[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 148 (2002), Part 8]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page 10378]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                       TANF REAUTHORIZATION 2002

                                 ______
                                 

                         HON. PETER A. DeFAZIO

                               of oregon

                    in the house of representatives

                        Wednesday, June 12, 2002

  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, well before the Republican majority forced 
passage of the 1996 ``Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity 
Reconciliation Act'' (PRWORA)---the so-called welfare reform package--
Oregon pioneered several welfare and poverty alleviation initiatives 
and landmark education and training programs. The 1996 welfare bill 
allowed states, like Oregon, a waiver to continue their successful 
social assistance programs with minimal federal interference.
  Oregon was able to offer such programs as the JOBS welfare-to-work 
program and the JOBS Plus program that assists in job placements in 
fields with opportunities for real career advancement and makes an 
impact not just in the caseloads, but in poverty alleviation. Oregon 
was also one of the first states to include innovations like incentives 
for employers to train and hire welfare recipients.
  There are a number of proposed changes to the Temporary Assistance to 
Need Families (TANF) reauthorization that will end up costing Oregon 
more and reduce its flexibility in delivering innovative, 
individualized programs.
  Under current law, adults have two years to find a job before losing 
their welfare benefits. One of the most important factors in finding a 
stable job at a living wage is education. That's why I've advocated 
that any reforms allow recipients to enroll in two-year college or 
four-year university programs, job training or professional development 
programs, or rehabilitation programs for mental health, substance 
abuse, or domestic violence, without hurting their eligibility for 
benefits. Over 50 percent of the poor in Oregon have, for one reason or 
another, not completed high school. Over 35 percent of the poor in 
Oregon have only an eighth-grade education or less. According to the 
Bureau of Labor Statistics, of the 30 fastest growing, well-compensated 
occupations, only five can be accomplished with short-term training.
  With Oregon suffering from the highest unemployment rate in the 
nation at nearly 8 percent, and many Oregon counties at double-digit 
unemployment, education becomes even more important during these tough 
economic times to ensure living wage jobs. The facts are shocking. A 
single mom with two children will only earn $13,520 a year before taxes 
working a full-time minimum wage job and not receive TANF benefits 
because the minimum wage--$6.50/hour in Oregon--is too high to qualify. 
This is nowhere near the federal estimate of a living wage for a family 
of three of $34,429 (or $16.55/h). The Republican proposal doesn't even 
address how Oregon can resolve this disparity. Instead, they leave it 
to each state to address. Oregon is drastically cutting social service 
programs in order to deal with a near billion dollar deficit. I can't 
imagine the state will find resources to deal with this issue.
  Equally important is the amount of time TANF recipients spend at work 
activities and the quality of these activities. I'm concerned about 
proposals advocating 40 work hours per week, either implicitly or 
explicitly stated, that will push recipients into ``workfare'' programs 
that fail to increase earnings or opportunity. Forty hours of direct 
work is unrealistic for most TANF recipients because of the other 
support programs--like training, job search assistance, counseling--
that recipients need to participate in.
  Education, training and ensuring a living wage are only part of a 
successful plan to allow recipients to become more self-sufficient. 
Many working mothers depend on child care. I've always supported 
significantly increasing funding for the Child Care Development Block 
Grant (CCDBG). The CCDBG is currently funded at $2.21 billion 
nationally, which means $2.5 million for Oregon. This funding doesn't 
come close to meeting demand. A 2000 Radcliffe Public Policy Center 
study found that for families under 200 percent of the poverty level, 
the most likely reason parents lose jobs is because of a lack of child 
care. The Republicans claim that the TANF bill commits $6 billion 
towards child care but looking at the fine print, the Republicans have 
made mandatory only $2.9 billion and merely authorized another $3.1 
billion. A good press hit in an election year, but given the disastrous 
federal budget situation, it's unlikely that child care funding will 
ever reach its full authorized level.
  Like many of my colleagues, I want make sure states have some degree 
of flexibility in implementing TANF and allow a measure of program 
coordination with other social assistance initiatives. But I'm also 
concerned that the Republicans have included a completely unnecessary 
provision in this legislation that would override, at a governor's 
request, Congressional authorization and appropriations laws related to 
a range of social assistance programs. This so-called ``superwaiver,'' 
would allow the diversion of funds from some programs to others and 
trump Congressional funding decisions. The superwaiver allows states to 
circumvent the legislative intent and programmatic standards in the 
name of state flexibility. Significant amounts of money are involved, 
too. Programs--like TANF, food stamps, job training under the Workforce 
Investment Act--slated for superwaiver authority are going to receive 
$65 billion in FY2002 and, according to Congressional Budget Office 
estimates, will receive nearly $669 billion over the next ten years. 
This puts an enormous amount of money outside normal Congressional 
oversight.
  Finally, I'm concerned that the TANF block grant of $16.5 billion to 
states has not even increased with the rate of inflation since it was 
instituted in 1997. By 2007, the block grant will lose nearly 22 
percent of its value. This needs to change.
  I urge my colleagues--especially those across the aisle--to pursue 
responsible reforms that offer a hand up, rather than a hand out; that 
offer a real chance of reducing poverty, not just caseloads.

                          ____________________