[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 17]
[House]
[Pages 23133-23136]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 EXTENDING TEMPORARY ASSISTANCE FOR NEEDY FAMILIES BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM

  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill (H.R. 3146) to extend the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families 
block grant program, and certain tax and trade programs, and for other 
purposes, as amended.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 3146

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

                 TITLE I--FAMILY ASSISTANCE PROVISIONS

     SEC. 101. EXTENSION OF THE TEMPORARY ASSISTANCE FOR NEEDY 
                   FAMILIES BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM THROUGH MARCH 31, 
                   2004.

       (a) In General.--Activities authorized by part A of title 
     IV of the Social Security Act, and by sections 510, 1108(b), 
     and 1925 of such Act, shall continue through March 31, 2004, 
     in the manner authorized for fiscal year 2002, 
     notwithstanding section 1902(e)(1)(A) of such Act, and out of 
     any money in the Treasury of the United States not otherwise 
     appropriated, there are hereby appropriated such sums as may 
     be necessary for such purpose. Grants and payments may be 
     made pursuant to this authority for carrying out such 
     activities during the first two quarters of fiscal year 2004 
     at the level provided for the first two quarters of fiscal 
     year 2002.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Supplemental grants for population increases in certain 
     states.--Section 403(a)(3)(H) of the Social Security Act (42 
     U.S.C. 603(a)(3)(H)) is amended--
       (A) in the subparagraph heading, by striking ``of grants 
     for fiscal year 2002''; and
       (B) in clause (ii)--
       (i) by striking ``2003'' and inserting ``March 31, 2004''; 
     and
       (ii) by striking ``2001'' and inserting ``fiscal year 
     2001''.
       (2) Contingency fund.--Section 403(b)(3)(C)(ii) of such Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 603(b)(3)(C)(ii)) is amended by striking ``2003'' 
     and inserting ``2004''.
       (3) Maintenance of effort.--Section 409(a)(7) of such Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 609(a)(7)) is amended--
       (A) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``or 2004'' and 
     inserting ``2004, or 2005''; and
       (B) in subparagraph (B)(ii), by striking ``2003'' and 
     inserting ``2004''.

     SEC. 102. EXTENSION OF THE NATIONAL RANDOM SAMPLE STUDY OF 
                   CHILD WELFARE AND CHILD WELFARE WAIVER 
                   AUTHORITY THROUGH MARCH 31, 2004.

       Activities authorized by sections 429A and 1130(a) of the 
     Social Security Act shall continue through March 31, 2004, in 
     the manner authorized for fiscal year 2002, and out of any 
     money in the Treasury of the United States not otherwise 
     appropriated, there are hereby appropriated such sums as may 
     be necessary for such purpose. Grants and payments may be 
     made pursuant to this authority for carrying out such 
     activities during the first two quarters of fiscal year 2004 
     at the level provided for the first two quarters of fiscal 
     year 2002.

                        TITLE II--TAX PROVISIONS

     SEC. 201. DISCLOSURE OF RETURN INFORMATION TO CARRY OUT 
                   INCOME CONTINGENT REPAYMENT OF STUDENT LOANS.

       (a) In General.--Subparagraph (D) of section 6103(l)(13) of 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to termination) 
     is amended by striking ``September 30, 2003'' and inserting 
     ``December 31, 2004''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall apply to requests made after September 30, 2003.

     SEC. 202. EXTENSION OF INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE USER FEES.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 77 of the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986 (relating to miscellaneous provisions) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new section:

     ``SEC. 7528. INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE USER FEES.

       ``(a) General Rule.--The Secretary shall establish a 
     program requiring the payment of user fees for--
       ``(1) requests to the Internal Revenue Service for ruling 
     letters, opinion letters, and determination letters, and
       ``(2) other similar requests.
       ``(b) Program Criteria.--
       ``(1) In general.--The fees charged under the program 
     required by subsection (a)--
       ``(A) shall vary according to categories (or subcategories) 
     established by the Secretary,
       ``(B) shall be determined after taking into account the 
     average time for (and difficulty of) complying with requests 
     in each category (and subcategory), and
       ``(C) shall be payable in advance.
       ``(2) Exemptions, etc.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall provide for such 
     exemptions (and reduced fees) under such program as the 
     Secretary determines to be appropriate.
       ``(B) Exemption for certain requests regarding pension 
     plans.--The Secretary shall not require payment of user fees 
     under such program for requests for determination letters 
     with respect to the qualified status of a pension benefit 
     plan maintained solely by 1 or more eligible employers or any 
     trust which is part of the plan. The preceding sentence shall 
     not apply to any request--
       ``(i) made after the later of--

       ``(I) the fifth plan year the pension benefit plan is in 
     existence, or
       ``(II) the end of any remedial amendment period with 
     respect to the plan beginning within the first 5 plan years, 
     or

       ``(ii) made by the sponsor of any prototype or similar plan 
     which the sponsor intends to market to participating 
     employers.
       ``(C) Definitions and special rules.--For purposes of 
     subparagraph (B)--
       ``(i) Pension benefit plan.--The term `pension benefit 
     plan' means a pension, profit-sharing, stock bonus, annuity, 
     or employee stock ownership plan.
       ``(ii) Eligible employer.--The term `eligible employer' 
     means an eligible employer (as defined in section 
     408(p)(2)(C)(i)(I)) which has at least 1 employee who is not 
     a highly compensated employee (as defined in section 414(q)) 
     and is participating in the plan. The determination of 
     whether an employer is an eligible employer under 
     subparagraph (B) shall be made as of the date of the request 
     described in such subparagraph.
       ``(iii) Determination of average fees charged.--For 
     purposes of any determination of average fees charged, any 
     request to which subparagraph (B) applies shall not be taken 
     into account.
       ``(3) Average fee requirement.--The average fee charged 
     under the program required by subsection (a) shall not be 
     less than the amount determined under the following table:

                                                                Average
``Category                                                          Fee
  Employee plan ruling and opinion............................$250 ....

  Exempt organization ruling..................................$350 ....

  Employee plan determination.................................$300 ....

  Exempt organization determination...........................$275 ....

  Chief counsel ruling........................................$200.....

       ``(c) Termination.--No fee shall be imposed under this 
     section with respect to requests made after December 31, 
     2004.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) The table of sections for chapter 77 of such Code is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new item:

``Sec. 7528. Internal Revenue Service user fees.''.
       (2) Section 10511 of the Revenue Act of 1987 is repealed.
       (3) Section 620 of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief 
     Reconciliation Act of 2001 is repealed.
       (c) Limitations.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, any fees collected pursuant to section 7528 of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as added by subsection (a), 
     shall not be expended by the Internal Revenue Service unless 
     provided by an appropriations Act.

[[Page 23134]]

       (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to requests made after the date of the enactment 
     of this Act.

                      TITLE III--TRADE PROVISIONS

     SEC. 301. EXTENSION OF COBRA FEES.

       Section 13031(j)(3) of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget 
     Reconciliation Act of 1985 (19 U.S.C. 58c(j)(3)) is amended 
     by striking ``September 30, 2003'' and inserting ``March 31, 
     2004''.

               TITLE IV--MEDICARE COST-SHARING PROVISIONS

     SEC. 401. EXTENSION OF MEDICARE COST-SHARING FOR CERTAIN 
                   QUALIFYING INDIVIDUALS.

       (a) Extension of Sunset.--Section 1902(a)(10)(E)(iv) of the 
     Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396a(a)(10)(E)(iv)) is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking subclause (II);
       (2) beginning in the matter preceding subclause (I), by 
     striking ``ending with December 2002'' and all that follows 
     through ``for medicare cost-sharing described'' in subclause 
     (I) and inserting ``ending with March 2004) for medicare 
     cost-sharing described''; and
       (3) by striking ``, and'' at the end and inserting a 
     semicolon.
       (b) Total Amount Available for Allocation.--Section 1933(c) 
     of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396u-3(c)) is 
     amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1)(E), by striking ``fiscal year 2002'' 
     and inserting ``each of fiscal years 2002 and 2003''; and
       (2) in paragraph (2)(A), by striking ``the sum of'' and all 
     that follows through ``1902(a)(10)(E)(iv)(II) in the State; 
     to'' and inserting ``the total number of individuals 
     described in section 1902(a)(10)(E)(iv) in the State; to''.
       (c) Special Rule for First Quarter of 2004.--Section 1933 
     of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396u-3) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(g) Special Rule.--With respect to the period that begins 
     on January 1, 2004, and ends on March 31, 2004, a State shall 
     select qualifying individuals, and provide such individuals 
     with assistance, in accordance with the provisions of this 
     section as in effect with respect to calendar year 2003, 
     except that for such purpose--
       ``(1) references in the preceding subsections of this 
     section to `fiscal year' and `calendar year' shall be deemed 
     to be references to such period; and
       ``(2) the total allocation amount under subsection (c) for 
     such period shall be $100,000,000.''.

  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. 3146, which extends various 
government programs beyond the September 30 end of the fiscal year. 
Within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means, this 
includes certain tax and trade programs, as well as a simple 6-month 
extension of key parts of the Nation's welfare system.
  The historic 1996 welfare reform law has been an unparalleled 
success. Nearly three 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 September 30, 2003. H.R. 3146 will continue 
current funding for these programs through March 31, 2004.
  Earlier this month, a bill to reauthorize and improve our Nation's 
welfare program was reported out of committee in the Senate. This 
extension will provide the Senate more time to consider this bill and 
pass a broad welfare reauthorization bill.
  Members will recall that the House passed a broad 5-year welfare 
reauthorization bill in 2002. This bill was a 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. However, the Senate did not act on that bill before 
the 107th Congress adjourned.
  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. We continue to wait for a consensus on a long-term 
reauthorization of our Nation's welfare programs. In the meantime, we 
continue to see evidence that welfare reform continues to work.
  A report released in August presented key indicators of well-being 
for America's children that once again show positive results for our 
children. Birth rates for unmarried teenagers have dropped considerably 
since 1994. The poverty rate for children raised by single moms also 
has declined markedly.
  However, there is still more progress to be made. Today, fewer 
children live in married-couple families. We have seen a steadily 
growing stream of evidence that children do best when raised by 
married-couple families. That is why the House-passed welfare reform 
bill provides flexibility to States to promote marriage and strong 
families. States and families would be on the receiving end if we reach 
agreement on a long-term reauthorization bill.
  Unfortunately, the improvements included in H.R. 4 will continue to 
remain on hold while we pass short-term placeholder extensions.
  In addition to funds to promote strong families, H.R. 4, as passed by 
the House, also 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 improved flexibility. The 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. Recognizing the importance of continuing these programs, the 
House and Senate have agreed to four short-term extensions of our 
Nation's welfare programs. However, I hope that in the next 6 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 also in support of the legislation and urge my 
colleagues to support it. I agree with the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Herger), the chairman of the subcommittee, regarding the need to 
enact this legislation. However, I want to make it clear I disagree 
with my subcommittee chairman on many of the statements made as to the 
reason why we are at this point, why we need to enact a temporary 
extension of our TANF law rather than a permanent extension.
  This bill is important because it allows our States to know that for 
the next 6 months they will have uninterrupted Federal funds to 
continue their work on dealing with the people who are the most 
vulnerable, that we are trying to get off of cash assistance, into real 
jobs.
  However, we have made that task more difficult because we cannot pass 
a long-term reauthorization, and we cannot pass a long-term 
reauthorization because this body, in passing its bill, did not do what 
our chairman asked us to do, and that is to reach a consensus to try to 
work together as Democrats and Republicans to build upon the success of 
1996. Instead, we had a very partisan bill that passed this body and 
that has made it very difficult to reconcile with the other body.
  We passed a bill that was opposed by our Governors, by our mayors, by 
State welfare administrators, by poverty experts and advocates for low-
income families; and the reason, quite frankly, is because it did not 
reauthorize TANF and take us to the next level, which would be to get 
families not just off of cash assistance but out of poverty. Instead, 
the bill that passed this body created what is known as ``make-work'' 
opportunities rather than real jobs. It provided mandates on our States 
without providing the funds to deal with it. It made it more difficult 
for people who are the most in need of training and education to get 
the training and education they need in order to succeed in the 
workforce. It discriminated, and continues the discrimination, against 
legal immigrants.
  For all these reasons, the bill that passed this body made it more 
difficult for us to reconcile differences with the

[[Page 23135]]

other body and to enact reauthorization of TANF that we all could be 
very proud of.
  Mr. Speaker, I hope we use this opportunity, the next 6 months, to 
sit down together and listen to each other, listen to our mutual 
objectives as to what we are trying to achieve in welfare 
reauthorization, so that we can pass a bill that we will be proud of 
that will take us to the next plateau and allow us to move families out 
of poverty and not just off of cash assistance.
  I might point out that this legislation extends the traditional 
Medicaid that continues families with health insurance after they have 
left the welfare rolls. That is a very important program. It also 
extends the IRS user fees for certain advanced rulings and allows the 
IRS to continue to share information with the Department of Education 
to administer the student loan programs; custom user fees will be 
extended for 6 months; Medicare premiums for low-income seniors, that 
program that pays those premiums would be extended. There is a lot in 
this bill that we have to make sure is accomplished before the 
expiration at the end of this fiscal year, and I encourage my 
colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. English), a member of the Committee on Ways and 
Means.
  Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time and for all of his efforts on behalf of those who are in the 
welfare system, and I also thank the gentleman occupying the chair, the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), for his long and successful 
efforts to reform the welfare system.
  Mr. Speaker, since we first overhauled this country's failed welfare 
system back in 1996, some three million children have risen out of 
poverty. Today I rise to support this legislation as an important 
transition to the full reauthorization of those important reforms.
  According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the number of 
American children experiencing hunger has plummeted to half its number 
of what it was in 1995. When States and local governments shifted their 
focus from writing checks to encouraging work, welfare case loads fell 
by 60 percent, as we predicted. As a result, 3.5 million fewer 
Americans live their lives in poverty than was the case back in 1995 
when this process started. However, some 2 million recipients remain 
dependent on welfare assistance, and many still do not participate in 
work or in training programs.

                              {time}  1500

  While the success of past welfare reform initiatives are inspiring, 
and give lie to some of the claims we heard when we went through this 
process made by the other side, it is obvious that more work still 
needs to be done.
  The House has passed the right kind of reauthorization of welfare 
reform boosted by tougher work requirements and reinvigorated work 
incentives for States and welfare recipients. Full check sanction, 
marriage promotion, and other enhancements will only make welfare 
reform more effective.
  We realize that some have come to oppose this legislation, some that 
had been listed on the other side of the aisle. But, in our view, we 
are going to stand fast to see this reform through.
  Some opponents of welfare reform clearly are trying to run out the 
clock on this reauthorization so they can turn back the clock to the 
days of dependence. We will resist their efforts. These opponents of 
effective social policy have essentially filibustered our efforts to 
fight poverty and support economic independence for America's poor.
  I am, Mr. Speaker, very encouraged by the Senate Committee on 
Finance's recent approval of TANF reauthorization, and I now implore 
the Senate to work toward final passage of this crucial legislation.
  We have an opportunity to write a final chapter on welfare reform, 
the most successful social reform of the latter part of the 20th 
century. And much of the credit I want to give today goes to the 
gentleman sitting in the Chair, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw).
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Levin), the person who is the author of provisions that 
would enforce a real work requirement on our States by rewarding those 
States who find real jobs for people who leave cash assistance.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
Cardin) for all of his work.
  Like the gentleman from Maryland, I favor this extension. The good 
news is that it is not a step backward. We are going to continue State 
flexibility, we are going to continue the focus on work. We are going 
to continue provisions for child care and health care and 
transportation, but I want to take this opportunity, as Mr. Cardin did, 
to put this into perspective. I am glad the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. English) is still here.
  We worked hard in 1995 and 1996 on welfare reform. It was not a 
partisan effort. It was an effort with a Democratic President and with 
substantial work from Democrats in the House and in the Senate. 
Significant changes were made from the bill originally vetoed by 
President Clinton. Adequate child care, adequate health care, those 
were placed into the bill before it became a law.
  This time around what the Republican majority in the House decided to 
do was to proceed, as Mr. Cardin has said, on a very partisan basis. 
There was no effort to sit down as was true in 1995 and 1996, 
eventually, to see if we could work out together Welfare Reform II.
  So, on a very partisan vote, the first vote was 229 to 197, the bill 
was passed and was sent to the Senate. Sad it is to say that since that 
time, and it has been a year and a half ago, there has been zero effort 
by the majority in this House to sit down with a number of us who were 
involved in 1995 and 1996 and those who have been active since and try 
to work out a bill on a bipartisan basis.
  We have urged that welfare reform be continued and really improved, 
improved by more adequate child care, improved by more adequate health 
care. The data is pretty clear that many people who are moving from 
welfare to work are losing their health care after a year. Welfare 
reform should be improved by maintaining State flexibility and also by 
helping those who move from welfare to work to work out of poverty and 
to work into a decent and adequate wage.
  So why not sit down and talk about these improvements in welfare 
reform? Well, the Republican majority here has done on welfare reform 
what they have done on most important issues: Ram it through, thumb 
their nose at the minority, including those who very much want to work 
on an issue, and send it over to the Senate. And like other products 
here on a very partisan basis, it runs into trouble in the Senate.
  And so what is said by the majority here? Oh, it is the Senate's 
fault, when it was really the failure of the Republican majority here 
to start welfare reform on a proper, appropriate, and effective track.
  Mr. Speaker, the good news is that the extension for 6 months will 
keep the better part of the welfare reform programs: health care, day 
care, State flexibility, and the focus on work. The bad news is that we 
have lost the opportunity to improve, to build on welfare reform, to 
have a sharper focus on movement of those who leave work out of 
poverty. Instead, the focus in their bill is really those who stay on 
welfare being kept busy.
  That is not the wise focus for welfare reform in 2003 as it was not 
in 2002, and I hope 2004 will see their reaching out a hand to talk 
these things over. If not, I am afraid we will be back here with 
another extension, and you will point to the Senate controlled by the 
same party as you are a Member of and will blast the Senate. But that 
is not very constructive. It is not very useful.
  So do not talk about all the hearings you have held, all the 
witnesses you have heard. Talk about how many minutes you have spent 
sitting down with

[[Page 23136]]

the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), who is our ranking member, 
and the rest of us on the subcommittee to see if we could work out a 
bill. Tell us how many minutes. The answer is zero.
  I say this not really to castigate, but to urge that you give the 
process a chance. Welfare reform deserves an effort to build a 
bipartisan and better product. I deeply believe that. So I urge that we 
vote for this extension, and I also urge that the extension be followed 
by a true effort at finding a good product for the next phase of 
welfare reform.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Let me just say in closing, with what the gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Levin) said, I concur. I urge my colleagues to support this 
legislation. Let me just underscore the point, though, in 1996 we got 
it right. We got it right because we listened to each other, and we 
listened to the needs, and we realized by doing that we could transform 
the old welfare system into a system that encourages people to get off 
of cash assistance and to be employed.
  The bill that passed this body is a step backwards. My friend from 
Pennsylvania said we will not take a step backwards. The legislation 
that passed that body did that. It was one size fits all. In 1996 we 
said we would trust local governments, our States, to craft the 
programs necessary to meet their constituency. Now we are going back, 
according what passed this body, to one size fits all from Washington. 
That is inconsistent with what we did in 1996, which was the right way 
to go.
  Secondly, we said in 1996, let people who are on welfare, on cash 
assistance, get the education and job training they need in order to 
get permanent employment. The legislation that passed this body takes a 
step backwards on that, restricting the ability of the States to allow 
welfare recipients to get the necessary education and training that 
they need. In 1996 we said they cannot do this unless they provide 
child care to the States so they could provide help to take care of the 
children. That is what we said in 1996. And yet in the bill that passed 
this body, we did not recognize that. Instead, we put unfunded mandates 
on the States and did not provide the necessary resources for child 
care. So I would hope that we will use the next 6 months to correct 
this.
  Let me just say in the backdrop, as we are debating this today, the 
poverty rates in this Nation are actually increasing among children. 
Our States, almost all have cut their child care money because of their 
budget problems. The needs for us to act now is greater than it was a 
year ago when we originally passed the bill in this body. So I would 
hope that we would look at the current situation. Our States are 
spending more of their TANF funds every year than they are receiving in 
the annual authorization. The needs are there.
  Yes, let us step up to the plate like we did in 1996. Let us work 
together in a bipartisan way. Let us be committed to get families not 
just off of cash assistance, but out of poverty, and if we will sit 
down and talk together, I am sure in the next 6 months we can come up 
with a bill we all can be proud of that will be supported by our 
States. If not, I am afraid the gentleman from Michigan's (Mr. Levin) 
prediction will come true, and we will be again looking at another 
short-term fix.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  This is indeed a very important piece of legislation which keeps 
welfare programs that promote work and independence operating from 
coast to coast. It is important that those programs continue to be 
funded beyond their current September 30 expiration date. It is 
unfortunate that we have not yet reached a deal on a full 5-year 
welfare reform reauthorization bill that promises many improvements to 
the welfare reform policies now in place. The House welfare bill 
includes an additional $2 billion for child care so that more parents 
can work and more flexibility for States to spend their welfare funds, 
but until we get agreement on such a broader bill, we need to keep 
today's program operating. That is what this bill does.
  I urge all Members to support this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shaw). 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. 3146, as amended.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor 
thereof) the rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________