[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 11]
[House]
[Pages 14356-14361]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                  WELFARE REFORM EXTENSION ACT OF 2003

  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill (H.R. 2350) to reauthorize the Temporary Assistance for Needy 
Families block grant program through fiscal year 2003, and for other 
purposes.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 2350

       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 
     of 2003''.

     SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

       Except as otherwise expressly provided, wherever in this 
     Act an amendment or repeal is expressed in terms of an 
     amendment to, or repeal of, a section or other provision, the 
     amendment or repeal shall be considered to be made to a 
     section or other provision of the Social Security Act.

     SEC. 3. CONTINUATION OF TANF BLOCK GRANT FUNDING.

       (a) State Family Assistance Grant.--Section 403(a)(1) (42 
     U.S.C. 603(a)(1)) is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``and 2002'' and 
     inserting ``2002, and 2003''; and
       (2) by striking subparagraphs (B) through (E) and inserting 
     the following:
       ``(B) State family assistance grant.--The State family 
     assistance grant payable to a State for a fiscal year shall 
     be the amount that bears the same ratio to the amount 
     specified in subparagraph (C) of this paragraph as the amount 
     required to be paid to the State under this paragraph for 
     fiscal year 2002 (determined without regard to any reduction 
     pursuant to section 409 or 412(a)(1)) bears to the total 
     amount required to be paid under this paragraph for fiscal 
     year 2002 (as so determined).
       ``(C) Appropriation.--Out of any money in the Treasury of 
     the United States not otherwise appropriated, there are 
     appropriated for fiscal year 2003 $16,566,542,000 for grants 
     under this paragraph.''.
       (b) Matching Grants for the Territories.--Section 
     1108(b)(2) (42 U.S.C. 1308(b)(2)) is amended by striking 
     ``2002'' and inserting ``2003''.
       (c) Bonus To Reward Decrease in Illegitimacy Ratio.--
     Section 403(a)(2) (42 U.S.C. 603(a)(2)) is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (C)(ii), by striking ``and 2002'' and 
     inserting ``2002, and 2003''; and
       (2) in subparagraph (D), by striking ``2002'' and inserting 
     ``2003''.
       (d) Supplemental Grants for Population Increases in Certain 
     States.--Section 403(a)(3)(H) (42 U.S.C. 603(a)(3)(H)) is 
     amended--
       (1) in the subparagraph heading, by striking ``of grants 
     for fiscal year 2002'';
       (2) in clause (i), by striking ``fiscal year 2002'' and 
     inserting ``each of fiscal years 2002 and 2003'';
       (3) in clause (ii), by striking ``2002'' and inserting 
     ``2003''; and
       (4) in clause (iii), by striking ``fiscal year 2002'' and 
     inserting ``each of fiscal years 2002 and 2003''.
       (e) Contingency Fund.--
       (1) In general.--Section 403(b)(2) (42 U.S.C. 603(b)(2)) is 
     amended by striking ``and 2002'' and inserting ``2002, and 
     2003''.
       (2) Conforming amendment.--Section 403(b)(3)(C)(ii) (42 
     U.S.C. 603(b)(3)(C)(ii)) is amended by striking ``2002'' and 
     inserting ``2003''.
       (f) Federal Loans for State Welfare Programs.--Section 
     406(d) (42 U.S.C. 606(d)) is amended by striking ``2002'' and 
     inserting ``2003''.
       (g) Maintenance of Effort.--Section 409(a)(7) (42 U.S.C. 
     609(a)(7)) is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``or 2003'' and 
     inserting ``2003, or 2004''; and
       (2) in subparagraph (B)(ii), by striking ``2002'' and 
     inserting ``2003''.
       (h) Grants to Indian Tribes.--Paragraphs (1)(A) and (2)(A) 
     of section 412(a) (42 U.S.C. 612(a)(1)(A) and (2)(A)) are 
     each amended by striking ``and 2002'' and inserting ``2002, 
     and 2003''.
       (i) Census Bureau Study.--Section 414(b) (42 U.S.C. 614(b)) 
     is amended by striking ``and 2002'' and inserting ``2002, and 
     2003''.

     SEC. 4. CONTINUATION OF MANDATORY CHILD CARE FUNDING.

       Section 418(a)(3)(F) (42 U.S.C. 618(a)(3)(F)) is amended by 
     striking ``fiscal year 2002'' and inserting ``each of fiscal 
     years 2002 and 2003''.

     SEC. 5. CONTINUATION OF CHILD WELFARE DEMONSTRATION 
                   AUTHORITY.

       Section 1130(a)(2) (42 U.S.C. 1320a-9(a)(2)) is amended by 
     striking ``2002'' and inserting ``2003''.

     SEC. 6. CONTINUATION OF ABSTINENCE EDUCATION FUNDING.

       Section 510(d) (42 U.S.C. 710(d)) is amended by striking 
     ``2002'' and inserting ``2003''.

     SEC. 7. CONTINUATION OF TRANSITIONAL MEDICAL ASSISTANCE.

       (a) In General.--Section 1925(f) (42 U.S.C. 1396r-6(f)) is 
     amended by striking ``2002'' and inserting ``2003''.

[[Page 14357]]

       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 1902(e)(1)(B) (42 U.S.C. 
     1396a(e)(1)(B)) is amended by striking ``2002'' and inserting 
     ``2003''.

     SEC. 8. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       The amendments made by this Act shall take effect on July 
     1, 2003.

  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.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2350, the Welfare Reform 
Extension Act of 2003. This legislation is a simple 3-month extension 
of key parts of the Nation's welfare system.
  Since the historic 1996 welfare reform law, nearly 3 million children 
have been lifted from poverty, record shares of current and former 
welfare recipients are working, and welfare dependence has been cut in 
half. Despite the challenges facing our country, these welfare reforms 
continue to benefit families with children by promoting work by low-
income parents.
  Unless we act, the authorization for key welfare programs will expire 
on June 30, 2003. H.R. 2350 will continue current funding for these 
programs through September 30, 2003. That will provide the Senate more 
time to consider a broad welfare reauthorization bill along the lines 
proposed by the President and already passed by the House.
  Members will recall that the House passed a broad 5-year welfare 
reauthorization bill last year. The Senate did not act on that bill 
before the 107th Congress adjourned. The 2002 House bill was the 
product of intensive research and evaluation, including more than 20 
hearings in the House. Key provisions focused on achieving more work, 
less poverty, and stronger families.
  In February 2003, the House again acted on a full 5-year welfare 
reform reauthorization bill and approved H.R. 4, an updated version of 
its 2002 bill. While we have been waiting for consensus on a long-term 
reauthorization of these programs, the House and Senate have agreed to 
three separate short-term extensions. Those extensions covered the 
first, second, and third quarters of the current fiscal year.
  The legislation before us today would do more of the same, extending 
these programs for the fourth quarter of the current fiscal year, or 
through September 30, 2003. States and families would be on the 
receiving end if we reach agreement on a long-term reauthorization 
bill.
  The House-passed 5-year reauthorization bill, H.R. 4, encourages even 
more low-income parents to work while providing more resources to 
support them. Unfortunately, the improvements included in H.R. 4 will 
continue to remain on hold while we pass short-term placeholder 
extensions. For example, H.R. 4 as passed by the House provides at 
least $2 billion in added child care funds over 5 years, along with 
more flexibility in spending cash welfare funds on child care and other 
needs.
  So long as we continue to extend our Nation's welfare system on a 
short-term basis, States cannot take advantage of these additional 
dollars or improve flexibility. That means low-income families will not 
see the benefits of the improvements we have proposed for the program. 
Ultimately, the success of the 1996 law reforms may begin to erode as 
well.
  It is my hope H.R. 2350 will be the final short-term extension we 
approve, and in the next 3 months we get a comprehensive welfare reform 
bill to the President's desk for signature.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this 3-month extension of the 
funding for the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, or TANF, 
program. I also support the bill's continuation of funding for a series 
of programs designed to help people leave welfare for work, including 
child care assistance and transitional Medicaid coverage. Without this 
extension, funding for all these vitally important programs would 
expire at the end of this month.
  While this bill is important, it is obviously only a stopgap measure, 
as the chairman has indicated. Unfortunately, this is the fourth short-
term extension we have been forced to pass since last fall. Rather than 
continuously enacting these temporary measures, we should be sitting 
down to figure out how to craft a good 5-year reauthorization for the 
TANF program.
  I appreciate my chairman's hope that this will be the last of our 
extensions. I can tell my chairman, the best way to make sure that this 
will be the last of these short-term extensions is for us to get 
together, Democrats and Republicans, with Members of the other body and 
the administration, and work out a true bipartisan compromise on a 
reauthorization that will help America's families.
  But regrettably, the Republican leadership of this House has 
precluded such discussions by literally ramming through a TANF 
reauthorization without any hearings and without any opportunity this 
year for us to work our will, so once again we are stuck without a 
long-term commitment to many of our Nation's most important antipoverty 
programs.
  My friends on the other side of the aisle may be tempted to blame the 
other body, but let me tell the Members, I think it has been our 
actions, not theirs, that have stalled the opportunity to enact a 
comprehensive 5-year reauthorization bill. President Bush did send to 
Congress a rigid, Washington-knows-best welfare plan that was 
criticized by Governors, mayors, welfare administrators, poverty 
experts, and religious leaders. It focused on make-work instead of real 
jobs for welfare recipients, and it replaced State flexibility with 
unfunded mandates.
  Mr. Speaker, on Monday three dozen religious leaders sent a letter to 
President Bush echoing these concerns. Let me quote a little from that 
letter. These were religious leaders, some of whom helped the 
administration in crafting its policy.
  ``Poor people are suffering; and our faith-based service providers 
see it every day in communities across the country . . . We believe 
that the budget your administration has put forward fails to protect 
and promote the well-being of our poorest and most vulnerable citizens. 
The tax cut passed by Congress with your support provides virtually no 
help for those at the bottom of the economic ladder, while those at the 
top reap windfalls.''
  The letter goes on to say:
  ``Pro-family commitments to invest in adequate child care, education, 
and training for our poorest families have fallen short in your 
administration's proposals. The most effective and bipartisan public 
policies for reducing poverty have not been adequately supported by 
your administration.''
  This letter from religious leaders concludes by suggesting, ``many 
are feeling betrayed'' by the disconnect between the President's words 
and the actions on poverty-related issues.
  Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record a copy of this letter.
  The letter referred to is as follows:

                                              Call to Renewal,

                                     Washington, DC, June 9, 2003.
       Dear Mr. President: We are all leaders in the faith 
     community, whose churches and faith-based organizations are 
     on the front lines of fighting poverty. Many of us have 
     supported your faith-based initiative from the beginning of 
     the administration. Several of us have met with you to 
     discuss the churches' role in overcoming poverty and have 
     offered solid support to our friends, John Dilulio and Jim 
     Towey, who have led your Office of Faith Based and Community 
     Initiatives. But while we have consistently backed faith-
     based approaches to poverty reduction, we have also insisted 
     they must be accompanied by policies that really do assist 
     low-income families and children as they seek self-
     sufficiency.
       Mr. President, it is a critical time for poor people in 
     America. Poor people are suffering; and our faith-based 
     service providers see it every day in communities across the 
     country. The poor are suffering because of a weakening 
     economy. The poor are suffering because of resources being 
     diverted to war and homeland security. And the poor are 
     suffering because of lack of attention in national public 
     policy.
       We are writing because of our deep moral concern about 
     consistency in your administration's support for effective 
     policies that

[[Page 14358]]

     help alleviate poverty. We believe a lack of focus on the 
     poor in the critical areas of budget priorities and tax 
     policy is creating a crisis for low-income people. We believe 
     the budget your administration has put forward fails to 
     protect and promote the well being of our poorest and most 
     vulnerable citizens. The tax cut just passed by the Congress 
     with your support provides virtually no help for those at the 
     bottom of the economic ladder, while those at the top reap 
     windfalls. The resulting spending cuts, at both federal and 
     state levels, in the critical areas of health care, 
     education, and social services, will fall heaviest on the 
     poor. Budgets are moral documents.
       You have taken many positive steps with regard to 
     international aid and development, such as the HIV/AIDS 
     initiative, and we would like to see that compassion manifest 
     here at home. In significant social programs, like welfare 
     reform, we have supported the proposals of your 
     administration to strengthen marriage and family as effective 
     antipoverty measures; but the companion pro-family 
     commitments to invest in adequate child care, education, and 
     training for our poorest families have fallen short in your 
     administration's proposals. The most effective and bipartisan 
     public policies for reducing poverty have not been adequately 
     supported by your administration.
       Over the past several years, we have advocated several 
     policy initiatives in addition to the ``faith-based 
     initiative'' that would help low-income people in this 
     country. These include TANF reauthorization that makes 
     poverty reduction a priority, targeted tax relief for low-
     income families, and funding for proven programs that would 
     effectively reduce poverty. We believe administration support 
     for such policies would be consistent with your stated 
     commitment of being compassionate toward the poor, especially 
     since you have spoken more about issues of poverty than many 
     of your predecessors.
       We recall your Notre Dame address two years ago, where you 
     pointed out: ``Government has an important role. It will 
     never be replaced by charities. . . . Yet, government must 
     also do more to take the side of charities and community 
     healers, and support their work. . . . Government must be 
     active enough to fund services for the poor--and humble 
     enough to let good people in local communities provide those 
     services.''
       Mr. President, ``the good people'' who provide such 
     services are feeling overwhelmed by increasing need and 
     diminishing resources. And many are feeling betrayed. The 
     lack of a consistent, coherent, and integrated domestic 
     policy that benefits low-income people makes our continued 
     support for your faith-based initiative increasingly 
     untenable. Mr. President, the poor are suffering, and without 
     serious changes in the policies of your administration, they 
     will suffer even more.
       When you announced the faith-based initiative, you pledged 
     that: ``I want to ensure that faith-based and community 
     groups will always have a place at the table in our 
     deliberations.'' Mr. President, it's time to bring faith-
     based organizations to the table where policy decisions are 
     being made. We are concerned that the needs of poor people in 
     America seem to have little influence in the critical policy 
     decisions your administration is making. The faith-based-
     initiative seems to be the only place in your administration 
     where poverty is prioritized, yet we know that faith-based 
     initiatives alone will never be sufficient to solve the 
     problems of poverty. As we have discussed with you the faith-
     based initiative, we now want to engage your administration 
     in a serious conversation about domestic social policy. Mr. 
     President, it's time to talk.
           Sincerely,
       Rev, Jim Wallis, Convener and President, Call to Renewal.
       David Beckmann, President, Bread for the World.
       Rev. Peter Borgdorff, Executive Director of Ministries, 
     Christian Reformed Church.
       Lt. Col. Paul Bollwahn, National Social Services Secretary, 
     The Salvation Army.
       J. Daryl Byler, Director, Washington Office, Mennonite 
     Central Committee.
       Bart Campolo, President, Mission Year.
       Tony Campolo, President, Evangelical Association for 
     Promotion of Education.
       Rt. Rev. John Bryson Chane, Bishop, Episcopal Diocese of 
     Washington, DC.
       Rt. Rev. Steven Charleston, President and Dean, Episcopal 
     Divinity School.
       Dave Donaldson, President, We Care America.
       Rev. Dr. Robert Edgar, General Secretary, National Council 
     of Churches in the USA.
       Dr. Robert M. Franklin, Presidential Distinguished 
     Professor, Candler School of Theology, Emory University.
       Wayne Gordon, President, Christian Community Development 
     Association.
       Rev. Wes Granberg-Michaelson, General Secretary, Reformed 
     Church in America.
       Rev. Dr. Richard Hamm, General Minister & President, 
     Christian Church--Disciples of Christ in the US and Canada.
       Rev. Mark Hanson, Presiding Bishop, Evangelical Lutheran 
     Church in America.
       Bishop Thomas L. Hoyt, Jr., Presiding Bishop, Fourth 
     District, Christian Methodist Episcopal Church, President-
     elect, National Council of Churches in the USA.
       David G. Hunt, President, American Baptist Churches USA.
       Hyepin Im, President, Korean Churches for Community 
     Development.
       William ``Bud'' Ipema, Vice-President, Council of 
     Leadership Foundations.
       Rev. Alvin Jackson, National City Christian Church, 
     Moderator, Christian Church-Disciples of Christ in the US and 
     Canada.
       Rev. Ted Keating, SM, Executive Director, Conference of 
     Major Superiors of Men.
       Rev. Cliffton Kirkpatrick, Stated Clerk, Presbyterian 
     Church USA.
       Rt. Rev. Mark MacDonald, Bishop, Episcopal Diocese of 
     Alaska.
       Bishop Felton Edwin May, Presiding Bishop, Baltimore-
     Washington Conference, United Methodist Church.
       Rev. Dr. A. Roy Medley, General Secretary, American Baptist 
     Churches USA.
       Gordon Murphy, Executive Director, Christian Community 
     Development Association.
       Rev. Glenn R. Palmberg, President, Evangelical Covenant 
     Church.
       Bishop Donald A. Ott, Coordinator, United Methodist Council 
     of Bishops Initiative on Children and Poverty.
       Carole Shinnick, SSND, Executive Director, Leadership 
     Conference of Women Religious.
       Ron J. Sider, President, Evangelicals for Social Action.
       Rev. John H. Thomas, General Minister and President, United 
     Church of Christ.
       Joe Volk, Executive Secretary, Friends Committee on 
     National Legislation.
       Jim Winkler, General Secretary, General Board of Church and 
     Society, United Methodist Church.

  Mr. Speaker, let me also point out to my colleagues a book that was 
recently released by Elizabeth Sawhill as the editor called ``One 
Percent for Kids. I mention that because the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) and I participated on a panel at Brookings 
on this particular subject.
  I want to just emphasize one point that was pointed out in the 
beginning of this book. At the present time, our Nation is spending 2 
percent of its gross domestic product on programs for children. We are 
spending 2\1/2\ percent of our gross domestic product on servicing the 
national debt.
  My chairman mentioned the fact that the TANF reauthorization bill 
that passed this body would increase the potential for funding for the 
poverty programs in this country by $2 billion. I might point out that 
only $1 billion was assured. The second billion was authorization. We 
are increasing the national debt this year by $400 billion in order to 
give tax cuts basically to wealthy people. To service that additional 
debt, it will cost somewhere between $12 billion and $14 billion in 
next year's budget alone.

                              {time}  1100

  So, yes, we are very generous on the tax cuts and on saddling 
taxpayers with interest on the national debt. But when it comes to 
America's future, when it comes to investing in our children for their 
future, we seem to have a deaf ear. One percent for kids could really 
help stimulate our economy and grow our economy.
  Mr. Speaker, let me make it clear, speaking for my colleagues on this 
side of the aisle, we are ready today to sit down with our colleagues 
on the Republican side to work out a TANF reauthorization 5-year bill 
that will provide predictability, flexibility, and resources to our 
States to continue the job that they started 6 years ago when we 
reformed the welfare system in a bipartisan way. Let us continue that 
effort. Let us make the tools available. Let us not just try to ram 
through a bill that the experts tell us will not be in the best 
interests of our children.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Levin), a distinguished member of the Committee on Ways and Means who 
is a very active member of the Subcommittee on Human Resources.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, the 1996 welfare reform bill expired about a 
year ago, and since then this Congress has passed a series of short-
term extensions.
  I will vote for this extension, but it is a sad reflection on this 
House and its majority, and on the majority in terms of the Senate, and 
surely on the administration that we have failed to renew and to really 
expand the basic principles of welfare reform that so many of us worked 
to enact.
  The House Republican leaders rammed through a rewrite of welfare 
reform some months ago. It was not a

[[Page 14359]]

continuation, but really a step backward. It was passed on a partisan 
vote. There was no effort in this House to create a bipartisan welfare 
bill. In 1996 we passed one on a bipartisan basis, but this time around 
there was no effort to continue that tradition. The bill that was 
pushed through this House also ran counter to the research that we 
helped to fund and the views of Governors.
  In a survey that was conducted by the National Governors Association, 
over 40 State welfare directors said this, that the Bush administration 
plan would force ``fundamental changes'' in their successful welfare 
programs. And the researcher who did most of the research on welfare-
to-work strategies said that the Bush administration plan would force 
``the most successful programs to change substantially.''
  So we lost, as the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) has said, a 
chance some months ago to work on a bipartisan basis in this House. And 
there are key differences between the approach that was embodied in the 
bill that passed here and what Democrats have proposed.
  The first basic difference is whether people should be, who are on 
welfare and remain there, should be working or whether we should help 
people move off of welfare into work. And we Democrats say that should 
be the key objective of welfare reform, helping people move off of 
welfare into work; and that was in the proposal that the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Cardin) and others of us put together.
  A second difference is whether the emphasis should be on people 
working in poverty or people working their way out of poverty, and the 
Democratic plan emphasized people working their way out of poverty.
  A third difference related to the issue of work supports. In 1996, 
the first welfare reform bill was vetoed by President Clinton because 
there were inadequate day care money and inadequate health care 
provisions. And then the majority here came back and finally agreed to 
adequate health care and adequate day care. But in the bill that passed 
here some months ago, there were inadequacies in terms of health care 
provisions and also in terms of day care provisions.
  So here we are again. We are suggesting a quarterly extension. We 
cannot allow this legislation that was passed almost 7 years ago now to 
simply die. We have to continue the process. We owe it to this country. 
We owe it to the families who are trying to work their way off of 
welfare into work. But we need to do better. As the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Cardin) said to the chairman of the subcommittee, and 
really to the chairman of the committee, and really to this whole 
House, let us go back and try to put together a bipartisan product. 
Welfare reform deserves more than a partisan approach.
  So that is really the basic issue before us today. We will pass the 
extension. I urge everybody to vote for it. But I do not think that it 
should be an excuse for further inaction by the majority in this House.
  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would just like to remind everyone that what we are 
renewing is an updated legislation that we had some 20 hearings on in 
the last Congress. It is legislation that is updating probably the most 
successful social welfare reform in our Nation's history. More than 50 
percent of those who have been on welfare are now out being productive. 
Child poverty levels are at the lowest in history. Again, what we need 
to do is extend this for the 3 months so that we can get agreement in 
the Senate so we can move forward with this updated legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. English), a member of the committee and subcommittee.
  Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman for 
yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I particularly welcome the opportunity to come to the 
floor and invite my colleagues to support this extension on a 
bipartisan basis. I will talk more on this in a moment; but too often 
we have seen partisanship, as the gentleman pointed out, but not with 
the examples that he had cited. We have seen partisanship creep into 
the debate on welfare reform, and I think it has detracted from the 
seriousness of the endeavor.
  As the chairman of the subcommittee noted, this has been, if not one 
of the greatest social reforms of the 20th century, certainly the most 
successful social reform of the last 20 years of the last century. We 
were successful in overhauling a failed welfare system. And as a 
result, some 3 million children have risen out of poverty since the 
bill that we had passed and we developed in the subcommittee, and I was 
there in 1996, and was signed into law by the last administration.
  According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the number of 
American children experiencing hunger has plummeted to half the number 
in 1995. Now, the economy was growing during this period; but we also 
have to recognize that at different times when the economy was growing 
in the past, the welfare rolls had also been growing. During this 
period, the welfare rolls were literally cut in half. In all, 3.5 
million fewer Americans lived their lives in poverty than in 1995.
  The results of welfare reform are hard to argue with, although some 
on the left are continuing to try to make that argument.
  While this success is inspiring, we recognize that more work needs to 
be done and further changes need to be made, which were embodied in the 
bill that we passed last year. May I say we need to recognize that some 
of the things that were included in the bill that we passed earlier 
this year, which was a replication of what had passed in the earlier 
Congress to fully reauthorize this program, including initiatives like 
full-check sanction, a very important reform that makes very clear if 
you do not follow the rules, you do not get your welfare benefits.
  Some 2 million recipients now remain dependent upon welfare 
assistance and many still do not participate in work or training 
programs. In response, we have passed in our reauthorization, a boost 
of tough work requirements and reinvigorated work incentives for State 
and welfare recipients. Stronger welfare reform means less dependence 
and more economic independence for poor people in America. Perhaps more 
importantly, strengthening welfare reform means fewer American children 
will be living in poverty.
  However, some opponents of welfare reform, as we have seen, have 
sought to turn back the clock by running out the clock on this 
reauthorization. We saw that in the Senate in the last Congress; and, 
unfortunately, in this Congress the Senate has not taken up the bill in 
as timely a fashion as we would like. Hence, we are with this bill 
today.
  I believe that there are opponents of this effective social policy 
that are trying to filibuster our attempts to fight poverty. I urge the 
Senate to end this obstructionism and work with us to enact a 
strengthened TANF program.
  I am hopeful that this bill will pass today; but having heard some of 
the remarks earlier on the floor, I also want to take a moment to 
clarify the record. Yes, the bill that passed in 1996 passed finally 
with bipartisan support. But in its earlier forms it had been 
consistently opposed by the minority. The record shows very clearly the 
broad outline of what we had proposed and was signed into law was 
present in the earlier versions of the bill, but it was opposed by the 
Clinton administration and opposed by many on the minority side. We had 
sought bipartisanship in that markup in 1996 just as we had sought 
bipartisanship last year and this year. But bipartisanship requires 
both parties to engage. We also have shown on our side, in the 
majority, a strong and consistent commitment to day care, whereas, we 
were faulted by some for not adequately funding day care. In fact, in 
1996 we put twice as much funding, substantially more funding for day 
care than the Clinton administration had originally proposed. So that 
has always been a red herring.
  What we have done is give the States adequate resources to meet the 
needs of poor people; and as they brought more and more off the rolls, 
they have

[[Page 14360]]

been extraordinarily successful in meeting those needs.
  We need to continue that work and continue this bill by passing this 
reauthorization.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, first, let me just comment briefly on my friend's, the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania's (Mr. English), revisionist history.
  The original welfare reform bill was signed by President Clinton. He 
held out his final support because it was moving through Congress 
without the child care provisions that my friend from Pennsylvania is 
now taking credit for or the health provisions.
  Let me also point out, if I might, Mr. Speaker, that a lot has 
happened in the last year. We have had no hearings on this legislation 
in this Congress. Yet we have extended unemployment insurance. We have 
seen a deterioration in our economy. We have seen our States strapped 
with some of the highest budget deficits in their history. And yet on 
the most important anti-poverty program in our Nation, we have not had 
one hearing or one opportunity to deal with the bill on this 
reauthorization act. That is not bipartisanship, and that is not an 
open process.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. 
Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) for yielding me time. I thank him 
for his leadership on this issue in the Committee on Ways and Means.
  Let me acknowledge to the chairman of this committee that I stand in 
support of the extension of the temporary assistance for needy families 
block grant reauthorization. But I think it is important to put a face 
on this question. And my good friend from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) made a 
very good point. We have a troubled economy, almost a crumbling 
economy. And, frankly, it is imperative, it is almost urgent, it is a 
crisis that we have hearings on this particular legislation, the idea 
of welfare reauthorization, because people are hurting.
  The history of this legislation was aptly pointed out that, in fact, 
as more people moved from welfare to work in the mid-1990s, it was 
because the economy was percolating. Under President Clinton's 
administration and the 1997 Budget Act, jobs increased and 
opportunities increased for those welfare recipients moving off of 
welfare; as I heard the chairman mention, more work, stronger families 
and less poverty.
  Today we have the complete opposite: a deficit that is blossoming, 
booming and imploding; unemployment at 6.1 percent; constituents in my 
district begging for work but without the opportunity for work. Just 
last weekend in visiting with my constituents, a single mother with 
three children, working every day, begged me for increased child care 
assistance.

                              {time}  1115

  The reason why that bill passed in the mid-1990s that President 
Clinton signed is because he held out for child care and health 
assistance. What do we have now? We have the complete opposite. We have 
poverty growing deeper, more people in poverty and needing welfare, and 
no response from this Congress.
  Yet the Democratic approach, which we are prepared to sit down and 
negotiate, involves more welfare recipients getting real jobs coming 
out of poverty, not make-work jobs, State flexibility to help welfare 
recipients move into employment, even in the backdrop of these terrible 
economic conditions. We need more education training, which the 
Democratic bill has, which we have not been able to get to the table 
and discuss and negotiate in a bipartisan way, and then of course the 
whole issue of child care services.
  Mr. Speaker, we have another crisis because in fact as we extend this 
legislation but yet not have the real hearings that we need to have, we 
are still fighting to get the child tax credit bill on the floor of the 
House. We are still fighting to get the Republican leadership of this 
House to understand that people are living in a crisis, and those 
making $10,000 to $26,000 a year are begging us to pass the Senate bill 
which gives an additional $154 on average per child to hardworking low-
income families, up to 12 million families.
  The new tax law provides each of America's 190,000 families, meaning 
the bill passed by the Republicans, a $550 billion tax cut, an average 
of $93,500. So here we are, extending a welfare bill without real 
hearings to be able to assist us in getting a real welfare reform bill, 
and yet we cannot get the child tax credit bill, the refund bill, the 
freestanding Senate bill which has been passed by the Senate to aid 12 
million families, we cannot get it on the floor of the House.
  What we are hearing are rumors about a kitchen sink full of 
unnecessary additions to the tax bill that will do nothing but throw it 
into conference and delay this refund to needy working families in 
America. I hope as we extend and vote to extend this particular bill, 
we do it on behalf of those families who made a change in their life 
and those attempting to make a change, but we cannot really help 
America's working families unless we sit down in a bipartisan way and 
work on the Democratic approach and come together on a bill that truly 
puts tools and skills in the hands of those who want to move from 
welfare to work.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, we are shamed if we continue to pay 190,000 
rich families in America $93,000, and we cannot afford to give working 
families on average $154. Let us vote for the Senate bill on the tax 
question and reextend this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2350, a bill to reauthorize 
the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grant program. 
TANF is an important program for millions of needy families and it is 
right that we support the extension in funding that this bill provides.
  While I support this bill, I agree with my Democratic colleagues who 
have said that this three month extension is only the beginning of what 
we must do to provide for the needy. I also agree with my colleagues 
that we need to bring to the floor and pass a bill to extend the child 
credit to more than 6 million families that were excluded from the 
legislation that the President recently signed. Extending the child tax 
credit will do much to aid low-income families in this country. As 
such, passing the child tax credit bill should be the next order of 
business by this body.
  Mr. Speaker, in 1996, the House passed ``The Personal Responsibility 
and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act.'' The act was a far-reaching 
welfare reform plan that dramatically changed the Nation's welfare 
system. The primary change is that welfare recipients are now required 
to work in exchange for the time-limited assistance that they receive.
  As part of that bill, the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families 
program replaces the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) and 
Job Opportunities and Basic Skills Training (JOBS) programs. Under 
TANF, States and territories operate programs, and tribes have the 
option to run their own programs. States, territories, and tribes each 
receive a block grant allocation with a requirement on States to 
maintain historical levels of State spending known as maintenance of 
effort. Moreover, the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity 
Reconciliation Act empowers States with the flexibility to design their 
TANF programs.
  Under TANF, recipients must work after 2 years of receiving 
assistance. With the county's current economic standing being so poor, 
it is difficult to find employment not only for TANF recipients but 
also for most unemployed people who are looking for work. To count 
toward State work requirements, recipients are required to participate 
in unsubsidized or subsidized employment, on-the-job training, 
community service, 12 months of vocational training, or they must 
provide child care services to individuals who are participating in 
community service. In this House, we know that budgets for subsidized 
employment programs have been cut, funds for vocational training are 
being slashed, and education programs are being decreased on the State 
and Federal level. The diminution of those employment and education 
programs only hurts TANF recipients and other low-income families.
  Mr. Speaker, there is a 5-year time limit for families who receive 
TANF. In other words, after receiving 5 years of assistance over a 
lifetime, recipients are ineligible for cash aid. If we do not do what 
is needed to get this economy moving and to create jobs for the 
unemployed, there will be many families bumping

[[Page 14361]]

up against the cutoff time for their TANF benefits.
  In closing, I will support this bill for the good of my constituents. 
I call upon the other members of this body to support this bill and to 
support the child tax credit for low-income families immediately. 
Finally, I call upon my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to 
stop the attack against working families and to support positive 
initiatives to help improve the lives of American families.
  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would just like to remind the other side how 
successful this legislation has been since 1996. Child poverty has 
fallen sharply. Nearly 3 million children have been lifted from 
poverty. The black child poverty rate is now at a record low. More 
parents are working. Employment by mothers most likely to go on welfare 
rose by 40 percent from 1995 to 2000. Dependence fell by unprecedented 
levels. Welfare caseloads fell by 9 million, from 14 million recipients 
in 1994, to just 5 million today.
  Again, this is legislation that has been updated this year that we 
had some 20 hearings on in the last Congress and which passed earlier 
this year; and I might mention also that we provide an additional $2 
billion in added child care funds in our legislation which hopefully 
will be renewed here in 3 months. We provide the States with more State 
flexibility in spending cash welfare funds, we focus more on promoting 
healthy marriage and child well-being, and we encourage more work, 
higher incomes, and less welfare dependence.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, let me just in response to our friend from California, 
point out if the gentleman has so much confidence in current law in the 
results that have just been spelled out, I am curious as to why the 
bill that passed the House that is now being promoted, why over 40 of 
our welfare administrators in our various States have said it will 
cause a fundamental change in their welfare system, it would cause them 
to shift their local priorities to federally mandated priorities where 
our own scorekeepers have indicated that there are additional mandates 
to the States far beyond the dollars made available, far beyond the $2 
billion, if in fact $2 billion is made available, our States would be 
required to conform to new mandates. If we believe that the current law 
has been so successful, why are we now taking away the ability of 
States to set their own priorities?
  Mr. Speaker, I am going to ask my colleagues to do two things. First, 
I ask my colleagues to support the 3-month extension. It is the 
responsible thing to do. We need to approve this legislation.
  Second, I am going to ask, let us all step back for a moment and take 
a deep breath and take a look at the issues and the families that are 
affected, listen to our Governors who have the principal 
responsibility, analyze the GAO report which indicates that most of our 
States have had to cut back on child care money because of their fiscal 
problems.
  In my own State of Maryland, they are taking no new enrollments in 
child care unless you are on welfare. Think of this message: If you 
want safe, affordable child care, go on welfare. That is the wrong 
message. Let us talk together, let us listen to each other and let us 
come up with a bipartisan bill that we can be proud of, that can pass 
both this body and the other body and be signed by the President; and, 
most importantly, will help our States in their efforts not only to get 
people out of welfare, but to get American families out of poverty.
  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 closing, let me remind the gentleman from Maryland 
(Mr. Cardin) that just in the last 2 weeks we passed legislation which 
was signed by the President which gives to the States an additional $20 
billion in State aid. The States also have some $6 billion in Temporary 
Aid to Needy Families or TANF surplus that is available to them. We 
also transferred some $3 billion of surplus that they have available. 
We also have $6 billion of unemployment that they have in surplus 
available.
  The gentleman asked if the legislation is so successful, why would we 
want to make changes; child poverty has fallen, more parents are 
working, dependence fell by unprecedented levels. But the fact is there 
is still more that needs to be done. There is still 58 percent of 
recipients who are not working or trained. There are too many families 
that are breaking up, who never formed, that this legislation will 
address, and there are some 2 million families that remain dependent on 
welfare. And that is why even though this legislation has been so 
incredibly successful, we still have more to do.
  With that, I would urge the body to support this legislation, this 
extending of 3 months. I urge an ``aye'' vote.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). 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. 2350.
  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.

                          ____________________