Personal Responsibility and Indvidual Development for Everyone Act

PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY AND INDIVIDUAL DEVELOPMENT FOR EVERYONE ACT

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.