[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 87 (Tuesday, June 22, 2004)]
[House]
[Pages H4665-H4669]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
TANF AND RELATED PROGRAMS CONTINUATION ACT OF 2004
Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
bill (H.R. 4589) to reauthorize the Temporary Assistance for Needy
Families block grant program through September 30, 2004, and for other
purposes.
The Clerk read as follows:
H.R. 4589
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 ``TANF and Related Programs
Continuation Act of 2004''.
SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF THE TEMPORARY ASSISTANCE FOR NEEDY
FAMILIES BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM THROUGH SEPTEMBER
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 September 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 fourth quarter of
fiscal year 2004 at the level provided for such activities
through the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2002.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 403(a)(3)(H)(ii) of the
Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 603(a)(3)(H)(ii)) is amended
by striking ``June 30'' and inserting ``September 30''.
SEC. 3. EXTENSION OF THE NATIONAL RANDOM SAMPLE STUDY OF
CHILD WELFARE AND CHILD WELFARE WAIVER
AUTHORITY THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 2004.
Activities authorized by sections 429A and 1130(a) of the
Social Security Act shall continue through September 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
fourth quarter of fiscal year 2004 at the level provided for
such activities through the fourth 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. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, well, here we go again, another 3 months, another
extension of welfare programs. Today, the House will approve the
seventh straight extension of welfare programs since September 2002.
Since then, the number of Americans collecting welfare has continued to
track downward. Fewer people are dependent on welfare checks, which is
good. That follows historic declines in welfare caseloads from 1996
through 2001 as pro-work reforms cut caseloads in half and more than 2
million children left poverty, but we want to do much much more.
We want more welfare recipients to prepare for work, which is the
true path off welfare. We want to help more parents marry or stay
married, which helps them and helps their children. We want to help
more parents get ready for full-time work, which is what it takes to
lift families out of poverty. We want to provide more child care so
more parents can go to work, knowing their children are cared for and
safe.
For the past 2 years, we wanted to do all of those things. In fact,
the House passed legislation to do all of that and more, twice. In both
2002 and 2003, the House passed comprehensive welfare bills to
strengthen the historic 1996 welfare law for years to come. More low-
income families would have gotten more help and more would have left
welfare for the workforce; but instead, we have waited and waited and
waited some more.
For the past 2 years, we have waited on the other body to pass its
version of a real welfare bill. For a time this spring it looked like
the other body would pass a bill to make available these additional
resources for low-income families. That did not happen, and so we are
here waiting some more.
Some in this town apparently think by delaying and obstructing the
legislative process they will get their way in the end. I wish them
luck. I think they are wrong, and low-income families will continue to
pay the price for their obstructionism.
I am a fiscal conservative. I am for less government spending, not
more. I think that expands the bounds of freedom and opportunity, but I
am also a realist. I have seen how welfare reform has lifted literally
millions of families out of dependence.
Welfare reform has saved taxpayers money, but it has not been free.
It will not be free in the future. The House-passed welfare bill
includes reforms and resources needed to help more low-income parents
go to work. The families in need will not get a dime of the additional
help we included in the House-passed bill unless we can reach final
agreement on a real reform bill.
As time passes, budget pressures will only squeeze tighter and
tighter, and the additional help we have offered will become only
harder to come by.
Given that fact, and the fact we offer to do so much more, give much
more to help needy families, it is a tragedy we are back here today
with yet another short-term extension that does not give States the
certainty they need to best plan for the future.
Mr. Speaker, I wish the legislation before us today were not needed,
but we do need to pass this bill. I urge support for this bill, which
buys us another 3 months in the hopes the other body will finally act
on a broader welfare reform bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the remainder of my time.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I support this legislation to extend the Temporary
Assistance for Needy Families, or TANF, program for the next 3 months.
The bill will allow our States to continue to provide assistance to
struggling families while also providing a variety of services to help
people leave welfare for employment.
Additionally, this legislation would extend a number of important
related programs, including transitional Medicaid which provides
continued health care coverage for people leaving the welfare rolls to
go to work.
Like the previous six welfare extensions passed by Congress over the
last 2 years, this bill is a simple extension of current law. It does
not include any of the controversial policy changes to the underlying
program which were incorporated in the legislation that passed this
body; and for not including those controversial provisions, I commend
my friends on the other side of the aisle.
While I support this temporary extension, I wish we were here today,
as the chairman of our subcommittee has said, to pass a long-term bill
to help our States plan future efforts to move individuals from welfare
to work. I, however, disagree with my subcommittee chairman in that the
legislation that passed this body, in my view, and I think in the view
of the experts in this area, makes it more difficult for us to
accomplish the goal of a long-term extension of the welfare program.
The House-passed welfare bill was denounced by Governors, mayors,
State welfare administrators, and poverty experts as an inflexible,
unfunded mandate. The divisive debate instigated by the legislation has
stymied a goal that should be bipartisan, extending the 1996 welfare
reform law.
[[Page H4666]]
We are now on the seventh temporary extension of TANF funding. This
process leaves the States uncertain about the future Federal funding
levels and policy requirements, which in turn makes long-term or even
intermediate range planning increasingly difficult for the State
welfare programs.
Given this problem and the apparent deadlock on a broad
reauthorization bill, the time is coming for Congress to pass a long-
term continuation of TANF. For example, after this next extension
expires at the end of September, Congress could extend the current law
for 5 years. Mr. Speaker, considering how we on both sides of the aisle
have hailed the success of the 1996 law, it is surprising to me why it
is so difficult for us to at least use that as the building block,
rather than as an area to impose new requirements on our States that
are not funded by additional resources.
If we did extend the current law for 5 years, we could use that as a
stepping-stone to debate other proposed reforms separately. At the very
least, this step would ensure the continuation of a program that many
of us have declared a success.
In the meantime, Mr. Speaker, I support the temporary extension of
the welfare-related funding provided by the legislation currently
before us. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw), a member of the Committee on Ways
and Means, also the former chairman of the Subcommittee on Human
Resources, where this historic legislation originally was enacted in
1996.
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr.
Herger) for yielding me this time this morning.
In 1996, this House embarked, I think, upon a huge social experiment.
We, for the first time in decades, had changed the way or moved away,
from the policy of rewarding people not to work, to have kids and not
to marry. We changed the world; and as a result of that bill, and I
remember it so well, we passed it three times out of here and it was
vetoed twice by President Clinton, but on the third time, much to his
credit, he came on television, right before the vote, I was watching it
in the cloak room, and announced that he was going to sign the bill. As
a result, we got good bipartisan support, and that was tremendously
important; and it was important because it was a situation and it set
the record really straight as far as the Congress of what we were
trying to do which is to help people out of poverty, to help people
take control of their lives, take control of their families, not to be
dependent on some huge massive welfare that was suffocating them.
We found there were people living in neighborhoods where nobody in
the entire neighborhood worked, and the only people that they would
ever see that were making a dollar were out in the street selling
drugs. We have changed that.
This social experiment has been, I think, one of the greatest steps
forward since I have been in the Congress; and I am very, very proud to
have been a part of it.
But the real champion of welfare reform has been the welfare mothers,
those that get up in the morning, get their kids dressed and ready for
school, see them off to school or take them to school, then go to work
and then reverse that process in the afternoon to pick them up from
child care and bring them home, take care of them, fix their meals, do
their homework, and then start it all over again the next day. These
are the champions of welfare.
Yet, in February of 2003, this House, with a heavy Republican vote
and 11 Democrats joining with us, put a long-term extension of welfare
reform into place.
{time} 1200
We are now waiting and waiting and waiting for the Senate to take
action on this particular bill, and it is frustrating. We have had now
five or six extensions, short-term extensions, and we are not getting
to the meat of the nut, and that is that we need to set this in law
permanently.
But this is something Congress should be very proud of. Both
political parties should be very proud of what we have done and what we
have accomplished. We have given these people a life. We have given
them a life. And this is tremendously important. There were so many
back then, when we passed welfare reform, that said we were going to
have kids sleeping on the grates. They are not.
We have taken over 2 million kids out of poverty. We have cut the
rolls in half and people are working. For once, these welfare moms are
now role models for their kids. They have shown that with our just
having a little bit of faith in the human spirit, they can become a
family and they can become a role model for their kids. We heard this
in testimony before the Subcommittee on Human Resources that I once
chaired.
So I certainly support this short-term extension until September. I
wish we were here working on a conference report back from the Senate,
but that is not to be. And because of their rules, they have got this
thing bottled up over there. But I would hope that we could get this
thing moving and that we could get it back here on the floor.
We were very, very careful, and have all through this entire debate
been very, very careful to be sure that we have child care in place,
that we do not take away the Medicaid that is so important to so many
of these people, and other benefits that we hold up so that these
people do not have to have a fear of coming off of welfare and going to
work.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds mainly to comment
on the comments of my friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw), in
that I am one of those Democrats who supported the bill in 1996. It was
a bipartisan bill. It was a good bill and it did move us forward. What
is surprising to me is why the legislation that passed this body is so
radically different, so prescriptive at the Federal level as to what
the States must do; taking away the flexibility, putting in more
mandates, and not providing the funds necessary in order to carry out
the new responsibilities.
I am surprised that we moved in that new direction when we were
moving, I think, in the right direction, and all we needed to do was
fine-tune the 1996 law.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California
(Ms. Woolsey).
(Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4589 as an
interim continuity of assistance to those who need help getting back on
their feet. I think you all know I was one of ``these'' people 30 years
ago when, as a young mother with three children, ages 1, 3 and 5, my
husband left us. I was working full-time, but to get my children the
health care, the child care they needed, even though I was employed, I
turned to welfare to make up the difference in my income. Eventually, I
worked my way out of poverty, got a college degree, started my own
company, and now I am a Member of Congress. I believe others should
have the same opportunities that I had.
Mr. Speaker, as Congress continues to debate welfare reauthorization,
we have to remember that our goal must be to move women and their
families from welfare to self-sufficiency, preventing the ongoing
pattern of welfare to poverty. That is why I support making States
accountable for helping families become self-sufficient by creating a
standard to determine just how much a family needs to survive without
public assistance in any particular State. That is why I want mothers
to have access to educational opportunities and job training, to give
them the skills they need for jobs that pay a livable wage. And that is
why I know how important it is to provide quality child care, including
care for infants and care for parents who work weekends and evenings.
In my personal situation, my children had 13 different child care
situations the first year that I went to work. That was the worst year
in our lives. And today, 35 years later, quality accessible, affordable
child care, particularly for low-income women reentering the workforce,
is almost vacant.
Mr. Speaker, States and families need to know that these welfare
extensions are going to last longer than 3
[[Page H4667]]
months. States need to plan their budgets and families need to know
what they can count on. That is why we need a clean, multiyear
extension that ensures continued, accessible welfare services, an
extension that would do no harm to our Nation's poorest families while
preserving the services that they have now and that they need.
The base bill that the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger) refers
to does not accomplish this, and the other body knows it. Mr. Speaker,
nothing is more important than helping our families get out of poverty
and to become, on their own, self-sustaining and independent.
So I urge my colleagues to join me today in supporting the temporary
relief through H.R. 4589 until the time we can do it right.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield 9 minutes to
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), a senior member of the
Committee on Ways and Means.
(Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I favor this legislation. I want, though, the
record to be clear as to why we are where we are today.
Way back, it seems like many years ago, we passed welfare reform. It
was not an easy journey. There were differences of opinion. President
Clinton had urged that we reform welfare. There were differing views as
to how to do that. We did work on a bipartisan basis. It was not easy.
President Clinton vetoed, in essence, the first two because of
inadequate attention to child care and to health care, and that
pressured us to continue to find a bipartisan answer.
And I mean bipartisan in the sense that there was strong adequate
support from both sides of the aisle, even though there remained some
differences. And it became law. And I think the record is that it
basically worked. It was a positive step forward. It worked in the
sense that many, many millions of people moved off of welfare into
work. And that was good for them, it was good for their families, and
it was really good for the country.
However, the fact remained, and we do not have all the data, in part
because the Congress did not provide enough money to follow this,
despite our efforts to do so, but I think the data are pretty clear
that while millions moved off of welfare, a very substantial number of
them, while working, remained in poverty. So the question became: What
next with welfare reform? How do we make it even more effective for the
people on welfare who want to move off? How do we make it even more
effective for their families?
Here, there was a misstep. And the gentleman from Maryland (Mr.
Cardin) has painted that misstep, and others of us who have joined him
in this. There were two problems: Number one, substantively, instead of
moving on into the next phase of welfare reform so that people who move
from welfare to work would move up the ladder, would move out of
poverty, there was, instead, a proposal that did not really help people
do that; inadequate attention to child care and really inadequate
attention to transitional health care through Medicaid.
There was, instead, as the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) has
described, a kind of tying the hands of the States, instead of
continuing to give them the flexibility that helped people move from
welfare to work. As a result, the majority of the State directors in
the welfare field opposed what was being suggested by the majority
here.
So I think substantively there was some real problems with it. There
also was a second flaw, and that was a failure to try to work this out
in a bipartisan way. And that became typical, or was typical of the way
the Republican majority in the House looked at matters. It was not only
welfare reform, but virtually everything else. Instead of sitting down
with those of us who wanted to work with them on the subcommittee and
on the full committee, essentially the majority crafted its bill, found
a small number of Democrats, very small, to support it, and did not
look for the bipartisan basis that was true of the original Act.
And so it went over to the Senate. It got off on the wrong foot here.
And so what has the answer been? Blame the Senate, though it is
controlled by the same party as controls this House. But there were
differing views in the Senate, including among Republicans, some of
whom we had worked with when they were in the House before, and some of
the Democrats.
Well, anyway, so there has been this stymie of the process and here
we are again with a short-term extension. It is better, obviously, than
nothing, and I think a short-term extension is better than if the
Senate had simply adopted the House bill, which it never was going to
do.
So I really want to join with the gentleman from Maryland and with
others to say to our colleagues on the Republican side, maybe it is not
too late to go back and try to do this together. If you fail to do so,
we will have missed the chance to have gone to welfare reform phase
two. I cannot emphasize how important it is for us to undertake that
effort, because welfare reform did help people move from welfare to
work. But as I said, too many of them remain in poverty. People are
working, but they have joined the working poor. And we can help them
who want to do better. That is our challenge, and that is where the
House majority has failed.
So let us be bipartisan as best we can today by supporting the
extension, but let us do even better. Go back and see if we can write a
bill that can pass this House on a bipartisan basis, go over to the
Senate so it can work on a bipartisan basis, and we can have further
meaningful welfare reform in our country.
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LEVIN. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I say to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Levin), that in March, reading from the gentleman's own statement, he
says, ``You have stonewalled. It is not the Senate. They are now moving
ahead.''
They are moving ahead? You asked for bipartisan support. You asked
for working together. We do not write the bills in the Senate. Let them
write the bill, pass a bill, send it back, and we will get it into
conference. What is everyone afraid of?
Mr. LEVIN. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, no one is afraid of
anything. Here is the problem. You started on the wrong foot here. You
started with a bill that the States opposed. You did not sit down with
us and try to work out these issues. And so, essentially, you threw it
to the Senate to try to do so.
At some point, I thought that the Senate might be able to overcome
the wrong start that was made here. There was no, zero, excuse for the
failure to sit down with us, those of us who had worked together in
1995 and 1996 and see how we would shape a welfare reform bill that
moved this process ahead. Instead, you got the States into total
turmoil. Most of the directors opposed your bill. Governors came in and
said that you were tying their hands.
So, Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Shaw), with due respect, that is the answer. The House has used the
process, passed something that is far out and then left it to the
Senate.
{time} 1215
Do it right here in the first place.
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LEVIN. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. SHAW. What is it the gentleman has a problem with? And then be
very specific. We put $4 billion additional in child care. I know he is
for that. We have full TANF funding for the next 5 years. He should be
in favor of that. Supplemental grants. Contingency funds for States
with increased need.
Mr. LEVIN. Let me take back my time. The gentleman from Maryland (Mr.
Cardin) and the rest of us spelled out the problems with the bill:
inadequate child care moneys, and that is a problem over in the Senate;
allowing waivers, essentially saying to Washington, you will decree the
nature of welfare reform instead of leaving it to the States.
Those were the problems. And also having prescriptive provisions
regarding hours of work that the States opposed, preventing States,
including my State of Michigan under John Engler, to continue the
process that they had started. They would have canceled out
[[Page H4668]]
that State discretion. That was the trouble.
Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Shaw).
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I would have to revise the memory of the other
side. We wanted to work with the Democrats all through this process of
writing this bill. The gentleman from Michigan was very much involved
in that at that time. They chose not to. In committee they voted
against the bill, even the one that eventually passed. When it came to
the floor, they voted against the bill, even the one that eventually
passed. It was not until we got to the conference and the President put
his force behind this bill that they came aboard. I do not know where
all of this bipartisan stuff came from, but it certainly did not come
out of the committee.
I think we need to be straight on history here. The Republicans led
the way on welfare reform. Period. Even though the President signed it
on August 22, 1996, much to his credit. I will give him credit, also,
as being very, very forward looking when he was Governor of the State
of Arkansas, but then he retreated under the pressure of the Democrat
leadership here in the House; and it was not until right before the
election in August that he finally conceded that he would sign the
bill, and we sent it to him, and he had a big ceremony and everybody
was there and everybody took credit for it.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Levin).
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Florida misdescribed 1995
and 1996. I do not think it does any credit for him to describe it that
way. There was a major effort, there were differences; but we worked
together. There were differences. We worked together on a bipartisan
basis. He misdescribed President Clinton's position, also, who, before
he became President, talked about reform of welfare and who worked as
President to make sure it happened in the right way.
Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Shaw).
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman from Michigan, I
did not misstate it. I gave President Clinton full credit. As Governor
Clinton he was ahead of his time. But he pulled back as soon as he got
here. Something happens to folks when they come here to Washington. We
get good Democrat Governors from the South, they come up here and all
of a sudden they cave to their majority leaders here in the House of
Representatives. It is a fact of life. That is exactly what happened.
But I do give Governor Clinton a lot of credit. And then finally in
1996, August of 1996, I give him credit for having signed the bill. I
have been very careful to do that. We looked to the Governors for
flexibility. We looked to the Governors for leadership. They were on
the front line of welfare reform long before the Federal Government
came along. We learned a lot from the Governors throughout this
country, Democrat and Republican, including my own Governor Chiles, we
worked with him, Engler, a bunch of them. We had some wonderful
Governors that we worked with, we talked to, and we went to for advice.
It was up to them to run these programs, and we wanted to be sure that
we were sending something to them that was quite doable.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Davis).
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. I thank the gentleman from Maryland for
yielding me this time. I also agree that Governor Clinton, and I grew
up in the State of Arkansas, did an outstanding job as Governor of the
State of Arkansas. But I really rise to join with all of those who have
expressed support for extension of TANF. Like all of those who have
spoken before me, I would have hoped that we were not talking about
extension, but that we were talking about permanent legislation.
I represent a district that includes more than 80 percent of the
public housing in the city of Chicago, and so there is no doubt about
the tremendous need for assistance to needy families. But I also think
that assistance has to be strong on child care, that people must know
that they have access to opportunity for their children to be cared for
them while they are in school or while they are at work.
I hear a great deal about making sure for women. We also have to make
sure that there are training opportunities for men. I represent a
district that has lost more than 120,000 good-paying manufacturing jobs
over the last 40 years. Many of the jobs that men in those communities
expected to be able to get no longer exist. In order for them to be
able to get off welfare and not participate in what we call the
``underground economy,'' they need job training, they need skills, they
need development, they need the opportunity to believe that there are
careers waiting for them and available to them.
I would urge that we do come together in a bipartisan way and hammer
out a bill that can become permanent so that those individuals who are
currently in lurches can know that there are opportunities to move out,
to move up, and to move ahead.
Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson), a former chairman of the Subcommittee on
Human Resources.
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me this time, and I rise in strong support of this
legislation. Welfare reform has been simply an extraordinary success.
Rarely has this United States Congress taken an action that has meant
so much in people's lives, that has produced so much good in people's
lives. Under our welfare bill today, we have $51 billion available for
services to families. We used to have under the old program $5 billion.
That is because we kept the money constant while the number of cases
has dropped by half, so all that money is there for services. Now it is
needed.
We have fought hard to keep that money flat. Why? Because we not only
want the money to pay day care while you are preparing for work, but as
you make that transition.
But there are some other statistics that bespeak the extraordinary
human success of welfare reform. Black poverty among children living
with one parent is at its lowest levels historically. That means there
are fewer black children living with single parents in poverty than has
happened in decades. I am proud of that. What it tells us is that black
women once given the opportunity for training and work are succeeding
and they are doing better and their children are doing better.
I support this extension. I am pleased with its parts, particularly
the day care dollars, but I do wish that the Senate had taken up the
reauthorization that we passed here on the House floor because it goes
further. It begins looking at careers. How do we help women, primarily
women, (although there are some men who are single parents and on
welfare), how do we help those folks who are trapped in that situation
as a result of a series of problems, not only think about how to go to
work and how to meet the emotional needs of their children but how to
go to work on the first rung of a career ladder. Then every year you
move up, every year your salary progresses, every year you learn more,
do more, take responsibility and get a greater reward in the form of a
higher salary. So those, primarily women, can be not only role models
for their children but successful economic and emotional parents.
In the new bill that passed this House, we drove the work requirement
up from 20 to 24 hours a week. By doing that, we made clear that you
needed to work 3 full-time days, but you were accountable for a 40-
hour-a-week plan. We counted drug treatment as work under that plan. We
counted mental health counseling as work under that plan. States could
even count taking care of your children after school as work under that
plan because each plan could be individualized.
But the sum and substance of it was that it structured that
transition off welfare so that you could go to school 2 days a week,
counting that as work, finishing up your degree while you are working 3
days a week, and you could create for yourself truly any future you
wanted because mental health, drug treatment, those kinds of problems,
if you are addressing them aggressively, could be counted as work,
which they are; and education combined with work could be also counted.
[[Page H4669]]
We have a next step to take; and if the other body will work on
reauthorization, we can move forward. But please vote ``yes'' on this
extension today.
Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
We have heard a great deal from the other side indicating that
evidently when this bill originally came through, the historic 1996
legislation, that it was bipartisan. Yet we have heard the chairman
that was chairman of the committee during that time indicate just the
opposite, and I believe that the record certainly indicates that. The
other side, the other party, opposed this legislation in committee and
opposed it on the floor when it was voted on. It did that three times.
It overwhelmingly opposed it. It was not until President Clinton
finally said he was going to support it that there was finally, for
basically the first time, any support from the other side. I think the
record should show that to be the case.
Another point is when all we do is extend this legislation and do not
go with H.R. 4, what we are doing is denying an additional $4 billion
for child care over the next 5 years. There is no assurance of full
TANF funding for the next 5 years. In the area of marriage and
families, there will be no additional $1.5 billion targeted to
promoting healthy marriages, no added State flexibility to count
spending on strengthening families. It goes on and on on what we will
be denying ourselves. It also denies the added flexibility to spend an
additional $4 billion in unspent prior TANF funds.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The gentleman from Maryland is
recognized for 1\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I think the comparison to how we proceeded
in 1996 versus how we have proceeded in the year 2002, 2003, and 2004
is very instructive. In 1996, we had a President who ran for the
Presidency saying that he would end welfare as we know it. He
established three parameters for a new welfare bill, which were
flexibility to our States, accountability, and resources. In 1996 in a
bipartisan manner, we passed welfare reform with the support of our
national Governors. In 2002 and 2003 and 2004, this body has passed
legislation in a very partisan manner, without the support of our
national Governors, for good reason.
The three pillars on which welfare reform was built in 1996 which has
gotten such praise from both sides of the aisle are severely
compromised by the legislation that passed this body.
{time} 1230
First, on flexibility to the States, we take it away in the bill that
we passed. We cannot use vocational education as the States would like
to do, and I can name example after example.
On accountability, we have make shiftwork rather than real jobs,
people moving up the economic ladder in the legislation that passed
this body. And in resources we provide $1 billion only in new child
care that is mandatory, even though the estimates are that the mandates
in this bill will cost our States an additional $11 billion, an
unfunded mandate.
So, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this extension
because it is clean. It has none of those extraneous issues in it. It
extends the 1996 law for 3 additional months. And then I hope we will
get back to working together as Democrats and Republicans for a long-
term extension that builds on the success of 1996.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I wish the legislation before us today were not needed. But we do
need to pass this bill. That is the only way we can have any hope of
reaching agreement this year on ways to better assist low-income
Americans in going to work and supporting their families.
I am pleased that the House has taken action on that important goal
and look forward to defending our broader welfare reauthorization bill,
H.R. 4, in conference. It is a good bill which promotes stronger
families, healthy marriage, and more involvement by fathers in their
children's lives, which all would improve child well-being. H.R. 4 also
expects and supports more work in exchange for welfare benefits. That
is what made the 1996 welfare reform so successful at lifting families
off of welfare and out of poverty and dependence.
It is past time for additional commonsense measures to help the 2
million parents that remain on welfare today go to work and better
support their families.
Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, during the June 22, 2004 House debate on
extending welfare programs, Democrats suggested the process behind the
historic 1996 welfare reform law was far more bipartisan than today.
They need to recheck the facts.
The Republic reauthorization bills passed by the House in 2002 and
2003 were more ``bipartisan'' than two out of three welfare bills
considered in the mid-1990s.
During the 1990s, the vast majority of House Democrats OPPOSED
welfare reform at every stage in the legislative process. The single
exception was on the conference report that became the 1996 welfare
reform law, when 50 percent of Democrats voted for welfare reform--but
only after then-President Clinton announced he would sign the
Republican bill.
Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The question is on the motion
offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger) that the House
suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 4589.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor
thereof) the rules were suspended and the bill was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________