[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 10] [Senate] [Pages 14435-14442] [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov][[Page 14435]] NOMINATION OF WADE F. HORN, OF MARYLAND, TO BE ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR FAMILY SUPPORT, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the nomination. The assistant legislative clerk read the nomination of Wade F. Horn, of Maryland, to be Assistant Secretary for Family Support, Department of Health and Human Services. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Johnson). The Senator from Minnesota. Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, again, for the sake of my colleagues' schedules, I do not think this will take that much time. I know there are some Senators who want to speak. I think it is a relatively noncontroversial nomination. I certainly do not need 2 hours. I do want to speak on the nomination of Dr. Wade Horn to the position of Assistant Secretary for Family Support at the Department of Health and Human Services. This is a very important position. Once confirmed for this position, Dr. Horn is going to have authority over the administration of the Federal welfare, child care, child welfare, foster care, and adoption programs. He is going to have considerable influence in the upcoming reauthorization of the so-called welfare reform legislation. These are issues that all of us care about. But, as my colleagues know, much of my own background, in addition to teaching, was community organizing. Most of that was with poor people. And much of that was with single-parent families, almost always women, sometimes men. Unfortunately, when marriages dissolve, or when it comes to the responsibility of raising children, it disproportionately falls on the shoulders of women. I have devoted a lot of time to these issues. I really believe that, for me, if I have a passion, it is around the central idea that every child in our country should have the same opportunity to reach her or his full potential. That is what I believe. I suppose all of us do. Maybe people have different ideas how we realize that goal, but, for me, that is the core value that informs me as a Senator. And I am for everything--public sector, private sector--that makes that more likely, more possible, and I am opposed to whatever makes it less possible. In my opinion, Dr. Horn's views about the causes of the circumstances of these families--especially single-parent families, almost always headed by women--as well as a number of his stated proposals as to how to address these circumstances make him not the right choice to serve in this position. I do not think he is the right person for this job. I hasten to add that I have met with him. I am sure that this discussion in the Senate Chamber is of great interest to Dr. Horn. As I say, I have met with him. He was more than obliging to come by. I thought we had a very good discussion. And I do not say that as a cliche. He responded in writing to a number of questions I sent to him following the conversation. I think he feels just as strongly about these issues as I do. I think he would fight against any policy he thought would be harmful to low- income families, especially poor children. I do not want to caricature him. We have an honest but fundamental disagreement about the best way to move families in this country from poverty to self-sufficiency. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter and the signatures of more than 90 organizations that oppose this nomination. There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: June 14, 2001. Dear Senator: We are writing to urge your opposition to the nomination of Wade Horn as Assistant Secretary for Family Support at the Department of Health and Human Services. We ask that you investigate the writings and philosophy of Mr. Horn and that you question him thoroughly when he comes before the Senate Finance Committee for confirmation. The HHS Assistant Secretary for Family Support, the country's top family policy post, will be making important decisions and recommendations on many critical public programs which serve predominantly lower income children and families, including welfare, childcare, child welfare, child support, adoption, foster care, child abuse and domestic violence. The person who holds this job will also influence the Administration's positions and activities dealing with next year's reauthorization of the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) programs. This person must be able to understand and promote the needs of ALL families in our society. Wade Horn wants the government to promote marriage by penalizing families where the parents divorce, separate, or do not marry. He also wants the government to tell unmarried mothers to surrender their children for adoption. There is very little ``support'' for families in these sentiments. With Wade Horn as Assistant Secretary for Family Support, we fear a Department of Health and Human Services that will penalize, and promote discrimination against, families headed by a divorced. Separated, or never-married parent or where both parents live in the home but are not married. Horn has written that single parent families should be denied public benefits whose supply is limited--such as public housing, Head Start, and child care--unless all married couples have been served first. Horn has written that cohabiting parent families should be denied any welfare benefits at all, and kept at the end of the waiting list for other benefit programs. Due to divorce, separation, death, abandonment or their parent's never-married status, more than half the children growing up today will spend some of their childhood in a single-parent family. An increasing number of children live in two parent families where the parents delay marriage, choose not to marry or are prevented by law from marrying. Horn advocates penalizing all these children. By supporting Wade Horn's nomination as Assistant Secretary for Family Support at the Department of Health and Human Services, President Bush's campaign call to ``Leave No Child Behind'' rings hollow. If the President's true intention is to support all of America's families and children, rather than judging and penalizing many, he should appoint an individual who can work with Congress, our states and our own dedicated organizations to ensure that we will be more--not less--compassionate when dealing with our children and families living at or near poverty. Sincerely, Abortion Access Project ACORN AIDS Action Committee Alternatives to Marriage Project American Ethical Union Applied Research Center Arizona Coalition Against Domestic Violence Association of Reproductive Health Professionals Boston Coalition of Black Women Boston Women's Health Book Collective Business and Professional Women/USA Center for Community Change Center for Reproductive Law and Policy Center for Third World Organizing Center for Women Policy Studies Center on Fathers, Families and Public Policy Chicago Jobs Council Chicago Metropolitan Battered Women's Network Children's Foundation Choice USA Coalition Against Poverty Coalition for Ethical Welfare Reform Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights Coalition of Labor Union Women Colorado Center on Law and Policy Communications Workers of America Community Voices Heard Democrats.com Displaced Homemakers Network of New Jersey Empire State Pride Agenda EMPOWER, Family Economic Initiative Family Planning Advocates of New York State Feminist Majority Finding Common Ground Project at Columbia University Grassroots Organizing for Welfare Leadership (GROWL) Hawaii Coalition for the Prevention of Sexual Assault Hawaii State Coalition Against Domestic Violence Hesed House inMotion, Inc. Institute for Wisconsin's Future Iowa Coalition Against Domestic Violence Jewish Women International Los Angeles Coalition to End Hunger & Homelessness Make the Road by Walking Massachusetts Welfare Rights Union McAuley Institute Men for Gender Justice MOTHERS Now National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) National Association of Commissions for Women National Black Women's Health Project National Center on Poverty Law [[Page 14436]] National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs National Employment Law Project National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association National Gay and Lesbian Task Force National Organization for Women (NOW) National Women's Conference National Women's Political Caucus New York City Gay & Lesbian Anti-Violence Project 9to5, National Association of Working Women Nontraditional Employment For Women North Carolina Coalition Against Domestic Violence Northeast Missouri Client Council for Human Needs Northeast Washington Rural Resources Dev. Assoc NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund PADS, Inc Pennsylvania Lesbian and Gay Task Force People United for Families Planned Parenthood of New York City Poor People's United Front Progressive Challenge Project, Institute for Policy Studies Public Justice Center Rural Law Center Sociologists for Women in Society Survivors Inc. Texas Council on Family Violence Unitarian Universalist Service Committee Voters For Choice Action Fund WEEL (Working for Equality and Economic Liberation) Welfare, Education, Training Access Coalition Welfare Law Center Welfare Made a Difference Campaign Welfare Rights Organizing Coalition Welfare Warriors Women's Center at the University of Oregon Women's Committee Of 100 Women Employed Women's Environment and Development Organization Women's Housing and Economic Development Women's Institute for Freedom of the Press Women's Institute for Leadership Development Women's Law Project Mr. WELLSTONE. A lot of the organizations listed include women and children organizations and, in particular, organizations that do the down-in-the-trenches work dealing with domestic violence. That is what I want to talk about. It does not get discussed enough. In this disagreement, I want to address, in particular, Dr. Horn's focus on ``marriage promotion and responsible fatherhood policies.'' He is a prominent advocate of ``marriage promotion and responsible fatherhood.'' Some of these ideas are going to be central to the reauthorization of welfare ``reform'' next year. Again, I always put ``reform'' in quotes. Just as single moms were the focus in 1996, single dads could very well be in the spotlight next year. I do not think that, in itself, is a bad thing. I doubt whether there is anyone among us who would argue against the importance of where fathers fit in with families, about the importance of investing in the needs of low-income men, just as we should be concerned about the needs of low-income women. The question is, what kind of investments we should make, and how can we best serve the needs of low-income adults, men and women, and also their children? Dr. Horn most recently was president of the National Fatherhood Institute which was created in 1994 ``to counter the growing problem of fatherlessness by stimulating a broad-based social movement to restore responsible fatherhood as a national priority.'' I believe in the importance of responsible fatherhood. Having three grown children and six grandchildren, I certainly believe in it. I am not here to speak against responsible fatherhood. He also sat on the board of Marriage Savers, which is a Maryland- based group promoting community marriage covenants that are designed to make divorces more difficult to obtain. Dr. Horn has in the past urged States to take advantage of opportunities created by welfare reform to address what many cultural conservatives consider to be the root of society's social ills today, the decline of the traditional family. In 1997, he wrote a report, along with Andrew Bush, director of the Hudson Institute's Welfare Policy Center. Dr. Horn recommended that States basically--I have to use this word-- ``discriminate'' against single-parent families by establishing ``explicit preferential treatment for marriage in the distribution of discretionary benefits such as public housing and Head Start slots.'' Now, although he has distanced himself from this suggestion, as recently as June of this year, Dr. Horn has continued to advocate for policies that would provide financial incentives for marriage. Let me go back to 1997. I know this is not the issue that carries the most weight in the Senate Chamber. I am not trying to be self- righteous. There is a reason why so many organizations and so many people around the country work in this area. The notion of women being battered at home and what the children see, that is just not so much on our radar screen, although a woman is battered every 15 seconds of every day in America. When you start making an argument that for Head Start or public housing the way that you are going to encourage marriage is to give preferential treatment to those who are married, what you do is you put poor women in a situation where they dare not leave a home which is so dangerous for them and their children because then they may not have any Head Start benefits for their child or they may not be in line to get the housing they need. Why in the world would anyone ever want to advocate such policies? I am sorry. A lot of this discussion today on my part will be low key for me, but not this part of the discussion. I know that Senators don't think about this, but just think about the harshness of these kinds of proposals. Dr. Horn, I hope, is going through some rethinking on this question as well. I think he is, from the discussion we had. But it concerns me for anyone as recently as 4 years ago to advocate that for low-income families, you give preferential treatment to those who are married so that single-parent homes headed by women, almost always, are put at a disadvantage. Then we are going to make it hard for this woman to get out of this situation. Sometimes you don't want women to stay in the homes. Sometimes you don't want them to stay in the marriages because they are hellish situations. Somebody has to say that in the Senate. The only reason I am speaking today, after having already testified to the goodwill of Dr. Horn as a person, is because I am going to stay so close to his work, and I am going to insist that not one proposal come from this administration that puts some of these women and these children in jeopardy. This problem of violence in homes is a real problem in our country. In a recent article, entitled ``Wedding Bell Blues, Marriage and Welfare Reform,'' Dr. Horn suggested that Congress could mandate that States implement policies such as West Virginia's current practice. That is, you provide a cash bonus to single mothers on welfare who marry their child's biological father, or perhaps, he has suggested, Congress could provide a $5,000 cash payment to a woman at risk of bearing a child out of wedlock, if she bears her first child within marriage, to be disbursed in $1,000 annual payments over 5 years as long as she remains married. Again, I know if these proposals are made within the framework of promoting responsible fatherhood or promoting intact families or being opposed to divorce, it may sound attractive. But again, think about the ways in which these proposals can be in some circumstances actually dangerous to the well-being of many low-income women and children. Somebody in the Senate has to advocate this position. My wife Sheila--more Sheila than I--has spent years now working on domestic violence issues. There is no doubt in my mind, none, that policies that tie financial incentives to getting married or staying married will result in increased incidents of domestic violence. Think about it for a moment. If a low-income woman is faced with a choice of receiving $1,000 a year, especially a woman who with her children is living in extreme poverty, or leaving a situation where she has been abused, what is she likely to do? What kind of incentive have you built into public policy? You have built in an incentive which says to this woman: You need to stay [[Page 14437]] at home. You need to marry this man. You need to stay married to this man. What if this man has battered her over and over and over again? How can so many Senators who supported the Violence Against Women Act, where we finally have begun to address this issue, now not express concern about these kinds of proposals? By the way, if we can afford to give families with children an extra thousand dollars a year, then by what logic can we possibly suggest that other families with children should be made poor simply because their parents are unmarried? Think about it for a moment. Why should a child, no fault of his own or her own, just because that child is the daughter or son, little daughter or son, of a single parent, a family where the parents are not together, be penalized? This is nonsensical. These are rather perverse priorities or incentives built into public policy. When considering marriage as a solution for poverty, we need to face the reality that violence against women is a significant cause of women's poverty. Domestic violence makes women poor, and it keeps them poor. The majority of battered women attempt to flee their abusers, but many of them end up on welfare or they end up homeless. Study after study demonstrates that a large proportion of the welfare caseload, consistently between 15 and 25 percent, consists of current victims of serious domestic violence. Between one-half and two-thirds of the women on welfare have suffered domestic violence or abuse at some time in their adult lives. Over 50 percent of homeless women and children cite domestic violence as the reason they are homeless. Please understand, whether it be preferential treatment for Head Start or affordable housing, or whether it be bonuses that reward women for staying in a marriage, let's not put low-income women in a position where they are in a very dangerous home, they are being battered, and quite often their children are battered as well. Their children witness the violence not in the movie, not on television, but in their own living rooms. The children can't do as well in school. Don't create a set of financial incentives that are going to make it harder for these women and these children to be able to leave these circumstances. That is what I am saying today. These are my concerns. That is why you have close to 90 organizations--by the way, hardly any of them would have any clout--that have real concerns about this. For these women and children, the cost of freedom and safety has been poverty. Marriage is not the solution to their economic insecurity. By the way, do you know that one of the problems is, even if these women leave and they go to shelters--as my colleague from Nevada said earlier today, in many of our States we have more animal shelters than we have shelters for women and children who experience violence. How about that? Then, if they are in a shelter, there is no affordable housing to go to. As opposed to making proposals, which Dr. Horn has made, that talk about all these bonuses and ways of promoting marriage, why don't we, instead, put the emphasis on responsible fathers? Don Frazier, who was mayor and a great representative of the House of Representatives, did a lot of that in Minnesota. We should do more. But if we have this kind of money, why don't we put it into affordable housing? Marriage is not the solution to their economic insecurity. For some of these women--can I say this one time in this Chamber? For some of these women, marriage could even mean death. I am sorry. I am going to say it again. That is true. I feel strongly about this. I know what the reality is, from what I have seen with my own eyes from the work Sheila and I have done with women who have been faced with violence in their homes. For some of these women, not only is marriage not the answer to their economic insecurity, for some of them marriage could even mean death. It will undoubtedly mean economic dependence on the abuser. Many battered women are economically dependent on their abusers. Between one-third and almost 50 percent of abused women, surveyed in five studies, said their partner prevented them from working entirely. In fact, we introduced legislation today--Senator Murray, Senator Dodd, Senator Schumer were a part of this--in which we said--and we had people from the business community and the labor community testify-- part of the problem is a lot of women, when they try to leave and work, the abuser, the stalker, comes to work, threatens them, comes into the office and makes a scene, and guess what happens. The employers let the women go. They say we can't take this any longer, and then she loses her job. Of the 96 percent of women who report they experienced problems due to domestic violence, 70 percent have been harassed at work, 50 percent have lost 3 days of work a month as a result of abuse, and 25 percent have lost at least 1 job due to domestic violence. Do you want to put these women in a situation where they have to stay in these marriages? Marriage is not always the answer, colleagues. I have been married 37 years--maybe closer to 38 years. It has been the best thing that ever happened to me. God, I will sound corny. I am most religious in my thinking about having met Sheila when we were 16. It is the best thing that ever could have happened to me. I am not just saying some trumped up thing on the floor of the Senate. But marriage is not always the answer or the alternative to poverty for many of these women and children. Dr. Horn has not shown the understanding and sensitivity to these questions he needs to show. He is a good person. He will be nominated. I already said that. But I at least want to speak about my concerns. The Congress has recently recognized that domestic violence is a serious national problem. We have the Violence Against Women Act and other legislation, and it seems to me that we ought to at least be very sensitive to these concerns. Dr. Horn and others in the responsible fatherhood movement argue that many of our most pressing social problems--school violence, teen pregnancy, and substance abuse, to name a few--can be directly related to the absence of fathers in the lives of their children. David Blankenhorn of the Institute for American Values has gone so far as to suggest that fatherlessness is ``the engine that drives our most pressing social problems.'' And topping the list of concerns, of course, is child poverty. For many of these advocates, the solution to ending child poverty is clear: marriage. They argue that what we really need to do is to teach low-income men to properly value marriage and family, based on the presumption that low-income men don't. Can I also say this at the risk of annoying some colleagues? You know what. I am over and over again struck by the fact that too many Senators seem to know so much about the values of poor people, but they have never spent any time with any of them. It is like I don't know where our understanding of the values of people and how they live their lives comes from. It is certainly not based upon a lot of experience. I believe it is incorrect to presume that low-income men somehow value marriage and fatherhood less than other men. In fact, there is considerable evidence that low-income men value marriage and fatherhood just as much as you do, Mr. President, and as much as I do. But these advocates look at the data indicating a correlation between child poverty and single parenthood, and rather than consider the fact that all too often it is the poverty that leads to the single parenthood, not single parenthood that leads to the poverty, they argue that marriage is the way to eliminate the poverty. That is what I am worried about with Dr. Horn because he is going to be in a key position. Here is the way one low-income mother put it to me, and thank God for her wisdom: They can marry off everybody in my neighborhood, but then all we'll have is two poor people married to each other. This is what is really at the heart of the matter. You don't end poverty by simply promoting marriage. In fact, you probably promote more successful [[Page 14438]] marriages if that is your goal. And do you know what. I think that is our goal. Let me state as a given that every Senator, or almost every Senator wants to promote more successful marriages. One of the ways is by ending poverty. My colleague from Indiana will speak for Dr. Horn. I made it clear that I met him. He cares as much as I do. It is an honest disagreement. I made the argument, I say to Senator Bayh from Indiana--and we will voice vote this with overwhelming support. I needed to come to the floor because some of Dr. Horn's advocacy of preferential treatment for Head Start and affordable housing for two-parent, married households, and arguments that you want to have bonuses for people to get married and stay married--I made the argument that the implications of this, when it comes to violence in homes, is grim and harsh. You don't want some of these women to be in a position of feeling as if they can't leave a home where they are being battered and their children are being battered. That is what some of these proposals do. As to some of his ideas, he said, ``I no longer necessarily believe all of this.'' But I have said some of these arguments about promoting marriage are fine; I am for it. But for some women this is not the answer. You don't want to have financial incentives, or disincentives, if you will, that put women in a position where the choice is, Do I stay in this home where I am being battered, my child can be battered, or my child witnesses this violence, or if I leave then no longer will I get a Head Start benefit, or I will lose my bonus I have received for being in this marriage or I will not be able to get affordable housing. That is one of the things that concerns me the most, I say to two good colleagues. One of the reasons we have so many of these organizations in the trenches working in domestic violence expressing this concern is because of this argument. Someone needs to say it because Dr. Horn will be in this position, and then we will work with him. I am all for promoting responsible fatherhood and marriage, but I do not want to do it in such a way that we end up--I said this before my colleagues came--for some of these women, marriage is death. That is right. For some of these women, staying in a marriage means they will lose their lives. I do not want public policy or social policy that makes it more difficult for them to leave these homes which are not safe homes, where they should leave these homes. That is part of what this debate is about. In just the few minutes I have left, the other part of the argument I want to make is if, in fact, you want to promote successful marriages, especially if you are talking about the low- and moderate-income community, one of the ways to do it is to focus on some of these economic issues. There is a whole world of problems out there, such as unemployment, not having a living-wage job, drug and alcohol addiction, depression and mental illness, poor education, jail time, hunger and homelessness, and, in all due respect, quite often these are the reasons that marriages do break up. Unless we talk about marriages and responsible fatherhood in the context of also dealing with these very tough problems that rip families apart, I do not think we go very far, and I will insist all of them be considered. Frankly, it is not necessarily his fault, but I do not hear much from this administration in terms of being willing to invest some of the resources in any number of these different areas. We had a proposal in Minnesota. I said ``had.'' It was the Minnesota Family Investment Program. It was a pilot program. Too bad, because from my point of view, this is welfare reform. Two former Governors did a great job saying we are going to put a lot of money into childcare, into job training skills development, into making sure these families do not lose their medical care, and we are going to put a lot of money into significant income to disregard when they made more money, they then lost, dollar for dollar, what they were making. Studies compared former AFDC recipients to those on MFIP and found MFIP individuals were 40 percent more likely to stay married and 50 percent less likely to be divorced after 5 years. There you have it. That is part of what we need to do. Mr. President, do you know what. That is not what we are doing in a lot of this so-called welfare reform. As a matter of fact, finally I got the Food and Nutrition Service study the other day. I said to them: Tell me what is going on with food stamps. Why have we had a 30- percent-plus decline in food stamp participation post 1996? They said: In some cases, people are working and maker better income. In most cases, they are not, but they do not know they are eligible any longer. There were cuts in food stamp benefits, massive cuts in benefits to legal immigrants. Frankly, Families USA points out there are some 660,000 people who no longer have medical assistance because of the welfare bill. In too many cases, people have dropped out. Berkeley and Harvard did a study of the childcare situation and found that many of these kids were in dangerous situations or in front of a TV, and it would not surprise anyone if they came to kindergarten way behind. I am for promoting families, responsible fatherhood, and I want these children to have as much a chance as other children, and I want to know from where the commitment comes. Marriage is not, in and of itself, the way to address the root causes of poverty, and it is no reliable long-term solution to poverty, particularly poverty among women and children, and, in general, two incomes are better than one. It is far better to have two parents in the household, but that fact is not sufficient to support an argument that marriage will lead to an end of family poverty. There are many reasons that women, more often than men, experience an economic downfall outside of marriage: Discrimination in the labor market; lack of quality, affordable accessible childcare; domestic violence; and I also say to my colleagues--Senator Reid said it earlier--in many States there are more animal shelters than shelters for women who come out of these very dangerous homes. Moreover, the tragedy of it is, after they get out of shelters, there is no affordable housing. As a matter of fact, this is going to become a front-burner issue for us because we are not doing anything by way of getting resources back to State and local communities, and it is a huge crisis. It is not surprising that the other day there was a report that came out in the Washington Post pointing out the issue really is not poverty, the issue is we have to double the official definition of poverty, which is around $17,000. If you want to be realistic of what it takes for a family to make it, there are many families with incomes under $40,000 who are having a heck of a time making it, and one of the reasons is the cost of housing. If you do not address these factors that keep women from being economically self-sufficient, then your marriage and family formation advocates are merely proposing to shift the woman's dependence from the welfare system to marriage. You see what I am saying? There is a missing piece here, I say to Dr. Horn and others. Some women should not be dependent on their marriage. They should get out of their marriage. They should not be there. They should get out of these homes with their children because if they stay, they are going to be murdered and their children--talk about posttraumatic stress syndrome. What do my colleagues think it would be like to be a little child? I have been with them. I met with some of these families and have seen a mother who has been beaten up over and over, day after day. What do my colleagues think that does to children? With domestic violence and divorce at the current rates, marriage will never be the sole answer. The solution is not, as Dr. Horn and others suggest, to interfere with the privacy rights of poor women but, rather, let's focus on economic self-sufficiency. Congress should not use women's economic vulnerability as an opportunity to control their decisions regarding their marriage or, for that matter, [[Page 14439]] childbearing. Fighting poverty and promoting family well-being will depend on positive Government support, for policies that support low- income parents in their struggle to obtain good jobs so that they can have a decent standard of living, so they can give their children the care they know their children need and deserve. That is what it ought to be about. I disagree with Dr. Horn on this policy, but colleagues and the public should be further aware that certain recent statements and writings by the nominee signal that basic views which underlie his policy positions I think are a little bit over the top. I have already talked about how I like him, I say to both colleagues because I know they know him. I will give a couple examples. Dr. Horn has recently written, for example, that females raised by single mothers ``have a tendency toward early and promiscuous sexual activity.'' That material was given to me by advocate organizations. That is in direct quotes. From where in the world does that come? Where is the evidence for that? He recently wrote that males raised by single mothers have ``an obsessive need to prove their masculinity.'' He reportedly has linked single mothering or father absence to acts of violence carried out by males, such as the shootings at Columbine High, although, by the way, in that case, the families were intact. These were not single-parent families. This is not an attack on character. I want Dr. Horn to know he is going to be nominated on a voice vote. He will be supported. That is fine. But I want to be on record saying I don't think he is the right choice. I certainly want to question some of the statements he has made and, more importantly, some of the positions he has taken. He will be the one in the middle of the welfare reform. He will be the one dealing with a lot of the policy that affects low- and moderate-income families. Ninety organizations have urged the Senate Committee on Finance to oppose his nomination. A majority of them are organizations that deal with domestic violence. That is where the real fear is. I have heard from too many people whose opinions I respect and whose judgments I value, starting with my wife Sheila, to allow the nomination to pass silently. Dr. Horn will be confirmed, but I felt compelled to raise these issues and concerns about some of the policies I think he is likely to promote as Assistant Secretary for Family Support. I hope he proves me wrong; he may very well. I hope he will use the occasion of this appointment to reconsider some of his views--not all; he is entitled to many of his views. The issues are too important and too many lives are affected to not speak out. I hope Dr. Horn and others at Health and Human Services, as well as colleagues in the Senate, will carefully consider the implications of policies that we all propose that affect low-income families. I said earlier, and I meant it as a criticism of Senators on both sides of the aisle, although we cannot generalize, I am always amazed we infer the values of people. We seem to know so much about the values of people and how they live their lives, especially low-income people-- that fathers do not respect fatherhood or the pathology of their lives--when hardly any Members spend any time with them. Dr. Horn is an example of someone who has inferred people's values, which can be downright dangerous, especially when we are talking about violence in homes today. What we really need to do is to support these women and children. Therefore, I hope the Senators, as we go forward with the welfare reauthorization bill and we make policy that affects directly the lives of poor people in this country, will make it our business to be very careful. They are not on the Senate floor, they have very little clout, and in too many ways they are right out of Michael Harrington's ``The Other America.'' They are invisible and without a very strong voice. There are helpful organizations, thank God, such as the Children's Defense Fund, but not enough. I wish Dr. Horn the very best. We will work together. But I want Dr. Horn to know I have a lot of concerns which I have discussed today. I am not speaking for myself, but for a lot of people in the country, especially those down in the trenches doing the work, dealing with the violence in families, trying to protect women and children, to make sure they can rebuild their lives. I yield the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana. Mr. BAYH. Before my colleague from Minnesota leaves the floor, I express my appreciation to him and compliment him for the passion he brings to the cause of helping those less fortunate in our society. There is no Member of this body who feels more strongly about empowering those who need opportunity in our country than Senator Wellstone. For that, I compliment the Senator and thank him for being such a valuable Member of this body. I also say, before the Senator leaves the floor, I find myself in strong agreement with his sentiments about the rights of women, particularly that they are not given incentives to stay out of relationships that are abusive, or assisting or providing incentives for men with a proven record of abuse from entering family relationships where they do not belong. I am not familiar with all of the statements he has made, but I can say from my own experience with Dr. Horn that it is my understanding he has distanced himself from several of these controversial statements. I can say from my personal experience with him in working on the Responsible Fatherhood Act that he has shown a great willingness to ensure that abusive men are not reinserted into family situations and, in fact, women are protected, as they should be. We should insist upon this, even as we try to promote men living up to their responsibility and doing right by not only their children but the mothers of their children. We had a recent conference at the Thurgood Marshall Center in Washington, DC, a lower income area, and we were heartened to see representatives from many organizations representing low-income America. I am glad the Responsible Fatherhood Act has been advocated by the Black Caucus. From my experience, Dr. Horn has shown great empathy toward the cause of helping children with a less fortunate background. I know it is entirely appropriate that the Senator comes to the floor and expresses his concerns. I thank him, before he gets on with his busy schedule, for his championing of the cause of the less fortunate, to express strong support for his dedication, particularly ensuring that women are not placed in abusive situations but, in fact, are protected from abusive men who would do them or their children harm. I express those sentiments before the Senator has to leave. Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Senator from Indiana for his graciousness. I think the statement he just made, especially dealing with violence in homes, is extremely important. I thank the Senator. Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I rise to express my strong support for the nomination of Wade Horn to be Assistant Secretary of HHS for Family Support. I am confident that he will do an outstanding job in discharging his duties for all Americans. I have known Dr. Horn personally since 1996 when I had the privilege as Governor of our State of holding one of the first conferences in the country on the importance of promoting more responsible fatherhood on the part of many men. The vast majority of men in our society, when they bring children into the world, do the right thing by supporting children economically, emotionally and economically, and supporting the mothers. Regrettably, in recent years, in the last decade or so, we began the alarming trend of many men walking away from responsibilities, financial and otherwise, with great detriment to the children and the mothers of those children and, because of that, the society and taxpayers, as well. Wade Horn worked with us not only in that conference but in fashioning [[Page 14440]] legislation in the Halls of Congress to do something about this epidemic of fatherlessness that harms our society in so many important ways. He understands that a child growing up without the involvement of a father, emotionally or financially, is five times more likely to live in poverty, twice as likely to be involved with drugs or alcohol abuse, twice as likely to commit a crime of violence, twice as likely for a young girl to be involved with teen pregnancy, and much more likely to get involved in a variety of situations that will harm a youngster throughout the course of his or her lifetime. Wade Horn is committed to doing something about this phenomenon, and thereby strengthening families and helping children. He understands this effort is not only good for America's children; it is good for taxpayers, as well. Many of the issues we debate in this Chamber, many of the initiatives we pursue to try to help America really deal with the manifestations of what are actually deeper underlying problems. If we are going to get at the root causes of the problems that afflict too many of America's children, we have to deal with them where they begin, the breakdown of the American family, and, in particular, too many men bringing children into the world and walking away, leaving women and taxpayers to try to pick up the pieces by themselves. That is not right. We spend hundreds of billions of dollars each and every year to try to overcome the consequences of irresponsible fathers not living up to their obligations. Wade Horn understands that if we are going to do right by those kids and do right by our citizens who are picking up the tab, we need to do something about this problem. So he has committed much of his life to doing exactly that. He also understands that this effort will be good for women. Women are doing heroic work, particularly single mothers, to try to pick up the pieces when men bring kids in the world and walk away. It is not right that those women should labor without the emotional support and the financial support to which they are entitled. Our responsible fatherhood initiative is designed to help children, help taxpayers, and help women as well. As I mentioned before our colleague, Senator Wellstone, had to leave the floor, we reached out to many women's organizations to make sure this effort is done in a way that is sensitive to the concerns of women who have experienced the horror of being battered or abused by a spouse or male companion. We want to make sure that is not the case; that, in fact, we protect women and children from the consequences of that type of behavior. Wade Horn has been involved in that effort to make sure we pursue strengthening families to help women and children with legitimate and important concerns and take into account the scourge of domestic violence that is unfortunately all too frequent in society today. Mr. Horn, when he is confirmed, will be in a position to be intimately involved in the next generation of welfare reform that we will undertake this year and next. Because of his lengthy experience laboring in these vineyards, I think he is ideally suited to this task. Let me offer a very brief recitation of some of Dr. Horn's experience. From 1989 to 1993, Dr. Horn was Commissioner for Children, Youth and Families, and Chief of the Children's Bureau within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Dr. Horn also served as a Presidential appointee to the National Commission on Children from 1990 to 1993, a member of the National Commission on Childhood Disability from 1994 to 1995, and a member of the U.S. Advisory Board on Welfare Indicators from 1996 to 1997. Prior to these appointments, Dr. Horn was the director of outpatient psychological services at the Children's Hospital, National Medical Center here in Washington, DC, and an associate professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at George Washington University. Currently, Dr. Horn is also an adjunct faculty at Georgetown University's Public Policy Institute, and an affiliate scholar with the Hudson Institute. Simply put, if I could just summarize, I have known Dr. Horn now for several years. I know of no more decent, more compassionate individual. I know of no one who cares about the cause of helping children more than Wade Horn, or the cause of strengthening America's families and that is what this really comes down to. Whether it is within the bonds of marriage or outside, this all comes down to the cause of helping children, and in so doing not only helping those little ones but helping society as a whole. In conclusion, let me just say among his many other attributes, Wade Horn is an author. He authored a book after his own experience with cancer and wrote very eloquently in that book about the emotions that he experienced when he was sick, fighting cancer, seeing his own little girls come to his bedside. I know, based upon that personal experience and his many years of efforts in the vineyards of good public policy, there is no one who will bring a deeper, more heartfelt conviction to the cause of helping children, helping women, strengthening families, and strengthening America than Dr. Horn. I respectfully urge my colleagues to vote in support of his confirmation. Before, I yield the floor, I would also like to say how much I respect my colleague from Delaware. I thank Senator Carper for his efforts on behalf of the Responsible Fatherhood Act. Perhaps it is not a coincidence that Senator Carper and I are both former Governors and have personally been in a position of actually implementing welfare reform, not simply enacting it into law. For that reason, I salute my dear friend and colleague, Senator Carper, and thank him for his presence as well today. I yield the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware. Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, let me say while Senator Bayh is still here, we have not only been Senators together, as he said, we have been Governors together. We were also fathers of young boys, his a few years younger than mine. He believes, as I believe, and certainly as Wade Horn believes, while emphasizing the importance of fathers and fatherhood, we have no intention, no need, no interest in diminishing the importance of the role of mothers. Every child deserves not just one loving, nurturing, caring parent but two. To the extent that we as a society can encourage men to live up to the responsibilities of the children they father and bring into this world, those children will be better for it and so will our country. I say a special thanks to Senator Bayh, for his leadership on this issue. I am delighted to be able to support these efforts. Senator Bayh has known Wade Horn for a half dozen or so years. So have I. I have known him through our work with the National Governors' Association where he came from time to time, at our invitation, to speak on fatherhood. I have known him through his role in cohosting the National Summit on Fatherhood, where I have had the opportunity to participate. I have invited him to my home State of Delaware to speak at our Governor's prayer breakfast, to focus on fatherhood and the importance of fathers in our lives. I also know him, having hosted him in our Governors house, having spent time with him and his wife there. I met his children, his daughters. I have some idea, not just what the author is like, not just what the speaker is like, not just what the policymaker is like, but I feel as if I know him a little bit as a human being. I have seen him in the role of devoted husband and loving father as well. Senator Wellstone said, before he finished his remarks--and I appreciated the concerns he expressed--and I think this is a quote, ``Dr. Horn will be in this position and we will have the opportunity to work with him.'' I hope he is right. I believe Senator Wellstone is right in that. Based on my experience from the last 6 years of knowing Wade Horn and his [[Page 14441]] family, I believe we will appreciate the opportunity to work with him. I feel confident those who question his nomination will come, in the end, to be glad that he was nominated and that we voted to confirm him. I know others have gone back and looked at the words that have been attributed to Dr. Horn in the past. They could do that for me or the Presiding Officer or for any of us and have it appear we say things that, taken out of context, we may not have really said or intended to say. I have never heard Wade Horn speak about compelling women to remain in an abusive relationship or threatening relationships. I have heard him say that too many men fall short in meeting their obligations to the children they father and to the women who bear those children. I have never heard Wade Horn disparage single moms for the work that they do in raising children. I have heard him speak of the need for young girls to see, in their own lives, a father who treats a mother in a way that that young girl herself would want to be treated by her husband someday. I have heard him say there are young boys in this country who need to see how a man treats his wife so that young boy will know how he should treat his wife someday, when he has grown. I have never heard Wade Horn say that children raised by single moms routinely turn out badly. I have heard him say that all children deserve to be raised by two loving, caring, nurturing parents, and that includes their fathers. I have heard it said that as to 16-year-old girls who become pregnant, drop out of school, never marry the father of the children that they bear, 80 percent of them--80 percent of those women and their families will live in poverty at some point in time. As to the 16-year- old girl who does not become pregnant, does not drop out of school, graduates from school, waits until the age of 20 to have a child and marries the father of that child, there is an 8-percent likelihood that family will live in poverty--80 percent on the one hand, 8 percent on the other hand. I cannot stand here today and vouch for those numbers. But if they are even close, I think they serve to underscore for us the need for fathers, for men who father children, to take seriously their obligation to the children they father and to the women who bear them. I believe Wade Horn will serve in this capacity doing a number of good things for the families of our country, men and women, boys and girls. But I think he is going to be a good voice, a recurring voice, one we need to hear, that says: Fathers are not dispensable. They are as important today as they were 100 years ago or 200 years ago. We need to remember that, those of us who are fathers and those of us who someday will be. I am pleased to rise today in support of this nomination, and I hope it will receive ringing endorsement from this body. I yield the floor. Mr. KOHL. Madam President, I rise today to add my voice in support of the nomination of Wade Horn to serve as Assistant Secretary for Family Support at the Department of Health and Human Services. I have had the pleasure of working with Wade Horn over the past few years on an issue that is vitally important to both of us--making sure that children receive the child support money they are owed. This has been a very positive and productive working experience. Dr. Horn and I share the goal of changing the current child support distribution system, which harms children by allowing States and the Federal Government to keep their child support money instead of distributing it to the kids who need it. Through his experience, Wade Horn recognizes that fathers pay more child support when they know their children will actually receive their money and benefit from it. He understands that the route to responsible fatherhood means we have to remove government- created barriers that actually discourage fathers from paying child support, and create more incentives for fathers to become actively involved in their children's lives. I have greatly appreciated Wade Horn's commitment to changing the child support distribution system. His suggestions, input and advocacy have helped move this issue forward during the past several years, and I look forward to working with him to pass this vital legislation once he is confirmed. Together, I am hopeful that he and Secretary Thompson, who is also a tremendous advocate of child support distribution reform in his own right, will make this a top priority in the Bush Administration so that children get the support they are owed and need. As President of the National Fatherhood Initiative, Dr. Horn understands that fathers, mothers and children often need support and help to maintain a strong and stable family life. His organization's goal has been to encourage fathers to become positive role models for their children and become fully involved in their lives. He has worked to encourage greater support services and assistance for low-income fathers so they can actively and responsibly participate in their children's upbringing. Not only do their children benefit from their support and involvement, but all of society reaps the benefits of having stronger families. I realize that some have raised concerns about views Dr. Horn has expressed in the past regarding government support for single-parent families. It is my understanding that he has reconsidered many of those views and has committed to serving all families who need support and assistance. I believe this is critical; our nation must address a variety of issues to help working families of all shapes and sizes, and I look forward to working with him on a range of issues important to families--including increasing funding for Child Care, Head Start, and continuing to provide support for families making the transition from welfare to work. These will not be easy tasks, but I am hopeful that Wade Horn will take a thoughtful, balanced approach to addressing these matters. I urge my colleagues to support his nomination. Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Madam President, I am proud to support the nomination of Dr. Wade Horn to be the Assistant Secretary for Family Support at the Department of Health and Human Services. As chairman of the National Commission on Children, I had a unique opportunity to work closely with Wade Horn. From that experience, I know how deeply Wade cares about children and families. I know that Wade is willing to listen to diverse views and find common ground, which will be key to his success in this important position. On the Children's Commission, committed advocates representing both the liberal and conservative policy views came together to learn about child development and we struggled to find bipartisan policy initiatives to help children and their families. Our process was intense, but it led to a bold, bipartisan report full of recommendations to change policy to support children. Throughout that process, I witnessed how Wade Horn was willing to take risks for the right reasons. I am proud to say that the Children's Commission report has been a guidebook for my legislative initiatives on children's policy. While there is much more to do on children's issues, we are making real progress. The Children Commission that Dr. Horn and I supported in 1991 called for a refundable child tax credit and an improved Earned Income Tax Credit. Our report recommended changing the welfare system, then known as Aid to Families with Dependent Children. It stressed the importance of child support enforcement. It called for education reform with a greater emphasis on local schools. And it even had a controversial chapter called ``Creating a Moral Climate for Children,'' which challenged public officials, the media, the entertainment industry, and individuals to serve as role models for children. Many of our recommendations from the Children's Commission have become public policy, and I continue to build on this foundation. While Dr. Horn and I do not agree on every issue, we do strongly agree about [[Page 14442]] the importance of supporting children and families. We agree on the importance of bipartisanship on children's issues, especially in the area of child welfare and adoption. We agree about the importance of direct and honest communication and cooperation between Congress and the Department of Health and Human Services. Because I have worked with Dr. Wade Horn on the Children's Commission and during his previous position in the first Bush administration, I am confident that he will be a committed leader on children's issues in this administration. I look forward to working with him, including on the reauthorization of the Safe and Stable Families Program this year. Mr. REID. I suggest the absence of a quorum. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll. The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll. Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, what is the pending business? The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending business is the nomination of Wade Horn. Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak on the pending business for up to 10 minutes. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I want to speak on behalf of the nominee to be Assistant Secretary for Children and Families at the Department of Health and Human Services, Dr. Wade Horn. I got to know Dr. Horn while working with him on several fatherhood initiatives. He has been an outstanding leader in the fatherhood movement. And I am confident that he will serve with distinction in the position to which he has been nominated. Dr. Horn is a dedicated public servant, a distinguished child psychologist, a skilled administrator, and an excellent choice to lead the Administration for Children and Families--a key and critical position for the administration. Dr. Horn is a highly respected child psychiatrist, with a proven record of both competence and integrity. He has consistently demonstrated his deep commitment to increasing the well-being, strength, and stability of families and children in general, and at- risk children in particular. It bears mention that Dr. Horn was previously confirmed by the Senate 11 years ago for the position of commissioner of the Administration for Children, Youth and Families. As the Commissioner for the Children, Youth and Families Administration, Dr. Horn administered numerous programs serving children and families, including Head Start, foster care and adoption assistance, the National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect, runaway and homeless youth shelters, and various anti-drug programs. Since leaving the Department of Health and Human Services, Dr. Horn has served as the President of the National Fatherhood Initiative-- where I really got to know him--a nonpartisan initiative which has drawn the support and involvement of several Senators from both sides of the aisle, including myself, Senator Lieberman, Senator Carper, and Senator Bayh. As the President of the Fatherhood Initiative, Dr. Horn has been at the forefront of the effort to encourages fathers to become more involved in the lives of their children and families. The Fatherhood Initiative has conducted both national forums and targeted outreach programs to at-risk families to encourage increased responsibility, affection, support, and involvement of fathers something we desperately need in their country. He has also authored regular columns dispensing advice to parents on how to raise healthier, happier, and more secure children, which have helped and encouraged literally thousands of families across the country. One of the criticisms leveled against Dr. Horn is that he has sat on the board of Marriage Savers, and has been involved in marriage promotion programs. Why this is a criticism, I am not sure. Dr. Horn would never, has never advocated that anyone stay in an abusive marriage. No one believes this, despite inferences to the contrary on the floor of this Senate. What he has done is worked with groups that work with couples who want to strengthen their marriage and their family. And I would think that working towards strengthening marriage in our country--which has, let me note, a divorce rate near 50 percent--would be regarded as a positive qualification, not grounds for criticism. We have Marriage Savers programs in Kansas. In two counties in the State of Kansas, Marriage Savers programs have helped to reduce divorce rates by over thirty percent in that area. This is a great achievement, not a questionable activity. That Dr. Horn's involvement with Marriage Savers--a group dedicated to working with individuals who have requested assistance in strengthening their marriage--would somehow be cited as a red flag in Dr. Horn's record is utterly baffling. Dr. Horn has never advocated that women stay in abusive situations. He is saying that in marriages where children are involved, it is a good thing for a married couple to try to work through their problems. With the background, temperment, and record that Dr. Horn has, it is difficult to understand why this nomination should have generated any debate at all. I don't think that anyone can credibly raise a question about Dr. Horn's qualifications for the job. I look forward to the confirmation of Dr. Horn to the position of Assistant Secretary for Children and Families at the Department of Health and Human Services, and I wish him the best in this capacity. Finally, I note that this is an extraordinarily qualified nominee to this position. He is a person who has worked in this field virtually his entire life, who has worked successfully in this field and in an area of endeavor in which we need a lot of help. Our children and families are suffering in this country. Dr. Horn has worked himself, personally and directly, to put families back together. That is something we should be applauding, not questioning or condemning. I strongly support the nomination of Dr. Wade Horn to this position within the Department of Health and Human Services. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll. The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll. Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Stabenow). Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. REID. Madam President, on behalf of Senator Wellstone, I yield back his time on the Horn nomination. Madam President, is there further time on the other side? The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 2\1/2\ minutes remaining. ____________________