House supports fatherhood programs

On November 10, by a vote of 328 to 93, the House passed (HR 3073) the Fahs Count Act, a bill designed to widen programs supporting poor fathers striving to meet their responsibilities.

Supporters said the bill would fund programs aimed at helping poor fathers take control of their lives by promoting marriage, improving parenting skills and developing their earning power.

"Welfare reform stimulated the development of far better services for welfare-dependent mothers, services that could help her identify her skills, provide her with knowledge that could help her succeed in the workplace, find a job, work and progress," said Rep. Nancy Johnson (R.-Conn.). "This bill is an attempt to provide the same support and opportunity to the poor fathers of children on welfare. Our goal is to help them find steadier employment and develop their careers so they can provide the economic support so crucial to their child's well being."

Supporters see studies showing that, in 80% of illegitimate births, the parents describe themselves as being in an exclusive relationship, as a window of opportunity. If programs could catch unwed parents and support their wish to marry and rear a family responsibly, by developing needed skills, it would be a huge boon to society, given the vast disparity in social problem between children reared in two-parent families and those with absent father, supporters said.

The bill would adjust welfare to-work to incorporate working poor women, allow states that haven't met deadlines in developing a statewide child support payment systems a grace period, allow child support enforcement data to be used in recovering student loans and unemployment overpayments, fund a study of welfare reform, provide judges in child protection, allow the Immigration and Naturalization Service to suspend the passports of noncitizens owing child support to Americans.

Rep. Mark Sanford (R.-S.C.), speaking for many conservatives, said many of the things in the bill made sense but he questioned the wisdom of a new government program. "Is that really the role of the federal government? To me that would seem to be the role of the local priest or the local rabbi or my preacher back home, or my uncle or my granddad, but somebody in my local community not tied to a grant in Washington, D.C." In the final analysis, Sanford reluctantly concluded "it is something that grows government into a realm that we havetraditionall not gone. I do not like the idea of the federal government defining what a good father is."

Much of the debate over the bill centered on an amendment, that tailed 184 to 238, proposed by Edwards (D.-Tex.) that would have forbid under the bill to any "pervasively sectarian" organization. Edwards said the establishment clause in the Bill of Rights showed that "our Founding Fathers did not want and would not want direct federal dollars to go directly to houses of worship, churches and synagogues."

In many blighted areas the churches are the only organizations left, opponents argued. Further, when Bibles were unavailable from England, "the same Founders who wrote the Constitution purchased Bibles, printed them and distributed them at government expense, to be distributed by congressional legislation to public schools," said Rep. Mark Souder (R.-Ind.).

A "yes" vote is a vote to fund programs designed to enhance fatherhood responsibility in poor communities. A "no" vote was a vote against expanding government to tackle illegitimacy.

Copyright Human Events Publishing, Inc. Nov 26, 1999
Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved