CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -- SENATE

November 21, 1967

Page 33543

Mr. HART. I would suggest to Senators who have forgotten what it is like to have a child from 5 to 15 years of age that they have put the cart before the horse. If Senators do not want to make a mother go away from home while the child is there, do not say she can go away while the child is between the age of 9 and 15. Tell her to go away when she can send him to some nursery, when he is 3 or 5. That would make much better sense. It is the children of 10 to 15 who get into trouble without the parent, not those from 3 to 5.

Mr. CURTIS. Mr. President, I am not willing to concede that there is any preschool child who does not need his mother. [Laughter]

Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. HART. I yield.

Mr. JAVITS. The difficulty with this debate is that we are not keeping in mind the way this particular bill is written. The way it is written, Mr. President, the mother with children within the legal age can be compelled to work during the time the child is not attending school. That is what we wish to correct.

That is what we are after. She can be compelled to work as far as we are concerned when the child is attending school. The question is what happens thereafter. As has been properly said, that child is not eligible for day care and, in addition, under the bill that mother can work voluntarily, which adds to the argument of the Senator from Nebraska, or she can work and retain a large part of her earnings.

The psychological aspect of this matter that has not been mentioned is that 26 percent of the kids in that wage level are practically parentless and wandering around. They are from Harlem. That is what creates the problem. Forty-six percent of the people in Harlem are from broken homes.

That is what we are talking about. We are not talking about nice people from nice neighborhoods, but about nice people from slum or ghetto neighborhoods.

This is an effort to face the actual problem, and not talk about us managing their lives. Such a mother can work, in her judgment, if she wants to. And we should not make her do it which is the intent of the bill. We should adopt the amendment, and I hope the Senate does so.

Mr. LONG of Louisiana. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana has 2 minutes remaining on the amendment.

Mr. LONG of Louisiana. Mr. President, the senior Senator from New York just got through explaining what a sorry situation exists in Harlem. That is what we are trying to correct.

Some of the best mothers in America, and the most responsible ones, hold their families together when the fathers are not available to support them -- in the event of death or some unforeseen tragedy.

The mothers go to work and earn many times as much as they would receive on public welfare or from any other kind of charity. They find somebody to look after the child while they are working.

The mothers find somebody to look after the child from 3 o'clock until 5 o'clock when the mother is not home.

We would spend $100 million to relieve these mothers of that kind of problem and provide somebody to look after the child. The social worker is obligated to find somebody to look after the child when the mother is not there.

The mothers would then have no excuse under the sun for refusing to do something constructive, if it is nothing more than to clean up the mess in front of their own houses.

When she no longer has any excuse not to work, she will lose her welfare check if she does not work. We reserve the right to pay that welfare check so that it will benefit that child.

We do not want to have the mother sitting around and drinking wine all day. There is no excuse for her not doing some sort of constructive work. We propose to say, "Either you do something to help yourself, or we will not pay you the welfare check. The child will get it, but not you."

We hope on that basis to put some of these people to work.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.

Mr. LONG of Louisiana. Mr. President, I yield myself an additional 2 minutes.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana is recognized for 2 additional minutes on the bill.

Mr. LONG of Louisiana. Mr. President, if a State can think of any conceivable reason beyond what the committee could think of as to why this mother should not do something to help herself and her children, the State can negate the whole program. However, I cannot support an amendment that would provide that the State could not have an effective work program, even if it wanted to.

We are urged to fix it up by Federal fiat so that even if a State wanted to have an effective work program, it could not have it. And all because we are so solicitous of people who never did a lick of work in their whole lifetime, and who do not propose to do so because they have a child of school age, that we are prepared to let them use that as an excuse to continue to draw welfare for their child from now on into eternity rather than help themselves.

Mr. President, if the pending amendment is agreed to, the House will not take it, and the House will be in good grace doing what the Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee said -- if the Senate cannot stand up and be a little tough on this program, it will cost the Government $3 billion.

The House will not let us have any bill before they will let this kind of thing continue.

We can vote for an effective State provision or do without any law.

Mr. KENNEDY of New York. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed at this point in the RECORD a letter from the American Public Welfare Association under date of November 21, 1967, supporting the amendment I have offered today.

There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

AMERICAN PUBLIC WELFARE ASSOCIATION,

Washington, D.C.

November 21,1967.

Hon. ROBERT F. KENNEDY,

U.S. Senate,

Washington, D.C.

Dear SENATOR KENNEDY: I wish to to express to you the support of the American Public Welfare Association for the proposed amendment number 465 to the Social Security bill with reference to the employment of AFDC mothers jointly introduced by you and fifteen other Senators.

It is the position of this Association that full employment at adequate wages should be the goal for all persons who are employable and whose services are not needed in the home. H.R. 12080 will provide new resources to enable and encourage many recipients of assistance to attain that goal. At the same time we believe that the provisions in your amendment are necessary in order to give assurance that mothers will be permitted to remain at home when needed to care for their children. Your amendment would reemphasize the declared purpose of the existing law "to help maintain and strengthen family life and to help such parents or relatives to attain or retain capability for the maximum self-support and personal independence consistent with the maintenance of continuing parental care and protection.''

This amendment is consistent with positions which have long been held by our Association and with our testimony given to the Senate Finance Committee on H.R. 12080.

Sincerely, HAROLD HAGEN,

Washington Representative.

Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. KENNEDY of New York. I yield.

Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, as I understand the bill in its present form to take care of preschool children, it is the judgment of those who wrote the bill that the mother ought to be at home because the child needs her.

If a mother happens to have a 9-year-old child who is at home from 2:30 in the afternoon, because that is when school lets out -- as it does in the case of my 8-year-old child -- and if that child needs the mother, then, by the logic of the bill itself that mother ought to be permitted to stay home to take care of that child.

Is that the thrust of the amendment of the Senator?

Mr. KENNEDY of New York. The Senator is correct. The amendment would not prevent the training program or work program from going into effect.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.

Mr. KENNEDY of New York. Mr. President, will the Senator yield me 5 minutes on the bill?

Mr. LONG of Louisiana. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes on the bill to the Senator from New York.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York is recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. KENNEDY of New York. We are talking about women who are heads of families. We are talking about mothers. The amendment would not prevent the program from going into effect as it relates to mothers. The mothers can be at home when the children are at home.

The mother can be at work when the children are at school, and when the children come out of school at 1:30, 2:30, or whatever time it may be, the mother will be at home with the children. When the children are out of school, the mother can be with the children.

The proposed legislation would prevent the mother from being with the child during that period of time. It takes the child away from the mother. The mother must work, whether she wants to or not. We would provide under the bill that the mother must work during whatever period of time a bureaucrat decides she should work, no matter what she is doing at the time.

Mr. MUSKIE. It is the legislative judgment of the bill that for the care of the preschool children, the mother is needed, and all that the amendment of the Senator states is that if the mother is needed in the case of a post-school child, she also ought to be permitted to stay at home.

It seems to me that the logic of the Senator's amendment is inescapable.

Mr. KENNEDY of New York. I thank the Senator from Maine.

Mr. LONG of Louisiana. Mr. President, I yield myself 2 minutes on the bill.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator of Louisiana is recognized for 2 minutes.

Mr. LONG of Louisiana. Mr. President, I want to make it clear so that the Senator from Maine, the former Governor of that State, will understand me.

What we say in the bill is that when a State by its plan provides, with Federal money to match it, that the State will care for that child during the 8 hours that that mother is working, 6 hours in school and 2 hours after school, if the State thinks the mother is able to work, she should work and not be paid a welfare check for her benefit if she does not work. The State would still pay for the care of the child and it would be required to do so. However, if the State of Maine wanted to say: "We are going to let these schools out at 1:30 in the afternoon," it can do so.

The State can say, "We will not ask any mother to work past noon or 2 hours a day, because we are going to let school out early and perhaps not even ask the mothers to go to work or forfeit her welfare check.”

Under the Senator's amendment, if the State of Maine wanted to set up a program to look after that child from 6 in the morning until 6 in the evening, with all the elaborate care and professional Hollywood help that can be recruited to show them a good time, under the Senator's amendment, we could not ask her to go to work or forfeit her welfare check. We would have to let her sit there and drink that wine with the welfare money. We would not be able to do a thing merely because she has a child in school and would not be able to work beyond the school hours even though the State has provided the most elaborate kind of help for that mother. The cost of providing care for that child is very great.

The cost increases as time goes by.

It has been estimated that the Federal share of the cost of providing day care for these children and training would reach the figure of $400 million in 1972.

That is as much money as we are willing to spend to get these people to work.

That is $400 million just to care for the children.

Mr. CURTIS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for an observation?

Mr. LONG of Louisiana. First let me yield to the Senator from Maine.

Mr. MUSKIE. Let me say, first of all, to the distinguished Senator from Louisiana that I do not question the motives of the authors of this bill or of the Senator himself. I am sure that the committee is convinced that it has come up with an equitable program.

With respect to children from 5 to 10 -- I have three in that age bracket -- all the recreational programs are no substitute for a mother's care during the afternoon hours, during most of which my children are at home. And so their mother is at home. There are many opportunities for Senate wives to be otherwise engaged in this town in the interests of their husbands' careers. But there is no substitute.

All I can say -- and I believe this is all that the Senator from New York has said -- is that if in the mother's judgment she is needed at home in the after-school hours, when the child is still very young, that judgment should be hers and should not be taken away from her by the State.

I am not sure whether the figures that the Senator has given us identify the incremental cost that would be added by the amendment offered by the Senator from New York. I would be interested to know whether there are such figures.

I fully appreciate the Senator's argument, but I will say to the Senator that I am moved by the considerations that underlie the amendment offered by the Senator from New York.

Mr. LONG of Louisiana. I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. President, we would save money on day care under the amendment offered by the Senator.

But we would keep these people living on welfare forever and have four, five, and six generations on welfare.

Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. LONG of Louisiana. I yield.

Mr. MUSKIE. If this is what concerns the Senator, then why does he not eliminate the exemption for preschool children? The same argument can be made as to them. As the Senator from Michigan has said, looking at it as a parent of such a child, it is easier to park a preschool child in a day care center than a 9-year-old child.

So if numbers are involved, numbers of children, if you have to make a swap, the humanitarian course would be to put the preschool children in the day centers and let the mother take care of the older children.

Mr. LONG of Louisiana. One can argue about this but a school-age child will be away from the mother 6 hours a day, in any event, if the child is attending class full time. It seems to me that the Senator is only talking about 2 additional hours, so a person could take a full-time job. Many more full-time jobs are available than part-time jobs.

Mr. CURTIS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. LONG of Louisiana. I yield.

Mr. CURTIS. I believe it is likely, if the amendment as drawn is adopted, that the mother could refuse work and training although there was a grandmother in the house, a disabled husband who was unable to do physical work but still could be present with the children, or an unemployed father, or a child over 16. Their presence in the house would not invalidate the language set forth in the amendment.

Mr. LONG of Louisiana. The Senator is correct. Under the proposed amendment, grandpa could be there, grandma could be there, sister could be there, brother could be there -- all of them able to take care of the child.

Furthermore, an unemployed father could be in the home and you could have a job for mama, but you still could not ask her to so much as swat a mosquito on her own leg, because we do not want to ask that mother to go to work while the child is not in school. It is ridiculous that some people can be so solicitous.

Mr. MUSKIE. What does the bill provide with respect to disabled fathers or grandmothers or grandfathers who are in the house, in the case of preschool children?

Mr. CURTIS. I believe that a small child needs a mother. All the children I know are brilliant, but at 3 months of age they could not tie their own shoes or dress themselves.

Mr. KENNEDY of New York. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. CURTIS. I am inclined to think that they are in a different category than when they go to school.

Mr. KENNEDY of New York. Does the Senator suggest that a 7-year-old child does not need a mother?

Mr. CURTIS. Oh, yes; the child does.

Mr. KENNEDY of New York. Is that not what we are talking about -- that the mother should be with the children?

Mr. CURTIS. Not necessarily.

Mr. KENNEDY of New York. The Senator spoke about preschool children and made an allowance for preschool children. Is the Senator saying that when the child reaches 6 or 7 or 8 or 9, it no longer needs its mother?

Mr. CURTIS. There is no provision here for taking the mother away permanently.

Mr. KENNEDY of New York. No, not permanently. I agree that that has not been done.

Mr. CURTIS. But the Senator's amendment is so drawn that there can be many other adults in the household, and the State still would be barred from certifying the mother for work.

Mr. KENNEDY of New York. I call the Senator's attention to the language: "A mother or other relative who is actually caring for one or more children."

It is the same as the language that applies to the preschool children. It does not apply when the mother is not taking care of the children. This applies to a mother who is taking care of the child. The mother should be with the child. We are making the mother go to work. That is one step. But let us not make the mother go to work when the children are at home. I cannot believe that the Senate would do that.

Mr. LONG of Louisiana. Mr. President, I should like to make this clear. Under this provision, we say, by Federal law, that a State shall not require any mother to go to work as a condition of receiving welfare payments for both herself and the child.

We were unanimous about this. We set down every logical reason that occurred to us why a mother should not be expected to do anything but help herself and the child. We go further and say that when the State wants to find some additional reason why it is not in the interest of the child for the mother to go to work, the State can do so.

If the government of New York feels this way, it will negate the program, anyway, and New York will not have an effective work program. But under the proposal of the Senator from New York, New York could not have an effective work program, even if the legislature and the Governor wanted to have one.

So far as I am concerned, we have done everything we can to provide that neither New York nor any other State need ask anybody to go to work. They can find the reason, and they have the power to negate the entire program. But we believe many States will look at this proposal carefully and will tell some of the mothers who have never worked constructively in their lifetime, who are descendants of people who have never made any constructive contribution to society except to have children, "We want you to do something for yourself. We'll still provide money for the child, but not for you, unless you are willing to help yourself."

We should muster the forthrightness and the determination to insist that some of these people do something in their own behalf.

The program is projected to cost $3 billion a year, half as much as medicare. The program grows on itself, welfare growing on welfare, rather than requiring that some day we have a program to put some of these people to constructive work.

Mr. LAUSCHE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. LONG of Louisiana. I yield.

Mr. LAUSCHE. Mr. President, I subscribe fully to the argument made by the Senator from Louisiana.

On the basis of what has been said, it appears to me that the pending amendment, if adopted, will be an inducement for welfare recipients not to exercise any effort on their own part to sustain themselves, in the belief that regardless of what they do, the Government will take care of them.

The amendment proposes a course of operation that has all of the worst aspects of paternalism that one can imagine. We are saying, in effect, to these proposed recipients, "You need not try to help yourself. Regardless of what you do, the Government will take care of you."