[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 4]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page 5531]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                 H.R. 4, WELFARE REFORM REAUTHORIZATION

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. DENNIS MOORE

                               of kansas

                    in the house of representatives

                        Wednesday, March 5, 2003

  Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss my views on H.R. 4 
and explain my reasons for opposing this legislation and supporting a 
moderate, workable substitute.
  I believe in a ``work first'' policy for welfare recipients--the best 
path to independence for welfare recipients is a job. I also believe 
that we should do all that we can to ensure that work pays and remember 
that the reduction of poverty--especially child poverty--is the 
ultimate goal of this reauthorization.
  When we last voted on legislation to reauthorize TANF, I shared with 
leaders in the House concerns expressed by officials in Kansas, 
including Janet Schalansky, Secretary of the Kansas Department of 
Social and Rehabilitation Services. Ms. Schalansky expressed clearly 
that the TANF reauthorization legislation must not impose another set 
of unfunded mandates and must recognize the great need for education, 
training and other supports for individuals leaving welfare. 
Unfortunately, her calls were ignored once again.
  I had hoped that our President--a former governor--and congressional 
Republicans--who speak often of freeing the states from undue burdens 
placed by the Federal government--would have heeded the concerns 
expressed about this legislation by governors and state officials 
around the country. Currently, and into the foreseeable future, most 
states are struggling with severe budget shortfalls that are projected 
to approach $85 billion this year, and H.R. 4 imposes an additional 
unfunded mandate on the states to the tune of $8-11 billion--$67 
million for the state of Kansas alone. Kansas is currently facing a 
budget crisis and its leaders are cutting services and raising taxes as 
we speak just to balance the budget. An unfunded mandate of this 
magnitude could devastate the state budget. If we are going to raise 
the bar for the states, we must provide support so that states can 
reach the bar.
  The funding provided in H.R. 4 is not sufficient to accomplish and 
sustain the goals of the TANF program. Furthermore, this legislation 
allocates funding for child care that barely keeps pace with inflation 
and does not begin to provide the funding necessary to provide the 
child care that the additional work hours will demand. To fully 
implement this bill, the state of Kansas would need $33.5 in extra 
funding for child care alone.
  States, including Kansas, have done a good job implementing the 
provisions of the 1996 law. Kansas has reduced the cash assistance 
caseload by more than half, and helped approximately 37,000 adults 
become employed and retain employment. I want to continue to do what I 
can to ensure that the states have the tools and flexibility they need 
to help welfare recipients move from welfare to work, but H.R. 4, like 
H.R. 4737 before it, falls far short of that goal.
  For these reasons, I am supporting the Cardin-Kind-Woolsey substitute 
that will provide an extra $11 billion in mandatory funding for child 
care to help states provide child care for working welfare recipients 
and provide an inflationary increase for the TANF block grant.
  Education is the path through which welfare recipients will truly 
find long-term, wellpaying, permanent employment. Only education and 
training will give welfare recipients the skills they need to move 
permanently to a life of self-sufficiency. Unfortunately, this 
legislation greatly reduces the states' discretion to allow welfare 
recipients to get education and training to pull themselves out of 
poverty. This legislation removes vocational education from the list of 
work-related activities that count toward the core work requirement. In 
addition, the bill does not provide an employment credit to the states 
when individuals leave welfare for work.
  That is why I am supporting a substitute that will allow states to 
combine successful ``work first'' initiatives with education and 
training. The substitute will give states credit when they move 
individuals from welfare to private-sector jobs--rather than giving 
them an incentive to create government ``make work'' programs.
  Mr. Speaker, the House should reject H.R. 4 and approve the Cardin-
Kind-Woolsey substitute. Our goal is to move welfare recipients to work 
and help people lift themselves out of poverty. The substitute gives 
the states the tools they need to achieve that goal.

                          ____________________