[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 27 (Thursday, February 13, 2003)]
[House]
[Pages H547-H552]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[[Page H547]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
House of Representatives
PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY WORK, AND FAMILY PROMOTION ACT OF 2003--
Continued
{time} 1515
Mr. WATERS. Unfortunately, the Republican bill does not do that. I
would ask for an aye on the Democratic alternative.
Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Gerlach) for the sake of a colloquy.
Mr. GERLACH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time
and I rise to engage in a colloquy. Would the gentleman so engage?
Mr. HERGER. If the gentleman would yield, yes.
Mr. GERLACH. In 1996, I was the lead sponsor of legislation that
overhauled Pennsylvania's welfare system. When this legislation was
implemented, I worked with the Chester County Chamber of Business and
Industry in my district to initiate what later became the Jobs and
Advancement Through Mentoring program. This program provides welfare
recipients who are entering the workforce with volunteer mentors
recruited from the local business community. The intent of the program
is to make sure that welfare recipients do not just start working, but
that they have a volunteer partner in the community helping them over
the rough spots during that first year of employment in helping to
ensure lifetime self-sufficiency and productivity.
While I realize that the bill we are debating today expresses the
sense of Congress that States should encourage mentoring programs, I
believe we should do more. That is why I have drafted an amendment to
require States to identify approaches to establishing voluntary
community-based mentoring programs like the one I just described.
Let me emphasize that States would only be required to formally
consider mentoring programs. They would not be mandated to actually
create them.
Mr. Chairman, I would be very appreciative if you would give every
consideration to including this amendment in any conference agreement
that may be forthcoming.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The time of the gentleman has
expired.
Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds to respond.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman for his interest and
activity on the mentoring issue. The programs you have described are
important to helping welfare recipients to succeed in the workforce.
The gentleman's proposal will be considered, and I look forward to
working with him to support these types of mentoring programs so that
we can help even more recipients achieve independence through work.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Cardin
substitute.
At a time of great need with our economy stagnant and unemployment
high, the underlying bill is so misguided. It eliminates education as
an activity that counts towards necessary work requirements. It
abandons the 15 million children eligible for child care assistance who
will not be covered because of woefully inadequate funding.
In my home State of Connecticut alone, 4,000 families have been
waiting in line for child care assistance since August 2002. It leaves
our States in the midst of the worst fiscal crises since World War II
with a massive unfunded mandate by shifting the burden of welfare to
the States without providing them with the estimated $11 billion
necessary to meet those needs.
The Cardin substitute has a strong work requirement. It give States
the flexibility to increase access to education and training. It
increases mandatory funding for child care by $11 billion over the next
5 years.
Mr. Chairman, the underlying bill does not encourage personal
responsibility or promote families. If anything, it discourages hard-
working families by offering them too little or no hope that their
cycle of dependency can ever be broken.
I urge my colleagues to turn aside this misguided, inadequate bill
and support the Cardin substitute.
Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Hayworth), a key person on the Committee on Ways and
Means.
(Mr. HAYWORTH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from California for
yielding me time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the substitute offered by my
friend from Maryland (Mr. Cardin). It may be well intentioned, but it
fails to embrace a couple of realities and perhaps this is the
fundamental difference among friends.
Mr. Chairman, success in welfare reform means reducing the number of
people who seek welfare, people who actually go to work. There is news
to celebrate according to our own Department of Labor, Mr. Chairman.
The job market in the United States, despite the challenges we face
now, which we all admit we have, from July of 1996 when we first passed
this to last month, January of 2003, according to our own Department of
Labor, the workforce has added 11 million jobs.
Unemployment is a real concern. We all understand that. But actually,
unemployment was reduced from when we passed this measure in the last
Congress, in April of 2002.
Now, understand the welfare rolls are reducing. We have held constant
the
[[Page H548]]
dollars that are going to the States. It is a net increase. No one
doubts that there are fiscal challenges facing the States. But, Mr.
Chairman, the fact is, the States as laboratories of democracy must
fashion their own solutions, not flexibilities in the form of pseudo-
mandates from the Hill, but reasonable, rational solutions based on the
work that is fundamental and inherent in this act, that rewards work,
that provides funding for child care, that instead of cursing the
darkness, lights a candle of opportunity for so many families.
That is what makes this reform historic. That is why we should reject
the Cardin substitute and support H.R. 4.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Sandlin), a valuable member of the Committee on Ways and
Means.
Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
time.
Mr. Chairman, the House needs to pass a reauthorization of the
welfare reform bill. Welfare reform was designed to help people by
getting them a job, not handing them a check.
CBO estimates that implementing the work requirements of the
Republican bill will cost States $11 billion. It makes absolutely no
sense to impose an unfunded mandate on our States. This mandate will
cost my State of Texas $688 million at a time when we are facing a
budget deficit of $10 billion in the State. That is irresponsible and
that is simply a tax increase on our citizens.
On a more personal level, American families want jobs and the quality
education and training to get good jobs. The Republican bill eliminates
vocational educational training as a work-related activity and
increases work participation hours for mothers with children under 6
years from 20 hours to 40 hours. It is irresponsible.
Let us do the right thing. Let us forge a working partnership with
America's families as envisioned by the Cardin amendment. We need to be
an asset, not a stumbling block to helping our citizens obtain the jobs
and the dignity they deserve.
Let us support State governments. Reject the Republican bill and
support Cardin-Kind-Woolsey.
Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to remind my good friend from Texas that
in H.R. 4, his State of Texas will receive an additional $370 million
for child care over the next 5 years.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr.
Pence).
(Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks, and include extraneous material.)
Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today reminded of the tribute that we
have paid to a former President named Ronald Reagan just a few days ago
on what was his 92nd birthday. I think of what Ronald Reagan spoke
about as a vision for welfare in America. He said, ``It is not simply
to provide for the needy, but more than that, to salvage these, our
fellow citizens, to make them self-sustaining and, as quickly as
possible, independent of welfare.''
President Reagan would say on many occasions that we measure the
success of welfare not by how many people arrive on it, but how many
people leave it. And as we look at welfare reform this day, it is
undeniable that the welfare reform of 1996, that we continue and expand
through this legislation, is an unqualified success.
As this diagram demonstrates, Mr. Chairman, welfare caseloads in the
millions: 1994, 14 million Americans on welfare; 2001, 5 million
Americans. But that does not tell the story. We can look at the cold
and hard statistics: 3.6 million fewer Americans living in poverty
today than 1996, 2.7 million fewer children, a million fewer African
American children in poverty today since welfare reform.
But as the father of three small children, Mr. Chairman, this is the
most compelling statistic to me: Tanya was a single mother, went on
public assistance when her twin girls were just a year old. But since
completing her program with CalWORKS last year, Tanya has not only
escaped welfare, but she has been able to earn enough money to buy her
own home for those little girls. Welfare reform has worked, Mr.
Chairman, and I oppose the substitute and will stand with the
underlying bill in keeping that Reagan vision alive.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin)
has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from California (Mr. Herger)
has 3 minutes remaining.
Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Kingston).
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
time.
Mr. Chairman, I just want to go over some of the facts because there
is so much rhetoric we are hearing from those who oppose this bill. But
these are what the facts say: Since 1996, work among welfare recipients
has tripled; employment of single mothers is now more than 70 percent,
an all-time high; since 1994, welfare caseloads have fallen by 60
percent, leaving less than 2 percent of the U.S. population on welfare.
That is a positive story. The cycle of poverty is broken. There are
3.6 million fewer Americans living in poverty today than did in 1996.
Had we listened to those who were so against welfare reform, 2.7
million fewer children live in poverty today than in 1996, including 1
million African American children. This is from the U.S. Census Bureau.
This is not from the Republican Party. This is fact.
Child care, we hear how it is bad for children. The child care has
gone from 3 billion to 9.7 billion in child care assistance. Again,
very positive things, a significant change since the bill.
These are great reasons to vote for this legislation, and I urge my
colleagues to do so.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from California has the right
to close.
Does the gentleman from Maryland wish to proceed?
Mr. CARDIN. Am I correct that the gentleman from California has no
further requests for time other than closing?
Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, that is correct.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, 41 of our 46 States responded to a survey saying that
if the Republican bill is enacted, they will have to fundamentally
change their programs. The programs we have all been bragging will
about will be no longer. They will need to change them radically and
create what is known as makeshift work-fare-type jobs that lead
nowhere.
We just got a letter today from many of our governors saying, please
do not take a significant step backwards in reforming welfare. This is
not the time to replace State flexibilities with unfunded mandates.
If you are going to give the dollar amounts of the extra monies the
States receive under your bill, why do you not tell the whole story,
the extra cost? Every State will end up in the negative under the
Republican bill.
If you believe the 1996 bill was a success, why are you going back
and destroying what we did in 1996 on flexibility to the States? If you
believe that child care is important and we need to help our States,
why are you not supporting the substitute that provides $11 billion of
extra money for child support?
If you believe the arguments that have been made on both sides of the
aisle, you will support the substitute.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I have great respect for my colleague on the Committee
on Ways and Means, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin). I
appreciate his hard work on this issue. I do, however, have a
difference of opinion with him regarding the amendment we are
considering, and I oppose it for several reasons.
The gentleman's amendment weakens work requirements and would lead to
less work, more welfare and more poverty. Like the failed AFDC program
that preceded TANF, the substitute promotes more welfare dependence. It
places new mandates on States by requiring them to assess every
recipient
[[Page H549]]
for child care needs, barriers to work and history of domestic
violence, and by prohibiting States from applying sanctions to those
who refuse to work.
{time} 1530
The substitute, which we estimate to cost at least $20 billion over
the next 5 years, is just too expensive and would greatly increase
deficits.
However, I would like to commend the gentleman for including certain
provisions that mirror those in our H.R. 4. Those provisions include
maintaining the basic TANF funding and block grant structure, requiring
parents to engage in real work for 24 hours per week, raising total
work requirements to 40 hours per week at State option, increasing
State work rate requirements and adding reducing poverty as a TANF
purpose.
I urge the Members to oppose this amendment and vote in support of
H.R. 4.
Ms. SOLIS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to urge my colleagues to
support the Democratic alternative to the welfare reform bill.
Our alternative gives families the tools they need to lift themselves
out of poverty--I'm talking about education and quality child care.
Individuals working to leave welfare must have access to higher
education, GED courses, and English as a Second Language programs in
order to make a successful transition to the world of work.
The facts are clear--women who obtain GED certification, participate
in on-the-job training, or attend college have higher average annual
earnings and a greater probability of employment.
Individuals with limited English speaking skills earn 24 percent less
than their employed counterparts who are fluent in English. Language
barriers limit non-English speaking workers to jobs that tend to be
low-wage and seasonal, making it difficult to attain self-sufficiency.
It's time for us to enact a welfare law that recognizes that families
want to work--they simply need the proper tools to succeed. I urge my
colleagues to support the Democratic alternative.
Mr. ACEVEDO-VILA. Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the people of Puerto
Rican and Hispanic families, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of
the Democratic substitute proposed today by my colleague Mr. Cardin.
Since the 1996 changes, Puerto Rico according to the HHS report, has
met the mandates of TANF, it has reduced its welfare rolls by 56
percent--Puerto Rico has followed the rules.
However, the Commonwealth's TANF families have not had access to all
of the tools Congress established to support moving them from welfare
to work. The Commonwealth is committed to our families' self-
sufficiency. According to the recently release HHS report, of the TANF
cases closed 23 percent of the recipients are working--this is more
than 11 States and it is in an economy of 11 percent unemployment as
opposed to 5 or 6 percent.
We want our families to move from welfare to work; but we need the
tools to make that transition possible.
Our commitment to families is further demonstrated by the fact that
in 2001 the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico collected twice the amount in
child support payments than it received from the Federal Government in
TANF. Puerto Rico according to HHS collected more in child support than
24 States.
The Democratic substitute allows Puerto Rico and the territories to
access all of the tools Congress established to help families move from
welfare to work. Again, I urge my colleagues to vote for the democratic
substitute to insure that no American family is left without the
necessary tools to end the cycle of poverty.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). All time for debate has
expired. The question is on the amendment in the nature of a substitute
offered by the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin).
The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 197,
noes 225, not voting 12, as follows:
[Roll No. 28]
AYES--197
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Alexander
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Ballance
Becerra
Bell
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Case
Clay
Clyburn
Cooper
Costello
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley (CA)
Doyle
Edwards
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley (OR)
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Kleczka
Kucinich
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Lynch
Majette
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanders
Sandlin
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sherman
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOES--225
Aderholt
Akin
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Bereuter
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole
Collins
Crane
Crenshaw
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Emerson
English
Everett
Feeney
Flake
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Goode
Goodlatte
Goss
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Janklow
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
McCotter
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Owens
Oxley
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Toomey
Turner (OH)
Upton
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--12
Allen
Burr
Combest
Conyers
Cox
Cubin
Ferguson
Gephardt
Payne
Sanchez, Loretta
Tiberi
Turner (TX)
Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. LaHood) (during the vote). Two minutes
to vote. Two minutes.
[[Page H550]]
{time} 1550
Mrs. KELLY and Mr. GOODE changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. KUCINICH and Mr. LIPINSKI changed their vote from ``no'' to
``aye.''
Stated for:
Mr. TURNER of Texas. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 28 (the Cardin
substitute) I was unable to cast my vote because I was attending a
briefing by Secretary Ridge and Secretary Thompson in the Roosevelt
room at the White House on Project Bioshield and unable to return
before the vote was closed. If I had been present I would have voted
``aye'' on rollcall No. 28.
So the amendment in the nature of a substitute was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. There being no further amendments, under
the rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Simpson) having assumed the chair, Mr. LaHood, Chairman pro tempore of
the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported
that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 4)
to reauthorize and improve the program of block grants to States for
temporary assistance for needy families, improve access to quality
child care, and for other purposes, pursuant to House Resolution 69, he
reported the bill back to the House.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
Motion to Recommit Offered by Mr. Cardin
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. CARDIN. I am in the present form.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Cardin moves to recommit the bill, H.R. 4, to the
Committee on Ways and Means with instructions to report the
same to the House forthwith with the following amendments:
Page 87, after line 14, insert the following:
SEC. 202. FINDINGS.
The Congress finds that additional funding for child care
is necessary given the additional financial burdens on the
States resulting from the implementation of this Act, due to
the worsening of economic conditions since the last
consideration of welfare reform legislation by the House of
Representatives, including--
(1) the severe deficits of more than $80,000,000,000
affecting the States, the largest budget gaps in half a
century, that will necessitate reductions in vital services,
including the loss of Medicaid for nearly 1,000,000
Americans;
(2) the loss of 2,300,000 jobs since March 2001, including
42 percent more job cuts in January 2003 than in December,
and an unemployment rate of nearly 6 percent representing
9,000,000 Americans;
(3) the loss of unemployment benefits by 1,000,000 men and
women whose benefits have expired and whom Congress has
failed to assist;
(4) an increase in child poverty in 2001 for the first time
in 8 years;
(5) the increase of homelessness by nearly 20 percent in
the last year; and
(6) substantial waiting lists for child care in at least 18
States, many in the tens of thousands, and actions by other
States to make fewer families eligible for child care
services.
Page 87, line 15, strike ``202'' and insert ``203''.
Page 88, line 14, strike ``203'' and insert ``204''.
Page 89, line 1, strike ``204'' and insert ``205''.
Page 93, line 3, strike ``205'' and insert ``206''.
Page 94, line 8, strike ``206'' and insert ``207''.
Page 95, line 11, strike ``207'' and insert ``208''.
Page 95, strike line 17 and all that follows through line 2
on page 96 and insert the following:
SEC. 209. INCREASE IN ENTITLEMENT FUNDING.
(a) In General.--Section 418(a) (42 U.S.C. 618(a)) is
amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), in the matter preceding subparagraph
(A), by inserting ``and paragraph (6)'' after ``paragraph
(3)'';
(2) in paragraph (3)--
(A) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (E);
(B) in subparagraph (F), by striking ``fiscal year 2002.''
and inserting ``each of fiscal years 2002 through 2006;
and''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(G) $3,217,000,000 for fiscal year 2007; and
``(H) $3,717,000,000 for fiscal year 2008.'';
(3) by striking paragraph (4) and inserting the following:
``(4) Amounts reserved for indian tribes.--
``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall reserve 2 percent of
the aggregate amount appropriated under paragraphs (3) and
(5) for each fiscal year for payments to Indian tribes and
tribal organizations for each such fiscal year for the
purpose of providing child care assistance.
``(B) Use of funds; application of child care and
development block grant act of 1990.--Subsections (b) and (c)
shall apply to amounts received under this paragraph in the
same manner as such subsections apply to amounts received by
a State under this section.'';
(4) by redesignating paragraph (5) as paragraph (7); and
(5) by inserting after paragraph (4) the following:
``(5) Additional general entitlement grants.--
``(A) Appropriation.--In addition to amounts appropriated
under paragraph (3) for any fiscal year, there are
appropriated for additional grants under paragraph (1)--
``(i) $1,250,000,000 for fiscal year 2004;
``(ii) $1,750,000,000 for fiscal year 2005; and
``(iii) $2,250,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2006
through 2008.
``(B) Additional grant.--In addition to the grant paid to a
State under paragraph (1) for each of fiscal years 2003
through 2007, of the amount available for additional grants
under subparagraph (A) for a fiscal year, the Secretary shall
pay the State an amount equal to the same proportion of such
available amount as the proportion of the State's grant under
paragraph (1) bears to the amount appropriated under
paragraph (3) for the fiscal year.
``(6) Requirement for grant increase.--Notwithstanding
paragraphs (1), (2), and (5), the aggregate of the amounts
paid to a State under this section for each of fiscal years
2003 through 2008 may not exceed the aggregate of the amounts
paid to the State under this section for fiscal year 2002,
unless the State ensures that the level of State expenditures
for child care for the fiscal year is not less than the level
of State expenditures for child care that were matched under
a grant made to the State under paragraph (2); and that the
State expended to meet its maintenance of effort obligation
under paragraph (2) for fiscal year 2002.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 1108(a)(2) (42 U.S.C.
1308(a)(2)) is amended by striking ``or 413(f)'' and
inserting ``413(f), or 418(a)(4)(B)''.
In the table of contents, strike the item relating to
section 208 and insert the following:
Sec. 209. Increase in entitlement funding.
In the table of contents, redesignate the items relating to
sections 202 through 207 as items relating to sections 203
through 208, respectively.
In the table of contents, insert after the item relating to
section 201 the following:
Sec. 202. Findings.
Mr. CARDIN (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent
that the motion to recommit be considered as read and printed in the
Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Maryland?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Cardin) is recognized for 5 minutes in support of his
motion.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, the motion is very straightforward. It
increases child care by $11 billion, which is the cost, the extra cost,
to the States.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Bell), a new member of the House.
Mr. BELL. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Maryland
for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, we have all heard from the Republican side of the aisle
the phrase ``compassionate conservative,'' and while our Republican
colleagues may have the conservative part down, there is absolutely
nothing compassionate about gutting one of the most successful
government reform programs in recent history.
Let us look at the facts. The bipartisan welfare reforms of 1996 have
cut the welfare rolls by more than 50 percent. We have succeeded in
breaking the welfare web, the so-called welfare web. But that
apparently is not enough for our Republican colleagues.
If we look at H.R. 4, there is absolutely nothing that is fiscally
responsible about H.R. 4. It would place a huge unfunded mandate upon
States all across this country when they can least afford it, including
my State of Texas, which is staring at a $10 billion shortfall and has
no way of getting out of it at the present time. And that is happening
all across this country, yet now we are going to put this unfunded
mandate on them.
This bill increases the number of work hours for mothers with young
children from 20 to 40 hours, while at
[[Page H551]]
the same time it decreases the amount of child care money which will be
provided for these mothers.
Now, let us think about that. If the idea is to move people off of
the welfare rolls, why would we set them up to fail from the very
beginning? It makes no sense, and in no way, shape or form is it
compassionate.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote for the motion to recommit.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, the majority will say that they have a
letter from the Congressional Budget Office saying that this is not an
unfunded mandate, but what the majority will not mention is that they
have a letter from the Congressional Budget Office that says that this
bill will significantly change the way the States have to spend their
money on TANF; that it will cost them an additional $11 billion in
order to comply with the mandates that are included in this bill.
Now, my definition of an unfunded mandate is telling the States they
have to do something and not giving them the extra money to do it with.
That is exactly what the bill does. It mandates the States to develop
workfare programs, it requires the States to spend more money on child
care in order to deal with the new work requirements, and the States do
not have the money and resources to do it.
Mr. Speaker, I have heard my colleagues on both sides of the aisle
say they are for child care, that children should not be penalized,
that we have to have safe and affordable child care. Our States are
telling us they need the money. This motion does one thing and one
thing only: It increases the amount of child care by $11 billion to
equal what our Congressional Budget Office is telling us is the
increased burden on the States. That is all it does.
I would urge my colleagues to listen to our governors. Listen to what
we have said in the past about unfunded mandates. Listen to what we
have said about protecting our children and support the motion to
recommit.
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the
motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs.
Johnson) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to
vote down this motion to recommit and pass the bill.
We are adding $2 billion in money for child care for the States. But
beyond that, remember that we are giving the States exactly the amount
of money we gave them 5 years ago, but the welfare rolls are half that
amount. So the States have all that additional money that they can
devote to child care or meeting the other needs of people working to
get off welfare and into the job market.
{time} 1600
Mr. Speaker, there is money there both in welfare, lots of money,
more than there has ever been in the history of our country.
Furthermore, we have added $2 billion in the child care block grant. We
have made sure it has grown every year.
There is $170 billion available over the next 5 years from the State
and Federal governments for TANF. We have a balanced, sound, strong
bill that will support women and their families as they make the
transition from welfare to work, and I urge rejection of the motion to
recommit and passage of this landmark legislation.
Ms. SOLIS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the motion to recommit.
I am especially supportive of provisions that would encourage funding
of the Urban Park and Recreation Recovery (UPARR) program. This program
has helped communities across the United States rebuild and repair
blighted areas in an attempt to create open and green space
opportunities for working families.
In my community, children are often forced to play in abandoned lots
or next to superhighways. They literally share their playgrounds with
drug dealers on grounds that are unsafe.
One project funded by UPARR near my district renovated a hazardous
park electrical system, repairing damaged and dangerous wiring, and
improving and installing walkway safety lighting.
Thanks to the UPARR program, children like those in my community have
been able to experience more opportunities in a safer, cleaner
environment. Despite UPARR's success and far-reaching impacts in our
communities, this omnibus bill will essentially shut down the entire
program by eliminating almost $30 million dollars in funding for the
program.
I support the motion to recommit and am hopeful that this body will
remember the importance of our urban parks--not only for their
recreational value but for the health and well being of our children.
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of
my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). Without objection, the
previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair
will reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes the period of time within which a
vote by electronic device, if ordered, will be taken on the question of
the passage of the bill.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 197,
nays 221, not voting 16, as follows:
[Roll No. 29]
YEAS--197
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Alexander
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Ballance
Becerra
Bell
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Capps
Cardin
Cardoza
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Case
Clay
Clyburn
Cooper
Costello
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley (CA)
Doyle
Edwards
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Honda
Hooley (OR)
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Kleczka
Kucinich
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lynch
Majette
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanders
Sandlin
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sherman
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Turner (TX)
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NAYS--221
Aderholt
Akin
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Bereuter
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Burr
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole
Cox
Crane
Crenshaw
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Emerson
English
Feeney
Flake
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Goode
Goodlatte
Goss
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
[[Page H552]]
Hyde
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Janklow
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
McCotter
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Toomey
Turner (OH)
Upton
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--16
Allen
Capuano
Collins
Combest
Conyers
Cubin
Everett
Ferguson
Gephardt
Holt
Pascrell
Payne
Sanchez, Loretta
Tiberi
Weldon (PA)
Wilson (SC)
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson) (during the vote). Members are
advised that 2 minutes remain in this vote.
{time} 1616
Mr. GORDON changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 230,
nays 192, not voting 13, as follows:
[Roll No. 30]
YEAS--230
Aderholt
Akin
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Bereuter
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Burr
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crenshaw
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Emerson
English
Feeney
Flake
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Goode
Goodlatte
Goss
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Janklow
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
Marshall
McCotter
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Toomey
Turner (OH)
Upton
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wolf
Wu
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--192
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Alexander
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Ballance
Becerra
Bell
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Boucher
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Capps
Cardin
Cardoza
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Case
Clay
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley (CA)
Doyle
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holt
Honda
Hooley (OR)
Hostettler
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Kleczka
Kucinich
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Lowey
Lynch
Majette
Maloney
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Paul
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanders
Sandlin
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sherman
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Turner (TX)
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wynn
NOT VOTING--13
Allen
Capuano
Collins
Combest
Cubin
Everett
Ferguson
Pascrell
Payne
Sanchez, Loretta
Tiberi
Weldon (PA)
Wilson (SC)
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes
remaining in this vote.
{time} 1623
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
personal explanation
Mr. ALLEN. Mr Speaker, on February 13, 2003, I was unavoidably absent
for rollcall votes, due to the death of a family member.
Had I been present I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall votes 27
(Kucinich Substitute to H.R. 4), 28 (Cardin Substitute to H.R. 4), and
29 (motion to recommit H.R. 4).
I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall vote 30 (passage of H.R. 4,
welfare bill).
____________________