[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.

                          ____________________