[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 132 (Tuesday, September 28, 2010)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7621-S7623]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
By Mr. KERRY (for himself, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Casey, Mr. Brown of
Ohio, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Burris, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Leahy, Mr.
Menendez, Mr. Reed, Mr. Dodd, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Schumer, and Mr.
Lautenberg):
S. 3849. A bill to extend the Emergency Contingency Fund for State
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Program, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to support
extending a critically needed program that provides hope to 250,000 of
our poorest families.
I am joined by Senators Durbin, Casey, Sherrod Brown, Bingaman,
Burris, Harkin, Leahy, Boxer, Menendez, Reed and Dodd in offering the
Job
[[Page S7622]]
Preservation for Parents in Poverty Act, which simply provides a 3-
month extension of the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, TANF,
Emergency Contingency Fund. The $500 million in funding needed to pay
for this extension is offset with corresponding reductions to the
regular TANF Contingency Fund in fiscal year 2012.
We have suffered through the worst recession since the great
depression. Just this month, the Census Bureau reported that nearly 44
million Americans--1 in 7--lived in poverty last year. This represents
the largest number of Americans living in poverty since the Census
Bureau began keeping these statistics 51 years ago.
The TANF Emergency Fund was created as part of the Recovery Act
enacted last year to provide temporary, targeted, emergency spending
that combats the recession by helping to create jobs for our poorest
families. It gave States funds to subsidize jobs for low-income parents
and older youth and to provide basic cash assistance and short-term
benefits to the increasing numbers of poor families with children. It
addresses the emergency needs of low-income families that are
struggling in the recession.
At least 36 States have used TANF Emergency Contingency Funds to
create or expand subsidized employment programs. States have used this
fund to create subsidized jobs in the private and public sectors during
the depth of the recession. By the time it expires at the end of
September, the fund will have created approximately 250,000 jobs for
low-income Americans who would otherwise be unemployed. Nearly all of
these jobs will be eliminated if the program is not extended with
additional funds.
If this worthy program is allowed to end on Thursday, these States
will no longer be able to use the TANF Emergency Fund to subsidize
employment and provide basic cash assistance to struggling families to
help with housing and heating bills, domestic violence services, and
transportation costs. This will hurt our economy because families on
TANF have to spend nearly all of the money they receive to meet their
basic needs. This will reduce demand for the goods and services,
particularly in low-income communities.
Massachusetts relies on the TANF Emergency Contingency Fund to
maintain the key existing safety net programs for cash assistance,
emergency housing, rental vouchers, employment and training services,
child care, and other initiatives to support low-income families
getting back to work.
In Massachusetts, the Emergency Fund is used to provide TANF cash
assistance to more than 50,000 low-income families in the Bay State
each month. To qualify for this assistance, a family of three must have
income less than $1,069 a month. Let me repeat that. To qualify for
this assistance a family of three must have income of less than $1,069
a month. The maximum cash grant they can receive from the state is just
$578 a month. Massachusetts also uses the fund to provide emergency
shelter and related services to 3,000 homeless families.
An extension of the TANF Emergency Fund would provide Massachusetts
with federal assistance to accommodate the 10 percent TANF caseload
increase we have experienced since the start of the recession. It would
enable the State to preserve and maintain critical services for our
poorest citizens during these difficult economic times.
If Congress does not immediately act, tens of thousands of jobs will
be lost. Businesses will lose access to critical employment support
programs, and the lives of our poorest families will be made even more
difficult.
Extending the TANF Emergency Contingency Fund is a common-sense
policy that enjoys broad support from public officials, private
experts, and bipartisan organizations, including: Mark Zandi, Chief
Economist at Moody's Analytics; the National Governors Association; the
National Conference of State Legislators; the American Public Human
Services Association; and the National Association of State TANF
Administrators. I ask all my colleagues to support this legislation.
Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise to speak about a piece of
legislation just introduced, S. 3849, the Job Preservation for Parents
in Poverty Act, which is simply an extension of a program that has
placed tens of thousands of people into jobs in this recession and is
working. We want to make sure it is extended because of how effective
it has been to help people find and keep jobs. This legislation is
fully offset. I wish to spend a couple minutes talking about the
provisions that make it so effective.
First, I thank a number of Senators who have led the fight--Senator
Kerry, as well as our assistant majority leader, Senator Durbin, for
the work they have done, as well as others--and for the testimony we
received from people across the country. I know in my case one person
who spent a good deal of time making it clear to me and to others
across southern Pennsylvania and even across the State about the
effectiveness of this program was Mayor Nutter of Philadelphia who,
like any mayor in the country in the middle of a recession, doesn't
have the luxury of dealing with programs that don't work. He can only
support and endorse programs that are working to create jobs. In a city
such as Philadelphia, which still has a high unemployment rate, Mayor
Nutter has relied upon this program, which is a rapid attachment effort
to create jobs and keep people in those jobs.
We know the unemployment rates are intolerably too high. In our State
we have 585,000 people out of work, just about 9.5 percent
unemployment. Our poverty figures are going through the roof at the
same time. We are seeing, in short, the real impact of this horrific
recession.
One of the best ways to deal with that crisis is to have an extension
of an important program that we refer to in Pennsylvania as the
Pennsylvania Way to Work Program. It is helping keep people out of
poverty and providing people with jobs; in this case, 12,000 people in
Pennsylvania. I could go down the list of other States as well, but I
won't. In our State, 12,864 adults have been helped by this program as
well as summer youth, more than 7,800, for a total of 20,718.
It is fully offset. If we don't extend it, in many, if not most,
States, these programs will be shut down. It is working. It is not only
creating jobs, it is keeping people out of poverty because they are
working. I would think everyone would want to support programs that are
working and keeping people out of poverty.
It is critically important that we extend the program. I am grateful
for the help our assistant majority leader, Senator Durbin, has
provided.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from the Commonwealth
of Pennsylvania for speaking out for this important program. I know
there are many jobs in his State which are at stake with this decision
by the Senate. There are some 26,000 jobs in Illinois that hinge on a
decision made by the Senate as to whether we extend this program. What
we are discussing this afternoon gets down to the heart of the
question: Will we do everything in our power to help Americans find
work, particularly those who have struggled so hard in the past? Will
we give them a chance to continue working in many instances or to find
work? It is an important choice.
Here we have a stark example of this choice in the fate of a program
called the TANF Emergency Contingency Fund. In my State, we call this
program Put Illinois to Work. It helps States subsidize the cost of
hiring workers in mostly private sector jobs.
This small program has had a huge impact in Illinois. Nearly 250,000
jobs have been created in 37 States. It is a program that everyone of
both political parties should support. Rather than paying people to do
nothing, this program helps private companies hire the employees they
need but can't quite afford. Yet Republicans, at least to this point,
are saying we should not extend this program past this Thursday. The
end of this program in my State means the loss of thousands of jobs. I
think the only reason there is opposition to this is the fact that it
was originally conceived and offered to the Senate in the President's
Recovery Act.
Though many on the other side of the aisle have taken a party-line
position
[[Page S7623]]
that they will oppose that act no matter what it did is unfortunate,
particularly for people who are just trying to find a way to survive in
a very tough economy. Many of them earn $10 an hour. These are not jobs
on which one could get rich. They can survive on these jobs. We are
trying to make sure these people have an opportunity to survive. This
is a stimulus that works. Who would argue with the concept or premise
that putting people to work is a lot better than paying them to do
nothing?
Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts has a simple bill that would
extend the jobs program by 3 months, but it is fully paid for by
reducing the TANF program's future budget. The argument that it adds to
the deficit does not work. It doesn't add to the deficit. It is paid
for by future budgetary commitments. I am afraid that still we will
find an objection from the other side of the aisle. They have objected
to continuing this program on the continuing resolution which more or
less keeps government in business while we are in recess.
Mr. President, 26,000 jobs are at stake in Illinois, and losing that
many jobs would hurt my State. We already have an unemployment rate of
over 10 percent. Governor Pat Quinn is trying to figure out how to save
some of these jobs, but it is difficult with the budgetary problems we
face in the State capital. It is not just Illinois that would suffer;
110,000 jobs would be lost in States represented by Republican
Senators: 40,000 in Texas, which is represented by two Republican
Senators; 20,000 in Georgia, represented by two Republican Senators;
10,000 in Kentucky, 10,000 people who will lose work this week in
Kentucky represented by the minority leader. It is unfortunate that we
have allowed some of these ideological positions to get in the way. It
makes no difference that over 110,000 constituents represented by those
on the other side of the aisle will be impacted by this objection.
I am afraid at this point some of our partisan differences are going
to cost a lot of innocent people a chance to bring home a paycheck. I
don't think that is what the American people want in Washington. I
think what they are looking for us to do is to extend this program and
save a quarter million Americans from losing their jobs.
I don't know if Senator Kerry is coming to the Senate floor, but I
see some Members on the Republican side of the aisle. I will make the
unanimous consent request at this point.
I ask unanimous consent that the Finance Committee be discharged from
further consideration of S. 3849, the Job Preservation for Parents in
Poverty Act; that the Senate then proceed to its consideration; that
the bill be read three times, passed, and the motion to reconsider be
laid upon the table; and that any statements relating to the measure be
printed in the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I will
object, the majority has known this program was going to expire at the
end of this month all year and has taken no steps to reauthorize this
important social safety net program. We are also in the position of
having to pass an extension of TANF. I am not sure the Senator from
Illinois is aware that the chairman and ranking member of the Finance
Committee have put together a bipartisan 1-year extension of TANF. I
object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
______