[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 61 (Tuesday, May 14, 2002)]
[House]
[Page H2391]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




               STATES NEED FLEXIBILITY IN WELFARE REFORM

  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, we have passed welfare reform 
out of this body; and as a result, we are putting more people to work. 
Welfare rolls have been cut in half in many States. With these 
successes in mind, now is the time to look at what is working and what 
is not.
  One of the biggest problems is how reform is impacting the rural 
areas of America. In rural America, where there are not many job 
opportunities, we are telling people to leave their homes and move to 
the city. In rural New Mexico, many people have been tied to the land 
and their homes for generations. Forcing people to move is not good 
public policy, and it is undermining the vitality of rural America. The 
solution is flexibility for States to design their programs, and the 
solution is transportation. Transportation should be a key part of any 
welfare reform.
  Another issue relates to the jobs people are filling. Is this the 
kind of employment where an individual can move up the economic ladder 
and support a family? Many times these are minimum-wage jobs with no 
real future. So we must provide meaningful job training so that an 
individual not only gets a job, but that that job opens the doors to 
better future opportunities.
  Welfare recipients want to work, but they also want to take care of 
their children. This is the common dilemma faced by welfare parents, 
many of whom are single mothers with children. The last thing we should 
do in the name of reform is send parents to work and leave the children 
without adequate nurturing and care. That is why child care is a 
critical component of a successful welfare reform effort.
  If we have learned anything in this reform effort, it is that States 
should have the flexibility to meet the goals of putting people to work 
in good jobs, while children get good quality day-care. Inner cities 
and rural areas face enormous challenges because frequently jobs do not 
exist nearby. With flexibility, States have been able to achieve big 
strides. Without flexibility, States will fail in these important 
tasks.
  Unfortunately, the administration bill that the House is going to 
consider this week fails to recognize why we have made progress. It 
undercuts the flexibility of the States. It provides for rigid Federal 
mandates which are good political talking points, but bad public 
policy. The Bush administration also fails to recognize we are in 
different times. In 1995 the economy was expanding. We had 
unprecedented job growth. Now we have high unemployment, and it is 
sluggish growth. It is essential that the States receive adequate 
resources to do the job.
  The administration shortchanges these reforms at a time when State 
budgets are in deficit. The administration bill imposes massive new 
mandates and additional costs on States that cannot be met. The 
Congressional Budget Office has estimated the new work requirements in 
the bill will cost the States up to $11 billion over 5 years. Yet this 
bill contains no new funding.
  Governors, State legislators, mayors, welfare directors and poverty 
experts have all indicated that these mandates cannot be met. Forty-
seven out of 47 States surveyed by the National Governor's Association 
indicated that the bill requires fundamental changes in their welfare 
programs. Why would an administration which supports States rights 
craft a bill with so many Federal mandates and so little State 
flexibility?
  Just a word on how we deal with these bills. I would urge the 
Republican leadership to have a full and open debate on the issue of 
welfare reform and temporary assistance to needy families. Too many 
times in recent days we have taken up bills where no amendments are 
allowed by the minority. Many times no opposition bill is even allowed 
on the floor, or a motion to recommit. That is not a democratic 
process. It does not serve this body well. It does not serve the 
country well.
  Mr. Speaker, I would urge the Republican leadership to bring this 
bill before this body under an open rule, allow full debate, and allow 
the House to work its will.




                          ____________________