to debate; that is, cutting off debate abruptly at a certain time no matter how many amendments we had by then considered.

We on this side of the aisle do not wish to delay this bill. There is no way we want to delay it. We want votes. We will agree to time limits. Let's get this bill up and amendments up and let the Senate work its will. We are willing to do that. We are willing to work to get a finite list of amendments. We are willing to enter into time agreements on amendments. We are not asking for anything out of the ordinary.

During the 13-day period over which the Senate considered the 1995 welfare reform bill, September 7 to September 19, 1995, the Senate conducted 43 rollcall votes on amendments. So far this year we have conducted just one. So we are not asking for anything new. We ask merely that Senators be able to debate, to amend. We ask merely that Senators be able to do that which makes the Senate ``the remarkable invention'' about which Gladstone spoke.

I urge my colleagues to uphold the rights of Senators. I urge Senators to allow a vote on lifting the minimum wage, and I urge Senators to oppose cloture.

Reserving the right to object, might I ask the Chair when we are scheduled to go back on the bill?

I yield our remaining time for morning business to the Senator from Vermont, and I will yield additional time to him once we are on the bill.

Mr. President, unless the Senator from Alabama wishes to proceed, I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. Kohl.

Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Wisconsin.

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

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?

Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from New Mexico.

Mr. President, I yield the remainder of our time to the Senator from Connecticut.

Mr. President, I see the Senator from Massachusetts, who would like to speak on this amendment. I will be very brief.

The chairman of the committee is a good friend of mine. We have worked very closely together on most legislation. This is one bill where we are not working together as closely because we have somewhat different points of view.

I appreciate the chairman's view that this side of the aisle is attempting to drag things out a little bit. The fact is, our side is willing to have a vote on this amendment and on other amendments. We will enter time agreements. There is no attempt to delay at all. In fact, when I was sitting here yesterday I think the Senator from Massachusetts suggested 20 minutes for a time agreement. That is, he would agree to a vote in 20 minutes. I am not going to put words in the mouth of the good Senator as to how many minutes he would like in the time agreement now, but the point is we are willing to have votes and to vote very quickly on all these amendments. We are not holding up anything.

It is also interesting to note when this welfare reform bill came up for debate in 1995, there were 40 recorded votes on the floor. I think we have had one thus far in the reauthorization debate. I think better legislation results when amendments are offered, when they are debated, and when they are voted on. This way, Senators can decide whether they want to vote for or against a particular amendment.

The Senator from Iowa and myself work very closely, as I said. But I want to make the record clear that there is nobody on this side holding up passage of this bill in any way. We are willing to enter into time agreements on any amendments that may be offered.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I would like to say a few words about the pending amendment offered by the Senators from California and Massachusetts; namely, the minimum wage amendment. I would like to point out the effect of the current minimum wage on people today, and particularly as to where they are with respect to poverty in America.

Let me refer to this chart. This chart represents the relationship between the minimum wage and the poverty line for a family of two, beginning in the year 1988, and up through the year 2002.

From this chart you can see, quite visibly, frankly--with the minimum wage represented in green and the poverty line being the line just below the blue--that as the minimum wage increased in 1989, and in a step sort of function up to 1998, that for a person who had a job, with a family of two--let's say a single mom had a full-time job but made the minimum wage--they were still below the Federal poverty level, until about 1998, and then they could just barely surpass the poverty level.

I point this out because it does not seem right that a person who has a full-time job at a minimum wage still lives in poverty.

Now, that is bad enough. But let me show you how much worse it gets. This next chart shows the relationship between the minimum wage and poverty for a family of three: let's say a mom and dad and a child. By this chart one can tell very easily that the gap between the poverty line and the minimum wage is much greater for a family of three than it even is for a family of two. In fact, if I have my numbers correct, the amount is about $3,681. That is the gap.

I point out, again, for a family of three, with one breadwinner--say with a father who is at the minimum wage--that family of three will find itself, on average, over a year's time, about $3,600 of income less than the Federal poverty level. That family is living in poverty even though the breadwinner of that family is working full time.

And it gets worse, as you might expect.

Let's take a family of four, say a father and a mother, and two children. Say one parent is working full time at a minimum wage job. Because the increase in the minimum wage has been

so slow, the gap between what that family earns and the Federal poverty level is even greater.

In fact, it is about twice as much, which means that a family of four with one wage earner at the minimum wage is earning about half of what the Federal poverty level is. I don't think that is right. I frankly don't understand why some people do not want a significant increase in the minimum wage.

Let me tell you a personal story. Personal stories sometimes are out of context, but it meant a lot to me. One year I was walking across my State in Montana campaigning. To be honest, I learned an awful lot just by talking to people who I just happened to meet walking down the roads and highways and visiting in people's homes. A lot of it had to do with welfare. I remember talking to many people on welfare who told me they did not want to be on welfare. They hated it. They wanted to be off welfare.

One of the main factors they mentioned to me as to why it is so difficult to get off of welfare is because of the minimum wage laws. They are working maybe at McDonald's or someplace else in a minimum wage job, but because the minimum wage rates were so low, they couldn't make ends meet.

It is hard to know when to believe people. It is hard to know when to think what people say is right or not, but you have to read between the lines. You have to get a sense of what is going on. It was very clear to me that these people were speaking the truth, certainly as they perceived it. If there were a significant increase in their wages, they could then get off of welfare.

It is tied to the earlier debate on childcare. I ran into a lot of women, single moms who said the same thing to me. They were really earnest. I wish you could have seen the expressions on their faces saying that they wanted to stay off of welfare.

One young single mom explained to me that she slept on her mother's sofa so she could avoid having to pay for a room someplace. She had a minimum wage job. Her childcare expenses were so high she could not handle it anymore and she had to go back on to welfare. She hated it.

In those few instances, people I talked to just by happenstance-- chance encounters--that is what they have said to me.

We have to make judgments sometimes. One of the judgments I have made is that our current minimum wage is too low. For a civilized country, the United States of America, we can do a heck of a lot better.

Sometimes you hear business people say it will increase their cost of business. It probably will slightly. But if everybody is getting paid more, more dollars flow into the economy. People are more likely to not be on welfare, and they are more likely to have a little more self- esteem. They are more likely to be able to advance themselves. Most people want to advance themselves. They want a better life for their families and their kids. Some just find themselves caught in difficult situations.

I hope people will look at these charts and see how dramatic the difference is between the minimum wage income on the one hand and the Federal poverty level on the other. The income of someone on the minimum wage is much below the Federal poverty level. It does not seem right that a person working full time, whether he or she has one child, or is married, or whether he or she has three in the family or four, should live so far below the Federal poverty level. That is not right. If they are going to work full time, they should be able to live outside of poverty.

I urge Senators to support the amendment offered by the Senator from California.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I begin by thanking the chairman of our committee, Senator Grassley. He has worked very long and hard on this issue, and it has been very good to work with him. He has thought a lot about these issues. He has worked hard to try to find a middle ground. He wants to get things done, and I deeply appreciate that.

We are here today to reauthorize the 1996 welfare reform law. The 1996 law has actually worked pretty well. I think all commentators would agree with that statement. In fact, it has worked much better than people thought it would work. It is not broken. It is not broken at all. And I think we need to guard against ``fixing'' something that is not broken. You know the old saying: ``If it ain't broke, don't fix it.'' I think that applies to the 1996 welfare statute.

As we go forward, we might ask ourselves whether we might do better simply extending the existing 1996 law. Yes, we could make some modifications. We would increase, for example, funding for child care to help parents get to work. But as the Senate considers proposed changes, we might ask whether it would be better to stick with the 1996 act.

I will spend a little time today talking about the House bill. The House bill does not stick with the 1996 bill. The House of Representatives has

made, frankly, some pretty dramatic changes--``fixes'' to a program that many of us believe is not broken.

The Senate bill that Chairman Grassley has crafted tries to chart a middle course. Thus, the bill before us presents an opportunity to reflect on the lessons we have learned since 1996, and to incorporate those lessons in the new bill.

We accomplished what we set out to do in 1996, and I am proud to have played a role in passing that law.

The 1996 welfare reform law was a landmark. The old system had failed.

We were spending billions, but we had little to show for it. So we tried something new. We tried, in the words of the introduction to the 1996 act ``to end the dependence of needy parents on government benefits by promoting job preparation, work, and marriage.''

At the same time, the 1996 act was very controversial. In retrospect, it is clear that by and large we were headed in the right direction. I call attention to the chart next to me. This chart essentially tells the story. It is entitled ``Welfare Recipients as a Percentage of Population.'' Hundreds of thousands of people have left welfare and left welfare for work. The number of folks on welfare, as you can tell, as a percentage of the American population, beginning in 1988, rose up to its peak in about 1994 and 1995. Then we passed the 1996 statute, and it has plummeted dramatically.

The next chart shows the changes in welfare recipient caseloads, from 1996 to 2001. It shows that all States have shared in the success. The caseload reduction has been highest for those States in red, that is greater than a 70-percent reduction. In States represented by orange, the reduction in welfare caseload has been between 50 and 70 percent. And States represented in yellow have a caseload reduction of less than 50 percent but very significant. My State of Montana is an orange State. Montana reduced its welfare caseload by 56 percent between 1996 and 2001.

The New York Times reported last week that even with the weak economy we have experienced lately, welfare rolls have declined in the past 3 years in most States. That is, caseloads have decreased even as unemployment, poverty, and the number of food stamp recipients have increased.

For example, in the State of Illinois, the number of families on welfare fell 45 percent since January 2001. In New York, the number of families on welfare declined about 40 percent since January of 2001. And in Texas, the number of families on welfare has declined 11 percent, again, in the last 3 years.

I would like now to show another chart. This is the child poverty rate. The child poverty rate has also declined since 1996, overall by about 23 percent. As you can see, the child poverty rate in 1988 was roughly 20 percent. It increased during the 1990s, through 1992, and peaked around 1993. It has declined very significantly since that peak in 1993. However, look at the end, 2000 to 2002. It looks as though it is starting to increase slightly.

But despite our success, there is still more to be done. We are not out of the woods. Too many troubled families remain on the rolls. Too many families struggle to raise children in poverty. In 2002, there were 34.6 million Americans below the official poverty level. For a family of two, poverty is $12,490. 34.6 million Americans below that level. Thirty-seven percent of families in poverty are working.

I have another chart. This is the poverty rate. As this chart shows, 1 in 10 Americans still live in poverty. That share has gone up in the last couple years with the recession, and close to 17 percent of our children live in poverty. In Montana, 19 percent of all children live in poverty. Nationwide, 1 in 10 Americans.

Those numbers are simply too high. We must provide better opportunities for poor families to move off welfare, into the workforce, and out of poverty for good. As successful as the 1996 bill has been, these figures show there is more we have to do.

In my view, doing more means focusing more attention on the hardest cases; that is, on families who face complicated and difficult challenges. For example, children with disabilities, adults with little or no education or work skills, people with mental health issues or substance abuse problems. Those are the hardest cases. We also need to focus on the single mother with an autistic son who cannot care for himself after school when she is at work.

We need to focus on families affected by mental health concerns that limit their ability to engage in continuous full-time employment, and families who have been hit by a health crisis and need help. Doing more means building on the partnership we established with the States back in 1996. It means letting States maintain the flexibility they have used to design their current successful welfare-to-work strategies. How does it best work for each State? All States are different, with different populations, different issues. It means giving States new options to address especially troubled families. And at the same time, it means maintaining and increasing help in building the work support system.

We learned, with the major reform in 1996, that getting a job is not always a ticket out of poverty. We helped to get people off the welfare rolls by a dramatic amount, an average of about 50 percent, but still people who leave are having a very tough time finding jobs. They are in very dire straits. People find that the jobs pay too little. In Montana, we have the highest number of people working more than one job just to make ends meet because we have low wages and a poor economy. Those families who are just off of welfare are struggling. They need access to education, to training. They need the opportunity to address many of the barriers that prevent them from getting a job and keeping a job, and they need access to benefits such as food stamps, health care, and child care.

Child care is a huge concern. If you want to make a lasting difference, we need to provide further help with child care, further help with health care, transportation, and other things that will help parents stay off welfare and thrive in the job market.

The success of the 1996 bill should have meant a quick and simple reauthorization, because we all, both sides, can agree that the law works. But some want to leave the successful 1996 law behind them and make dramatic changes. I call this a cut-and-run approach--leaving the States and, more importantly, low-income families behind. The House- passed welfare reauthorization bill embodies this cut-and-run attitude. The House bill would force States to use expensive workfare--or ``make work''--models of welfare reform, where welfare recipients would participate in large-scale, unpaid, make-work programs such as cleaning up trash.

The House bill work requirements would force States to put welfare recipients into make-work jobs. I mentioned trash pickup. There are many other examples. Cleaning the streets is good for the streets, but where does it leave the welfare recipient after the cleanup is over? At the end of a make-work job, welfare recipients have learned no new skills, and they are no closer to having a real job.

The House bill would push recipients into make-work programs instead of real private sector jobs that provide the meaningful work experience necessary to survive in the job market. States mostly rejected this one-size-fits-all workfare model years ago. States don't like it. They know it doesn't work. State and local administrators have told us they need, more than anything else, a full menu of strategies for the different needs of individual parents, families, and communities.

The House bill, however, makes it harder to design services and strategies that meet local needs. And it also fails to provide adequate funding. As welfare rolls have fallen, States have used freed-up TANF funds to support low-income working families--often those who have left welfare to work in recent years. This is common sense and a proven strategy for success. It works.

For a single mother, providing child care assistance can be the single most important factor for workplace success. But the lack of funding in the House-passed bill means States would have little choice but to shift funds away from programs that help keep low-income parents working to much more expensive make-work programs for those still on welfare.

This would be a mistake, as it would force working families to return to the

welfare rolls. It would mean cutting and running on those working families whose success we have been celebrating.

It doesn't make sense to abandon work supports to pay for make-work activities, but States report that the approach in the House bill would do just that: it would require States to cut funding for these successful work support services to pay for large, expensive, and unproven make-work programs for those remaining on the rolls.

Education and training clearly are critical factors in getting people into jobs that pay more. In a rural State such as Montana, access to education and training represents a clear path out of poverty. We need to ensure that America's needy families have access to such paths. And States need flexibility so they can provide these programs.

All States are different. In States such as mine, making welfare reform work means making it work for American Indians. More than a quarter of American Indians live in poverty--more than twice the national average. In Montana, American Indians make up a full one-half of our welfare caseload. We needed flexibility to address that.

I appreciate that the chairman has included provisions to help Native Americans. But to make a real difference for welfare reform in Indian country will require real resources.

Tribes need support to operate TANF for themselves and help with economic development. Our work is not done when there are still places in America where most adults don't have jobs. Flexibility must be maintained.

Back in 1996, we asked the States to design a welfare program to address their specific needs. Some States applied for waivers to do just that. Those waivers have been a vital aspect to welfare reform's success. It is important to allow States to continue with their waivers and to ensure States continue to have flexibility to make welfare reform work. Dictating prescriptive requirements and unfunded mandates to States is unnecessary, particularly when so many parents are already participating in work-related activities.

In sum, the House bill is sure to undermine the success of the 1996 law. It would effectively eliminate the ability of States to employ proven welfare-to-work strategies, and it would virtually wipe out the progress made in the last 6 years to use TANF and child care funds to ``make work pay.''

The House approach would force States to divert dollars to make-work programs. It would thus divert funds from child care, where funds are needed. Future funding for child care and other work supports would be harder than ever to secure.

It seems to me that the House program is designed to fail. The House approach is difficult for would-be recipients to access. And States will have a hard time making it work. In the prophetic words of one TANF administrator:

[The House approach] is part of a larger effort . . . to

set unattainable goals for States, so that Washington can

generate budget savings and say that social programs don't

work.

That would be irresponsible. That would be breaking something that is fixed. Whatever we do here, we need to ensure that TANF continues to work.

I applaud Chairman Grassley for trying to do better. Compared with the House-passed bill, chairman's bill has fewer mandates and less need for States to adopt workfare programs, which I find so reprehensible in the House-passed bill.

Yet I remain concerned that the bill before us doesn't provide States with enough new flexibility in areas such as training and education, or in determining welfare-to-work strategies, particularly in States with specific needs like rural States. I am also concerned that it doesn't provide enough child care funding.

During this debate, Senators will offer amendments to address these shortcomings. An amendment will be offered to increase child care funding so that parents can go to work. Senators Snowe and Dodd will offer that amendment today. I believe the chairman already has offered that amendment on behalf of Senators Snowe and Dodd.

An amendment will be offered on this bill that will allow recipients to continue their education to gain job skills. Senators Levin and Jeffords will offer that amendment.

Amendments will be offered making TANF work for immigrants. Senators Graham and Clinton will focus their efforts on these initiatives. Also, an amendment will seek to preserve the flexibility that States had under the 1996 law. Senators Bingaman and Wyden will be offering that one.

Of course, we should also protect the civil rights of workers and of children in this law. We should make sure to get the balance right between State incentives and accountability.

Welfare reform is working. Let's build on that success and build on our partnership with States. By continuing to work together, we can achieve a successful bill.

We can strengthen existing programs to address the needs of America's struggling families. We can give further support to those who have successfully moved from welfare to work.

Let us not cut and run. Let us not ``fix'' what is not broken. Rather, let us build on the success of the 1996 law.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be added as a cosponsor to the amendment offered by Senators Dodd and Snowe on childcare.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the privilege of the floor be granted to the following Finance Committee fellows and interns during consideration of H.R. 4, the welfare bill: Shannon Augare, Steve Beasley, Jane Bergeson, Diana Birkett, Simon Chabel, Jodi George, Tyson Hill, Scott Landes, Pascal Niedermann, Jeremy Seidlitz, Matt Stokes, and Trace Thaxton.

Mr. President, in addition, I ask unanimous consent that the following staff members of Senator Grassley be granted the privilege of the floor for the duration of the debate on H.R. 4: Trenton Norman, Jarret Heil, and Jill Gotts.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Abigail Kurland of Senator Dodd's staff be granted floor privileges during the consideration of H.R. 4.

Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I might consume.

I oppose cloture at this point, and let me explain why. This is an important bill--a bill that would help to create and keep good manufacturing jobs in America. We need to move on this bill.

Senator Harkin has offered an amendment about the quality of jobs in America and he deserves to get a vote. On a major bill like this, Senators deserve a full and fair opportunity to offer and get votes on amendments. We should allow that process to continue.

The effect of the cloture motion is simple: It would block a vote on the Harkin amendment--at least for now. I do not believe the Senate should prevent such a vote. For one thing, blocking a vote on the Harkin amendment would be only a temporary measure. The Senator from Iowa has made it abundantly clear that he will be back. The majority cannot avoid this vote forever. When something will happen sooner or later, sometimes the better course of action is to address it straight on, not sweep it under the rug.

So I will oppose cloture and vote against cloture to allow the Senate to get to a vote on the Harkin amendment. If, as I expect, the Senate fails to invoke cloture, I urge the majority leader to stay on the bill. If the Senate fails to invoke cloture, I will work with other Senators to reach an agreement limiting amendments to a reasonable number. I believe, for example, that Senator Harkin is amenable to a short time agreement himself. We have been in discussions with a number of Senators attempting to schedule consideration of their amendments. Many Senators would be willing to enter into very reasonable time agreements.

For example, Senators Dorgan and Mikulski have an amendment on runaway plants; Senators Breaux and Feinstein have an amendment to modify the repatriation agreement; Senator Kennedy has an amendment to strike an international provision and use the money to expand the manufacturing deduction; Senator Hollings has an amendment on the international provisions. I believe each of these Senators would enter into workable time agreements. We will have other amendments than these, but not many.

The number of amendments to this bill is not vast. We have accommodated many Senators in the managers' substitute. If the Senate can work through the Harkin overtime amendment, we could handle the remaining amendments expeditiously.

I urge the majority leader to join in pursuing that course I have outlined and working with us to bring this bill to completion by the end of the week. Once again, it is important that we do so. We need to respond to the European Union's sanctions. And we need to do what we can to help create and keep jobs in America. We need to pass this bill.

Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time. I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask unanimous consent that the time be charged equally against both sides.

Mr. President, I yield the remainder of our time to the Senator from Iowa.

Madam President, I reinforce the words of Senator Reid. We want this bill passed. This is a jobs bill. This bill provides a tax break for the domestic manufacturing industry. An overwhelming majority of Senators on both sides support this bill.

Actually, this bill is being held up at this point because the other side of the aisle doesn't want to vote on the Harkin amendment. That amendment is a very simple amendment. It is to maintain a current overtime provision, which clearly is related to jobs in America. Senator Harkin will agree to a time agreement.

At the same time, Senator Grassley and I have worked with other Senators to bring the list down to a manageable number. I have talked to Senators during the vote and we have all agreed to time limitations on their amendments.

I call upon the majority to let us proceed with the bill, with a vote on the Harkin amendment, and let us proceed with votes on the legitimate amendments we have pared it down to, which is very manageable. We can proceed. That is what is happening.

Our side would like to continue to work on the bill and get votes on important amendments. I hope the other side agrees to let us vote on that amendment. I think we can get the bill passed this week. We can show the European Union we are taking action on the WTO ruling. Also, we can show the other body we are moving quickly. The other body is not moving as fast as I believe it should be.

For those reasons, I urge us to reach an agreement and let's get on with the usual way the Senate operates--with amendments we can deal with very expeditiously.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, let me take a few moments to review where we are on this legislation.

First, I don't want to sound melodramatic but this is an important bill. This bill would help to create and keep good manufacturing jobs where they should be; that is, in America.

We need to move this bill. The Senate conducted 3 days of debate on the bill, one of them a Monday without rollcall votes, and this is our fourth day on the bill. In that time, we might say, the Senate has considered and adopted a good number of amendments. Let me just list them.

We have adopted, first, the managers' amendment on leasing shelters; the managers' amendment making modifications to the revenue provisions; the committee substitute. We have also adopted the Bingaman amendment to expand the research credit; the Hatch-Murray amendment to extend the research and development credit. We have further adopted the McConnell amendment to protect American workers; the McCain amendment on defense; the Dodd amendment to protect American workers; the Bayh amendment to extend expiring provisions; the Bunning amendment to extend the net operating loss carryover provision; and the Bunning-Stabenow amendment to accelerate the phase-in of the manufacturing deduction.

That is quite a bit. A lot of legislation adopted, amendments passed already. Now, under the previous order, Senator Harkin has offered his amendment on the Department of Labor's overtime regulations and that is the pending first-degree amendment.

Regrettably, in my view, the assistant majority leader offered a motion to recommit the bill and filed cloture on that motion to recommit. This morning the majority filled that amendment tree by offering a couple of secondary amendments.

There may come a time, after full and fair debate and amendment on the bill, when I would support a motion to cut off debate. But under the current circumstances, I will oppose that cloture motion. This is a bill about jobs, about quality jobs here in America. Senator Harkin's amendment is also about the quality of jobs in America. This is not some amendment out of left field. The Senator from Iowa is not trying to change the subject, for example, to gun control or Medicare or reproductive choice, but rather he is staying on the subject. He is talking about jobs.

His amendment, although relevant, may not be strictly germane within the meaning of that term in Senate procedure. The effect of this cloture motion, if adopted, would be to block a vote on the Harkin amendment. I will not be a party to that effort. On a major bill such as this one, Senators deserve a full and fair opportunity to offer and get votes on amendments. We should allow that process to continue.

Even though this cloture motion has brought the Senate to something of an impasse, I remain hopeful. I am hopeful because I believe after the Senate recognizes that the votes are not there to block the Harkin amendment, the Senate can then reach an agreement limiting amendments to the bill to a reasonable number. I believe we can then work through this bill and bring it to completion by the end of the week. It is important that we do so. We need to respond to the European Union's sanctions, sanctions that impose a harmful tax on dozens of American products. Most importantly, we need to do what

we can to help to create and keep jobs in America.

I urge a prompt vote on the Harkin amendment, that we reach an agreement limiting amendments to a reasonable number, and then move on to complete this bill.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank my good friend, the chairman of the committee, for his remarks. I am quite hopeful, frankly, that we can reach an agreement fairly quickly so that we can move on this bill. At the present moment, we are at an impasse with the cloture motion filed, and the amendment tree is filled up.

I expect it is the wish of the majority to eventually avoid a vote on the amendment offered by Senator Harkin. I believe Senator Harkin deserves a vote. I believe the vast majority of Senators on both sides of the aisle would like to move quickly on this legislation--reach agreement on a number of amendments that would be in order so we can move quickly.

Based on my conversations with Senators and with the leadership, I have every expectation that we can reach that agreement quite soon-- hopefully, this afternoon. This is the Senate. Every Senator deserves an opportunity to offer his or her amendments. We also have to reach agreements. We have to pass legislation. It requires compromise. I do believe we will reach that agreement which, necessarily, will be the result of compromise, fairly quickly.

I urge Senators to push their interests, as they should, but push them in a way where we can get an agreement to pass this legislation. I hope we will do that this afternoon.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce today the Montana Mineral Exchange Act with Senators Burns and Campbell.

This bill will enable the Northern Cheyenne Tribe and eastern Montana to create jobs and provide a shot in the arm for a local economy that has been creative in forging its own destiny.

The Montana Mineral Exchange Act is the result of years of working together. President Geri Small has been a true advocate for the Northern Cheyenne Tribe as she has worked tirelessly on this project for years.

The Montana Mineral Exchange Act is a positive step forward in creating good-paying jobs and boosting economic development in Montana. This shows what Montana can do when we--the congressional delegation, the governor's office, the private sector, and the Northern Cheyenne-- work together to develop our resources while creating jobs and protecting our quality of life. Development of this high-quality coal will allow Montana to move forward economically and compete with other energy producing states for jobs and market share. I'm glad I could work together with Governor Martz, Senator Burns, Congressman Rehberg, Senator Campbell and all of the parties involved to make this bill happen.

Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce today the Montana Mineral Exchange Act with Senators Burns and Campbell.

This bill will enable the Northern Cheyenne Tribe and eastern Montana to create jobs and provide a shot in the arm for a local economy that has been creative in forging its own destiny.

The Montana Mineral Exchange Act is the result of years of working together. President Geri Small has been a true advocate for the Northern Cheyenne Tribe as she has worked tirelessly on this project for years.

The Montana Mineral Exchange Act is a positive step forward in creating good-paying jobs and boosting economic development in Montana. This shows what Montana can do when we--the congressional delegation, the governor's office, the private sector, and the Northern Cheyenne-- work together to develop our resources while creating jobs and protecting our quality of life. Development of this high-quality coal will allow Montana to move forward economically and compete with other energy producing states for jobs and market share. I'm glad I could work together with Governor Martz, Senator Burns, Congressman Rehberg, Senator Campbell and all of the parties involved to make this bill happen.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.