[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 120 (Wednesday, September 29, 2004)]
[House]
[Pages H7786-H7790]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
WELFARE REFORM EXTENSION ACT, PART VIII
Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
bill (H.R. 5149) to reauthorize the Temporary Assistance For Needy
Families block grant program through March 31, 2005, and for other
purposes.
The Clerk read as follows:
H.R. 5149
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, Part VIII''.
SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF THE TEMPORARY ASSISTANCE FOR NEEDY
FAMILIES BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM THROUGH MARCH 31,
2005.
(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 March 31, 2005,
in the manner authorized for fiscal year 2004,
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 second quarter of
fiscal year 2005 at the level provided for such activities
through the second quarter of fiscal year 2004.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Supplemental grants for population increases in certain
states.--Section 403(a)(3)(H)(ii) of the Social Security Act
(42 U.S.C. 603(a)(3)(H)(ii)) is amended by striking
``September 30, 2004'' and inserting ``March 31, 2005''.
(2) Contingency fund.--Section 403(b)(3)(C)(ii) of such Act
(42 U.S.C. 603(b)(3)(C)(ii)) is amended by striking ``2004''
and inserting ``2005''.
(3) Maintenance of effort.--Section 409(a)(7) of such Act
(42 U.S.C. 609(a)(7)) is amended--
(A) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``or 2005'' and
inserting ``2005, or 2006''; and
(B) in subparagraph (B)(ii), by striking ``2004'' and
inserting ``2005''.
SEC. 3. EXTENSION OF THE NATIONAL RANDOM SAMPLE STUDY OF
CHILD WELFARE AND CHILD WELFARE WAIVER
AUTHORITY THROUGH MARCH 31, 2005.
Activities authorized by sections 429A and 1130(a) of the
Social Security Act shall continue through March 31, 2005, in
the manner authorized for fiscal year 2004, 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 second quarter of
fiscal year 2005 at the level provided for such activities
through the second quarter of fiscal year 2004.
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,
and I rise today in support of H.R. 5149, the Welfare Reform Extension
Act, Part VIII. Why Part VIII? Because, unfortunately, we are here
again for the eighth time to pass short-term legislation that simply
continues the status quo for one of our most important social
assistance programs.
Mr. Speaker, this bill will continue funding for the Temporary
Assistance For Needy Families program and other related programs that
assist low-income families through March 31, 2005. I support this
legislation, but as I have said before and will say again today, I wish
we were here today to vote on comprehensive, forward-looking
legislation like the House has already approved and the President has
supported.
In his convention speech, President Bush said, ``Because family and
work are sources of stability and dignity, I support welfare reform
that strengthens family and requires work.'' In his call for more work
and stronger families, House Republicans stand with the President. That
is why we approved comprehensive welfare reform legislation twice in
the last 2 years, bills that promote more work and stronger families.
Unfortunately, the other body has not yet passed its own bill, and
many on the other side of the aisle continue to oppose more welfare
reforms designed to promote work and reduce dependence and poverty. Why
do some continue to ignore the three overwhelming lessons of the 1996
welfare reform law?
Lesson one: Real welfare reform means more work, less dependence, and
less poverty.
Lesson two: Real welfare reform means stronger families and more
healthy marriages, improving children's prospects for the future.
Lesson three: Real welfare reform frees up money from welfare checks
that is better spent on services like child care so families can
support themselves.
Perhaps one reason for the Democrats' opposition to more welfare
reform is that many on that side of the aisle opposed real welfare
reform all along. Since Congress started voting on welfare reform bills
in the mid-1990s, there have been eight major votes in this House.
During that time, Democrats collectively registered 1,392 votes against
welfare reform and only 188 votes for it. Eighty-eight percent of the
time congressional Democrats have opposed welfare reform bills. Half of
the Democrats even opposed the landmark 1996 welfare reform law. On
those same votes, an overwhelming 98 percent of the Republicans
supported welfare reform.
The debate in the past 2 years has been a reminder of what we saw in
the mid-1990s. Whatever their reasons, whether it is because they
oppose requiring a 40-hour work week of welfare recipients, like other
American families, or they oppose promoting stronger families and
healthy marriages, or insist on billions more in welfare spending
despite the reduced caseload, some have consistently opposed meaningful
updates to welfare reform. That is despite the obvious success of
welfare reform since 1996, and despite the obvious need to make
adjustments that would help the 2 million families still on welfare
achieve independence and better lives.
That is precisely what the legislation passed by the House twice, and
supported by the President, achieves. Those who oppose this legislation
also continue to ignore letters from the States urging forward movement
on a long-term authorization. Most recently, the State of New York sent
a letter to their Members in the other body and said, ``In these very
difficult budget cycles, delaying TANF reauthorization until the next
congressional session will certainly jeopardize the current block grant
funding level of $16.5 billion currently maintained in both the House
and Senate bills, and the Senate-passed $7 billion child care
[[Page H7787]]
amendment, which will annually support over 70,000 additional children
of New York's working parents.''
Mr. Speaker, now is the time to act, but today we are here to pass
yet another piece of short-term legislation that only maintains the
status quo. Unfortunately, this placeholder does exactly what the
States fear: places any reforms of additional funding in jeopardy.
Just yesterday, I heard from representatives from my own State of
California that continued extensions are standing in the way of more
welfare reform there. In short, States serving families on welfare are
unable to take the next steps to help them achieve independence when
there is not certainty of funding and clear goals are not established.
Passing the legislation before us today is a necessary step, since we
need to help States keep writing welfare checks to 2 million families.
What more we should be doing is obvious: expecting and supporting
more work instead of simply supporting more welfare checks. House
Republicans supported the President and have twice passed legislation
designed to help more parents know the dignity of drawing a paycheck
instead of a welfare check. Others who oppose that next step must
explain why they continue to block forward movement.
Mr. Speaker, before I conclude, I would like to mention an individual
who has been a tremendous asset in our efforts to reform these
programs, Ms. Vee Burke. As my statement reflects, Ms. Burke will be
retiring from the Congressional Research Service this year after more
than 30 years of service to the Members and their staff. Ms. Burke
joined CRS in 1970 as a recognized expert in the field of public
welfare. For more than three decades she has worked diligently and
professionally to assist us with our efforts. Her contributions and
knowledge of these programs have had a direct, positive impact on the
lives of millions of families and children. We will miss her and we
wish her well and thank her for her many years of service.
Mr. Speaker, today I'd like to pay tribute to Vee Burke, a policy
specialist in low-income programs at the Congressional Research
Service. Ms. Burke joined CRS more than 30 years ago as a recognized
expert in the field of public welfare. Much to the regret of many
Members of Congress and their staff, Ms. Burke will retire at the end
of November.
During her tenure at CRS, Ms. Burke became a leading expert on the
history, evolution, and interaction of welfare and public assistance
programs for low-income individuals and families. Over three decades,
Ms. Burke has played a role in all major congressional deliberations
affecting low-income individuals including the sweeping welfare reforms
enacted in 1996. Largely considered the most significant social policy
change in the past 60 years, Ms. Burke's in-depth knowledge of low-
income programs and her tireless efforts to assist Members and their
staff with this legislation were instrumental in our success.
Because of her stature as one of the leading authorities in the
country in this policy area, Ms. Burke's advice and assistance has been
regularly sought by the congressional committees with legislative
jurisdiction. She has offered expert testimony and authored numerous
reports that have served as the basis for legislation considered by
Congress. Her most unique contribution is the series of CRS reports
entitled Cash and Noncash Benefits for Persons with Limited Income that
she began in 1976. This initially annual and more recently biennial
report provides detailed and comprehensive information and statistics
on program rules, participation and spending for some 80 means-tested
Federal programs. Ms. Burke also has been a key contributor to the
House Ways and Means Committee Green Book since that report's inception
in 1981. Anyone who has used either of these resources understands the
amount of time and effort that such significant undertakings require,
but also appreciate the value and contributions they make to our
efforts to assist low-income families.
Ms. Burke is respected and admired by congressional staff and
Members, by her colleagues within CRS, and by the broader research and
policy community. Her contributions have had direct impact on the lives
of millions of Americans. I ask my colleagues to join me in thanking
her for her service and I wish her all the best in her future
endeavors.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, only in this body with Republican leadership can they
blame everyone but themselves. Even though they control this body, the
other body, and the White House, they seem to blame everybody else for
the failure to enact the reauthorization of welfare. Only in this body.
And then my distinguished chairman says that our States want us to
pass a long-term reauthorization. And the chairman is absolutely right,
but they do not want us to pass the bill that passed this body because
it would take us backwards in welfare rather than forward in reform.
I do appreciate the fact that the distinguished chairman at least had
the title of the bill accurately reflect what we are doing here, and
that is Welfare Reform Extension Act, Part VIII. Eight times in the
last 2\1/2\ years we have had short-term extensions because of the
failure of the Republican leadership to work for a bill that would
build on the work that was done in 1996 to give our States the
flexibility they need in order to implement welfare reform and give
them the resources they need. Instead, we have a bill that passed this
body that was anything but bipartisan. In fact, we never even had
hearings in our committee. We had a markup, but no hearings in this
Congress because of the failure to really reach out and try to do
something that could be enacted into law.
So, Mr. Speaker, I am terribly disappointed that we are again looking
at an extension. I support this bill, so my distinguished chairman and
I are in agreement, we do not want to see this program lapse. It is an
important program. It extends not only the TANF program but several
related programs, including child care and development block grants and
transitional Medicaid assistance for people leaving welfare to work.
I agree with those who say we should be doing more, much more. After
all, over the last 3 years, the number of Americans in poverty has
grown by 4.3 million. Last year alone, another 700,000 children fell
into poverty.
{time} 1630
Meanwhile, funding for several antipoverty programs, including TANF,
child care and social services block grant and job training through the
Workforce Investment Act have declined by $1.7 billion in real terms
over the last 3 years. In short, we are responding to rising poverty
with declining assistance.
Regrettably, the long-term welfare authorization plan put forward by
my Republican colleagues largely ignores this problem. Instead, they
have suggested poverty is rising because welfare recipients are not
working hard enough. However, this suggestion falls flat when we
consider one basic fact: The welfare rolls have continued to decline
even though our poverty rates have grown.
The problem is not the unwillingness of people on welfare to work;
the problem is that too many of these people leaving welfare are not
finding employment, or they are finding jobs which do not lift them out
of poverty.
We could help by providing more child assistance and job training,
but so far the majority and President Bush have resisted such reforms.
While obviously an imperfect response, temporarily extending TANF
funds is certainly better than fundamentally dismantling the successful
parts of the 1996 welfare reform law such as providing our States and
communities with the flexibility to determine how to best move welfare
recipients into the work force. Therefore, I support this legislation
to maintain necessary funding for several poverty programs over the
next 6 months in the hopes that we can pass a more comprehensive
improvement next year.
One area that Congress must focus on next year is providing access to
affordable child care, which is undoubtedly one of the biggest problems
confronting low-income working families.
Mr. Speaker, the price of child care can easily range between $4,000
and $10,000 per year per child. It is no wonder that the Urban
Institute found that families in poverty with day-care expenses spent
almost a quarter of their earnings on child care. Unfortunately, many
States have cut back on child care assistance because of recent budget
shortfalls. This problem has been documented by the General Accounting
Office and more recently in a report by the National Women's Law
Center.
[[Page H7788]]
Their study found that between 2001 and 2004, three-fifths of our
States made child care eligibility more restrictive. Half the States
raised their copayments on low-income families, waiting lists for those
eligible for aid but not receiving it grew in more than a dozen States.
My own State of Maryland has frozen enrollment in child care for
working families. In other words, the only way in Maryland that
families can get child care assistance is to go on welfare. What a
message.
Instead of helping to address this problem, the Federal Government
has not even allowed child care funding to maintain the pace with
inflation over the last 2 years. The long-term TANF reauthorization
bill passed by this body earlier this session will simply continue this
disturbing trend by reducing the real value of child care assistance.
We can and should do better for America's struggling families.
Mr. Speaker, there is much work to be done, but in the meantime I
urge support for this temporary extension of funding for several
poverty-related programs for the eighth time in the last 2.5 years.
Like the past seven extensions, this bill simply continues current law
without including any new controversial policy changes.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Shaw), the chairman of the subcommittee and author of the
welfare reform legislation which has done such an incredible job of
bettering families.
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, we are coming again to a crossroads, and why
it is that we cannot move this bill ahead in an orderly fashion instead
of bits and pieces and jumping all around absolutely escapes me.
The bill that my colleague from California has crafted which has
passed this House now on several occasions increases the child care
which is so necessary for the single moms struggling to go to work. We
want to be sure their kids are taken care of and they are not in the
street, and we have increased the funding substantially.
When we look at what we are spending on each welfare recipient,
because of the amount of welfare recipients going down and the funding
not going down, we are spending well over twice as much on each welfare
recipient for job training to get them on their feet and to get them to
be productive human beings.
This bill and the bill referred to by the gentleman from California
(Mr. Herger) and the Committee on Ways and Means which has passed this
House on several occasions gets to the other side of the Capitol and it
is blocked. The other body has constantly talked this bill down and has
prevented a vote on the floor of the other body, which is too bad.
Mr. Speaker, we are seeing pre-1996 all over again. One of the
proudest accomplishments of this body which I can remember so well
culminated on August 22, 1996, when the President actually signed the
bill. He opposed it and vetoed it twice, but when it got to him the
third time, while the debate was going on in this Chamber, went on
national television and indicated his support for this bill. And much
to his credit, he signed it.
It was very controversial then. There were massive resignations
within the White House in protest of President Clinton having signed
this bill. Much to the credit of those who stayed on, including Ms.
Shalala who is now President of the University of Miami where the
debates are going to be tomorrow night, although she was opposed to it,
she saw to it and did the best to see that it worked, and it did work.
It worked not only because we had faith in the human spirit, but also
at the end, even though there was bitter partisan bickering to get it
to the floor and to get the vote, in the end there was bipartisan
support with a Democrat President signing a Republican bill.
We can do better. Let us pass this particular bill because we still
have the other problem in the other body, but let us move ahead and let
us in the next Congress come back and pass the next generation of
welfare reform, and that is the bill that the gentleman from California
(Mr. Herger) has been cosponsoring and working on.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I listened to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) and
I agree with almost everything he said. In 1996 we were able to pass a
bill by working together as Democrats and Republicans, and I am amazed
that the bill that the Republican leadership has been advancing in this
Congress would take us backwards, take away the discretion of our
States to deal with the welfare programs. That presumes that some of
our States are not capable of dealing with it. In 1996 we trusted our
States, and it worked.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Levin), a senior member of the Committee on Ways and Means and a Member
who has worked on welfare reform since he has been in Congress.
(Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I want to briefly review the history of
welfare reform, not to finger point, but to have us understand what
this is all about.
The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) said, pointing to 1996, that
the third time around, the President agreed to it. What he forgot to
say was that there were three bills and that they changed from bill to
bill. Many Democrats worked to change those bills so that they would be
acceptable. The third time around it was different because it included
more adequate health care and also more adequate day care. Neither was
taken care of appropriately in the first two times around. That is
point one.
So it was a bipartisan product. The President, President Clinton, had
kicked off the effort years before, and eventually we worked together
to produce a product.
My next point, as the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) has so
clearly pointed out, it has been different this time around in terms of
this product that came through the House. It has not been a bipartisan
product whatsoever. Instead, what the majority has been trying to do is
really to rewrite the 1996 welfare reform bill, as the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Cardin) has pointed out, to turn the clock back on
provisions of that bill, and to do so despite the fact that the
research that has been undertaken since passage in 1996 indicates that
what is in the House-passed bill is wrong in important respects, and
that is why the Senate has failed to act.
First of all, in terms of people moving up the economic ladder, the
evidence is clear that a majority of people who have moved from welfare
to work earn less than 42 percent of the median average wage in their
States. And also these studies make clear that the most successful
programs focus on getting people better jobs and increasing their
earnings. Former welfare recipients with higher starting wages were 40
percent more likely to still be working 2 years later and those with
child assistance were twice as likely to work for 2 years.
So that is why the National Governors Association, when they
canvassed the welfare directors, found that 40 of them said that the
fundamental changes in the Republican bill were wrong; or to put it
another way, that the Republican bill would force fundamental changes
in the successful welfare programs. And the researcher who has done so
much of the federally funded research on welfare-to-work strategies
said that the House Bush administration plan would force the most
successful programs to change substantially. So that is what this is
all about.
We passed a bill that would, instead of emphasizing people moving off
of welfare into work and as they moved, moved up the ladder, would
emphasize people on welfare working. The whole point is to help people
and get them to move off of welfare and to stay off of welfare.
So in our bill the Democrats proposed a very different approach than
the Republicans here in the House. In our bill, States would be
rewarded for helping recipients move off of welfare and to get into
good-paying jobs, and also trying to fix the transitional Medicaid
program, to try to get more health care available for people so when
they moved off of welfare, they did not lose it, they would instead
continue it for 6 months or a year. Also we proposed in our bill full
funding to the social services block grant program.
[[Page H7789]]
Let me finish by saying I support the extension. It is better than a
bad bill that passed the House, but on child care, the record should be
straight: We proposed $11 billion more, the Senate $7 billion, and the
House Republican bill won. If child care is not provided, it is going
to be difficult for people to move off of welfare into productive work
that will move them and help move up the ladder, and that is the true
test of welfare reform, people moving off welfare out of poverty and
into work.
{time} 1645
The gentleman from Maryland has led the effort to emphasize that with
the support of Democrats. I am proud to be part of that. We need a
bipartisan effort in this House, not ramming or cramming through a bill
without ever there being an effort within our subcommittee to produce a
bipartisan product. There is hope, but not the Republican bill. Let us
vote for the extension and do much better after November 2.
Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I
would just like to respond. We hear the other side, the Democrats,
indicating, and I have heard them indicate this over and over, that
somehow there was bipartisan support, that somehow the Democrats worked
with the Republicans. But if we look at what the votes were, we find an
entirely different result completely.
For example, in 1995 on our Committee on Ways and Means, zero votes
came from Democrats the first bill that came through. The second bill
coming through, again, zero Democrats on the Committee on Ways and
Means supporting it. Again, where is this bipartisan support? Finally,
the third bill that finally after President Clinton vetoed it twice,
the third time around, the bill coming through the same Committee on
Ways and Means, the first time through all the Democrats except one
voted against it. Then the conference committee, over half of the
Democrats on the Committee on Ways and Means still voted against it.
And on the House floor the Democrats, over half of them voted against
it.
So I am not quite sure where all this bipartisan support is. It seems
that the Democrats came kicking and screaming all the way to having the
welfare reform.
Let me also refer to this book. They indicate that there is not
enough money. Let me quote from how a recent book by New York Times
welfare reporter Jason DeParle puts it: ``Falling caseloads brought one
problem States welcomed. It left them rolling in dough. States
literally had more money than they knew how to spend. Over 6 years,
States collected $59 billion more than they could have under the
previous system, when falling caseloads brought reduced Federal
dollars. Having promised to do more with less, the Governors wound up
with more, much more, than anyone imagined.'' That is on page 215 from
this book. Again, the facts do not meet the reality of what we are
hearing from the other side.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut
(Mrs. Johnson) who has been an active member of the committee on this
legislation.
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. I thank the gentleman for yielding me
this time.
Mr. Speaker, the goal of TANF, that is, welfare reform, was always
twofold: first, it was to help women who had children and no means of
support and therefore were dependent on welfare to regain their
economic independence by entering the workforce. That goal was for the
woman, so she could realize her greatest potential, she could gain
control of her life by being economically self-sufficient. And then the
second goal was to lift her and her children out of poverty,
occasionally he and his children out of poverty.
Those twin goals of helping women on welfare to realize their skills,
their potential, their capabilities to gain economic self-sufficiency
and to raise children out of poverty were goals that we all shared,
both sides of the aisle; but they were goals that were achieved by the
structure of the bill that the Republicans crafted and passed and which
at the time was extremely controversial.
But it did work. Two million children have been lifted out of
poverty. According to the census, the poverty rate for African American
children and the poverty rate for children living with single mothers
hit a record low in 2001 and 2002. So then the question becomes, What
happened during the years of recession since 2001 and 2002? We all know
that a recession was in progress when this President was sworn into
office and then the economy was terribly jolted by 9/11 and
unemployment rates soared and so on.
Yet when we look back, these are the facts. First of all, starting
from the overall understanding that poverty in a recession and child
poverty in a recession does rise. Two years after the 1990-1991
recession, 15.7 million children were in poverty in 1993, or 22.7
percent of the children were in poverty in 1993. That was after the
1990-1991 recession. Two years after the 2001 recession, 12.9 million
children were in poverty, or 17.6 percent were in poverty in 2003.
In other words, in this more recent recession, after welfare reform,
yes, more children were in poverty. But far fewer were in poverty than
had been in poverty 10 years earlier after the 1990 recession. In fact,
17.6 percent were in poverty in 2003, 22.7 percent had been in poverty
in 1993. So there are 2.8 million fewer children in poverty now than
there were in the preceding economic cycle.
While it is tragic to see poverty numbers go up, we need to put them
in the context of this economy and of welfare reform because, in fact,
welfare reform has been so successful in reducing child poverty that
even with the rise in child poverty during this recent recession, it is
still well below what it was 10 years ago.
Let me just add one other point and that is, it is really a shame
that this is not the reauthorization rather than a 6-month extension.
In the reauthorization, we do provide far better opportunity for women
to get the education they need, not just to get into the workforce but
to get up the career ladder.
Furthermore, in the reauthorization we recognize what has become a
very real problem and that is that many of the women who are really
stuck on welfare now are women who need to have better access to either
drug treatment programs of a longer term sort or to mental health
programs. Both of those kinds of treatment programs we count as work in
the extension bill.
The next round of TANF reform will enable us to meet the challenge of
improving the educational support and being more realistic about the
health services necessary to help women become self-sufficient and
their children to do better and the whole family to rise out of
poverty. So it is unfortunate that we are not moving on reauthorization
rather than extension, but extension certainly beats letting the
current law expire because it has done wonderful things for women in
America, allowing them to realize their potential and think about their
skills and abilities with the help of supportive programs, and it has
certainly lifted many children out of poverty. I urge support of this
legislation.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Levin).
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I want to say to the chairman of the
subcommittee, if he persists in distorting the record, he is going to
continue to make less likely improvement of welfare reform. I am sorry
he is not listening, but I will say this for the record.
When welfare reform bills were considered, there were differences.
But at important places we proposed alternatives and Democrats voted
for them. March 24, 1995, 205 Democrats supported essentially a
substitute that was proposed by someone who was then a member of the
Democratic Caucus. That was March of 1995. Then if you go over to later
on, there was in July 1996 when welfare reform was considered on the
floor an alternative proposed by the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr.
Tanner) and the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle). It received 168
votes.
His attempt to really grab the welfare reform flag and deny the
involvement of President Clinton who suggested we end welfare as we
then knew it, I think he is now suggesting that we change welfare
reform backwards. That effort of his I think only diminishes the
chances that we can move welfare reform ahead. His trying to make this
[[Page H7790]]
into a partisan issue instead of a chance for bipartisan working
together is really antithetical to the needs of the people of this
country for further welfare reform. I hope the next time around, he
does not sing the same song.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, here we go again. Instead of making this
TANF law better, instead of giving welfare recipients the tools to move
from welfare to self-sufficiency, we are once again renewing, for the
eighth time renewing it, actually, a bill that continues moving
families from welfare further into poverty.
Instead, we should be making education or training count as work so
that that activity for welfare recipients will help them get ready for
better educational opportunities and job training so they can have
better opportunities for earning a salary that pays a livable wage.
They will not get that unless they have education and training. Instead
of again extending an outdated welfare bill, we should be providing
quality child care, child care that includes more care for infants,
child care that extends to parents who work weekends and evenings. That
is what we need. That is what these parents need. That is what they
need to help them get their jobs and become self-sufficient.
Let us face it, if parents do not have a safe, convenient place to
leave their children, they cannot go to work. Believe me, I know,
because over 30 years ago I was a single mother with three small
children, abandoned by their father; and even though I was working
full-time, I needed welfare, aid for dependent children at that time,
to keep our lives together, to get my children the health care, the
child care they needed. But eventually I worked my way out of poverty
and started my own business before running for Congress. Of course, you
have to know that I believe that others should have the same
opportunities that I had.
While I support this short-term extension as necessary, I want us to
begin to work to authorize a bill that will give workers the training
and the education and the child care that they need so that they can be
successful. They need the same kind of opportunities that I was
afforded 30 years ago.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Rodriguez).
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Speaker, let me just rise and talk about how I on
the other side am concerned about our situation now. We are concerned.
The census reported just this month in August, 36 million Americans
living in poverty, more than ever in recorded history. Forty-five
million without access to health insurance. And we are saying we have a
good program? This is the most powerful country in the world. Yet we
find a large number that still reside in poverty. At the same time we
are choosing to cut back in education. We are choosing to say no, when
the administration shook hands on Leave No Child Behind.
That Republican compassionate conservatism is self-proclaimed
compassionate conservatism because it is not one for allowing young
people an opportunity to be able to further their education, to make
sure they do not go onto welfare. During the last 4 years, we have lost
more jobs than ever recorded. Those jobs that we have gained have been
jobs that have paid much less than the ones that we have lost.
{time} 1700
So the reality is that we have had an opportunity to make some things
happen, and they failed to do that.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). The gentleman from Maryland
(Mr. Cardin) has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I use that 1\1/2\ minutes first to join the gentleman
from California (Mr. Herger) in recognizing the outstanding work that
Vee Burke has provided for more than 30 years at the Congressional
Research Service.
Vee has helped our committee conduct its work on poverty and public
assistance issues by providing detailed and meticulously accurate
information on program rules, participation and trends. Since 1981, she
has been a regular and valued contributor to the Ways and Means Green
Book, which is the key resource on poverty programs for Members of
Congress and their staff.
Vee's expertise on welfare issues started during the Nixon
administration and has continued through all major developments
thereafter, including the 1996 welfare reform law and our current
efforts to reauthorize that law. Her work has provided a foundation of
understanding needed to improve our Nation's safety net programs.
We wish Vee well in her pending retirement, and we thank her for her
contributions to improving social programs in our great Nation. Mr.
Speaker, I can assure the Members that the gentleman from California
(Mr. Herger) and I are in complete agreement in regards to Vee Burke's
contributions to this body and to this Nation and also urging our
colleagues to support this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, in February of 2003, this House passed long-term
reauthorization legislation to encourage more work among welfare
recipients and to provide more federal dollars for States to assist
low-income families. The other body's unwillingness to work with us to
move this legislation forward has resulted in lost resources to the
States and 2 years of lost opportunity to provide more assistance so
more low-income parents can make the transition from welfare to work.
I wish the legislation before us today were not needed. As I have
said before, I wish we were here debating a long-term reauthorization
bill. But we do need to pass this legislation. Therefore, I urge all of
my colleagues to support this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. 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. 5149.
The question was taken.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds of
those present have voted in the affirmative.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be
postponed.
____________________