Chuck Grassley

Mr. GRASSLEY

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Yes, I will yield for a question.

Mr. GRASSLEY. That is what I would like to do. First of all, the Senator from Connecticut asks a legitimate question of the Senator from Washington about when this might come up. There is an orderly way of doing things around here. And usually in the Senate, the leader--and that is not me; that is Senator Frist from Tennessee-- sets the agenda for the Senate. It is my understanding that right now we are working on it. I do not know whether the Senator from Washington or the Senator from Connecticut has been in contact with the leadership of the Senate so we can do things in an orderly way or whether they want to make political points. But I hope they want to do it in an orderly way because that is the way things get done around here. So it is not with pleasure that I object right now, and look like a bad person to the Senator from Washington--because she has always treated me very fairly in her service in the Senate--and to object particularly when we are probably, in a matter of hours or a few days, going to pass this legislation. I am sure it is going to be passed in a way so that the unemployment compensation is seamless for those who are otherwise entitled to it. That is all I can do to answer the question of the Senator from Connecticut. It is my firm conviction it is going to happen. Now, maybe I think things are going to happen, but they might not because of something beyond what I know now. But I think they are going to happen. I know there have already been suggestions made between the two leaders of the Senate's political parties--our respective caucuses--to move some of these important issues along. But do the members of the Democratic Party in the Senate think only Democrats have important issues they want to bring up? Don't they think there might be a few Republicans who have something they want to bring up? So you work these accommodations out. That is what I think we ought to do. But what I would like to do, for just a few minutes, is speak to--not to challenge anything the Senator from Washington said about unemployment because, factually, I do not think you can do that--but there are other thoughts that need to be put on the table at the same time. I made a presentation here 2 weeks ago to try to bring into this debate points of view that are made by the intellectual wing of the Democratic Party to offset what we have just heard from the political wing of the Democratic Party. And I quoted a former Democratic Secretary of Labor in the Clinton administration, Robert Reich. I want to quote him again because he writes very eloquently about job changes going on in America and about job loss in America. I will quote this long paragraph: It's true that U.S. manufacturing employment has been dropping for many years, but that's not primarily due to foreigners taking these jobs. Factory jobs are vanishing all over the world. Economists at Alliance Capital Management took a look at employment trends in 20 large economies and found that between 1995 and 2002, 22 million factory jobs had disappeared. Now get this: The U.S. wasn't even the biggest loser. We lost about 11 percent of our manufacturing jobs in that period, but the Japanese lost 16 percent of theirs. Even developing nations lost factory jobs: Brazil suffered a 20 percent decline, China a 15 percent drop. What happened to factory jobs? In two words, higher productivity. He says: I recently toured a U.S. factory containing two employees and 400 computerized robots. The two live people sat in front of computer screens and instructed the robots. In a few years this factory won't have a single employee on site, except for an occasional visiting technician who repairs and upgrades the robots, like the gas man changing your meter. The points about productivity she made very well, I believe. But here is the other side of that. You can create jobs and not have productivity--be inefficient, be uncompetitive, and not have a business after a while. Or you can be productive because enhancing productivity in America is what it takes to raise wages. If you want to increase the standard of living in America, you have to raise wages. To raise wages, you have to enhance productivity. So are they suggesting we ought to turn the clock back and forget about productivity, forget about raising the standard of living in America? Do they want us to become some Third World economy over the period of the next 50 years, if you went down that road, or do you want to do what America can do best, the other things Secretary Reich is referring to? We have a knowledge base in America. Take advantage of that knowledge base. Create jobs that are more productive and, in the process, raise wages and raise the standard of living. Those are the choices we have. America is a dynamic economy. Every month 7 million jobs go out of existence, and 7 million jobs come into existence. It would be ideal if it were more than 7 million jobs coming on board. That hasn't happened, and that is why we have the 2.3 million jobs that are referred to all the time. Do you think it is always going to be this way in America? Absolutely not, because of the dynamic economy we have. It is because we are always enhancing productivity that we are going to do better. You don't have to be a defeatist when it comes to the economy. We have gone through tougher times. We have gone through tougher times when unemployment was 25 percent, not 5.6 percent. We got through it. America is stronger today. Don't lose faith in America.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Or even 6 or 7 minutes.

Mr. GRASSLEY. If she is yielding the floor, then I want the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Would it be OK if I take 5 minutes?

Mr. GRASSLEY. The Senator asks a very legitimate question. For my part, eventually we have to face this. I don't care how we face it, as a separate bill or as an amendment. I think she has to ask somebody just one step above my pay grade to get an answer to that. I am not prepared to answer that. I do not have an answer from the people that give it because, as I said, the leader sets the schedule. I respect the leader, and I don't want to put him in a position. I might be able to say, but I don't have certainty of it. So I don't want to put him in a bad position.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Reserving the right to object, I don't think I need to object, but I think there ought to be some consideration that if other Republicans come to the Chamber, we don't have Democrats ganging up on us to give one point of view. There ought to be some accommodation to Republicans if they would come over here. I don't expect anybody beyond the Senator from Texas to come over and speak, but if they do, I would hope you will be a gentleman and try to work them in so we let America know there are two sides to every story.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure be authorized to meet on Wednesday, March 31, at 1:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing to consider the role of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in meeting the Nation's water resource needs in the 21st century. The meeting will be held in SD 406.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Personnel Subcommittee of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 31, 2004, at 9:30 a.m., in open session to receive testimony on Active and Reserve military and civilian personnel programs, in review of the Defense authorization request for fiscal year 2005.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 31, 2004, at 2:30 p.m., to hold a closed business meeting.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, March 31, 2004, at 2:30 p.m., to hold a hearing on the effects of the Madrid terrorist attacks on U.S.-European cooperation in the war on terrorism.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, March 31, 2004, at 9:30 a.m., to hold a nomination hearing.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to meet on Wednesday, March 31, at 9:30 a.m., to conduct a nominations hearing to consider the nominations of: Stephen L. Johnson, to be Deputy Administrator, EPA; Ann R. Klee, to be General Counsel, EPA; Charles Johnson, to be Chief Financial Officer, EPA; Benjamin Grumbles, to be Assistant Administrator for the Office of Water, EPA; and Gary Lee Visscher, to be a Member of the Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board. The meeting will be held in SD 406.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, March 31, 2004, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing on ``Review of Current Investigations and Regulatory Actions Regarding the Mutual Fund Industry.''

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, March 31, 2004, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing on ``Review of Current Investigations and Regulatory Actions Regarding the Mutual Fund Industry.''

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, how much time is left on this side?

Mr. GRASSLEY. I yield myself 10 minutes. Mr. President, we heard testimony from the other side on the fiscal condition of the U.S. Government, how bad it is and they are sounding alarms. I think all that is very legitimate. I am not here to dispute specific figures, I am not here to say that the other side has been intellectually wrong, but at least to say they have left some misimpressions about some aspects of this budget. I will start with the chart shown about borrowing from foreign countries. The U.S. Government does not go to other countries and say, hat in hand: Will you lend us X number of dollars? What the U.S. Government does is say to the 270 million Americans, and anybody else in the world: We have X amount of debt that we have to refinance, or finance, and people come to bid on that. The market determines who gets what. Now, we do have a lot of foreigners that own American debt. Why do they want to invest in America's national debt? Because they have confidence in America and because they want a return on their money. It ought to be somewhat satisfying to the American people that the rest of the world thinks so well of the American economy and the soundness of our Government that they are willing to invest in the national debt, just as American citizens invest in the national debt, because they want the return; they want the certainty of it. The impression was left that we go, hat in hand, to a lot of foreign countries to beg for money. We don't do that. It is our policy, through the Secretary of the Treasury, to say that we are offering so much investment, and you can come and make your claim to it under these conditions. The other misimpression is that something different is happening to the Social Security surplus. Why is that being said? Because people want to get seniors concerned about what Congress might be doing to ruin their Social Security. I say to the seniors of America--and people on the other side of the aisle, if they don't know it--that nothing has changed since 1936 as far as the way the Social Security surplus is handled. Nothing has changed since 1936. Starting in 1936 and for every year since then except 1981 and 1982, there has always been a positive cashflow coming in from the payroll tax to what was paid out. We decided in 1936 to invest that surplus in Treasury bonds. Why? Because it is a good, safe investment for seniors, for their retirement. It is the way the Federal Government can show to the seniors of America and to all of the people of America that we are going to make sure your Social Security surplus is safe and that the obligations in the future are met. Except for in 1981 and 1982, when there was a negative cashflow, that has been done. We made it up by borrowing to keep the checks going. As far as the Social Security surplus is concerned, today, yesterday, and tomorrow--at least until 2018, as best we can project--there will be a positive cashflow, and that money is going to be invested in Treasury notes that are obligations to keep Social Security benefits at 100 percent at least through 2042, until all that surplus is used up. So for the seniors of America, nothing has changed. I think we also ought to remember that we dealt with dozens of amendments on the other side of the aisle when the budget was up. Every one of those amendments was for spending more money. They will say, yes, they wanted to raise taxes; they had tax offsets to spend that money. But they were not interested in raising taxes to lower the national debt; they were interested in raising taxes to spend more money. So just the tax cut cannot be considered a reason for the debt. In fact, if you want to know why we have a debt, we have a debt of 25 percent because of tax cuts, 25 percent because of increased spending for the war as well as homeland security, and 50 percent because of the downturn in the economy. When did that downturn in the economy start? In the year 2000, not in the year 2001. The manufacturing index started going down in March of 2000. Do you know NASDAQ lost half of its value in 2000? President Bush saw that economic situation and, hence, the tax cut of 2001 to turn the economy around, and it has worked. But that is only 25 percent of the reason for the deficit. The other is just the downturn in the economy and what happened on September 11 and a recovery that was delayed because of attacks by terrorists on America, the second time only since the War of 1812 that Americans have been attacked and it had an impact on the economy. And it was a negative impact on the economy that led to 3 years of downturn of income coming into the Federal Government for the first time since the 1930s; in other words, less income this year than the year before, than the year before. That has never happened, even when we had tax cuts in the past. We have to go back to the 1930s. I hope the other side is willing to admit these are very unusual times we are in. Then, what about the fact that we are in a war? What about the fact that we were attacked on September 11? Do you want to fight the terrorists in the United States or do you want to fight them in Iraq and Afghanistan? This Commander in Chief decided to fight them in Afghanistan and Iraq instead of in New York City and Washington, DC. Wars cost money. We only go to war to win. If we are going to go to war to win and put American men and women on the battlefield, we are going to give them the resources it takes to win. We have been attacked by the other side because somehow we do not account for the cost of a war. On December 8, 1941, when FDR was addressing the Congress of the United States after the attack on Pearl Harbor, if Members of Congress had said at that time, How much is this war going to cost, they would have been laughed at. How come they are not laughed at now, Mr. President? We are going to spend what it takes to win the war. We are not going to leave our men and women hanging without support. If we had taken that attitude toward World War II, Hitler would have been in New York City. So we ought to have some leeway when it comes to budgets to win a war and backing our men and women and not being harassed because of what the war is going to cost, just as we are going to know that in the month of September we are going to fire off so many cruise missiles. The last point I will make is, I might be willing to consider an increase in taxes, but I have never found anybody on the other side of the aisle who has said to me how high taxes can go to satisfy their desire to spend more money. For 50 years, we have had a policy in this country of taxing in the Federal Government at about 17 to 19 percent of gross national product. It seems to me that is pretty good policy because of two reasons: No. 1, the American people do not tend to attack us for taxing too high when it is in that band; and, No. 2, it has not been harmful to the economy, as we have seen tremendous growth in the economy for the last 50 years. What we are trying to do is keep the level of taxation within that band of 17 to 19 percent. Right now it is a little bit lower. Sometimes it might be a little bit higher, but our policy is to keep it within that band and to keep spending within that band. But in times of war, that spending policy has to have some give if you want to win a war. Even though the presentation that has been made by the other side may be totally accurate as far as the statistics are concerned, I think there is a bigger picture than just charts and statistics. There is what America is all about and the role of Government in America and the importance of responding to attacks on America and winning a war and backing up our troops. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, there has been a lot of discussion about high gasoline prices lately, and rightly so because gasoline prices are as high as they have ever been in the history of our country and, in the process, not only taking a lot of money out of the pockets of working men and women, but harming the overall economy. And the full impact has not been felt yet. In the process of hearing so many remarks and concerns about this situation, as we heard for a half hour a few minutes ago from one of our colleagues from the other side of the aisle, I wonder if we are not hearing so many speeches from the other side of the aisle on the issue of energy because it was the other side of the aisle that led a filibuster against the national energy policy we had before us last November. Maybe there is some guilt on their part about defeating a national energy policy, as it was through a Democratic filibuster. I thought since that vote, when we had 58 votes and only needed 2 more to get cloture, to get to finality on a bill that was passed overwhelmingly by this body, that bill would have been the national energy policy. It would have been the first national energy policy that passed this body for probably a dozen or more years, and it is now needed more than ever before, but we needed two more votes. It is so puzzling to me that 46 out of 49 Democrats can stick together when they want to defeat very well-qualified judges the President sends up here, so well qualified they have the highest rating of the American Bar Association, and yet when we had a national energy policy, we adopted that national energy policy 3 or 4 months after the Northeast blackout last August and just before we knew energy prices were going to go up because OPEC announced they were going to shut off the spigot, why couldn't we get more than 13 out of 49 Democrats, considering the unanimity of holding the caucus together to defeat judges, and the Democratic leader was very much in favor of the Energy bill but he voted to stop debate? Why couldn't more than 13 Democrats help bring about a national energy policy? Now we are hearing so much from the other side that one wonders if they don't have a somewhat guilty conscience about that vote. We only needed two more Democrats. There are at least four Democrats from corn-producing States who should have been voting for cloture because this bill was so good for the ethanol industry, as an example, producing ethanol, a renewable fuel to mix with gasoline, to stretch gasoline, but we had four Democrats on the other side from corn- producing States who did not vote. We only needed two of them. Also, this was a very comprehensive energy policy, so comprehensive it was well balanced with tax incentives for fossil fuels, tax incentives for renewables and alternative energy, and tax incentives for conservation. In fact, the speech we just heard was a lot about conservation, tax incentives for conservation, and they do not want to vote to stop a Democratic filibuster and move the bill along? It is very puzzling. I do not understand it. It makes one wonder: Are we hearing all these speeches now since gas is way up, at the highest level in history, because maybe they have some shame because they didn't want to vote to stop that filibuster last fall? Then I hear some criticism toward the President about high gasoline prices. But what about the President of the United States leading the way ever since he has been in office to get this Congress to adopt a national energy policy, and Congress came within two votes, but a Democratic filibuster killed it, and the President is getting blamed for a national energy policy he has been pushing that the other side killed? Is there some guilt, some shame on the other side trying to detract from what the President has been trying to do? Is there some shame on the other side when they were in the majority in 2001 and 2002 and could not produce a national energy policy? We have had an opportunity to move forward with a national energy policy, and those people who are giving the speeches condemning the President or concerned about high prices, what about helping us to reconsider that vote of last November--it can be reconsidered--and bring cloture and finality to the bill, and we can have a national energy policy? Is a national energy policy going to make a difference when it comes to high energy prices? You bet it is because it is sending a signal to OPEC that we have our act put together and we are prepared to respond. It very much broke the stranglehold of OPEC in 1982 when President Reagan deregulated the cost controls that we had on petroleum. For the next 20 years, OPEC was irrelevant because it told the rest of the world that we are not going to hold our product off the market. When we establish not only our own incentives for producing our own fossil fuels to a greater extent than we are today but also that we are going a whole new route of having a national energy policy on renewables and alternative energy and also that we are going to have incentives for conservation, it is going to send that same clear signal to OPEC? OPEC is meeting maybe right this very day to say to the rest of the world: We are going to shut our spigots down another million barrels a day. And all the time the Senate is languishing because of a Democrat filibuster last November of the Energy bill. They see inactivity on our part, and to a great extent it encourages them the same way they were encouraged when we had price controls on petroleum from 1979, 1980, and 1981 until Reagan finally took them off. I hope we will have less speeches from the other side and votes in favor of ethanol and biodiesel, all of those things that are good for the agricultural communities of Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin, as well as Iowa and Minnesota. They are good for the environment because ethanol and biodiesel are cleaner burning than fossil fuels; good for the agricultural economy because when the bill is fully implemented, we would be using 20 percent of our corn crop to produce ethanol and will eventually be doing the same thing with the soybean crop and biodiesel. We will also be conserving as well. Yet what do we get from the Members of those States when they have an opportunity to do something? They vote no, under some excuse that we are not going to be able to maybe have some lawsuits that they want to have. Do they want chocolate cake for lawyers or do they want lower gasoline prices? Do they want chocolate cake for their lawyers--because the whole new realm of lawsuits after tobacco and after asbestos, that is where those lawyers are going to go, suing the energy companies--or do they want a cleaner environment? Do they want chocolate cake for their lawyers or do they want to help their farmers? Do they want chocolate cake for their lawyers or do they want to send a signal to OPEC that we have our act together and we are going to play in this energy game and we are not going to be in a stranglehold by those oil sheiks? I think the choice is pretty clear. I hope we get some action and less words. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

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.

Mr. GRASSLEY

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. 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.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I object.

Mr. GRASSLEY

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