Personal Responsibility and Individual Development for Everyone Act - Continued

PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY AND INDIVIDUAL DEVELOPMENT FOR EVERYONE ACT-CONTINUED

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, first, there is no doubt we are going to have a vote on minimum wage sometime, maybe on this bill or at least on some other bill. It is one thing to ask for an agreement to vote on a nongermane amendment-the majority party has the responsibility of getting work done, although we are cognizant of the fact we do not get anything done in this body if it is not bipartisan. We want to move this legislation along because it is so important to moving people out of poverty.

As I said yesterday, some are on the edge of society, out of sight and out of mind, if they are on welfare. They are never going to move out of poverty if they are on welfare.

As I said yesterday, and the Senator from Massachusetts misunderstood me, if you are ever going to move out of poverty, you have to be in the world of work. Being in the world of work does not automatically, even with an increase in the minimum wage, guarantee you are going to be out of poverty, but at least you have a chance of moving out of poverty; whereas on welfare you are destined to a lifetime of poverty.

We are interested in moving this legislation along, and it would help a little bit reaching some understanding of voting on these amendments if we knew we were going to get this bill done and help the people who need to be helped.

The point I want to make in regard to this amendment, and it is also in conjunction with the offering of nongermane amendments on other bills I have had before this Senate by the other party, is it seems to me they are always missing the point. They are always getting the cart before the horse.

The bill before the Senate 2 weeks ago was a bipartisan bill that Senator Baucus and I worked out. It came out of our committee with all the Democrats supporting it. It encourages the creation of jobs in manufacturing by reducing the tax on manufacturing because that high tax on manufacturing is a disincentive to the creation of jobs. And it happens to be an incentive to outsourcing of jobs.

Also, because there is a tariff against some of our products going into Europe, this would eliminate that tariff so we could be competitive. OK, that legislation is a bipartisan approach to creating jobs in manufacturing. So what does the other party do? They offer an amendment dealing with overtime regulations.

They get the cart before the horse because the first thing we have to do is create jobs for people to get overtime. That legislation stalled because of nongermane amendments.

Now we have what is a legitimate subject of discussion-but somewhere else-increasing the minimum wage. That has been a legitimate point of discussion since the 1920s, and it has been the law in this country since 1938. Nobody denies that is a worthy subject of discussion. Again, another example of getting the cart before the horse is that we are talking about getting people who are on welfare, not working, a job. Let's get them in the world of work.

We have Members on the other side of the aisle stalling this legislation with nongermane amendments.

We have to put the priorities where the priorities ought to be: to help people get jobs and keep jobs so that all these other issues that are coming up will be applicable to more workers.

I am going to address for a short time this issue of the situation of people on welfare and our opportunities to move them to work to emphasize the success of that program in the legislation we have had on the books since 1996 and to see if we cannot improve that legislation in the bill that is before the Senate and move forward with another 8 years of success of moving people from welfare to work, giving them an opportunity to move up the economic ladder.

The families who go on welfare are, obviously, very vulnerable and fragile families. They not only need a job, but they need support in moving from welfare to work. We are not going to dump them out in the cold cruel world of work. Legislation that is already on the books and is going to be improved by this bill is going to enhance their support. We have already demonstrated that with one overwhelming vote on more money for childcare. I have heard that a long time from that side of the aisle, as we have heard from a lot of Republicans. One would think they would want to pass this legislation to give people on welfare who are moving into work the support they need to get there. This legislation does it. But the shenanigans on the other side with nongermane amendments are holding that up.
[Page S3339]

The average family on welfare has two children, and that average family is headed by a young woman. Most of these families are African American or Hispanic. Half of these families have a child under the age of 6, and we take into consideration in this legislation specific needs of families with children under 6.

The women who head these families are desperately poor. That is what welfare does for people, it keeps them in poverty. These women who have these families, besides being desperately poor and, contrary to the way the argument over minimum wage was characterized, they are not working. That is why it is so important to get this legislation passed before you worry about minimum wage because we have to give them the support so they can get out there in the world of work so they can get the minimum wage in the first place.

States are reporting to us that the majority of adults on welfare are not doing anything. In other words, they are not working and maybe not doing anything that will lead to work, as we are trying to help them do through this infrastructure of support, of helping with job training and education, with substance abuse and other problems families might have because it is quite obvious in the world of welfare, it is not a way to achieve self-sufficiency. Many of these adult recipients are not ready for full-time work, so discussions about working 40 hours do not really apply to this population. In fact, for a while the argument over welfare reform focused on President Bush's proposal to require adult recipients on welfare to be engaged in work activities for 40 hours a week. That outraged my Democratic colleagues, that the administration would propose raising the hours of activity, including work, to 40 hours. Just as if out there in the world of work it isn't assumed, not anything less than 40 hours a week, for the most part. So it is somewhat ironic that we are here discussing a 40-hour work week scenario because, as I said, most of these adults on welfare are not working at all and if they are working they are surely not working full time.

These are adults, and again they are mainly women, with multiple and often coexisting barriers to work. They may be the victims of domestic abuse. They may have substance abuse problems. Add all that together and you have people who need services that this legislation provides to get them ready to go to work. So you worry about this person. Are they getting a minimum wage at this level or at that level? That is why this discussion over minimum wage is just a little confusing to me, as legitimate as it is for Congress to discuss the minimum wage, because we have set the minimum wage since 1938. But in connection with these people, they oftentimes are not earning any wage. But they are people who need services if they are ever going to get that job.

I am hopeful we will be able to work something out on minimum wage, and that we can complete our work on this welfare bill. I think people on the other side of the aisle, if they could indicate to us finality on this legislation, there can be some accommodation. Because families in need are waiting for us to get this done. It is a very successful program that started in 1996 and we need to continue it. This legislation fine-tunes it; it improves it; it strengthens it. We spend more money to do a better job of support for people who need to go to work.

I yield the floor.