[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 148 (2002), Part 4]
[House]
[Page 4777]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




  OPPOSING THE ADMINISTRATION'S PROPOSED WORK REQUIREMENTS UNDER TANF 
                            REAUTHORIZATION

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Watson) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. WATSON of California. Madam Speaker, I rise to strongly oppose 
the President and Republican leadership proposals for TANF 
reauthorization. On February 26, the administration announced an agenda 
for welfare reform to strengthen families and help more recipients work 
towards independence and self reliance. In keeping with the principles 
outlined by President Bush, the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger), 
chairman of the Subcommittee on Human Resources of the Committee on 
Ways and Means, introduced H.R. 4090, the Personal Responsibility, 
Work, and Family Promotion Act of 2002 on April 9. On that same day, 
the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon), chairman of the 
Subcommittee on 21st Century competitiveness of the Committee on 
Education and the Workforce, introduced H.R. 4092, the Working Towards 
Independence Act.
  Let it be known, Madam Speaker, none of these proposals will 
strengthen families, move families towards self reliance and 
independence, or reduce poverty. To the contrary, the proposed changes 
to welfare will erode the successes of the past and severely limit the 
States' flexibility.
  The Republican bills, while largely similar in most respects, promote 
increased work requirements, introduce an acceleration in the number of 
families in specified work activities, and devote $300 million a year 
to marriage and family formation. The problem with these proposals is 
that States are expected to make sweeping changes to their programs and 
move more welfare recipients into work with the current level of 
funding. Flat level funding will erode the States' ability to provide 
services such as child care, transportation, vocational training, 
skills, and barrier assessments, all of the important ingredients of 
work promotion, poverty reduction, and self-sufficiency.
  Recent analyses have indicated that these proposals will cost the 
States $15 billion over the next 5 years. Any plan must avoid imposing 
unfunded costs upon the States that could lead them, shift resources 
away from low-income working families in order to finance new 
requirements.
  Furthermore, 41 governors from the States, both Republican and 
Democratic, have voiced their concerns about the fundamental changes 
proposed in these bills. A new 40-hour work requirement would be an 
enormous burden on the States, and the new rules would be far too 
rigid. These proposals decrease State flexibility, one of the champion 
successes of the past legislation that enabled States to move families 
off of welfare.
  In addition to these concerns, the 40-hour work week is 
counterproductive and makes no sense, given the rules and limited 
flexibility. If TANF participants work off their benefits in a work 
fair or community service job, and if their job is valued or paid at 
State minimum wage rates, these individuals would earn their benefit in 
fewer hours than the required 24 hours.
  Let me give my colleagues an example. In California, my constituents 
would work off their benefits in just 19.3 hours in a work fair or 
community service job. These individuals would then face noncompliance 
and sanctions. This is true in 26 other States as well. If, on the 
other hand, a welfare recipient finds an unsubsidized job at a minimum 
wage, they would earn too much money to qualify for the benefits and 
would move into a class of the working poor. The proposals really do 
not add up.
  In addition to this dilemma, the proposals do not account for the 
large number of families needing child care or transportation in order 
to work. By demanding increased work requirements and an acceleration 
in the number of families in specified work activities, the demands for 
child care and transportation will only increase. Flat level funding 
will not suffice.
  The need, in closing, for child care has increased by 21 percent over 
the past few years.
  Madam Speaker, we need to relook at these proposals, for they simply 
do not add up.

                          ____________________