[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 127 (Friday, October 8, 2004)]
[Senate]
[Page S10820]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          PASSAGE OF H.R. 5149

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, last week the Senate passed yet another 
short-term extension of the 1996 welfare law. This marks the eighth 
temporary extension--and the third year we have been unable to improve 
this program that serves millions of needy families. I rise today to 
express my disappointment that improving this legislation has not been 
realized because of efforts by some of my colleagues to undermine the 
principles and goals of reform.
  I think we can all agree that welfare reform has been one of the most 
successful social policy reforms in U.S. history. The 1996 welfare 
reform legislation made remarkable headway in helping welfare 
dependents move toward self-sufficiency. It dramatically reduced State 
welfare caseloads, reduced child poverty, and increased employment. But 
there is still room for improvement.
  It is a misfortune that we had to pass yet another short-term 
extension that doesn't give States the certainty they need to best plan 
for the future. We passed this welfare extension because we had to--it 
bought us another 6 months in the hopes that we can finally act on a 
broader welfare reform bill in the 109th Congress.
  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.
  In 2003, I worked tirelessly with my colleagues on the other side of 
the aisle to produce a comprehensive welfare reform bill that enjoyed 
substantial Democratic support. Many of the provisions in the bill we 
should have passed in March reflected the provisions in the 2003 bill. 
This further underscores my frustration with the Senate Democrats' 
failure to support a comprehensive reauthorization bill, and in effect, 
force both bodies to fund welfare programs through a series of short-
term extensions, without any further improvements.
  Welfare reform has saved taxpayers money, but it has not been free. 
It will not be free in the future. The welfare reform bill we tried to 
pass 6 months ago included meaningful reforms and resources needed to 
help more low-income parents go to work. We understand that parents 
need to know they have access to quality child care, and the bill 
included an additional $6 billion--for a total of $7 billion--in child 
care funding to support the efforts of working families who need help 
with this essential assistance.
  I have seen in my home State of Utah, that many of these parents, 
hardworking people, young and old, end up finding great self-
satisfaction in giving their gift of skill at work, at giving 
themselves to a task at hand so thoroughly, that they have a meaningful 
relationship with their work. I think we will all agree that sometimes 
it isn't easy to dive into your work with enthusiasm. But sometimes 
this is necessary and appropriate. That is why I would like to talk a 
little bit about its importance, that work requirements are increased.
  The increased work requirements in H.R. 4 would have changed the core 
work requirement from 20 hours per week to 24 hours per week. Total 
hours required for a state to receive full credit would have increased 
from 30 hours per week to 34 hours per week for single-parent families. 
Now these are sensible, reasonable requirements. Two-parent families 
would have been required to work 39 hours per week, or 55 hours per 
week if they received subsidized child care. States would have received 
partial credit if individuals worked 20 hours per week, and extra 
credit if they worked more than 34 hours per week. Current law provides 
full credit only at 30 hours.
  Again, I think these modifications could have made real progress. The 
more a person sets goals and takes responsibility for the career they 
want, they will better be able to decide if a particular job fits into 
the scheme of their life. The harder you work, that is the more hours 
you work, the more you understand why you're working at a particular 
job and how your hard work is going to benefit you.
  Another important provision in H.R. 4 was the establishment of a 
meaningful State participation rate. For years now, States have had no 
real Federal requirements to actively recruit adults into industrious 
work and work related activities. Under H.R. 4, States would have been 
required to have 70 percent of their caseload involved in approved work 
activities by 2008. It is important to know that most States currently 
have less than 50 percent of their caseloads in approved, full-time, 
work-related activities. Several states are below 25 percent. 
Requirements would oblige States to significantly ramp up their efforts 
to engage a much greater number of families in activities that count 
toward the work participation rate.
  Right now, the majority of adults receiving assistance are reporting 
zero hours of activity. I think it is time we recognize that an 
effective participation rate, and by the elimination of the caseload 
reduction credit in the 1996 welfare law, we will encourage people to 
commit, to careers, to goals, to real recovery. Just half-heartedly 
trying will not enable a person to succeed, but committing yourself 
will.
  For the sake of the millions of families that remain in the welfare 
system, we should have been able to come to a final agreement that 
would have helped Americans achieve independence and a brighter future.
  Again, I am very frustrated that we have caved to the passage of 
another short-term placeholder extension. Unfortunately, the remarkable 
improvements included in H.R. 4 will remain on hold while we continue 
to kick the ball down the field.
  As time passes, budget pressures will only squeeze tighter and 
tighter. The additional help we could have offered will become only 
harder to come by.

                          ____________________