[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 15]
[House]
[Pages 19938-19943]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                WELFARE REFORM EXTENSION ACT, PART VIII

  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill (H.R. 5149) to reauthorize the Temporary Assistance For Needy 
Families block grant program through March 31, 2005, and for other 
purposes.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 5149

       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, Part VIII''.

     SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF THE TEMPORARY ASSISTANCE FOR NEEDY 
                   FAMILIES BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM THROUGH MARCH 31, 
                   2005.

       (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, 2005, 
     in the manner authorized for fiscal year 2004, 
     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 through the second quarter of 
     fiscal year 2005 at the level provided for such activities 
     through the second quarter of fiscal year 2004.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Supplemental grants for population increases in certain 
     states.--Section 403(a)(3)(H)(ii) of the Social Security Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 603(a)(3)(H)(ii)) is amended by striking 
     ``September 30, 2004'' and inserting ``March 31, 2005''.

[[Page 19939]]

       (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 ``2004'' 
     and inserting ``2005''.
       (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 2005'' and 
     inserting ``2005, or 2006''; and
       (B) in subparagraph (B)(ii), by striking ``2004'' and 
     inserting ``2005''.

     SEC. 3. EXTENSION OF THE NATIONAL RANDOM SAMPLE STUDY OF 
                   CHILD WELFARE AND CHILD WELFARE WAIVER 
                   AUTHORITY THROUGH MARCH 31, 2005.

       Activities authorized by sections 429A and 1130(a) of the 
     Social Security Act shall continue through March 31, 2005, in 
     the manner authorized for fiscal year 2004, 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 through the second quarter of 
     fiscal year 2005 at the level provided for such activities 
     through the second quarter of fiscal year 2004.

  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, 
and I rise today in support of H.R. 5149, the Welfare Reform Extension 
Act, Part VIII. Why Part VIII? Because, unfortunately, we are here 
again for the eighth time to pass short-term legislation that simply 
continues the status quo for one of our most important social 
assistance programs.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill will continue funding for the Temporary 
Assistance For Needy Families program and other related programs that 
assist low-income families through March 31, 2005. I support this 
legislation, but as I have said before and will say again today, I wish 
we were here today to vote on comprehensive, forward-looking 
legislation like the House has already approved and the President has 
supported.
  In his convention speech, President Bush said, ``Because family and 
work are sources of stability and dignity, I support welfare reform 
that strengthens family and requires work.'' In his call for more work 
and stronger families, House Republicans stand with the President. That 
is why we approved comprehensive welfare reform legislation twice in 
the last 2 years, bills that promote more work and stronger families.
  Unfortunately, the other body has not yet passed its own bill, and 
many on the other side of the aisle continue to oppose more welfare 
reforms designed to promote work and reduce dependence and poverty. Why 
do some continue to ignore the three overwhelming lessons of the 1996 
welfare reform law?
  Lesson one: Real welfare reform means more work, less dependence, and 
less poverty.
  Lesson two: Real welfare reform means stronger families and more 
healthy marriages, improving children's prospects for the future.
  Lesson three: Real welfare reform frees up money from welfare checks 
that is better spent on services like child care so families can 
support themselves.
  Perhaps one reason for the Democrats' opposition to more welfare 
reform is that many on that side of the aisle opposed real welfare 
reform all along. Since Congress started voting on welfare reform bills 
in the mid-1990s, there have been eight major votes in this House. 
During that time, Democrats collectively registered 1,392 votes against 
welfare reform and only 188 votes for it. Eighty-eight percent of the 
time congressional Democrats have opposed welfare reform bills. Half of 
the Democrats even opposed the landmark 1996 welfare reform law. On 
those same votes, an overwhelming 98 percent of the Republicans 
supported welfare reform.
  The debate in the past 2 years has been a reminder of what we saw in 
the mid-1990s. Whatever their reasons, whether it is because they 
oppose requiring a 40-hour work week of welfare recipients, like other 
American families, or they oppose promoting stronger families and 
healthy marriages, or insist on billions more in welfare spending 
despite the reduced caseload, some have consistently opposed meaningful 
updates to welfare reform. That is despite the obvious success of 
welfare reform since 1996, and despite the obvious need to make 
adjustments that would help the 2 million families still on welfare 
achieve independence and better lives.
  That is precisely what the legislation passed by the House twice, and 
supported by the President, achieves. Those who oppose this legislation 
also continue to ignore letters from the States urging forward movement 
on a long-term authorization. Most recently, the State of New York sent 
a letter to their Members in the other body and said, ``In these very 
difficult budget cycles, delaying TANF reauthorization until the next 
congressional session will certainly jeopardize the current block grant 
funding level of $16.5 billion currently maintained in both the House 
and Senate bills, and the Senate-passed $7 billion child care 
amendment, which will annually support over 70,000 additional children 
of New York's working parents.''
  Mr. Speaker, now is the time to act, but today we are here to pass 
yet another piece of short-term legislation that only maintains the 
status quo. Unfortunately, this placeholder does exactly what the 
States fear: places any reforms of additional funding in jeopardy.
  Just yesterday, I heard from representatives from my own State of 
California that continued extensions are standing in the way of more 
welfare reform there. In short, States serving families on welfare are 
unable to take the next steps to help them achieve independence when 
there is not certainty of funding and clear goals are not established. 
Passing the legislation before us today is a necessary step, since we 
need to help States keep writing welfare checks to 2 million families.
  What more we should be doing is obvious: expecting and supporting 
more work instead of simply supporting more welfare checks. House 
Republicans supported the President and have twice passed legislation 
designed to help more parents know the dignity of drawing a paycheck 
instead of a welfare check. Others who oppose that next step must 
explain why they continue to block forward movement.
  Mr. Speaker, before I conclude, I would like to mention an individual 
who has been a tremendous asset in our efforts to reform these 
programs, Ms. Vee Burke. As my statement reflects, Ms. Burke will be 
retiring from the Congressional Research Service this year after more 
than 30 years of service to the Members and their staff. Ms. Burke 
joined CRS in 1970 as a recognized expert in the field of public 
welfare. For more than three decades she has worked diligently and 
professionally to assist us with our efforts. Her contributions and 
knowledge of these programs have had a direct, positive impact on the 
lives of millions of families and children. We will miss her and we 
wish her well and thank her for her many years of service.
  Mr. Speaker, today I'd like to pay tribute to Vee Burke, a policy 
specialist in low-income programs at the Congressional Research 
Service. Ms. Burke joined CRS more than 30 years ago as a recognized 
expert in the field of public welfare. Much to the regret of many 
Members of Congress and their staff, Ms. Burke will retire at the end 
of November.
  During her tenure at CRS, Ms. Burke became a leading expert on the 
history, evolution, and interaction of welfare and public assistance 
programs for low-income individuals and families. Over three decades, 
Ms. Burke has played a role in all major congressional deliberations 
affecting low-income individuals including the sweeping welfare reforms 
enacted in 1996. Largely considered the most significant social policy 
change in the past 60 years, Ms. Burke's in-depth knowledge of low-
income programs and her tireless efforts to assist Members and their 
staff with this legislation were instrumental in our success.
  Because of her stature as one of the leading authorities in the 
country in this policy area, Ms. Burke's advice and assistance has been 
regularly sought by the congressional committees with legislative 
jurisdiction. She has offered expert testimony and authored numerous 
reports that have served as the basis for legislation considered by 
Congress. Her

[[Page 19940]]

most unique contribution is the series of CRS reports entitled Cash and 
Noncash Benefits for Persons with Limited Income that she began in 
1976. This initially annual and more recently biennial report provides 
detailed and comprehensive information and statistics on program rules, 
participation and spending for some 80 means-tested Federal programs. 
Ms. Burke also has been a key contributor to the House Ways and Means 
Committee Green Book since that report's inception in 1981. Anyone who 
has used either of these resources understands the amount of time and 
effort that such significant undertakings require, but also appreciate 
the value and contributions they make to our efforts to assist low-
income families.
  Ms. Burke is respected and admired by congressional staff and 
Members, by her colleagues within CRS, and by the broader research and 
policy community. Her contributions have had direct impact on the lives 
of millions of Americans. I ask my colleagues to join me in thanking 
her for her service and I wish her all the best in her future 
endeavors.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, only in this body with Republican leadership can they 
blame everyone but themselves. Even though they control this body, the 
other body, and the White House, they seem to blame everybody else for 
the failure to enact the reauthorization of welfare. Only in this body.
  And then my distinguished chairman says that our States want us to 
pass a long-term reauthorization. And the chairman is absolutely right, 
but they do not want us to pass the bill that passed this body because 
it would take us backwards in welfare rather than forward in reform.
  I do appreciate the fact that the distinguished chairman at least had 
the title of the bill accurately reflect what we are doing here, and 
that is Welfare Reform Extension Act, Part VIII. Eight times in the 
last 2\1/2\ years we have had short-term extensions because of the 
failure of the Republican leadership to work for a bill that would 
build on the work that was done in 1996 to give our States the 
flexibility they need in order to implement welfare reform and give 
them the resources they need. Instead, we have a bill that passed this 
body that was anything but bipartisan. In fact, we never even had 
hearings in our committee. We had a markup, but no hearings in this 
Congress because of the failure to really reach out and try to do 
something that could be enacted into law.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I am terribly disappointed that we are again looking 
at an extension. I support this bill, so my distinguished chairman and 
I are in agreement, we do not want to see this program lapse. It is an 
important program. It extends not only the TANF program but several 
related programs, including child care and development block grants and 
transitional Medicaid assistance for people leaving welfare to work.
  I agree with those who say we should be doing more, much more. After 
all, over the last 3 years, the number of Americans in poverty has 
grown by 4.3 million. Last year alone, another 700,000 children fell 
into poverty.

                              {time}  1630

  Meanwhile, funding for several antipoverty programs, including TANF, 
child care and social services block grant and job training through the 
Workforce Investment Act have declined by $1.7 billion in real terms 
over the last 3 years. In short, we are responding to rising poverty 
with declining assistance.
  Regrettably, the long-term welfare authorization plan put forward by 
my Republican colleagues largely ignores this problem. Instead, they 
have suggested poverty is rising because welfare recipients are not 
working hard enough. However, this suggestion falls flat when we 
consider one basic fact: The welfare rolls have continued to decline 
even though our poverty rates have grown.
  The problem is not the unwillingness of people on welfare to work; 
the problem is that too many of these people leaving welfare are not 
finding employment, or they are finding jobs which do not lift them out 
of poverty.
  We could help by providing more child assistance and job training, 
but so far the majority and President Bush have resisted such reforms.
  While obviously an imperfect response, temporarily extending TANF 
funds is certainly better than fundamentally dismantling the successful 
parts of the 1996 welfare reform law such as providing our States and 
communities with the flexibility to determine how to best move welfare 
recipients into the work force. Therefore, I support this legislation 
to maintain necessary funding for several poverty programs over the 
next 6 months in the hopes that we can pass a more comprehensive 
improvement next year.
  One area that Congress must focus on next year is providing access to 
affordable child care, which is undoubtedly one of the biggest problems 
confronting low-income working families.
  Mr. Speaker, the price of child care can easily range between $4,000 
and $10,000 per year per child. It is no wonder that the Urban 
Institute found that families in poverty with day-care expenses spent 
almost a quarter of their earnings on child care. Unfortunately, many 
States have cut back on child care assistance because of recent budget 
shortfalls. This problem has been documented by the General Accounting 
Office and more recently in a report by the National Women's Law 
Center. Their study found that between 2001 and 2004, three-fifths of 
our States made child care eligibility more restrictive. Half the 
States raised their copayments on low-income families, waiting lists 
for those eligible for aid but not receiving it grew in more than a 
dozen States.
  My own State of Maryland has frozen enrollment in child care for 
working families. In other words, the only way in Maryland that 
families can get child care assistance is to go on welfare. What a 
message.
  Instead of helping to address this problem, the Federal Government 
has not even allowed child care funding to maintain the pace with 
inflation over the last 2 years. The long-term TANF reauthorization 
bill passed by this body earlier this session will simply continue this 
disturbing trend by reducing the real value of child care assistance. 
We can and should do better for America's struggling families.
  Mr. Speaker, there is much work to be done, but in the meantime I 
urge support for this temporary extension of funding for several 
poverty-related programs for the eighth time in the last 2.5 years. 
Like the past seven extensions, this bill simply continues current law 
without including any new controversial policy changes.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Shaw), the chairman of the subcommittee and author of the 
welfare reform legislation which has done such an incredible job of 
bettering families.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, we are coming again to a crossroads, and why 
it is that we cannot move this bill ahead in an orderly fashion instead 
of bits and pieces and jumping all around absolutely escapes me.
  The bill that my colleague from California has crafted which has 
passed this House now on several occasions increases the child care 
which is so necessary for the single moms struggling to go to work. We 
want to be sure their kids are taken care of and they are not in the 
street, and we have increased the funding substantially.
  When we look at what we are spending on each welfare recipient, 
because of the amount of welfare recipients going down and the funding 
not going down, we are spending well over twice as much on each welfare 
recipient for job training to get them on their feet and to get them to 
be productive human beings.
  This bill and the bill referred to by the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Herger) and the Committee on Ways and Means which has passed this 
House on several occasions gets to the other side of the Capitol and it 
is blocked. The other body has constantly talked this bill down and has 
prevented a vote on the floor of the other body, which is too bad.
  Mr. Speaker, we are seeing pre-1996 all over again. One of the 
proudest accomplishments of this body which I can

[[Page 19941]]

remember so well culminated on August 22, 1996, when the President 
actually signed the bill. He opposed it and vetoed it twice, but when 
it got to him the third time, while the debate was going on in this 
Chamber, went on national television and indicated his support for this 
bill. And much to his credit, he signed it.
  It was very controversial then. There were massive resignations 
within the White House in protest of President Clinton having signed 
this bill. Much to the credit of those who stayed on, including Ms. 
Shalala who is now President of the University of Miami where the 
debates are going to be tomorrow night, although she was opposed to it, 
she saw to it and did the best to see that it worked, and it did work.
  It worked not only because we had faith in the human spirit, but also 
at the end, even though there was bitter partisan bickering to get it 
to the floor and to get the vote, in the end there was bipartisan 
support with a Democrat President signing a Republican bill.
  We can do better. Let us pass this particular bill because we still 
have the other problem in the other body, but let us move ahead and let 
us in the next Congress come back and pass the next generation of 
welfare reform, and that is the bill that the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Herger) has been cosponsoring and working on.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I listened to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) and 
I agree with almost everything he said. In 1996 we were able to pass a 
bill by working together as Democrats and Republicans, and I am amazed 
that the bill that the Republican leadership has been advancing in this 
Congress would take us backwards, take away the discretion of our 
States to deal with the welfare programs. That presumes that some of 
our States are not capable of dealing with it. In 1996 we trusted our 
States, and it worked.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Levin), a senior member of the Committee on Ways and Means and a Member 
who has worked on welfare reform since he has been in Congress.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I want to briefly review the history of 
welfare reform, not to finger point, but to have us understand what 
this is all about.
  The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) said, pointing to 1996, that 
the third time around, the President agreed to it. What he forgot to 
say was that there were three bills and that they changed from bill to 
bill. Many Democrats worked to change those bills so that they would be 
acceptable. The third time around it was different because it included 
more adequate health care and also more adequate day care. Neither was 
taken care of appropriately in the first two times around. That is 
point one.
  So it was a bipartisan product. The President, President Clinton, had 
kicked off the effort years before, and eventually we worked together 
to produce a product.
  My next point, as the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) has so 
clearly pointed out, it has been different this time around in terms of 
this product that came through the House. It has not been a bipartisan 
product whatsoever. Instead, what the majority has been trying to do is 
really to rewrite the 1996 welfare reform bill, as the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Cardin) has pointed out, to turn the clock back on 
provisions of that bill, and to do so despite the fact that the 
research that has been undertaken since passage in 1996 indicates that 
what is in the House-passed bill is wrong in important respects, and 
that is why the Senate has failed to act.
  First of all, in terms of people moving up the economic ladder, the 
evidence is clear that a majority of people who have moved from welfare 
to work earn less than 42 percent of the median average wage in their 
States. And also these studies make clear that the most successful 
programs focus on getting people better jobs and increasing their 
earnings. Former welfare recipients with higher starting wages were 40 
percent more likely to still be working 2 years later and those with 
child assistance were twice as likely to work for 2 years.
  So that is why the National Governors Association, when they 
canvassed the welfare directors, found that 40 of them said that the 
fundamental changes in the Republican bill were wrong; or to put it 
another way, that the Republican bill would force fundamental changes 
in the successful welfare programs. And the researcher who has done so 
much of the federally funded research on welfare-to-work strategies 
said that the House Bush administration plan would force the most 
successful programs to change substantially. So that is what this is 
all about.
  We passed a bill that would, instead of emphasizing people moving off 
of welfare into work and as they moved, moved up the ladder, would 
emphasize people on welfare working. The whole point is to help people 
and get them to move off of welfare and to stay off of welfare.
  So in our bill the Democrats proposed a very different approach than 
the Republicans here in the House. In our bill, States would be 
rewarded for helping recipients move off of welfare and to get into 
good-paying jobs, and also trying to fix the transitional Medicaid 
program, to try to get more health care available for people so when 
they moved off of welfare, they did not lose it, they would instead 
continue it for 6 months or a year. Also we proposed in our bill full 
funding to the social services block grant program.
  Let me finish by saying I support the extension. It is better than a 
bad bill that passed the House, but on child care, the record should be 
straight: We proposed $11 billion more, the Senate $7 billion, and the 
House Republican bill won. If child care is not provided, it is going 
to be difficult for people to move off of welfare into productive work 
that will move them and help move up the ladder, and that is the true 
test of welfare reform, people moving off welfare out of poverty and 
into work.

                              {time}  1645

  The gentleman from Maryland has led the effort to emphasize that with 
the support of Democrats. I am proud to be part of that. We need a 
bipartisan effort in this House, not ramming or cramming through a bill 
without ever there being an effort within our subcommittee to produce a 
bipartisan product. There is hope, but not the Republican bill. Let us 
vote for the extension and do much better after November 2.
  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I 
would just like to respond. We hear the other side, the Democrats, 
indicating, and I have heard them indicate this over and over, that 
somehow there was bipartisan support, that somehow the Democrats worked 
with the Republicans. But if we look at what the votes were, we find an 
entirely different result completely.
  For example, in 1995 on our Committee on Ways and Means, zero votes 
came from Democrats the first bill that came through. The second bill 
coming through, again, zero Democrats on the Committee on Ways and 
Means supporting it. Again, where is this bipartisan support? Finally, 
the third bill that finally after President Clinton vetoed it twice, 
the third time around, the bill coming through the same Committee on 
Ways and Means, the first time through all the Democrats except one 
voted against it. Then the conference committee, over half of the 
Democrats on the Committee on Ways and Means still voted against it. 
And on the House floor the Democrats, over half of them voted against 
it.
  So I am not quite sure where all this bipartisan support is. It seems 
that the Democrats came kicking and screaming all the way to having the 
welfare reform.
  Let me also refer to this book. They indicate that there is not 
enough money. Let me quote from how a recent book by New York Times 
welfare reporter Jason DeParle puts it: ``Falling caseloads brought one 
problem States welcomed. It left them rolling in dough. States 
literally had more money than they knew how to spend. Over 6 years, 
States collected $59 billion more than they could have under

[[Page 19942]]

the previous system, when falling caseloads brought reduced Federal 
dollars. Having promised to do more with less, the Governors wound up 
with more, much more, than anyone imagined.'' That is on page 215 from 
this book. Again, the facts do not meet the reality of what we are 
hearing from the other side.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut 
(Mrs. Johnson) who has been an active member of the committee on this 
legislation.
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time.
  Mr. Speaker, the goal of TANF, that is, welfare reform, was always 
twofold: first, it was to help women who had children and no means of 
support and therefore were dependent on welfare to regain their 
economic independence by entering the workforce. That goal was for the 
woman, so she could realize her greatest potential, she could gain 
control of her life by being economically self-sufficient. And then the 
second goal was to lift her and her children out of poverty, 
occasionally he and his children out of poverty.
  Those twin goals of helping women on welfare to realize their skills, 
their potential, their capabilities to gain economic self-sufficiency 
and to raise children out of poverty were goals that we all shared, 
both sides of the aisle; but they were goals that were achieved by the 
structure of the bill that the Republicans crafted and passed and which 
at the time was extremely controversial.
  But it did work. Two million children have been lifted out of 
poverty. According to the census, the poverty rate for African American 
children and the poverty rate for children living with single mothers 
hit a record low in 2001 and 2002. So then the question becomes, What 
happened during the years of recession since 2001 and 2002? We all know 
that a recession was in progress when this President was sworn into 
office and then the economy was terribly jolted by 9/11 and 
unemployment rates soared and so on.
  Yet when we look back, these are the facts. First of all, starting 
from the overall understanding that poverty in a recession and child 
poverty in a recession does rise. Two years after the 1990-1991 
recession, 15.7 million children were in poverty in 1993, or 22.7 
percent of the children were in poverty in 1993. That was after the 
1990-1991 recession. Two years after the 2001 recession, 12.9 million 
children were in poverty, or 17.6 percent were in poverty in 2003.
  In other words, in this more recent recession, after welfare reform, 
yes, more children were in poverty. But far fewer were in poverty than 
had been in poverty 10 years earlier after the 1990 recession. In fact, 
17.6 percent were in poverty in 2003, 22.7 percent had been in poverty 
in 1993. So there are 2.8 million fewer children in poverty now than 
there were in the preceding economic cycle.
  While it is tragic to see poverty numbers go up, we need to put them 
in the context of this economy and of welfare reform because, in fact, 
welfare reform has been so successful in reducing child poverty that 
even with the rise in child poverty during this recent recession, it is 
still well below what it was 10 years ago.
  Let me just add one other point and that is, it is really a shame 
that this is not the reauthorization rather than a 6-month extension. 
In the reauthorization, we do provide far better opportunity for women 
to get the education they need, not just to get into the workforce but 
to get up the career ladder.
  Furthermore, in the reauthorization we recognize what has become a 
very real problem and that is that many of the women who are really 
stuck on welfare now are women who need to have better access to either 
drug treatment programs of a longer term sort or to mental health 
programs. Both of those kinds of treatment programs we count as work in 
the extension bill.
  The next round of TANF reform will enable us to meet the challenge of 
improving the educational support and being more realistic about the 
health services necessary to help women become self-sufficient and 
their children to do better and the whole family to rise out of 
poverty. So it is unfortunate that we are not moving on reauthorization 
rather than extension, but extension certainly beats letting the 
current law expire because it has done wonderful things for women in 
America, allowing them to realize their potential and think about their 
skills and abilities with the help of supportive programs, and it has 
certainly lifted many children out of poverty. I urge support of this 
legislation.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Levin).
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I want to say to the chairman of the 
subcommittee, if he persists in distorting the record, he is going to 
continue to make less likely improvement of welfare reform. I am sorry 
he is not listening, but I will say this for the record.
  When welfare reform bills were considered, there were differences. 
But at important places we proposed alternatives and Democrats voted 
for them. March 24, 1995, 205 Democrats supported essentially a 
substitute that was proposed by someone who was then a member of the 
Democratic Caucus. That was March of 1995. Then if you go over to later 
on, there was in July 1996 when welfare reform was considered on the 
floor an alternative proposed by the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. 
Tanner) and the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle). It received 168 
votes.
  His attempt to really grab the welfare reform flag and deny the 
involvement of President Clinton who suggested we end welfare as we 
then knew it, I think he is now suggesting that we change welfare 
reform backwards. That effort of his I think only diminishes the 
chances that we can move welfare reform ahead. His trying to make this 
into a partisan issue instead of a chance for bipartisan working 
together is really antithetical to the needs of the people of this 
country for further welfare reform. I hope the next time around, he 
does not sing the same song.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, here we go again. Instead of making this 
TANF law better, instead of giving welfare recipients the tools to move 
from welfare to self-sufficiency, we are once again renewing, for the 
eighth time renewing it, actually, a bill that continues moving 
families from welfare further into poverty.
  Instead, we should be making education or training count as work so 
that that activity for welfare recipients will help them get ready for 
better educational opportunities and job training so they can have 
better opportunities for earning a salary that pays a livable wage. 
They will not get that unless they have education and training. Instead 
of again extending an outdated welfare bill, we should be providing 
quality child care, child care that includes more care for infants, 
child care that extends to parents who work weekends and evenings. That 
is what we need. That is what these parents need. That is what they 
need to help them get their jobs and become self-sufficient.
  Let us face it, if parents do not have a safe, convenient place to 
leave their children, they cannot go to work. Believe me, I know, 
because over 30 years ago I was a single mother with three small 
children, abandoned by their father; and even though I was working 
full-time, I needed welfare, aid for dependent children at that time, 
to keep our lives together, to get my children the health care, the 
child care they needed. But eventually I worked my way out of poverty 
and started my own business before running for Congress. Of course, you 
have to know that I believe that others should have the same 
opportunities that I had.
  While I support this short-term extension as necessary, I want us to 
begin to work to authorize a bill that will give workers the training 
and the education and the child care that they need so that they can be 
successful. They need the same kind of opportunities that I was 
afforded 30 years ago.

[[Page 19943]]


  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Rodriguez).
  Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Speaker, let me just rise and talk about how I on 
the other side am concerned about our situation now. We are concerned. 
The census reported just this month in August, 36 million Americans 
living in poverty, more than ever in recorded history. Forty-five 
million without access to health insurance. And we are saying we have a 
good program? This is the most powerful country in the world. Yet we 
find a large number that still reside in poverty. At the same time we 
are choosing to cut back in education. We are choosing to say no, when 
the administration shook hands on Leave No Child Behind.
  That Republican compassionate conservatism is self-proclaimed 
compassionate conservatism because it is not one for allowing young 
people an opportunity to be able to further their education, to make 
sure they do not go onto welfare. During the last 4 years, we have lost 
more jobs than ever recorded. Those jobs that we have gained have been 
jobs that have paid much less than the ones that we have lost.

                              {time}  1700

  So the reality is that we have had an opportunity to make some things 
happen, and they failed to do that.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). The gentleman from Maryland 
(Mr. Cardin) has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, I use that 1\1/2\ minutes first to join the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Herger) in recognizing the outstanding work that 
Vee Burke has provided for more than 30 years at the Congressional 
Research Service.
  Vee has helped our committee conduct its work on poverty and public 
assistance issues by providing detailed and meticulously accurate 
information on program rules, participation and trends. Since 1981, she 
has been a regular and valued contributor to the Ways and Means Green 
Book, which is the key resource on poverty programs for Members of 
Congress and their staff.
  Vee's expertise on welfare issues started during the Nixon 
administration and has continued through all major developments 
thereafter, including the 1996 welfare reform law and our current 
efforts to reauthorize that law. Her work has provided a foundation of 
understanding needed to improve our Nation's safety net programs.
  We wish Vee well in her pending retirement, and we thank her for her 
contributions to improving social programs in our great Nation. Mr. 
Speaker, I can assure the Members that the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Herger) and I are in complete agreement in regards to Vee Burke's 
contributions to this body and to this Nation and also urging our 
colleagues to support this legislation.
  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 February of 2003, this House passed long-term 
reauthorization legislation to encourage more work among welfare 
recipients and to provide more federal dollars for States to assist 
low-income families. The other body's unwillingness to work with us to 
move this legislation forward has resulted in lost resources to the 
States and 2 years of lost opportunity to provide more assistance so 
more low-income parents can make the transition from welfare to work.
  I wish the legislation before us today were not needed. As I have 
said before, I wish we were here debating a long-term reauthorization 
bill. But we do need to pass this legislation. Therefore, I urge all of 
my colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. 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. 5149.
  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.

                          ____________________