[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 42 (Tuesday, March 30, 2004)]
[House]
[Pages H1683-H1686]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  WELFARE REFORM EXTENSION ACT OF 2004

  Mr. HERGER. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
Senate bill (S. 2231) to reauthorize the Temporary Assistance for Needy 
Families block grant program through June 30, 2004, and for other 
purposes.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                                S. 2231

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Welfare Reform Extension Act 
     of 2004''.

     SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF THE TEMPORARY ASSISTANCE FOR NEEDY 
                   FAMILIES BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM THROUGH JUNE 30, 
                   2004.

       (a) In General.--Activities authorized by part A of title 
     IV of the Social Security Act, and by sections 510, 1108(b), 
     and 1925 of such Act, shall continue through June 30, 2004, 
     in the manner authorized for fiscal year 2002, 
     notwithstanding section 1902(e)(1)(A) of such Act, and out of 
     any money in the Treasury of the United States not otherwise 
     appropriated, there are hereby appropriated such sums as may 
     be necessary for such purpose. Grants and payments may be 
     made pursuant to this authority through the third quarter of 
     fiscal year 2004 at the level provided for such activities 
     through the third quarter of fiscal year 2002.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 403(a)(3)(H)(ii) of the 
     Social Security Act (42

[[Page H1684]]

     U.S.C. 603(a)(3)(H)(ii)) is amended by striking ``March 31'' 
     and inserting ``June 30''.

     SEC. 3. EXTENSION OF THE NATIONAL RANDOM SAMPLE STUDY OF 
                   CHILD WELFARE AND CHILD WELFARE WAIVER 
                   AUTHORITY THROUGH JUNE 30, 2004.

       Activities authorized by sections 429A and 1130(a) of the 
     Social Security Act shall continue through June 30, 2004, in 
     the manner authorized for fiscal year 2002, and out of any 
     money in the Treasury of the United States not otherwise 
     appropriated, there are hereby appropriated such sums as may 
     be necessary for such purpose. Grants and payments may be 
     made pursuant to this authority through the third quarter of 
     fiscal year 2004 at the level provided for such activities 
     through the third quarter of fiscal year 2002.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Herger) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) 
each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger).
  Mr. HERGER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in support of S. 2231, the Welfare Reform 
Extension Act of 2004. This legislation is a straight 3-month extension 
of key parts of the Nation's welfare system.
  Madam Speaker, the historic welfare reform law we passed in 1996 is 
working. Since 1996, more than 2 million children have been lifted from 
poverty, millions of families have left or remain off welfare, cutting 
welfare dependence in half, child well-being has dramatically improved, 
and record numbers of low-income parents are working.
  But, Madam Speaker, that is not enough. Despite our progress, 2 
million American families still remain dependent on welfare today. More 
than half of welfare recipients do not participate in any work or job 
training to prepare them for the future. Every year, millions of 
families break up or never form, risking welfare dependence for years 
to come. We must do more to assist these families.
  Madam Speaker, that is why it is unfortunate that we are here today 
to approve yet another straight extension instead of an agreement on 
more long-term improvements. The House passed such comprehensive reform 
bills in 2002 and a year later in 2003, but the Senate still has not 
passed a companion bill, although one is being debated now.
  Madam Speaker, in an effort to promote at least some reforms in 
recent weeks I have introduced two alternatives to a straight 
extension. Both of these alternatives would continue welfare funding at 
current levels, just like the bill before us today, but these 
alternatives would also provide more to help low-income families.
  My first alternative would expect more welfare recipients to engage 
in work, a proven path out of poverty, or help more families avoid 
welfare dependence altogether.
  My second alternative also would continue current programs while 
redirecting a small portion of welfare bonus funds to promote more 
healthy married families. Both policies are drawn straight from the 
reforms that passed the House last year as part of our welfare reform 
bill, H.R. 4.
  I introduced these alternatives because, after 18 months of simply 
maintaining the status quo, we must do more to help low-income 
families. I wish we were debating either of these extension bills 
today. The simple fact is that every day that passes without 
comprehensive agreement means more low-income families depending on 
welfare. It means less work and job preparation by parents. It means 
fewer child care and child support resources available to help 
families. It means more poverty, and it means more families breaking up 
or never forming.
  Madam Speaker, there is real danger in continued delay as well. The 
House-passed welfare bill proposes $1 billion more in mandatory child 
care funding during the next 5 years. It proposes billions more in 
discretionary child care funding. It proposes full funding for TANF 
programs.

                              {time}  1330

  Will those dollars be available in future years? Perhaps. But as time 
continues to pass and funding becomes tighter, the assurance that 
increased or even current Federal funding for these programs will 
remain available becomes more tenuous. For the past several years, 
Members on this side of the aisle have resisted proposals to reduce 
welfare funding knowing that these programs are working and recognizing 
the need for sufficient funds to make further reforms successful. But 
that case becomes harder to make, for example, if there is no real work 
requirement for welfare benefits for yet another year as further 
reforms fall by the wayside.
  Madam Speaker, I encourage all Members to support the bill before us 
today. The bill will continue current funding for key welfare programs 
through June 30, 2004. It has already passed the other body, and I know 
the President will sign it immediately. As I have said during prior 
extension debates, it is my sincere hope that this will be the final 
extension needed and that the next 3 months will result in a final 
agreement that will help millions more families achieve independence 
and a brighter future. I urge my colleagues to support this 
legislation.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CARDIN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, I rise also in support of this legislation, which 
would extend the TANF and related programs for 3 additional months. It 
is important that these programs continue uninterrupted. They provide 
the wherewithal that our States can deal with some very vulnerable 
populations and help people restore their lives and help people be able 
to work. The bill is important, the program is important, and we need 
to pass it. It also provides for the extension of transitional Medicaid 
which provides health care benefits to people who are coming off 
welfare. These are important programs that need to continue 
uninterrupted.
  Madam Speaker, I share the disappointment of the gentleman from 
California that we are not considering a long-term extension of TANF 
and related programs. I think we need to do that. However, I disagree 
with my chairman as to the reason why we have been unable to do that. 
In the other body, they are now working on a bill, and I hope they are 
successful in bringing forward legislation. They are working, Democrats 
and Republicans, to try to produce a good bill. I am very happy that an 
amendment was adopted today that increases the amount of money in child 
care by $6 billion. We are starting to get towards a true bipartisan 
bill that will provide the resources that the States desperately need 
in order to move welfare reform to the next plateau, and that is 
getting families out of poverty, because we have not been very 
successful in achieving that plateau of getting families out of 
poverty.
  The reason I disagree with the gentleman from California as to why we 
are at this point where we are asking for another short-term extension, 
I do not believe it is the other body's fault. I think it is this 
body's fault, because the legislation that we passed, and I might say 
without any deliberation in this body, we just rubber-stamped the bill 
that was passed in the last Congress. The bill was not a bipartisan 
bill, it was a bill that was not favored by our States, it was a bill 
that goes backwards on welfare rather than continuing reform by being 
so prescriptive to our States, telling our States what they have to do. 
Unfunded mandates on our States. It is estimated that to implement the 
requirements that we placed in this bill would cost our States at least 
another $11 billion in child care alone, let alone some of the other 
expenses. The worst part about the bill was that it provides for make-
work activities, not real jobs. It does not take America's families out 
of poverty who are leaving welfare.
  The reason we were unable to accomplish that, there was no effort to 
reach out, to bring out a bill that was truly bipartisan like they are 
trying to do in the other body. As a result of the action of this body, 
we made it very difficult to get a long-term extension enacted. I 
regret that.
  I wish Members would listen to some of the experts in this field. We 
just got a letter from David Hage from the Star Tribune, who has 
written a book titled, ``Reforming Welfare By Rewarding Work.'' That is 
exactly what we want to do. He talks about the Minnesota example. Let 
me just quote from Mr. Hage, if I might:
  ``In a recent conference call with journalists, Assistant Health and 
Human Services Secretary, Wade Horn, said the next steps in welfare 
reform

[[Page H1685]]

should be reducing poverty and improving the well-being of families and 
children.
  ``Yet the White House and House proposals for TANF reauthorization 
would do little to accomplish these goals and might in fact subvert 
them.''
  Then he goes on to tell why the prescriptive nature of the bill that 
was passed by the House makes it difficult for States to adopt the type 
of programs necessary so that families can get the skills they need, 
the education they need, the training they need, so they can not only 
get a job but they can move up the economic ladder of success. That is 
what TANF reauthorization should be about. It should not be moving 
backwards to penalize people and to make it difficult for them to be 
able to succeed and, worse than that, making it very difficult for our 
States to comply with our laws without spending a lot more money, and 
not the way they think it is best to spend that money.
  Madam Speaker, I support this bill because we need to continue this 
program; but as I have said, I think this is my sixth time on the floor 
on a temporary extension during the last year and a half. Once again 
speaking for the Members on this side of the aisle, we are ready to sit 
down today to work out a true bipartisan multi-year TANF 
reauthorization bill and to consider the issues so that we can really 
improve our welfare system, help our States and deal with those 
families that need our help today. If the leadership on the other side 
is willing to do that, we would not have to be doing these short-term 
extensions. We could, in fact, be voting on not only in this body but 
we could be sending to the President a good multi-year reauthorization 
of the TANF programs to help American families get out of poverty and 
find real employment.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Levin), a senior member of the committee who was very instrumental in 
the 1996 TANF legislation.
  (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, the gentleman from Maryland as usual has 
put his finger on what the issue is here, that is, whether we want to 
move forward with welfare reform or we want to move backwards.
  The problem with the approach taken by the Republican majority here 
has been, instead of trying to reach out and move welfare reform to 
another stage, they have instead decided, on a very partisan basis 
essentially, to craft their own bill that really moves this backwards.
  Let me just indicate why. The gentleman from Maryland has pointed out 
a number of ways. We need to accentuate this. The gentleman from 
California says we have to help families who are still on welfare, but 
the child care provision in their bill is very, very inadequate. The 
literature is not complete, we do not have all the data, but it is very 
clear that one of the reasons welfare reform has worked is because 
there has been considerable money set aside for child care. Indeed, 
President Clinton, who brought this issue to the fore many years ago, 
vetoed bills originally passed in this House because there was 
inadequate money for child care. Eventually this House, on a bipartisan 
basis, stood up and was counted on this issue; and we passed many, many 
more moneys for child care and eventually President Clinton signed the 
bill.
  The contrast between the House and the Senate on child care moneys is 
very striking. The gentleman from Maryland mentioned that the Senate 
has now passed a $6 billion proposal, and I think it was a vote 
overwhelmingly in favor, while the gentleman from California and others 
get up here and defend a child care provision in the bill that was 
passed here on a partisan basis that is minor compared to what is 
needed.
  Health care is another problem. If we want to help families move off 
welfare, we should provide adequate health care coverage during the 
transition period. The Republican majority here has absolutely refused 
to step up to the plate on transitional Medicaid. Absolutely refused.
  And then as to the families on welfare, the gentleman from California 
mentioned they are moving out of poverty. An essential ingredient of 
that is some training so people are trained to be able to move up the 
economic ladder. But, instead, what they did in their bill was 
essentially to take out the training element as one of the ingredients 
of a successful effort by people on welfare.
  Those are just three of the reasons. By the way, this training aspect 
is so vital, and I think the Republican majority in the House and the 
President of the United States have failed to understand, to face up to 
this fact: poverty is increasing in the United States of America under 
their domain. It is increasing. We do not have all the figures; but it 
is clear, I think, that many of those still in poverty are people who 
have moved off of welfare, who have not had the adequate training to be 
able to move up the ladder and still remain in minimum wage jobs. By 
the way, they refuse to raise the minimum wage, too.
  We need to extend the present system, but we also need to move on to 
the second phase of welfare reform. I am hopeful if there is a bill 
that passes the Senate that there can then be a conference and you will 
not on the Republican House majority side be so recalcitrant and insist 
on taking good elements out of welfare reform, one, and also refuse to 
put some added ingredients into welfare reform, two.
  You have stonewalled. It is not the Senate. They are now moving 
ahead. The question is whether you are going to be willing to be a 
partner with them and with Democrats in moving this ahead instead of 
moving backwards. Partisanship in welfare reform is a dead end. I hope 
you get off it and we can move as we did many years ago on a bipartisan 
basis and make a further improvement so people who are now on welfare 
indeed can move off it, can have the training, can have the child care, 
can have the health care so they and their kids can move out of 
poverty.
  Mr. HERGER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Just in response, the gentleman mentioned that the bill was 
inadequate in terms of funding. I would like to remind the gentleman to 
consider that the States have been offered some $2 billion more in 
child care, that is in our bill, and that is on top of the $170 billion 
of State and Federal welfare/child care funds currently available over 
the next 5 years. Also, there is some $4 billion in TANF surplus that 
is available. I might also mention that another comment was made that 
there were unfunded mandates. The fact is that in this legislation, 
there are no unfunded mandates in H.R. 4.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CARDIN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds just to respond 
to the gentleman from California to point out that the only new money 
in this bill that passed this body, the only new money is some small 
dollars in regards to marriage promotion and $1 billion guaranteed for 
child care. That will not even keep up with the current purchasing 
power, let alone provide the needed resources to deal with the new work 
requirements. In my own State of Maryland, we have frozen new 
enrollments into child care because of a lack of resources.
  Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Woolsey), who has been one of the leaders in this 
body on welfare reform, children's issues, and family issues.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of S. 2231 because to 
do anything else would be irresponsible. We must continue assistance to 
those who need help getting back on their feet, and we must continue 
that assistance through the TANF program. But, Madam Speaker, we can do 
much better.
  I speak from whence I came. I know about welfare. I lived it. Over 30 
years ago as a young mother with three children, they were aged 1, 3, 
and 5 years old, my husband left us. I immediately went to work full 
time; but to keep it all together, I went on welfare, aid for dependent 
children, while I continued my full-time work so that my children could 
have the health care and the child care that they needed.

                              {time}  1345

  Because I was educated, because I had good job skills and good job 
experience, because I was healthy and my

[[Page H1686]]

children were healthy, lucky me, and the Members know I was assertive, 
eventually, I worked my way out of poverty. But it would have been 
almost impossible without the help of the Federal Government; and, 
believe me, I think that others should have the same opportunities that 
I did.
  I know that we need to make education and training count as work 
activity for welfare recipients so mothers will have access to 
educational opportunities and job training to give them the skills they 
need so that they can get jobs that pay a livable wage, so that they 
can actually take care of their families. I know that quality child 
care, child care that actually includes infant and weekend and evening 
work, helps parents keep their jobs so that they can become self-
sufficient and that these programs are essential to any welfare plan to 
give support to families in need.
  Madam Speaker, as Congress continues to debate welfare 
reauthorization, we have to remember that the goal of welfare is to 
move women and their families from welfare to self-sufficiency, not 
from welfare to poverty as it is now. Therefore, we in this body must 
do a lot more to make this a true bipartisan bill so that families can 
get the real help that they need. In the meantime, I urge my colleagues 
to join me in continuing under S. 2231 what is going on now, so that we 
can improve the safety net for families in need.
  Mr. CARDIN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, the very first words in the TANF program are: ``The 
purpose of this part is to increase the flexibility of the States . . . 
'' The law then highlights several purposes such as helping needy 
families and promoting work.
  My concern is that the legislation that passed this body takes a 
major step backwards in our stated goal of giving State flexibility.
  The House bill reduces State flexibility on providing education and 
training by removing it from a core work activity. This is an issue for 
the States to decide, but, no, in our legislation we make it a Federal 
issue.
  The House bill reduces States' flexibility in addressing the 
individual needs of welfare recipients by doubling the number of 
required work hours for mothers with children under the age of 6 
required in the legislation that passed this body. This should be up to 
the States to make those judgments. That is what State flexibility is 
about.
  The House bill reduces the flexibility of States to design programs 
that focus on moving people from welfare to work by increasing work 
participation rates without providing an employment credit for those 
individuals who leave welfare for a wage-paying job. Once again, the 
States should be able to tailor their own programs to meet their needs. 
That was the commitment we made in 1996.
  And the House bill reduces State flexibility by imposing full 
sanctions, not giving States the opportunity to have their own 
sanctions system, once again taking away flexibility from the States. 
That is not what we should be doing.
  The 1996 welfare reform worked because we trusted our States, we gave 
them the tools, and they developed programs that made sense to get 
people off of welfare and to get people employed. That is what we need 
to do again in the next chapter of welfare reform by not only 
empowering our States but making it easier for them to get families out 
of poverty.
  I urge my colleagues to support this legislation so that we can 
continue the current program, but I also urge my colleagues, 
particularly on the other side of the aisle, to sit down with us and 
let us work out a sensible bipartisan bill that really will continue 
the commitment we made in 1996 to our families of America and to our 
States, giving the States the resources and the flexibility to get the 
job done.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HERGER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The comment was made that somehow we are not funding as much or 
funding is less. Not only is this not accurate, the exact opposite in 
fact is the truth. In terms of case welfare, child care funds available 
per person on welfare, there is twice as much funding available today 
as there was in 1996 because the rolls have been cut in half and yet 
the funding has remained constant.
  For example, in 1996 the average amount of money available per 
welfare family was about $7,000. Today, the average amount available 
for each family is $16,000, from $7,000 to $16,000, that is available.
  Madam Speaker, again, as I have said during prior extension debates, 
it is my sincere hope that this will be the final extension needed and 
that the next 3 months will result in a final agreement that will help 
millions more families achieve independence and a brighter future. I 
urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of S. 2231, but I 
am discouraged that we find ourselves needing to pass this legislation.
  The bill before us today will extend the Federal welfare law, the 
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program, or TANF, for another 3 
months. This is the sixth time we have come to the floor to extend this 
program since its authorization expired in September 2002.
  The 1996 welfare reform law is one of the most successful social 
policy initiatives in recent memory. However, we know there is more 
work to be done. A majority of TANF recipients--approximately 60 
percent--still are not working for benefits.
  To put even more Americans on the path to self-sufficiency and 
independence, the House passed H.R. 4 in February 2003. H.R. 4 
strengthens current work requirements by asking welfare recipients to 
engage in work-related activities for 40 hours a week--16 of which 
could be in education, job training, or other constructive activities 
as defined by States.
  The House-passed bill would ensure that no needy family would fall 
through the cracks. H.R. 4 creates a policy of universal engagement so 
that all families receiving welfare benefits must be in work or other 
activities leading to self-sufficiency. The House reauthorization 
measure also gradually increases to 70 percent the work participation 
rate required by States.
  Moreover, the House reauthorization bill makes significant 
improvements to the Child Care and Development Block Grant. It adds $1 
billion in discretionary funding to the program over 5 years and 
requires States to devote more money to improving child care quality. 
These provisions will ensure that low-income parents have access to 
safe, quality child care as they move into work.
  This week the other body is considering full welfare reauthorization. 
I am encouraged that the other body may soon pass its welfare 
reauthorization bill, and hope we will be able to resolve our 
differences quickly in a conference committee.
  The millions of Americans still seeking to move off of the welfare 
rolls deserve no less. Those continuing to struggle to attain self-
sufficiency need the assistance that H.R. 4 would provide.
  While I hope this will be the last extension of current law we must 
pass, I urge my colleagues to support the bill before us today.
  Mr. HERGER. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Biggert). The question is on the motion 
offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger) that the House 
suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill, S. 2231.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor 
thereof) the rules were suspended and the Senate bill was passed.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________